1900 – SANTA ROSA’S MUDDLE

Los Angeles Herald, 2 October 1900

SANTA ROSA’S MUDDLE
The City Officials May All Be Turned Out
City Recorder Prindle Claims Their Election
Was Illegal and Proposes to Sue Them in
the Name of the State

(By Associated Press.)
Santa Rosa, Oct. 1. — City Recorder Henry Prindle today served notice upon members of the city council that he proposes to apply to the attorney general for permission to sue in the name of the state to have them, one and all, ousted from office. The ground taken is that their election last April was illegal.
The cause leading up to Prindle’s action forms an interesting story. At the last city election Henry Prindle and W. P. Bagley were opposing candidates for the office of city recorder. Bagley was declared elected, but Prindle, who was then in the possession of the office, having been elected two years ago, brought suit to have the election declared invalid on the grounds that the polls closed at 5 o’clock in conformity with the state law, instead of at 6 as provided by the city charter.
His suit was successful, and Bagley, who, in the meantime had been, seated, turned the office back to his opponent, but under protest. This was about a month ago. Saturday, Bagley by permission of the attorney general, began a suit in turn to have Prindle ousted, as the city elections for the past ten or twelve years have been held according to the state laws. If Prindle’s ejection is declared illegal, the council would appoint his successor.
Prindle is a republican and the council is democratic. The assumption is that it would, in such case, appoint Bagley. If the election of the council is declared invalid, the governor would appoint a new council. He would probably appoint republicans, who, in turn, would reappoint Prindle. It is possible, therefore, that the fight for the office of recorder, paying $50 a month, may result in an almost complete change in the matter of city officials.

Press Democrat, 12 December 1900

THE PRINDLE CASE AGAIN

Last Monday morning, in Department 11 of the Superior Court, by mutual consent the Prindle-Bagley election contest was dropped from the calendar. The Republican in its issue of Friday evening comments upon the fact as follows:
The termination of the Bagley Prindle contest is entitled to more than the mere local notice it received when the suit to oust Mr. Prindle was dismissed. During the recent political campaign there was an effort to make political capital out of this controversy. The Republican then said the lawsuit was a mere personal matter between the parties thereto and that it was unfair to treat it otherwise. Mr. Bagley’s dismissal of the action brought by him confirms our statement of the case. If some great principle had been at stake it is not reasonable to suppose that the contestant would have quit until the matter had been passed on by the courts. The dismissal leaves unquestioned the propositions laid down by Mr. Prindle in his letters to the Republican when the case was on trial in the newspapers. He was fighting to retain an office to which he is as well entitled as is any man now drawing a salary from the city treasury for services rendered. His attorney, Mr. Hitchcock, made no mistakes in the handling of the case. He took good care of his client, and is to be congratulated on winning victory when many prophesied defeat. When the case had been dismissed against his client, he promptly stopped proceedings against other members of the city government whose tenure of office was the same as that of Mr, Prindle. Hence the government of the city is not nowin question. The men who received the most votes are in office, even though the election at which they were chosen was not conducted entirely in accordance with the forms of law in such cases made and provided.
This case has occupied considerable attention at the hands ot the newspapers, the facts are generally understood, and the Press Democrat had not intended referring to the matter again—at least not at the present time. The article above quoted is so grossly unfair, however, and so manifestly published with the idea of creating an erroneous impression, that to allow it to pass unnoticed is not to be thought of.
Mr. Bagley agreed to a dismissal of the case, as the editor of the Republican well knows, in order to prevent the threatened disruption of the present city government at the hands of the Republican party. Had he pressed his suit against Prindle, the latter would have pushed the contest, already instituted and pending, against the members of the city council. The same point being involved in both cases, and the determining factor having already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, there is little question as to what the outcome would have been. A majority of the men who might have been affected were Democrats. Mr. Bagley gave up the fight to protect his party.
The result is that Henry Prindle occupies, and will in all probability continue to occupy until the term expires, an office for which, as has been shown in open court, his opponent received the most legal votes. To achieve this result the men and influences interested have taken advantage of a technicality which operated in Prindle’s favor.
Personally the Press Democrat is of the opinion that if Mr. Bagley had carried his contest to its conclusion he would have secured possession of the office. In order for Mr. Prindle’s suit to have resulted in any benefit to him it would have been necessary for Governor Gage to have replaced the present members of the city council, after their removal, with Republicans known to be favorable to his (Prindle’s) occupancy. This is a step we do not believe the Governor would have dared to take, in view of the wide publicity that hail been attracted to the case. At the same time the chance was there, and the results of such a course if followed would have been far-reaching. Mr. Bagley did not care to urge his claims in the face of the existing possibilities, and simply subordinated his own interests to the good of the many.
As to Mr. Hitchcock and the interests he represents, they are certainly welcome to all the satisfaction they can get out of the matter. They have succeeded In keeping a man in office who, both according to their showings made in court and the allegations made against their opponents, as to the manner In which the city’s elections have been conducted in recent years has no right to the position whatever. They may regard the achievement with pride; the public will be more apt to regard it just the other way.

Copies of relevant newspaper articles found on the California Digital Newspaper Collection follow:

San Francisco Call, Volume 87, Number 145, 14 April 1900

Election Contested.

SANTA ROSA, April 13.— Henry Prindle commenced a contest in the Superior Court this afternoon of the election of W. P. Bagley as City Recorder of Santa Rosa. Bapley and Prindle were candidates for the cfiice of Recorder at the election held Wednesday, April 4. Bagley beat Prindle by one vote. Prindle asks the court for a recount of the votes and alleges malconduct on the part of the election boards.

Press Democrat, Number 55, 14 April 1900

The Recorder’s Office

At noon on Wednesday City Recorder-elect W. P. Bagley entered upon the duties of his new office. He went to the marshal’s office and presented his credentials. Previous to this he had met City Recorder William Prindle and learned from him that he would not give up his office. He made Mr. Bagley a proposition asking him to refrain from interfering with his possession of the office until after a decision of the court in a contest to be brought as to whether the ballots were counted improperly or not.

Press Democrat, Number 55, 14 April 1900

BEGINS A CONTEST
Henry Prindle Asks for a Recount of Votes The Proceedings Set for April 24 at Which Time Hearing Will Be Given

In the Superior Court yesterday Henry Prlndle commenced a contest of the election of William P. Bagley to the office of city recorder. Judge Burnett has set April 24 as the time for hearing and determining the contest. In the statement filed by the plaintiff in these proceedings it is first set forth that an election was held in this city on April 4 and that Messrs. Bagley and Prindle were candidates for the office of city recorder and that on April 9, the city council after a canvass of the election returns determined and declared that W. P. Bagley had received 640 votes and that H. Prindle had received 639 votes, and Mr. Bagley was thereupon declared elected to the office of recorder for the ensuing term. Mr. Prindle’s grounds of contest are as follows; “That plaintiff is informed and verily believes and therefore states the fact to be that the several boards of judges, inspectors and clerks of election and each member thereof of the several precincts hereinafter named at said election mal-oonducted themselves and mal-conducted the election in the said several precincts of which they were the judges, inspectors and clerks The statement is made that in wards Nos. 1,2, 3 and 4 that Mr, Bagley received less votes than the official returns show and that the contestant received more. The contestant further alleges that he believes that he received a majority of the votes, and that illegal votes were cast for his opponent, which if taken from the votes given him will reduce his legal votes below the number of legal votes given him (the contestant). Contestant asks that a recount be had of all the votes cast for recorder in the four city wards; that Mr. Bagley’s election be annulled and that he recover his costs. L. V. Hitchcock represents Prindle.

