The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1896-10-28
IS THERE A WOODCHUCK.
Claim That the Sheehan Home Rule Bill Is q
Humbug and Establishes an Oligarchy In
stead of Free Institutions

Ol1iAu Au0t VIC 0uCSNAn nOH0 nuso OiAA 40 -
Humbug and Establishes an oligarchy In
stead Of Free Institutions.
Editor Representative:
! have been waiting for some time to
hear an explanation of the effect of some
of the proposed constitutional amend
ments, but apparently in vain; so 1 ask
a little space to place before the labor
ing men of this state some information on
a question in which they are rightly
interested. There is, in one of the con-
stitutional amendments proposed for our
adoption this fall, a large sized well de-
veloped wood chuck, which, If allowed
to go undiscovered, will practically abolish
self government as regards municipal af-
fairs, and put In the hands of committee
of Is freehoders absolute control over the
charters to be adopted by the different cit
les of this state.
1 refer to that amendment entitled "An
act proposing an amendment to article
four Of the constitution of the state of
Minnesota, allowing cities. already incor-
porated, and villages desiring to become in
corporated as cities, to frame their own
charters as Cities.
The act in question provides for board
of Is freeholders, to be appointed by the
judiciary, who are to hold Office for life,
to frame the proposed charter, and submit
1t to a vote of the people. 1t also provides
that any changes or amendments made in
the charter thereafter must be initiated by
this same board.
The effect of such a constitutional
amendment is that these Is men. a majori-
ty thereof who are neither elected by the
people, and are not answerable to the peo-
pie shall have absolute power to veto any
thing in the charter that they consider in
imical to their property interests, that
t..ey do not wish to have in the charter;
and as they would have to take the in
itiative in all the amendments that are
subsequently made, no amendment or
change could be made without their con-
sent.
Such an act, instead of giving to cities
and villages the right to propose and
frame their own charters, will delegate
that power, which was thought to be too
vital to the welfare of the municipality
for even the legislature to control, to a
board of Is freeholders, who are responsible
to no one and to nothing but their own
interests. This is attempt to disfran-
chise the voters of the cities in so far as
their local interests are concerned, and
should be repudiated by them by a unani-
nous NO" following the proposed amend
ment on the bollot of every man who cares
for the future of his country, and who be-
lieves that self government is not a fall
ure.
The amendment itself is an insult to the
intelligence of the working classes 1t
provides that the members of this board
shall be freeholders or owners of real es-
tate 1.-The poor dear workingman." of
whom the politicians tell us So ouch at
present cannot have a single man on this
board as a representative of his interests,
unless that man represents also a property
interest. Such a proposition Is all the
more infamous when one recalls the fact
that in our cities such a small percentage
of the working people are freeholders, so
that the act in question amounts to a dis
reimbursement of the whole working class
It creates a board for municipal self gov
eminent, whose power is arbitrary and alb
solute, who do not represent the laboring
men, who do not represent the laboring
people, but who represent simply and SOLE
ly their own property interests.
Fellow workmen, we cannot afford to
have our present representative form Of
government-faulty though it may be-
substituted by an oligarchy under the guise
of municipal self government. We cannot
anord to give up what little rights we now
possess to a committee representing the
property holders.
Let us put the stamp of our disapproval
OF such methods of capitalistic politicians,
and let our bosses know that we cannot
be driven and herded like cattle; and so,
let me repeat, Every man be sure and put
NO after the amendment in question"
VIM. N. Feltus.
1921 Sixth street southeast, Minneapolis.