The Daily Alaska empire., 1945-05-03
(. OF VOTES FOR AMENDED
 BARTLETT BILL
Chamber Endorses Reve. nue Bond Measure with
 Provision for Vote
(Continued from Page One)

either in loss of the investment or in higher charges to the citizens such as higher rates in the case of a utility, since the Bartlett measure applies only to revenue producing expenditures.
 The provision that 15 per cent of those who might be affected by Council action would be able to secure a referendum should be a sufficient safeguard, MT Stabler stated the view of the Executive Board.
 Preceding MT. Stabler's remarks, two letters from Delegate Bartlett were read. The first asked the Chambers opinion on the measure he had proposed, both as to the basic purpose of the bill and on the question whether submission to the voters should be required. MT. Bartlett referred to the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce's flat stand against the measure and suggested that it's purpose might not be com- pletely understood. In clarification, Delegate Bartlett wrote:
 That his main idea in introduc- ing H. R. 2704 was to remove the need for Alaska cities to come to Congress every time they have a bonding question which would ex- ceed the 10 per cent limitation under which freedom of action is now permitted.
 Secondly, he distinguished be- tween General Obligation bonds and the Revenue Bonds with which his measure is concerned. He fur ther stated that he is considering seeking amendments to Alaska s Organic Act which would remove present limitations with regard to General Obligation Bonds. There is at present, he said, confusion as to whether the limitations set by Congress do apply to Revenue Bonds. H. R. 2704 should settle that question, he pointed out.
 Third, Delegate Bartlett stated that his bill did not include pro- vision for referral to the voters because, on checking, he had found such referral is not the general practice in the various states, with regard to Revenue Bonds. He indicated that if such provision is desired by Alaska cities, he will take steps to have the bill so amended. The second Bartlett letter offered a statement by Allan John- stone, General Counsel for the Federal Works Agency, who said that only in rare instances do state laws make referral to the voters mandatory.
 In general comment by the Ju- neau Chamber members, which preceded today's vote, Harry Sper- ling proposed that more than Is per cent of the taxpayers be re- quired to demand an election on such Council actions. That is a very small minority to be able ito toss monkey wrench" he declared.
 Curtis Shattuck declared himself opposed to petitions being re- quired to demand a vote, because that is making the voters fight for what should be their undis- puted right. A vote should be mandatory, he claimed. Charles w. Carter asked for specification in the proposed amendment of at least 30 days in which the voters may take action.
 Mayor Ernest Parsons voiced his opinion that the Bartlett Bill, as it is proposed to be amended, is the thing we should have" At torney R. E. Robertson took defi- nite stand against the Bartlett Bill, in total. He asked that the Juneau Chamber follow the lead set by Ketchikan and go on record flatly against the bill, which he said lis essentially wrong"
 MT. Robertson further stated that he thinks the proper solution is change in the Organic Act to empower the Legislature to set standards for the cities.