Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1909-05-27

the Governor the right to remove
the police commissioner for Ger.
tain stated causes. The three
Democratic members of the COM
mittee unanimously agreed to ac-
cept the substitute offered by the
| Republican members of the COM
mittee.
The second of the only three
amendments, which made any ma
terial change in the bill, was the
Senate amendment No. IL and the
committee unanimously agreed on
this amendment, except that part
of it which struck out Of the bill
section SO. The undersigned mem-
bers believed, when the committee
took recess that there was an
agreement on this amendment.
Section SO of the original bill
provided that the Governor should
appoint three civil service commits
sioners in each of the two cities af-
fected by the bill, and other por-
tions of the bill provided that be-
fore any appointment could be
made or any advancement had in
rank, it should be recommended
by said civil service commission.
ers. The undersigned refused to
recede from this amendment, be-
cause it was our belief that parti-
san civil service commission, ap-
pointed by the Governor with the
power conferred upon it by the
bill, would be practically giving
the Governor, Indirectly, power
to appoint policemen, a power
which it has been pretended the
bill would give to the cities.
A vote was had at the committee
meeting as to whether or not the
committee would recommend that
section SO be stricken from the bill,
according to Senate Amendment
No. IL, and vote in favor of the
Senate's position was A to 2. ALI
of the recommendations made in
the report submitted by the Re-
publican members of this COM
mittee, except the third and fourth,
were agreed to absolutely by the
entire committee.
The third recommendation chang
ing the figures 100000 to $500, 900
and thereby giving home rule to
st. Louis, which has Republican
mayor, and denying it to Kansas
City, which has a Democratic
mayor, was not mentioned at the
meeting of the committee. Mol
reason has ever been assigned for
this recommendation" unless it
be that stated by Senator Methudy,
q Republican senator, of st. Louis,
in open debate on the Senate floor,
namely that there would be an
election in Kansas City in April, |
1910. 4
The one point Of difference which |
was not decided by a majority vote
at the committee meeting was the
question as to the time at which
the bill should take effect. The
members of the COM
lAittCO GQAUOuuOu lOL d PROVISION
that the bill should not take effect
until July 10, 1910, which would
be after the next election in KAN
sas City, but before another elec-
lion in the city Of st. Louis. The
undersigned insisted that If the
bill should become a law, there
was no reason why it should not !.
go into effect during the term Of
The present Democratic mayor of
Kansas City, and the Republicans
On the committee insisted that the
Dill ought not to 60 into effect
Until after another election in
Kansas City, but before another
election in st. Louis. This was
he only difference seriously dis /
,ussed by your committee, as d ,
committee, and no member Of the
committee even suggested that this
,ill, which according to the pub
ic statements had been prepared
lnder the direction Of the Cover I