play to opinions dependent upon sectional bias-though indeed this is permitted-as it is to allow each community the right to determine for itself the time when, economically or politically, a higher degree of localization is expedient.

But when civil institutions were first established in the Northwest Territory, it was impossible to conceive the methods which would best be adapted to the conditions of western settlement fifty years in advance. Besides the relative advantages of town and county government were not well understood. The real capabilities of the fully developed county-republic with its elective officers were not yet entirely revealed. The problem of local government, therefore, was solved in a different way. Let us see how this was done in a particular instance.

The institutional history of Michigan is of peculiar interest not only because that state was the first west of the Alleghanies to adopt and ultimately put in successful operation the New York system of representative local government, but because, on account of the preponderance of New England ideas, the township was introduced at an earlier stage than we should now think best from an economic point of view.

During the territorial period several phases of institutional development may be traced. In 1805 judicial districts were created by Governor Hull, and it was expected that they should ultimately be subdivided into counties. The gradual differentiation of local offices and functions constitutes a second stage. Thus the congressional townships were adopted as highway districts, and the governor was authorized to appoint supervisor" for each. In like manner, as early as 1809,

a

66

'Territorial Laws of Mich., I, 17. Various counties were formed during the administration of Gen. Cass: Ib., Index at Counties. But as early as 1798, under the law of 1790 enacted by the governor and judges of the Northwest Territory, four townships were created in Wayne county: Farmer, Hist. of Detroit and Mich., 127.

In 1805 the governor was authorized to create highway districts and appoint supervisors: Territorial Laws, I, 77–8, 178–9; II, 93. But in 1819

commissioners for the care of the poor in each county were appointed.1 Municipalities were also granted powers of selfgovernment by special enactment. Thus in 1815 Detroit was incorporated as a city with elective trustees and the right to levy taxes for local purposes; and in 1821 Prairie du Chien was made a borough with similar powers.2

A third and more important epoch was reached in 1825 when the governor and council were authorized by Congress to incorporate civil townships and provide for the election of township and county officers. This was the real beginning of the elective township-county system in Michigan; and in 1827, by three separate enactments, the New York system, with a numerous body of town officers, a restricted right of local taxation, and representation on the county board, was introduced. Still the authority of the county greatly exceeded that of the town; but the powers of the latter have steadily increased until the present time."

Now what were the forces which determined the course of

institutional development in Michigan? Dr. Bemis has pointed out that in 1805 the laws established in the Territory were derived from those of Virginia, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts "in about equal proportions;" and "as the Ohio legislation was in part a copy of Virginia and Pennsylvania

it was enacted that the appointment should be made on nomination of the county commissioners: Ib., I, 449; and in 1825 the commissioners were given the power of dividing the county into districts: 1b., II, 289.

1 Territorial Laws of Mich., II, 41. Dr. Bemis, Local Government in Michigan and the Northwest, 10, states that highway commissioners were also given the relief of the poor in 1820.

2 Bemis, Local Govt. in Michigan and the Northwest, 10; Territorial Laws of Mich., I, 534-41, 236-43.

But the right of

3 Act of Feb. 5, 1825: U. S. Statutes at Large, IV, 80. election did not extend to sheriffs, justices of the peace, judges of probate, or clerks and judges of courts of record. However Gen. Cass insisted that even these should be nominated by vote of the people before formal appointment by him: Campbell, Political History of Mich., 413.

* Territorial Laws of Mich., II, 317-25, 325-29, 584.