Press Democrat, Number 58, 25 April 1900
ELECTION CONTEST WILL BE HEARD NEXT WEEK

Yesterday was the time set for the hearing of the contest brought, by Henry Prindle against W, P. Bagley over the office of city recorder of Santa Rosa. At the proceedings in court Attorney L. V. Hitchcock represented the contestant and Major L. W. Juilliard of Cowan & Jullliard, represented City Recorder Bagley. At the morning session a motion was made for a continuance owing to the illness of the Hon. W. F. Cowan. In order to allow of the filing of the answer to the petition the court continued the hearing until 2 o’clock in the afternoon. City Clerk Mobley identified the election returns for the various city wards as the packets were handed to him. The proceedings went over until Thursday, May 3, at 10 o’clock. In the answer filed yesterday the defendant, City Recorder Bagley, denies the claims set forth in the petition that plaintiff received a majority of the votes cast at the last city election or that any of the members of the election boards mal-conducted themselves. He makes a counter statement that he received the largest number of votes and was duly elected city recorder and asks the court so to decree. A demurrer was also filed.

Press Democrat, Number 62, 9 May 1900

THE ELECTION CONTEST HIS BEEN DISMISSED

The election contest brought by Henry Prindle against W. P, Bagley, involving the city reebrdership, was dismissed by Judge Burnett yesterday, upon motion of plaintiff’s counsel, E. V. Hitchcock. At first it was thought that plaintiff would try to secure evidence that illegal votes had been cast. This, however, was not done. City Recorder Bagley will consequently continue to administer justice at the old stand.

Healdsburg Tribune, Enterprise and Scimitar, Number 5, 10 May 1900
SANTA ROSA NOTES.

The contested election case for the office of City Recorder was decided Tuesday in favor of the incumbent Mr. Bagley. The leturns showed that Mr. Prindle received 644 and Mr. Bagley 636 votes, but as several of those cast for Mr. frindle were not technically correct, his total was cut down to five lees than that received bv Mr. Bagley.

Press Democrat, Number 64, 16 May 1900
MR. PRINDLE’S CONTEST

The news that ex-City Recorder Prindle has begun suit to have the election of W. P. Bagley declared illegal as announced in another column, will come as a surprise to most people.
The official returns as sent in by the election boards and as canvassed by the city council showed Mr. Bagley elected by a majority of one vote and a certificate of election was accordingly issued to him and he entered upon the discharge of his duties.
A short time after the result was announced, Mr. Prindle petitioned the courts for a recount and the petition being granted the ballots were opened and recounted in the presence of Judge Albert G. Burnett of the Superior Court. The result of the recount was that Mr. Bagley’s majority was increased from one vote to five by judicial decree.
In his complaint as served upon the attorney-general and upon defendant Bagley, Mr. Prindle alleges that by reason of the polls having closed at 5 o’clock in conformity with the state law, as has been the custom here for many years. Mr. Bagley’s election is illegal.
Mr. Prindle himself was elected under precisely the same conditions two years ago and if his allegations as to the illegality of Mr. Bagley s election are sustained by the courts the same decision must necessarily show that Mr. Prindle has for two years occupied an office and enjoyed the emoluments of a position to which he was never entitled.
Nor is this the only embarrassing position in which Mr. Prindle finds himself by reason of having been influenced into sanctioning the present action. A few days after the result of the election was announced, he submitted a proposition to Mr. Bagley in writing regarding the matter of a recount. A portion of the document read as follows:
I will within the next three or four days begin a suit in the Superior Court to contest the said election upon the grounds that said ballots were improperly counted and will stipulate and agree that no question affecting the validity of said election shall be raised except the one as to whether or not the ballots show the result declared by the council.
For the very simple reason that he had been duly declared elected, had received his certificate of election and already entered upon the discharge of his official duties Mr. Bagley paid no attention to this document. The fact that Mr. Prindle has brought the present suit after stating in writing that he would not, shows that Mr. Bagley exercised very good judgment indeed in declining to enter into any agreement with Mr. Prindle in the matter.
Mr. Prindle has applied to the attorney-general for permission to bring his suit in the name of the people of the state. It is hardly likely, in view of the circumstances, that the request will be granted. The matter has been settled once and the people are satisfied will the result. Mr. Prindle brings the suit, personally, with the idea that if Mr. Bagley’s election is declared illegal the office will revert to him.
In this respect his conclusion is about as near correct as it was in some of the cases that came before him while on the bench and the people of this state will not sanction the use of the name and dignity of the commonwealth for the purpose of promoting horseplay. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the suit should be sanctioned by Attorney-General Ford and that Mr. Bagley’s election should be declared illegal. What would be the result? It would do Mr. Prindle no good for it would also show that he himself had no right to the office and never did have. The council would probably appoint, but it would hardly be apt to appoint Mr. Prindle.
The trouble with Mr. Prindle is that he takes himself too seriously. The Republican machine, in backing Mr. Prindle in his present suit, only adds another circumstance going to prove that if it cannot get control of an office in this county one way it is always ready and willing to try another.
The Wilson precinct episode is still fresh in the minds of the people and needs no recounting here. For the good of the genera! public as well as for the good of the Republican party as a whole a change of management would seem to be the thing required, and the sooner it comes the better it will be for all concerned.

