Page images
PDF
EPUB

proved to be important to an extent not easy to be imagined. The charter of a city, coming as it does from the legislature, is entirely within the control of the legislature. Just as there is no legal bar to prevent the legislature from recalling the charter altogether, so there is no feature of the charter so minute that the legislature may not assume to change it. In the State of New York there is no general law touching the government of cities, and the habit of interference in the details of city action has become to the legislature almost a second nature. In every year of his term, the writer was compelled to oppose at Albany, the seat of the State legislature, legislation seeking to make an increase in the pay of policemen and firemen, without any reference to the financial ability of the city, or the other demands upon the city for the expenditure of money. Efforts were made, also, at one time, to legislate out of office some of the officials who had been appointed in conformity to the charter. New and useless offices were sought to be created, and the mayor found that not the least important of his duties, as mayor, was to protect the city from unwise and adverse legislation on the part of the State. It is a curious circumstance that most of these propositions had their origin with members of the legislature. elected to represent different districts of the city itself. The same influences which made the administration strong with the common council, at home, made it also strong with the legislature at Albany, so that, although for one or two years the power to make changes rested with a majority at Albany politically antagonistic, no law objected to by the mayor, during this interval, was placed upon the statute-book. The city itself is compelled at times to seek legislation for the enlargement of its powers; that is to say, the powers committed to a city are strictly limited to those defined by the charter or granted by special acts of the legislature. Consequently, when an unforeseen situation is to be dealt with, calling for unusual methods or powers, it is necessary to secure authority to this end from the legislature of the State. The writer found the same general attitude, which has been referred to so often, effectual in this regard also, so that almost every bill which he desired in the interest of the city, was enacted into law, and this alike by legislatures politically in sympathy with the city administration and by legislatures politically antagonistic to it. It is not too much to say, however, that the greatest anxieties of his term sprang from the uncertainties and

difficulties of this annual contest, on the one hand to advance the interest of the city, and on the other to save it from harm in its relations to the law-making power of the State.

Imitating this charter of Brooklyn, the city of Philadelphia, still more recently, has obtained a new charter involving a great departure in the same direction from old methods. Boston and New York both have moved partly along the same line, each with admitted advantage to the city, although neither has gone so far as Brooklyn or Philadelphia. Several smaller places have obtained charters of the same kind. It is not to be supposed that this new form of city charter is the result altogether of abstract thinking. It has grown out of bitter experiences. When the inhabitants of a city found that they did not receive, as matter of fact, the good government which they desired, it did not at first occur to them that the trouble was to a large extent fundamental in their form of charter; or, if it did, the first effort at remedy led to worse mistakes than before. Starting with the theory that the path to safety was through division of power, they resorted to all manner of expedients which would compass that end. They established, for instance, police boards. and fire boards, which at different times were made to consist of three members, and at other times of four, the latter being known in American parlance as non-partisan.1 It was supposed that a single individual might be tempted to use his department unfairly in the interest of the party to which he belonged, but that by associating him with others of different parties this tendency would be overcome. It turned out, however, that the moment no one in particular was to blame, partisanship took complete possession of the administration of every department. When one reflects that in the Government of the United States the immense administrative departments, like the Treasury and the Post-Office, have, from the beginning of the Government, been committed to the care of a single man, it seems strange that, in their cities, Americans should have been so unwilling to proceed upon the same theory. The reason probably is that the city, as above pointed out, has been evolved from the town by the simple process of enlargement. In the town the theory of division of power has been acted upon with substantial uniformity, and in small communities has worked well. The attempt

1 Non-partisan practically means that the two great parties are equally represented upon it.

to act upon the same lines in the great and rapidly-growing cities of the country has, in the judgment of many, been as instrumental as any other one element in causing the unsatisfactory results which have marked the progress of many American cities. For the purposes of this chapter it is not necessary to enlarge further upon this thought. It is emphasized thus far for the purpose of showing that all the large class of difficulties which American cities have been obliged to face by reason of faulty charters are not irremediable. The actual process of change from one system of charter to another has been marked incidentally by one unfortunate effect. The city charter, coming as it does from the legislature, lies entirely within the control of the legislature. The many appeals to the legislature for charter amendment of one kind and another have bred a habit in some of the States, if not in all, of constant interference by the legislature with the local details of city action. This interference, though often prompted by a genuine desire to relieve a city from pressing evils, has tended very greatly to lessen the sense of responsibility on the part of local officials, and upon the part of communities themselves. It is one of the best effects of Brooklyn's charter, that it has helped to create in that city a very decided spirit of home rule, which is ready to protest at any moment against interference on the part of the State with local matters.

