The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-10-27
CHARACTERISTIC INTERFERENCE

10 the characteristic narrOWneSS'
which we. were obliged to mention as
in evidence in the remarks Of the Min
neapolis Times in discussing the pro-
posed home rule amendment, we now
find it necessary to add characteristic
impertinence" in referring to the opin-
ions Of it's betters. The Times forgets
that the public eye is upon it; that it's
| course in. the present campaign has
earned and received the contempt of
both sides to the controversy, each Of
which is betrayed in turn as the neces-
stiles and opportunities Of the case may
seem to require. 1t is not for this good
Lord and good Devil advocate to re-
fleet upon the motives of others. Least
of all is it for such to drag into debate
over the merits of proposed constitu-
tional amendment questions which, for
it's own interest and safety, it would
better permit to lie quiet
Touching the main point, there is
absolutely no case against the home
rule amendment about to be voted on.
Even If the objections advanced were
valid, which they are not, they would
not initiate against 1t in the least For
1t is not compulsory. That is the meat
Of the whole argument. Were the
method of framing local charters as
open to criticism as it has been de-
clared to be, it would still remain true
that no community is compelled to use
it. The home rule amendment simply
proposes to permit those cities that
wish to arrange their municipal affairs
in this way to do so. For those who
think otherwise, 1t will be as If this
privilege had never been heard Of. The
machinery provided in the law has
nothing whatever to do with the merits
of the case. The single issue is be-
tween freedom and restraint, between
the liberal and the bigot., The latter,
with which the Times has Character
istically" ranged itself, says: Because
1 do not like this method, you shall
not use it." It is rather late in the
century for this particular form of in
solent domineering, representing the
denial to one set of men of the right
to regulate their own affairs in their
own way, because there is another set
Of men who want to regulate not only
their own affairs but the affairs of
everybody else in their way
We are glad Of the opportunity to
present to the people the real issue,
stripped of all non-essentials That is
sue is not whether the proposed method
of framing charters Is the best or not,
because this is solely a matter for those
to debate who think of using it. The
others can let it alone, because they
may either keep the charters which
they have or come under the Howard
act. But, as long as the privilege to
be granted is within the constitution
and the law, to attempt to refuse it is
akin to the denial to other men
of the right to act or speak or
worship God, except as some one else
shall prescribe. The merits of the ques-
ton deserve the largest publicity and
the most careful study. What the
I1meS thinks ABOUT them Is no great
matter. 1t is understood, from it's arti-
Giles on the silver question, that a pack
of cards is cut in it's office each MORN
ing to determine which one of
it's fffty-two distinct and con-
contradictory policies shall be
adopted for that particular day. 1t
would therefore surprise nobody if it's
tutelary deity. Chance, not of course
the main chance, should direct it at
some time within the week to come
out strong in favor of the home rule
amendment. Inasmuch as we favor
the adoption of that proposition. we
hope earnestly that this may not be
the case