Los Angeles herald., 1906-06-15
PARDEE TRIES
To ELUC|OATE
MAKES WOBBLY EFFORT TO
DEFEND ACTIONS
Issues Letter Full Of Excuses for
Dilatory Actions on consolida-
tlon--Attaoks Leaders In
Yelled Manner

vi Nilt EutStS at lile IettUl UduDuGL VI
the Municipal league explaining his
action in regard to having the consoli-
dation included in the call for special
session of the Legislature.
The governor practically says that
John w. Mitchell and Judge Dillon did
not tell the truth when they said there
is no great opposition in Los Angeles
county to Greater Los Angeles. The
letter follows
'In the press clippings from the Los
Angeles papers 1 notice that you were
q guest at a recent banquet Of the Los
Angeles Municipal league at which
Judge Dillon is reported to have criti-
cised my action in regard to the much
debated and much misrepresented Los
Angeles consolidation amendment to
the state constitution.
Up to this date only the assertions
of certain local people have | believe,
been given publicity in Los Angeles. l,
therefore, take the liberty of enclosing
herewith portion of letter 1 recent
ly wrote to an inquiring Los Angeles
friend
IAN apology is, perhaps, due you for
thus thrusting a personal affair upon
you. My excuse, if any be needed, for
so doing Is the fact that the gross mis-
representations that have been hereto
fore made concerning myself have, SO
far as / know, not been authoritatively
cOntrad1cted
Expresses His Amazement
Yes, some of the Angelenos are try
ing their best to get and keep mad at
me. And if | were not quite a veteran
in such things 1 might get just a little
bit exasperated about 1t. But the real
facts are so widely at variance with
the stories that they are trying to make
themselves and their readers and
auditors believe that, to save my life,
1 can't get up any feeling but one good
l1atured amazement at the foolishness
of the busy gentlemen of the press AMI
banquet table.
Il see by the newspapers, for instance,
that Mr.. S. A. Butler first said that |
had promised him to put the Los An
geles proposition in the call. Later
the. newspapers say, he modified this
story and said that l referred him to
Mr. Snooke, my legal adviser who
told Mr.. Butler, in my presence that
the Los Angeles proposition would be
put into the call. AS matters of cold
fact / never told Mr.. Butler, or anyone
else, that the Los Angeles proposition,
or anything else, would go into the
call; neither is or was Mr. Snooks my
legal adviser; neither did Mr. Sfiooks,
nor anyone else, say to Mr.. Butler, or
anyone else, in my presence that the
Los Angeles proposition, or anything
else, would go into the call.
LAS further question Of cold fact 1
referred the Los Angeles committee to
the San Francisco committee, and |
happened to be present at the meeting
of the San Francisco committee on
Friday, May 18th, when the Los An
geles committee appeared before the
former And I heard Judge Dillon and
Mr.. Mitchell both assure the San Fran
cisco committee that Los Angeles coun-
fr,,.
solidation. l heard Judge Dillon say
that he had heard of no particular op-
position at Long Beach. | heard Mr.
Mitchell say that, while only some two
or three of the delegation had been in
terviewed he would, and did. assure
the San Francisco committee that all
the Los Angeles county senator's and
assemblymen favored, or would favor,
consolidation, which was principally in
tended to secure water.
Argued to Draw Amendment
upon these assurances and this
showing the San Francisco committee
determined to recommend to me the
Los Angeles consolidation proposition;
and Judge Dillon and Mr.. Mitchell, in
the presence of the Los Angeles COM
mittee, agreed to put into writing in the
form of a constitutional amendment
and submit to the San Francisco COM
mittee the consolidation proposition.
"No sooher did this become known
than protests began to pour in on the
San Francisco committee. In spite of
Judge Dillon'S assertion to the con-
trary Long Beach was not pleased with
the proposition, and said so by tele-
graph and through committee of its
citizens which appeared before the San
Francisco committee Other places also
objected and it was soon found that
fha Tn n0nIaG irOII11tV lnOiGla five dalp- |
cation was not at all unanimous on the1I
proposition, in spite of Mr. Mitchells S
assurances and assertions that it was,
or would be.
1.-THE San Francisco committee, re-
memberng that Judge Dillon and Mr..
Mitchell, speaking for the Los Angeles
committee and in its presence, had said
that water was the thing Los Angeles
wanted, and being assured by Long
Beach, Pasadena and other places that
they were willing to go in for water but
rot for the other kind of consolidation
the San Francisco committee, having
adopted the consolidation matter on the |
assurance. by Judge Dillon and Mr..
Mitchell. that Los Angeles county was
unanimously in favor of it, and find
ing that such was not the case, recon- |
sidered and rescinded its former action
and recommended to me the water con-
solidation proposition which was sub
lnitleu Dy me 10 lHe legislature.
Cites Cause of Protest
II am now told that the Los Angeles
committee says 1t doesn't want any
thing under the recommendation in the |
call / am also told that the Los An
geles committee says that it did not
desire to force any other Los Angeles
county town against its will into con-
solidation. That, however. is just ex-
actly what the constitutional amend
ment submitted to the San Francisco
committee by the Los Angeles COM
mittee would have done; and that was,
/ am told, what caused Long Beach,
Pasadena, San Pedro, Alhambra and
other Los Angeles towns to protest so
vigorously.
'I am also told that Mr.. Butler now
says that the proposed amendment sub
mltted to the San Francisco commit |
tee in the name of the Los Angeles
committee (Mr. Butler, president of
the consolidation commission, being
present and acquiescngl, was not its |
(the consolidation commission's) pro-
posal because it, the commission, had
not officially adopted ii. Yet Mr.. But