Los Angeles herald., 1909-07-10

]. Lelande is considering the advisa-
bility of writing to Arthur Grosser, the
person to whom he delivered the ques-
tionable petition after he had finished
checking 1t and asking him, in the in
terests of law and order, to return the
petition and aid him in running down
the persons guilty OF forgery. Mr..
Lelande fears such course would not
accomplish much, but he Is anxious, as
a law abiding private citizen, to again
secure the evidence which he gave up
prematurely, but reluctantly, and use
his utmost endeavors to prosecute those
responsible for the criminal irregu-
larities.
Mr.. Lelande's only interest in the
matter is the same as any private citi-
zen who knows that crime has been
committed and wants to see the guilty
punished Mr.. Lelande pointed out
the city charter defines his duties as q
public official and the charter says
nothing about his taking any part in
the prosecution of criminals.
But felonies have been committed in
connection with the liquor zone petit
ton, that was evident on the face of
the petition and those who hold this
evidence and do not turn 1t over to the
proper officials are equally guilty in
| the eyes of the law. Mr.. Lelande be-
lieVes that if those who now hold the
petition have the best interests of the
community and themselves at heart
they will not fail to return the evil
dence to him on his demand.
oriqlnators Not Suspected
Charles T. Saddler, former police
commissioner, and Arthur Grosser
were most active in having the petit
ton circulated. The city clerk does
not suspect either Of these persons OF
being guilty of the criminal irregulari-
ties in connection with the petition or
that they wish, in any way, to shield
those who are. Both these men bear
good regulations and are considered
law abiding citizens. One of them,
Arthur Grosser, has the petition, or at
least he is the person to whom City
Clerk Lelande returned the petition and
accepted his receipt.
1t is considered improbable that the
petition has been destroyed unless
some one guilty of the criminal prac-
tees of which the petition is evidence
has had access to it and destroyed it
as a measure of self protection. A
! large number of agents were employed
by Saddler and Grosser and other back
ers of the petition to secure the sig
natures, for which these agents were
paid, at so much a name. That the
forgeries were committed by one or
more of these agents to secure more
| money from Saddler and Grosser and
their associates is accepted as the So
/ luton of this matter and If the origin
ators of the petition were muicted in
this manner it is supposed they will
be more than willing to assist the city
clerk in running down the guilty per-
sons.
Destruction improbable
If the petition is still in the hands
of Grosser and Saddler 1t is not likely
to be destroyed, as 1t contains some
most valuable information for future
petition of the same character. Oppo-
site the name of each good signature
is the 80 X" certifcation of the city
clerk and the petitioners may use these
names again in presenting petition
to submit the matter to the next gem
eral election.
In fact the petition really shows
! enough of these 20. KS" to make the
petition sufficient for the purpose for
which it was filed, to compel the call
ing of a special election to submit the
. extension of the wholesale liquor zone
| to the people. Had City Clerk Le-
lande not been on his guard he would
have been forced to report the petit
tion to the council as sufficient, on
| the strength of the returns made to
| him.
the great register, the city clerk hires
extra help. Several crews are put to
work with one general overseer
When the first petition presented had
been declared insufficient, Charles Sad
dler complained that the city clerk was
prejudiced against the petition and
asked permission to have two OF his
friends watch the checking as 1T pro-
ceeded. Mr. Lelande, not only agreed
to this but told Mr.. Saddler he would
appoint any two men he might select
as checkers in place of two OF the
force selected by the clerk. Mr.. Sad
dler agreed to this and Mr.. Lelande
! employed two of Saddler's men, but
refused to permit them to check any
of the petitions they had been instru-
mental in circulating.
LeIande Grows Suspicious
Mr.. Lelande said one of these clerks
| did his work most efficiently, while
the other did not When the overseer
of the checking forces made his report
to Mr.. Lelande the figures showed 1912
good names. This would have made
the petition sufficient as but 1917 names
were necessary.
Mr.. Lelandes suspicious were aroused
and to confirm them he took several
sections of the petition and personally
| checked them over.
IT spent one entire day pouring over
the great register by myself" said Mr.
Ieiande, with the result that / threw
out 290 signatures. When I had gone
this far 1 found those left not suffi-
cient to call the election and so re-
turned a certificate of insufficiency.
The circulators of this petition, espe-
cially the amended portion, used every
method they could think of to make
the petition sufficient and am con-
vihced they used some very persuasive
arguments with some of my clerks"
Mr.. Lelande again referred to a con-
versation he had with John w
Shenk, assistant city attorney, on the
matter of the forgeries and perjuries
in the petition and emphatically reit-
Grated he had called Mr.. Shenks at
tention to the criminal Irregularities