The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-02-16

|
| the present form Of charter. and prescribe by
general law for the cities of the Commonwealth
such form or forms of charter as X might deem
best, with tho further provision for granting
! a special form Of charter to cities OF over
/ 30 900 inhabitants, when requested to do So In
"a manner which may be prescribed by law
The resolution proposing this amendment was
passed by the legislatures of 1910 and 1919
and ratified by "a majority in. l believe. every
city and county Of the Commonwealth.
A committee Of the League Of Virginia NUM-
cpalities,, composed largely of lawyers. many
of them city attorneys, drew general law
carefully prescribing the up-to-date forms OF
charter and providing method by which a ma
jority OF the qualified voters of any city might
/ select one Of these types.
At the request Of Mr.. II. II. Pollard, city
attorney of Richmond. the act limited IN
its application to cities of under 100, 0p0 inhabi-
tants. with the understanding that Mr.. Pollard
would offer bill, prescribing the manner in
which Richmond should ask for special char
ter. This bill. known senate bill 1872,
provides that the council of any city of over
900 inhabitants may, by ordinance. pre-
pare charter, which shall be submitted to
the qualified voters. and If a majority paprove
it. the council shah forward such charter to
the legislature and Il shall be considered a
request that the legislature grant the same
In the senate Mr.. Lesner has had this bill
amended to apply to cities of over $1,000 In
habitants. and at the time had the gem
eraI law, senate bill 201, amended so to ex-
elude cities of over $4,000 from its benefits.
If these two acts passed in that shape,
Richmond and Norfolk would be placed wholly
at the mercy Of their councils 1t is not rea-
sonable to expect that any council would volun-
tarily kick itself out of office by preparing a
charter which would abolish the council and
place the government of the city in the hands
of a commission. An exceedingly lnog time may
clapse before either Richmond or Norfolk could
elect such an exceptionally patriotic and al
truistic council,
Surprising, however. that such council
should be elected. il is not at all certain that
in preparing their charter by ordinance. this
charter would be just what the people want.
However, they would have alternative and
could only accept reject il. Even supposing
that they accepted it for lack Of better. it
could not be adopted without still further delay
in presenting it to the legislature.
The contrast between the general law and the
special act is very marked. The general law
is democratic in that ii permits the people to
have voice in selecting from a number of
types of we'll defined, up-to-date charters, the
form that suits them best, and comedies the
fact that the right of petition still exists The
special act makes the council supreme. 1t sacri-
fees the public welfare to the pride of office
of the couneilmen 1t makes the creature SUI
perior to its creator, and places the agent above
t.his principal 1t violates the fundamental prin-
eiples of democracy, and should be resented and
Opposed by every liberty-oving patriotic cti-
Fzen of Richmond Norfolk who desires to
promote the prosperity of his city by enabling
it to adopt that type of modern charter under
whose economic and efficient administration, the
cost of city government is ordinarily reduced
by one-third below that of present archaic
charters
May l appeal to YOU to assist in arousne
the citizens of Richmond to of the dan
ger which threatens not only their city, but
I their very liberties citizens to living in 8
country, where democratic institutions are still
| believed to exist,
Very truly yours,
G. 7. SHAW
Chairman Executive Committee. Commission
! Government League of Norfolk, Va. anC
/ member of Legislative Committee League OF
| Virginia municipalities
Norfolk, Va, February 18th