GOVERNOR, 1905
organization. Under the influence of Durham and others, an act was passed, taking away from the mayor the appointment of certain heads of departments and vesting it in the city councils. It is extremely unlikely that Durham so acted out of regard for the principles of government and altogether probable that he was trying to get ahead of Weaver and to provide against like conduct on the part of future mayors. The newspapers of the city, equally impervious to any consideration of what would be for the benefit of the municipality, were against anything the organization wanted or tried to do and, therefore, with great violence opposed the measure. They called it vile names and made ugly pictures. They assumed that I would veto the bill. They argued that my integrity and my zeal for the welfare of the community and all my well-known great virtues left no other course open. Delegations of lawyers, preachers and citizens came to Harrisburg and argued the matter before me. I wrote an opinion and, resting on the ground that it involved a matter of governmental policy, that the bill had been passed by a majority of over two-thirds of the members of the legislature, more than enough to overcome the veto of the governor, that the representatives from Philadelphia had so voted and that it was in line with the democratic tendencies of the time, I signed the bill. Incidentally it may be added that, except in cases of exceptional fitness, no man born abroad, like John Weaver or Rudolph Blankenburg, ought to be elected mayor of Philadelphia, for the reason that, having no part in her traditions, he cannot be in sympathy with the aspirations and thought of her people. He would be continually trying to make her imitate Hamburg or some other European town which he has abandoned, criticising the ways which made her famous, sending the Liberty Bell to be exhibited along with fat cattle at state fairs, and doing similar antics which show his misfit.
On the 26th of April the Republican Convention met and
