Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1915-10-21
AMENDMENT TO LIMIT ELECTIONS
IS OPPOSED By SINGLE TAKERS
Stability League Campaign Has Backing Of Prominent o%%s-
papers and Leading Citizens.
To Safeguard a. r. It Is Fair and Sane That Constu
tiona Proposal Twice Rejected Shall Not Be
Thrust Upon Voters Without Limit
(By II. A. McKenzle.) }

Columbus, o.-(SpeclaD- The con-
stitutional amendment to limit cleo
tioGs ana safeguard the constitution
against eyer.asting assaults OF politl
cal agitators meet with the approval
of every class OF citizens except those
who are leaders OF the single tax pro-
paganda.
The single takers are getting ready
to circulate petitions for a single tax
amendment to the constitution. They
admit that such an amendment is un-
popular now. but they ale hopeful that
if they can get it before the people
year in and year out for unmber of
years they will wear out the opposi-
ton. This, in spite OF the fact that on
no class of the population would the
single tax prove greater burden than
on the fGrmer and aala.l land owner.
There are no .propagandists in Ohio
more enthusiastic tan the single tax
ers. Few of them are land owners.
AS is Very well known they adhere to
the Henry George theory that Lae only
fair tax is a tax on land They con-
tend that The owner of land has no
rights to increased va,ues of land AMI
that such iJes-which they call I'M
earned increm msnt-shall go TO the
community at large.
Among tie leading single takers in
Ohio are Rev. Herbert Bigelow, of
Cincinnati; Mayor Newton d. Baker,
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 j. S. MacLean, o. 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. 1etlow, signed the OF.
fetal 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 constitutional
questions which has been the source
of so much annoyance and expense to
the voters and taxpayers of the state.
Voters are getting tired IF petition
Teddlers 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 =
stitutional Convention, and majority
of the members of the last two IN
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 tax
s