The New York herald., 1922-11-15
NEW CHARTER PLAN
OPPOSED TO CRAIG'S
Continued from First Page.

took away from the city's elected au-
thorities a power they now possess.
Under this provision" said Mr..
Craig, mo matter how sound their con-
vlctions may be, they may be restrained
in their projects-by whom? Elected
officers? No. BY a public accountant
appointed by the man who happens to
be Comptroller: an engineer appointed
by the Board Of Aldermen, and banker
or any other type appointed by the
Presiding Justice of the Appellate Divi-
sion of the First Department, who Is
not even municipal authority him
self and whose jurisdiction as a State
officer extends to only two boroughs Of
the city.
These three men can kill a project
which the members OF the Board of
Estimate may have been elected to put
through for whatever reasons seem good
TO them. What becomes of responsible
government? 1t ceases to exist by State
enactment. Under the name of home
rule this charter strikes a blow at the
very heart of home rule. 1t means not
only will we have Transit Commits
sion and a Public Service Commission
but any number of others. 1t Is re-
dictionary doctrine and we are not living
in an age of reaction. AS you read
Mr. Cutcheons plan through the word
home grows smaller and rule grows
larger
II move that this draft be received
and made part of the record, the same
as was done with my charter nine
months ago. 1t would be giving it a
great deal Of Difference, considering IL
was drawn before election
The Comm ission's Vote.
Craig demanded a doll call on his mo-
ton. and lost it.
Thirteen OF the fifteen members OF the
commission were present. They voted
as follows: Aye - Mr.. Craig, Murray
Hubert, representing Mayor Hyian /;
Frank L. Polk. William Barclay Par
sons and Edward Riegelmann. borough
president of Brooklyn. No-Henry De-
Forest Baldwin, chairman OF the COM
mission; H. Pushae Williams, Herman A
Metz, Lewis l.. Delafield. George Crom-
we'll, Joseph NJ. Levine and Howard Lee
McBain, secretary to the commission.
John ]. Keller declined to vote.
On Mr.. Delafields motion to use
Cutcheons charter as a guide for fur
ther revision, Mr.. Keller voted no and
Mr.. Metz and Mr. Levine switched their
votes. because they said they wanted to
consider both plans or neither.
The chairman entertained a motion to
adjourn, and suggested that the mem
bers be prepared to decide at the next
meeting which of the two plans they IA
vor.
In Mr.. Cutcheon's explanation Of his
draft he said he had tried to make It
succinct and self-contained. He at
tempted 70 give very broad legislative
powers to the city. he declared. but
pointed out that the State Legislature
could not delegate discretion to a city
TO determine how far it might 60,
therefore this charter specifies as many
discretionary powers as possible" He
had thought IL unwise to suit the pres
ent system of governing boards because,
though illogical, they are successful"
ut gives the city practically every
power l could think Of" he added,
although there are some limits on
finance and public utilities. Granting
the city general powers OF regulation !
| have excepted the powers taken over by
the State or nation"
Mr.. Craig's birchbark document was
| submitted to the commission January 10
1922. 1t abolishes the Transit and Pub
| lie Service commissions and gives the
city the right to own and operate any
sort Of public utility without reduction
except as limited by the State constitu-
| ton. 1t leaves education to the State,
but supplants the State in virtually
every other activity.