Although disappointed that the abatement law was not to go into effect in August, some of the women leaders saw an opportunity in this delay to educate citizens further in the intent of the law itself. In this way they could insure more intelligent public support when it should finally become operative. At this stage of readjustment the questionable methods and support behind the anti-abatement referendum were suddenly exposed by the discovery that hundreds—and since then, thousands—of signatures to the petitions were not genuine. So many, indeed, that, if the facts had been known before the petitions were certified, there might have been enough to invalidate the referendum itself.
The Property Owners’ Protective Association had declared that they would get these signatures outside the bay cities in order to prove that the country was as much opposed as the cities to the law. But a scrutiny of the petitions from each county shows that out of a total of 31,930 signatures certified, 53 per cent. (17,119) were from San Francisco alone and that Alameda and San Francisco counties together furnished 60 per cent. of the whole, while Los Angeles gave only 19 per cent., Sacramento less than 5 per cent. and each of the other counties a negligible hundred or two names.
These figures showed where the enemy lived. The fight against this law was being made by the vice-and-liquor combination of San Francisco and Oakland, backed by property owners who were reaping the rentals of the tenderloin districts but dared not let their names be known. Against such as these, women citizens had no direct recourse. But they addressed themselves to the district attorney of San Francisco, whose duty it was to prosecute the offenders.
But in spite of the fact that forged names appeared on the referendum petitions, no indictments were made. Early in December it looked as if nothing further would be done about these frauds. The district attorney gave little evidence of continuing the cases. But until he definitely refused to take action, the governor could not be expected to direct the attorney-general to take the matter out of the district attorney’s hands.
Various committees of women continued to urge action upon the district attorney, and one group from the San Francisco Center of the California Civic League made it their business to visit him week after week to inquire what he intended to do about these forgeries. On each occasion he refused to commit himself definitely, but he could not put his polite questioners out of the office—they were women of too much social backing. Besides, all these committees of women were voters and leaders, perhaps, of unnumbered feminine electors. An uncomfortable plight certainly for an official who might not wish to go on record on a ticklish question.