Los Angeles herald., 1908-11-17
Los ANGELES FULLY ABLE TO
CARRY THE BONDS
ALL REPRESENTATIVES, BUT ONE
OPPOSE STATE RULE
Senator Savage Alone in Opposition,
and He Ready to Come in if
Borough System Is
Instituted
1T EFT San Francisco and San Diego

states cfeQlt TO issue IHe pOilu0s t4S
Angeles will take off its coat, Whlrl
in and do everything it can to assist
in carrying the bonds. But Los An
geles does not want an appropriation
from the state, if such an appropriation
means state control. We will take local
control and issue our own bonds
This in substance was what Los An
geles, San Pedro and Wilmington busi-
ness men and city officials told the
legislation committee of the state leg
1slature. when Senator Wright called
that body to order in the committee
room of the chamber of commerce yes
terday morning.
There was scarcely a dissenting voice,
but Senator Savage of San PEDRO OBJ
jected. He was in favor of a state har-
Dor commission, but he was alone In
his views out of a large crowd of pub
lie spirited citizens of Los Angeles and
the nearby harbor cities who appeared
before the committee,
Local control was asked by A. 2.
Fleming, secretary of the Los Angeles
harbor commission. in an able speech
in which he presented the views of Les
Angeles on the harbor question. Local
control was asked by G. T. Stewart,
J. E. Carr and T. E. Gibbon, members
of the city harbor commission 1t was
asked by President J. n. Brennan of
the board of trustees and City Attorney
Mcclure of Wilmington; by E. d. Sew
ard, director of the San Pedro cham
Der of commerce, and other prominent
San Pedro men; by J. o. Koepfi of the
harbor committee of the Los Angeles
chamber of commerce.
San Pedro Not Invited
f. D. Seward, director o. the San Pc
dro chamber of commerce, was the first
to address the committee. Through a
misunderstanding on the part of As
semblyman Walter Leeds of the COM
mittee the San Pedro chamber of COM
merce was not officially invited to be
present at the meeting, but individual
members had concluded to attend any
way.
Mr.. Seward told the committee he
could not officially represent the cham
Der and did not know its official sem
timent as the matter of state harbor
commission had never been discussed
by the board of directors. But he in
formed the committee that the senti-
ment in San Pedro had crystallized to
such a point that nearly six-seYenths
of the voters of that city had signed
petition to present to the San Pedro Of
fcials, asking that a portion of the
city be cut off. The petitioners wish
the portion cut off to be annexed to
Los Angeles, thus giving Los Angeles
a harbor frontage. Mr. Seward said
his city was in favor of the control of
the harbor by the allied municipali-
ties, and did not approve a state har-
Dor commission to look aafter the in
terests of San Pedro. What San Pedro
most wanted, he declared, was that ths
state legislature pass law giving in
corporated cities a right to CONSOLE
date.
A. P. Fleming of the city harbor
commission took up the two questions
the committee was anxious to have set
tied: What amount of bonds should
be issued by the state for harbors?'
and "Who shall expend this bond
money!
In answer to these questions Mr..
Fleming said Los Angeles was not in
terested in the issue of any state bonds
for harbors as far as San Pedro is
concerned, being anxious that no state
money should be expended on the San
Pedro harbor.
Money Means Control
"State money invested in San Pedro
harbor means state control of that
harbor, and we are most emphatically
in favor of local or municipal control
of the harbor.
I'VE believe San Pedro is destined to
become the greatest harbor on the
COAST, Sdlu MI II lHllllllSs Anu Tic
well known energy and push of us
southern people will do much to make
it so. We have in course of construc
ton one of the greatest municipal water
systems i'm the world. When the propo-
sition for good roads was preached we
whirled In and carried 900 of
bonds to improve the highways and
build such a system as cannot be dupl-
Gated anywhere. Los Angeles has
agreed to assume SO per cent of this
burden, although not one foot of the
proposed highways will be constructed
within the municipality. In the same
way we have the energy, the credit
and the money TO go ahead and do for
San Pedro what no state harbOr COM
mission would do. We will have the
active personal interest in the harbor
that no body of men picked at random
for the state possibly could have. 1t is
a great deal better for all concerned
that local control should prevail at San
Pedro"
Here Senator Wright interposed a
question:
IF this committee should recommend
local control for San Pedro to the state
Legislature what would Los Angeles do
toward voting the bonds for San Fran
cisco and San Diego?"
Help all in our power" was the as
surance of G. H. Stewart and II. e.
Gibbon of the harbor commission and
this sentiment was echoed as a chorus
by nearly all present.
But Los Angeles voted against the
India basin act and the seaWall for
San Francisco, and isn't it probable
this city would vote against giving
San Francisco $1O.OOO,OOO of state money
for its harbor?"
Voted as Urged to Vote
Los Angeles voted against the two
San Francisco propositions because San
Francisco commercial bodies asked us
to-" explained Mr.. Fleming and Mr.
Stewart.
Literature was sent to Los Angeles
explaining that much better things
would come to San Francisco if these
two propositions were defeated, notably
as regards the 75-year bonds which can
now be authorized, it was explained
Largely for that reason the seawall
and India basin acts were debated in
this county.
you people down here, by the way in
which you stick together, are setting a
mighty good example to San Fran
CISCO" said Mr.. Wright
I'VE intend to set an example TO the
world" proudly declared Mr.. Fleming.
Capt. Amos Fries declared local con-
troll had solved the harbor problem in
England, where the amount of money
expended on harbors makes the sums
no egnaud coor,, r,1ara he GA faIIaa aud