OF SPECIAL yr AlC4-^ Chicago Federation of Labor July 21, 1907 John C. Bunneister Printing Co., 166 S. Clinton St. ; Chicago. p REPORT OF SPECIAL CHARTER COM- MITTEE, JULY 21, 1907. edi Y ur • committee has minutely examined the ^ proposed charter, in all respects and more espe- j ciallv in its possible effects on labor and the labor ^ situation". We have examined it in its political features, its civil service, its revenue, its educational, its pubi c utilities and general features. ; the political we find the following: The charter provides that aldermen shall hold office for four years. In this regard it is reactionary in effect, inasmuch that it removes the public servant farther from the correcting hand of the electorate. Aldermen being elected for four years will have plenty of time to consummate any piece of rascality that their owners may conceive of being profitable. Any alderman who is on the make could feather his nest very nicely in four years of freedom from interference. Further, the charter provides that fifty aider- men shall bo elected every four years instead of seventy every two years, which will result in a very considerable saving to the predatory inter- ests which now have to go to the expense of financing the campaigns of the majority of seventy ^ aldermen every two years. 3 The Legislature has usurped the undoubted right of the Council by making the first appor- tionment of wards, said apportionment being a rank gerrymander. This charter proposition violates in its begin- ning, in its most essential features, the most sacred and fundamental principles of self-gov- ernment. While it is put forward in answer to an appeal for home rule, it starts right in to deny and destroy the very thing where home rule is most essentially needed. No one will deny that the right to elect the men who are to make the laws is one that should be guarded with jealous care, for as good laws may bless so bad ones may curse and destroy a community. This charter proposition continues our present form of council for eighteen months, subject, however, to the new law, but after that we are restricted to fifty or less and ward boundaries fixed and twisted and contorted out of all re- semblance to decency and fairness. One political party under this gerrymander, with a normal minority, will get 32 of the wards, the controlling interests of the other party accept the situation because it controls 14 of the remaining 18 wards ; this leaves 4 wards that the politicians have rele- gated to the people. The workers are segregated into large com- munities having small proportionate representa- tion, for example, the 17th ward with an approxi- mate registration of 4,577 gave Busse 1,880 votes, Dunne 1,798 votes. The 18th ward with a regis- tration of 12,926 gave Busse 3,931 votes, Dunne . 6,913 votes, with 2,082 to the Socialist and scat- A Lcring. This discriminates at the rate of nearly three to one and denies to the workingman equal political rights. The 17th ward as proposed being a so-called silk stocking ward and the 18th the workingman’s district. All of the above in spite of the fact that the charter provides that wards must be as nearly equal in population as practicable — it looks like practical politics. There can be no reapportionment until 1920. The number of the wards cannot be increased. The work of reappontionment falls on those who will probably be interested in preserving the inequities proposed by the charter. The charter is monarchial in its tendency, in- asmuch as it gives almost unlimited adminis- trative power to the Mayor, for Art. 3, Sec. 11, gives the Mayor the power to remove any officer appointed by him whenever he is of the opinion that the interests of the city demand it. He has merely to give his reason in writing to the City Council. This gives to the Mayor thet power which may be used unscrupulously in the control of the management of the schools to give a re- actionary mold to the minds of the future men — the school children, to the end that economic in- vestigation shall be blocked, and that vested in- terests, no matter how inequitable, shall always find its champions and supporters. Art. 5, Sec. 4 of the Charter seems to grant broad powers to the city, but expressly limits the power of the city as to public utilities, taxation and to the provision pertaining to the Board of Education, which gives the Mayor power of ap- pointing and removing, and thereby gives him* 1 absolute control of the schools. I t i n , * The promise of broad power to the city looks small indeed when we compare it with Art. 22, Sec. 4, which reads as follows: “Nothing in this act or any section thereof contained shall be con- strued as affecting, limiting or impairing the right of the Legislature to alter, amend, annul or repeal any or all of the provisions of this charter by an act of the Legislature enacted in conformity to the constitution of the State.” This will effectually prevent any radical action being taken, as the result of a political revolution which may give to the people control of the city government even under the present gerrymander. The Legislature could annul any act of the city by altering the provisions of the charter. The charter is also subject to all existing gen- eral laws, also all general laws to be made in the future. Art. 5, Sec. 2, This subjects Chicago to irksome puritanical laws which may be tolerable in rural communities, but which would infringe upon what the population of a metropolis would call “personal liberty.” A broad promise of home rule is given, but it is so hedged in by conditions and provisos that the already vague promise be- comes entirely inoperative. Sec. 5, Art. 28, takes away the people’s rights to elect the City Clerk — more power to the Mayor. The initiative lies entirely with the Council. If the Council does not see fit to initiate a measure, no matter how desirable, under Art. 5, Sec. 4, 6 n will be impossible to procure the reform or relief sought. The only instance in which the initiative is given is when a measure has been rejected. The people may with a 15 per cent petition have said measure re-submitted after two years. The people are utterly deprived of the initiative of first instance. Chapter 3 re-establishes an old and obnoxious primary law which leaves the selection of candi- dates in the hands of the bosses. CIVIL SERVICE. The Civil Service section of the charter is a wordy abrogation of the Civil Service