a TEES USA as a arelsrebe uta es " at
a UA K ak a ey
HA li Ase — HES resale tiki is
Aaa RT eae aero ee i een ay Wee
a ele (et tines} Ach ate : sane Haare
Raha tae ch La ata Rees
hea
Aree Haare
‘ aly Brees Sands ase
eA
Sid ea 5
wetted i
nate ae
=
Ra ass
psa
ts 4 ie Radek :
LARC ESE ty eet eae ici * SS
Wasaga Wa a ; i Tae ss cna
tae
ah Sin
Ratt
py iae
ran aa nes
; me:
i a a betinats
SEnee
Sis
Seale re
Sed
seers
Eras
Hh aa sh
ev ras yee
at df th
ae He
aia Ny
Auge
f
Penge
en
Penne 21 eae ioe
ef Me
ald tei ty ee is
Leta eit ee oe eae oo
Ss ees a See
ieee sa fs
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
a
Thain
TIT
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW
EDITED BY
THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE.
Volume V] [Number 3
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
IN
MICHIGAN AND OHIO:
A STUDY IN THE RELATIONS OF CITY AND
COMMONWEALTH
BY
DELOS F. WILCOX, Ph.D.,
University Fellow in Administrative Law, Columbia University in the City
of New York
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
May, 1896
Price $1
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
PAGE
I. Necessity of studying the legal relations of cities » 2... 1 2... ‘Il
Tl. Zutls of special legislation... 1 wwe ce hw ew ewe ee ns 12
Expense tothe states 2 eee Sw ew es 12
Local irresponsibility ies ge aes Seprse> coy’ Kh ee Bee $83 eS)
Legislative corruption . . . BOS Be IEE ase Wak es Sav 6s Ga OR! Fane 13
State interference in local affairs . ab wap ah Ge GEIR a + 73
The Cincinnati Commercial Hospital cases... 2... 1 + ee 74
The State vs. Covington. .. .. 0 2. 2+ ee eee Bie te gs eI PS
Dictum with reference to special ‘acts in general forms... . . . ~ 75
The dictum carried into effect, State vs. Mitchell. . . . . eer er ae
Inconsistency of the General Assembly. . ..... ce a ee ee “70
The code of 1878, with a new classification. . . . . oe we STF
The victory of the General Assembly. . .. 2. 2 ee ee 22 78
Great increase of strictly special legislation . . ..... a oe ew. 78
Number of special acts granting financial powers... ... +--+ 79
Progress in the descriptive character of “ general ” laws... .. . 80
Defiance of the court 2... 6 1 ee ee ee eet ee we 82
Further classification of cities... 0. we et ee ee ee 83
Table showing present classification . . 2... + eee ee i ee 84
IV. Zhe doctrines of the Supreme Court. . . 1.1222 by tae eae eel OS
School districts, townships and counties... .. +4 + e+e ee. . 85
Classification, proper and improper... .... + s+ + ees 86
Judge Okey’s opinion. 2 ww ee ee ee ee ee ee ee
viii CONTENTS.
Politieal ehanzee-s a -: 4) oes 4 eae ee
PAGE
Division within the court. © 2 2. ee ee ee ee tee ee 87
The awkward logic of the court’s decisions . . 2. 2... - + 88
V. General remarks . . 3 be VSS ie OR aw eal BF
Unfortunate results of the court’s position . ee ee ee
The question of necessity of special legislation... . . . . . + +». 89
The real causes of special legislation, . . 2 1 2 we ee 2 © © © © 90
CHAPTER VI.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF DETROIT’S CHARTER.
The difficulty of logical arrangement. . . 2... 2 ee ee eo + OF
Political periods... . . . ee a ee ee oer a et te ey OE
I. The Military f eriod, r610 to 817. 6 1 ww we ww hw ee we OF
Discovery and settlement... ....... eee ee we ee 93
First incorporation . sew we ot se aN IO.
The failure of Hull’s government We SURE ND SEeG eh es Saat a Sit ovat taal se 94.
II. Zhe Council Period, 1813 to 1854 . iS ih eas cas de soe ee 95
The influence of Lewis Cassi ee fe) i eee ole ge Qe ol ee 95
The charterof1i8I5....... ia wee Ge we 95
The charter of 1824. . . oe ee 96
Changes in the council and executive officers |... . ‘ 97
PETS CHONS 3 ot slaves ee Sige 8) ee av ied yet aan Sere Oe ae Cr Soe OS Ge ae 10S
Financial affairs . . Se (as Nak Oak, ap lag es dere te: Lbid., 64 v. 123. é 4 [bid., 64 v. 129.
5 Lbid., 64 v. 203. 6 Jé7d., 65 v. 86.
389] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 71
doubt the existence of a court of law in Ohio, to which the in-
terpretation of the constitution could be referred. But in the
December term of 1868, the Supreme Court decided the case
of Welker vs. Potter? A law passed in 1866, conferring cer-
tain powers in regard to street improvements upon cities of
the first class with less than 100,000 population at the last
federal census,? was upheld by this decision. The constitutional
provision considered was the one requiring that “all laws of a
general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout the
state.”3 Nine years later, in the case of The State vs. Mit-
chell,* the court explained that in this earlier case the question
of granting corporate powers by special act had not been
brought up or considered at all. This decision made in 1868,
after twelve years of really special legislation, was not calcu-
lated to instil in the minds of Ohio law-makers any new
respect for the constitutional limitations requiring general leg-
islation. The laws of 1869 speak for themselves. By one,
“the city council of any city of the second class having a pop-
ulation exceeding 20,000 and not exceeding 20,100, at the last
federal census,” was authorized to issue bonds for the payment
of its debt. The act of May 6th is quite a curiosity.6 Here
is the first section: “The city council of any city of the first
class having a population of 150,000 inhabitants, wherein a
public avenue of not less than one hundred feet in width is now
projected, to be known as ‘ Gilbert avenue,’ is hereby authorized
to issue the bonds of said city in any sums not exceeding $150,-
000, for improving such avenue, bearing a rate of interest not
to exceed seven and three-tenths per cent. per annum at such
dates and for such length of time as they may deem expedient,
the same to be sold at not less than par, and the proceeds
thereof to be applied exclusively to the improvement of such
118 Ohio St., 85. 20. L., 63 v. 133.
3 Cons., art. ii, sec. 26, 431 Ohio St., 592.
50. L., 66 v. 144. 8 b7d., 66 v. 130.
72 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [390
‘ Gilbert avenue’ commencing at the western terminus of said
avenue.”
On the very next day after this last act was passed, the
general municipal code of 1869, containing sixty-one chapters
and 732 sections, became a law.t At the end, a list of 185
acts were enumerated and repealed. The object seems to
have been the codification and unification of the really general
laws, with no pretense of putting an end to special legislation.
This conclusion finds weighty support in the wording of an
act passed at the opening of the legislative session of 1870,
which authorized the council, “in cities of the second class,
containing a population of 9,229, and no more, according to
the census of 1860,” to build a railway within the corporate
limits?
Ill. Special legislation since 1870 under the influence
of Supreme Court decisions.
In the December term of 1870, a case3 was brought to the
Supreme Court involving the constitutionality of a special act
passed in the preceding April, ‘“‘to prescribe the corporate
limits of the city of Cincinnati.” Asa matter of fact, by this
law the boundaries of the city had been extended to cover
considerable outlying territory in which were included several
incorporated villages. The act was declared void, and the
court put forward these three propositions: (1) The General
Assembly cannot, by special act, create a corporation. (2) It
cannot, by special act, confer corporate powers on corpora-
tions already existing. (3) In the purview of these proposi-
tions and of the constitutional provisions on which they are
based, there is no distinction between private and municipal
corporations. In the following session of the general as-
sembly, 1871, it seems that two-thirds of the laws, general in
10. L., 66 v. 145-286. 2 [bid,, 67 Vv. II.
3 The State v. The City of Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St., 18.
40. L., 67 v. 141.
391] 1N MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 73
form, referring to municipalities, respected the established
classification. Several laws affected cities with over 150,000
or 180,000 population. One referred to those with from
11,000 to 12,000 population. For purposes of tax limitation
villages were classed as those with more and those with less
than 3,000 population.2 In each of the two classes of cities
there were made three grades, the population limits of the first
class, third grade, being exactly the same as of the second
class, first grade—30,000 to 80,000.
The practice of the Supreme Court in deciding that certain
acts brought before it were not unconstitutional under other
provisions, without considering the question involved in con-
ferring corporate powers affecting only one city, doubtless led
to a good deal of confusion for several years as to the real at-
titude of the court toward classification. The case of Walker
vs. Cincinnati3, decided in 1871, like that of Welker vs. Potter,
already referred to, was such a case. The act conferring upon
cities of the first class with 150,000 inhabitants the right to
construct a railroad, under which the “ Cincinnati Southern”
was established, was held not to be in conflict with those sec-
tions of the constitution cited in the argument. Of course, it
is impossible to determine just how much the legislature was
influenced by these decisions. But whatever the cause, its dis-
regard for the constitution was always a progressive factor in
its municipal law-making. In three acts of the year 13872,
Cleveland, which had a population of 92,000, was the only
city included within the different limits, 50,000 to 100,000,
80,000 to 100,000 and go,000 to 150,000.35 But the climax of
that year’s legal fictions was reached when “ villages or cities
containing a population of 5,641, and no more, by the federal
census of 1870, published in the last volume of the Ohio Sta-
tistical Report,” were authorized to erect car shops.
10. L., 68 v. 132. 2 [bid., 68 v. 133 «
3 21 Ohio St., 14. #18 Ohio St., 85, supra.
50. L., 69 v. 13, 128, 138. 6 [bid,, 69 v. 70.
74 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [392 :
It is only very slowly that judicial light penetrated into this
legal jungle. An important step was taken, however, in the
second case of the State vs. The City of Cincinnati.t Several
years before, a special act had been passed establishing the
Cincinnati Commercial Hospital, and putting it under the
management of a board of trustees, with power to issue by-
laws and regulations for its government.2, By a subsequent
act these rules and regulations were subjected to the approval
of the city council before going into effect The Court upheld
the former act,t as not establishing a corporation, but declared
the later act unconstitutional as conferring corporate powers
on the city council by special act. These decisions, however,
not yet touching the question of classification, had no deterrent
effect on the Assembly. Toledo, with a population of 31,584,
was differentiated from Columbus, whose inhabitants num-
bered 31,274, not only by being in a different class, but also
by the population line fixed at 31,5005. Xenia was any city of
the second class having a population at the last federal census
not exceeding 6,400, nor less than 6,300.6 A law was passed
to affect all cities and villages through which the National
Road passed.” In 1876, a law was passed regulating the gen-
eral tax for street improvements, to appply to all cities except
cities of the first class, “ having at the last federal census of
A. D. 1870, a population of not less than 31,50Cc, nor more
than 33,000.”
In the years 1874 to 1876 there were passed at least nine-
teen acts which, though general in phraseology, never could
apply to more than one city. One of these provided that “ in
all cities of the first class, having at the last federal census a
population of 200,000 and over, the police powers and duties
123 Ohio St., 445. 20. L., 58 v. 151. 3 Tbid., 61 v. 142.
4 The State of Ohio v. Davis, 23 Ohio St., 434, argued in connection with the
other case. .
50. L., 7o v. 117, 142. § [bid., 7ov. 116.
1 Lbid., 70 v. 153. 8 [bid., 72 Vv. 24.
393] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 75
shall be invested in and exercised by a board of five members
to be appointed by the governor.”? This act was tested be-
fore the Supreme Court in the case of The State vs, Covington;
and held to be valid on the ground that this police board was
not made a corporate body, and hence was not given cor-
porate powers. Referring to the phraseology of the act as
probably intended to protect it from the constitutional provis-
ion, the court said: “If such was the purpose, it is well to
say here that such ends cannot be accomplished by such means.
This enactment is essentially local and special in its nature.
We do not deny that the legislature may classify the subjects
of legislation—to wit, cities and villages—and that a statute in
relation to a class would be treated as a general law, within
the meaning of these provisions of the constitution, but there
is no classification accomplished by this statute. Cincinnati
was, is, and ever will be, the only city in this state that had a
population of 200,000 and over at the federal census of 1870.
Cincinnati therefore is the only city to which this statute can
ever apply, and it might as well have been named in the act.”
But the court held that local legislation is not prohibited by
the constitution unless it be of a general nature, or be special
legislation conferring corporate power. Hence, although the
circumulocution of the general assembly was rebuked, the way
was laid open for the transfer of all the public functions of
cities and villages to boards or individiduals not responsible to
the corporation in any way, and this could be done boldly
without any pretense of general forms. A year later, in the
case of The State ws. Mitchell,t the court carried its dictum
TO. L., 73 v. 70. 2 29 Ohio St., 102.
3 See also, The State v. Davis, 23 Ohio St., 434, supra.
*31 Ohio St., 592, segra. This case is a good one, as showing how far the
courts will go to protect the innocent holders of bonds issued under an unconstitu-
tional statute. The law had provided that the abutting owners on any street
might petition for the benefits of the act, and elect commissioners to superintend
certain improvements desired to be made. The city was to issue bonds in advance
to pay for the work, and special assessments were to be levied to pay the bonds.
The court held that where the bonds had been issued and the improvements com-
76 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [ 394.
into effect by holding an act invalid which had attempted to
confer upon the council of Columbus certain powers in regard
to street improvements, under the guise of cities of the second
class having above 31,000 population at the last census. The
fatal clause in the act was, “at the last federal census.” The
attitude of the court certainly bewildered the General As-
sembly. For whereas in 1877, before the last decision, laws
had been passed applying to any cities of the second class in
this state which by the last federal census had “a population
of 12,652”' and “a population of not more than 11,082 nor
less than 11,080,” in the year following an extra appropriation
from the school fund for the support of public libraries was
authorized “in all cities which, by the last federal census, had,
and all those which hereafter, on the first day of March, in
any year, as ascertained by any federal census, may have a
population exceeding 90,000 and less than 200,000 inhabi-
tants.”3 This certainly was a general law according to the
rules of the court, but it conferred powers on the board of
education which by a later decision turned out to be no cor-
porate body at all within the meaning of the constitution.
This is an excellent illustration of the spasmodic attempts on
the part of the law-makers to bring now and then an act within
the provisions of the constitution in the spirit of the court’s in-
terpretation. But when at the same session, mixed in with a few
such attempts, we find many of the old palpable violations re-
peated, and other violations of the spirit of the law as glaring
as an act which actually authorized “ any incorporated village,
which, by the federal census of 1870, had, and which, by any
subsequent federal census, may have a population of 10874
to borrow money for railway construction, it seems utterly in-
conceivable that all these acts were voted on and passed by the
same assembly.
pleted, all the owners who had in any way participated in the proceedings leading
to the execution of the work, were estopped from pleading the unconstitutionality
of the act in order to avoid paying their assessments.
10. L., 74 v. 174. ? Lbid., 74 v. 203. % Lbid, 75 v. 11. * bid, 75 v. 110.
395] LN MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 77
On May 14, 1878, a new municipal code was enacted.t In
it we find the intricate system of classification which still re-
mains as the groundwork of Ohio legislation. Cities of the
first class were divided into three grades, with provision for a
fourth grade to be composed of cities afterwards advanced
from the second class. Cities of the second class were di-
vided into four grades. Villages were divided into two
classes. As in the laws of 1852 and 1853, villages could be
advanced to cities of the second class when their population
exceeded 5,000, and second-class cities could become first-
class cities when their population exceeded 20,000. But ad-
vancement was optional, and there certainly were no very
great inducements held out for the exercise of the option, in
the shape of liberal legislation. It seems, further, that the ad-
vancement from grade to grade within the class was not
optional. The wording of the section has a peculiar Ohio
twang. Grades were to be determined by the formula—
“Those which, on the first day of July last, had, and those
which hereafter, on the first day of July in any year, have, ac-
cording to any official report or abstract of the then next pre-
ceding federal census,” a population of over 200,000 shall con-
stitute the first grade, between 90,000 and 200,000 the second
grade, and between 31,500 and 90,000 the third grade of the
first class; between 30,500 and 31,500 the first grade, between
20,000 and 30,500 the second grade, between 10,000 and
20,000 the third grade, and below 10,000 the fourth grade of
the second class. The first five grades included one city each,
and it was very evident that the population, basis was simply
incidental. It seems that the only way in which a particular
grade could be recruited was by cities coming up froma lower
class. For the cities which had a population within the re-
spective limits at the time of the act, that is, by the census of
1870, were to remain in their grades as then assigned. At
least, so it worked in practice as recognized by later laws, and
10, L., 75 v. 161-419.
78 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [3 96
no provision was made for voluntary advancement from grade
to grade. The code embodied in its later divisions, with little
change, the already existing laws passed from time to time.
At the end, 123 acts were enumerated and repealed. On the
same day acts were passed for cities with 10,592" and 8,075?
population respectively at the last census.
After a quarter of a century of experiment and struggle
against an oppressive constitution and a capricious Supreme
Court, at last the assembly had succeeded in laying down the
main lines of municipal law-making. With the five chief
cities each settled in its own grade for all time with moral
certainty, it only remained necessary to add a new grade from
time to time as some smaller town rose to promninence, and in
the case of villages and less important cities, to describe them
by their population at the last census with the redeeming clause
which made the law applicable to corporatins with the same
population at any future census. It was even deemed safe to
grant a margin of two, five or ten inhabitants, and in some
cases still more. It was an exciting play with chance. I
imagine that many an hour has passed swiftly for Ohio legis-
lators as they busied themselves with the pleasing mathemat-
ical problem of how much latitude in population could be given
in any particular act without incurring the calamitous prob-
ability that more than one city or village would come within
its scope in the course of a century. The Ohio legislature
had won a splendid triumph. The situation was so completely
in its own hands that there was no need to adopt the form of
general legislation in most cases referring to villages and
minor cities. Duriug the seventeen years from 1876 to 1892
inclusive, more than 1200 special acts were passed granting
by name to strictly municipal corporations the right to issue
bonds for every imaginable purpose, to transfer certain speci-
fied funds, to build halls, to sell or buy land, to build bridges,
to construct sewers, to levy special taxes, to improve streets,
10. L., 75 v. 541. 2 [bid., 75 Vv. 557+
397 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 79
to erect gas works, to extend water works, to establish a
police force, to procure fire engines, to sink natural gas wells,
etc., etc., including a few acts changing the corporate name.
These acts could be passed with impunity, either because the
citizens of the localities were indifferent, or because by the
simple application of the cure-all formula any one of the acts
could be made general, if any symptoms of opposition ap-
peared. In practice there was much variation from year to
year in the number of these acts. From fifty-four in 1877
they fell to twenty-four in 1880, climbed to fifty-four again in
1883, and reached their maximum at one hundred and
seventy-six in 1889, dropping to eighty-one in 1892, and
rising again to eighty-eight in 1894. Of the 1202 such acts
passed between 1876 and 1892, 594 gave power to borrow
money, 470 gave power to transfer funds, and 60 gave power
to levy a special tax, making a total of 1124 or 93.5 per cent.
giving special financial powers to the cities and villages named
in the acts. No better proof is needed that the most difficult
1 Local and Special Acts of the Ohio Legislature Conferring Powers upon
Municipal Corporations.
Vear Total number aa To borrow | To transfer io
of acts. money. funds.
powers. tax.
1876. ... 11 7 3 I 3
1877... 54 49 25 15 9
1878... 41 35 22 9 4
1879... . 43 37 17 15 5
1880... . 24 20 6 Io 4
1881... 31 24 15 8 I
1882. ... 24 24 9 4 II
1883. ... 54 53 38 15 o
1884... 56 52 26 24 2
1885) 53. ce 62 59 38 18 3
1886. ... 66 61 31 27 3
1887, 2. 3 « 80 75 46 26 3
1853... 117 109 51 56 2
1889. ... 176 168 Ics 58 5
1890. ... 126 121 56 62 3
199L. 2 as 156 Is 72 77 2
1892... 81 79 34 45 °
1876-92. . . 1202 1124 594 470 60
80 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [398
problem to solve by general municipal laws is the proper limi-
tation upon the local financial powers, in a system where there
is no state control over the localities except that exercised by
the legislature.
It seems hardly necessary to follow through, from 1878 on,
the acts special in effect, but general in form. However, there
were added from year to year some new variations in the form-
ule of circumlocution, which we may consider for a moment.
