Semi-weekly herald., 1915-05-27
WILL DENVER BE WET OR DRY,
(By ALvA A. swAIN.)

Special Correspondence to the Herald.
The situation that has arisen in
connection with the fight to make
Colorado dry is peculiarly unique. I'll
never could have resulted had it not
been for the adoption of the recall of
judicial decisions by the people two
years ago. Because that amendment
was written into our state constitu-
ton at time when the so-called re-
form wave was sweeping the country,
Colorado now faces the proposition Of
having to repeal that part of our con-
stitution or of having all towns act
ing under the home rule amendment
go wet if they so desire irrespective
Iof the constitutional amendment
adopted last fall. To be sure ettor-
neys for the drys will make des-
perate legal fight to overcome the
situation but even they admit that
in our haste to adopt an up-to-date
| reformed constitution we have come
very close to making the city and
town government greater than the
state government, if the people of the
cities and towns so desire.
A review of the history of the pres
ent situation is not amiss.
In the winter of 1901 the legisla-
ture submitted what is known as the
Rush bill to the people. 1t was pro-
posed constitutional amendment con-
solidating the city and county govern
ment of the city of Denver and the
then County of Arapahoe which
sought to give unto the people of Dem
yer what is commonly termed ''home
rule" 1t gave them the right to
govern themselves on matters purely
local and pertaining to city govern
ment. A number of suits followed
testing the validity of the amendment
and finally the courts passed upon
enough legal points to give Denver
an idea as to where she stood from q
governmental point of view. Follow
ing this a number of cities in the
state decided that the Rush home rule
act could be applied to them the same
as to Denver; that a constitutional
amendment giving Denver certain
rights necessarily gave the other cities
the same rights if they cared to avail
themselves of those rights. Quite a
number of the cities, including Colo
RADIO Springs, Pueblo, Grand Junction
and others, by direct vote Of their
people adopted home rule under the
name of commission government. Fol-
lowing this came a number of legal
cases in which the charters of these
towns appeared to be in technical
legal jeopardy.
Two years ago there was submitted
to the people under the initiative and
referendum what is known as the home
rule amendment. This amendment
sought to amend the state con-
stitution SO that any town or
city that so desired could operate
under the commission form of gov
ernment and it specifically named the
towns of Denver, Pueblo, Colorado
Springs and Grand Junction and de-
clared their charters and govern
ments to be void.
There were two provisions in that
home rule amendment that were ex-
tremely strong in language. They
we're:
"The people Of each city or town in
this state having population of 1000
inhabitants as determined by the last
preceding census are hereby vested
with and they shall always have pow
er to make, amend, add to or replace
the charter of said city or town which
shall be the organic law and extend
to all local and municipal matters.
Such charter and the ordinances
made pursuant thereto in such mat
ters shall supersede within the ter
ritorial limits and other jurisdiction
of said city or town any law of the
state in conflict Herewith"
The last section is admitted by the
drays to be their stumbling block.
AT the same election there was sub
mitted an amendment to the consti-
tuition known as the recall of judicial
decisions. This amendment provides
that where the supreme court decided
question relative to city or town
the people of that city or town can,
through petition signed by per cent
of their electors, forces the legistive
department of said city or town to
submit the question to the people Of
that city or town and if the people
vote against the court when the ruling
of the court is Of no avail in that city
or town.