ANOTHER CHAPTER
Prindle Asks Stale Aid In His Contest Against Bagley Permission of Attorney General Asked to Bring Suit—Alleges That Election Was Illegal

Ex-City Recorder Henry Prindle, through his attorney, L. V. Hitchcock, has applied to Tirey L. Ford, attorney general of the stale of California for permission to bring suit in the name of the People of the state against City Recorder W. P. Bagley, to oust Mr. Bagley from office on the alleged ground that ills election was illegal. A copy of the proposed complaint was forwarded on Monday to the attorneygeneral, while another copy was served on Mr. Bagley and his attorneys, Messrs. Cowan & Jullliard. The complaint reviews the fact that the city of Santa Rosa is a municipal corporation, that the complainant Prindle has been a resident of the city for more than five years past; that on April 4, 1900, an election was held for the purpose of electing city officers, including a recorder; that the city is divided into four wards; that the election officers made their returns, to the city clerk and that the city council canvassed the vote, finding that Prindlle had received 639 votes and Mr. Bagley 640, and therefore Bagley was declared duly elected to office; that a certificate of election was given to Bagand that he entered upon the discharge of the duties of recorder, etc. Plaintiff alleges that the election officers in each precinct were guilty of mal-conduct in that “they did wrongfully and unlawfully open the polls at 6 o’clock a. m. of said day of election, and close the polls at 5 o’clock p. m. of said day, instead of opening said polls at 9 o’clock a. m. and closing the same at 6 o’clock p. m. as required by law.” Prlndle alleges that by reason of this several qualified electors were prevented from voting for him, and further that by reason of the alleged mal-conduct that Bagley’s election was illegal and that he at present and since April 11 has “usurped the office.” Plaintiff next calls attention to the fact that he was elected recorder of Santa Rosa in 1898. Judgment is prayed for: First, that the election held in the city of Santa Rosa, on the 4th day of April, 1900, for said office of recorder was and is illegal and void; second, that the defendant, W. P. Bagley, is not entitled to the said office, and that he be ousted therefrom; that he pay the costs of this action, and a fine of five hundred dollars; third, that the said Henry Prindle is entitled to said office of recorder and that he be put in possession of the same, and that plaintiff have such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and equitable.

Press Democrat, Number 68, 30 May 1900

THE CONTEST OVER CITY RECORDER’S OFFICE

City Recorder W. P. Bagley, through his attorneys, Cowan & Juilliard. has filed an answer to the petition of William Prindle in the election contest over the office of city recorder of Santa Rosa in the office of Attorney General Tirey L. Ford. The document sets forth reasons why permission should not be given Prindle to bring suit in the name of the state to test the validity of the election for the office of city recorder. Among other things it is shown that both Mr. Bagley and Mr. Prindle without questioning the validity of the election sought to win the plum at the recent election. Reference is given to the proposition, already mentioned in the Press Democrat, made by Prindle to Bagley in regard to a recount of the votes, and to the case of the state against Hill, which the counsel hold is not determinative of this contest. The Salinas case is held not to be in point. A number of other cogent reasons are given why Mr. Prindle should not be allowed to sue.

Press Democrat, Number 70, 6 June 1900
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SAYS PRIDLE MAY SUE

Attorney General Tirey L. Ford has notified counsel on both sides that Henry Prindle will be given leave to sue in the name of the state in the election contest of Prindle vs. Bagley, when a bond of $500 for costs has been filed by him. Attorney General Ford writes as follows concerning the case:
“San Francisco, June 4. 1900. —To the attorneys for the relator and the attorneys for the defendant, in People ex rel, Henry Prindle vs. W. P. Bagley. Gentlemen; The above named relator, through his attorney, L. V. Hitchcock, of Santa Rosa, has asked for ‘leave to sue’ in the name of the people of the state of California in the above entitled action, in the Superior Court of the state of California in and for the county of Sonoma. The verified complaint presented at this office appears to state a cause of action. The admitted facts bring the case within the rule laid down in People vs. Hill, 125 Cal., 16, and, the whole case considered, I am of the opinion that the issues presented should receive a judicial determination. ‘Leave to sue’ will therefore be granted.
“Before signing the complaint presented by relator I have stricken from the prayer thereof the words, ‘and a fine of five hundred dollars,’ found at lines 1 and 2 of the last page of said complaint, and being a portion of paragraph or subdivision 2 of the prayer of said complaint. In other words, I do not deem it advisable that the plaintiff’s should demand of the defendant the penalty set forth in the prayer as originally drawn. Respectfully, Tirey L. Ford, attorney general.”

Press Democrat, Number 81, 14 July 1900
PRINDLE CONTEST
The Action Involving tbe City Recorder’s Office
Demurrer Overruled by Judge Dougherty on Thursday
– The Points Raised

Superior Judge Dougherty on Thursday handed down an opinion in the case of the People vs. W. P. Bagley, involving the defendant’s title to the office of city recorder. The opinion overrules the demurrer.
In the demurrer presented by defendant W. P. Bagley, the main point raised, was that even admitting that the polls closed at 5 o’clock instead of 6 o’clock still it must be proved that if the polls had remained open the result of the election would have been changed; in other words, it must he proved that Prindle would have been elected had the polls remained open. The opinion holds that the provisions of the charter requires that the polls be closed at 6 o’clock and that this provision is mandatory, and any deviation therefrom vitiates the election.
The defendant will now file his answer alleging that the polls were closed at 5 o’clock at the election of 1898 at which Prindle claims to have been elected, in fact, it is claimed that the election of 1898 was conducted in all respects as was the election of 1900, and defendant contends, that accepting the decision of the court as applicable to both elections the result will be that both are void, thus making a vacancy in the office of city recorder which must be filled by appointment of the common council. The court’s opinion follows:
“The above-named plaintiffs allege in their complaint that on the fourth day of April, 1900, there was held in the city of Santa Rosa an election for the election of city officers, among which officers was that of recorder. That for that office the plaintiff, Henry Prindle, and W. P. Bagley were the only candidates. That there were four wards, each of which was a voting precinct, and the usual and proper officers were elected to conduct the same. That after said election the common council of said city proceeded to canvass said returns and declared that the said Henry Prindle had received 639 votes for the said office of recorder, and that W. P. Bagley had received 640 votes, and that thereupon W. P. Bagley was declared elected to said office. That said defendant filed the required bond and took the oath of office and is now discharging the duties of said office.
“It is further alleged that the officers of election, in all of the voting precincts, were guilty of mal-conduct in this, that they and each of them did wrongfully and unlawfully open the polls at 6 o’clock a. m. of said day of election and close the polls at 5 o’clock p. m. of said day, instead of opening said polls at 9 o’clock a. m. and closing the same at 6 o’clock p, m.. as required by law.
“Defendant, by demurring, admits that the polls at said election were opened at 6 o’clock a. m. and closed at 5 o’clock p. m. The special charter of the city of Santa Rosa provides that.
“At all city elections the polls shall be opened at 9 o’clock a. m. and closed at 6 p. m.” The law applicable to general state elections was followed instead of the requirements of the charter. The polls were opened about three hours earlier and closed one hour earlier than they should have been. The question, therefore, to be solved is whether this departure from the election law invalidates and renders void the election; and second, if the election is nugatory, does Relator Prindle slate facts in his complaint to warrant the court in ousting Defendant Bagley and awarding Prindle the office, assuming that the facts alleged are true and can be proven.
“The solution of the first point requires no originality on my part. The point has been recently decided by the supreme court of this state, and its decisions establish the law, however conflicting the law may be in other states. In Salinas city a contest arose between one Hill and Frazee as to which, if either, was entitled to hold the office of mayor of said city. The city was divided into three wards. Hill was declared elected by the council. The matter went into the superior court, where the vote of two wards was thrown out as illegal, because the election boards in two of the wards had closed the polls an hour too soon, and Frazee was declared elected because he had a majority of the votes cast in the third ward, where the election board had properly followed the law of the city charter instead of the law applicable to general elections. Hill appealed to the supreme court. That court held that the vote of the two wards was properly thrown out and the result was properly determined by the count of the ward where the board followed the law of the charter.
‘The cases of People vs. Scale, 52 Cal., 620, Directors of Philbrook Irrigation District vs. Abila, 106 Cal., 365, and Tebbe vs. Smith, 108 Cal.. 101, are to the same effect. The case of Atkinson vs. Lorbeer. 111 Cal.. 419, holds that election laws as to time and place are mandatory. These authorities dispose of the first question as to the legality of elections conducted in a manner contrary to law.
“Conceding, then, theelection of April 4, 1900. to be illegal, does Prindle state facts in his complaint to warrant the court in making a decree declaring him to be entitled to the office? Section 804 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that he must set forth in the complaint a statement of his right to the office. In doing so he has alleged that on April 6, 1898, he was regularly elected to the office of recorder of the city of Santa Rosa and obtained his certificate of election to hold the same for a period of two years and until his successor is elected and qualified; that he duly and regularly qualified by giving the required bond and taking the required oath. He further alleges, on information and belief, that since the 11th day of April, 1900, the said W. P. Bagley has usurped, intruded into and unlawfully exercised, and now usurps, intrudes into and unlawfully exercises the said office of recorder of said city. He alleges that he performed the duties of that office at all times except when prevented from so doing by usurpation, intrusion and unlawful exercise of said office by said defendant. He prays, first, that the election of April 4, 1900, be declared illegal, null and void; second, that the defendant, W. P. Bagley, is not entitled to the said office and that he be ousted therefrom; third, that he be declared entitled to said office of recorder and that he be put, in possession of the same.
“I think the facts alleged and admitted, for the purpose of this demurrer, with other allegations properly alleged and admitted, show that the election of April 4th was illegally held and that, therefore, there was no election. The facts, as alleged, also show that Bagley is unlawfully holding the office. I think the facts, as alleged, also show that Prindle is entitled to the same.
“It may be proper to remark here, even upon demurrer, in order to avoid any confusion to the affairs of the city, that the present officers are de facto officers, and that their acts as far as the rights of the public or third persons are concerned, are just as valid and binding, and will be, as though there had been a valid election.
“The conclusion which I reach has resulted from considering paragraph 11 as an allegation of ultimate facts, and I see no objections to so using the words of the statute. Instead of using words which make up the definition of those words. “That paragraph is alleged upon information and belief. I have felt somewhat in doubt as to whether this was a good pleading, but find that it is so recognized in McDermott vs. Anaheim, etc.. Water Company. 124 Cal., 115. These facts, it is true, are peculiarly within the knowledge of the plaintiff, but the reason for the rule applicable to a defendant who makes such an allegation presumably within his own knowledge, does not apply to a plaintiff. I have examined the Colorado, Texas, New Jersey and other authorities cited by defendant, and find nothing to militate against the decision herein reached.
“It Is ordered that the demurrer be overruled. Defendant’s motion to strike out certain, parts of the complaint is also denied. It is so ordered.
“Dated July 12th. 1900. “S. K. Dougherty. Judge.”

