St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-04-09

IOWlUS report.
The secretary was instructed to read the
report, and for nearly half hour poured hot
shot into his excellency. The report fol-
lows:
The Democratic Protest.
The Hennepin county delegation. to whom
was referred the veto message of the gov
ernor respecting Senate File No. 126 entitled
"A Bill to Revise, Amend and Consolidate
the Charter of the City of Minneapolis and to
Unite the Various Boards and Departments
of Said City," do respectfully report as fol-
lows:
We have duly considered the objections as
signed by his eXcellency, the governor, to
said bill and we recommend that, notwith-
standing such objections, such bill do pass.
In support of our recommendation we sub
NIT the lowing considerations:
The bill in question is local bill, affecting
the city of Minneapolis alone. 1t received
the Endorsement and support of Is out of the
u members of the Hennepin county deiegl-
ton. 1t passed the house of representatives
by unanimous vote, and in this house,
upon its final passage. only four votes are re
corded in the negative.
We are informed that after its passage the
bill was submitted to the attorney general of
this state, and that he theTeupon advised the
governor that it was in no manner objection
able on legal or constitutional grounds. The
governor, subsequently,, in conversation with
individual members of this delegation, an
nCunced that the bill being local bill, must
receive his approval
Notwithstanding these facts, the bill has
received the disapproyal OF the governor
and the simple question presented for the
consideration of this house ls whether or not
the reasons assigned by the message justify
the veto of a bill local III its nature, having
the support of the local delegation. and
which has passed both houses with substan-
tial uDanimity.
Like scores of other bills which have been
pa: s9d by the legislature of this state, and
which have received executive approval,
this bill does seek Ito cnange the organic
act of the city of Minneapolis. Every act
which in any degree amends or alters the
existing charter would have like effect.
Instead OF 'inaugurating Il Capitalization
Of power, which is contrary TO the best pub
lie policy this bill diffuses the executive
the city council of that city. Under the eX
listing charter the power of appointment of
most executive offices rests in the city coun-
ell alone. Under the proposed charter this
poweris conferred upon the mayor and city
council jointly. The mayor appoints by and
with the
Consent of the Council.
Under the present charter the city attorney
and thir cen street commissioners are elected
by the city council; by this bill they will be
elected by the people. Under the present
charter the mayor has absolute and sole con-
troll of the police force and is vested solely
with the power of appointment and removal.
Under the proposed act this power of con-
troll, appointment and removal is placed
largely under the control of the city council
and its committees. Under the present
charter the city engineer has power and
patronage exceeding probably any other
official, state or municipal, within the limits
of this state. The proposed charter takes
from this official much of his present
authority and power, and subjects him to
much greater extent to the control and
supervision of other officials. Under the
present charter the Tenth, Twelfth and
Thirteenth wards of the city, which in the
late electionl cast only 1,503 votes, elect six
Fourth and Fifth wards, having voting
population of u. 1884, elect no more.
In other words, under the present charter
one voter residing in any of the fiTst-named
wards exercises an influence in the admins
tration of city affairs more than eight times
as great as voter who is unfortunate enough
to reside in the Third, Fourth or Fifth wards.
In the Thirteenth ward l67 voters are rep
resented by one alderman. In each of the
Third, Fourth or Fifth wards one alderman
represents more than 1905 voters. The act
creating this inequality in representation re-
ceived the approval of the then executive
without any suggestion that it created CEN
tralization of power, or that it ought to be
submitted to the people for their approval or
dsapproval.
1t is The purpose of the proposed charter to
rectify as far as possible this centraliZation
of power in outlying and sparsely popu-
city upon an equality as regards, at least one
branch of the appointing power.
The suggestion that this act should be SUBJ
mitted to the people for rtheir approval or dis
approval is we think, without merit. The
power that creates has certainly the power
to amend or annul. The present charter was
never submitted to the people for their ap-
proval or disapproval. Many amendatory
acts have been passed. no one of when was
ever so submitted. In 1881 the Legislature
passed IAN act to amend and consolidate the
charter of the cityof Minneapolis. " without
any suggestion thatthe same should be sub
mitted to the people for their ratification.
The proposed submission Is not only eX-
pensiye. but contrary to all precedent. 1t has
always been understood in every election that
the representatives elected should have the
power. and that it should be their duty, to
recommend and bring about the passage of
such amendments and alteration in the ex-
isting charter as to them might seem adyisa-
BILE. Thispower has never been questioned
before. and in this sense. if in no other, the
proposed charter was an issue in the last
campaign. But there is
Another Reason
WHY this bill should not be submitted to
popular vote. By section l of article of our
constitution the legislative power Of this
state is vested in the senate and house of
representatives. The people have voluntarily
surrendered to these bodies the lawmaking
power. The legislature possesses the entire
power, and it is a power which they cannot
delegate to others. They cannot propose q
law and let the people pass or reject it by a
general vote. This is legislation, or attempted
legislation, by the people. The expediency
of proposed law must be determined by the
legislators themselves. They cannot appeal
to any man, or body of men, to judge for
them. The wisdom and expediency of this
act does not depend upon the vote or the city
of Minneapolis. If unwise and inexpedient
in fact, it is equally so regardless of now the
people may vote uDOu the question. and IF
meritorious In fact, it is no less SO Though it
should be rejected at the polls.
This legislature cannot If it would shift the
burden upon any body of men whomsoever
And our position in this respec. is sustained
by abundant authority. We contend, in
short that if this legislature could lawfully
do So which they cannot, this proposed act
ought not 10 be submitted to the popular