The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-10-10
THOMPSON TELLS WHY HE OPPOSES , COMMISSIONERS Thinks It Wrong to Put Such Veto Power Into
 Hands of One
 Man

R. Dupont Thompson. chairman of the campaign committee in opposition
 to the ve-commissioner bill, yester- day issued statement setting forth
 some of his reasons for opposing the
 measure. He avs much stress on the
 fact that the bill has not been pub
 lishcd although 1t has been explained
 that the measure would make practi- cally full page of newspaper type.
 Referring to the veto power invested
 in the president of the commission, MT.
 Thompson says:
 This provision makes the power of
 the president of the commission abso-
 lute, and reduces the other four com
 missioners to the position of mere dun
 mics Do We want four-fifths of our
 representatives to be real representa-
 tives and representatives in fact ot the people and by the pople, or do we merely want them to be our repre- sentatives in name only? If four -fifths of our duly constituted governing body is to be reduced to the positions of mere clerks, then why not hire four clerks at $40 a month and thereby save $l6,000 per annum to the city in sal aries?
 The claim has been made broadcast
 that the Weakley commissioner bill makes the government more repre- sentative. Does 1t? Where is there any provision in the bill that pre- vents all the five commissioners from being elected from South Highlands. or any other one section of the city? l It is not there. What chance have the ] suburbs to elect representative under the provisions of this bill? None. Can 1 1t be contended for a moment that the veto power in the president of the com I mission, thereby giving him absolute l control over all legislation, makes Il representative? Hardly. Will two ad ditional commissioners under this new 1 bill, with no power or authority what ! soeyer in legislative affairs of the city make 1t more representative? Not a bit. Is it not plain to the seeker for real light that the suburbs have been wholly ignored by the framer of this Weakley five-commissioner bill? Why l Will someone please rise and explain Was it the purpose of the framer ol I this bill to centralize all power in any one section of the city or in any par | ticular class? It would seem so. Can | 1t be successfully centradicted that twG men out of three, as the commission
 
 right thing by the people than one man out of five, as proposed in the Wealzley bill? Under its provisions one man (president of the commission can completely override the wishes oi | the other four commissioners and | thereby throttle representative govern
 ment and reduce the people to the po- 1 sition of mere yassals. Do we wan | that kind of government?
 Some of the champions of this meas ure who have either not read the new bill or who are intentionally attempt ing to mislead the people, recklessl, l assert that the new act will solve tn. financial problem of the city and re
 store it to the palmy days fold. Bu l read the bill. You will search In vail | for any provision whereby the city, 1 revenues are increased or its expendi l lures reduced. Without an increased
 revenue, by what course of reasoning | can anyone say that five men can han l dle given sum of money more eco nomioally than three? Will not thu 1 additional expense of the two extri l commissioners be a liability instead O an asset? Then where will the cit, get it's relief referred to by these op timistic gentlemen? The only infer ence is that the two proposed new com
 missioners will finance the city out o their own pockets, but as yet we hav not heard of anyone announcing fo
 the job on that platform"