Press Democrat, Number 83, 21 July 1900

THE ANSWER FILED

Mr. Bagley Replies to Mr.
Prindle’s Allegations

There May Have Been Other “Illegal
Ellections” Held in the City —
Interesting Document

In the Superior Court on Wednesday an interesting document was filed. It was the answer of City Recorder W. P. Bagley to the complaint in the case of the “People of the State of California, by Tirey L. Ford, Attorney General, upon the relation of Henry Prlndle, Plaintiff, against W. P. Bagley, Defendant.”
The overruling of the demurrer in this case a few days ago did not, as some newspapers in the county stated, end the contest. It then of course became the duty of the defendant to file his answer to the allegations of the complaint.
The answer avers that at the election held on April 4, Henry Prlndle received 605 legal votes and W. P. Bagley received 614 legal votes, and that when the vote was canvassed Mr, Bagley was declared to be elected city recorder. The answer denies that in each or in any precinct the officers of election were guilty of mal-eonduct. The defendant avers that for a period of eight years past all the officers and electors of the city of Santa Rosa, believing in good faith, that the general election laws of the state, which require that the polls be opened at sunrise and closed at 5 o’clock on the day of election, was applicable to and controlled the elections for officers in this city, and further, acting in good faith upon said belief, all the elections in Santa Rosa during the last eight or ten years, including the election of 1900. have been conducted in all respects as provided by the law of the state governing general elections.
It is further set forth that all these elections were carried out under the law by the officers of the city. Attention is called to the fact that the election proclamation published gave notice that the polls would be opened at sunrise and closed at 5 o’clock. The defendant avers upon information and belief that all the qualified electors of the city, who desired to vote at the election, save and except one such elector, did vote at said election, and denies that by reason of the closing of the polls at 5 o’clock, several electors were prevented from voting who would have voted.
The defendant denies that the conduct of the election officers was or is such as to render the election for the office of city recorder, Illegal, null or void; denies that W. P. Bagley was not elected to the office, but on the contrary avers that he was duly and regularly elected; denies that Bagley usurped the office of recorder.
The defendant upon information and belief denies that at the election for city officers held in Santa Rosa on April 6, 1898, a majority of the votes were cast for Henry Prlndle for recorder, but on the contrary the defendant avers that at said election, the election officers in each of the precincts opened the polls at sunrise and closed them at 5 o’clock, and that by the premature closing of the polls at the 1898 election, several qualified electors were prevented from voting who would have voted for the candidate opposing him (Prindle) for election to the office of recorder, and that the election was illegal and void and that Prlndle was not then or ever has been elected to the office of recorder of this city.
The defendant denies that Henry Prlndle duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office of recorder, but that he pretended to qualify, and that he unlawfully usurped the office; denies that at any time Mr. Prlndle was prevented from discharging the duties of office by reason of the usurpation, intrusion or unlawful exercise of the office by the defendant.
The defendant avers that on April 6, the relator, Henry Prlndle, commenced and established proceedings in accordance with and as provided by the laws incorporating the City of Santa Rosa, before the common council, to contest the election of W. P. Bagley to the office of recorder and thereafter abandoned and discontinued the proceedings so commenced.
The answer also states the fact that Prlndle brought a contest in the Superior Court on the grounds of malconduct of the officers, but that the court ascertained that Prlndle had received 605 legal votes and that Bagley had received 610 legal votes. The court rendered judgment dismissing the contest, and no appeal has been taken.
Attention is also called to the fact that for years the elections have been conducted In accordance with the laws governing elections of state and county officers, without objection from any person. The defendant avers that upon information and belief, that should the court determine that the April, 1900, election is illegal and void because the polls were opened at sunrise and closed at 5 o’clock, there will be instituted and prosecuted numerous actions to declare void the election of many officers, etc. Cowan & Juillard are the defendant’s attorneys.

