Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1906-03-21
FULL HEARING ON CHARTER.
ANNE ARUNDEL DELEGATES
HEAR ARGUMENTS
Mr. Munroe And Mayer Douw Ex-
plain Features-E. S. Riley
And W. F. Williams
Oppose Charter.
PROBABLE ACTION OF ANNE
ARUNDEL MEMBERS.

The members of the House of Dele.
gates from Anne Arundel county de-
voted most of yesterday afternoon to
hearing arguments for and against
| the he'proposed new charter for the City
of Annapolis, which has been prepar-
ed by the Charter Commission which
has been at work at intervals during
| the last three months. The gathering
was a representative one, and while
the provisions of the proposed charter
were defended strongly by several
| members of the Commission,
quite number of pIouinent citizens
either pointed out provisions which
they opposed or objected to the evolu-
| tion in the city government on the
ground that the contents of the new
instrument was not sufficiently known
| to make it advisable to change our
present form of government
1t very soon became evident that
even the strongest supporters of the
| new charter were not in a position TO
defend every provision Of il. The po.
siti IN was assumed almost mt the out
set that the charter contained many
good things and was our the whole an
| improvement on the present system of
laws under which Annapolis is gov.
eTned. The members Of the county
delegation were strongly urged to
make such amendments as they
thought proper, but TO include the
main features of the bill and secure
| its passage if possible.
Mr. James NJ. MunrOe, who was
| chairman of the main committee of
the Commission, was the first speaker
| He dwelt par iCularly upon the fun.
| damentsl feature of the new instru.
ment-that which COnfers vast and
| greater powers Oh the Mayor ne
| said that at present the Mayor was no
more than any other member of the
Council. yet the people held him re-
| sponsible for what went on during
| his administration. He therefore ap-
proved the provisions which gave to
the Mayor a veto power oil legislation
and also empowered him to appoint
all of the city officials, subject to the
| confirmation of the Council. He also
stated his approval of the provision
| Withdrawing the Counsellor from the
Council and creating the office of
Oity Attorney, to be filled by appoint
| ment of the Mayor.
Mr.. MunrOe thought that the Pro-
vision to withdraw the police force
| from partisan politics was a most ex-
| cellent one. He stated, in answer to
question of DR.. George Wells, that
| the bipartisan board of commission
ers appointed by the Mayor would not
| allow politics to enter into their ap-
| poin tments and also called attention
| to the provision which prevented the
| discharge of O member of the force
once appointed except for cause
Other provisions which Mr.. Munroe
thought excellent were those which
fixed moderate property qualiiica-
| tion for Mayor and Councilmen and
| which required that a person must
own $3.50 worth of property or be able
| to read and write to exercise the right
of suffrage. He believed, he said
| that this would result in the disqual-
icfiation of non. worthy persons. The
/ exception in favor of members of vol.
unteor fire companies was, by COM
mon consent, abandoned Mr. Munroe
also stated that the members of the
| Commission were generally in favor
of dropping the proposed change in
| the liquor license law which allowed
| siguers to come from a radius of 400
yards in all directions.
Mayor John dep. Douw spoke
briefly in favor of the adoption of at
least the ground work of the charter
He said that the members of the Com
~ ission did not regard the proposed
charter in the light of a hobby, but
were most willing to make certain
changes to make it meet with general
approval He appealed to the Dele
gates to make such changes as seemed
proper, but not to sacrifice the whole
measure.
The Delegates then asked those who
opposed the charter TO make their
statements, and ex- Alderman William
F. Williams was the first speaker.
Mr.. Williams said tlat he did not
know whether he was opposed to the
| charter or not, because he had no op-
portunity of thoroughly examining it,.
He said that be thought there were
some very good features in the meas.
ure, but that there were others which
he opposed. He said that cur present
charter was an excellent instrument
and that while doubtless t could be
changed for the better IN some partic-
ulars, he did not believe it wise to
adopt an entirely new form Of gov.
ernment when the new provisions had
not been scrutinized by the public.
He claimed that the.bill should have
been printed some time prior to its
submission to the Legislature.
Mr.. Elihu S. Riley then pointed
out some of the provisions which be
opposed. He stated his belief that the
old form of government with the
Mayor and Counsellor as members of
the Board was an excellent one Rnd
challenged the adberents of the new
charter to point out any abuses that
had been in force under it. He said
that lack of care was manifest il
the preparation of the new charter anC
that even the Clerk of the Council wal
to be appointed by the Mayor and no
the Council itself. He also said tha
tIle boundaries had been SO arranged
, that the municipality had DO polio,
j authority over the adjoining creeks, a
they should have. Mr. Riley par
tioularly opposed what he called th
autocratic power of the Mayor unde
the new system and alleged that i
, adopted the new charter would resul
in the most corrupt form of govern
: ment which we have ever had
DR.. Wells did not make any set ad
dress, but from time to time be asker
questions of tie speakers BY their per
mission and indicated that he was no
in favor CT the passage Of the charte
in its present form at least. Their
q was a general feeling that the propose
ichanges were too seriousItol b Emad