principle. The heads of departments may, without hearing, remove any employe any time within an un- stated probationary period. Employes who have passed the probationary period may be discharged by the head of the department, filing reasons therefor with the Civil Service Commission. The employe is not accorded a hearing and can only answer the charges in writing. Laborers are not accorded even this modicum of protection, it being expressly provided that “this does not apply to laborers.” The framers of the charter evidently believe that mere labor- ers had no rights worth considering, anyhow. EDUCATION. In the management of the schools, Art. 19, Sec. 1, prohibits interference by the Council, and in the next section the Mayor is given absolute power in. appointing and removing any member^ of the school board. The Mayor can remove any member by merely stating his reasons, good or bad. *The member selected for decapitation may then appear' before the Mayor for hearing. The Mayor is hereby made creator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Art. 19, Sec. 9, provides that no officer can suffer a reduction in pay unless all teachers are also reduced in pay, but teachers may be reduced in pay without the pay of the officials being re- duced. Art. 19, Sec. 11, provides that the civil service law shall apply to the employe of the Board of Education and that no employe can be removed except for cause, then the following significant exception occurs : “Teachers shall for this purpose not be held to be employes.” This is certainly an indefensible discrimination against the teachers. It is well known that the framers of the charter did not approve of the teachers allying themselves with the general labor movement, and this is evi- dently their method of making their disapproval effective. Although Sec. 30 provides that charges and a hearing before the Board of Education are pre- liminary to the discharge of a teacher, any cause that the Board may call good is sufficient to sus- tain the discharge. Sec. 26 gives to the Board of Education all powers not defined in the charter. This will make it easy for a hostile administration to drive out 8 I TV; 7VU their employ any members of labor unions if this charter be adopted. Children and teachers are guaranteed abso- lutely nothing under the charter. The charter seeks, to make the public schools a cog in the capitalistic machine, so that the children may reach manhood’s estate, content in a condition of abject servitude. TAXATION. On the subject of taxation, your committee is of the opinion that there is crying need of re- vision of the revenue laws of Chicago, the old system being very wasteful. It is estimated that the proposed system would result in a saving of about $60,000 a year, and this is about the only good thing in the charter, and it is a mere baga- telle, for the whole system of taxation is funda- mentally wrong. Sixty thousand dollars is a small matter when we take into consideration the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of property in this city escape its just proportion of taxation. The charter does not propose any remedy for the situation, the principle and appli- cation will be the same as of old, only more so. Under the old system, as well as under the pro- posed new, the workingman, the renter, the single home owner, the small business man, all those who have no means of shifting their taxes, must, and do, pay all taxes, and any increase in taxation must be borne by those least able to bear it. It is claimed by the advocates of the new charter that Chicago must have more money with which to finance this great and growing city, and in the next breath they try to show that the increase will be infinitesimal. It is certain that a large amount will be raised somewhere and somehow. Let us see how and where. The tax levy for city and country must not exceed 5 per cent of the assessed valuation, exclusive of interest and the bonded indebtedness sinking fund, which, is in addition to and above the five per cent referred to. It is provided that the interest on bonded indebtedness and the sinking fund must be raised by direct taxation. (Sec. 13, Art. 5.) Twenty years is the constitutional time for a debt to run. It was estimated that the income from direct taxes in 1906 would be more than $7,000,000, the taxable property at one-fifth valuation being placed at $408,000,000, the full value being $2,- 040,000,000, five per cent of which would repre- sent the possible bonded indebtedness of the city. At 4 per cent the interest would amount to $4,- 100,000 — the sinking fund $5,100,000 more per year. Interest and sinking fund in 1906 amounted to $2,288,368, the difference between the old and the proposed obligation being nearly $7,000,000. It would appear from this that Mr. F. L. Shep- pard’s charge that taxes would be from 25 to 40 per cent higher is well founded and very, con- servative. If taxes had been fairly spread and ‘collected under the present system the amount would have been double that really raised. The system will be substantially the same under the new charter. We have no reason to suppose that the people who have always been unfair will suddenly be- ^ome fair if the new charter were adopted. There- fore, the class who now bear the whole burden would have to bear the added burden, and it is safe to predict that the adoption of the charter would result in a doubling of taxes to those who have no means of dodging or shifting the same. The fact that a certain class of large property- holders have the means of successfully shifting or dodging their just proportion of taxes, would probably account for their advocacy of the char- ter. The attorney of the real estate board con- demns the charter because of the certain increase in taxation, but on the whole he considers the charter acceptable. The owner can pass the increased tax along to the renter and charge interest on the transaction. The special assessment evil is retained in its entirety. Local improvement cost is in addition to all of the liabilities before mentioned. Park boards may be allowed to spread a spe- cial tax for the support of museums, (Art. 18, Sec. 18). Art. 12, Sec. 3, provides that a tax may be placed on any trade or business in the city. A hostile city council may, in lime of trouble, lay a tax upon the desired kind of workman or art- isan, and. before a court could pass on the matter, the object of their interests