The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1914-10-08
Amendment IL and IL.

Amendment IL and IL.
Jefferson City, September 26. TIL
eight of the series Of arguments o
the measures to be submitted to vol
at the coming election was issued Il
day by Secretary Of State Corneliu
Roach. Those wishing to vote intill
gently on propositions Eleven an
Twelve should preserve this article
the sole purpose in giving thes
argument is to furnish information
the voter, and the Secretary of Stat
is in no way responsible for assel
lions made on either side of any sui
ject discussed.
The champions Of Proposition No
II will give the following reaaon
why the measure should be adopted
The Excise Commissioner in ST
Louis, so far as granting of liquo
license is concerned, bears the SAM
relation to the city that the count!
court of each county bears to tn,
county. It is the source through
which the liquor traffic is governed
If the county can select its county
judges and does do it, then the city
should have the same power to selec,
its Excise Commissioner, who per.
forms the same duty relative to the
liquor traffic that is performed by the
county court.
Proposition No. II, which is the
Home Rule Excise Bill" passed by
the last Legislature, will be submitted
to the voters of the State under refer
endum, while Proposition No. IL is
the Home Rule Police Bill"
Reasons for sustaining one will apply
with equal force to the other.
In addition to the question of home
rule involved, there is a further arg
ument to be advanced. St. Louis has
never wavered in its support of State
government, With but one-fifth the
population Of the State, the city pays
practically forty per cent Of the rev.
enue to maintain the State govern
ment. Also paying two-fiths of the
taxes to maintain the State govern
ment, the city has but one-sixth of
the representatives in the State SEN
ate, and but one-ninth Of the repre-
sentation in the House of Representa-
tives.
. Surely, if the city Of St. Louis,
without complaining, thus literally
supports the State government, it is
incumbent upon the voters in all parts
of Missouri to assist ST. Louis in Sc
curing control of two Of its important
branches of government. Vote for
the ''Home Rule Excise Bill. -"
Opposing Argument.
The opponents of Proposition No.
II give the following reasons why
the measure should be voted down:
Voters of all parties should vote
''No" on Proposition No. II. This
is vicious measure. 1t would result
in a large increase of taxes and de.
stroy the efficiency of our State
government. The laws enforced by
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. The
law is not in harmony with
the platform Of any political party. 1t
is a bogus measure fostered by inter.
ests that have determined to place a
burden upon the State which is now
borne, as it 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 nomination
would have to treat with powers con.
rolled by powerful brewery and
liquor interests A conspicuous ex-
lmple of the effect of such laws may
be seen in East st. Louis, Illinois. As
/ result, that city is practically bank.
'upt, improvement bonds repudiated,
Ind large number Of city officials
lnder indictment.
In conjunction with this measure is
mother vicious law known as Prop
,sition No. IL, the home rule police
Nv. This means placing in the hands
4 brewery trade mayor the entire
'olice system, whose support would
trengthen the political iunta that
would thus be enabled to dictate to
the nominees and choice Of
m Cxn<n oeesnouo V<,kn ssNInO orrosnokI