Los Angeles herald., 1909-03-10
WHAT OF BROADHEAD?
<kk ND what about Broadhead?"
II The question is being asked by

GA ND what about Broadhead?"
w The question is being asked by
"A many citizens who believe in
fair play and even-handed justice.
What about Broadhead?" He conf
placently received information about
the existence of gambling and other
dens of vice in Los Angeles. He either
put the information on file or else he
concluded that the best policy was that
of the Bowery. Jaw, fergit it," Doesn't
it seem incredible that with an efficient
force at their back and at their dis
posal, the chief and his captains should
be ignorant of existing conditions?
Citizens have had no difficulty in OBJ
tanning evidence as to the existence of
demoralizing dens, where the law has
been systematically broken, and the
morals of the community have been
systematically assailed. Members of a
police force distinguished for intelli-
gence and vigilance could not be abso-
lutely blind to existing conditions. How
extraordinary it would be If it could be
said truthfully they were totally ig-
norant as to lawlessness in Sonoratown,
where gambling fourished, where blind
pigs abounded and where all kinds of
vice existed as boldly and brazenly as
if they enjoyed a special license to pol
lutte the community.
It does not seem possible to believe
that the police department, with such
experienced men as Talamantes and
Rico on its pay roll should not nave
known that blind pigs and gambling
dens were operated so flagrantly that
evidence of their existence could be
obtained without the slightest trouble.
That Broadhead was ignorant con-
corning conditions that were patent to
every casual passerby in certain quar-
ters of the city cannot be believed. That
he was ignorant of conditions that were
not as patent but were easily discovered
by little inquiry is equally incredible.
Broadheads position enabled him to be
we'll posted as to every phase of law
lessness in Los Angeles. With the aid
Of his force, without an extraordinary
amount of trouble, he could have put
himself in possession of a marked map
of the city, with every suspicious house,
SHADY joint" or openly law-defying
and immoral haunt or hell indicated
with accuracy. But if Broadhead
KNEW he did not ACT; and if he did
not know there was something wrong
with mis- methods, because citizens,
without any extra powers and without
an armed force at their backs, dis
covered with "a very little investigation
conditions which should have been
known and reported by Broadhead's eX-
perts.
So what are we to think of Broad
head? Was he merely inefficient? Was
be only easily fooled? Or. in possession
Of information supplied by the men of
his force, did he pigeonhole the infor-
nation and refrain from doing his
duty? Or did he see the mayor about
It. and refrain from doing his duty?
Or did he talk it over with Edward
Kern and refrain from doing his duty?
If he knew what he should have known,
why did he not do his duty? And if he
did not know what he should have
known, what was the reason of his
Ignorance? What prevented him, an
official, from obtaining information
which citizens could obtain and did
obtain without either great risk or
great trouble? What is Broadhead's
explanation OF his complacent, acquies-
cent and innocuous desuetude?