Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-01-31
CHARTER CHANGE:
ABSORBING ISSUE:
Question of Constitutionality of
Commission Bill Overshadows
All Local Matters.
MEREDITH HOLDS 1T LEGAL
Norfolk Also Shares Difficulty,
but It's Representatives Are
Not Alarmed.
HOLDS 1T LEGAL

Tor the moment the question Of the
constitutionality OF the Richmond
charter commission bill and thc best
avenue toward relief has orershadowed.
at least as far as this city is concerned.
every other issue before the General
Assembly.
Wyndham r. Meredith. one OF the
most active members of the Charter
Change Committee, and a wellknown
legal authority. in n letter TO Senators
Cannon and WendenburE. declares the
measure. as framed. TO be constitu-
tional. despite the opinion of the City
Attorney. which he characteriZes "as
erroneous as bclatcd."
Or. -. X. Anderson, vice-presidcnt
and prominent member of the Civic
Association, declares, in statement
made last night, that II the provision
allowing the majority of voters in the
election to accept charter from a
popularity chosen commission is uncon-
stitutional. that the Constitution should
he changed. DR.. Anderson declares
that he Is certain that the citizens will
not permit dilatory methods to defeat
the principle of n charter commission.
NORFOLK ALSO SHARES
IN RICHMOND'S DIFFICULTY
Richmond's deep interest I'm the ad-
justmcnt of the constitutional difficulty
is shared also by the city of Norfolk,
which has also introduced charter
commission bill, now in the Senate on
it's second reading. The Norfolk bill
differs from the Richmond measure in
only one material particular-namely.
in the number of siCners IT requires
for the petition asking for the appoint
mcnt OF n charter commission. The
Richmond bill requires the petition to
he signed by % per cent of the quail
fled voters. while the Norfolk measure
requires only number equal to Is
per cent of the voters who participat ed
In the last municipal election.
The constitutional doubt raised by
City Attorney Pollard with respect to
the local bill, applies with equal force
10 the bill introduced for the city OF
Norfolk. In both measures provision
Is made 'or the creation of commits
sion specifically limited to the duty of
framing Special" form of govern
ment. the ratification of which, accord
ing TO MIR. Pollard's construction of the
Constitution, requires a majority of the
total qualified electorate
While the question of the size OF the
electorate that will be required to ap-
prove the special form OF government.
evolved by the charter commission, was
not raised in any sitting of the local
Charter Change Committee, il is under
stood that this question was fully dis
cussed in Norfolk. and that tho legal
advisers OF the Norfolk authorities held
that the approval OF only n majority.
OF those participating in the election
would be needed
NORFOLK RILI. TO GO
THROUGH As DRAFTED
Senator Matthews, OF Norfolk, patron
OF the charJcr commission bill OF that
city, has so far not become alarmed
over the situation. and has taken no
steps TO amend his bill. He has indi-
Gated 10 some of his colleagues his in
tcntion TO rely on the legal advice rem
dcred the Norfolk authorities and al
low his hill to go to its passage in it's
present form.
In the meantime. thousands OF char
ter commission enthusiasts in Rich
mond ana Norfolk arc deriving small
comfort from the situation. City At
torney Pollard. o. Richmond, has seen
no reason to retreat from his opinion
that the Richmond bill undertakes to
prescribe fer the adoption Of a spe-
cial form OF government the approval
OF an electorate smaller than is ie-
Qu!red by the Constitution. and holds to
the belief that tie bill If passed in its
present form will be- imperative.
One thing is regarded rs all but I'M
possible--to secure at any time TIL. 8p-
proval Of n majority OF the qualified
electorate for any radical plan of re-
form. In such an election every quail
flied voter who fails to exercise his
ballot IS counted against the proposed
reform With between 1900 and 1900
men qualified In Richmond. and pos
sibly 5000 NOR. who could be induced
TO quality If ;hcir interest were suf-
ficiently aroused. it would bc found
next TO Impossible TO secure the sup
port of a majority OF the qualified
electorate in Richmond for any radical
anything like moderate division Of
opinion.
MAY LEAD TO CHANGE
IN CONSTITUTION
II the constitutional bar proves to
he effective, the only promise Of radi-
Cal charter reform for Richmond and
other cities Of the state lies in the
constitutional amendment that is pro-
posed in a bill that has been introduced
by Senator Gooirick The effect of this
resolution would be TO reduce the size
of the electorate required by section
III Of tho Constitution for the ratinca-
ton OF special" forms of government,
making it merely majority OF the
voters participating in the particular
election. instead OF n majority Of the
qualified electorate
Under the most favorable progress.
this amendment could not become c.icc-
tive in less than three years. In order
to change the Constitution, the amend
ment must hG passed first by two sue
ccssivc Legislatures and then ratified
by the people. Again. the Constitu-
t,On requires that such amendment
shall bc approved by n majority of the
qualified voters Of the State.
Should the Goulrick amendment he
promptly ratified Mt every turn, IL could
not become law until the summer OF