■
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.