Recall of public officers, p. 28 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 28 of 41 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
1 &&'0M 52 THE RECALL OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ; tentative to its adoption.2s Woodrow Wilson, interviewed on the train a few weeks later, before he was fairly within the state, expressed his surprise at the importance attached to the issue and spoke somewhat less favorably of the idea. In his estimation the recall was not the remedy for a bad judiciary. The reform must come at the other end of the system and could be accomplished by the direct primary and honest elections. "The recall can secure immediate results on a bad judge, but I fear in getting quick results the fundamental good of a true judiciary would be sacrificed. The judiciary must have stability and this the recall might endanger." 29 The intensive campaign for the adoption of the amendments opened the latter part of August. Champions for and against ratification held debates before civic leagues; newspapers devoted vast amounts of space to explanation of the various provisions and in their editorial columns supported or denounced them violently; orators, such as Senator Moses E. Clapp of Minnesota and W. S. U'Ren, father of direct legislation in Oregon, were imported from other states to address mass meetings; and Governor Johnson, with Dr. John R. Haynes, Francis J. Heney and others, stumped the state in automobiles from Siskiyou to the Mexican border advocating passage of the progressive measures. The recall came in for more than its share of attention. All the standard arguments on both sides were once more set forth in the form supposed to be most alluring to the average voter. The shades of all the great legal commentators. Constitutional Fathers and interpreters of American ideals were invoked to prove the impracticability of pure democracy and the need for an independent judiciary, or the contrary; and echoes of all the orthodox bombast about "special privilege," "private interests," 88 Los Angeles Record, March 23. 1911. "Ibid., May 12, 1911. ADOPTION OF THE RECALL IN CALIFORNIA 53 "the tyranny of the majority" and "destruction of our representative form of government" reverberated from .one border of the state to the other. Advertisements urging the people to "Vote Against the Recall Amendment" because, "if this amendment is adopted only dema- ■gogues will run for office, and to hold the public sentiment or clamor in their favor, judges and all officeholders will violate the oath of office in trying to serve two masters, God and the Mob," appeared beside appeals to "Vote for the Recall Amendment, it gives the people power to discharge dishonest officials." The situation afforded unlimited range for Governor Johnson's rare talent for vituperation and for the ponderous satire of his pet aversion, the Los Angeles Times, which neither of them in any way neglected. Johnson fulminated against President Taft for violating the political liberty of Arizona by denying them the recall of judges, and demolished the anti-recall arguments of the enemy with adroit phrases that both convinced and entertained the huge crowds that flocked to hear him. If it was suggested that the recall would intimidate the austere judiciary, Johnson would thunder, "Cowards! My friends, you can't make a coward of a man by holding a pistol at his head; you can only demonstrate whether he is one." And in reply to the argument that judges subject to the recall "would keep their ears to the ground" from obsequious regard for the public's latest whim, Johnson would thrust back, to the delight of his listeners, "We would rather that the judges kept their ears to the ground than to the railroad tracks in California." For the time, at least, the state seemed to have gone overwhelmingly progressive. Governor Johnson and his followers had captured the popular ear and the conservative forces were unable to meet his stirring challenge. Even the Times seemed to have lost its gift of personal invective, and its final editorial appeal on the morning m ■
Object Description
Title | Legal research regarding the history of the Los Angeles charter, 1879-1930 (2a of 3) |
Description | Frederick L. Bird and Frances M. Ryan. The recall of public officers: a study of the operation of recall in California. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1930. Colophon, title page, pp. 1-55, 226-249 (chapters 1. General aspects of the recall; 2. The adoption of the recall in California; 3. The recall in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland). PART OF A SERIES: A critical component of the Commission's investigation centered on the idea that governance of the LAPD was shared between the Office of the Chief of Police, an administrative body, and the Board of Police Commissioners, a citizen body. To better understand the dynamic between these two entities, the staff of Heller, Ehrman, White, & McAuliffe researched the history of the Los Angeles City Charter, focusing primarily on its provisions regarding the distribution of power and the structure and organization of the LAPD. Included in the series are reproductions of reports, dissertations, article clippings, excerpts from city documents, and charter amendments related to the charter's conception and development over time. The series also includes several summaries of expert witness interviews regarding the effectiveness of this structure. |
Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Los Angeles |
Geographic subject (county) | Los Angeles |
Geographic subject (state) | California |
Geographic subject (country) | USA |
Coverage date | 1879; 1880; 1887; 1889; 1890; 1892; 1896; 1899/1914; 1916; 1917; 1920; 1921; 1923/1928 |
Creator |
Bird, Frederick L. Ryan, Frances M. |
Publisher (of the original version) | The MacMillan Company |
Place of publication (of the original version) | New York, New York, USA |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
Date issued | 1930 |
Type | texts |
Format | 41 p. |
Format (aat) | chapters (layout features) |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
Series | Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
File | Legal research regarding the history of the Los Angeles charter |
Box and folder | box 21, folder 5, item 1 |
Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
Filename | indep-box21-05-01 |
Description
Title | Recall of public officers, p. 28 |
Format (imt) | image/tiff |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Full text | 1 &&'0M 52 THE RECALL OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ; tentative to its adoption.2s Woodrow Wilson, interviewed on the train a few weeks later, before he was fairly within the state, expressed his surprise at the importance attached to the issue and spoke somewhat less favorably of the idea. In his estimation the recall was not the remedy for a bad judiciary. The reform must come at the other end of the system and could be accomplished by the direct primary and honest elections. "The recall can secure immediate results on a bad judge, but I fear in getting quick results the fundamental good of a true judiciary would be sacrificed. The judiciary must have stability and this the recall might endanger." 29 The intensive campaign for the adoption of the amendments opened the latter part of August. Champions for and against ratification held debates before civic leagues; newspapers devoted vast amounts of space to explanation of the various provisions and in their editorial columns supported or denounced them violently; orators, such as Senator Moses E. Clapp of Minnesota and W. S. U'Ren, father of direct legislation in Oregon, were imported from other states to address mass meetings; and Governor Johnson, with Dr. John R. Haynes, Francis J. Heney and others, stumped the state in automobiles from Siskiyou to the Mexican border advocating passage of the progressive measures. The recall came in for more than its share of attention. All the standard arguments on both sides were once more set forth in the form supposed to be most alluring to the average voter. The shades of all the great legal commentators. Constitutional Fathers and interpreters of American ideals were invoked to prove the impracticability of pure democracy and the need for an independent judiciary, or the contrary; and echoes of all the orthodox bombast about "special privilege," "private interests," 88 Los Angeles Record, March 23. 1911. "Ibid., May 12, 1911. ADOPTION OF THE RECALL IN CALIFORNIA 53 "the tyranny of the majority" and "destruction of our representative form of government" reverberated from .one border of the state to the other. Advertisements urging the people to "Vote Against the Recall Amendment" because, "if this amendment is adopted only dema- ■gogues will run for office, and to hold the public sentiment or clamor in their favor, judges and all officeholders will violate the oath of office in trying to serve two masters, God and the Mob," appeared beside appeals to "Vote for the Recall Amendment, it gives the people power to discharge dishonest officials." The situation afforded unlimited range for Governor Johnson's rare talent for vituperation and for the ponderous satire of his pet aversion, the Los Angeles Times, which neither of them in any way neglected. Johnson fulminated against President Taft for violating the political liberty of Arizona by denying them the recall of judges, and demolished the anti-recall arguments of the enemy with adroit phrases that both convinced and entertained the huge crowds that flocked to hear him. If it was suggested that the recall would intimidate the austere judiciary, Johnson would thunder, "Cowards! My friends, you can't make a coward of a man by holding a pistol at his head; you can only demonstrate whether he is one." And in reply to the argument that judges subject to the recall "would keep their ears to the ground" from obsequious regard for the public's latest whim, Johnson would thrust back, to the delight of his listeners, "We would rather that the judges kept their ears to the ground than to the railroad tracks in California." For the time, at least, the state seemed to have gone overwhelmingly progressive. Governor Johnson and his followers had captured the popular ear and the conservative forces were unable to meet his stirring challenge. Even the Times seemed to have lost its gift of personal invective, and its final editorial appeal on the morning m ■ |
Filename | indep-box21-05-01~28.tif |
Archival file | Volume67/indep-box21-05-01~28.tif |