In 1881 certain powers were conferred upon “the council of
any city of this state which by the federal census of 1880 had
a population entitling it to pass from the rank of a city of the
third grade, second class, into the rank of a city of the second
grade, second class, but which has provided by ordinance that
such city shall remain a city of the third grade, second class,
The way in which a law is made to apply to various cities is
‘well illustrated by the act of April 16, 1883, establishing a
board of tax commissioners “in each city of the first, second
and third grades of the first class, and in cities of the second
class, first grade, and in cities having a population of 20,000,
and not more than 30,000, and in cities having a population of
15,435, by the last federal census.”* Two years later an act
authorized the issue of bonds by ‘‘the city councils of cities of
the second class, in which a majority of the electors, within
three years last past, have voted in favor of the erection of a
market house in sazd city, and which, from any cause, has not
been erected therein.”3 Sometimes the name of the city af-
fected was given in the title of the act, though in the act itself
it was referred to by its grade and class. It was enacted in
1885, that “any city of the second grade of the first class is
hereby authorized to issue bonds to an amount not exceeding
$65,000, to provide means to construct and rebuild a bridge
over Walworth Run, on Pearl street, in the city of Cleveland.”*
10.L., 78 v. 178. 2 [bid., 80 v. 124.
8 Jbid., 82 v. 90. 4 Tbid,, 82v. 114.
399] IN MICHIGAN AND OHTO. 81
About two weeks later, a law affecting Dayton, provided,
“ That the city councils of cities of the second grade of the sec-
ond class be and zs hereby authorized and empowered, for the
purposes herein set forth to issue bonds upon the terms herein
named, entitled as follows, and to the amount severally set
forth: Park street sewer bonds, $65,000; Southwestern sewer-
age bonds, $35,000. Said Park street bonds to be issued to
enable the city council of said city to construct a sewer or
drain, beginning at the Miami river and running through Ap-
ple, Oak and Ford streets, and through and along the present
course of what is known as the Park street sewer, Parrott street
drain and Steel’s drains, to take the surface drainage water off
of the southern and eastern parts of said city ; said southwest-
ern sewerage bonds being issued to enable the city council of
said city to construct drains for the purpose of draining the
surface water from Power street, South Broadway and Euclid
avenues, and the southern and western parts of said city.’”’?
Bad grammar is certainly not-the worst feature of such legis-
lation, though it does point to ignorance or carelessness not
complimentary to the general assembly of one of the most
populous states in the Union.
In 1886 a special tax levy was authorized “in any city of
the fourth grade of the second class having by the last federal
census a population of not less than 12,258, and not more
than 13,000, and in which city there is established and main-
tained by a public library association, not organized for profit,
a public library free to all the inhabitants of such city, and
containing not less than 2,000 volumes.’? This description
goes into enough detail to identify an escaped convict. Another
instance of such description is found in an act authorizing the
issue of bonds to purchase a site and erect normal school
buildings by “the council of any incorporated village in this
state, wherein, at the time of the passage of this act, there
exists a private corporation, not for profit, incorporated under
10,L., 82 v. 129. 2 Tbid.; 83 v. 79.
82 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [400
the general incorporation laws of this state, and the purpose
for which said incorporation is formed is to secure to its mem-
bers and patrons the advantages of education in all depart-
ments of learning and knowledge, especially in the branches
usually comprehended in academic and university collegiate
courses, though not excluding such primary instruction as is
usually furnished in common and normal schools.”* A good
many acts were passed at various times affecting villages in
counties containing cities of a certain class and grade. One
applied to all villages in Wood county,? authorizing them to
sink gas wells. A law of April 12, 1889, was to the effect,
that “in cities of the third grade of the second class, which
were advanced to said third grade, second class, during the
year of our Lord 1887, and which had, according to a census
taken in such cities in compliance with the provisions of
chapter four, division two, Title XII, Revised Statutes, a po-
pulation of 10,221 on the twentieth day of May in the said
year of our Lord, 1887, there shall be a board of public
affairs,”’3
The position of defiance toward court and constitution taken
so constantly and so successfully by the assembly needs no
better proof than the act of March 24, 1890, which provided,
“that in any village, situated in a county containing a city of
the first grade of the first class, which has been heretofore
specifically empowered by a special act of the legislature to
issue bonds for the purpose of purchasing a suitable site and
erecting thereon a building containing a town hall and offices
for the officers of the corporation, and said acf has been found
to be unconstitutional because of conferring corporate powers
by special act, that the village council of any such village is
hereby authorized to issue the bonds of the said village, not
exceeding in amount $17,000, to sell the same and use the
proceeds thereof in purchasing a suitable site, and erecting
10. L,, 84 v. 63 2 Jbid., 86 v. 429. 3 [bid., 86 v. 246.
401] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 83
thereon a building containing a town hall and offices for the
officers of the corporation.”* And yet at this same session of
the assembly eight village councils were authorized by name
to erect town halls.
The classification of cities had by no means reached its
maximum of incomprehensibility in the municipal code of
1878. Although that law had evidently contemplated the
possibility of cities being advanced from the second class to
the first, in providing that such cities should constitute the
fourth grade of the first class, no laws were ever provided for
this empty grade. In 1888, however, the general assembly
enacted that whenever a city of the second class should by
vote of the people become a city of the fourth grade of the
first class, it should be governed by its own laws then in force
until new laws were enacted for its new grade? There is no
evidence*that such laws were enacted, and I see no particular
inducement under the circumstances for any second class city
willing its own promotion, unless perhaps there is prestige to
be gained by the mere fact of being a city of the first class in
Ohio. But in 1891 the legislature put Springfield into a grade
by itself, the third grade @ of the second class, comprising all
cities with a population between 28,000 and 33,000 at the
census of 1890, or at future censuses.3 In 1894, cities between
16,000 and 18,000 were constituted the third grade d of the
second class. Hamilton was the town affected. Ashtabula,
being all the cities with a population between 8,330 and 9,050,
was made the fourth grade @ of the same class$ Although
there appears to be some confusion in section 1548 of the
statutes as last revised, the actual status of the chief cities as
recognized by the legislature, with their population by the
census of 1890, seems to be as presented in the accompanying
10. L., 87 v. 94. 2 [bid., 85 v. 130. 3 [bid., 88 v. 159.
4 [bid., 91 v. 14. 5 [bid., 91 v. 58.
84 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [402
table” The last column shows the number of acts referring to
these cities specially, passed at the legislative session of 1894.
The total number of such acts passed would be something
less than 176, the sum of the figures in the column, because in
several cases two or three cities were specified by their par-
ticular grades or populations in the same act. These figures,
of course, do not include the special acts for villages desig-
nated by population. Of these there were in 1891 as many as
thirty-five. One of the confusing results of this way of naming
villages and cities by population, is that the same method has
been applied to counties and townships, although they are not
held to be corporations in the meaning of the constitutional
1 Table Showing the Classification of Ohio Cities, 1894.
‘ ‘ P Number
Population basis} B one Populatio# | of acts
é | of classificaton. wbich Namco ot cities: in 1890. | referring
3 census. to,passed
oO in 1894,
I 200,000-++ | 1870 Cincinnati. 296,908 43
First 2 | 90,000- 200,000] 1870 Cleveland, 261,353 22
Class} | 3 | 31,500-90,000 | 1870 Toledo. 81,434 14
4 | 20,000-31,5001; Any None.
(| 1 30,500-31,500 | 1870 Columbus. 88,150 10
2 | 20,000-30,500 | 1870 Dayton. 61,220 12
3 | 10,000-20,000 | 1870 Youngstown. 33,220 4
Akron, 27,601 2
Canton. 26,189 2
Zanesville. 21,009 5
Sandusky. 18,471 °
Newark. 14,270 I
Second Portsmouth, 12,394 I
Class 1 Perhaps 9 others. | 10,092to
18,553 10
3a | 28,000-33,000 } 1890 Springfield. 31,897 6
3b | 16,000-18,000 | 1890 Hamilton, 17,565 8
4 5,000-10,000 | 1870 Bellaire. 9,934 °
Piqua. 9,090 I
Marion. 8,327 2
Marietta. 8,273 6
Perhaps 24 others.|5247 to 8224 24
lL} 4a 8,330-9,050 1890 Ashtabula. 8,338 3
1 This is an inference fron the other provisions of the law.
403 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 85
restriction, Another peculiar phenomenon is the passage of
precisely similar laws sometimes under this general population
formula, and sometimes under the undisguised names of the
municipalities as avowedly special acts. This certainly must
be the result of the local origin of local acts, those drafting
the measures in many cases being ignorant of the attitude and
decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject of special legis-
lation conferring corporate powers.
IV. Lhe doctrines of the. Supreme Court.
Even a general study of special legislation in Ohio under
the constitution of 1850 would not be complete without going
a little more fully into the decisions of the Supreme Court
than I have done in the preceding pages. Perhaps the follow-
ing summary of the rules already established will serve as a
convenient presentation of the main points in the decisions of
the court, if supplemented by a little explanation of the prin-
cipal cases not referred to already.
(1) Local legislation is not prohibited by the constitution.?
(2) The constitutional prohibition of special acts conferring
corporate power, applies to private and municipal corpora-
tions without distinction.?
(3) School districts and boards of education partake of the
public nature of the county and the township, and are not cor-
porate bodies in the meaning of the constitution
1State v. Covington, 29 Ohio St., 102, supra.
2State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St., 18, szpra.
5State v. Powers, 38 Ohio St., 54. In this case the general assembly had
created a special school district, and provided for the election of a board of educa-
tion, to whom property was to be transferred, and who were to have power to levy
taxes, and all other powers belonging to “ village districts,” which were declared to
be corporate bodies in the general law. The court said, «It is quite obvious to
us that county and township organizations, although gzasi corporations, are not
within the meaning of this provision of the constitution ; and, upon full considera-
tion, we are unanimous in the opinion that school districts, as similar organizations,
though declared by statute to be bodies politic and corporate, are not within the
86 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [404
(4) Whether or not certain powers granted by the general
assembly are corporate powers, depends largely upon the na-
ture of the body upon which they are conferred.
(5) It is competent for the assembly to establish special
boards for specified cities, to be appointed by the governor or
otherwise, independent of the municipal corporation, to which
public governmental functions, such as the police, are given
without incorporation.”
(6) The fact that certain officers were everywhere chosen
by the people of the localities at the time that the constitution
was adopted, does not operate as a limitation upon the power
of the legislature to provide for their appointment by the state
authorities, or otherwise.3
(7) For purposes of general legislation, the classification of
cities and villages according to population is proper.‘
(8) The principle of classification must be a reasonable one.
The presence in a city or village of a college or university is
just ground for classifications
(9) Classification according to population may be proper,
although at the time only one city is included ina given grade,
if other cities may come into the same grade by growth in
population, and municipal action.
reason or meaning of this inhibition of the constitution.” Reference is made to
State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St., 18, where on page 37, a similar dictum in
regard to counties and townships is given, based on the decision in the case of 7he
Commissioners of Hamilton County v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St., 109.
4State v. Davis, 23 Ohio St., 434, and State v. Cincinnati, /é2¢., 445, supra.
2 State v. Covington, 29 Ohio St., 102, supra.
8 /bid. For distinction between local and governmental functions, cf Cincin-
nati v. Cameron, 33 Ohio St., 336.
4State v. Brewster, 39 Ohio St., 653.
5 Bronson v. Oberlin, 41 Ohio St., 112.
§ State v. City of Toledo, 48 Ohio St., 112. The act considered in this case was
passed on January 22, 1889 (O. L., 86 v. 7), and conferred upon cities of the
third grade of the first class the power to issue bonds for natural gas works. The
question of the issue was to be submitted to the voters at the municipal or the general
405 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 87
(10) Any act is special, no matter what its form, if it applies
to only one city, and never can apply to any other without
further legislative action.”
The fine-spun distinctions in the decisions of the court, and
the seeming uncertainty of its attitude toward city legislation,
was doubtless largely the result of a division of sentiment
among the judges. In the case of The State vs. Pugh,? where
an act was held to be unconstitutional, owing to the impossi-
bility of any other city than Columbus ever coming under its
provisions, a dissenting opinion was delivered by Judge Okey
and concurred in by Judge Follett, thus pitting two judges
against three. Judge Okey said: “If the question were res
integra, by no means could it be said to be clear that this
court would hold that article thirteen, section one, of the con-
stitution, has any application to municipal corporations.” But
he admitted that the series of cases already decided had left
that construction settled. He then reviewed the development
of classification, pointing out its necessity in order to allow
election next succeeding after the passage of the act. The municipal election came
in April, and the general election in November. July 1 was the date on which
population was to be determined for the advancement of cities from one class to
another, by the general law. Toledo was the only city in the third grade of the first
class, but there were other cities witha population between 31,500 and 90,000, the
limits fixed in the code for that grade. In spite of the fact that the code declared
that cities thereafter advanced from the second to the first class should form the fourth
grade of the latter class, the court held that cities of the second class with more than
31,500 population might have gone into the third grade, first class, on the first of
July of the year when the act under consideration was passed, skipping the fourth
grade mentioned in the code, as no further provision had been made for it in the
way of legislation. The court did not take into consideration that a law of 1888,
O. L., 85 v. 130 had provided that cities advanced from the second class into the
fourth grade of the first class, should be governed by their own laws till legislation
was provided for the grade into which they entered. This shows the extremity
to which the court would goto uphold special legislation under the guise of
classification.
1State vw Pugh, 43 Ohio St., 98, and State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592,
supra.
2 43 Ohio St., 98, supra.
88 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [406
legislation fitted to the varying and imperative needs of the
large cities. In the case of The State vs. Brewster,’ this same
judge had delivered the opinion of the court upholding the
classification of cities as enacted in 1878. He had said: “The
validity of that classification has been repeatedly recognized in
this court, and the reasons for adhering to that construction
of the constitution are cogent and satisfactory.” I think too
much emphasis can hardly be placed on the influence of those
judges who, though sometimes in the minority, at other times
had the opportunity to introduce their own.opinions when de-
livering the opinion of the court. It would be hard to deter-
mine whether the general assembly or the court dealt in the
more subtle legal technicalities in order to allow special legis-
lation for cities. Ata later time in the case of The State vs.
Wall,? the results of this policy had become so ridiculous and
palpably inconsistent, that the court said: “ Grave doubts may
well be entertained as to the constitutionality of this method
of classifying cities for the purpose of general legislation. But
it has received the sanction of this court in repeated decisions
heretofore made.” The discrepancy of these remarks and
Judge Okey’s opinion that municipal corporations might not
be adjudged corporate bodies in the meaning of the constitu-
tion, if the question could be reopened from the beginning,
shows the opposite tendencies within the court itself. It seems
clear that in its vacillation the court became the dupe of the
legislature. The conservative elements secured the sanction
of the court for the system of classification, while it was yet
semi-reasonable. But this sanction included the optional fea-
ture with reference to advancement, which afterwards operated
so cunningly in the interests of special legislation. But the
court having set its seal to the scheme, could only regret the
caricature of a legal system which had grown up with its sanc-
tion. It is true that no case seems to have yet been decided
involving the constitutionality of a legislative act conferring
1 39 Ohio St., 653, sepra, 2 47 Ohio St., 499.
407 | IN MICHIGAN AND O#10O. 89
powers on municipal corporations of a definite population at
the last or any succeeding census. But after straining the
possibilities to their utmost to show that some other city be-
sides Toledo might have come under the provisions of an act
referring to cities of the first class, third grade, before the time
required for its provisions to be carried out,’ it could not have
decided with very good grace that it would be impossible for
more than one city to ever have a population of just 6,046.
V. General remarks.
After. what has gone before it is needless to say that the
constitution of 1851 failed to do away with special municipal
legislation. To any one reading the convention debates there
can be no doubt that Judge Okey’s “ wish was father to the
thought” that municipal corporations were not included in the
section prohibiting special grants of corporate power. From
the legal point of view the results of the Ohio policy have
been most unfortunate, introducing a habit of legal technicality
which makes legislation a mere sophistical display., This
study has often seemed to me more appropriate for the subject
of a humorous address than for a serious discussion.? But
whether we consider the course of special legislation in Ohio
humorous or disgraceful, it is necessary to keep our patience
and look into the causes.
It is often argued by the friends of special legislation that
such laws are necessary. Granting that a great many special
laws were required during the forty years following the adop-
1State vw. City of Toledo, 48 Ohio St., 112, supra.
2Section two of an act passed March 29, 1873, reads: “ That an act entitled,
«An Act to amend section one of an act entitled an act to repeal an act entitled,
an act supplementary to an act entitled an act authorizing the appointment of
metropolitan police commissioners in cities of the first class with a population of
less than 100,000 inhabitants at the last federal census, passed April 5, 1866,
passed March 29, 1867, and to provide a police for cities of the second class,
passed April 16, 1868,’ passed May 6, 1869, be and the same is hereby repealed.”
O. L., 70 v. 84.
90 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [408
tion of the constitution of 1851, in order to allow the cities of
Ohio to attain their best development, it may yet be success-
fully contended that the vast majority of the special laws actu-
ally passed during that period could have been easily dispensed
with under a careful system of general legislation. Either
local self-government is a failure, or the popularly elected au-
thorities of villages and cities can be trusted with the power
to transfer moneys from one municipal fund to another in case
of need, without a special act of the legislature. If this de-
tailed special legislation is really a necessary thing, it seems
strange that the Ohio convention of 1873 and 1874, after
twenty years’ experience, should have recommended to the
people much more stringent provisions limiting the power of
the legislature than were provided in the constitution of 1851.
Perhaps we may say that the most important forces which
led to the peculiar development of Ohio legislation were these
two: distrust of municipal authorities in financial matters, and
the desire to allow each community to do as it pleased in the
management of its local affairs if it would only ask for permis-
sion. The result of the former of these forces was the very
carefully defined and limited powers of borrowing money and
levying taxes granted in the general municipal acts. The re-
sult of the latter force, was the varied legislation granted for
the asking to particular localities according to their individual
whims. Some village wanted to sink natural gas wells, a city
wanted to build a railroad or car shops, or to aid manufactur-
ing enterprises, or the people of some locality wanted two
chambers in their city council, to defend them against the one
chamber that these same people had elected. In laws as well
as in Convention debates, we find everywhere the evidence of
unlimited confidence in the people themselves and their de-
sires, but great distrust for the local authorities elected by the
people. The legislature granted the localities what they
wanted, but made them ask for it.
CHAPTER VI.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF DETROIT’S CHARTER.
A CHRONOLOGICAL outline of Detroit’s legislative history
would give one of the best possible illustrations of the way a
city government is built up bit by bit from year to year under
the system of special legislation. The trouble with such a
sketch is that it becomes wearisome. It is not easy to show
the true course of development, and at the same time arrange
the materials of charter history in any logical order. For
special legislation, even when left to its natural course accord-
ing to the growing desires and needs of a given locality, es-
pecially where the locality itself is going through a course of
rapid development, does not readily yield itself to a scientific
analysis. But when political forces also come in to change
the natural course of charter evolution, the chief characteristic
of special legislation becomes its lack of logical sequence.
The history of Detroit is no exception to this rule. It would
be very hard, indeed, to find any clear-cut and satisfactory
division of Detroit history into periods, from the point of view
of local government alone. But as our main object in this
study is to find out something of the relations existing be-
tween the city and the state, we may take advantage of certain
fairly well-marked periods in the political history of Michigan
and Detroit, in their relations to each other. These periods
do, as a matter of fact, correspond roughly with different ten-
dencies in the local government.
The first period down to 1813, when Lewis Cass became
Governor of Michigan Territory, may be styled the military
period. Detroit was first of all a military and trading post,
409] gt
Q2 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [410
for the possession of which white nations fought with each
other and the Indians Its civil government was incidental.
The period from 1813 to 1854 is marked by the dominance of
Lewis Cass and the Democratic party in Michigan. The city
and the state were in political accord, and the form of local
government approached the “council system.” But in 1854.
the triumph of the new Republican party in the state, while
the city remained Democratic, opened the way for political in-
terference in the municipal legislation and administration.
About the same time the “ board system” began to be intro-
duced into the city charter. This system appeared in all parts.
of the country at about that time, and proved itself to be the
form of city government most adapted to the demands of leg-
islative interference in local affairs for political purposes.
Hence, although it is not at all likely that the system was first
introduced into the Detroit charter for political reasons, it is.
quite certain that its later development was intensified by its
inherent adaptability to the partisan ends of legislatures.
unfriendly toward the politics of the city. In the year 1889,a
political revolution in Detroit brought the city and the state
once more into political accord; and while this fact has not
seemed to have a very marked influence on charter legislation,
there has been a slight tendency to increase the powers of the
mayor in accordance with the general movement throughout
the country during recent years. But the most important
characteristic of this last period of Detroit’s history, is the
strong development of the civic spirit and the increased activ-
ity of the administration under the personal leadership of
Mayor Pingree.
1See Mistorical and Scientific Sketches of Michigan, p. 17, where Lewis Cass
says, speaking of Detroit, «« How numerous and diversified are the incidents, com-
pressed within the period of its existence! No placein the United States presents
such a series of events interesting in themselves and permanently affecting, as they
occurred, its progress and prosperity. Five times has its flag changed, three dif-
ferent sovereignties have claimed its allegiance, and since it has been held by the
United States, its government has been thrice transferred; twice it has been be-
seiged by the Indians, once captured in war, and once burned to the ground.”
