The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1913-02-20

1t Is proposed to change the pres
emit form of our city government,
which is democratic form, and under
which present system the taxpayer
and voter is consulted as to the Sc
lection OF each and every ofhcer in
the city. The proposed commission
charter takes away from the voter
the right Of expression Of his wish as
to the various city offices. except the
three commissioners and delegates 10
the three commissioners all OF the Vot-
er's privilege and right under the con-
stitutfon and laws of our government.
This departure, being a return to au-
tocratic form Of government, should
be critically examined and those pow
ers reserved to the people, called and
named Initiative, Referendum and Re-
call, should be analysed, and it should
be determined by the voters of the
city, whether, in return for the rights
and privileges surrendered, he has, in
reality. retained the right of local self
government, as now enjoyed under the
present city charter.
1t is, therefore, my purpose &c ex-
anime this charter, section by Section
and discuss 1t, and point out those de-
fects, which, to my mind. make it ia
tally defective as a substitution for
the present system enjoyed by our
citizens.
Sec. 1. Section one is objectionable
because there is too much hurry in
| holding first election.
| Inasmuch as old city officers hold
over, the haste is unseemly.
insufficient time is given to delib-
crate on the candidates and their rela-
I !; Al lf5aIn sy,$N f-
| Sc. 2. The same objection is found
here as to section one-too much
haste.
The act arbitrarily fixes June 1st, as
| the time for the election Of the first
commissioners.
The legislature is in session until
that the act will be passed at any par
ticular time during the session.
1t is a we'll known fact that tle
| greater the desire of the legislator to
expedite the passage of a measure,
usually the slower the process.
Suppose the act does not become q
law until the last few days Of the ses-
sion, the people would not have time
! to organize their forces and put for
ward their candidates.
The time limit placed on the hold
ing of the first election is walk in
PRODUCTION to a charter asking volers
to surrender their sovereignty.
| The latter part of this section is as
bad as the first.
! The latter part of the section pro-
vides for an election on June LIST
1915, June LIST, 1916, and June 1st
1917, to elect successors to the first
commissioners; commissioners offices
to be filled in the order of votes re-
! ceived by them at the first election
Taking the one receiving the loves;
I vote first, or In other words, an cleo
ton Is to be held June LIST, 1915, -
elect a successor for the commission
er receiving the lowest vote. and the
next lowest 1915, and the next lowest
which would be the highest, June LIST
1917. That would make the high vote
commissioners hold Office for years
and again the alternating election
proposed, leaves two commissioners
or a majority, in power all the while
These two can build a machine that
1t will take years to break-that is
taking the other provisions of the pro-
posed charter, where two commission
ers are given the power to select all
the general officers of the city-and
Of course that would necessarily mean
| all the subordinates too, this taken
with the practical impossibility ol
operating any of the powers of the In
itiative, Referendum and Recall, as
shall hereafter attempt to show.
Sec. 8. Provides that after the ma.
chine gets to running smoothly, thai
is, after June. 1917-each/ commission
er shall hold Office for three years
cor course one to be elected every
year, as before stated, always having
two. majority, on the job.)
Why not have a clean sweep every
two years. My opponents will say
That's ridiculous, for the people in
this charter are given the power oil
recall" deny that the people are
given the power of recall under this
charter. Attempt is made to tell the
people they have the recall, but it is
so hedged about with provisions i
would be next to impossible to get III
a recall election under this charter
But shall talk of that when I get II
the recall (?) section.
The next objection to section three
Is the restriction placed upon candi.
dates for commissioner qualifying.
In the first election the Mayor mus
approve and certify the qualification!
of a candidate.
In the subsequent elections the com
missioners themselves are given The
right and authority to pass upon thu
qualifications of their successors.
This restriction of having a candi
dates name placed on the ballot, ha:
three objections:
LIST. 1t is IN democratic.
End. 1t is improper to place sucf
power in the hands of the commits
sioners.
Srd. The act of the mayor or com
missioners would be final. If rejected
the candidate has no recourse.
You answer, the primary may b.
held
Yes-but how? The commissioner!
are given the power to discriminate
in favor OF one candidate against an
other. then the other one discrirninat
The HousekeeneT has many trial:
/