“The Press Democrat prides itself upon the fact that it never intentionally misrepresents things,” boasted PD editor Ernest Finley, as his newspaper continued to misrepresent nearly everything about the reformers who wanted to clean up Santa Rosa.

Part one of this series introduced the bitter divisions shown in the 1908 city elections. On one side were the “Good Ol’ Boys” who wanted to maintain the status quo; so determined were they to hold their grasp on the town that the Democratic and Republican parties jointly offered a “fusion” slate of the same candidates. Opposing them was an alliance of prohibitionists, anti-corruption progressives, and voters angered over the City Council’s legalization of prostitution. The reform group called itself the “Municipal League,” and was headed by a former District Attorney, who raised eyebrows during the campaign by naming the four powerful men whom he claimed were the “bosses” of Santa Rosa. He might as well have expanded the list to include a fifth name: Ernest Latimer Finley, editor, publisher, and co-owner of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

Finley reached deep into the grab-bag of yellow journalism tricks to attack the reformers, which he did relentlessly and with a disregard for fairness that must have been shocking at the time. These were the tactics expected from a big city paper on a campaign to tear down a corrupt political machine or expose racketeers, not what a newspaper editor in a small farm town (pop. about 9,500) would normally write about a sizable portion of the community, and possibly the majority of voters, at that. Finley’s bile was so thick that some in the Municipal League called for supporters to cancel their subscription to the PD – which only allowed Finley to additionally play the victim card, claiming the newspaper was threatened with a “cowardly and un-American” boycott.

Some examples of the Press Democrat mud fling were given in part one, with Finley bowling over straw men and feigning outrage over literal interpretations of things said by reformers (as in: The PD was “owned” by the Good Ol’ Boys). These kinds of misrepresentations continued for weeks.

Because the Municipal League was endorsed by the “Santa Rosa Ministerial Union,” Finley wrote “the so-called Municipal League has been nothing more and nothing less than a church movement, organized and launched by the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union. As such, every possible effort has been made to hide the fact.” The PD also painted the Ministerial Union as a shadowy cabal that didn’t even have the support of most area clergy, and when the group objected to the paper’s “nasty disposition towards the members of the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union,” Finley offered the audacious defense that “the Press Democrat is not unfriendly in the least to either the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union or any of its members” (and this was on the same April 2 page where he claimed the PD never intentionally misrepresented anything).

But charging that the Municipal League was really the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union in disguise was just Finley’s groundwork for his more vicious attack: Since the Ministerial Union was pro-prohibition, the Municipal League candidates must also have a secret agenda to force prohibition upon Santa Rosa – and that the reformers were hypocrites for repeatedly denying they wanted to turn the town dry. Two days before the election, Finley openly accused them of lying:

The art of yellow journalism, however, is found not in what you write – it’s what you don’t. The PD had demonstrated its mastery of this technique a few months earlier, when a popular downtown restaurant gave numerous people serious cases of food poisoning, yet the Press Democrat did not once mention the restaurant’s name (the joint, BTW, advertised exclusively in their paper). Now what Ernest Finley didn’t want readers to know was that the true fathers of the Municipal League were two of the most respected men in town: ex-mayor J. S. Sweet, head of the Santa Rosa Business College, and Luther Burbank.

Almost three years earlier, Sweet and Burbank were president and VP of the newly-formed “Good Government League,” which was likewise an effort to create a political organization to clean up Santa Rosa. And just as with his attacks on the Municipal League, Finley accused the 1905 group of being secretive elitists who didn’t care if they damaged the town’s image by pointing out that reform was needed.

Now in 1908, the PD did its best to not mention the men at all, particularly the lionized Luther Burbank. When Burbank spoke at the election eve rally, the Press Democrat reported only that “Mr. Burbank read a carefully prepared statement of some length,” and that Prof. Sweet complimented the city’s current administration before telling a cryptic anecdote. In contrast, the Santa Rosa Republican published Burbank’s remarks, and reported that Sweet detailed the history of the town’s reform Leagues, including their formation by “some two or three hundred men all prominently connected with the business interests of the city.” The truth apparently was the opposite of Finley’s portrayal of the reformers as naive, church-led prohibitionists.

As the campaigns came to a close, Finley took one last mean jab at the reformers:

With that gem of Orwellian newspeak, all benefit of doubt vanishes that Finley was simply misinformed. After weeks of flinging accusations against the Municipal League, it was contemptible for him to speak of “hard feelings” and “unjust and uncalled-for attacks.” This was the cry of a thug who jumped someone from behind, kicked him in the head, and later complained that the victim scuffed the shine of his jackboot.

“The Press Democrat prides itself upon the fact that it never intentionally misrepresents things, and, when it comes to publishing the news, the fact that it appears in this paper may usually be taken as a guarantee of its authenticity.”

THE PREACHER IN POLITICS

For some time past the morning paper of Santa Rosa has entertained and repeatedly expressed a nasty disposition towards the members of the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union, and it embraces every possible opportunity to make insinuating flings at the various clergyman of this city.–Ministerial Union.

The above statement is not true.

The Press Democrat is not unfriendly in the least to either the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union or any of its members.