41r] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 93
1. The military period, 1610 to 1813.
As early as 1610, Frenchmen from Montreal visited the
present site of Detroit, but the first permanent settlement was
made by Cadillac in 1701. During all of the eighteenth cen-
tury Detroit remained a military post, the houses of the settle-
ment being crowded together inside the palisades for defense
from the Indians. But although the population was very
small, the post was the centre for an immense fur trade, and
hence of the greatest commercial importance. Upon the cap-
ture of Montreal in 1760, the whole of the northwest passed
into English hands. After that time a few Englishmen came
to Detroit to live, and the American immigration set in when
the post was occupied in 1796 by the United States govern-
ment under Jay’s treaty.
In January, 1802, the settlement was incorporated as a town
by the act of the governor and legislature of the Northwest
Territory, which assembled at Chillicothe The officers to be
chosen for the town were five trustees, a secretary, an assessor,
a collector, and a marshal. Soon after, upon the creation of
the State of Ohio, Detroit was transferred to Indiana Terri-
tory, of which it remained a part till 1805, when the territory
of Michigan was formed. On June 11 of this year, Detroit
was burned to the ground. Very soon afterwards the judges
and governor of the new territory arrived, and took niatters
into their own hands. They were authorized by act of Con-
gress to adopt laws from the statutes of any of the old states,
and hence for the next few years all the acts of Governor Hull
and Judges Woodward and Bates were excerpts from the
statute-books of New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, etc. The
local acts referring to the government of Detroit were taken
chiefly from Maryland. On Septcmber 13, 1806, Detroit was
incorporated as a city.2 There were to be a mayor appointed
1¥Farmer’s History of Detroit and Michigan, p. 133.
2 Mich. Terr. Laws, 4 v. 3-6.
94 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [412
by the governor, and a city council composed of two cham-
bers of three members each, all elected by the people. The
mayor was given an absolute veto on all laws passed by the
council, and was to appoint all city officers except the register,
who was to be named by the governor. The powers given to
the city council, their exercise being always liable to the
mayor’s veto, were very extensive. The council could pro-
vide, among other things, for sanitation, police, drainage,
lighting, repair of streets and bridges, vehicle licenses, fire
companies, markets, weights and measures, and education.
They could pass all laws necessary for carrying out these
powers, and could levy and collect taxes. To illustrate the
minuteness of the enumeration of their functions, they were
authorized to fix and regulate the size of bricks to be used in
the city, to regulate the measurement of lumber, coal and
wood, to sink wells and erect pumps, and to regulate the
weight and quality of bread. This would have been local
self-government with a vengeance, except for the absolute veto
power of the mayor appointed by the governor.
But the system appears to have been a failure. The gover-
nor and judges quarreled with each other, and governed the
people in an arbitrary fashion. On February 24, 1809,7 Gov.
Hull, in the absence of the judges, repealed the law of 1806;
but on the return of the judges an act was passed September
16, 1810,? repealing all laws made for Michigan prior to the
establishment of the territory in 1805, and also all laws enacted
by Governor Hull in the absence of the judges between June
2, 1807 and September 1,1810. Hence the act of 1802 incor-
porating Detroit as a town was clearly repealed, and the in-
corporation act of 1806 was presumably revived, though it has
now been statute law in Michigan for many years that the re-
peal of a repealing act does not revive the original measure.3
But however it may have been legally, the city of Detroit had
1Mich. T. L.. qv. 83. * Ibid,, 1 v. 900.
’ Howell’s Annotated Statutes, sec. 3.
4! 3] LN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 95
little government except the personal government of the ter-
ritorial authorities, until the new charter was granted under
Governor Cass in 1815. It is hardly necessary to mention the
fact that Detroit was in the hands of the British military for
about a year after its surrender by Governor Hull in August,
1812,
Il. The council period, 1813 to 1854.
In the year 1813 Gen. Lewis Cass, a man of New England
birth and training, succeeded to the governorship of the Ter-
ritory of Michigan, in place of Hull, who had been disgraced
by his surrender of Detroit to the British. Governor Cass
held his position until 1831, and during that period did his
best to encourage the growth of local self-government among
the people After Michigan became a state in 1837, although
Cass’ public activity was transferred to the field of national
-politics, his influence in his state was almost supreme until the
new Republican party came to power in 1854. During this
whole period, the state and the city being of the same politi-
cal faith, Detroit legislation seems not to have been influenced
by partisan motives. The system of city government centered
in the council, and the detailed changes from year to year
were made in accordance with the natural growth of local
needs. During most of this period, that is, until 1847, Detroit
was the seat of the State government. At that time the cap-
ital was removed to Lansing. Let us proceed to take up in
detail the development of the city charter under these circum-
stances.
The Charter of 1815. On October 24, 1815, Detroit was
reincorporated as a city by the new territorial authorities.’
The original act of 1802 was revived and amended. The old
officers were retained, namely, five trustees, secretary, assessor,
collector and marshal. All these were to be elected annually
1 Howard, Local Const. Hist. of the UO. S., pe 154.
2 Mich. T. L., I v. 534-541.
96 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [4 14
from residents by the freeholders, the householders paying an
annual rental of $40.00, and such other residents as should be
given the freedom of the corporation by majority vote of the
electors. The board of trustees were given general powers to
establish laws and ordinances for the health, safety, cleanliness,
convenience and good government of the city. All laws, or-
dinances and regulations of the trustees were to remain in
force until the next annual meeting of the electors, when they
were to be submitted to vote, and if rejected by a majority of
the citizens present, were to be null and void. All taxes were
also to be voted by the annual meeting. The trustees could
fill vacancies in elective offices, appoint subordinate officers,
call special meetings of the citizens for voting taxes, and
license and regulate taverns and other public houses of entertain-
ment, The secretary of the board of trustees was required to
keep a legible copy of all laws, ordinances, etc., in a book open
to the public inspection. Six years later, 1821, a supervisor
of roads and highways was added to the list of city officers,
and the voting qualifications were amended? Henceforth all
free white male citizens of the United States who had lived in
the city for a year and had paid taxes were to have the right
of suffrage.
The Charter of 1824. By act of August 5, 1824, Detroit was
granted anewcharter? The elective officers were to be mayor,
five aldermen, marshal, supervisor, assessor, collector and three
constables, chosen annually. The mayor and aldermen to-
gether were to appoint a recorder, a treasurer and a clerk.
Refusal or neglect to serve in any of the elective offices might
be punished by a fine of not more than $25.00. The mayor,
recorder and aldermen were to constitute the common council.
No business could be transacted with both mayor and recorder
absent. The recorder was to be the vice-mayor of the city.
Taxes were to be voted by the people on recommendation of
the council, but the amount to be levied in any one year was
1Mich. T. L., 1 v. 314. 2 Ibid., 2 v. 221-230.
41 5] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 97
not to exceed one-fourth of one per cent. of the assessed valu-
ation of all real and personal property. The mayor’s court
was established, to consist of any three or more members of
the common council, always including either the mayor or re-
corder. This court was to be a court of record, and to have
full jurisdiction in cases of offenses against the city laws or
ordinances,
Changes in the council and executive offices. The general
form of organization provided by the charter of 1824 lasted for
more than thirty years, although a new charter was granted
in 1827," and numerous amendments were passed from year to
year. The council maintained its position as the central organ
of the city government. Its composition was changed in 1839,
when the city was divided into wards, each of which was re-
quired to elect two aldermen, a constable and an assessor
The mayor retained his position as presiding officer of the
council, but had no appointive power. When the Board of
Education was organized in 1842,3 the mayor became its
president, but kept that position for only four years.4 In 1846
he was forbidden to preside over the mayor’s court except in
the absence of the recorder,5 but the act of 1846 was repealed
a year later. The recorder lost his vote in the council in
1839. During this whole period the list of elective officers
was long. By an act of 1849 the charter officers to be elected
annually on general ticket were to be: recorder, attorney,
clerk, treasurer, marshal, superintendent of water-works, phy-
sician, director of the poor, sexton, clerk for each public
market, surveyor, three inspectors of fire-wood, and two
weigh-masters.?, In 1827 the collector had been made an ap-
pointive officer, and a definite provision had been made that
all ministerial officers should be appointed by the common
1 Mich. T. L., 2 v. 339-354. 2 Mich. Laws, 1839, pp. 31-35.
3 [bid., 1842, pp. 112-116. $ Ibid., 1846, p. 101.
5 [bid., pp. 19-21. § [bid., 1847, p. 96.
7 Jbid., 1849, pp. 32~36.
98 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [416
council, and be removable at pleasure.t A few years later the
constables were made subject to removal by the council for
cause. Holding more than one office had been forbidden by
the charter of 1827, but this provision was repealed in 1844,
and at the same time the council was authorized to appoint a
city auditor to hold office for three years, subject to removal
only by two-thirds vote of the entire council3 By act of 1849
the council’s power of removal over ministerial officers was
greatly diminished, as it could henceforth be exercised only
by two-thirds vote after showing cause and giving a hearing.
Elections. In 1837 the required city residence for electors
was reduced to six months, and a board of five election in-
spectors was provided, to be chosen by popular vote, and to
serve at all city elections. Two years later, with the division
of the city into wards, the election inspectors were to be the
two aldermen and the assessor chosen in each particular ward.®
A heavy penalty was attached to “repeating.” The term of
ward residence required of electors was fixed at ten days, but
was increased to thirty in 1841.7
Financial affairs. The finances of the city were not very
well managed during this early period. In 1827 the council
was authorized to issue due bills for payment of debts, which
were to be receivable at par for taxes and other payments to
the city, and were to be transferable without endorsement.
The amount in circulation at any one time was not to exceed
$5,000.82 This issue by the city of fiat money was not alto-
gether successful. The limit of issue was disregarded, and,
although the right to issue was taken away entirely in 18429
the last of the outstanding bills were not redeemed till 1871.7
1Mich, T. L., 2 v. 570-571. * Lbid., 3v. 1422.
3 Mich. Laws, 1844, p. 101. * Ibid., 1849, pp. 32-36.
> Lbid., 1837, p. 199. 6 Jbid., 1839, pp. 31-35.
1 Jbtd., 1841, pp. 192-201. 8 Mich. T. L., 2 v. 570.
Mich. Laws, 1842, p. 28.
10Farmer’s [History of Detroit and Mich., pp. 152-155.
41 7] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 99
In 1835 the common council was authorized to make its first
loan, if the consent of the citizens’ meeting could be obtained.
The amount of the loan was to be $50,000, payable in thirty
years, and bearing interest at six per cent. The annual tax
limit was raised to one-half of one percent. in 1841.2 Begin-
ning with 1845, almost every legislature authorized a speciab
tax levy of $15,000 or $20,000. In 1851 provision was made
fora sinking fund.+ The council was authorized to levy a
special tax to cover current interest on the debt, and $5,00¢ in
addition, which, together with all surplus saved from the gen-
eral taxes, was to be appropriated to the sinking fund.
Assessments. One of the most striking evidences of the ‘dif
ficulty of getting a just taxable valuation of property, is to be
found in the frequent changes in the method of assessment.
Until 1839 assessments were made by one elected assessor,
but at this time each ward was required to elect its own as-
sessor.s The assessors of the wards were then to sit together
as a board of equalization for the entire city after their several
assessment rolls had been left open to public inspection. This
plan seems to have been unsatisfactory, for in 1846 the city
was divided into three districts, each comprising two wards,
and the two ward assessors in each district were required to
make their assessments together.6 But two years later it was
decided that one assessor should be chosen in each district
and the three should make out the rolls for the entire city
jointly.7 The very next year, 1849, the old plan of assessors
elected by wards was revived,’ and in 1850 the three-district
plan was tried again? One assessor was to be elected in each .
district for a term of three years, and the assessment for the
whole city was to be made as by the act of 1848. This method
was not changed till 1855.
1 Mich. T. L., 3 v. 1422. 2 Mich, Laws, 1841, pp. 192-201.
3 Jbid., 1845, p. 25. * Lb7d., 1851, p. 41. 5 [btd., 1839, pp. 31-35.
8 Jbid., 1846, pp. 19-21. 1 [bid., 1848, pp. 40-45.
8 Jbid., 1849, pp. 32-36. 9 [bid., 1850, pp. 9-12.
100 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [418
The schools, Yducation was the first of the municipal func-
tions put into the hands of a separate board. The first act
providing for common schools in Detroit was passed in 1833.7
A school committee was to be elected, consisting of eighteen
members, one-third of whom were to retire each year. Teach-
ers’ salaries were to be paid by tuition fees, special provision
being made for indigent children. It was not until February,
1842, that free schools were established for all children be-
tween the ages of five and twenty years. At that time the
city was constituted a single school district with a board of
education consisting of the mayor, recorder, and two school
inspectors, elected by each ward. Refusal to serve could be
punished by a ten dollars fine. For the support of the schools
the common council was authorized to levy a tax, the whole
amount not to exceed one dollar for every child of school age.
In 1846 the mayor ceased to be president of the board, his
place being taken by an elected member3 The legislature of
1847 authorized the board to borrow $5,000 with the consent
of the freeholders, but a sinking fund was provided to extin-
guish the debt within not more than twenty years. It was
specifically declared by statute that the offices of member of
the board of education and member of the common council
should not be incompatible.s
Corporate functions. Of course it was necessary that with
the growth of the city the functions of the government shoulp
gradually expand. In the charter of 1827 the council was au-
thorized to contract for water supply, and also to provide for the
relief of the poor. The volunteer fire service was encouraged
by exempting firemen from jury and militia duties. The fire-
‘men were to organize into companies, make their own rules,
elect officers, and hold meetings at least once a month to test
their implements, The law went on to say,“ Upon any alarm
1Mich, T. L.,.3 v. 1238-1242. ?Mich. Laws, 1842, pp. 112-116.
3 [bid., 1846, p., 101. * [bid., 1847, p. 50. 5 [bid., 1847, p. 96.
419] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 101
or breaking out of any fire within said city, each member of a
fire company shall forthwith repair to the engine house, and
from thence proceed, without delay, with their fire engine
and other implements, to the place of such fire.” In 1841 the
council was given full power to enact all proper ordinances
“relative to the control, regulation, protection and use of
drains and sewers.”* It was also invested with all the powers
and functions of a township board,? and authorized to erect a
city jail.
The water commissioners. This gradual expansion of the
corporate functions of the city resulted in the elaboration of
the governmental machinery. The system of executive boards
did not reach its height until after 1870, but as early as 1853
an act was passed establishing the board of water commission-
ers3 This board was to consist of five members, one to retire
each year. The first commissioners were named in the act
itself, but their successors were to be appointed by the com-
mon council. The board was authorized to borrow $250,000
on the credit of the city ata rate of interest not exceeding
eight per cent. Members of the board could not be interested
in any city contracts, and were allowed no compensation, but
could appoint salaried officers for the administration of the
water works. Surplus revenues were to be invested in safe
stocks, and used in paying off the bonds as they fell due.
Any deficiency in revenue was to be supplied by a special
water tax.
1Mich. Laws, 1841, pp. 192-201.
2 Ever since its incorporation Detroit has had only a double system of local gov-
ernment. The city was never included in any township, but has had its own rep-
resentatives on the county board of supervisors since the introduction of the New
York township-county system in 1827.
3 Mich. Laws, 1853, pp. 180-187.
4 These men had been appointed water commissioners by ordinance of the coun-
cil during the previous year, so that they were really local appointees.
102 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [420
Ill. The period of boards, 1854 to 1889.
As already stated, a revolution in Michigan politics took
place in 1854, which brought about a much sharper opposi-
tion of political interests of the city and the state than had
existed before. The “board system” of city government
would have been introduced, doubtless, even in the absence of
these different interests, but the fact that opposite parties were
in control at Detroit and Lansing could not but tend to aggra-
vate the evils of a system, bad under almost any conditions.
The direct influence of party politics on the organization of the
city government by the legislature does not become apparent
until 1865, when the Metropolitan Police Board was estab-
lished. But the year 1855, when extensive charter amend-
ments were passed leading up to the new charter of 1857,
marks the advent of a new force in Detroit legislation. From
that time on, the laws provided for the city have been more
drastic, showing an increased distrust on the part of the legis-
lature, due, no doubt, to the rapid growth of the city and the
city problem, as well as to political differences.
The legislation of 1855. The first important changes under
the new state regime were embodied in the act of 1855.1 The
council was authorized to appoint policemen and watchmen.
It was provided that no person unable to read and write the
English language should be eligible to any office except
those of scavenger and chimney-sweeper. No person holding
a contract for any public work was to be eligible to the coun-
cil, and any contract thereafter made in which a councilman
was directly or indirectly interested should be null and void.
The method of assessment was changed once more. The new
ward assessors were to make out their rolls without consulta-
tion, and then sit together as a board of review. But the final
review and correction of the rolls was reserved for the com-
mon council. A service tax for the sewer fund was authorized,
1Mich. Laws, 1855, pp. 209-227.
421 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 103
and property could be seized and sold for a term of years in
default of payment of special assessments. The creation of an
almshouse department, to include an almshouse proper,
houses of correction, etc., was authorized." Another provis-
ion of the act of 1855 gave the council unlimited discretion to
require of any officer, elected or appointed, new and additional
bonds, and in case of failure, to declare the office vacant and
appoint another person for the remainder of the term. Any
officer could be removed by a majority vote of the members
elected to the council, for such reasons as they might deem
sufficient.
The Charter of 1857. Name. A new charter was granted
in 1857,? much more elaborate than any of the preceding ones.
The change in the name of the corporation shows that the
American city was escaping from the traditions of the English
borough. The legal title, “The Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen
and Freemen of the City of Detroit,” became simply the “ City
of Detroit.”
The council and executive officers. By this charter the mayor
ceased to be a member of the common council, and that body
was required to elect its president from its own membership.
There were to be two aldermen from each ward, as before.
Outside of the council, which was still to a large extent the
1It is interesting to note the words of this provision: « Every person confined,
supported, maintained or relieved in said department, whose age and health will
permit, shall be employed in some useful labor, and the officers in charge thereof
shall use their best endeavors to provide for all persons under their care, such
labor, as on trial, shall be found to suit the capacity of the individual. It shall be
the duty of the officers to keep and employ separate and apart from each other the
paupers and criminals, and as far as possible to classify the latter, so that the novice
in crime may not be contaminated by the evil example and converse of the more
hardened and confirmed.” This interesting piece of legislation was omitted from
the charter of 1857. It was rather enlightened for prison legislation in those
days. The provision of which it formed « part was the legal beginning of what
afterwards became the Detroit House of Correction, with Mr. Z. R. Brockway, of
Elmira fame, at its head.
2 Mich. Laws, 1857, pp. 73-154.
104 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [42 2
central body of the administration, eight charter officers were
to be chosen by the city at large, and several more by each
ward. The general official term for elective officers was fixed
at two years. The comptroller, who had taken the auditor's
place a year or two before, was to be appointed by the council.
A new executive board was established. It was to consist of
three sewer commissioners appointed by the council on the
mayor’s nomination, to serve without compensation for terms
of five years. To this new board was given the appointment
of an engineer, with whose assistance a plan was to be drawn
up for sewers and drains in the entire city. .
Qualifications for office. Removal. Very careful provisions
were made to prevent official corruption. Defaulters, of course,
were ineligible to office, and the old educational qualification
was continued. Members of the council were ineligible, dur-
ing their terms and for one year thereafter, to any office under
the charter which should be created or whose emoluments
should be increased during that time. Any officer becoming
interested in any contract with the city was to be removed by
the common council, and be deemed guilty of corrupt malfeas-
ance in office, and be liable to a fine not exceeding $1000 or
confinement in the state’s prison for not more than one year,
or both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
Any person offering to bribe an officer in any way, or any
officer accepting a bribe, was to be liable to the same penalties.
The recorder could be impeached in the same way as any ju-
dicial officer of the state. The council might expel any one of
its members or remove the comptroller or any of the elective
officers (save the mayor and recorder) for corrupt or wilful
malfeasance or misfeasance in office or for willful neglect of
official duties, by a two-thirds vote of all the aldermen, the ac-
cused officer having been given a copy of the charges and op-
portunity for defense. In each case the charges, and the votes
of the councilmen, were to be entered on the records. The
mayor was given power to suspend or remove the marshal,
423] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 105
street commissioners, deputy marshal, constable, overseers of
highways, and officers of the police,—but he had to report the
removals and his reasons to the council. That body could re-
move appointive officers by a majority vote of all. New offic-
ial bonds might be demanded of any officer at any time by the
common council, but the old special provision for declaring
the office vacant in case of failure to meet the new require-
ments was not renewed. Thus what might have resulted in the
tyranny of the council over the city officers was conditioned
by the general provisions for removal.