San Francisco Call, Volume 87, Number 75, 14 August 1900

SUSTAINS CITY LAWS.

Important Decision Regarding a
Municipal Election.
SANTA ROSA. Aug. 13.— Judge Burnett cf the Superior Court this morning handed down an opinion in the suit of Henry Prindle to retain the City Recorder’s office, giving judgment to the plaintiff on the pleadings.
Henry Prindle was Recorder up to the time of the last ejection, when the incumbent, W. P. Bagley, was elected. Prindle was his opponent at the polls. In the name of the State Prindle brought suit to have Bagley’s election declared illegal upon the ground that the polls closed at 5 o’clock, in accordance with the State law, instead of 6 o’clock, as provided by the city charter. It is this contention, that the closing of the polls at 5 o’clock was illegal, that the court has sustained in its decision.
This is the first contest ever brought on the grounds named. Prindle himself was elected two years ago under precisely the same conditions he now alleges to be illegal. The matter will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The point of the decision is, of course, that the city charter must be followed in preference to the State law whenever the city has a duly adopted charter covering the matter of elections.

Press Democrat, Number 90, 15 August 1900

OPINION HANDED DOWN BY JUDGE BURNETT

” I think the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings that the election held in said city ot Santa Rosa on the 4th day of April, 1900, for the said office ot recorder is illegal, null and void, and that the defendant, W. P. Bagley is not entitled to said office; and that he be ousted therefrom, and that he pay the costs of the action.”
The above is the conclusion of the whole matter as set forth in the opinion handed down by Judge Burnett on Monday in the contest over the city recordership in which the People ex rel Henry Prindle was plaintiff and W. P. Bagley was defendant.
The court granted fifteen days in which to prepare and file a bill of exceptions

Press Democrat, Number 91, 18 August 1900

THE PRINDLE-BAGLEY DECISION

Shorn of its technicalities, stripped of its verbiage, and viewed from the standpoint of the layman, Judge Burnett’s decision in the Bagley case at first glance presents a decidedly anomalous appearance.
At a municipal election held in this city in April last, the opposing candidates for the office of recorder were W. P, Bagley and Henry Prindle. Bagley was declared elected. His opponent, unsatisfied, began contest proceedings. The matter was heard before Judge Burnett. He decided that Bagley had been duly elected and was entitled to the office.
Another contest was brought, this time upon a technicality. It was alleged that in following the provisions of the state law and closing the polls at 5 o’clock, instead of at 6 as provided for by the city charter, Bagley’s election had been invalidated. Disposition of the matter coming before Judge Burnett he decides that this contention is correct, that Bagley is not entitled to the office, that he be “ousted” therefrom and that Prindle be seated in his stead.
Such, in brief, is the history of the case. In rendering his decision Judge Burnett leaves no room for questioning his position in the matter. He plainly states that by reason of the conditions under which the election was held Mr. Bagley must step down and out, the man entitled to the office being William Prindle. YET EVERYBODY KNOWS AND IT WAS SHOWN IN THE PLEADINGS THAT PRINDLE WAS ELECTED UNDER PRECISELY THE SAME CONDITIONS TWO YEARS AGO.
We have no desire to take issue with the ruling of the court in the premises, nor are these remarks prompted by any spirit of pique. The fight made was a technical one and, technically speaking, the ruling is no doubt permissible. The phase of the matter to which we would call attention is contained in the fact that the disposition of the case presents a most striking example of the present tendency of our courts to observe the letter rather than the spirit of the law.
It was not with any such idea that our courts were founded. It is not with any such intention that they are supported by the people. In the case in point we have the same judge ruling: First, that Bagley is entitled to the office; second, that Bagley is not entitled to the office, and for certain reasons; third, that the reasons which operate against Bagley do not operate against Prindle —but only, of course because of a technicality. The effect of such decisions, irrespective of where the fault lies, is to prolong litigation and in many cases to defeat the ends of justice altogether.
We will presume for the sake of argument, that the case could be re-tried tomorrow before a court possessing both the inclination and the power to settle the matter in accordance with the plain dictates of fairness and justice, unhampered either by technicalities or rules of court. What would be the result? Assuming that the same showings could be made, and the principle of law involved remained the same, it is apparent that neither Prindle nor Bagley either would be given the office. The position would have to be declared vacant. The same conditions would affect both candidates with equal force. This would be justice, even if it were not law, and the fact that it is possible to make any such distinction in discussing the matter must in itself be considered a reflection upon our judicial system.

Press Democrat, Number 92, 22 August 1900
MR. HITCHCOCK’S LETTER

And lo, from Canada has yet another Daniel come to judgment! In a signed article appearing in last night’s Republican L. V. Hitchcock, chairman of the Republican county central committee, delivers himself as follows:
The Press Democrat in giving on Thursday morning what it claimed was ” the history of the Prindle-Bag-ley case,” stated that in the contest proceedings Judge Burnett “decided that Bagley had been duly elected and was entitled to the office.” This statement is so grossly unjust to Judge Burnett as to demand contradiction. The truth is (as any one can verify by looking at the records) that Judge Burnett did not render any decision whatever in that case, for the reason that Mr. Prindle after introducing the ballots in evidence dismissed the case.
This is, to say the least, a very flimsy statement for a gentleman of Mr. Hitchcock s standing to make.
It is true that Mr. Prindle after introdrucing the ballots in evidence [through his attorney] dismissed the case.”
But the reason he did so was because Judge Burnett, after taking all those ballots under consideration, had decided that 610 legal ballots had been cast for Bagley and only 605 for Prindle.
In other words he had decided that Bagley had been elected by a majority of five votes, and was entitled to the office. In commenting upon the matter at the time the Republican said:
Both Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Prindle admit that, while the court rejected thirty-nine Prindle ballots and only twenty-four Bagley ballots, the decisions could not have been different under the law.
In view of the above facts it becomes apparent that Mr. Hitchcock’s statement to the effect that “Judge Burnett did not render any decision whatever in that case” is a mere quibble made for the purpose of creating a false impression.
The Press Democrat did not publish the article above mentioned with the idea of bringing on a newspaper controversy. It was a plain, fair statement of the case from which certain conclusions, fully justified, but reflecting on no one in particular, were drawn. Next day the Republican replied in an article which we purposely overlooked. One of the statements contained in that article was this: “Mr. Prindle was counted out.” The day following, Mr. Hitchcock rushed into print. Friday afternoon when a Press Democrat representative called at the county clerk’s office to consult certain papers in the case, they were not on file, Judge Burnett having taken them to his private chambers. Taking into consideration both these and the facts mentioned above it is hard to avoid the conclusion that:
The whole matter is a very sensitive one with, the local leaders of the Republican party.
Mr. Hitchcock should in the future be more careful as to his statements.
So should the editor of the Santa Rosa Republican.
If anybody counted Mr. Prindle out it must have been Judge Burnett, for he counted the ballots in open court.