would be accom- plished. Mr. Maclay Hoyne, in an opinion given to the City Council on December 10, 1904, says that the Legislature has power to give to Chicago the right to taxe any trade, profession or occupation carried on in Chicago. This power is given under the new charter. “And may the Lord have mercy on the disv* possessed who produce everything and own noth- ing but the privilege* to bear the whole burden of society.” PUBLIC UTILITIES. The public utility section (Art. 16) appears on the face of it to make municipal ownership and operation possible. The city may issue bonds, pledging the faith of the city (Sec. io) for the purpose of acquiring public utilities, if the propo- sition to issue bonds is approved by two-thirds of the people voting thereon. Municipal ownership then in this direction and by the above mentioned means is made impos- sible. Art. 1 6, Sec. 12, allows the city to issue interest- bearing certificates payable from the income of the property to be acquired, this to be subject to a majority vote. Sec. 8, Should property be ac- quired in either case as outlined above, the city could not operate these utilities until the question of such operation had been passed upon favor- ably by the people in a referendum vote. If the matter of operation be not passed by the Council and submitted by the Council, the people arc help- less to raise the question because the initiative is not provided for among the people themselves. The city has the power to lease its public utili- ties for a period not to exceed twenty years, the lessee to operate the property; therefore, if the Council did not submit the question of operation to the people (and it is not compelled to), the property would then necessarily have to be leased to some profit monger. Art. 1 6, Sec. 2, reads in part, “No person or corporation shall have the right to locate, con- struct, maintain or operate any public utility in, over, under, upon or along the streets, alleys or other public places of the City of Chicago with- out the consent of the corporate authorities of said city, which consent MAY be granted for a period not longer than twenty years. This amounts to the right to give a perpetual fran- chise to anyone who has the price; for Art. 22, Sec. 2, reads, “The words ‘shall have power’ or MAY, as used in this charter, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS MANDATORY.” Therefore, a grant can be given for any time if the people of this city who are interested in preserving the liberties of posterity cannot bear the expense of circulating a referendum petition. In this case the question is only submitted to the people as a result of a petition, also in this particular case the Council does not have to sub- mit the question except as noted. Although a referendum petition requires only ten per cent of the registered voters, yet the circulating of one will be very costly, because Art. 2, Chapter 2, Sec. 9, provides that every signature must be verified by a statement under oath by an adult citizen, that he believes the signer to be a voter, or that the signatures cannot be obtained by children, neither can blanks be left in public places to be filled, and the necessary great expense must be borne by public-spirited M 13 citizens, the charter making no provisions fo the expense of circulating the petitions. REMARKS. All the predatory, tax dodging, labor baiting interests in Chicago are unequivocally in favor of the adoption of this charter — in fact, the in- sistent demand for the charter has been made by this class, during the past ten years — this class who have most loudly demanded reform have the most to fear from the inauguration of any real reform. They constitute the class who fear the rule by the whole people. They are the class who in this charter seek to curb the power of the electorate. In this connection we may ask, “What right have the people to expect that if the charter is adopted, that the promises of better government will bring results any sooner or surer than the promises made in reference to improved street- car service?” It is quite apparent that promises have not been kept in the past, and those that have betrayed the people in the past are reason- ably certain to betray them in the future, if given the opportunity. The charter is unnecessary. Chicago can get what relief it wants from the Legislature under the “Charter amendement to the Constitution,” which permits the Legislature to give to Chicago anything it wants without forcing on Chicago a lot of onerous and oppressive laws it does not want, e. g., Chicago could obtain full control of its own taxation with the right to apply vary- I r ing rates under this to different classes of prop- erty; industry could be re-leased and privilege taxed according to the value of the privilege. The charter is a weaker and poorer instru- ment than that which the Charter Convention framed. All real reform and improvement seems to be purposely excluded. There is no mention of the initiative, which we have had in a way ; no mention of the re-call or the imperative man- date which progressive states are adopting; noth- ing that will give the people better control of their own affairs; nothing in the interest of democratic government; nothing to preserve the liberties of the people against the encroachments of concentrated wealth and plutocratic greed. The charter is but a re-hash of the old, incon- sistent, absurd and contradictory laws now on the books ; it is an insidious attempt to dress Chicago in a corporation straight-jacket and to bind labor to the chariot wheel of a power-mad plutocracy. 15 RECOMMENDATIONS. Your Committee is therefore of the opinion that the proposed charter is against the best in- terests of Chicago in general, and that its pro- visions are inimical to the interests of labor in particular. Therefore your Committee recommends that this body conduct among its constituent unions a campaign against the acceptance of the prof- fered charter, by providing speakers, literature, etc., to the end that no union man may be igno- rant of his interest when the question is decided oh September 17. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) J. A. Jarvis, Chairman, A. Gilchrist, F. G. Hopp, Secretary, A. G. Mendell, Chas. M. Rau, Special Charter Committee of Chicago Fed- eratiom of Labor. Don’t fail to go to the polls and vote NO on the New Charter on Election Day, Tues- day, September 17, 1907. 16