It remains to be said that the one organic problem in connection with the charters of cities, which apparently remains as far from solution as ever in America, is that which concerns the legislative branch of city government. In some cities the legislative side is represented by two bodies, or houses, known by different names in different cities, and presenting the same general characteristics as a State legislature with its upper and lower house. The most conspicuous instances of this kind are furnished by the city of Boston and the city of Philadelphia. In all the cities of New York State, the legislative branch consists of a single chamber indifferently spoken of as the Board of Aldermen or the Common Council. But whether these bodies have been composed of one house or two, the moment a city has become large they have ceased to give satisfactory results. Originally these bodies were given very large powers, in order to carry out to the utmost the idea of local self-government. As a rule they have so far abused these powers that almost every

The

where the scope of their authority has been greatly restricted. In the city of New York that tendency has been acted upon to so great an extent as to deprive the common council of every important function it ever possessed, except the single power to grant public franchises. How greatly they have abused this remaining power is unfortunately matter of public record. powers thus taken away from the common council, are ordinarily lodged with boards made up of the higher city officials. Even in the city of New York it has seldom been the case that the mayor of the city has not been a man of good repute and of some parts. As a general proposition, it is found in American cities that the larger the constituency to which a candidate must appeal, and the more important the office, the more of a man the candidate must be. What may be the outcome of this difficulty as to the legislative body in cities, it is impossible to say. Sometimes it seems almost as though the attempt would be made to govern cities without any local legislature. But, on the other hand, there are so many matters in regard to which such a body ought to have power, that thus far no one has ventured seriously to take so extreme a view. It may fairly be said to be, therefore, the great unsolved organic problem in connection with municipal government in the United States. That it is so, illustrates with vividness the justice of the American view that it is a dangerous thing, in wholly democratic communities, to make the legislative body supreme over the executive.

Thus far in this chapter, the shortcomings of the American city have been admitted, and the effort has been made to show the peculiar difficulties with which such a city has to deal. It ought to be said that, despite all of these difficulties, the average American city is not going from bad to worse. There is substantial reason for thinking that the general tendency, even in the larger cities, is towards improvement. Life and property are more secure in almost all of them than they used to be. Certainly there has been no decrease of security such as might reasonably have been expected to result from increased size. Less than a score of years ago it was impossible to have a fair election in New York or Brooklyn. To-day, and for the last decade, under the present system of registry laws, every election is held with substantial fairness. The health of our cities does not deteriorate, but on the average improves. So that in the large and fundamental aspect of the question the

progress, if slow, is steady in the direction of better things. It is not strange that a people conducting an experiment in city government for which there is absolutely no precedent, under conditions of exceptional difficulty, should have to stumble towards correct and successful methods through experiences which may be both costly and distressing. There is no other road towards improvement in the coming time. But it is probable that in another decade Americans will look back on some of the scandals of the present epoch in city government, with as much surprise as they now regard the effort to control fires by the volunteer fire department, which was insisted upon, even in the city of New York, until within twenty years. As American cities grow in stability, and provide themselves with the necessary working plant, they approximate more and more in physical conditions to those which prevail in most European cities. As they do so, it is reasonable to expect that their pavements will improve and the cleansing of their streets will be more satisfactory. American cities, as a rule, have a more abundant supply of water than European cities, and they are much more enterprising in furnishing themselves with what in Europe might be called the luxuries of city life, but which, in America, are so common as almost to be regarded as necessities. Especially is this true of every convenience involving the use of electricity. There are more telephone wires, for example, in New York and Brooklyn, than in the whole of the United Kingdom. The problem of placing these wires underground therefore, to take in passing an illustration, of another kind, of the difficulties of city government in America, is vastly greater than in any city abroad, because the multiplication of the wires is so constant and at so rapid a rate that as fast as some are placed beneath the surface, those which have been strung while this process has been going on seem as numerous as before the underground movement began.

It may justly be said, therefore, that the American city, if open to serious blame, is also deserving of much praise. Every one understands that universal suffrage has its drawbacks, and in cities these defects become especially evident. It would be uncandid to deny that many of the problems of American cities spring from this factor, especially because the voting population is continually swollen by foreign immigrants whom time alone can educate into an intelligent harmony with the American

« PreviousContinue »