We have never yet, at any time or under any circumstances, criticized the acts of any of the Santa Rosa ministers as long as they confined their attention to matter spiritual.

In his legitimate field, the minister of the gospel is entitled to and usually receives the encouragement and support of all right-thinking people.

They have certainly always received it at the hands of the Press Democrat, and they always will.

But we know of no reason why a minister of the gospel should expect to be exempt from criticism when he goes into politics, anymore than anyone else.

In everything we have had to say upon the subject of “the preacher in politics,” we have endeavored to be courteous, reasonable and fair.

When we have said we were opposed to the preacher in politics, we have always given our reason for it.

We believe these reasons have been good reasons.

When the preacher goes into politics he usually does his cause more harm than good. The majority of people are opposed to the coalition of church and state and rightfully so; and, almost invariably, the interference of the minister and political affairs results in alienating valuable support that might otherwise be made to operate for the good of the cause. We see this every day. It has been evidenced here time and again. It is being evidenced in Santa Rosa right now.

– Press Democrat editorial, April 2, 1908

A CAMPAIGN OF HOLLOW PRETENSE AND FALSE ISSUES

Our first article in reference to the present campaign, which appeared on Wednesday morning, March 18, began with these words:

Judging from the initial numbers of the paper to be issued from now on to election by the so-called Municipal League–which, as everyone by this time no doubt fully realizes is little more than the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union acting by proxy and parading in disguise–the campaign to be conducted by that organization promises to bear a close resemblance to the one that was put up in this city two years ago.

In other words, the people are to be asked to believe a lot of things that are not true, and are to be told what to do by men who have had little if any experience in the handling of public affairs, and who when it comes to a discussion of such matters give evidence at every turn they do not know what they are talking about.

The battle is now practically over. If there was ever a correct forecast of impending conditions, it appeared in the above. From start to finish the League’s campaign has been based on false issues, and, with few if any exceptions, the things said have been untrue. All kinds of charges have been made, only to be shown as false and then dropped, or dropped before being answered at all. Bad feelings have been stirred up unnecessarily, and personal vilification has been indulged in to an extent seldom if ever before known here.

Although the campaign as waged by the manipulators of the so-called Municipal League has been nothing more and nothing less than a church movement, organized and launched by the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union. As such, every possible effort has been made to hide the fact. One of the officers of that body even went so far as to deny, in a signed statement, that there was “even the shadow of a foundation” upon which to base such a charge. Yet more than six months ago the official organ of the Ministerial Union announced that it would have a ticket in the field, the fund from which the expenses are being paid was raised at a mass meeting called by the Ministerial Union, and Mr. Thompson formally opened his campaign from the platform of a revival meeting arranged and conducted under the direct auspices of the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union, as such.

While every man, woman and child in Santa Rosa knows differently and realizes fully that the election of the so-called Municipal League is intended as the entering wedge towards prohibition, the League nominees and the League paper have contended–and still so contend, for that matter–that no anti-saloon legislation is contemplated and any assertion to the effect that this is a movement calculated to effect the saloon business in any way is a “campaign lie.”

The people who oppose such things have every right to try to close up the saloons if they wish. But why should they not come out and make their fight in the open? The course they have followed in this respect has done their cause far more harm than good, for the public very naturally argues that any man or set of men who would attempt to secure control of public affairs through misrepresentation by purposely misleading the voters are hardly the men to be entrusted with responsibility and power.

One of the charges made by the so-called Municipal League is that the ticket named by the Democratic and Republican parties was named by a “clique,” while, by inference at least, the League ticket is free from even a suspicion of such a thing. The fact is that the Democratic and Republican tickets were nominated at open mass meetings, to which all were invited by notice published in the newspapers and otherwise, while the League ticket was “nominated” by half a dozen men who met in secret, and allowed no intimation of their plan to be given publicly until the names of the nominees were published in an afternoon paper, together with the endorsement that they had been “nominated.” Probably two or three hundred men participated in the nomination of the candidates whose names appear on the Democratic and Republican tickets. Not more than five or six men in the outside participated in the “nomination” of the League ticket.

One of the League’s favorite topics for discussion has been the social evil, and this has been handled pretty much as everything else. Until the Press Democrat pointed out the facts, many people had an idea that nothing of the kind has ever existed here before, and that the action of the present administration in putting the tenderloin district under strict control was really and attempt to let down the bars and encourage that sort of traffic. The exact opposite is the case, and at the meeting in Germania Hall a few nights since one of the leading candidates publicly admitted it from the platform. The tenderloin district has existed in its present locality for 30 years and has never been regulated before, save by the power of some policeman’s club. Except that due authority is now provided for exercising supervision and control, conditions have not been changed in the least. The boarding houses resolution licenses the sale of liquor, and that is all.

[..included in previous section..]

Mr. Thompson and his official organ have had a good deal to say on the subject of boycotts, and tried to make it appear that an attempt was being made to influence voters through the withdrawal of patronage. The only boycott we know anything about is the one that has been declared by the Santa Rosa Ministerial Union against the Press Democrat. Perhaps it is hardly fair to refer to this as a boycott, although a determined effort is being made by some members of that organization to induce people to discontinue their subscriptions to this paper and withdraw their patronage. In spite of this we are sending out more papers than ever before so the effort does not appear to have been particularly successful. But it is being made, nevertheless, and the fact will not be denied.