Press Democrat, Number 103, 29 September 1900

Bagley’s Turn to Sue

Word was received here yesterday that the Hon. Tirey L. Ford had given W. P. Bagley permission to bring suit in the name of the state against Henry Prindle, to oust Mr Prindle from the office of city recorder of Santa Rosa on the ground that he (Prindle) was elected to office at the 1898 election under precisely the same conditions as Mr Bagley was in 1900. It will be remembered that after Judge Burnett decided that the election for the office of city recorder was illegal, null and void, because the polls were closed at 5 o’clock instead of 6 o’clock in the evening, that Mr. Bagley through his attorneys, Messrs. Cowan and Julliard, applied for permission to sue Mr Prindle in the name of the state as slated above. Attorney L. V. Hitchcock, who represented Mr. Prindle in the contest proceedings was informed by General Ford that he had granted Mr. Bagley’s request.

San Francisco Call, Volume 87, Number 124, 2 October 1900

WILL ATTEMPT TO OUST SANTA ROSA’S COUNCIL

City Recorder Prindle to Bring Suit for Its Removal.

OFFICIALS IN QUEER TANGLE.

Fight for a Single Office May Result
in the Overturning of the Entire Municipal
Regime.

SANTA ROSA, Oct. 1.-City Recorder Henry Prindle to-day served notice upon Harrison White, John W. Keegan, L. L. Viers, M. J. Bower, George S. Brown and C.D. Johnson, constituting the City Council, that he proposes to apply to the Attorney General for permission to sue in the name of the State to have them one and all ousted from office. The ground taken is that their election last April was illegal.
The events leading up to Prindle’s action form an interesting story. At the last city electlon Henry Prindle and W. P. Bagley were opposing candidates for the office of City Recorder. Bagley was declared elected, but Prindle, who was then in possession of the office, having been elected two years ago, brought suit to have the election declared invalid upon the ground that the polls closed at 5 o’clock in conformity with the State law, instead of at 6 o clock, as provided by the city charter. The suit was successful and Bagley, who in the meantime had been seated, turned the office back to his opponent under protest. This was about a month ago.
Bagley on Saturday, by permission of the Attorney General, began a suit in turn to have Prindle ousted. As the city elections for the past ten or twelve years have been held accorrding to the State law, Prindle was elected under similar conditions to those just declared invalid in Bagley’s case. If Prindle’s election is declared illegal as was Bapley’s, the Council would appoint a man to the place. Prindle is a Republican and the Council is Democratic, and the assumption is that it would in such case appoint Bagley. If the election of the Council is declared invalid the Governor would appoint a new Council. The presumption is, at least, that he would appoint Republicans, who in turn would appoint Prindle. It is possible, therefore, that the fight for the offlice of Recorder, paying $50 per month may result in an almost complete change in Santa Rosa’s city offlcials.

Los Angeles Herald, 2 October 1900
SANTA ROSA’S MUDDLE
The City Officials May All Be Turned Out
City Recorder Prindle Claims Their Election
Was Illegal and Proposes to Sue Them in
the Name of the State

(By Associated. Press.)
Santa Rosa, Oct. 1. — City Recorder Henry Prindle today served notice upon members of the city council that he proposes to apply to the attorney general for permission to sue in the name of the state to have them, one and all, ousted from office. The ground taken is that their election last April was illegal.
The cause leading up to Prindle’s action forms an interesting story. At the last city election Henry Prindle and W. P. Bagley were opposing candidates for the office of city recorder. Bagley was declared elected, but Prindle, who was then in the possession of the office, having been elected two years ago, brought suit to have the election declared invalid on the grounds that the polls closed at 5 o’clock in conformity with the state law, instead of at 6 as provided by the city charter.
His suit was successful, and Bagley, who, in the meantime had been, seated, turned the office back to his opponent, but under protest. This was about a month ago. Saturday, Bagley by permission of the attorney general, began a suit in turn to have Prindle ousted, as the city elections for the past ten or twelve years have been held according to the state laws. If Prindle’s ejection is declared illegal, the council would appoint his successor.
Prindle is a republican and the council is democratic. The assumption is that it would, in such case, appoint Bagley. If the election of the council is declared invalid, the governor would appoint a new council. He would probably appoint republicans, who, in turn, would reappoint Prindle. It is possible, therefore, that the fight for the office of recorder, paying $50 a month, may result in an almost complete change in the matter of city officials.

Press Democrat, Number 104, 3 October 1900
PRINDLE MAY SUE

Seeks to Oust the City Council
of Santa Rosa

Will Ask the Attorney-General For
Permission to Sue The
Councilmen

Henry Prindle served notices on Monday afternoon on Councilmen Harrison White, G. S. Brown, J. W. Keegan, C. D. Johnson, M. J. Bower and L L. Viers that he has applied to the Hon. Tirey L. Ford, attorney general of the state, for leave to bring suit in the name of the state against them as councilman. The action Prindle asks to be permitted to bring is to have the couneilmen ousted from office upon the ground that the elections held in April, 1898, and in April, 1900, which placed them in office, were illegal, null and void because the ele – tion boards opened the polls at 6 o’clock and closed them at 5 o’clock, instead of having the voting from 9 a m. to 6 p. m.
This action grows out of the election contest proceedings of Prindle vs. Bagley over the city recordership. The step Prindle has taken now is somewhat interesting inasmuch us it will be remembered that he was elected city recorder at the election of 1898, the one he seeks to have declared null and void. As stated in the Press Democrat a few days ago, Mr. Bagley was given permission by the attorney general to sue Prindle over the matter of the recordership.
The document served upon the councilmen on Monday recites the details of the holding of the city elections in Santa Rosa in 1898 and 1900. Prindle asks that in addition to the ousting from office that the court adjudge that the defendants intruded into the office of councilmen and that they be fined $500..

Press Democrat, Number 1, 6 October 1900

PRINDLE’S PROPOSED SUIT

The men backing Henry Prindle in his contest for the office of city recorder have given formal notice of their intention to apply to the attorney general for permission to bring suit to oust the members of the city council from office.
Their assumption is, presumably, that if the suit is successful Governor Gage will appoint a new council from the ranks of the Lemmon faction of the Republican party, and that the individuals so appointed will in turn re-appoint Mr. Prindle to the position from which it is now apparent that the machinery of the law, which he himself set in motion, is soon to oust him.
The attorney general will be making a grave mistake if he allows any such suit to be brought. No good whatever can be accomplished by such a course, and it will be working a grave hardship and injustice upon the people of this city.
In the first place, Prindle has no rights in the premises that require protection. Except technically, he has no claim whatever upon the office he covets. This was decided before Judge Burnett in the Superior Court, where after examining and counting all the ballots cast at the recent election it was found that W P. Bagley had received the most legal votes and was entitled to the office.
The gentlemen now serving as members of the city council were elected fairly and squarely, and by large majorities. They were elected because the people wanted them to take charge of the city’s affairs.The office of attorney general of the state of California was not established for the purpose of doing cheap politics or helping controvert the will of the people.
The representative portion of this community has no desire to see the city plunged into useless and senseless litigation. During the past few years our people have learned to their cost what that sort of thing means, and they want no more of it. If the selfish interests back of Mr. Prindle persist in their efforts, they will have to take the consequences.

