The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-10-28
How About the Charter?

Is How About the Charter?
Nothing but Indifference stands in
the way of the adoption of the city
charter which will be proposed to the
voters at the coming election. The in
strument is in every way one worthy
of the confidence of the electors. 1t
has no violent enemies if the Tribune
1 be excepted, but it suffers from the
! disease of neglect.
During the coming week an effort will
be made to interest the voters In the
charter and fSsre will be no excuse
for any eaector failing to vote upon it
because he has not heard Of it. Up
waro of 10000 copies of the charter
have been printed and distributed to
the voters :. The commission has also
Gublished in pamphlet form a clear ex-
rosition of the changes which have
been made. from the present charter.
Nothing in these changes excites hos
tility. All are in the direction OF bet
ter government. The charter is not a
complete reversal Of the established
order of things. It follows the lines
of the present charter maintaining the
council form of government as we have
it at present, but makes many minor
improvements in the methods of doing
business It was not intended that the
charter should be complete instru-
ment. It was intended by the commits
sioners to do as little violence to the
present order as was consistent with
making a charter at all Therefore, tho
most Of the commissioners favored civil
service, it was left out. Therefore, tho
a majority of the commissioners favored
separate city elections, that also was
omitted It was the intention of the
commission to reserve these questions
for the people to vote on hereafter in
such detail as they shall choose, pre-
senting them at this time only the pres
ent charter revised, codifed and i'm
proved. When this shall have been
adopted as home rule charter it will
be subject to amendment. The people
may make it what they choose. The
present charter cannot be amended
legally.
There have been three objections
brought against the proposed charter.
One is that it removes the debt limit.
This is so far from true that the. debt
limit is more carefully guarded than it
q is under the present charter. Another
is that it puts burden on the water
works department. in requiring it to pay
the interest on it's own bonds. There
can be no such thing as putting bur
den on department. There is such a
thing as shifting burden from one
fund to another, but as the people, thru
their taxes, pay all the bills, the charg.
ing up Of these bills to one department
or another is merely a matter of book
Keeping. There is no burden created
The third. is that it endangers the
patrol limits. The, truth in regard tc
this is that these are preserved in theil
present form. According to the consti
tiltional amendment they can be
changed by a three fourths vote of al
the people at an election. But where
is a three-fourths vote to- change the
patrol limits coming from9 In order
to obtain one it would be necessary tina
y the second, eighth, thirteenth and othe.
residence wards should cast a large
majority Of their votes for the change
AS long as one-fourth Of the people cal
control the patrol limits and nineteenth
of the people favor them as they are
the argument about the patrol limit
is bugaboo. There is nothing in it.
The question before the voters at thi
time is not that of taking step in tn
dark. It is merely that of putting tn
present charter into the hands of tn
people. If, anybody has right to sa
what the charter of Minneapolis sha
be, it is the people who live here. The
are invited to cooperate in an effo1
to lift the incubus of dead and dow
charter patched up for us by twent
legislatures and not very well patched