New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-08-06
Low Amendment, Offered
in Convention, De-
bounced on All Sides.
SAY 1T NARROWS
LOCAL CONTROL
Minority Report Declares 1t Is
Confusing, Illogical and
Gives No Relief.

Albany, Aug. 5.-The home rule LOT
cities amendment, reported to the
Constitutional Convention yesterday
by the Committee on Cities, was at
tackled on all sides to-day as being ev-
erything except what its name implied
The Citizens Union, the Municipal
Government Association and Consutu-
tional Convention delegates branded
the amendment as illogical, unscien-
tific and farcical.
Senator James A. Foley and Edward
f. Franchot filed minority report at
lacking the amendment. Seth Low,
chairman of the Cities Committee
whose ideas largely are represented IN
the amendment rushed to its defence
Mr.. Low declared the minority report
signers had not offered anything IN the
way of substitute. The reply was
that Mr.. Low had requested the minor
ity not TO offer any substitute.
"The amendment narrows instead OF
widening the local control now enjoyed
by municipalities, says the minority
report, which also declares that the
Low amendment does not give any eX-
elusive grant of power TO cities except
in a few minor matters.
II SAYS the language of the grant Is
calculated to breed hopeless DOUBT uh-
certainty and confusion, with the re-
emil that the courts will have to de-
termine the respective powers OF inc
cities and the State in several respects
II the amendment is enacted into law
Saws Ii Is Compromise.
an is obvious that the proposal OF
the committee is result OF compro-
mise" the minority report reads. we
are forced to disagree only because
the composite result seems TO US 10
violate the fundamental principles that
must govern. any measure designed 10
meet the widespread demand from the
cities of the state, and especially from
the city of New York for increased
power Of self-government. This de,
mand is based upon two princlpal
causes of complaint 1920 interferences
With local affairs by the Legislature
and inadequate power over matters OF
c;tv concern. even the most minute.
1.-THE relief demanded has been
orouped concisely under two heads:
First. power; second. protection. A
proper proposal for home rule should,
in our Judgment. contain the following
essentials. for which we have consist
emily contended:
"First-A broad grant to cities of
power, exclusive in substance as well
as in form, TO regulate their local al
fairs. coupled with prohibition
against special legislation by the state
with respect thereto.
Second preservation Of state
sovereignty over cities through legis-
lative control exercised BY general
laws.
"Third-The expression Of the grant
of power in simple. direct and specific
language so as to avoid confusion and
endless litigation in defining state and
city powers and the manner of their
exercise.
Fourth right of each city at
its option to continue as legislative
charter city or become home rule
city"
Confusing, Is Charge.
The report declares further that the
only actual exclusive grant given to
the cities by the Low amendment is
the determination Of the qualifications,
mode of selection, terms of office, com
pensation and method of removal of
officers and employees.
"If this is the extent to which home
rule is to be granted, the constitution
should so state simply and directly"
it continues.
an sum, the proposal begins with
promise to complete home rule to
cities, but one reaches the end only to
discover that it is but a declaration of
principles and that the limitations sub
seuuently imposed effectively destroy
the first impression and promise. If
adopted it will tend to throw into con-
fusion for the next ten years the exer-
else of power by city government
throughout the state. Such measure
does not confer genuine home rule,
does not eliminate mandatory legisla-
tion affecting cites, narrows instead of
widens the present sphere of local con-
troll of municipalities.
W. Z. Youker, secretary of the Citi-
zens' Union. said:
at is evident the proposal does not
furnish an adequate measure for home
rule. 1t provides a home rule pro-
ceuufe DOtn ulInculL ana obstructive.
1t retains the evil of control by the
Legislature with the resulting destruc-
tive political effects which home rule
advocates sought to eliminate.
Divides Responsibility.
Responsibility for local legislative
enactments is split up between the
Board Of Aldermen, Board of Estimate
and Apportionment, the Mayor and the
Legislatures scheme pernicious in
the extreme TO good government. II is
scarcely conceivable that the 70 per
cent of the people in the state who
live in cities will accept any such cum
bersome and unavoidable home rule
proposal"
The convention advanced to the order
of final passage the Finance Commit
tees bond and sinking fund proposal,
which its sponsors say will save the
state between $50,000,000 and SS0,000,-
0O0 within the next fifty years. In it
provision would be made for the SUBJ
stitution of serial for long term bonds,
and future payments TO sinking funds
created to amortize present outstand-
ing bonds would be apportioned TO pre-
vent the accumulation of large
surplus.