Press Democrat, Number 3, 13 October 1900

SUIT IS COMMENCED
The Contest Over the City
Recorder’s Office

The State, by Relator W. P. Bagley,
Brings an Action Against
Henry Prindle

In the Superior Court on Wednesday the action was commenced of “The People of the State of California, by Tlrey L. Ford, attorney general, upon the relation of W. P. Bagley, plaintiff, vs. Henry Prindle. defendant.”
The action involves the right of the defendant to hold the office of city recorder of Santa Rosa. As was stated in the Press Democrat some time ago, the attorney general gave Mr. Bagley leave to sue In the name of the state.
The complaint sets forth that at the time of the election in Santa Rosa in 1898, the polls in each of the voting precincts were opened at 8 o’clock in the morning on the day of the election and were closed at 5 o’clock in the afternoon, instead of being opened a it 9 o’clock in the morning and being closed at 6 o’clock in the evening, as required by law, and that at this election Prindle was declared to be elected recorder.
It is alleged that by reason of the polls closing at 5 o’clock instead of at 6, several qualified electors who would have voted for M. M. Speegle, Prindle’s opponent. The mal-conduct of the officers of election was and is such as to render the election for city recorder illegal and that Henry Prlndle was not elected to the office of city recorder.
Plaintiff prays judgment:
First—That the election held in the city of Santa Rosa on April 6th, 1898, for said office of recorder be declared illegal, null and void.
Second —That the defendant, Henry Prindle, is not entitled to said office of recorder and that he be ousted and excluded therefrom and that he pay the costs of this action.
Third —That it be declared that Henry Prindle usurps, intrudes into and unlawfully exercises said office of recorder.
Fourth —That plaintiff have such other and further relief as may be proper in the premises.
Upon exactly the same conditions as those set forth in the complaint filed in this action, Mr. Bagley, who was elected recorder last April, was ousted from office on August 14. It would seem that a similar judgment as that meted out to Mr. Bagley will be meted out to Mr. Prindle, their elections having been held and conducted in the same manner, irregularities existing in each. Cowan & Juilliard are the attorneys for the plaintiff.

San Francisco Call, Volume 87, Number 145, 23 October 1900
BRINGS SUIT TO OUST SANTA ROSA’S COUNCIL

Sequel to a Peculiar Tangle Brought

About by an Election Contest.

SANTA ROSA, Oct. 22.— By permission of the Attorney General, suit was to-day brought in the Superior Court to oust the entire City Council from office, upon the ground that at the last city election the polls were closed at 5 o’clock, in conformity with the State law, instead of at 6 o’clock, as provided by the city charter. At the last election, held in April of the present year, the opposing candidates for City Recorder were William Prlndle incumbent, Republican nominee for re-elec-tion, and W. P. Bagley, the Democratic candidate. Bagley was declared elected by one vote, given his certificate of election, and at the proper time entered upon the discharge of his duttes. Prindle began a contest and a recount of the vcte was had before Judge Burnett of the Superior Court. The recount showed Bagley had received the most legal votes and increased his majority to eight. At the request of Prindle’s attorney the case was dismissed at this stage, no decision being necessary.

A short time afterward Prindle applied for and received permission to bring suit in the name of the State -to have Bagley’s election declared invalid, upon the ground that the polls closed at 5 o’clock. The case came to trial and Prindle’s contention was held to be correct, Bagley there upon surrendered the office, but under protest.

As the election last year was held in accordance with the custom followed here for the past ten years, Prindle was elected under precisely the same conditions, and Bagley in turn brought suit to have Prindle ousted. This case has not yet come to trial and the suit filed to-day is an attempt to anticipate it and keep Prindle in office.

Press Democrat, Number 6, 24 October 1900
PRINDLE AND HIS SUIT

The action begun Monday to oust the members of the city council from office shows the true character of Henry Prindle and the men and influence back of him in his struggle for the city recordership.
It is not even PRETENDED that any public good is to be subserved. There is no wrong to be righted. They are not even justified in their course by the drift of public sentiment. IT IS A BOLD AND DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO OVER-RIDE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AS EXPRESSED AT THE POLLS, AND FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN !
Henry Prindle has no right, either in justice or in law, to the office he is so anxious to hold. He thought so, and brought suit in the Superior Court to find out. The ballots were recounted, with Judge Albert G. Burnett presiding, and it was found that his opponent, W. P. Bagley, had received the most legal votes cast. Both Prindle and his attomey publicly admitted the fact at the time.
Bagley entered this contest with a majority of only one vote. He finished with a majority of eight.
Never since that day, when upon Prindle’s own motion the case was dismissed and the contest upon its merits abandoned, have any methods but those of chicanery been employed in the matter. “If we can’t get this office by fair means, we’ll take it by foul,” seems to have been the motto. IT WAS THIS SAME SPIRIT AND THESE SAME INFLUENCES THAT PROMPTED THE FRAUDS IN WILSON PRECINCT AT THE LAST COUNTY ELECTION, WHEN FORTY VOTES IN ONE PRECINCT WERE PURPOSELY COUNTED FOR THE WRONG MAN !
Having demonstrated the fact that it is controlled by men actuated by no desire but for the spoils of office, and having shown that it will hesitate at nothing in the effort to gain its ends, the Republican machine must prepare to take the consequences. A party that will stuff a ballot box in the attempt to gain a representative on the board of supervisors and try to upset the entire machinery of a city government in the hope of keeping a country police judge in possession of an office upon which he has no rightful claim is a public enemy and THE PEOPLE OWE IT TO THEMSELVES TO SEE THAT IT IS BURIED AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY, BURIED DEEP AND FOREVER, THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEMANDS IT !