Elections. The time of the annual charter election was
changed from February to November, so as to come at the
same time as the state and national elections. Each ward was
constituted an election district. The inspectors of elections
were to be the two aldermen together with a third person
chosen by ziva voce vote of the electors present at the opening
of the polls. The voting qualifications were made to conform
with those provided in the state constitution. Perjury on
challenge of one’s vote was made punishable by a fine of
$1,000, or five years at hard labor in the state’s prison, or
both. “Repeating” was to be punished by a penalty of $500
fine, or three years in the state’s prison, or both. No qualified
voter was to be liable to arrest on civil process during election
day.
The powers and duties of the council. The legislative powers
of the corporation were, of course, vested in the aldermen as
constituting the common council, but the mayor was given the
usual veto power subject to a two-thirds vote. Appointments
to and removals from office and resolutions fixing salaries
were not, however, subject to the mayor’s veto. The council
meetings were to be public, its proceedings published in a
daily newspaper, and its records kept open to public inspec-
tion at reasonable times. No ordinance and no resolution im-
posing taxes and incurring liability could be passed at the
same meeting at which they were presented, unless by unani-
106 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [424
mous consent or at a special meeting called for the purpose.
No alderman could vote on any question in which he was
personally interested. All others present were required to
vote, and in case of tie the proposition was to be lost. All
appointments to office by the council were to be made by ma-
jority vote of all aldermen elected. The president of the
council was authorized to appoint such standing committees
as the council should direct. Chairmen of committees and
members of city boards were given power to administer oaths
and summon witnesses. No officer’s salary could be de-
creased during his incumbency, nor increased save by two-
thirds vote of the council. The common council was given
power—“to prohibit and prevent any riot, rout, disorderly
noise, disturbance or assemblage, or the crying of any goods
in the streets, or elsewhere in the city;” to prevent indecent
exhibitions; to prohibit and remove nuisances ; to establish a
board of health ; to prohibit and prevent the erection of dan-
gerous buildings within a fixed limit; to suppress houses of
ill-fame and assignation ; to prohibit, restrain or prevent gam-
ing for money, and all kinds of lotteries; to license and regu-
late saloons (if made lawful by the state), hotels, butcher
shops, public exhibitions, bath houses, etc. to establish a
system of police; to appoint inspectors, measures, etc.; to pro-
vide for the census; to establish almshouses, jails, etc.; to as-
sess, levy and collect corporation taxes, etc., etc.
Revenue, finance and contracts. The revenues and moneys
of the city were to be distributed among thirteen funds named
in the charter,and such other funds as might be constituted by
the common council. The funds named were these: (1) Gen-
eral fund, (2) contingent fund, (3) interest fund, (4) sinking
fund, (5) fire department fund, (6) poor fund, (7) general road
fund, (8) district road fund, (9) sewer fund, (10) street opening
fund, (11) street paving fund, (12) public building fund, and
(13) recorder’s court fund. For funds numbered one, two, five,
six, seven, and thirteen, the council could levy and assess gen-
425 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 107
eral taxes not exceeding one per cent. on the total property
valuation. Special provisions were made for the other funds,
and the city budget was to be presented to the citizens’ meeting
for their approval, after the estimates for the ensuing year had
been sent in by the comptroller and revised by the council. °
$30,000 a year might be levied for the sewer fund. The coun-
cil was required to levy a tax to meet current interest charges,
and also to provide between $5,000 and $10,000 ayear for the
sinking fund. Special assessments could be levied for the
sewer fund, and also for the street paving fund, the amount for
the latter not to exceed $50,000 in a single year. For the
public building fund, bonds could be issued not to exceed
$300,000 in amount. The bonds had to run at least twenty
‘years, bear no higher than seven per cent. interest, and not be
sold below par. All contracts worth $200 or more were to be
let only to the lowest responsible bidder. The council could
mot incur debt except as provided in the charter, but could
authorize the comptroller to make a temporary loan to meet
‘current expenses in anticipation of the annual revenue. No
‘warrant could be drawn on the treasury unless there was money
‘for the purpose named in the warrant. All warrants required
the signature of the comptroller, and the approval or authori-
zation of the common council in pursuance of law. Contracts
in which city officials were interested were to be void, as
before. At the end of each fiscal year the comptroller was
required to make a complete and detailed statement of the
financial condition of the city, to be published in two news-
papers. Such general information was to be given in addition
‘as would be necessary for a general understanding of the
‘pecuniary resources and liabilities of the city and of the con-
dition of each fund, together with such recommendations as
the deemed advisable. Any officer or board could be required
to make estimates for the current or ensuing year, and give
accounts for any past year at any time. The mayor, comp-
‘troller and chairman of the ways and means committee were
108 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [426:
to constitute a loan committee. The board of commissioners
for the sinking fund was to be composed of the mayor, comp-
troller, treasurer and members of the ways and means com-
mittee.
Assessment of taxes, A new method of assessment was pro-
vided by this charter. One assessor for the entire city was to-
be appointed by the council on the mayor’s nomination, to
serve for three years and devote his whole time to the work.
He was given power to appoint two assistants. The assessor,,.
comptroller, treasurer, attorney and chairman of the ways and
means committee of the council were constituted a board of
review, though the final correction of the assessment rolls was.
left to the council.
The recorder’s court. The recorder’s court was established:
in place of the old mayor’s court. In the absence of the re-
corder, one of the circuit judges was to preside. The court:
was given substantially the same privileges, powers and juris-
diction as the circuit courts had, besides having exclusive
cognizance of offenses against the city ordinances. In case of
persons aggrieved by the decisions of the recorder’s court
with reference to the city’s exercise of eminent domain, am
appeal was open to the state supreme court.
Charter amendments, 1859 to 1864. The charter of 1857
was granted when Detroit was in a stage of rapid development.
The city had now a population of about 40,000, which had in-.
creased from 770 in 1810, 9,000 in 1840 and 21,000 in 1850,
The “City of the Straits” after 150 years was really beginning:
to grow. The problems of municipal government were multi-
plying, but the whole governmental system of the city could
no longer be revolutionized so easily as in the early years of
its existence. There were a few important amendments passed,
however, before the passage of the metropolitan police bill of
1865, when the real struggle against legislative interference
and the abuses of the board system began. In 1859, the as-
sessor was directed to separate the rural from the built-up.
427] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 109
portions of the city, and assess according to benefits enjoyed.
Two years later the board of review was made to consist of
three resident property holders appointed for terms of three
years by the council on the mayor’s nomination.2? By the
same act the list of appointive officers was considerably modi-
fied, by adding the marshal, a receiver of taxes, a superin-
tendent of the house of correction, a counselor, and, on nomi-
nation of the mayor, a fire marshal. The mayor and two
other persons appointed during pleasure by the council were
‘constituted a board of police commissioners, on whose recom-
mendation the council was to appoint policemen and watch-
men. The commissioners could remove any officer of police
‘summarily for cause proven, and the council could dismiss any
police officer at pleasure. In 1864 the terms of office of the
two appointed commissioners were fixed at four years3
The Metropohtan Police. February 28, 1865, marks the be-
ginning of a new period in the legislative history of Detroit.4
The Board of Metropolitan Police was established, to consist
of four commissioners appointed from residents of Detroit by
the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.
“These commissioners were to hold office for eight years, retir-
ing one every second year, and to receive no compensation.
‘They were to have exclusive control of the police force and
the police organization, and could appoint a superintendent of
‘police, one or more captains, sergeants, and patrolmen at sal-
aries limited by the act. No police officer was allowed to re-
ceive fees for his services, or to hold any other office, or to ac-
cept a public nomination for any office. No police officer
could be removed except for cause, and after a hearing, nor
could he resign except after giving a week’s notice. All va-
cancies in the higher ranks were to be filled by promotion.
Every policeman had to be a United States citizen and a resi-
«dent of Michigan for two years, able to read and write English.
1 Mich. Laws, 1859,.p. 1057. 2 Ibid, 1861, pp. 180-203.
3 [bid., 1864, p. 20, * Lbid., 1865, pp. 99-115.
LIO MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [428
No one who had ever been convicted of a crime was eligible,
and persons removed for cause could not be re-appointed.
No police officer, while on duty, was allowed to enter any
saloon or house of prostitution except in the actual perform-
ance of his duties. Any citizen could complain against a
police officer, and cause him to be tried before the board.
Members of the board could be removed by the governor in.
the same way as sheriffs. The expenses of the police depart-.
ment were to be a city charge. The board was to make an
annual estimate of expenses in detail, which was to be sent
in by the comptroller with his other estimates, and allowed
by the council without being referred to the citizens’ meeting.
The books of the department were open to the inspection of
the mayor or comptroller, and the council could require
reasonable information at any time. Annual reports were to
be made to the council. The office of city marshal was abol-
ished, and its functions vested in the superintendent of police.
On the whole, the department of police was well organized,
but the assumption of control by the state and the enforced
payment of all expenses by the city without its having any
voice in the administration roused a great deal of opposition.
The riot of 1863 had doubtless convinced the Republican leg-
islagure that Detroit with its Democratic proclivities would
not furnish adequate protection for its colored residents.
There was some talk, too, that a state police organization was.
needed to cleanse Detroit politics. And so it is not strange
that the real questions of constitutional and administrative law
were somewhat obscured by the heat of party passions.
Within a few years, however, the independence of the metro-
politan commission was decreased. In 1867, the limit of po-
lice expenditures was fixed at $125,000 a year,t and in 1875.
an act? required that the estimates of the commissioners be
submitted for approval to the city Board of Estimates, a body
1 Mich, Laws, 1867, vol. 2, pp. 265-280.
? Mich, Local Acts, 1875, p. 719.
429] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. III
consisting of two members elected from each ward and five
members elected by the city at large At the special session
of the Legislature in 1882, the police commissioners were
given more complete control over the police force? The su-
perintendent of police, detectives, attorney, surgeon and secre-
tary and property clerk, could be removed at pleasure.
The fire department. By act of March 26, 1867, the Fire
Commission was established, to consist of four members, ap-
pointed by the council on nomination of the mayor for terms
of four years Any one of the commissioners could be re-
moved by a two-thirds vote of the common council, after hav-
ing been given a chance to defend himself. A position on this
board was incompatible with any political office. The esti-
mates up to $80,000 a year were to be levied if approved by
a citizens’ meeting, and paid into the Detroit Fire Commission
fund. The books of the commission were open at all times for
the inspection of the mayor and comptroller. By an act of
1885 provision was made for pensioning firemen after twenty-
five years of service. In the same year a board of building
inspectors was established, to consist of three mechanics or
architects appointed by the board of councilmen, the newly
created upper house of the city legislatures These inspectors
were to devote their whole time to the work and receive sala-
ries not exceeding $1200 a year.
Parks, The problem of parks received serious attention
after 1870. In 1871 a bi-partisan board of six park commis-
sioners was established, the first members being named in the
act.6 Their successors, however, were to be appointed by the
1The board of estimates had been established in 1873 to take the place of citi-
zens’ meetings.
2Mich. L. A., 1882, pp. 3-5.
3 Mich. Laws, 1867, vol. 2, pp. 931-938. The first commissioners were named
in the act.
4Mich. L. A., 1885, pp. 470-472. 5 [bid., pp. 552-555.
6 Mich. Laws, 1872, vol. 2, pp. 1322-1334.
112 MUNICIPAL .GOVERNMENT [430
mayor and council, two retiring each year. They were author-
ized to investigate and advise the common council in reference
to the purchase of land for a park. The penalty attached to
the embezzlement of public funds was imprisonment in the city
House of Correction for not more than five years, or a fine of
not more than $5,000, or both. If the plans of the commis-
sioners were approved by the council, the question of issuing
bonds to carry them out was to be submitted to the citizens’
meeting. The citizens’ meetings called for the purpose could
not come to a decision, and the Legislature of 1873 abolished
them altogether To take the place of this species of referen-
dum a board of estimates was created, to be made up of two
members from each ward and five members at large, all to hold
office for two years. The ex-officio members without vote were
the president of the council, chairman of the ways and means
committee, presidents of the boards of education, police com-
missioners, park commissioners, and of the fire commission,
and the senior member of the board of inspectors for the house
of correction. The board was required to decide by absolute
Majority vote what estimates should be allowed for all pur-
poses formerly submitted to the citizens’ meeting. But at the
same session of the legislature the park commissioners had
been authorized to purchase a park and require the council to
issue the necessary bonds.?_ This act was overthrown by the
courts3 The matter rested until 1879, when the common
council was authorized to purchase Belle Isle fora public park,
and construct a bridge or tunnel across the Detroit river.
‘The power to borrow money for this purpose was granted, but
‘the total debt of the city, not including that of the water board,
and deducting the amount in the sinking fund, was never to
1 Mich. Laws, 1873, vol. 2, pp. 265-269, and Farmer’s History of Detroit and
Michigan, pp.74, 75, 161.
* Mich. Laws, 1873, vol. 2, pp. 100-103.
3 « Detroit Park Case,” 28 Mich., 228.
4Mich. L. A., 1879, pp. 215-216.
431] IN MICIIGAN AND OHIO, . 113
exceed two per cent. of the total assessed property valuation
of the city. In 1883 a new board of park commissioners was
established. Again, in 1889, the mayor was authorized to
appoint, with the consent of the council, four electors and tax-
payers to be “ Commissioners of Parks and Boulevards.”
The board of public works. A bi-partisan board of public
works, to consist of four members, the first members named
in the act, and their successors to be appointed by the mayor
and council for terms of eight years, was provided by the act
of April 18th, 1871.3 But the creation of the new department
was bitterly opposed, by the friends of the water board, whose
functions were to be transferred, and the act was declared un-
constitutional by the Supreme Court. In the eventfuly ear of
- 1873 a new act was passed creating the “ Detroit board of
public works,” to consist of three members appointed by the
council on nomination of the mayor for terms of four years.5
$20,000 bonds were required of each. Their salaries were
left to the decision of the common council, but they were ex-
pected to devote all their time to board duties. The street
commissioners, overseer of highways, city surveyor, sewer
commissioners, and plan and grade commissioners were super-
seded by the new board. An annual report covering expen-
ditures and condition of works in each department under their
control was required, Lbid., 1895, not yet published. 6 Jbid., 1893, pp. 459-463.
439] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 121
by this act, was authorized to contract for public lighting, or
with the approval of the citizens, to purchase an electric light-
ing plant, the first cost not to exceed $800,000, and manage
the business directly. As a result of this law, the city now
owns its own lighting plant, and is supplying itself with light
at a much lower cost than under the former contract system.
The last few years have been marked by much progress in
street-paving and sewer construction. But perhaps the most
important advance has been made with reference to the street-
car system. After along and determined fight with the old
companies, the franchise of about forty miles of streets was re-
cently awarded to anew company on favorable terms. Single
fares are five cents, but eight tickets can be had for a quarter,
good between 5.45 a.m.and 8 p.m.,and six for a quarter,
good during the rest of the twenty-four hours. The new fran-
chise is to run for thirty years, when the city will have the
right to purchase the plant for a consideration the amount of
which is to be determined by arbitration.
The city of Detroit has to-day a population of about 250,-
ooo. In the decade between 1880 and 1890 the number of
inhabitants almost doubled. Detroit is clearly entering upon
the career of a large city. There are no densely populated
slum districts, and the city almost everywhere is clean and
well-suited for residence. Mayor Pingree has made the city’s
corporate life very vigorous for the last six years. At the
close of 1894 there were 215 miles of paved streets. The 147
miles of public sewers and 256 miles of laterals, being the
total for the city up to that date, had been constructed at a
cost of about five and a quarter millions of dollars. Belle Isle,
the chief park of the city, has an area of nearly 700 acres, and
there are several small parks scattered through the city.
The mayor’s annual message of January 8, 1895, is full of
suggestions and recommendations. He urges the necessity
of bringing the departments into complete subordination to
the executive. A part of the aldermen might well be elected
122 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [440
at large. A general purchasing agent for the city should be
provided, and all officers and boards be required to order their
supplies through him. The mayor advocates municipal civil
service reform, and the adoption of civil service examinations
in the selection of jurors. A thorough system of independent
audit is urged for all the departments. An increase of the
bond limit to at least four per cent. of the assessed valuation
is favored. The mayor favors the taxation of all property ex-
cept that belonging to the city. Churches, railroads, works
of art, etc., should no longer be exempt. He denounces the
meter system as used by the water board, and recommends
free water. The school board ought to be reorganized to con-
sist of a small commission appointed by the mayor or elected
by the people on general ticket. A new primary law should
be enacted with stringent provisions to prevent any one but
qualified voters of the district taking part. The revenue for
re-paving streets, which now is taken entirely from the general
treasury, should be replenished by a graded vehicle tax, like
that in Denver, Colorado.
It is to be hoped that the present tendencies in the Detroit
administration will continue. One of the things most needed,
however, in order to allow the city to extend its activities at
will, is a new charter based on the ideas of larger home-rule
and administrative unity. At the present time the city gov-
ernment consists of a long list of elected and appointed offi-
cers, a common council of sixteen members, and the following
thirteen boards and commissions: Estimates, Public Light-
ing, Police, House of Correction, Sinking Fund, Education,
Library, Poor, Water, Health, Fire, Public Works and Park
and Boulevard.
CHAPTER VII.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLEVELAND’S CHARTER.
Tue charter history of Cleveland, like that of Detroit, may
be divided into four periods. In the case of Cleveland, these
divisions are well-marked from the standpoint of governmental
organization rather than from the standpoint of political rela-
tions. The first period lasted till 1836, and was the period of
village organization. The city charter of 1836, which was in
force until 1852, is what marks the second period. The adop-
tion of general municipal laws in 1852 brings us to the third
period, during which Cleveland was nominally under general
laws, but practically governed to a very large extent by
special acts. The charter of 1891, although in form a general
law, was such a radical measure that it may be fairly said to
have marked a new period in Cleveland’s charter history. The
last three periods may be roughly characterized as the periods
of the council system, the board system and the mayor system
respectively.
I. Village organization.
According to the custom of the times, a patch of the Ohio
wilderness was laid out and christened “ The City of Cleve-
land” by a surveying party sent out in 1796 by the Connecti-
cut Land Company. But unlike many other “ paper cities”
of the Northwest, Cleveland came to be a real city, with peo-
ple, and industries, and municipal organization. The town-
ship was organized in 1802, and in 1814 the village was incor-
porated" The officers of the village were to be president, re--
1Qhio Laws, 13 v. 17-26.
441] 123
124 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [442
corder, three trustees, treasurer, village marshal, and two as-
sessors, all of them freeholders or householders, chosen by
electors of a year’s residence. The corporate powers of the
village were vested in the first five officers, and they, always
including either the mayor or recorder, could pass by-laws
and ordinances not in conflict with national or state law. But
there was a special provision which forbade them to abuse, take
up, or sell the horses, cattle, sheep and hogs that might stray
into the village from outside owners. With these two limita-
tions, the ordinance power was left free for all things seeming
“necessary and proper for the interest, safety, improvement
and convenience of said village.” There was, of course, the
customary enumeration of powers granted to the corporation.
The amount of property to be owned could not be more than
enough to yield an annual income of $5,000, and the rate of
taxation was limited to a maximum of one per cent. The
records of the trustees’ proceedings were to be open at all
times for the inspection of every elector.
This charter was not much changed for the next twenty
years, An act of 1827 regulated the slaughtering of animals
and provided for the suppression of certain nuisances. In
1831 the first attack was made upon the excise problem
The board of trustees was empowered to grant a license
for vending spirituous liquors, on petition of twelve respectable
householders, the annual fee not to be less than $30.00. No
license could be granted for more than one year, nor unless
the grantee was of good moral character, and the trustees were
convinced that the license would be of public benefit. In
1834, the system of special assessments was introduced3 The
trustees were authorized to protect the land exposed to Lake
Erie, and assess the cost of the improvements on lots in pro-
portion to benefits. Sewers and street improvements, except
1 Ohio Local Acts, 25 v. 27 (vol. 25, p. 27).
2 [bid., 31 v. 223. ® [b1d., 32 V. 93, 94.
443 | {N MICHIGAN AND OHTO, 125
sidewalks, were to be paid for in the same way. During the
next year a board of equalization was established to adjust the
grievances caused by these special assessments ; and a board of
three appraisers was appointed by the General Assembly.
This is an early instance of the appointment of local municipal
officers by the central legislature.
Il. Cleveland under tts first city charter, 1836 to 1852.
The charter of 1836. The organization of the council. By
act of March 6, 1836, the inhabitants of Cleveland were incor-
porated as acity.2, The government was vested in a mayor
and council, the latter to be composed of three members chosen
from each ward, and as many aldermen as there were wards,
elected on general ticket, but no two of them were to be residents
of the same ward. The number of wards was fixed at three
until the council should see fit to increase, alter or change
them. This is certainly an extraordinary system, establishing
a city council composed so curiously of local and general ele-
ments, with power to increase or to decrease its own numbers
at pleasure. The combination of aldermen and councilmen in
a single body suggests the influence of English municipal or-
ganization, while the requirement that one alderman shall be
elected from each ward by vote of the entire city is the exact
obverse of the general English system, which limits the resi-
dence of the voters but not that of the candidates.
