Boston, Mass., Feb* 18, 192a*
To the Committee on State House,
Eoston, Mass.
Re:
Gentlemen:
Legal' Affairs,
Senate 143 SSThouso t&f
The undersigned original petitioners and sponsors for the legislation of Section 1 of Senate No. 143, representing also many others unable to appear at the adjourned hearing,respectfully remind you of a few of the reasons why this bill ought to pass this year; also of a necessary amendment to Section 2 thereof, and to House No* 194.
First, Senate 143 does not, as has been represented by some of its apponents, take away the regulatory powers of the •State Division of Highways over billboard advertising. It leaves the power to make general rules of state-wide application in the hands of the Division exactly as at present, retaining also the original provision of the law of 1920 that cities and towns may make further local regulations not inconsistent with the general law or with the regulations of the State Highway Division. It does strike °ut the words "subject to the approval of the Division", referring to local ordinances, and thus removes an anomaly in the law of 1920, v'hich not only requires that local by-laws on this subject shall c°mpiy vath all conditions of other local laws, subject to the con-atitution and to the state laws and regulations, but prevents a tov/n from making any local regulation unless it shall also meet
^h the approval of the State Commission.
Y7e respectfully submit that .this innovation in the Xaw 0f 1920 is an unnecessary infringement of the fundamental prin_ ciPle or local self-goverment in Massachusetts. The amendment