The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-02-23

their report. One member OF the ad-
ministratlve board did appear and
spoke TO the matter for about one
and one~half hours. A number OF ctti-
zens also discussed the measure be-
fore the committee. When the report
was finally presented to the council
1t was fully discussed and the opposi.
ton, while small In numbers, was Wig
orous. Unfortunately. the opposition
had little argument but much in as
serttons. and these were not always
consistent. The same speaker did
condemn the report as providing for
"one MAJ rule" and before closing
his remarks said: You AXE awar the
power Of the mayor by requiring con-
Ar1navon OF his appointees by the
council"
The assertion has been made that
the Civic association tried TO get up
a petition asking for charter change
commission. The Civic association
never has tried TO get up such a petit
ton. and a moments thought must
convince along this line. The citizens
Of Richmond put up $4,000 to have
the survey made, Until that survey
had been made and the report returned
to them they would not kuow Just what
recommendations would be made for
$4,000 A. WooAh A2b g
been folly to have started a petition
without the information contained in
that report.
The council referred the matter of
charter changes TO a committee In
February, 1917; IT has been well said
that they worked over the matter
faithfully and continuously for from
seven to nine months. during which
period every city official and many of
our citizens knew what they were on
eaFed on. Just a month or two be-
fore the committee was ready to re-
port rumors began TO fly thick and
fast that the abolition OF the admin
istrats9e board would be recommend
ed, Very soon thereafter the public
began to hear about a petition being
circulated for signatures to call an
election for a charter change com
mission. In the process of putting
two and two together the public soon
came to believe that some members
Of the administrative board originated
This petition, and soIne city employees
in departments under their control
presented copiss to our citizens for
signatures. This view is sustained by
the threats OF condign punishment for
the common council II they dared do
anything looking TO the abolition OF
the administrative board. The inevi-
table conclusion is that this petition
was started as a lash to be held over
tho council. All honor to the r1em-
1erS Of The committee, and to the
council of this city. for their exhibit
ton of loyalty to the best interests
Of the citizens OF Richmond. despite
these lurId threats. The citizens think
that our representatives in the general
assembly must know that the oppor-
funff,- lie nnvv thnjrs m OiHn yn tk.a~
citizens partial relief In an almost
i'm possible condition. measured by
proved modern. efficient city govern
ment. That yet greater improvements
may be made none will deny, but they
require two or three years by other
legal routes. No sane man, who sin
cerely desires the better thing. win
decline TO accept in part because he
cannot get the whole at once. Neither
in well ordered business circles. in the
home or on the farm. does one hest
tate to adopt improvements as they
come to his knowledge, though thew
relief only partially. from un-
desirable conditions. Let this legisla-
ture give the relief in its power TO
confer now: 1t may be that the 1920
general assembly will a the oppor-
tunity to provide In larger measure.
The common council represents the
OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4-of the members OF the lower
branch voted for the changes request
ed; In tbe upper branch. with equal
representation from each OF the four
wards, the vote was unanimous for
changes. The opposition vote of
was all from one ward-JefYer-
son ward. The population OF the city
Is about equally divided among the four
hence three-fourths, or more. or |
cur citizens favor the proposed chang
as recommended. All of the c.ti-i
tens have the last say. because OF the