Los Angeles herald., 1910-01-21
SHERMAN OUSTED
BY CITY COUNCIL
GENERAL is REMOVED FROM
WATER COMMISSION
GIVEN OPPORTUNITY BY MAYOR
TO RESIGN
In Communication Chief Executive
Sets Forth Reason Why Action
Is DesIrabIe-Major H. T.
Lee May Be Named

BY action on the part of Mayo
Alexander and the city conuicl Genera
NJ. II. Sherman was yesterday removes
from his position as a member Of tn
water commission. General Sherman
had been given several opportunitie
to resign, but each time had refuset
to do so.
While the council was In session yes
terday morning the mayor sent in wor'
that he wished to advise with tn
council before adjournment and at hi
invitation the council went into tn
chambers, where an eXecutlV
session was held.
After a general discussion the coun
ell filed back into the council chambe
and in q few minutes the mayor sen
In the following message:
On the goth day of July, 1909,
sent to the council a message re-
moving General NJ. II. Sherman
from office as a member of the
board of water commissioners. L
then believed that it was against
the interest of the city for an ac-
knowledged representative of great
public utility enterprises. regard
less of his personal merits, to con-
tinue in the / osition he occupied.
That such a rule should be applied
is still my firm belief, for reasons
which, think, will commend them
selves to the judgment of the peo-
pie as sufficient.
Before 1 took the action referred
to in regard to Mr.. Sherman pub
lie attention had been called to the
a
stockholder in the Main street
company, a corporation, which, as
the owner of the Central build
ing, had leased to the city the Of
fees occupied by the aqueduct de-
partment, at rental amounting to
several hundred dollars a month.
And the point raised that, as Mr..
Sherman was at the time the lease
was made an officer of the city,
the effect of this contract was to
render Mr.. Sherman legally ineli-
gible to act as a member of the
board of water commissioners. AS
a question was presented to me af-
fecting the right of one of the offi-
GERS of the city to continue in Of
flee, on legal grounds, l referred
the matter to the city attorney, and
requested his opinion in writing
on the subject. In reply to my re-
quest l received from the city at
torney-a an opinion in which the
whole question was thoroughly eX-
amined, and his conclusion was,
that if Mr.. Sherman was a stock
ohider in the Main street company,
that fact brought him within the
terms of provision of the city
charter which prohibits a city Of
ficer from being interested, directly
or indirectly, "in any contract to
which the city is party, or made
by any officer of the city in behalf
of the city,"
Given Chance to Resign
While as a ground for the re-
moval of a city official this was
purely technical and, possibly
open to the objection that it was
unduly narrow, l felt justified at
that time in applying it in this in
stance, because l had been advised
as above stated that it was legally
sufficient and for the further rea-
son that 1 am convinced that
majority of the council, as then
composed, was not in sympathy
with my views regarding the pro-
priety of Mr.. Sherman's further
continuance in the service of the
city because of his known connec-
ton with public utility interests in
this city. Consequently ! assigned
the reason for such action the
legal ground that he was inter-
ested in a city contract, and con-
fined myself to that alone.
Before sending the message to
the council removing Mr.. Sher-
man from office l requested him to
resign his office, on the grounds
stated in the opinion Of the city
attorney. ] did this in order that
he might have an opportunity to
consider the matter and act for
himself before 1 should be obliged
to proceed under the charter and
exercise the power of removal. Mr.,
Sherman refused to resign, and
took the position that the courts
would have to settle the question
whether the law applied to him.
The council declined to give its
assent to the removal of Mr.. Sher-
man and instead of doing so it in
structed the city attorney to begin
legal proceedings for the removal
of Mr. Sherman, which should nave
as their object a judicial determi-
IldllOil VI IlAo ~ " NC'ANtAANN -
office. The council, by its course,
raised the question of 'the legal
sufficiency under the charter of the
ground upon which its assent to
the removal of Mr.. Sherman had
been asked by me, and clearly in
dicated it's intention that the courts
should determine the points of law
before it would take further action
in the matter. The city attorney
has. as [ am informed by him,
taken steps to bring the suit di-
rected by the former council, and
this suit can only be prosecuted in
court with the consent of the at
torney general of the state. The
ground for removal urged in TINS
suit is the same as that given by
me as the legal basis for the re-
moval of Mr. Sherman in my mes
sage to the council. The attorney
general has not as yet given the
necessary consent.
Confined to Legal Grounds
In asking your predecessors to
assent to Mr.. Sherman's removal
T confined myself to the strictly
legal grounds for the reason have
stated Since the time when the
occurrences here referred to took
place, the circumstances of the case
have greatly changed / am salts
fed that the council, as at present
constituted, is in accord with and
will appreciate the position I take,
that a representative of great pub
lie utility interests should not
serve as an officer OF the city, es-
pecially in such an office as that
occupied by Mr., Sherman, in which
he acts for the city in the man
agement of a public utility which
the city itself owns and will con-
tinue to operate.
In addition to this, it appears
that Mr.. Sherman has recently ac-