Marble Hill press. (Marbel [sic] Hill, Mo.) 1881-1923, 1914-10-01
Marble Thursday, October 1914.

the excise commissioner are state
not city laws. The experiment in
other states Of such SO called fake
home rule measures has invariably
worked disaster to the state. Tie
proposed law is not in harmony with
the platform of any political party.
II is a bogus measure fostered by
interests that have determined to
place burden upon the state which
Is nrw borne, as IL should be, by ST.
Louis
This law would build bureaucracy
In ST. Louis which would compel
nominees OF all parties to bow down
before it Those desiring nomina-
ton would have to treat with powers
controlled by powerful brewery and
liquor interests, A conspicuous ex-
ample OF the effect OF such laws
may be seen in East ST Louis. Illi-
nois As result. that city is prac-
tically bankrupt, improvement bonds
repudlated, and a large mber of
city officials under indictment
In conjunction with this measure
Is another vicious law known as
proposition No II, the hone rule
police law. This means placing in
the hands OF brewery-made mayor
the entire police system, whose sup
port would strengthen the political
junta that would thus be enabled 10
dictate to Missouri the nominees and
choice Of all state officers. Vote
No against both these measures.
They are unwise. unfit, and would
prove disaster TO the state Of
Missouri.
Those favoring proposition No II
give the following reasons why the
measure should be adopted.
Wha, would the voters in the ia
counties OF Missouri think il the
legislature Of the state was to pass
q law giving the governor power of
appointment OF the sheriff of each
county. all of his deputies. every
constable and the city marshal OF
each town. |, is needless to say
the people as whole would rise up
against such an imposition of power
Naturally they would resent il and
yet this is precisely what is done in
the selection Of police officials for
ST Louis II state supervision is
wrong for the people in the counties /
Of Missouri, il is wrong in the city .
OF ST Louis That is why voters in
the state at large should assist St /
Louis in securing home rule. This
is an analogous comparison because
the polne in the city bear the same
relation TO the people there that the
sheriff. his deputies and town mar
shals bear to the people in the coun-
try aud the smaller towns. They
are the police power in their com
munities. /
Every citizen should vote TO adopt
the bills passed by the last leeisla-
uure, and which have been referred
to the people through the referen-
dunn Home rule in governing the
ST. Louis police department is Just
as dear to the taxpayers in that city
as il would be to the voters of each
county II the question of appoint
ment by the governor or sheriff. the
County court and the town marshal
would be up for consideration. Give
St Louis the right of self-government i
as possessed by each county, by sus-
taing proposition No. II.
The opponents of proposition No
II give the following reasons why
il should be voted down: Il
All voters who have an intere>,
in their homes, in the protection of
their property. in just distribution
Of taxes, and in the good name of ,
Missouri, should see thar this law is
defeated. Ii is most vicious Its
would mean the enthrone-
ment Of vice. Its adoption would ,
make it unsafe for our sons and
daughters to visit 81 Louis Peanut I,
politicians controlling ward politics