While voicing his great love for the laboring man, Mr. Thompson declares himself as against those proposed public improvements which are calculated to assist most in creating work for the artisan and furnishing him with profitable employment. And while he stands as the acknowledged and admitted representative of the men who, with a few exceptions, can always be counted upon to oppose progress, he asks the laboring man to vote for him instead of for Mr. Gray upon the ground that it will be to his best interests to do so. But the man who works for his living knows without being told where his interests lie in the present fight. If Mr. Gray and the progress ticket is elected, new people will be brought in, public and private improvements will be promoted in every possible way and the threatened period of business depression and hard times very likely averted.

From the first, the League has claimed that one of the principal reasons it was organized was because of a “general desire” upon the part of somebody or other to “do away with the unpleasant features” that usually attach to municipal campaigns. Yet it is no exaggeration to say that more hard feelings has been stirred up, and more little narrow, petty, mean work done than in any previous campaign in all the city’s history. Charges so silly as to be absurd on the face have been advanced in all apparent seriousness, unjust and uncalled-for attacks upon some of the best-known people of the community have been framed up solely because it was imagined that votes could be obtained thereby, and Santa Rosa will not be apt to recover from the effects for a long time to come.

– Press Democrat editorial, April 5, 1908

LARGE CROWD AT THE LAST MEETING
Municipal League Campaign Closes With Demonstration at Rink With Dr. D. P. Anderson Presiding

The Municipal League closed its campaign Monday night with a largely attended meeting at the rink. In addition to many women and children, a large number of out-of-town people who heard Mr. Thompson open his campaign at the Bulgin meetings were present to hear his closing address.

Dr. D. P. Anderson called the gathering to order made quite an address, in which he took occasion to quote freely from the Press Democrat and pay a high compliment to Luther Burbank who he then introduced as president of the meeting. Mr. Burbank read a carefully prepared statement of some length, after which he returned to his seat and was seen or heard of no more except as referred to by various speakers.

Dr. Anderson retained active control of the gathering and introduced the speakers in turn with some remarks bearing on their candidacy. Former Mayor J. S. Sweet was the main speaker of the evening, outside of Mr. Thompson, and after a flattering endorsement of the work of the present administration he explained his interest in the present campaign with the story of a young man who came from Cloverdale to his school but failed to break away from former bad habits when he came to Santa Rosa and had to be sent home.

…the nominees for councilmen, which were each presented in turn, and spoke a few words after which R. L. Thompson, the League candidate for mayor, was introduced to close the speechmaking. He made his usual explanations and statements as to the other meetings of the campaign, but was unable to hold his audience, and was forced to close before he had completed what he desired to say. Many present expressed the sentiment that the meeting had proved a failure as a vote-getter and in fact had helped the Fusion cause.

– Press Democrat, April 7, 1908

RINK WAS PACKED FULL
Immense Crowd Attended Campaign Closing

The rally held by the Municipal League at the skating rink on Monday evening to close the city campaign was one of the large political meetings ever held in the city. The rink was crowded to the doors and enthusiasm was at a high pitch. The crowd began to gather early and by the time for the calling of the meeting to order there was hardly standing room. The speakers and candidates, and the vice presidents had gathered in an adjoining room, and marched down the aisle to the stand, amid the wildest scenes of applause, especially as Rolfe L. Thompson, candidate for mayor, and Mr. Luther Burbank, appeared.

The meeting was opened by the singing of America… Mr. Burbank was greeted with hearty applause and his remarks were well received. The address of Mr. Burbank is printed elsewhere in this paper.

Before closing Mr. Burbank stated he did not feel able to take the active control the meeting, and asked Dr. Anderson to continue as chairman. Dr. Anderson then introduced ex-mayor J. S. Sweet, who is president of the Santa Rosa Business College, and one of the most influential citizens of the City of Roses. Mr. Sweet evidenced considerable earnestness in his remarks, and gave a brief history of the movement which he said has resulted in the present Municipal league. He told of the forming of the Good Government League in his own building 2 1/2 years ago, and that there were some two or three hundred men all prominently connected with the business interests of the city, who were in that movement. He also paid a glowing tribute to retiring Mayor Overton, and his efforts during the past two years, for the rebuilding of the city…

…The last speaker of the evening was the candidate for mayor, Rolfe L. Thompson, and it was several minutes before the applause subsided sufficient to be heard. Mr. Thompson made a very earnest, clear-cut speech and was often interrupted by the audience with their cheers. He took up the various issues of the campaign and reviewed them, telling the people what he proposed to do in case he is the choice for the first place in the city government. At one time during the address the feeling was at a very high pitch, as the speaker read from a publication a sacrilegious expression.

During the evening the Municipal Glee Club rendered a number of witty songs bearing upon the campaign and the candidates. The closing piece by the club was written by Will C. Grant, and was one of the best campaign songs heard in a long time.

– Santa Rosa Republican, April 7, 1908

Read More