Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-19
Distracted Attorney
tFrom Los AnEeles EEpreaal


1t is now a little over two gears since
the Express editorially appealed to
District Attorney Fredericks to do his
plain duty as district attorney. In
common with all decent men and wom-
en- who were appalled, by the evidences
OF incompetency in the district attor-
ney's office, this newspaper was deeply
concerned lest the men who had
brought dishonor on Los Angeles should
escape all punishment. The Express
stood for the vindieation of the out
ragged law, and it was as ready to up
hold Mr.. Fredericks as. Mr.. Woolwine
in any sincere effort to see justlce done.
BY way of evideneing the fact we
quote from an editorial printed october
8, 1908:
District Attorney Fredericks, hav-
ing withdrawn the offer made to
Mr.. Woolwine when the latter ac-
cepted It, will himself conduct all
the cases before the grand jury and
guide that capable body in such in
vestigations as 1t may see fit to un-
dertake. 1t is not a matter of great
consequence to Los Angeles by
whom good results are secured. 1t is
a matter of great consequence that
the men who have broken the law
shall be compelled to obey the law.
And 1t is a matter of the very high
est consequence that officials who
have broken oaths to execute the
law shall cease to protect, against
the law, men who made a wicked
business of violating the law.
We venture to express the hope
that these declarations will receive
the official approval of the district
attorney OF Los Angeles county.
MI
that they will.
The Express, then as now, was con-
cerned in establishing the supremacy
of the law as against an organized con-
spiracy of officers who protected vice
It was concerned in redeeming Los
Angeles from shame and dishonor, and
it called on the district attorney to dc
his plain duty. We hold him now to
be unfit to retain the Office he holds
and utterly undeserving of reelection
to 1t, because he completely failed in
the discharge of that duty.
Whatever the cause of that failure,
whether it was incompetency or aught
else, the fact of the failure remains.
We unhesitatingly declare our convic-
ton that had Tom Woolwine been dis
trict attorney in that crisis, the officials
who escaped punishment because OF
Fredericks' lamentable incompetency
would have been punished instead OF
being, as they are, free to support
Fredericks for reelection.
Greatly concerned by the evidence of
District Attorney Fredericks' incapaci-
ty, and willing for the time to believe
that his incompetency arose from lack
of knowledge, we publicly but respect
fully laid before him the sections of the
state law bearing on the situation.
The Express pointed out in what
manner the violations occurred. Sub
sequent grand juries declared that the
law in prohibition of disorderly houses
was Systematically Violated. There
wasn't an honest man or woman in all
Los Angeles who did not know that
syndicated vice had corrupted govern
ment.
If Fredericks didn't know 1t, his own
grand juries gave him knowledge. One
reported the facts in express terms.
Fredericks said there was nothing in
them. subsequently the grand jury
confirmed Woolwine completely And
Fredericks. who would not let Wool
wine bring the guilty to justice, himself
frittered away the opportunity.
October 5, 19-o, the Express reviewing
the situation, asked Fredericks What
are you going to do about it?
And this was the final paragraph of
that appeal:
Let the answer be one of action
instead Of talk-action directed at
the man who protects vice, not at
the man who would prosecute it.
That was two years ago. 1t is now
October, 1910. Fredericks is the same
incompetent Fredericks he was then.
He has accomplished nothing.
And he--he is on the stump still vim
dictively assailing not the men who
protected vice. but the men who sought
to prosecute it,
Such an incompetent, inefficient, in
capable officer does not deserve re-
election. He has forfeited public con-
fidence and earned his sure defeat.