The powers of the council, The powers of the council were
enumerated at great length. The general clause reads,—“and
further to have power and authority, and it is hereby made
their duty, to make and publish from time to time all such
laws and ordinances, as to them may seem necessary to sup-
press vice, provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote
the prosperity, improve the order, comfort and convenience of
said city and its inhabitants, and to benefit the trade and com-
merce thereof, as are not repugnant to the general laws of the
10. L, A., 33 v. 220. 2 (bid, 34 v. 271-284.
126 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [444
state.” A city clerk and any other officers necessary to the in-
terests of the city were to be appointed by the council. Bya
two-thirds vote of this body the mayor might be allowed
compensation, and their own members might be paid not to
exceed $1.00 apiece for each meeting attended.
The mayor. It is worth while to quote in full the duties of
the mayor as outlined in this rather remarkable charter. “ It
shall be the duty of the mayor,” the law runs, “to keep the
seal of said city, sign all commissions, licenses and permits,
which may be granted by the city council; to take care that
the laws of the state and of the city council are faithfully exe-
cuted ; to exercise a constant supervision and control over the
conduct of all subordinate officers, and to receive and examine
into all complaints against them, for neglect of duty; to pre-
side at the meetings of the city council when other duties shall
permit ; to recommend to said city council such measures as
he may deem expedient; to expedite all such as shall be re-
solved upon by them; and in general to maintain the peace
and good order, and advance the prosperity of the city; asa
judicial officer he shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of
all cases for the violation of any ordinance of said city ; and in
criminal cases he is hereby vested with powers co-equal with
justices of the peace within the county of Cuyahoga, and shall
be entitled to like fees ; 4nd he shall award all such process,
and issue all such writs as may be necessary to enforce the
due administration of right and justice throughout said city,
and for the lawful exercise of his jurisdiction, agreeably to the
usages and principles of law; and when presiding at the meet-
ings of the city council, he shall have a casting vote, when the
votes of the members are equal.” The mayor, members of the
council, treasurer and marshal were all to be elected annually.
Financial provisions. This charter was remarkable also for
its financial provisions. The city council was given “ power to
borrow money for the discharge and liquidation of any debt of
the city, either present or prospective, and to provide for the
445 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 127
redemption of any loan by them made, and the payment of the
interest thereon; and to pledge the revenues and property of
the city therefor.’ This grant was made effective by the
power to levy such rate of taxes as should be necessary for
the discharge of lawful debts and the payment of current ex-
penses. But the exercise of these powers was carefully guarded
by a prescribed procedure insuring deliberation and responsibil-
ity. An ordinance for making a loan had to receive the affirm-
ative votes of two thirds of the whole council, the yeas and
nays being entered on the records, then be postponed at least
two weeks, and be passed again in the same manner. The tax
levy, also, was to be fixed by an absolute two-thirds majority.
One assessor was to be appointed for each ward by the coun-
cil, and that body was to determine the method of correction
and equalization. Ordinary laws and ordinances had to be
passed twice by an absolute majority vote.
The school system. The council was given the oversight of
common schools, and authorized to divide each ward into
school districts and appoint from each district one judicious
and competent person to be a member of “The Board of
Managers of Common Schools in the City of Cleveland.” To
this board was given the direction of the school administration,
while the council was to furnish the funds. The schools were
to be free to all white children more-than four years old, and
the property of colored persons was exempted from school tax-
ation.
Subscriptions to railroad and plank road stocks. In 1838, a
plan of subscribing to railroad companies was inaugurated,
which turned out exceptionally profitable in Cleveland’s case.
The city was authorized to procure a loan and subscribe $200,-
000 to the stock of a proposed railroad, to run in the direction
of Pittsburg. Five persons, named in the act, were, “ by and
with the consent of the city council of the said city of Cleve-
land, and the citizens thereof,” appointed commissioners in
10. 7. A., 3% v. 53.
128 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [446
trust to manage the required loan and its investment. Vacan-
cies in their number could be filled by co-optation. The city
council was required to provide funds for the payment of in-
terest on the loan, and the principal when due. If the coun-
cil refused, the commissioners could levy the necessary tax
themselves. They were required to make semi-yearly reports
to the council, and submit their books to inspection by it or
its authorized committees. They were to be allowed compen-
sation for their reasonable expenses. During the next thirteen
years, before the constitutional prohibition of 1851," four sim-
ilar acts were passed, authorizing an aggregate subscription o1
$500,000 to the stocks of various railroads.? Cleveland's rail-
road investments seem to have been weli administered, and
were profitable in the long run. In 1845, a subscription of
$50,000 to the capital stock of a plank road company was au-
thorized, with the consent of the electors3 The county
auditor was required to levy a yearly tax, for the payment of
interest on the bonds, and the dividends on the stock were to
be set aside as a sinking fund.
The excise problem. In 1839 the council was deprived of its
power to grant retail liquor licenses, and taverns could be
licensed only by the county court of common pleas; and the
court was bidden to “specially take care that no tavern be
licensed where the principal business contemplated is an
habitual resort of the citizens for tippling ardent spirits, wine,
ale or beer, or any other intoxicating liquors.” In 1850 a
new departure was made by the creation of a board of excise,
the first commissioners being named by the legislature.
1 Constitution of 1851, art. viii, sec. 6: “*The general assembly shall never
authorize any county, city, town, or township, by vote of its citizens or otherwise,
to become a ssockholder in any joint-stock company, corporation, or association
whatever ; or to raise money for, or loan its credit to or in aid of, any such com-
pany, corporation or association.”
70. L. A., 44 v. 1673 47 v. 1463 49 v. 452, 502.
3 [bid., 43 Vv. 403. * Tbid., 37 v. 383. 5 /bid., 48 v. 356.
447] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 129
Their successors were to be appointed by the council for
three-year terms, one retiring each year. The board was re-
quired to hold quarterly sessions, and “ grant license to keep
a tavern, porter-house, or house of entertainment to all appli-
cants therefor, who, by the testimony of witnesses (to whom
said board is hereby authorized to administer oaths), shall
show to the satisfaction of the commissioners, such applicant
to be of good habits, not addicted to drinking, and who would
not in the opinion of said commissioners, permit or suffer any
drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or licentious conduct, in his
or her house, store or grocery, or on the premises occupied
by him or her.” All license fees and fines were to be turned
into the city treasury.
Changes in the council and executive offices. By a charter
amendment of 1841, the members of the council were pro-
hibited from receiving pay, and the maximum salary any
municipal officer could receive was fixed at $200.00 per year.
In 1847 the terms of the aldermen were extended to three
years, one-third of the aldermen retiring each year.2— There
Seems to have been some trouble with the city marshal, for
whereas by the charter of 1836, he had been an elective officer
with power to ce his own deputies, both he and they
were now to be appointed by the city council. In 1848 return
was made to the old method of filling the office, and the
council was given power to remove the marshal for cause after
hearing his defense His salary was to be fixed at not more
than $400.00, while his deputies were limited to $100.00 a
year. Two years later, in 1850, Cleveland township was in-
corporated in the city, four wards were established subject to
change by the council, and the number of councilmen elected
by each ward was reduced to two.t In this same year the
council was empowered to establish a board of health.’ The
number of its members, their official terms, compensation, and
10. L.A., 37 v. 383. + [bid., 45 v. 135. 3 [bid., 46 v. 153.
* [bid., 48 v. 364. 6 Jbid., 48 v. 487.
130 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [448
to some extent their powers were left to the discretion of the
council, In 1851 the city sexton was made an elective officer.*
Provision was also made for the union of Cleveland and
“ Ohio city.”2. The new territory annexed was to constitute
two new wards, thus increasing the membership of the council.
Taxation, An unlimited taxing power was not left to the
city council long. In 1841 five mills on the dollar was fixed
as the maximum rate3 The levy determined upon was to be
certified by the mayor to the county auditor, and collected
with other taxes by the county treasurer. In 1847 the tax
rate for general purposes was limited to two mills on the dol-
with four-fifths of a mill school tax and, and three-fourths of a
mill levy to pay debts already contracted These levies were
to be determined between April 1 and June 1 of each year,
and within the same period the special assessments for street
improvements were to be fixed for the year. In 1850 the tax
limit for general purposes was raised to three mills on the dol-
larS in the following year, certain real estate, recently an-
nexed, was made subject to city taxes for railroad, school, road
and poor relief purposes only, until it should be divided and
sold or improved as city lots.®
Special assessments. Methods of levying special assessments
have caused Ohio statesmen a good deal of anxiety. One of
the mooted points has been the incidence of that part of the
burden of a local improvement resulting from the payment of
damages to injured individuals. By an act of 1849 this part
of the expense in Cleveland was to be paid out of the city
treasury.7, In 1851 a change was made in the method of levy-
ing assessments for local improvements.’ On petition of at
least twelve freeholders for street improvements, the council
might provide for the payment of the expense by the peti-
tioners, out of the city treasury, or by a discriminating tax if
10. L. A. 49 v. 114. 2 Tbid., 4gv. 118. 3 Joid., 39 v. 66.
* lbid., 45 v. 135. 5 [bid., 48 v. 487. § Jbid., 49 v.11 4.
' [bid., 47 v. 204. 8 [bid., 49 Vv. 114.
449] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 131
the petitioners represented one-third in value of the property to
be taxed. Damages to individuals were to be added to the
expense of the improvement.
The mayor's court. In 1841 jury trial was granted to per-
sons tried before the mayor for violation of city ordinances.t
Ten years later the city clerk was authorized to hold the
mayor’s court and was given concurrent jurisdiction with the
mayor in cases of ordinance violation.?
Ill. Cleveland under general laws, 1852 to 1891.
We have now reached the end of avowedly special legisla-
tion for Cleveland, except in isolated acts. The new constitu-
tion, adopted in the year 1851, required the organization of
cities by general laws. Cleveland does not seem to have suf-
fered very much from the evils of special legislation, although
within the years imrnediately preceding the adoption of the
new constitution there had been considerable legislative action,
particularly relative to the excise problem and special assess-
ments. But on the whole Cleveland had enjoyed a liberal and
carefully-framed charter. The population of the city had in-
creased from 1,075 in 1830, to 6,071 in 1840, and 17,034 in
1850. This was still a small population compared with the
great aggregations of recent decades, but the period of rapid
growth had set in, and the problems of municipal government
taxed the wisdom of the legislature.
The general act of 1852. By the general act of 1852 for the
organization of cities and villages in the state of Ohio, all the
special acts referring to city charters proper were swept away.*
Those special laws which had dealt with subjects local in their
nature and under which important rights had become vested
were not disturbed, of course. But a general organization for
cities and villages according to classes was provided. Cities
10, L. A., 39 v. 162. 2 Totd., 49 v. 114.
3 Art. xiii, secs. I and 6. * Ohio Laws, 50 v. 223-259.
132 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [4 50
of the first class were those with more than 20,000 population,
and as Cleveland came within that category almost at once,
we need speak only of the organization and powers of cities of
the first class.
The council, its organization and powers. The aldermen of
the old regime were done away with, and the city council was
made to consist simply of the two trustees chosen from each
ward for terms of two years, half of them retiring every year..
Members could be expelled by a two-thirds vote of all. The
council was also given power to remove appointive officers by
an absolute majority vote, and elective officers by an absolute:
two-thirds vote, after granting them a hearing. The passage
of by-laws and ordinances required a majority vote of all trus-
tees after three readings on different days, unless otherwise
provided by three-fourths vote. Every ordinance was to have
a single object, expressed in its title, and ordinances amended
or revived were to be repeated in full. Trustees could not be
appointed to any municipal office during their term, except as
provided in the law, and they were forbidden to be interested
in any municipal contract.
Any improvement involving the condemnation of private:
property required a two-thirds vote of all councilmen. The
same majority was required for any improvement to be paid
for by special assessment, unless petitioned for by two-thirds
of those to be assessed. Improvements and repairs of streets,
bridges and sewers could be undertaken only on recommenda-
tion of the board of city improvements.
The executive officers and boards. The mayor was required
in cities of the first class to make an annual report to the coun-
cil with recommendaticns, and was given power to appoint the
chief of police and an equal number of watchmen from each
ward as determined by the council. The electors were to
choose for terms of two years, the mayor, city marshal, civil
engineer, fire engineer, treasurer, auditor, solicitor, - police
judge and superintendent of markets. Upon the establish-
45 1] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 133
ment of water works the council was required to establish a
board of three water works trustees, to hold for three years,
and to be elected one each year. Three city commissioners
were to be chosen in like manner, to enforce the ordinances of
the city, superintend the cleaning, improving and lighting of
the streets, commons, etc., and with the mayor and civil engi-
neer to constitute the board of city improvements. The coun-
cil was empowered to establish within the city or county an
infirmary. Its management and the granting of out-door reliet
were to be placed in the charge of a board of three directors,
also elected one each year. A house of refuge, a house of
correction and workhouse, or a city prison, could likewise be
established, and placed in charge of a board of directors. The
annual election was to be held in April, and all persons resi-
dent within the city and entitled to vote for county officers
were to be electors.
Taxation, revenue aad finance. The limit of taxation for
general purposes was placed at five mills on the dollar, and for
special funds as follows: Police fund, two mills; fire depart-
ment fund, one mill; house of refuge, house of correction,
work house and city prison, one and one-half mills; water
works, one-half mill; schools, two mills; city infirmary
and poor relief, two mills; sinking fund, one-half mill ; inter-
est fund (required), two mills. Taxes could be levied unifor-
formly on lots, platted or unplatted. A tax on dogs and other
animals not on the state and county tax lists was authorized.
Loans to the amount of $100,000 annually were permitted,
but only in anticipation of revenue. Appropriations, when
there were no funds in the treasury to pay them, were to be
void.
Perhaps the worst feature of this law of 1852, in so far as it
was intended to replace special legislation, was the narrow
limitation of the borrowing power, and the minute regulation
of the tax levy. If any particular city should need to under-
take some large enterprise necessitating a loan, the legislature
134 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [4 52
would have to be specially importuned for the grant of power,
and this would certainly prove fatal to the spirit, if not the
form, of general legislation.
Extension of the borrowing power. The very next year after
the passage of the general act of 1852, it was found necessary
to extend the borrowing powers of cities. By the amending
act of March 11, 18537 any city not already having water
works was authorized to borrow $500,000 for their construc-
tion. Running expenses were to be met by water rents, and
a sinking fund was to be provided by special tax. Cities were
also empowered to borrow money for the purchase of school
lands and the erection of school buildings, while cities of the
first class were authorized to procure a loan of $500,000 for
public wharves, squares, parks or market places. In 1856,
and again in 1860,3 the city councils of cities having water
works were authorized to borrow money for the purpose of
constructing main sewers. An act of 1879 gave to all muni-
cipal corporations the power to issue bonds for local improve-
ments,t A two-thirds vote of the electors was first required,
and the bonds could not be sold below par, or carry more
than six per cent. interest. The authorized objects of the
issue included the erection of various public buildings, the
purchase of sites, construction of bridges, turnpike roads, etc.,
the refunding of debt, and the making of any local improve-
ment authorized by law. Besides these general provisions, a
great many special bond issues were authorized for Cleveland
from year to year, for the improvement of the water works,3
the construction of bridges,® elevated railroads,7 market build-
ings,? a drainage conduit,9 etc. In 1885, loans were author-
ized to meet the current expenses of the city government.”
10. L., 51 v. 360-374. 2 Ibid, 53 v. 185. + 3 [bid., 57 v. 53.
* [bid., 76 v. 158. 5 Jbid., 69 v. 133 79 Vv. 112. ° Lbid., 69 v. 138.
1 [bid., 80 v. 159. 8 Jbid,, 81 v. 185.
9 Ibid, 82. 250. 10 Joid., 82 v. 86.
453 IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 135
Taxation and finance. In 1856, the limit of taxation, not
including school, debt and special assessment levies, was
placed at five mills on the dollar.t The tax limit was again
disturbed in 1862, this time being fixed at four mills, not in-
cluding an extra one-half mill for lighting. An important
era in Cleveland’s financial administration was opened by the
establishment of the sinking fund commission in this year, to
which the city’s railroad stocks were turned over. In twenty
years this fund increased from $361,377 to $2,700,000, at an
expense of only $600 for management.4 The five commis-
sioners were named in the act, to hold their places perma-
nently. Ordinary vacancies were to be filled by codptation,
with the consent of the council, while the court of common
pleas of Cuyahoga county could remove any member for cause
on complaint of the council, and appoint his successor. In
the years following this act the General Assembly fixed the
tax limit almost every year, usually raising the maximum ag-
gregate or adding a special fund. By the municipal code of
1869,5 the limit of taxes for general purposes was fixed, then
the limits of the annual levy for ten special purposes were
fixed, and finally the maximum aggregate levy for each of
twenty-three more special purposes was determined. At the
same time the limit of loans permitted in anticipation of reve-
nue was raised to $200,000. A year later five new tax limits
of annual levies for special purposes were added.° A limit
was also fixed for the aggregate annual levy. By an act of
1883,7 a new method of supervising taxation was adopted in
the creation of a tax commission, consisting of the mayor, au-
ditor, and three citizens appointed by the superior court of
Cleveland? No tax could be levied by the council, school
10. L., 53 v. 214. 2 [bid., 59 v. 72. 3 [bid., 59 v. 126.
4E. M. Avery, “ Cleveland in a Nutshell.’’
50. L., 66 v. 145-286. * [oid., 67 v. 68. 1 Tbid., 80 v. 124.
8 The Superior Court of Cleveland was established in the year 1873. O.L.,
70 v. 297.
136 - MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [454
board or any other city authority without the approval of this
commission. The functions of this commission seem to have
been chiefly legal, to see that any attempted taxation was duly
authorized. In 1890, however, the tax commission was di-
rected to appoint twenty assessors for Cleveland, equally from
the two political parties which cast the highest vote at the
preceding county election.‘ Public employment or office of
any kind was made a bar to these appointments.
Deposits, contracts and appropriations. By an act of 1888 a
depositary commission, to be composed of the mayor, the
president of the board of education, and the city solicitor, was
required to receive bids from the various banks for the de-
posit of the public moneys.? A very rigid system of daily
payments to the city treasurer by the several departments,
daily deposits by him, daily statements by him and also by
the depositary to the city auditor, and sworn monthly state-
ments by the city auditor, was inaugurated. Two years later
it was made unlawful for any officer, councilman or member
of an executive board to contract or vote to contract, or to
incur any expense or liability whatever, beyond the amount
regularly and lawfully set apart for the particular department
concerned.3 It was to be unlawful for any officer to contract
to pay any money not already in the public treasury to the
credit of the department, and unappropriated. Another act
passed in 1890 required the city council, by the first week of
each fiscal half-year, to make “ detailed and specific appropria-
tions for the several objects for which the city has to provide,
apportioned to each month, of the moneys known to be in the
treasury, or estimated to come into it during the six months
next ensuing.’* This action was to be submitted to the tax
commissioners for approval, amendment or rejection. Ex-
penditures for the next six months had to be kept within the
appropriations, and balances left over at the end of the year
10. L., 87 v. 138. 2 [b1a.,85 v. 197.
8 Tbid., 87 v. 96. 4 [bid., 87 v. 342.
455] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 137
unexpended were to be recredited to the funds from which
they were taken.
Spectal assessments. In the act of 1856 authorizing the
construction of sewers, it was provided that special assess-
ments for street improvements should not exceed fifty per
cent. of the value of the lot on which they were levied, to be
ascertained after the completion of the improvement. Excess.
costs were to be a charge upon the general treasury. An act
of 1860 authorized the council to divide the city into six main
sewer districts, and levy sewer taxes in the several districts in--
dependently.2, The general expense of any main sewer could’
be lessened by the levy of a special assessment equal to the
estimated cost of an equal length of branch sewers. In 1865,.
the city was authorized to have its streets sprinkled on petition
of a majority of adjacent owners, and to pay the expense by a.
special tax per foot front3 It was enacted in 1870 that
special assessments should be limited to twenty-five per cent..
of the taxable valuation of the property on which they were-
levied And no person could be compelled to pay in any one-
year more than one-tenth of the taxable valuation of his prop:
erty for local improvements. But a year later the valuation
was again allowed to be determined after the completion of the
improvements An act of 1875 required that the cost of im-
proving street intersections should be a general charge, and in
addition at least one-fiftieth of the total expenses for a street:
improvement, not including sidewalks, was to be paid from the
city treasury.© In 1881 an act provided that one-half the
costs of repaving should be paid from a tax levied on the gen-
eral property duplicate.7
Reports to the State Auditor. The nearest approach to state
supervision over city administration, except by the Legislature,
10. L., 53 v. 185. * [bid., 57 V. 53- 3 [bid., 62 v. 180.
4 [bid., 67 v. 68. 5 [bid., 68 v. 125.
