The Minneapolis journal., 1904-10-03
PROPOSED CITY CHARTER

PROPOSED CITY CHARTER
Some Reasons Why the Voters Should
Adopt It. Given by Members of the
Charter Commission
At the coming election the people OF
Minneapolis will be asked for the third
time to vote upon the adoption of a new
charter. Two attempts to adopt char
ters, one in 1898, another in 1900, failed,
largely because the voters did not have
enough interest in the subject to vote
upon them at all. 1t requires four-sev-
enths Of all the persons voting at the
election to ratify the charter If Min
neapolis shall cast $4,000 votes, which Is
possible, as nearly $4,000 persons voted
in the primaries, and there are still two
registration days, it would require 24,000
votes to adopt charter. Can such a
number be secured? 1t cannot unless the
people take hold of the charter matter
aside from politics. If they do the num-
ber can easily be obtained, as every
voter will have placed in hands a separ-
ate ballot printed:
To Ratify the New Charter.
BY placing a cross behind one or the
other of these words the voter declares
for against the new act Heretofore
the charter has had line Of the city
ballot and it was easy for the voter to
return his ballot to the judges without
having voted for or against the charter.
But now that he will have a separate
ballot put in his hands which he must
return to the judges, he has less excuse
for avoiding his duty and responsibility
by silence.
The charter commission has been ac-
corded the use of space by T h our
a from now until election, to inform
the voters upon the merits of the new
charter. Something on the subject will
be offered by members of the commission
on this page from day to day. The COM
mission would, of course, like to see their
work ratified at the polls, and will urge
the people to do SO. But second only to
voting for the charter is the Importance
of voting against it. If the people do not
want new charter at all, let them vote
against it and thus inform the district
court that no new charter commission is
expected. Three separate sets of men
have now tried their hands and have put
study and hard work into charter build
ing. Two Of them have submitted their
work to the people, who have treated
them to a Scotch verdict. 1t remains to
be seen whether third commission will
get the same CLASSY stare from the great
American elector.
The proposition before the voter is
Vote. Inform yourself, and you if you
cannot vote for the charter vote against
II. II you are at present undecided
which way to vote, these simple propo-
s1t1ons may assist you to decision:
F1rst-The proposed charter is not a
new or experimental charter. It Is rath-
er revision and codifcation Of the pres
ent instrument.
Second-It does not lengthen or short
en- the term of any official; it does not
create any new expensive offices; it does
not change the time of elections it does
not Introduce any innovations, except a
limited ciyil service.
Third-1t does provide for home rule.
If you want home rule, vote Yes" and
you will get it; ,
1t may be asked: ''Why have you drawn
charter which simply re-enacts the old
one?' The answer is: Because it pro-
v1des way to obtain home rule If
home rule is a good thing, the proposed
charter is a good thing.
What is home rule?' It is provision of
law whereby cities may adopt their own
special form of charter and afterward
amend 1t as they choose, without going to
the legislature. That there is need Of
amendment from time to time is self-evi-
oEii@' Lhe pi cScHI Quarter OF minneapolis
was given to us by the legislature in
1881. Since then it has been amended
tWenty-n1ne times, each time by the legis-
lature; never with the consent of the
people; several times against their express
wish Some of the amendments the peo-
pie themselves would never have adopted
by vote, some others that they would hayf,
liked. no political legislature would ever
adopt. 1t was the legislature that took
away separate elections and which gave
us a police commission. In neither of
these important matters were the people
consulted. We have been empha tically a
caucus-ruled city. Home rule means that
the people of Minneapolis and not the
people OF kandiyohi will pass on amend
ments to our organic law hereafter
But doubtful as is the efficacy of Iegis-
latlve power of amendment, even that
was lost by the constitutional amendment
prohibiting special legislation. The need
OF new laws to meet new conditions con-
tlnu1ng, the legislature tried classifying
the cities and passing laws which would
apply to all, for Instance. having SO, 900 or
mare Inhabitants This class included
st. Paul and Duluth But
st. Paul and Duluth have adopted home
rule charters and now do their amending
They will not Join in, but will oppose laws
applying to the three cities, as they are
learning to do their own lawmaking. This
ledFeS MIlIlIledpOllS nlgn ana dry; she
can neither get special nor class laws to
aid her She must either sit tight with
her present charter or adopt home rule
The present charter commission canva ssed
the whole question and decided at length
to submit the present charter with a
home rule attachment, judging that the
people would willingly re-enact their pres
ent law and work out amendments in the
future. This is the slow but sure way to
build a charter. The question is now
simply this: will you vote to readopt
your present charter, slightly amended
with home rule attached?"
The voter is not required to make a
study of federal or council charters and
decide which he prefers. He is merely
asked to say that he would like to see
the power to make local laws lodged in
the hands of the people themselves.
If the new charter is adopted it will go
into effect in thirty days and thereafter.
the people of Minneapolis may amend
as they see fit.