Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1909-05-19
Why Should Chicago Dictate?


The Chicago Tribune has worked
itself into a pitiful plight because the
Chicago contingent has failed to force
it's special charter through the legisla.
ture regardless of the interests of the
rest of the state 1.-The Chicago char
ter is in the hands of foes" says the
Tribune THE city must agree to all
demands of down state, even to re-
striction of its representation" And
why otherwise? Chicago has dictated
to the rest of the state about long
when Chicago wanted special legisla-
ton the big papers set up howl and
then a delegation was sent down to
the capital and the enactment secured.
But when the down state cities had
|anything special up, it was invariably
is time for the worm to turn. If Chi
cago is in quest of special favors, let
there be some concession to the rest
of the state in return.
The Tribune does not take kindly to
the idea of limited representation for
Cook county. 1t says:
IF charter legislation is to be bought
at the price of Chicago's consent to a
Limitation of its representation, the
bargain may be declared off before
negotiations begin"
And why, pray, should not Chicago
lan tn a Sta 70 ttSi1 of
that city a permanent majority of the
| Legislature? Chicago never could have
had the right to a special charter had
not the voters of the state given their
consent to a constitutional amendment
granting it that right, if the people,
not the interests represented by the
Tribune, wanted to exercise it.
The Tribune never could have eX-
hibited its spleen at the rural districts
because they want Chicago representa-
tiveS in the legislature to do as fair
a thing by the outside districts as the
people of those districts did for Chi,
cago, if it had not been for the con.
Institutional amendment.
All the people of the districts out
side of Chicago ask for now is the sub
mission of constitutional amendment
limiting representation, not a legisla
Tive act limiting representation. Al
1.-THE legislature can do is simply to sub
init an amendment. Surely if ma
jority of the people of the state, in
lcluding the city of Chicago, are will
ing. the representation of that city shall
be limited, that ought to settle it. The
Tribune has no excuse for kicking a
the people OF the outside districts be
cause they want fair, square deal.
/; The Tribune and other Chicago pa
; pers, when pleading with the voter:
outside of that city to pass the consti
tutional amendment, said it was no
fair TO deprive them of the right to ;
special charter. And when the coun
try members of the legislature, afta
I the people of the country district
adopted the constitutional amendment
lpassed the enabling act which tn
Tribune declared the people of CHI
cago wanted. But when it came to tn
: test at the polls, the voters of Chicag
emphatically declared the Tribune di
not represent them, for they did nc
want the charter proffered them tina
/ it said they did.
If the Tribune did not represent tn
L people Of Chicago two years ago, VIII
5 right has it to expect the legislature
: believe it is representing them nov
l. when it opposes the limitations of thu
L city's representation?
IL The people of Illinois have a right t
o assume that large number if not
T majority of the voters of Chicago woul
I vote for a constitutional amendmer
t securing to the people outside of thu
II city a permanent majority of the lie:
Iislature; that they would be equal
s generous and just toward the peopl
II of the state as the people of the stat
Il were to Chicago; that they would r.
L pudiate the hoggish policy of the Tril
u une in the constitutional limitatio
IL matter as they did the Tribune's Oh
Z cago special charter.
The people of the state may well pra
to be spared from becoming subject I
u the tender mercies of the Tribune an
e the special interests it represent
5 which they would be if there is to
II no limitation to the Tribune's dict
d tocial power.
h. AarS