6 [bid., 72 Vv. 24. 7 [bid.,78 v. 136.
138 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [456
that I have found in either Michigan or Ohio, was provided
for by the Ohio law of April 5, 1856.7 One section provided
that “ the city clerk of each city of the first and second class
shall, on or before the first Monday in June, report to the audi-
tor of the state, the aggregate expenses of such city for the
‘preceding year under the following heads: schools, police,
streets, bridges, fire department, lights, poor, salaries and in-
terest, and also the amount of the general city tax for all the
preceding objects and for any others not enumerated, and the
special taxes of the city for the same period, and the popula-
tion of the city. Any city clerk who shall neglect to make
report as above provided, shall forfeit and pay the sum of $100,
to be recovered before any court having jurisdiction of the sub-
ject matter in the name and for the use of the city.” This
provision is still in force in Ohio, but does not seem to have
had any very important results.
Lhe board of revision. By this act of April 5, 1856, it was
also provided that “the mayor, the president of the council
and the city attorney shall constitute a board of revision,
which shall meet as often as once in every month, to review
‘the proceedings of the council, and of all other departments of
the city government, and report to the council whether any
‘department of the city government has transcended its powers,
whether any officer has neglected his duties, and also report
whether any, and what retrenchments in the expenses of the
‘city, and what improvements in any of the departments of its
government can be made.” This provision was calculated to
insure a careful and unified city administration, if we take for
granted high character and ability in its members and the
‘other city officers. In 1886 an act was passed giving the
board of revision full authority to prescribe to the several de-
‘partments of the city government, the forms for their books,
accounts, reports, etc., and to formulate and enforce a uniform
system of accounting.? By an act of 1887 the board of revis-
10. L., 53 v. 57. 2 Lbid., 83 v. 169.
~457] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 139
ion was authorized to spend each year a maximum of $1,000
for attorney, stenographer and incidental expenses in conduct-
ing investigations.! Persons refusing to testify before the
‘board could be committed to jail for contempt.
The appointment of officers. An act of 1856 made the city
~clerk an appointee of the council, and also required the coun-
-cil to choose the civil engineer, and to designate one of the
-city commissioners to be acting commissioner, while the two
others were to become merely advisory officers.2. The same
~change was to be made in the board of infirmary directors.
In 1858 the superintendent of markets became an appointee of
‘the council,3 but in 1863 the appointment of this officer as
well as that of the civil engineer and the fire engineer was con-
-ditioned on the mayor’s recommendation. A board of health
“was provided for by general law in 1867.5 The mayor was to
‘be ex officio its president, but the six other members were
made appointees of the council for terms of two years. The
‘board of directors of the house of correction authorized soon
after for Cleveland was to consist of the mayor, and four resi-
-dent freeholders appointed by the council on his nomination.
By the provisions of the municipal code of 1869,” of the gen-
eral officers provided for cities of the first class, seven were to
“be elected, four appointed by the mayor with the council's
“consent, and two, the clerk and the auditor, were to be chosen
by the council itself. Other offices to be established by ordi-
‘nances were to be filled by appointment of the mayor subject
‘to the council’s approval. No less than eleven administrative
boards were provided for in the code, four of them to be
“elected, four appointed by the mayor and council, one ap-
“pointed by the council, and two composed chiefly of ex officio
‘members. By an act of the next year, the auditor, clerk,
‘solicitor, treasurer, clerk of the police court, and civil engineer
10, L., 84 v. 32 2 [bid., 53 V. 57. 3 Tbid., 55 v. 70.
$ Jbid., 60v. 51. 5 Jéid., 64 v. 76.
% Jbid., 64 v. 130. 1 [bid., 66 v. 145-286.
140 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [458:-
were given the right to appoint the subordinates in their re--
spective departments, subject to the council’s approval. It
was also provided that a board of sewer commissioners, to be-
composed of five members appointed by the mayor and coun-
cil, might be established by ordinance. In 1876 the one popu-
larly elected member of the board of improvements was made-
an appointee of the council? By the new code of 1878 the:
civil engineer again became an appointee of the council? A
platting commission which had been established four years be-
fore to be appointed by the council,t was now to consist of”
three members appointed by the mayor subject to the confir-
mation of the council. An act of 1883 required that no more:
than three of the five infirmary directors should be appointed:
from the same political partys Three years later a bi-partisan
board of elections to consist of four members appointed by the
governor was established.® This board was to appoint all of”
the election judges and clerks in the various precincts of the-
city.
The control of the council over the administration, Aside:
from its powers of appointment, which, as we have just seen,.
were considerable, especially in the first part of this period, the-
council, as the central, permanent body in the city govern-
ment, was given quite a large control over the action of the
administrative officers and boards. By the act of 1853,7 the
water works trustees were required to report monthly and an-
nually to the city council, which was given the right to ap--
point a committee to investigate the water administration once
ayear or oftener. In 1861, the board of city commissioners was
abolished, and the board of improvements was henceforth to
consist of the mayor, the civil engineer, the chairman of the
council committee on streets, and one street commissioner
elected for two years.® In like manner, the chairman of the
10. L., 67 v. 68. 2 [bid., 73 v. 143. 8 Jbid., 75 v. 161-419.
* [bid., 71 v. 116. 5 [bid., 80 v. 46. 6 /bid,, 83 v. 11.
1 Lbid., 51 v. 360-374. 8 Jbid., 58 v. 25.
-459] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 14!
council committee on infirmary was given a place on the board
-of infirmary directors, along with the superintendent of in-
firmary, and one director elected for two years. When the
board of health was established, an annual report to the coun-
«cil was required, but that body could not refuse to pay the
health bill Similar provisions were put in force in regard to
“the directors of the house of correction, authorized in 1867.7
In the following year, the board of education,3 which had been
-established in 1859, to consist of one member from each ward,
was given a much more independent position than heretofore.t
“The council’s approval was required only for the most import-
-ant financial measures, such as the purchase of sites and the
-erection of school buildings. By the code of 1869,5 the au-
ditor, solicitor and civil engineer were given seats in the coun-
-cil without vote, for deliberation on questions affecting their
respective departments. The action of most of the boards pro-
vided for in this code was made subject in part to the approval
-of the council. In 1870, the mayor was given a seat in the
-council without vote.© A law passed in 1876 forbade the coun-
-cil to delegate its contract power, and required a majority vote
-of the whole council to make contracts and adopt ordinances,’
“Contracts made in violation of these provisions were to be
-void as against the corporation, but binding on the contractor.
In 1881, the council was required, upon the estimate of the
‘board of improvements, to provide for the cost of the street
-cleaning service, which was hereafter to be done by the street
“commissioner, and not by contract.2 Only in a few such cases
-as this was the council deprived of its financial discretion. On
the whole, with the constant changing of the administrative
organization, the council maintained a fair degree of control
~over the most important municipal affairs.
General powers of the city. The law of 1853 gave the coun-
10, L., 64 v. 76. 2 [bid., 64 v. 130. 3 Jbid., 56v. 281.
4 Lbid., 65 v. 236. 5 [bid., 66 v. 145-286. 6 /bid,, 67 v. 68.
4 [bid., 73 v. 125. 8 Lbid., 84 v. 67.
142 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [460
cil an important control over the gas supply... The council
was authorized to fix the maximum charge for gas and rent.
for gas meters, and appoint inspectors to certify the correct-
ness of bills against consumers. By a law of the following”
year, the price of gas, once fixed and accepted by the gas com-
pany, could not be changed within ten years unless agreed
upon? By an act of 1857, no land could be annexed to any
municipal corporation without the consent of three-fourths of
the voters resident on the land to be annexed3 In 1868 the
city was authorized to enter into an agreement with a charit-
able organization for the erection and management of a.
hospital, to be partly supported by public funds* In the code:
of 1869, besides being given the customary police powers, the-
municipality was authorized to construct canals, sewers, hos-
pitals, jails, market houses, water works, gas works, public:
halls and school buildings ; to provide parks, public cemeteries,
and free public libraries ; and to establish health, fire and police-
departments. In 1875 Cleveland was authorized to establish.
industrial schools for the benefit of destitute and neglected.
childrenS A year later the board of improvements was re-
quired to divide the city into districts and contract for the
repair and cleaning of the streets, and the removal of garbage.*
An important law was passed in 1879 with reference to street
railways? The franchise could not be given except after ad-
vertising, and then only to the corporation or individuak.
which offered the lowest fares, and had secured the written
consent of the owners of a majority of the feet front along-
the proposed line. No franchise could be granted for more:
than twenty years, and after the grant the council was for-
10. L., §1 v. 360-374. Cleveland is said to have had cheaper gas than any
other city in the United States, save Pittsburg. See Griswold, « The Corporate-
Birth and Growth of the City of Cleveland,” West. Res. and N. O, Hist. Soc.,.
Tract No. 62.
20. L., 52 v. 30. 3 Lbid., 54 v. 85. 4 Tbid., 65 v. 83.
5 [bid,, 72. 211. * /bid., 74. v. 103. 1 [bid., 76 v. 156.
461] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 143
bidden to release the grantee from any of the obligations im-
posed by thc agreement.
The police department. The still crude condition of police:
organization was shown by an act of 1854, which authorized
the city council to provide for the election or appointment by
the mayor of a chief of police, lieutenants, and an equal num-
ber of night watchmen from the several wards, to hold for one
year." Two years later the mayor was to appoint the chief of
police and assistants with the advice of the council. By 1866
the question of police administration was becoming important.
The Assembly in that year provided a “ metropolitan” board
for Cleveland, to be composed of the mayor, ex-officio, and
four members appointed by the Governor for eight-year terms,
one retiring every two years3 The Governor had also the
power of removal for good cause. The authorized expenses
of the board, including certain specified extras, were made a
city charge without the discretion of the council. Maximum
salaries were fixed. This system seems to have caused dis-
satisfaction, for two years after its adoption the city council
was authorized to remove police commissioners for good cause
by a three-fourths vote of all, and was required to divide the
city immediately into four districts in each of which a commis-
sioner should be chosen at the next election* Meanwhile all
the powers of the metropolitan board were vested in the mayor.
In 1876 the functions of the health board were transferred to
the police commissioners,5 but a separate board of health was
again established in 1880.6
The fire department. An act of 1865 required the mayor,
the civil engineer and the chief fire engineer to examine halls,
churches, theaters, etc., and to give certificates showing these
structures to have abundant means of ingress and egress in
case of danger or alarm.” In the year 1874 a board of five
10. L., 52 v. 47. * Tbid., 53 v. 57- 8 [bid,, 63 v. 104.
* Ibid, 65 v. 45- 5 [bid., 73, V. 47-
6 [bid., 77 Vv. 89. 1 Ibid., 62 v. 139.
\
144 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [462
fire commissioners was established, to consist of the’ mayor as
president, the chairman of the council committee on fire and
-water, and three resident freeholders appointed by the mayor
and council* Contracts for more than $500 required the
-council’s approval. The board was to appoint the chief of the
fire department and his subordinates. But “no officer or mem-
‘ber shall be appointed or removed on account of his religious
-or political opinions, nor participate in the political campaigns
‘or conventions of any political party whatever.” This was the
first of a series of attempts to put firemen and policemen be-
yond the influence of party politics. The mayor was removed
‘from the fire board in 1876, and his place was supplied by
another elective member.? It was deemed necessary to add to
the non-partisan clause,—“ but the right of each officer and
member to vote at any election as he may for himself deter-
mine shall remain inviolate.” By an act of 1881, the mayor,
fire marshal and assistant fire marshal were constituted a
board of examiners of insecure and unsafe buildings.3 In
1886 the constitution of the fire commission was changed to
adjust itself to the bicameral council# The mayor was to be
‘president, and the chairmen of the committees on fire and water
-of the two council chambers, together with four elected mem-
bers, made up the commission, Two years later a system of
building regulations was adopted, and the appointment of a
building inspector and assistants by the mayor and council was
authorized.s
The bicameral experiment. We have already seen that in
1885 special laws were required to meet current expenses in
Cleveland. Probably, as a result of such financial mismanage-
10. L., 71 v. 38. 2 Lbid.,73 v. 76. * [bid., 78 v. 76.
* /bid., 83 v. 184. By an act of the same year (O. L., 83 v. 198) the chairmen
‘of the two committees on streets were made members of the board of improve-
ments in like manner.
5.0. L., 85 v. 289.
463] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 145
ment, the General Assembly created a second chamber of the
council as a check on hasty and extravagant action.t As now
constituted, the board of aldermen was to be composed of nine
members elected by districts for two year terms, while the
board of councilmen was to be composed of one member from
each ward, also elected for two-year terms, but in the alternate
years. Within ten days after election each chamber was to
assemble for organization and elect a president and vice-presi-
dent by wve voce vote. Ordinances might originate or be
amended in either chamber, but had to be passed by both, and
the interval of at least a week was required between the action
of the two chambers on any ordinance involving expense or
creating an obligation. Each board was to meet at least twice
each month, but never on the same or succeeding days, ex-
cept in joint session. An absolute majority vote of each
board was required for the passage of an ordinance involving
expenditure ; and the mayor was given the itemized veto-
power over all important ordinances, except for special assess-
ments, subject, as usual, to a re-passage by absolute two-
thirds majorities after the lapse of at least ten days from the
receipt of the veto message. All elections of city officers and
confirmations of official appointments vested in the council
were to be made in joint session. In 1887, the number of
aldermen was increased to fifteen, to be elected in three dis-
tricts,2 but two years later this upper chamber of the council
was abolished 3
Increasing powers of the mayor. Even the new charter of
Cleveland, adopted in 1891, so Gallican in its radical recon-
structiveness, was preceded by legislation tending to unify the
administration. We have already noticed the increased
powers given to the board of revision in 1886 and 1887 and
the stringent financial measures of 1888 and 1890. The in-
crease of the mayor’s powers is also to be noticed. In 1856
he had been made president of the council by an act referring
10. L., 82 v. 111. 2 Tbid., 84. v. 125. 3 Ibid., 86 v. 277.
146 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [464.
to Cleveland alone He lost this position through some of the
changes in the general law, but was given a seat in the
council without vote again in 1870.2 By the code of 18693 he
had been an ex-officio member of four of the executive boards,
while from time to time his powers of appointment had been
extended at the expense of the council. In 1889 the accounts.
of the city were put in charge of a comptroller, “appointed by
the mayor without the advice and consent of the council, on
the first Monday in May, 1890, and every three years there-
after.”4 This officer could also be removed by the mayor for
incompetency. An act of 1890 gave the mayor a veto on
orders of the police, health and fire boards, involving expendi-
ture, subject to a four-fifths vote of the board concerned.5
IV. The charter of 1892.
The act of March 16, 1891, “to provide a more efficient
government for the cities of the second grade of the first class,”
was one of the most important and sweeping municipal acts
ever passed by an American legislature.© The organization of
the city government of Cleveland was recast. The law cov-
ering less than twenty pages, was a remarkably concise docu-
ment for an American city charter. This was partly due to the
fact that the general powers and duties of municipalities are
prescribed in Ohio by the municipal code. The fundamental
principles of the new charter were the separation of the execu-
tive and legislative departments and the complete unification of
the administration under the mayor.
The legislative department. ‘The first eleven sections of the
act refer to the legislative functions of the city government.
These are vested ina council of twenty members elected in ten
districts for terms of two years, half retiring each year?
10. L., 53 v. 57. 2 [bid., 67 v. 68. . 3 Jbid., 66 v. 145-286.
4 /bid., 86 v. 366. 5 [bid., 87 v. 343. 8 Jbid., 88 v. 105-121.
7 The number of councilmen has since been increased to twenty-two.
465 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 147
Members are required to be residents of their respective dis-
tricts. The council chooses its own president and vice-presi-
dent, and may elect a sergeant-at-arms and a page. It also
elects the city clerk. Except as specifically provided in this
law, the council can exercise no power of election or appoint-
ment to any office. It must, however, establish and maintain
a police force and a fire force, and provide for the appointment
of a health officer and subordinates. It may also provide for
appointment of officers to enforce laws in regard to markets,
city scales, sealing of weights and measures, harbors and
wharves, consumption of smoke and examination of stationary
engineers, and such other officers in the several departments
as it may deem necessary for the good government of the
corporation and the full exercise of its corporate powers; and
it may prescribe their duties and fix their compensation.
Every ordinance, resolution or order involving expenditure,
making a contract, imposing a tax or penalty, fixing water
rent, or granting a franchise, must be introduced at least a
week before its passage, and unless it relates to an improve-
ment or assessment recommended by the board of control,
must be submitted to the mayor for his approval or veto
within ten days. He may approve or disapprove independent
appropriation items. But the council by an absolute two-
thirds majority may pass any measure over his veto, after at
least a week’s further consideration. All general ordinances
and those providing for improvements to cost $500 or more
must be published in at least two daily newspapers of opposite
politics in the city. The council or any authorized council
committee is given power to conduct investigations, subpcena
witnesses, compel the production of books, commit for con-
tempt, etc. No witness may be excused from testifving, but
his testimony cannot be used in criminal proceedings against
himself, except for perjury.
The executive department. The executive power of the city
is vested in the mayor, heads of departments, and other officers
148 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [466
provided for. The mayor, treasurer, police judge, prosecuting
attorney of the police court, and clerk of the police court,
are elected by the people as formerly. The most im-
portant change in the charter is to be found in the estab-
lishment of departments in imitation of the ‘ Federal”
government. They are six in number, namely, public
works, police, fire, accounts, law, and charities and correc-
tions. At the head of each department is a director ap-
pointed by the mayor, with the council’s advice and consent,.
to hold until the expiration of the official term of the mayor
appointing him. Each director is required to give a $20,000
bond approved by mayor and council. The salary of the
mayor is $6,000; that of the director of law, $5,000; that of
the other directors, $4,000 each. The mayor and directors
must devote their whole time to their official duties and can
hold no other public office or employment except that ot
notary public or militia officer. The compensation of all
municipal officers must be by salary, and all fees and perquis-
ites are to be paid into the city treasury, on penalty of forfeit-
ure of office. All officers must be dona fide residents of the
city and citizens of the United States. All officers and em-
ployes are forbidden to attend, or be members of or delegates
to any political convention at which municipal officers are
nominated, except where policemen attend on duty. In case
of violation of this provision the mayor or head of the appro-
priate department must remove the officer or discharge the
employe. All officers, clerks and employes, except as other-
wise provided, are appointed by the heads of departments
without the advice and consent of the council. A head of de-
partment may dismiss with written statement of reasons any
officer or employe under him, except for political reasons; and
provided further, that policemen and firemen must be given a
hearing, if demanded, before the mayor, director of law and
president of the council. Each director may prescribe rules
and regulations, not inconsistent with law, for his department.
46 7\ IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 149
He is required to furnish the mayor or council with any infor-
mation desired in relation to the affairs under him. The
mayor and directors are required to co-operate in such a way
as to secure the most economical purchase of supplies for all
departments at uniform rates. They are given seats in the
council without a vote, and they may be compelled to attend
meetings. The mayor may take part in all proceedings, and
each direetor in those affecting his department.
Duties of the mayor and directors. The law goes on to take
up the duties of the mayor and the several directors in more
detail. The duty of sending to the council from time to time
a statement of the finances and other appropriate matters is
imposed upon the chief executive. He is also given the abso-
lute power to remove the directors and his other appointees,
but the order of removal must be in writing, entered in the
records of his office, and a copy must be transmitted to the
council without delay. In cases of emergency, for five days,
or longer if authorized by the council, the mayor may assume
complete control of the police and fire forces. A private sec-
retary is allowed him, who shall also be secretary of the board
of control. The mayor is further required to call the directors
together at least twice a month for consultation on city affairs,
and reports may be asked for. The department of public
works is in charge of a director, and includes the care, man-
agement and administration of water works, streets, public
grounds and parks, including opening, improvement, repair,
cleaning and lighting; public buildings and bridges, except
those falling directly under the charge of some other depart-
ment; sewers, drainage and dredging; surveys, maps, plans,
estimates, etc.; all matters relating to or affecting highways,
footways, waterways, harbors, wharves and docks; and the
appointment of harbor masters and other officers authorized
by the council for regulation of the navigation, trade and com-
merce of the corporation, in pursuance of law. The whole
department is organized in three divisions, under the “ super-
150 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [468
intendent of water works,” the “ superintendent of streets” and
the ‘chief engineer,” respectively. Under the director of
police are placed the police force, police telegraphs, etc., the
sealing of weights and measures, the city scales and markets,
the inspection of food, and the public health functions in gen-
eral. The members of the police force are to be appointed in
accordance with civil service rules; and the police pension
fund is placed under the charge of a board consisting of the
mayor as president, the directors of police and of law, and
three members of the force elected by their fellows. Under
the director of the fire department are placed the fire force, its
buildings, apparatus, etc.; the inspection of buildings, boilers,
elevators and fire escapes; the examination, regulation and
licensing of stationary engineers; and the consumption of
smoke. The fire force also is appointed under civil service
rules. At the head of the department of accounts is placed a
director to be known as the city auditor. He is required to
keep accurate accounts of taxes, receipts, debts, appropriations,
etc., and audit the accounts of each department annually or
oftener. He prescribes the forms of book-keeping and reports
made to him. Other detailed regulations to prevent illegal
warrants and loose expenditure are in force. The director of
law is known as the corporation counsel, and is the legal ad-
viser of the city. _His duty is to draw up all contracts and
bonds, and indorse them, besides performing the regular duties
of solicitor. Under the director of charities and corrections
are ranged the work-house, the house of refuge and correction,
the cemeteries, the infirmaries, and all other charitable and
penal institutions established by the city.
