govern ment try. Perhaps the most marked tendency of the past year in City legislation for municipalities has been the steady growth of home rule provisions and the increased power and responsibil ity which is being put on the city electorate. In California ['01 ch. 951] a constitutional amendment was passed by the Legislature, to be submitted to the people later, providing that amendments to home rule charters must be submitted to popular vote if petitioned for by 15% of the qualified voters. Under the old constitutional provisions, charter amendments might be submitted to the people by the city's legislative body, but no provision existed for popular initiative. Moreover, during the last legislative session two new freeholders charters, adopted by the cities of Fresno and Pasadena, were approved by the state lawmakers [Cal. '01 p. 832, 884]. These charters provide for a wide extension of municipal activities and make the public ownership of all public utilities possible so far as the law is concerned. In Oregon ['01 p. 471] a constitutional amendment was passed by the Legislature whose purpose is to introduce municipal home rule on Missouri and California lines. The Legislature is to be required to provide for the incorporation, organization and classification of cities by general laws, and any city may frame its own charter by means of a board of freeholders. A local charter, when ratified by the people, will not require legislative sanction, but will immediately supersede all special laws inconsistent with it. In anticipation of this new constitutional policy the Legislature appointed a commission of 33 citizens of Portland to frame a new charter for that city to be submitted to popular vote, and if adopted, to be referred to the Legisla ture for approval or rejection as a whole [Or. '01 p. 296]. The Colorado Legislature ['01 ch. 46] also proposed constitutional amendments for the consolidation of city and county government in Denver and the granting of power to all cities of at least 2000 inhabitants to frame their own charters by means of popularly chosen charter conventions. The amendment relating to the city and county of Denver grants that municipality the widest powers for the municipalization of public utilities. Some indications of continued vitality in the policy of state City government interference appear to offset in a certain measure the movement toward municipal home rule. The classification of cities according to population, so that special legislation may be enacted under the semblance of general forms, has been altered in a few states to accommodate the policy of state interference to the returns of the last census. Nebraska passed general revisions of the laws governing cities not in the metropolitan class. These laws [Neb. '01 ch. 16-18] were enacted in three divisions, applying to cities having over 40,000 and less than 100,000, more than 25,000 and less than 40,000, and less than 25,000 population respectively. South Omaha was carefully fenced away from Lincoln on the one side and from a half dozen or more little cities on the other. In California ['01 ch. 80] a new class, numbered one and a half, was created to accommodate the thriving city of Los Angeles, and New Jersey ['01 ch. 46] reproved the aspirations of Paterson by raising the minimum population limit of first class cities from 100,000 to 150,000. Pennsylvania ['01 ch. 14] enacted what was popularly known as the "ripper bill," providing a new system of government for cities of the second class including Pittsburg, Allegheny and Scranton. The office of mayor was abolished, and the office of recorder established in its place. This office, to become elective in 1903, was until then to be filled by appointees of the governor. The governor's recorders were given unlimited power of removal and appointment in the city administration. The new charter of Greater New York, passed without the acceptance of the city, was one of the most important acts of the year. By its provisions New York has among other changes a single-chambered city council in place of its cumbersome municipal assembly. The official terms of mayor and controller are reduced from four years to two [Charter, ch. 4 § 95, 97]. The mayor is given full power of removal over his appointees, who hold their offices by indefinite tenure. A serious attempt to encourage local pride and home rule by boroughs resulted in the reorganization of the celebrated Board of Estimate and Apportionment [ch. 6 § 226] and the establishment of 25 local improvement districts with historic names [ch. 10 § 425]. The board ceases to be subject to the control of the mayor and his govern". appointees and becomes an authority composed entirely of City elective officials. The charter gives the governor authority to ment remove the mayor, any of the borough presidents, or the police commissioners [ch. 5 § 122; ch. 9 § 382]. The general tendency of recent legislation to increase the responsibility of the mayor was reversed in Nebraska legislation for Lincoln ['01 p. 79], where the number of elective officers was greatly increased and the mayor's power of removal much curtailed in favor of the council. In Missouri ['01 p. 56] the laws governing cities of the second class were amended so as to institute the bicameral council in place of the single chamber. This also seems to be an instance of the reversal of a general tendency. In one or two special charters adopted during the year we see the desire