5 Bemis, Local Govt. in Mich. and the Northwest, 10-11. Cf. Chap. X, 11, (c).

laws, the influence of the two different systems of local government, centralized and decentralized, was about equal." But the great majority of the later settlers in the Territory were men from New York and New England, bringing with them a strong love for township organization; and between 1813 and 1831 the desire for local self-government was fostered by the great personal influence of General Cass. "He was thoroughly imbued with New England ideas of local government, under which he was born and brought up. He gradually abandoned the appointment of county and township officers, and urged, nay, required the people to elect them." Thus the establishment of the township-county system, twelve years before the attainment of statehood, would seem to have been the result of strong sectional bias. But was not its introduction really premature? Economically would it not have been cheaper and more convenient to have retained the county as the political and administrative unit for a longer period? To-day, under precisely the same conditions as to origin and density of population, the centralized county-precinct system would probably be regarded as entirely adequate; or, at most, one or the other method of local option would be put in requisition. Still it must not be supposed that, in the sparsely settled frontier regions, there was, in practice, an entirely useless reduplication of local offices such as would have resulted from a thorough enforcement of the mixed townshipcounty system. The fact is that in Michigan, just as in New England, the planting of townships preceded the organization of counties. For the sake of uniformity in lines and limits our counties were many of them formed by legislative enactment before there was any settlement in them. gradually became inhabited township organizations were formed, frequently including entire counties, and all such were attached to organized counties for judicial purposes until

1

As they

Bemis, Local Govt. in Mich. and the Northwest, 10-12. Cf. Campbell, Pol. Hist. of Mich., 392, 413; Cooley, Michigan, 201, 205.

after the county itself was organized. The actual township organization always preceded the county organization and the latter seldom, if ever, took place until after there were three organized townships within its limits."1

This, however, was pursuing democratic self-government under some difficulty. Owing to the vast area of the townships and the scattered settlements therein "the law authorized two days' election and allowed the inspectors to open the polls at a different point in the township on each day;"3 moreover the town-meeting, when the entire voting population was assembled, sometimes comprised but eight or ten electors.*

II. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS OF THE TOWNSHIP.

(a).—Differentiated Forms.

English local bodies were originally characterized by an individuality and spontaneity of growth which even the hand of the modern statute-maker has not been able entirely to destroy. In the seventeenth century scarcely any two towns or parishes possessed precisely the same organism or customs, though essentially the same type everywhere prevailed. In the new commonwealths of the West the case is very different. The local organizations within each particular state are constructed on exactly the same general model. Every town or county is the duplicate of every other. On the contrary, between the different states, there is theoretically complete independence in this regard. Within the broad limits per

1 Extract from a letter to the author from the Hon. Michael Shoemaker, Chairman of the Committee of Historians of the Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society.

"A single township sometimes comprised a whole county: see examples in Mich. Pioneer Collections, I, 171; II, 280, 289; III, 387, 493; VII, 519, 228, 261. Or even two or three counties: Ib., I, 208; VII, 471.

3 Judge Miller in Mich. Pioneer Coll., VII, 228.

Mich. Pioneer Coll., VII, 418, 519.

mitted by the fundamental law of the Republic, the legislature of each commonwealth is an autocrat, and may create such civil bodies as it sees fit. But this is true only in theory; in practice, the experience of the older states has constituted a common stock for the younger whose laws and institutions are the result of "natural selection." Thus it happens that, while the statutes differ widely in subordinate features, but three well defined general types of township organization exist in the western states and territories.

1. The lowest or least developed type is that which first arose in Pennsylvania, and which, with various modifications, has since been adopted by Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Under this, the so-called "Pennsylvania plan," the people possess the essentials of local self-government. The township is usually a self-taxing body; has a corps of officers, more or less numerous, chosen by popular ballot; and it is sometimes entrusted with a most important branch of local administration-the management of the public schools. Beyond these limits its constitution does not extend. Two important attributes of the highest type of town organization are lacking the right of representation on the county board, and the deliberative folkmoot-the principal marks of class differentiation. Accordingly the township is brought into close subordination to the county authority, and the will of the people finds direct expression only in the choice of officers at the polls.2

1

Township Organization Law of Mo., 18; Gould, Local Self-Government in Pa., 34; Macy, A Government Text Book for Iowa Schools, 22.

Among the group of states under consideration the simplest and most rudimentary form of the township is found in Indiana. The duties of clerk, treasurer, fence viewer, inspector of elections, and overseer of the poor are combined in the hands of one officer-the township trustee; but assessors, justices, constables, and road superintendents are also chosen by the people: Stat. of Ind., 1852, 637-9; Revised Statutes, 1881, pp. 1019, 1091, 1286. In Ohio, likewise, the functions of the township are comparatively restricted, and the board of three trustees is entrusted with much power. Each town, however, has also a clerk, a treasurer, as many constables and supervisors