Imperial Valley press., 1914-12-01
Grant to Contest the Crooked Recall
(By Franklin ,Hichborn)

tBy Franklin ,lilchborn)
The voters of California have rati-
fed the redlight abatement act. But
while the informed and reputable cit
izens of the state are congratulating
themselves on the outcome, they
| shoull not lose sight of the less pleas
1 ing TACT that, on the face OF the re-
] turns, Senator Edwin +. Grant of San
Frantls lsco, author of the act in the
Senate, has been recalled because of
his advocacy of the abatement meas
ure.
There is, however, some question
of the regularity of the recall cleo
ton. Because of alleged Irregular
ties, Senator Grant has filed con-
test, and will take the matter before
the bar of the state senate. The SEN
ate IS sole judge of the qualifications
of its members. If the Irregularities
alleged be established, the senate will
to certainty continue Senator Grant
in his seat.
If Senator Grant loses his seat Cal
ifornIa will lcse courageous and
conscientious representative.
! In his place will be seated Senator
Eddie" Wolfe, whose record as leg
Iislator is too well known to require
Icomment.
If, however, Senator Grants re-
call end Senator Wolfe's election are
honest and regular, and in full COM
pliance with the law, there is nothing
for the senate to do but seat Wolfe.
But the senate does owe to Senator
Grant and to the State of California
to make full investigation into the
charges of corruption and irregular
ity growing out of the campaign that
has been carried on against Senator
Grant, and which eliminated in the
recall election. If irregularities be
found, if the dishonesty of the recall
/ be established, then there will be
nothing for the senate to do but leave
Senator Grant secure in his seat.
When the redlight abatement act
was before the senate, Grant was
warned that unless he permitted
amendment of the measure into inef-
| fectiveness he would be ruined politi.
oally. He refused to be intimidated.
did not accept the amendments, and
the abatement bill, largely due to his
efforts, passed in effective form
Soon after the legislature adj
| journed, recall petition was circu-
lated against him. About the time
| it was ready for filing, exposure OF
the forged signatures on the red light
abatement referendum petition threat
ened certain San Francisco tenderloin
magnates with state prison. The re-
call petition against Grant was mys-
terioasly burned.
A second petition was then circu
lated against him. This petition was
filed. 1t was, however, rejected be-
cause of forged and otherwise irregu
lar Signatures. The San Francisco
grand jury voted one night to indiot
two OF the forgers of this petition.
But something happened. The indict
ments were not brought
A third petition was started against
Grant. When filed it contained 1853
names. To invoke the recall in Grant !;
district 1884 names were required.
The San Francisco authorities threw
Icut 1897 names because of irregu-
larities. This left 1852 names on the
Ipetition-25S more than the number
required to start recall proceedings.
Casual investigation made by Sena
tor Grant of the names counted
against him convinced him that many
were forgeries, while several hundred
were irregular. The registrar of vot
ers at San Francisco, Zemansky, prom
Ilged Grant in writing to give him
twenty days to complete the investi
cation.
In the midst of his investigation.
Gram, after uncovering more than
500 names which he insists should no.
have teen counted against him, found
that Zemansky, full week before the
twenty days had expired, without no.
tice 20 him, had certified to the suf-
tciency of the petition to the secre-
tary Of state.
Senator Grant appealed for relief
to the superior and to the supreme
court Both courts held the action of
the registrar to be final so far as the
courts are concerned.
There was but one other recourse
left to Senator Grant-appeal to the
| senate.
This appeal he has made.
Besides the irregularities attending