Recall of public officers, p. 31 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 31 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 ...
■ I.' 228 THE RECALL OF PUBLIC OFFICERS award the contract for official advertising to the Los Angeles Times at a price ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 above the other bids. The cry was raised that the action of the council was unwise, wasteful, and influenced by a desire to curry favor with the Times. The mayor refused to sign the measure but was overruled by the "Solid Six." To certain reform leaders it seemed that the psychological moment had arrived for trying out the recall; but to attempt the removal of all six of the councilmen appeared to be a too ambitious undertaking. The reputation of the Times as an uncompromising opponent of organized labor provided a solution to the problem. Under the leadership of several members of the typographical union and other trade unionists, a movement was launched to recall Councilman Davenport of the sixth ward where many union-labor workmen resided. Acting without the aid of an attorney, this group of sixth ward citizens drew up and circulated the first petition in the United States for the recall of a public official. It deserves to be quoted not only because of its historical significance but because of the specific nature of its charges: To the President and Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California: The petition of the undersigned electors of the Sixth Ward of the City of Los Angeles sets forth the following facts: (1) The City Council of the City of Los Angeles recently advertised for bids for the city official advertising for the ensuing year, commencing June 8, 1904. (2) That in accordance therewith bids were received by the said City Council from the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Los Angeles Herald, Los Angeles E.r]>ress, and Los Angeles Times. (3) That the bid of the said Los Angeles Times was greatly in excess of all the other bids, being about $11,000 higher than the. next lowest bid, and the giving of the said contract to the THE RECALL IN LOS ANGELES 229 said Los Angeles Times is an outrage and a robbery of the people's money, against which we, as citizens and taxpayers of said city, hereby enter our solemn protest. (4) That J. P. Davenport, the member of the City Council from the Sixth Ward of said city, did connive at said perversion of city funds by voting in the affirmative on the letting of said contract to the said Los Angeles Times, and that by so doing he violated his oath of office and betrayed his trust; and therefore, under the provisions of the City Charter, Article XIX, Sec. 198c, we hereby demand that the office of said City Councilman of the Sixth Ward of said City of Los Angeles be declared vacant and a new election be called, as provided in said Section 198c of said City Charter.1 At the end of two weeks the necessary 716 signatures had been secured with 150 to spare; but the city clerk found nearly one-fourth of them invalid and it was necessary to supplement the petition. This was done within the ten-day limit and the council called the election for August 11. At this point the history of obstructive litigation began. The "machine" interests instituted injunction proceedings and it was discovered that the circulators had ignorantly cut off the headings from the petitions and pasted them together in long rolls. This, the court held, invalidated the proceedings and it was necessary to start over again. Within a week a second petition had been filed, this time in proper order. Again the clerk was very critical in his scrutiny, and a supplementary petition was needed. The petition was finally certified as sufficient, however, and the election called for September 16. Once more injunction proceedings were instituted to prevent the holding of the election. The question of the constitutionality of the law, as well as of irregularities in the petition, wras raised; and on the plea that all the 1 Quoted from the Los Angeles Times, July 11, 1901.
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. 31 |
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 | ■ I.' 228 THE RECALL OF PUBLIC OFFICERS award the contract for official advertising to the Los Angeles Times at a price ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 above the other bids. The cry was raised that the action of the council was unwise, wasteful, and influenced by a desire to curry favor with the Times. The mayor refused to sign the measure but was overruled by the "Solid Six." To certain reform leaders it seemed that the psychological moment had arrived for trying out the recall; but to attempt the removal of all six of the councilmen appeared to be a too ambitious undertaking. The reputation of the Times as an uncompromising opponent of organized labor provided a solution to the problem. Under the leadership of several members of the typographical union and other trade unionists, a movement was launched to recall Councilman Davenport of the sixth ward where many union-labor workmen resided. Acting without the aid of an attorney, this group of sixth ward citizens drew up and circulated the first petition in the United States for the recall of a public official. It deserves to be quoted not only because of its historical significance but because of the specific nature of its charges: To the President and Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California: The petition of the undersigned electors of the Sixth Ward of the City of Los Angeles sets forth the following facts: (1) The City Council of the City of Los Angeles recently advertised for bids for the city official advertising for the ensuing year, commencing June 8, 1904. (2) That in accordance therewith bids were received by the said City Council from the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Los Angeles Herald, Los Angeles E.r]>ress, and Los Angeles Times. (3) That the bid of the said Los Angeles Times was greatly in excess of all the other bids, being about $11,000 higher than the. next lowest bid, and the giving of the said contract to the THE RECALL IN LOS ANGELES 229 said Los Angeles Times is an outrage and a robbery of the people's money, against which we, as citizens and taxpayers of said city, hereby enter our solemn protest. (4) That J. P. Davenport, the member of the City Council from the Sixth Ward of said city, did connive at said perversion of city funds by voting in the affirmative on the letting of said contract to the said Los Angeles Times, and that by so doing he violated his oath of office and betrayed his trust; and therefore, under the provisions of the City Charter, Article XIX, Sec. 198c, we hereby demand that the office of said City Councilman of the Sixth Ward of said City of Los Angeles be declared vacant and a new election be called, as provided in said Section 198c of said City Charter.1 At the end of two weeks the necessary 716 signatures had been secured with 150 to spare; but the city clerk found nearly one-fourth of them invalid and it was necessary to supplement the petition. This was done within the ten-day limit and the council called the election for August 11. At this point the history of obstructive litigation began. The "machine" interests instituted injunction proceedings and it was discovered that the circulators had ignorantly cut off the headings from the petitions and pasted them together in long rolls. This, the court held, invalidated the proceedings and it was necessary to start over again. Within a week a second petition had been filed, this time in proper order. Again the clerk was very critical in his scrutiny, and a supplementary petition was needed. The petition was finally certified as sufficient, however, and the election called for September 16. Once more injunction proceedings were instituted to prevent the holding of the election. The question of the constitutionality of the law, as well as of irregularities in the petition, wras raised; and on the plea that all the 1 Quoted from the Los Angeles Times, July 11, 1901. |
Filename | indep-box21-05-01~31.tif |
Archival file | Volume67/indep-box21-05-01~31.tif |