St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-01-28
WHAT Is REHINn TT.

town in the adoption of the Howard
| charter. The gentlen n who are be-
sieging the public with arguments in
its favor may be acting in spirit Of
public unsel1shness; but, as a rule, we
are accustomed to find other motives
at work when such a campaign as this
is inaugura ted. Philanthropists do not
go about organizing ward associations,
flooding the town with handbills and
free copies Of eXtravagant laudation Of
a proposed measure, unless there is
something to be gained by 1t. There
is certainly no promise held out by
the Howard charter itself which would
justify this outburst of zeal, and the
expenditure Of whatever sums may be
necessary to SOW this so-called litera-
ture broadcast. It is evident to the
simplest mind that st. Paul does not
stand in great need of the Howard
charter. We could get along without
it at least for year or two longer.
And the ardent spirits who are deliv-
ering speeches to the people in favor
Of its instant adoption, at time when
very few Of our people know anything
about its terms, throw some question
upon their own design when they
make the perfectly absurd announce
ment that they have Of the saving that
could be effected under such munich
pal law.
The whole field Of city revenue and
expenditure has been canvassed thor
oughly now within a few months past.
We know just about how much rev.
enue is required to run this city prop
erly under any form Of government.
1t takes a certain number of employees,
and the proper compensation for these
has been fairly ascertained. To say
that ST Paul could save half a million
dollars year, as some Of the Howard
charter people do, is to talk plain non
sense. Anybody who makes that state
ment lays himself and his cause open
to just suspicion. Furthermore, as the
G o b e has already stated, there is no
conceivable advantage in adopting the
Howard charter at this time, while such
action would put this city once more
in the position Of the communities
whose hands are tied absolutely as to
the management Of their own affairs.
The Howard charter is state law. The
community which accepts it must take
it as a whole. Not a line nor a word
in it can be altered or adapted to
local conditions, either at this time or
at any time in the future, without Sc
curing the consent Of the legislature Of
the state.
On the other hand, as we have pre-
viously noticed, if the home rule amend
ment to the constitution is ratified by
the people, as it undoubtedly will be,
and the legislature next winter passes
a law in accordance with it, author
izing the people Of each city to frame
charter for themselves, we will then
be in a position, in about a year from
this time, to make a municipal law
of our own. If by that time the How
ard charter has been studied and ap-
proved by the people, they can adopt
it as their own under the home rule
act. But instead of having to take it
exactly as it stands, they can also
make such notifications of it as they
please. Or, if they should happen to
like it less the more closely they ex-
anime it, they could then make an al
together different charter. In one word,
we are asked to accept a municipal
law which is utterly foreign to the Gus
toms and practices of this city, and
to revolutionfze our whole system Of
local rule, without leaving to ourselves
any opportunity to change this new
scheme in the slightest detail if expert
ence with it should prove unsatisfac-
tory.
Another point to be borne in mind
is the enormous amount of litigation
necessary before the actual meaning
and effect of the Howard charter could
be determined. Inadequate and I'M
satisfactory as the Bell charter is in
many particulars, it has now been
construed and interpreted by the
courts. 1t has required the whole five
years since it was enacted to secure
judicial decisions that would explain
the legal effect Of it's terms. At least
another five years must elapse before
the courts would have passed upon
the Howard charter provisions. There
are some good things in the Howard
charter. There are some things which
we regard as utterly pernicious. Taken
as whole. it is certainly not superior
to our present scheme of government,
nor does it hold cut any promise of Sc
curing to the taxpayer a greater reduc-
ton of expenditures than is now under
way. Since this proposed municipal
constitution has nothing especial to Of
fer us, since we can adopt it if we wish
under the home rule provision, with
any changes or amendments that we
may desire. and since there is no like
lihood that the economies which could
be effected under it are any greater
than those possible now, we are at
loss to understand the reasons that lie
behind the intense anxiety of a few of
adoption Of a policy, at the election to
occur next May. the mildest descrip-
ton of which would be that it is a
leap in the dark.
THE OTHER SIDE.
We publish this morning an inter-
eSting interview with Mr. Crawford