Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-02-25
r,,r cuARrER QUESTION.

The first move for charter amendments
made before the Legislature at TINS
session was by the City Council NOT
respecting the overwhelming verdict OIL
the Democrats OF this city In FAVOR Vi
the Police and Fire commissioners Do
thev are now constituted, the Council
undertook 10 have our charter so amenu-
ed as TO undermine the Board OF run
,,c Interests-the board now charged win
the duty of nominating commission
ers to the Council. Nor did the Co"h-
eli geek TO have this question referred
70 the people No; 1t asked Tor oi-
rect and immediate legislative action.
I. On the other hand. the Chamber OF
Commerce proposes that the amendments
that Il recommends shall not be opera
tive until they have been ratined by
the people at a special election. 30
the Council is in the attitude OF seek
ing changes which are In the teeth OF
public opinion. while the Chamber says
let the people decide whether they VIII
or win not have our amendments.
The amendment proposed by the City
I-0OUtll
know. The amendments proposed by
,,.e Chamber Of Commerce are seconded
by the Grain and Cotton Exchange
and by the Tobacco Trade. That there
are good Democrats who do not favor
the changes proposed by the Chamber
we. OF course admit. For this and other
reasons, II Is the plain duty OF the Lee
gislature to give the voters OF Richmond
an opportunity TO say which amendments
they desire. which they do not desire.
The whole batch should be referred to
q popular vote.
AS we have said before, the Demo-
Gratis OF Richmond may-and, we think,
should--precede the charter election with
a PRIMARY election, and agree that all
good Democrats Will abide the result OF
the primary. For our part. we are
free to say that we think the question
should be disposed of inside the party.
questions as this without calling In the
enemy to help one side or the other.
BY the way. we find that In our last
Issue we misstated Judge George l..
CHRISTIANS position with reference to the
Chambers amendments. He did not vote
against them. but for them. The only
difference between the other members of
the committee that reported the amend
ment and himself was-first, that he
objected TO the committee calling our
city delegation into conference with 1t
before the committees work was re-
ported to and acted upon by the Cham
Der and its Board OF Directors. which
created the committee, and to which. he
thought. they ought first to report; and.
secondly, he objected to submitting the
proposed amendments to all the voters OF
the city, on the ground that In SO doing
we might divide the Democratic party-the
propagation made by the Dispatch 10 sub
NIT the question to Democratic primary
In advance OF the regular election having
not then been suggested. This suggestion,
we learn, may obviate some of the diff
cuIties he then had In mind. While
Judge Christian is OF the opinion that the
amendments proposed are not all that
either he or the other members OF the
committee could wish TO see made to our
charter. be has no hesitation In approving
OF them. and thinks they would accom-
pllsh great good in the administration OF
our municipal affairs.