Lhe board of control and financial commissions. An import-
ant feature of the charter, perhaps simply a survival of past
ideas, is the board of control, consisting of the mayor as presi-
dent and the six directors. This board must hold at least two
meetings a week, and perform the duties of the old board of
improvements, commissioners of sewers, and board of revis-
469] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. I51
ion. The old sinking fund commission, tax commission, de-
positary commission and annual and decennial boards of
equalization are continued under the new system. But these
have to do chiefly with the technical application of the system
of taxation, and the performance of certain special financial
duties, and do not form an essential part of the city adminis-
tration.
Contracts. The only important feature of the charter still to
‘be spoken of is the part dealing with contracts. Paved streets
must be cleaned by contract. Contracts will not bind the city
unless money has first been appropriated, or, if payment is to
be made as the work progresses, unless a tax has been levied
to meet the estimated expenditure. Contracts for more than
$250 must be in writing, executed by the proper director, and
approved by the council and the board of control. The usual
requirements are made for receiving proposals where contracts
are to be entered into for more than $500, and prohibiting a
‘contract in which any city officer or employe is interested
directly or indirectly.
Amendments to the charter. An amendment passed about a
month after the original act, adopted another idea from the
national government.* In case of the disability of the mayor,
or a vacancy in his office, the heads of departments are to
succeed him, with precedence as follows: Law, public works,
police, fire, accounts, charities and corrections. Another act
passed by the same assembly placed the valuation of property
in the hands of not more than forty assessors, not more than
half of them to be of the same political party, to be appointed
by the county auditor and approved by the tax commission.?
10. L., 88 v. 304.
2 Jbid., 88 v. 341. In Ohioa general re-assessment of real estate is made once
in ten years by district assessors elected by the people’ Township assessors are
elected every year to list chattel property. The forty assessors referred to in the
text perform the duties of township assessors for the forty wards of Cleveland.
They do not act together in any way. Annual and decennial city and county
boards of equalization are provided for by law.
152 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [470
The appointment of the members of the annual board of equal-
ization was then transferred from the council to the mayor.*
A trace of the old system is found in the provision for the ap-
pointment of an inspector of boilers by the director of the fire
department, sadject to the approval of the council?
It is needless to follow the details of legislation further. In
the few years since its enactment, the Cleveland charter of
1891 has maintained itself remarkably well against the on-
slaughts of piecemeal legislation. The general assembly con-
tinues to pass about a score of acts at every session referring
to certain details of the Cleveland administration, and there is
small reason to hope that the charter will long remain ma-
terially unaltered, unless some radical reform is inaugurated in
the methods of legislation for Ohio cities. In 1892 the. school
administration of the Cleveland district was reorganized on the
plan of the city charter, the executive and legislative authori-
ties being separated and vested in a school director and a
school council respectively3 The council is composed of
seven members elected at large by the people of the city. It
is possible that a thorough trial of this general scheme in all
city affairs may so strengthen its.hold on the popular mind as
to operate successfully as a check on legislative interference.
10. L., 88 v., 370. 2 Tbid., 88 v. 379. 3 Tbid., 89 v. 74.
CHAPTER VIII.
DETROIT AND CLEVELAND: A REVIEW OF THEIR MUNICIPAL.
EXPERIENCE,
Organization of the council, Detroit has tried a good many
things in the way of government, as we have seen. Twice the-
common council has consisted of two chambers, once under-
Governor Hull’s charter of 1806, and once during the period.
from 1881 to 1887. The upper chamber was established in
1881 for the purpose of checking the board of aldermen in:
their reckless and corrupt expenditures. But the two cham-
bers did not check each other, and in the Legislature of 1887
it was charged that the upper house had taken the lead in ex-
travagance and corruption. The experiment under Hull was.
not given sufficient trial to add much to the sum of political
experience, but that of 1881, where the members of the second
chamber were elected by general ticket for comparatively long
terms, with partial renewal every year, goes a long way to-
disprove the supposition that election by general ticket will
insure responsibility and efficiency. Cleveland’s experience:
has been somewhat different from that of Detroit. The
council from 1836 to 1852 was composed of a single chamber,.
but had two kinds of members, the councillors chosen by
wards and the aldermen chosen by the whole city. In 1885
Cleveland tried the bicameral council, by the establishment of
an upper chamber to consist of nine members elected by dis-
tricts for two-year terms. This experiment lasted four years,
until 1889. In Detroit the lower chamber was known as the
board of aldermen, while in Cleveland the upper chamber was.
given that title. In Detroit the upper chamber was given all
the powers of the council in confirming appointments, and was.
471] 153
154 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [472
also given the financial power formerly belonging to the
citizens’ meeting and later to the board of estimates. In
‘Cleveland the election and confirmation of officers by the
council were to be done in joint session. Here also both
chambers were elected by popular vote, by ‘districts, and for
the same term. During most of their history, however, these
two cities have had the one-chamber system, with but one
-class of members, usually elected, two from each ward, for
two-year terms. But in Cleveland’s latest charter, we find a
smaller council of twenty members, elected in ten districts,
each of which usually comprises four wards."
Powers of the council. The functions of the council are
fully as important as its form of organization. In the charter
of 1806, the Detroit council was given almost unlimited
‘powers, subject, however, to the absolute veto of the mayor.
In 1815, the trustees’ sphere of action was almost as large, but
all ordinances had to be submitted to popular vote. In 1824,
‘this restriction was omitted in the new charter. Until 1857,
all appointive officers were chosen by the council. By the
charter of that year an important power of removal was given
‘to the council over all elected and appointed officers, save the
mayor and recorder. Since that time the tendency has been
‘to decrease the appointive powers of the council, regulate and
define more minutely its general powers, and assign large
‘parts of its administrative functions to separate commis-
sions. But the Supreme Court has indicated in the case of
Attorney General vs. The Common Council of Detroit,? that
‘the legislature would not be permitted to deprive the council
of its essential legislative functions. Probably this attitude of
the court has helped to keep the common council a very im-
‘portant body in the Detroit government. The first city char-
ter of Cleveland gave the council very extensive functions,
‘backed by full financial powers. The council named all ap
1 The council is now composed of twenty-two members.
2 29 Mich., 108, supra.
-473] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO 155
pointive officers. Although its taxing and borrowing powers
were strictly limited under the general act of 1852, a pretty
full power of organizing the city administration and appointing
‘the officers not named in the general law, was given to it.
“The tendency of the next ten years was to increase the coun-
-cil’s power in the appointment of the various boards and
-officers provided for by law. But for the last thirty years, the
‘tendency has been carefully to restrict the financial powers
and gradually to take away the appointive powers of the council.
‘Under the last charter it is confined almost entirely to legisla-
‘tive functions, though its consent is still required for the ap-
‘pointment of the heads of departments. In the history of
‘these two cities the pay of aldermen and councilmen has
‘ranged from nothing, or a small per diem allowance, to a max-
imum of $600 a year in Detroit at the present time. In both
-cities the council has the power of passing on all important
-contracts.
The executive. The organization and powers of the execu-
tive have gone through various forms. The most remarkable
is the oldest, namely, the mayor appointed by the governor
-and given an absolute veto over the acts of the council, in
Detroit’s first city charter. After that short-lived experiment,
-and a period from 1815 to 1824 with no mayor at all, the
“mayor was elected by the people, and continued to be a voting
‘member and president of the council until 1857 in the case of
‘Detroit. In Cleveland the mayor was simply the presiding
-officer of the council with no vote except in case of tie,
until 1852, when that body began to choose its own president.
In the early days of both cities the mayor was chiefly a
judicial and peace officer, though Cleveland’s first charter gave
him a position as superintendent of the administration under the
‘direction of the council. With the separation of the mayor
‘from the council came an increase in his appointive powers
-and a decrease in his judicial powers. The mayor of Detroit
also received important powers of removal by the charter
156 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT (474.
of 1857. He was given a veto over most of the acts of the
council, subject to a two-thirds vote, which he still retains.
The same is true of the mayor of Cleveland under the present:
charter. The importance of the mayor has been increased in.
both cities from time to time by his being made ex-officio mem-
ber or president of certain boards, or by his being given a veto: ©
over their proceedings. But Detroit has no unified adminis-
tration, and the power of the present mayor, Mr. Pingree, is.
due more to his personal qualities than to his official position,
Only the city counselor and the members of the police board’
are appointed by the mayor absolutely. Most of the other-
heads of departments, if they may be so called, are elected by
the people, while the several boards are appointed, one or two-
members at a time, by the mayor and council. In Cleveland,
on the other hand, the mayor has become the real head of the-
city administration, with a cabinet of directors patterned after:
the President’s cabinet in the national government. One very’
important feature in which Cleveland departs from the “ Fed-
eral” example, however, is in giving the mayor and directors.
seats in the city council for deliberation. His extensive veto-
power and absolute power of removal make Cleveland’s mayor-
one of the most powerful and responsible officers in all our
municipal service. It should be added that the board of pub--
lic works in Detroit and the directors of departments in
Cleveland are required to give all their time to their public:
duties, and hence tend to become semi-professional officers.
Administrative boards. The two cities that we are consider-
ing have by no means been free from the “board system.” It-
is to be expected that public education shall be separated from:
the ordinary municipal authorities and put under separate-
management. In 1836 the council of Cleveland was author-
ized to appoint a school board, and in 1842 an elective board’
was established in Detroit. The Cleveland school board long’
ago became elective, and in 1892 was succeeded by a director
and a school council elected by the city at large, on the plan
-475.] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 157
‘of the city government. In the case of Detroit the mayor was
president of the board of education at first, but was removed
in 1846. In 1893 the financial resolutions of the board were
subjected to the mayor’s veto. The separation of school af-
‘fairs from the ordinary city administration was followed by
special provisions for various other more or less independent
"boards, as we have already seen. There is no very marked
-difference in the experience of the two cities on this point, ex-
-cept that Cleveland has at last thrown off the system for the
most part, while Detroit is as much entangled in a confusion
-of authorities as ever. Detroit, however, has had the advan-
tage of a much fuller protection by the courts than has been
:given in Ohio. Perhaps the reaction in Cleveland has come
sooner from this fact also, that its boards have frequently been
-elective, while the Detroit boards have more generally been
appointive. Detroit still has, all told, a “baker's dozen” of
‘boards and commissions. The bi-partisan principle tried ex-
‘tensively for the cities of Ohio and Michigan has been found
“unconstitutional in the latter state.*
The direct vote of the people. The direct vote of the citizens
‘has been a very important force in determinining municipal
policy in Detroit. From 1815 to 1824 all ordinances had to
be submitted to the people for approval or rejection, while
‘taxes continued to be voted by the citizens’ meeting until 1873.
Since then at various times the question of issuing bonds has
been submitted to the electors, as well as certain questions be-
‘longing to the school administration. Much less dependence
-has been placed on the popular vote in Cleveland. Occasion-
-ally the question of a new loan is submitted to the electors,
‘but the citizens’ meeting and the popular approval of ordinances
have been unknown there. The working of local self- govern-
ment in the two cities is interesting. In Detroit, where the
people have had more power, there has been a greater struggle
against legislative interference by the establishment of centrally
1 Attorney General v. The Board of Councilmen, 58 Mich., 213, supra.
158 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ‘ [476- ;
appointed boards, There seems to have been less central in-
terference in the case of Cleveland, and less struggle against it.
This difference can probably be explained by the fact that the
same political party usually controls in Cleveland and in the.
state of Ohio as a whole, while different parties have ruled in.
Detroit and the state of Michigan.
Finances. The crucial point in American city government.
seemis to be the finances, In the charter of 1824 the maximum.
tax rate in Detroit was put at two and a half mills on the dol--
lar of the valuation of real and personal property. This limit.
was doubled in 1841. Ten changes in the method of assess-
ment were made during eighty years. The power to levy
special assessments was first granted in 1855 for sewer pur--
poses. Thirteen separate funds were established in 1857..
Their number at the present time is legion. The tax rate had.
risen to 15.77 mills in 1894, on a total valuation of $2009,-
151,220; while the net indebtedness of the city was $3,359,-
294. The limit of indebtedness is fixed by law at two per
cent. of taxable valuation, while the public property now
owned by the city is valued at more than $12,000,000. Cleve--
land’s financial history has been considerably different. As a.
village its tax limit was placed at one per cent., with no-
borrowing power. But in 1836 an unlimited taxing and:
borrowing power was granted, including the right to levy
special assessments. In 1841, however, the general tax rate-
was limited to five mills. With the introduction of general
legislation under the new constitution, the taxing power was.
strictly limited in aggregate and in detail, and the borrowing:
power was taken away. Since then the General Assembly has:
been called upon constantly to authorize special loans and tax:
levies. The tax valuation of all property in the city for 1893
was $126,515,990, and the tax rate was 13.45 mills. The
ordinary expenditures for 1894 were almost five million dol-
lars. The total debt of the city was, on January 1, 1895, $10,--
266, 205.32, as against city property and permanent improve--
477) IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 159:
ments valued at $33,850,264.35. Thus we see that the finan-
cial affairs of Cleveland have been carried on in a much larger:
way than those of Detroit. Detroit owns its own water works
and public lighting plant. Cleveland owns its water works.
and several cemeteries. Both cities have extensive parks.
Detroit and Cleveland have had in reality about an equal.
amount of special legislation, though that of Cleveland has.
been clothed in general form. In Detroit, we find under
Mayor Pingree’s administration a strong development of civic:
spirit, and a tendency to extend the functions of city govern-
ment. In Cleveland, under its new charter, we find the em-
phasis laid on the perfection of administrative machinery,
rather than on the extension of administrative functions.
1 See « Annual Reports,” City of Detroit, 1893; City of Cleveland, 1894.
CHAPTER IX.
THE ELEMENTS OF A CITY CHARTER.
Ir is certainly a common remark among municipal reform-
-ers of the present time that the form of charter makes little
-difference, if only competent and honest officers have the con-
‘trol of the administration. It is true, to be sure, that govern-
ment cannot rise permanently above its source. But while it
may be readily admitted that good laws cannot forestall bad
government, it is no less certain that bad laws can seriously
interfere with the work of good officers. And thanks to this
‘inequality of conditions, it is seen to be necessary that we have
‘both good laws and good officers to administer them. There is
no loop-hole through which the people can slink away and
‘escape responsibility for the character of government.
The first thing to be considered in discussing forms of muni-
-cipal organization is the fundamental idea of what the city cor-
poration exists for. Is the city a business corporation or a
political unit? It is hard to define the extreme views on this
question, although there has been a good deal of loose talk
about it. It is known that in ancient times Athens and other
cities were city-states. This is also true of Venice, Florence
and other cities of the Middle Ages. But in modern times,
outside of a few German free cities, the city has been the
creature of a larger state. Still, in being subordinate to the
state, not all cities have lost their real political character. The
‘tremendous influence of Paris as a unit on the politics of
France in modern times is well known. It may be said with
equal truth that New York city has been a political unit in
‘the history of American public affairs, and it has been sug-
160 [478
479] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 161
gested to set it off by itself as one of the commonwealths of
the Union. All American cities have been recognized in law
and in fact as governmental divisions, political in their nature.
On the other hand, British and German cities seem to have
emphasized the business side of their corporate life. The cus.
tom of advertising for a chief of police’ or a burgomaster? cer-
tainly points to a somewhat different conception of city gov-
ernmental functions than we are acquainted with in America.
To the municipal reformer who has seen with disgust the
degradation of our city politics, and who has been taught to
look to the cities of the Old World for beautiful examples of
non-partisan municipal governments, it is not strange that the
idea of a city governed simply on business principles, without
any reference to politics, should appeal strongly. The result
has been a good deal of unsound thinking with reference to
municipal reforms. City government, like all government, is
both political and industrial, and it is hard to keep a true
equilibrium between these two characteristics, It is no easy
matter to tell just where business leaves off and politics begins
in governmental affairs. A great proportion of all the affairs
of government, whether national, commonwealth or municipal,
should be conducted on business principles, always keeping in
view the general welfare. In the city, with its paving, street
cleaning, sewerage, lighting, water supply, sanitation, parks,
street railways, public buildings, docks, housing regulations,
charities, excise administration, libraries and public schools,
police, and fire service, we see an accumulation of the so-called
business functions of government. It is not clear but that the
name business is applied quite indiscriminately to the com-
paratively recent fields of governmental activity. It is possible
that with the complete break-down of the military civilizations
of the old world and the establishment of permanent tribunals
for international arbitration, all government may some day
1 Albert Shaw, “ Municipal Gov’t in Great Britain,” p. 66.
2 [bid., “« Municipal Gov’t in Continental Europe,” p. 318.
162 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [480
turn into business. The point I wish to make is that city
government is government, and to call it business and not
politics, is simply to say that all government is tending to em-
phasize the industrial at the expense of the military functions.
The essential thing is that, however you classify and name the
activities of government, under a democratic system the indi-
vidual citizen as a citizen has his share of responsibility for the
success or failure of public affairs.
Next to this fundamental question, in discussing the forms
of city organization we must take account of the size of the
city, and the character and distribution of its population. An
immense city like London or New York is too large an ad-
ministrative unit to insure the greatest efficiency, and too large
an elective unit to insure the most intelligent and careful
choice of officers. The character of a city’s population is im-
portant in determining the basis of suffrage and the qualifica-
tions for office. The presence of large aggregations of foreign-
born persons not yet familiar with our institutions, the influx
of tramps and semi-criminals, and the absence in suburban
residences of a large proportion of the most thrifty members
of the community, make the problem of municipal suffrage a
serious one indeed. The problem of ward divisions is compli-
cated by the mobility of the population, the general lack of
neighborhood spirit, and the geographical differentiation of the
population according to race, religion or wealth.
There are in the large cities of the modern world at least
four more or less distinct types of governmental organization.
In one the municipal council is the all-important central body,
and not only. makes the ordinances, but carries on the ad-
ministration through its committees and appointees. The
cities of Great Britain are organized on this plan. This was
formerly the American plan also, but at the present time the
council system has almost lost its hold on our municipal or-
ganizations. We have already seen that Detroit and Cleve-
land had this system in their early history. Minneapolis still
481] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 163
has council government, with some modifications A second
type of municipal organization is that prevalent in the French
and German cities, where the council chooses the executive,
but has no power of removal. The mayor and his adjuncts in
France and the burgomaster and his staff in Germany are the
real heads of the administration, and once in their positions
are quite independent of the council. In this type of muni-
cipal organization the executive officers tend to be professional,
though this is probably truer in Germany than in France, ow-
ing to the longer official terms in the former country. A third
type of municipal organization is that represented by Cleve-
land and a few other American cities at the present time. It
is the outcome of extending the separation of powers, as
worked out in the United States national system, into local
government. The council, in this system, is confined to legis-
lative functions, while the mayor, elected by the people, is
given very full powers as chief executive and head of the ad-
ministration. The judicial power is vested in a separate
system of city courts, so that the division of the government
into the three sets of organs is tolerably complete. The fourth
type of city organization is the prevalent one in the United
States, and has been called the board system. There are so
much confusion and so little uniformity in the board system
that it hardly deserves to be called a type, but it has certain
general characteristics that appear in most cases. Cleveland
from 1852 to 1891, and Detroit since about 1853, are fairly
good examples of this system in its more moderate form. The
government of New York city varies from this type in the great
powers that are given to the mayor in appointing the various
boards, but as the boards exist and have their duties minutely
regulated by law, while the council has been reduced almost to
a nonentity,; we cannot deny the American metropolis a place
1 Fora very interesting and able account of the Minneapolis system, see Fro-
ceedings of Minneapolis and Cleveland Conferences for Good City Government,
Pp. 93-104.
