called) to the State Senate and Assembly; the city elective judiciary to the State elective judiciary.1

4

3

The

A few words on each of these municipal authorities. mayor is by far the most conspicuous figure in city governments, much more important than the mayor of an English or Irish borough, or the provost of a Scotch one. He holds office, sometimes for one year,2 but now more frequently for two, three, or even five years. In some cities he is not re-eligible. He is directly elected by the people of the whole city, and is usually not a member of the city legislature.5 He has, almost everywhere, a veto on all ordinances passed by that legislature, which, however, can be overridden by a two-thirds majority. In many cities he appoints some among the heads of departments and administrative boards, though usually the approval of the legislature or of one branch of it is required. Quite recently some city charters have gone so far as to make him generally responsible for all the departments, though limiting his initiative by the right of the legislature to give or withhold supplies, and making him liable to impeachment for misfeasance. He receives a considerable salary, varying with the size of the city, but sometimes reaching $10,000, the same salary as that allotted to the justices of the Supreme Federal Court. It rests with him, as the chief executive officer, to provide for the public peace, to quell riots, and, if necessary, to call out the militia.7 He often exerts a pretty wide discretion as to

1 American municipal governments are of course subject to three general rules: that they have no powers other than those conferred on them by the State, that they cannot delegate their powers, and that their legislation and action generally is subject to the constitution and statutes as well of the United States as of the State to which they belong.

2 Generally in the cities of the second rank and in Boston.

3 New York, Brooklyn, Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, Cincinnati, and generally in the larger cities. Philadelphia, St Louis.

5 In Chicago and San Francisco the mayor sits in the legislature. 6 The Brooklyn charter allows the mayor to appoint heads of departments without any concurrence of the council, in the belief that thus responsibility can be better fixed upon him; and New York has lately (1884) taken the same course. 7 Some idea of the complexity due to the practice of giving special charters to particular cities, or passing special bills relating to them, may be gathered from the fact that in Ohio, for instance, the duties of the mayor vary greatly in the six chief cities of the State. There are duties which a mayor has in Cincinnati only, out of all the cities of the State; others which he has in all the cities except Cincinnati; others in Cincinnati and Toledo only; others in Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, Dayton, and Springfield only; others in Cleveland and Toledo only; others in Cleveland only; others in Toledo only; others in Columbus and Dayton only. These variations are the result not of ordinances made by each city for itself, but of State legislation.

the enforcement of the law; he may, for instance, put in force Sunday Closing Acts or regulations, or omit to do so.

The practical work of administration is carried on by a number of departments, sometimes under one head, sometimes constituted as boards or commissions. The most important of these are directly elected by the people, for a term of one, two, three, or four years. Some, however, are chosen by the city legislature, some by the mayor with the approval of the legislature or its upper chamber. In most cities the chief executive officers have been disconnected from one another, owing no common allegiance, except that which their financial dependence on the city legis lature involves, and communicating less with the city legislature as a whole than with its committees, each charged with some one branch of administration, and each apt to job it.

Education has been generally treated as a distinct matter, with which neither the mayor nor the legislature has been suffered to meddle. It is committed to a Board of Education, whose members are separately elected by the people, or, as in Brooklyn, appointed by the mayor, levy (though they do not themselves collect) a separate tax, and have an executive staff of their own at their disposal.1

The city legislature usually consists in small cities of one chamber, in large ones of two, the upper of which generally bears the name of the Board of Aldermen, the lower that of the Common Council.2 All are elected by the citizens, generally in wards, but the upper house occasionally by districts or on what is called a "general ticket," i.e. a vote over the whole city.3 Usually the common council is elected for one year, or at most for two years, the upper chamber frequently for a longer period.4

1 There are some points of resemblance in this system to the government of English cities, and especially of London. The English common councils elect certain officials and manage their business by committees. In London the sheriffs and chamberlain are elected by the liverymen. Note, however, that in no English borough or city do we find a two-chambered legislature, nor (except as last aforesaid in London) officials elected by popular vote, nor a veto on legislation vested in the mayor.

2 Some large cities, however (e.g. New York and Brooklyn, Chicago with its 36 aldermen, San Francisco with its 12 supervisors), have only one chamber.

3 In some few cities, among which is Chicago, the plan of minority representation has been to some extent adopted by allowing the voter to cast his vote for two candidates only when there are three places to be filled. It was tried in New York, but the State Court of Appeals held the statute creating it to be unconstitutional. 4 Sometimes the councilman is required by statute to be a resident in the ward he represents.

Both are usually unpaid in the smaller cities, sometimes paid in the larger. All city legislation, that is to say, ordinances, byelaws, and votes of money from the city treasury, are passed by the council or councils, subject in many cases to the mayor's veto. Except in a few cities governed by very recent charters, the councils have some control over at least the minor officials. Such control is exercised by committees, a method borrowed from the State and National legislatures, and suggested by the same reasons of convenience which have established it there, but proved by experience to have the evils of secrecy and irresponsibility as well as that of disconnecting the departments from one another.