for nonpartizanship in municipal affairs expressing itself curiously. According to the new charter for South Bend Ind. ['01 p. 257, 262] not more than half, as near as may be, of the water department's employees are to be taken from any one political party, and the police and fire forces are to be and remain as nearly as possible equally divided between the two principal parties. The freeholders charter of Fresno Cal. ['01 p. 833ff] provides that no appointments are to be based on political or partizan grounds, and all appointments so far as practicable are to be distributed among persons belonging to different parties. Yet city officials are forbidden to become party workers, vote at party primaries or contribute to party funds. The legislation of a single year is too fragmentary to exhibit general tendencies with much certainty. The difficulty is immensely increased by the interference, now in one state, now in another, of purely personal or factional politics in legislation affecting the organization and powers of cities. Yet the history of 1901 seems to point toward an extension of home rule for cities in both the forms and functions of municipal government, and toward a slowly growing legal recognition of the evils of the spoils system in city administration. Assessments and improvements SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS1 VICTOR ROSEWATER PH.D. OMAHA NEB. The difficulties in the way of comprehensive review of legislation relating to special assessments and local improvements arise from the fact that this legislation is almost uniformly enacted to cure the defects of existing law and meet the demands of particular localities. The constitutional right to levy special assessments for benefits has been repeatedly affirmed in nearly every state in the Union, but there are still a few exceptions. From the standpoint of general theory, therefore, the most important act in this division is the submission of the constitutional amendment. by the Legislature of Tennessee ['01 p.1266] designed to legalize the system of special assessments in that state where previous attempts have been declared void by the courts on the ground of violating the spirit of the constitutional requirement for uniformity and equality [Taylor McBean & Co. r. Taylor, 9 Heskell 349]. In the practical application of the special assessment system legislators are called on to guard against two extremes: on the one side reckless municipal officials must be restrained from loading up property with burdensome taxation to pay for unnecessary public improvements, while on the other obstructive property owners must not be given the opportunity to block improvement altogether in their effort to evade tax burdens. The mania for tax evasion also often takes the form of repudiation by appeal to legal technicalities after the assessment has been confirmed and the improvement made. Successful repudiation of assessments leaves the benefited property owner enjoying the improvement with the expense thrown on to the shoulders of the general body of taxpayers. The general drift of legislation relating to these subjects may be seen in Washington ['01 ch.47], where the petition of the owners of three fourths of the property is required for paving and guttering and then the authorities are restrained from levy See also Comparative Summary and Index, 1901, no. 3495-380, ing an assessment in excess of 50% of the value of the Roads benefits conferred; also in Montana ['01 p.79] where public improvements are not to be made if two thirds (increased from one half) of the property owners affected file objection and the petition of one third (decreased from one half) is necessary to give jurisdiction for the construction of sewers; also in Utah [01 ch.131] where the council is given jurisdiction to order improvements unless objections are entered by owners of two thirds of the abutting property. With reference to the voiding of special assessments we have legislation authorizing the reassessment of levies declared invalid because of technical defects. Examples are to be found during the past year in South Dakota ['01 ch.83], Wisconsin ['01 ch.9, 19] and California ['01 ch.39]. Still another subdivision of this class of legislation refers to liens and obligations created in the construction of local improvements and through the deferred payments on the special assessments. Two states, Indiana ['01 ch.165] and Minnesota ['01 ch.321], passed laws to compel the contractors to give bonds. to pay for labor and materials, holding the municipalities responsible in case the bonds were not exacted. By law of Minnesota ['01 ch.134] bonds may be issued for street improvements within certain limits in advance of the special assessment, and general improvement bonds for these purposes have been authorized by California ['01 ch.32], Kansas ['01 ch.70], Missouri ['01 p.71] and New Jersey ['01 ch.57]. The remaining legislation refers chiefly to subjects of local importance and the procedure to be followed by the local authorities in the exercise of their power. ROADS1 M. 0. ELDRIDGE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PUBLIC ROAD INQUIRIES State aid. The trend of legislation in many of the states seems to be toward state aid or state cooperation. A state aid measure has been adopted in Maine ['01 ch. 285], while in Idaho ['01 p. 84] an appropriation has been made to complete a state 1 See also Comparative Summary and Index, 1901, no. 3638-807. |