Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1915-10-28
AMENDMENT To LIMIT ELECTIONS
IS OPPOSED BY SINGLE TAKERS
Stability League Campaign Has Backing Of Prominent News
papers and Leading Citizens
To Safeguard a. r. 1t Is Fair and Sane That Constitu
tOnaI Proposal Twice Rejected Shall Not Be
Thrust Upon Voters Without Limit.
(By II. A. McKenzle.)

Columbus, O.-(SpeciaD- con-
stitutional amendment to limit cleo
tions and safeguard the constitution
against everlasting assaults of politi-
cal agitators meets with the approval
who are leaders of the single tax pro-
paganda.
The single takers are getting ready
to circulate petitions for single tax
amendment to the constitution They
admit that such an amendment is un-
popular now, but they are hopeful that
If they can get it before the people
year in and year out for a unmber of
years they will wear out the opposi-
tion. This, in spite of the fact that on
no class of the population would the
single tax prove greater burden than
on the farmer and small land owner.
There are no propagandists in Ohio
more enthusiastic tnan the single tax
ers. Few of them are land owners.
AS is very well known they adhere to
fair tax is tax on land. They con-
tend that the owner of land has no
rights to increased values of land and
that such values-which they call un-
earned increment-shall go to the
community at large.
Among the leading single takers in
Ohio are Rev. Herbert Bigelow, of
~
of Cleveland; Percy Tetlow, of Co
lumbiana County; George Cartwright,
of Columbus; Robert Crosser, Of
Cleveland; Dan Kiefer, of Cincinnati;
John d. Fackler, Thomas G. Fitz-
simons, David Gibson and E. w. Doty,
of Cleveland; Stanley Shaffer, of
Hamilton; A. Ross Read and A. C.
Holloway, of Akron; w. B. Fitzpatrick,
of Warren, and ]. S. MacLean, or Co.
lumbus.
The leaders of the opposition to the
proposed amendment to safeguard the
initiative and referendum, are these
same men. and two Of them, Mayor
Baker and Mr.. I'etlow, signed the Of
| ficial argument against the amend
| ment.
The taxpayers of Ohio are going to
end for themselves on November End
this matter of constant professional
and political agitation Of stitutional
questions which has been the source
| of SO much annoyance and expense to
the voters and taxpayers of the state
Voters are getting tired Of petition
reddlers and being called upon every
year or two to vote upon questions
which have already been submitted
and twice defeated
The proposed amendment to limit
elections has the endorsement of many
members of the last Ohio State Co l.
stitutional Convention, and a majority
! of the members of the last two G an
eral Assemblies.
The amendment has no connection
whatever with any other proposed
amendment or referendum or special
interests. 1t simply proposes to limit
elections on twice defeated constitu
tional proposals and nothing more.
1t Is strictly non-partisan. 1t is Of.
fered to protect the state constitution
and to prevent the initiative and refer.
endum from being made a political
football by salaried agitators and spe
cal interests, as well as to protect the
taxpayers of the state from continual
harassment, useless litigation and
needless expense.
single Takers Serve Notice.
The single takers have already serv
ed notice at their national meeting IN
Washington, d. G. that the single ta,