=======================

PRINDLE’S ACTION
Asks the Court to Oust
Santa Rosa’s Councilmen
For His Fifty-Dollar-a-Month
Job He Would Try to Upset the
City Government

In the Superior Court on Monday Henry Prindle, in the name of the State of California, commenced an action, the object of which is to oust, if possible, the city council of Santa Rosa, on the ground that the elections held in Santa Rosa in April, 1898, and 1900, were illegal because the polls closed at 5 o’clock in conformity with the state law instead of at 6 o’clock in conformity with the charter.
The action is against Councilmen Harrison White, C. D. Johnson, M. J. Bower, J. W. Keegan, G. S. Brown and L. L. Veirs.
The action commenced on Monday is similar to that brought in the contest over the city recorder’s office, and is the outgrowth of those proceedings. For the sake of his fifty-dollar-a-month office Prindle seeks to upset the entire city government. The history of the matter briefly stated is as follows:
At the last election, held in April of the present year, the two opposing candidates for city recorder were Henry Prindle. incumbent and Republican nominee for re-election, and W. P. Bagley, the Democratic candidate. Bagley was declared elected by one vote, given his certificate of election and at the proper time entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office. Prindle began contest proceedings, and a recount of the votes was had before Judge A. G. Burnett.
The recount showed that Bagley received the most legal votes, and increaced his majority. A short time afterwards Prindle applied to and received permission to bring suit in the name of the state to have Bagley’s election declared invalid, upon the ground that the polls closed at 5 o’clock instead of at 6, the state law and not the charter having been followed. The matter came to trial and Prindle’s contention was held to be correct. Bagley thereupon turned over the office to Prindle, but under protest. As the election last year was in accordance with the custom that has been followed here for the past ten years, Prindle was elected under precisely the same conditions declared illegal, and Bagley in turn brought suit to have Prindle ousted.
This suit has not yet come to trial, and the suit filed Monday is an attempt to keep Prindle in office. It is presumed that if the members of the council are ousted Governor Gage will appoint their successors from the ranks of the Republican party, and they will in turn appoint Prindle, who would then hold by appointment.

Press Democrat, Number 7, 27 October 1900
A NEW CODE OF ETHICS (Page 3)

In a feeble attempt to justify the course taken by Henry Prindle and the men and influences back of him in his contest for the office of city recorder, our high-minded contemporary does the baby act and charges this paper with being “unfair.” Wherein does this “unfairness” rest?
Whence comes this modern code of ethics, according to which the exposure of political corruption, the unmasking of scheming political hypocrisy, and the denunciation of low chicanery, becomes “unfair”?
Since when and by whom is it held to be “unfair” to denounce the debauchery of the ballot, rottenness in high places, and dishonesty in public office? Whose finer sensibilities are these we have so sadly jarred?
The Press Democrat charged, and it charges again, that the action of Henry Prindle and the men back of him in attempting to oust the members of the city council from office upon a technicality through which no one has been injured and in which Prindle himself had shared, is a deliberate attempt to over-ride the will of the people as expressed at the polls, and purely for personal and political gain.
The action of Attorney General Tlrey L. Ford in sanctioning any such action should and will condemn him forever in the minds of all decent people. Here is a fact he may not think the people fully recognize, but they do; His office was not established nor was he elected for the purpose of doing cheap Republican politics. IF ATTORNEY GENERAL FORD HAD ANY OTHER MOTIVE. OR ANY OTHER REASON FOR HIS ACTION IN GIVING PRINDLE PERMISSION TO TRY TO OVERTHROW THE ENTIRE CITY GOVERNMENT OF SANTA ROSA, EXCEPT A DESIRE TO ACCOMMODATE HIS POLITICAL FRIENDS, HE IS INVITED TO SHOW WHAT IT WAS AND WHAT GOOD HE EXPECTED TO ACCOMPLISH OR WHAT GREAT WRONG HE DESIRED TO SEE RIGHTED.
Protest as it may, the Republican party will never be able to escape the responsibility of this latest evidence of political depravity. It can no more do so than it can wipe out the stain of the Wilson precinct frauds cr the “counting out” of the Democratic candidate for marshal in this city a few years ago. THE ONLY WAY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THIS CITY AND COUNTY CAN EVER REHABILITATE ITSELF BEFORE THE PEOPLE W’ILL BE BY REPUDIATING THE LEADERS RESPONSIBLE, AND AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE MOMENT. THE OLD MACHINE IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE, AND EVERY’BODY KNOWS IT !

==================================
FALLS SHORT OF THE MARK (Page 2)

Stung to the point of desperation Postmaster Lemmon devotes a large portion of Thursday evening’s issue of his paper to a sweeping denial of the recent charges made by the Press Democrat in the Prindle matter. He denies everything, attempts to explain matters and tries to tell how it all happened.
Unfortunately for him and his party it is a denial that no one will believe, and an explanation that none will accept. THE FACTS ARE TOO APPARENT TO BE TALKED DOWN BY ANY INTERESTED PARTISAN. You can’t make a man doubt the existence of a thing he can see for himself by simply looking right ahead.
This paper re-iterates the charge that the attempt of Henry Prindle and the men and influences back of him to oust the city council from office is A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO OVER-RIDE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AS EXPRESSED AT THE POLLS, AND FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN.
Although it is of course entirely unnecessary, we also repeat the charge that the whole thing is only another piece of THE SAME OLD WORK BY THE SAME OLD GANG. If anybody doubts it, we advise him to seek the services of a brain specialist at the earliest possible moment. His mentality is certainly in a very bad way.

Press Democrat, Number 8, 31 October 1900

OFFICE-STEALING BY WHOLESALE

A Santa Rosa attorney, who until a few weeks ago was chairman of the Republican county central committee, is out in an open letter signed ” Henry Prindle,” and addressed to the editor of the Press Democrat. The document purports to be an answer to the charges made by this paper in connection with the attempt now being made by certain men who are using Mr. Prindle as a cat’s paw to oust the members of the city council from office. A good idea of the character of the letter and the puerile argument being advanced to back up their position may be gained from the following extracts. which cover the principal points made: You have stated that I was making ‘a bold and deliberate attempt to over-ride the will of the people as expressed at the polls’ [maintaining, of course, that such is not the case]. If the election boards had counted the ballots correctly I should have had eight majority. You have never at any time mentioned in your paper anything in regard to such miscount by the election boards. Had the writer of the above been more familiar with local conditions, he would probably not have made the mistake of assuming that the people of Santa Rosa and Sonoma county are all fools. If he thinks they are lying awake nights speculating as to the outcome of the suit of Prindle vs. Bagley he is sadly mistaken. The people have their eye on the real issue in the case —the attempt to OUST THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL from office upon an empty technicality and USURP THE REINS OF THE ENTIRE CITY GOVERNMENT I The present council will hardly be apt to re-appoint Mr. Prindle to the office of City Recorder, when, as now appears inevitable, the courts shall have declared him not entitled to the position he at present occupies. His only hope lies in the ousting of the present council and in the appointment of a Republican body friendly to him and to the men and influences backing him. The public knows what is at stake —that when this is accomplished every other city office will be declared vacant upon the point of law now’ involved and that the new council will appoint new officers all down the line. IN THE NAME OF HEAVEN, IF THAT WILL NOT BE “ OVER-RIDING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AS EXPRESSED AT THE POLLS,” WHAT WILL ? As to the other matters mentioned in Mr. Hitchcock’s letter, they are too trivial to discuss. He claims that “if the election boards had counted the ballots correctly” Prindle would have had eight majority. It is unfortunate that his views and those of Judge Burnett do not coincide. When Judge Burnett counted —or •miscounted” —the ballots in open court the exact opposite was found to be the case.

Press Democrat, Number 20, 12 December 1900
THE PRINDLE CASE AGAIN

Commonplaces

Aide-Memoire

1900 – SANTA ROSA’S MUDDLE

Leave a Reply Cancel reply