Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-01-31
MEREDITH TAKES ISSUE
WITH ATTORNEY POLLARD
Member OF Charter-Change Commit
tee Says Commission Bill Is
Constitutional.
WRITES RICHMOND SENATORS
Asks That Measure Not Re Returned
to City Council, Giving His Rea-
sons for Believing II to BE Thor
oughly Legal.

Criticizing the City Attorney for al
legged dilator!ness in stating when the
session OF the General Assembly is
nearly half over that the bill giving
20 Richmond the right TO change or
amend It's charter by 4 majority Of
those voting. Wyndham r. Meredith
member of the Civic Association and OF
the Charter-Change Committee has ad-
dressed letter to Senator L. O. Wen
denburG and Delegate James F.. Cannon
Of the Richmond delegation in the Leg
islature, in which he afiirms that the
proposed bin is constitutional, and in
which he urges that 1t be placed upon
its passage and not be returned 10 the
city Council for amendment in con-
formty with the construction which
the City Attorney places upon tho
amendment to section III OF the Con-
sttution OF Virginia
II the section OF the Constitution re-
ferred TO be construed according to the
ideas OF Mr. Pollard Mr.. Meredith
states. an undcmocratic and prohibit
tive requirement would he inserted.
The letter of Mr. Meredith follows:
January 80. 1916.
Hon. James L. Cannon and Hon. L. O.
WendenburG:
Gcntlemen.-I have just read in the
sunday Times-Dispatch the extracts
from tho belated opinion OF the CITY
Attorney regarding The bill he drafted
al the request OF the Change
Committee, and which was adopted by
the City Council without hint from
it's sworn legal adviser that. as he now
claims il was unconstitutional, and
should he returned 10 that body for
amc ndmen,. although the session OF the
Legislature is now nearly half over
rRONOUNCES REQUIREMENT
ro BE UNDEMOCRATIC
When the gladstone light OF con-
stitutional knowledge first burst upon
that gentleman, I do not know, but I
do know that AT the time the bill was
before the City Council, member of
the Administrative Board asserted in
conversation that the bill was uncon-
stitutional for the reason now given
by the City Attorney.
As now drawn. the two elections
tina; would have to be held under il
could be carried by majority Of those
voting al such election. II the view
of the City Attorney prevail with you
and the other representatives Of our
city in the Legislature. il is proposed
ut this late day 10 have the work of
the CHARTERED Change Committee and OF
the two branches gone over again and
an undemocratic and prohibitivc re-
QUirement inserted. that would require
n new charter to he adopted by a ma
jority OF the whole electorate. That
is TO say, II the whole number or
qualified voters of this city is 5000.
but only 10000 vote at the above-named
elections. although 5,00i vote for the
charter, It would fail OF adoption. 1t
must secure at least S.00l votes for
it's adoption.
III AMENDED. WOULD
COME BACK TOO LATE
The result would be either that tho
bill as amended by the Council at the
suggestion Of the City Attorney would
come back to you too late for passage,
and thus the people OF this city de-
prived for another two years OF their
right to change their form OF govern
ment. or, If passed as amended. the
amendment would be prohibitive.
"rhc present law, known as the Nor
folk law. contains the amendment sug-
gestcd by the City Attorney. Norfolk
held such an election last August. and
1t was carried overwhelming for the
creation Of new charter, but failed
because the ringsters sent out the word
( O stay away from the polls. and those
in favor of charter change could not
secure majority Of the whole clccto-
rate, though, as / havo said. they did
socure a great majority Of those voting
If the bill as prepared by the City
Attorney is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, this com
munity will have to suffer the consc-
quences Of his lack OF knowledge. But
does the provision that the election
may be carried by n majority OF those
voting make the bin unconstitutional?
81 affirm, without hesitation, that
the views of tho City Attorney on this
point is as erroneous as they arc be-
lated.
CONFIDENT THAT BILL IS
FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL T.
'As the particular language of sec
tion III has not been passed on by our
highest court. one has to rely upon an
examination of tho whole section to