The city judges are only in so far a part of the municipal government that in most of the larger cities they are elected by the citizens, like the other chief officers. There are usually several superior judges, chosen for terms of five years and upwards, and a larger number of police judges or justices,2 generally for shorter terms. Occasionally, however, the State has prudently reserved to itself the appointment of judges. Thus in New Haven, Connecticut (population in 1880, 62,882)—

"Constables, justices of the peace, and a sheriff, are elected by the citizens, but the city courts derive existence directly from the State legislature. . The mode of selecting judges is this: the New Haven county delegation to the dominant party in the legislature assembles in caucus and nominates two of the same political faith to be respectively judge and assistant judge of the New Haven city court. Their choice is adopted by their party, and the nominations are duly ratified, often by a strict party vote. Inasmuch as the legislature is usually Republican, and the city of New Haven is unfailingly Democratic, these usages amount to a reservation of judicial offices from the 'hungry and thirsty' local majority, and the maintenance of a certain control by the Republican country towns over the Democratic city."3

1 Boston and Cincinnati give no salary, St. Louis pays members of both its councils $300 (£60) a year, Baltimore, $1000 (£200), New York pays and Brooklyn does not.

Sometimes (as in St. Louis) the police justices are nominated by the mayor. 3 "During the session of the legislature in March 1885 this argument was put forward in answer to a Democratic plea for representation upon the city court bench. "The Democrats possess all the other offices in New Haven. It's only fair that the Republicans should have the city court.' Each party accepted the statement as a conclusive reason for political action. It would be gratifying to find the subject discussed upon a higher plane, and the incumbents of the offices who had done well continued from term to term without regard to party applications. But in the present condition of political morals, the existing arrangements are probably the most practicable that could be made. It goes without saying

mayor

It need hardly be said that all the above officers, from the and judges downwards, are, like State officers, elected by manhood suffrage. Their election is usually made to coincide with that of State officers, perhaps also of Federal congressmen. This saves expense and trouble. But as it not only bewilders the voter in his choice of men by distracting his attention between a large number of candidates and places, but also confirms the tendency, already strong, to vote for city officers on party lines, there has of late years been a movement in some few spots to have the municipal elections fixed for a different date from that of State or Federal elections, so that the undistracted and nonpartisan thought of the citizens may be given to the former.1

At present the disposition to run and vote for candidates according to party is practically universal, although the duty of party loyalty is deemed less binding than in State or Federal elections. When both the great parties put forward questionable men, a non-partisan list, or so-called "citizens' ticket," may be run by a combination of respectable men of both parties. Sometimes this attempt succeeds. However, though the tenets of Republicans and Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with the conduct of city affairs, though the sole object of the election, say of a city comptroller or auditor, may be to find an honest man of good business habits, four-fifths of the electors in nearly all cities give little thought to the personal qualifications of the candidates, and vote the "straight out ticket.'

The functions of city governments may be distributed into three groups-(a) those which are delegated by the State out of its general coercive and administrative powers, including the police power, the granting of licences, the execution of laws relating to adulteration and explosives; (b) those which though done under general laws are properly matters of local charge and subject to local regulation, such as education and the care that country districts are, as a rule, more deserving of political power than are cities. The method of selecting the judiciary is everywhere a moral question, but it seems to me that the State authority should designate every judge of a rank higher than a justice of the peace. If the city judges were locally elected upon the general party ticket, the successful candidates would often be under obligations to elements in the community which are the chief source and nurse of the criminal class-an unseemly position for a judge."-Mr. Charles H. Levermore in his interesting sketch of the "Town and City Government of New Haven" (p. 77).

1 On the other hand, there are cities which hope to draw out a larger vote, and therefore obtain a better choice, by putting their municipal elections at the same time as the State elections. This has just been done by Minneapolis.

of the poor; and (c) those which are not so much of a political as of a purely business order, such as the paving and cleansing of streets, the maintenance of proper drains, the provision of water and light. In respect of the first, and to some extent of the second of these groups, the city may be properly deemed a political entity; in respect of the third it is rather to be compared to a business corporation or company, in which the taxpayers are shareholders, doing, through the agency of the city officers, things which each might do for himself, though with more cost and trouble. All three sets of functions are dealt with by American legislation in the same way, and are alike given to officials and a legislature elected by persons of whom a large part pay no direct taxes. Education, however, is usually detached from the general city government and entrusted to a separate authority, while in some cities the control of the police has been withheld or withdrawn from that government, and entrusted to the hands of a separate board. The most remarkable instance is that of Boston, in which city a Massachusetts statute of 1885 entrusts the police department and the power to license, regulate, and restrain the sale of intoxicating liquors, to a special board of three persons, to be appointed for five years by the State governor and council. Both political parties are directed by the statute to be represented on the board. (This is a frequent provision in recent charters.) The city pays on the board's requisition all the expenses of the police department. In New York the police commissioners are appointed by the mayor, but in order to "take the department out of politics" an unwritten understanding has been established that he, though himself always a partisan, shall appoint two Democratic and two Republican commissioners. The post of policeman is "spoils" of the humbler order, but spoils equally divided between the parties.

Taxes in cities, as in rural districts, are levied upon personal as well as real property; and the city tax is collected along with the county tax and State tax by the same collectors. There are, of course, endless varieties in the practice of different States and cities as to methods of assessment and to the minor imposts

1 Though sometimes, as in Baltimore, the city legislature appoints a Board of Education. Unhappily, in some cities education is "within politics," and, as may be supposed, with results unfavourable to the independence and even to the quality of the teachers. 2 So in Baltimore.