164 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [482
in the general category of board-governed cities. In fact this
variation of the board system in favor of the mayor’s power
has become almost universal in our large cities. Perhaps
Denver is as good an example as still survives of the board
system, where the mayor and the council both have compara-
tively small powers. In the true board system, the members
of the several boards are elected one or two at a time by the
people, or appointed by the governor of the state, or appointed
by the mayor and council who have very meagre powers of
removal. The board system is the outcome of a very compli-
cated set of ideas. The doctrine of piecemeal legislation, the
distrust of the local council, the belief ‘in popular election, the
theory of partial renewal, the desire for non-partisanship, the
idea that deliberation is required in administrative bodies, and
the greed for political spoils, all have had more or less to do
with the distribution of city administrative functions among
boards. There is practically nothing to be said in favor of the
board system as it has been developed. All agree that sub-
stantial unity or at least harmony must be attained in muni-
cipal administration by some means or other.
The council system has a good many things in its favor,
first among them being the fact that some of the best governed
cities in the world have that type of organization. But this
statement should not be made too sweeping, for we find that
the cities of continential Europe have a type of government
differing quite radically from that of the British cities, where
the council system exists in its purest form. But even if we
class the governments of Berlin and Buda-Pesth with those of
Glasgow and Birmingham, as opposed to the kinds of city
government prevalent in America, because of the lesser im-
portance of the council in the latter, we can find no conclusive
proof that a system which works well in Old World cities will
necessarily give New York or Detroit a good government.
Although the rapid growth of cities is in all the western world
a phenomenon of the present century, and especially of the pres-
48 3] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 165
ent half century, it is still true that American conditions are
different from European conditions. The most important
difference, probably, lies in the greater race mixtures in Amer-
ican cities. Foreign immigration has made every one of our
large towns a world-city, with no sense of unity in its popula-
tion. There has probably been also a great difference in in-
dustrial conditions in the cities of the New World and of
the Old. Although the industrial expansion in European
cities during the last few decades has been marvelous,? it is
hardly possible that the opening up of the vast resources of a
new country like the United States should not be attended
with more feverishness, unsteadiness and lack of co-operation
in the centres of trade and production, than would be exper-
ienced in the older and more fully developed countries of
Europe. Under our conditions the sense of social unity and
social responsibility tends naturally to be less strong. The
individual prefers to take his chances scrambling for himself.
The result is a dearth of civic feeling, an individualism that is
death to responsible self-government in densely populated dis-
tricts. Now the leading characteristic of the successful coun-
cil government is precisely the unity of interest, the greater
household feeling, that American cities do not have at the
present time. In the early part of the century in the isolated
settlements of the West, with the town-meeting spirit still vig-
orous, with a comparatively homogeneous population, with no
system of quick communication like that we now have, there
survived something of the borough spirit, and council govern-
ment was possible, as we have seen in the case of Detroit and
_ Cleveland. But when towns grew into cities, although there
might be a good deal of local pride in particular places, it
came to be of that unfruitful and ungenerous kind that con-
sists in scorn rather than emulation. It seems to me that this
lack of real civic spirit is the factor which must be taken into
consideration before we argue for the council plan from the
1Shaw, of. cit., p. 290.
166 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [484
experience of foreign cities. London and Paris are exceptions
to the general systems of city government in England and
France. They are too cosmopolitan to have the civic spirit
required for entire self-government. Of course, other peculiar
factors enter into their problems, but on this one point we find
almost all American cities like them. Hence it seems a prac-
tical necessity to modify or abandon the council system for
the present in our general city polity.
From the standpoint of the city as an industrial unit, a busi-
ness corporation, if we reason in the abstract, there is much to
be said in favor of council government as found in Great
Britain, or of the continental system where the administration
is put in the hands of permanent professional officers. We
never cease to hear the cry that city administration is business,
not ‘politics, and should be conducted on a business basis.
A little closer observation will show, however, that the man-
agement of cities in the United States has been carried on in
too much the same way as our great business corporations.
The rings of city bosses and the rings of corporation directors
have exploited the citizens and the stockholders in the interests
of self-aggrandizement. The trouble has arisen in both cases
from the preoccupation in personal pursuits of the individuals
exploited; it is the same old story of the lack of social spirit.
Each man prefers to take his chances alone until the struggle
for existence becomes too sharp to permit any longer the
enormous waste arising from lack of codperation. It might
easily be contended that the lack of sound business manage-
ment is as conspicuous a failure of American life from the
standpoint of social welfare as the character of our municipal
governments has been. The business principles which have
brought about the amassing of so large a part of the wealth of the
United States in great fortunes, certainly do not give any very
great promise of bringing in the millennium if applied to city
governments. ‘The fact is, our cities have had too much busi-
ness on the corporation plan in their government. The argu-
485] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO, 167
ment in favor of the council system from the analogy of indus-
trial corporations is, therefore, not conclusive. The interests
of a business corporation are radically different from the in-
terests of a city.
We may, perhaps, conclude that the council form of govern-
ment is ideal in cities where there is a strong feeling that the
city is nothing but a larger household, and where municipal
administration is regarded as business and not politics. In the
United States, however, with our universal suffrage and our
democratic ideals, it is no easy matter to keep city affairs out
of the domain of politics. Our national and state governments
are based on the checks-and-balances theory, and party or-
ganization has become very deeply rooted in all grades of
government. I have little sympathy for that view of
our political fixedness which declares to be impracticable,
any governmental improvement no matter how much needed,
if only it runs counter to our century-old political tradi-
tions. One of the most hopeful things about the inflow
of foreign immigrants is that their presence among us tends
to overcome the narrow prejudices of American politics,
and opens the way for the modification of our system by the
introduction of new methods of government and administration.
Still most of our legislation is distinctly American in spirit,
-and we must look for progress along the lines already laid
down in this country. The politicai prejudices of our people
must be reckoned with in any reformatory schemes we may
advocate. Democracy is on trial in the United States, and the
severest test of its worth has been and is presented by the
problems of city government. That type of municipal organi-
zation arising from the application of the doctrine of checks
and balances and the separation of powers in government is
firmly grounded in American public law, and is, I am inclined
to think, a necessary and perhaps desirable outgrowth of our
political ideas. As a result of the great increase in the import-
ance of the administration in city government as opposed to
168 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [486
the other departments, we find a mayor under the system of
the separation of powers and the concentration of responsibil-
ity a much more important officer relatively than even the
President.
There is a striking analogy between the mayor-governed
city of the present time and the absolute monarchies of two or
three centuries ago. Weare told that these alsolute monarch-
ies were founded on unorganized democratic states." In the
earlier development of the democratic spirit, before the people
have been well-trained in self-government, the dictator system
seems to be necessary. This is approximately the case now in
city government. No great city population is as yet well
trained in self-government on the basis of manhood suf-
frage. The peculiar problems of government in dense aggrega-
tions of people bring essentially enlarged spheres of activity
within the domain of politics. The American tendency seems
to be to regard these new problems as not essentially different
in their nature from national and commonwealth problems,
Although practically all municipal reformers are crying for the
separation of local affairs from national and state politics, it re-
mains true that the separation is not made, and almost at once
after some so-called non-partisan uprising in the cities the peo-
ple fall back within the old party lines. Democracy is still
political rather than economic. Hence, if we are to have man-
hood suffrage, we must expect political government in the
cities as well as elsewhere, at least until the masses have gained
more freedom and training in industrial autonomy.? Political
democracy, partly conscious of its own weakness, likes the
one-man power. Responsibity is thus assured, and the people
1 Burgess, “ Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law,” vol. i, pp.
66, 127.
? Mr. Kidd, in his “Social Evolution,” and other thinkers of the present day,
have pointed out that while the political enfranchisement of the masses is almost
complete in the western world, equality of opportunity in the social and indus-
trial world is still an ideal to be worked out in future generations.
487] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 169:
are less afraid of being imposed upon. As Americans we are
getting to despise everything in the shape of legislative bodies.*
Yet even in these bodies the democratic spirit crops out. In
England the standing committees of the municipal councils.
and the one or two standing committies of the House of Com-
mons are chosen by election, while in the United States only
the national senate follows this rule. In the lower house of
Congress, in both branches of the state legislatures, and in the
city councils, standing committees are usually appointed by
the presiding officer.2 Thus it appears that the granting of
large powers to the mayor is in line with our general political
tendencies, and this policy is not likely to be soon abandoned.
If we accept for the present the general form of city: organ-
ization by which the departments of government are separated,
and the mayor is made the responsible political chief of the
whole administration, there still remain many details to be con-
sidered. Either the council, the state legislature or a series of
boards must exercise the municipal legislative powers, no
matter how complete control the mayor may be given in ad-
ministration. The levying of taxes, the authorizing of loans,
the granting of franchises, the passing of ordnances, etc., are
very important functions. The council being recognized as.
the sorest spot in our city polity, it becomes a serious problem
how to organize this body in such a way as to insure the largest
responsibility. We have seen that by Cleveland’s new charter
the council is composed of twenty members elected in ten dis-
tricts.3 The man who was the principal author of that charter
complains that the number of councilmen is too large; three
or five would do better This certainly is an extreme prop-
1Commons, “ Proportional Representation,” chap, 1.
2 The municipal government of Chicago offers a marked exception to this rule.
The mayor presides over the council, but that body elects its own committees.
3 Supra, There are now twenty-two members elected in eleven districts.
“Hon. E, J. Blandin, Municipal Government of Cleveland, in the Proceed-
ings of the Minneapolis Conference for Good City Government, pp. 112~118.
170 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [488
osition. It does not seem likely that the legislative functions
of a great city can reasonably be placed in the hands of so
small a body. It is sometimes urged in favor of a large coun-
cil that the well-governed cities of Europe have large councils,
and also that it is more difficult for private corporations inter-
ested in bad government to corrupt a large council. A ques-
tion equally as important as the number of council members,
is the manner of choosing them. Where there are two cham-
bers of the council the tendency is to elect the upper house by
general ticket and the lower house by districts. The objection
to the district plan in any form of government is the require-
ment of residence in the district for the councilman chosen by
the people of any district. The conditions in cities are quite
different from those in the rural parts of the country, because
of the sharp local differentiations of city populations with
reference to wealth, nationality and social standing. The dif-
ference in neighborhood feeling and acquaintance is also
marked. In New York city, for instance, it is quite possible
for two families of the same general standing in society to live
on the same street with only a brick wall between them for
years, and not know each other’s name. In such a city a
man’s neighbors are not those who live next to him, but the
people scattered through various parts of the city who meet
him at church, in business, or at the club. Still it seems un-
just and impolitic to completely centralize the legislature of a
city with more than a quarter of a million inhabitants. The
demands for election by general ticket and the demands for
election by district are conflicting, and can be met only by a
compromise, and perhaps a poor one. It seems much better,
nevertheless, to elect a part of the council by general ticket
and the rest by districts, all members to sit together as a sin-
gle chamber, than to separate them into two chambers accord-
ing to the manner of their election. However, if an effort is to
be made to secure local representation, ward divisions should
be permanent, and established as far as possible on the lines
489] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 171
of local unity.*| Then the number of representatives from each
ward or district should be determined from time to time by
population. The councilmen elected on general ticket ought
to have longer terms than the others, thus giving a certain
element of permanency to the city legislature, and making the
positions in the gift of the city at large more desirable and im-
portant.
Perhaps some system of proportional representation should
be adopted in elections to the city council. This is a much
debated question at the present time. It does not seem to be
an easy task to find a method of proportional representation
that will work smoothly and exactly. It is also objected that
under this system members chosen by parties would lose the
feeling of responsibility to the people of their districts, which,
under the present system, attaches to legislators as the sole
representatives of both the majority and the minority of their
constituents. It seems probable that more conservatism is re-
quired of a legislator who must be able to command a major-
ity of the votes of his constituents for*his re-election, than of
one who may be re-elected even if the opposition comes into
the majority. Proportional representation seems calculated to
strengthen the hold of party government by making a strong
organization necessary for every faction that desires to be rep-
resented. Whether party government is a good or an evil is
an open question. Most people recognize parties as a neces-
sity. If they are a good, then it may be well to strengthen
them by entrenching them in law. If they are an evil, per-
haps they may have to be entrenched in law in order to be
regulated. If the objections to proportional representation
can be overcome, it may succeed in bringing us nearer to pure
democracy. The idea of having every political sect repre-
sented in the legislature according to numbers is not strictly
in line with the established idea of republican or representative
government. It aims, rather, at a new form of democracy, by
1 Shaw, “ Munic. Gov’t in Continental Europe,” pp. 32-35.
172 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [490-
which the whole mass of the people is reproduced in miniature
in the legislative body. If this is a possible and desirable
thing, it can best be tried in cities where the people are nearer:
to each other, and have more uniform interests.
There is room for many differences in the detailed organiza-
tion of the city administration. The Cleveland system of de-
partments, copied from the National administration, gives a
good illustration of almost complete centralization. The organ-
ization by boards placed at the head of the several departments,
and still under the mayor’s control, might offer the advantages.
of deliberation in the management of parks, water works,
sewers, police, etc. At any rate, to insure an efficient admin-
istration, a permanent staff of officers and clerks is required in
each highly developed’ department. Hence the civil service
should be subject to rules that will insure merit as the basis of
appointment. The idea of party representation on boards and
among appointees, seems to be entirely opposed to sound prin-
ciples of administration. Under a party system “ spoils” should
certainly belong to the victors. But there is no reason for re-
garding the ministerial civil service as spoils in any intelligent
system of party government.
While we may regard the mayor system as the best form of
city organization under existing American conditions, it can
hardly be accepted as the ultimate type. It is sometimes said
that an all-powerful mayor can make a very good government
or he can make a very bad government for the city, but at any
rate he can be held responsible by the people at the next elec-
tion.’ This theory seems to be based on conditions that ought
1In a personal letter, dated March 5, 1896, in response to an inquiry about the
working of the new Cleveland charter, Judge Blandin said :
“Your apprehension that an unified administration would tend to become a
big partisan machine, was the current opinion here when the plan was proposed,
and was made use of with very great effect by those who opposed its adoption.
The working of the scheme has entirely disappointed their expectations, and proved
the groundlessness of their fears. On the contrary, the first two mayors who were
elected under the new charter were unable to secure their re-election, although
491 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 173
not to last. It means simply that the people are too busy to
‘take a continued interest in self-government, they are tired
‘of being imposed on by the professional politicians, and so they
will choose one man to govern them and hold him responsible
at the end of his term. Now, the science of good government
-cannot be learned in one day, even by a man responsible to the
people of a great city. Under these conditions the people
choose some man to give them a good government, and the
next day after election return to their individual vocations,
thinking their duty is done. But there are in all of our cities
a class of professional politicians who do not weary of the de-
tails of the administration. If the mayor has to be taught, these
men teach him. He sees the public will through their eyes,
and becomes dependent upon them. The next mayor is likely
to be one whom the people do not choose. The mayor system
seems to be a remedy for city misgovernment adopted in im-
‘they gave a moderately fair administration. The politicians were unable to real-
‘ize their usual advantage, and blamed the administration for it, They should have
blamed the plan.
««The present administration is unlike the two former ones, highly unpopular
with the best people. The mayor has made every effort to build up a political
machine within the city government, with the result that he is to-day unpopular
with the masses of the people, so that any attempt on his part to be re-nominated
-or re-elected would without doubt be overwhelmingly defeated.
“ On the contrary, the school director in this city under a plan similar in princi-
ple, has been twice elected and has every prospect of being re elected this spring,
and has given an unprecedentedly good administration of school affairs. I think
I may summarize the whole situation by saying that our experience here with the
new plan has shown that a capable, honest executive would have more chance of
retaining his place than any one who sought to make the office the head of a po-
liticalengine. In short, exactly the opposite of what you anticipate has been our
experience. The reason for this is that the masses of the people everywhere de-
‘sire good government. Under our scheme their entire efforts can be concentrated
substantially upon the one office ; and the people, having this opportunity to choose,
susually choose aright. In the election of a multitude of officers at one time, of
-course choice is practically out of the question; and the primaries of the dominant
parties name the public officers. 1 believe it to be the general opinion here that
-our plan of city government defeats rather than promotes the establishment of a
-~powerful political machine.”
174 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [492
patience and depending for its efficiency on the spasmodic rise
of civic interest among a busy population, with little sense of
unity. If our political ideals do not come to dismal grief, the
American city must in time develop a social consciousness of
its own identity, and its population must gain experience in self-
government. When these two things come to pass to any great
extent, it is likely that the dictatorial mayor will have to give
way to a less arbitrary executive. It seems strange that little
or no attention has been given to the idea of introducing par-
liamentary or cabinet government into cities. Probably this
can be explained by the fact that this system is strongly polit-
ical, while old-world cities and new-world reformers believe
that city affairs are economic. If, however,we go on along
the lines marked out by our past experience, though perhaps
faintly marked, we shall develop a fusion of business and poli-
tics in city affairs; democracy in politics and in economics will
meet in the city hall. When questions of local financial policy,
including the city ownership of street railways and electric
lighting plants, really come to be recognized as political ques-
tions, we shall be a long way toward the realization of this
ideal. The parliamentary system is admirably fitted to com-
bine administrative efficiency with political democracy. The
tenure of the executive is so precarious that the business of
administration simply has to be entrusted to a corps of perma-
nent officials.
But whatever form our future municipal charters may take,
it seems tolerably certain that we shall work out the problem
of democracy in the cities. It is not important that all cities
should have the same governmental organization. The neces-
sary thing is that they shall be allowed free self-development,
while the civic spirit in them is encouraged. This may possi-
bly be best accomplished by granting them the right to form
their own charters, as is now done in the larger cities of Mis-
souri, California and Washington. The relation of the city to
the state, and the duty of the state to the city, will be the sub-
ject of the next chapter.
CHAPTER X.
THE CITY AND THE COMMONWEALTH.
THE two methods of dealing with the evils of special legis-
lation for cities which we have seen tried in Michigan and
Ohio, have not been successful in meeting the difficulties,
although the Michigan plan has not failed so utterly in accom-
plishing its purpose as the Ohio plan has. The greatest
obstacle to the solution of the problem lies in the genuine
distrust of the political capacity of city populations felt by the
rural communities. It seems that there is a real foundation
for this distrust. Many thoughtful critics of the cities would
attribute their incapacity for self government to their relatively
large proportion of foreign-born citizens. This observation
doubtless carries great weight, but there are other important
factors in the problem. To be a good citizen of a large urban
community requires a greater degree of self-restraint and a
wider intelligence than to be a good citizen of a rural town-
ship. The functions of government are much more vital in
the city. Water, light, drainage and transportation, the very
essentials of every individual’s every-day life, must come
directly through the government or under government con-
trol. There is no need to argue further that the governmental
demands upon the citizenship of cities are of a more exacting
nature than those upon rural folk. On the other hand, leav-
ing aside the difference in the race elements of population,
there seems to be good reason to think that the mere fact of
aggregation tends to reduce the average political capacity of
citizens. Along with the opportunity for culture and wide in-
telligence furnished by city life, there comes an intense
493] 175
176 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [494
economic struggle which absorbs the energies of the more
substantial citizens. The crowded conditions, the high cost of
living, the extreme development of pleasure-giving institutions,
the very noise on the pavement, all unite to destroy or prevent
the habit of reflection in the people. They have no time to
think. There is no solitude, except the awful solitude of the
stranger in a large place. A reasonable degree of opportunity
for the slow grinding process of thought is one of the essen-
tial elements in the development of political capacity. People
in great cities have always tended to herd. There is a popu-
lace.
Thus it appears that democracy is really being put to an ex-
traordinary test in our great cities. There the nature of gov-
ment is more economic and its functions more varied, and
hence a greater political capacity and experience are required
of the citizens. But not only the mixed race elements, but
also the very conditions of city life, tend to lessen the develop-
ment of these characteristics, at least for the time being. The
people of the states have apparently had good reason to dis-
trust the people of the cities in matters of self-government.
Whether this distrust is short-sighted is another question.
“ Home-rule” is the war-cry of municipal reformers now, and
has in its favor one very strong argument, not the inher-
ent right to self-government, but the fact that only by throw-
ing a full degree of responsibility upon the cities can their
tendency to political degeneration be overcome and a true
civic spirit aroused. It is a life and death question, for what
is to become of democratic government when the majority of
the people live in cities, unless we have taken pains to make
those cities responsible self-governing communities? Of
course, we cannot hope to legislate good citizenship into large
masses of people off-hand. But there is no question but that
the form of government, especially by its placing of responsi-
bility, can greatly help or greatly hinder the growth of capable
and honest citizenship. Still we must not be too hasty in
495 | IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 177
granting complete local autonomy in local affairs ; for our peo-
ple are impatient of failure, and are quite ready to abandon ex-
periments before they have been fully tried. But in the exist-
ing state of political affairs, the gravest duty devolving upon
the people and the legislatures of the several commonwealths
in their governmental capacity is the careful, honest and sym-
pathetic encouragement of municipal capability and responsi-
bility in the management of municipal affairs.
There being no centralized administration in the several
commonwealths of the union, the only central control over
municipalities has been that exercised by the state legislatures.
This control has expressed itself chiefly in the special acts
which make up so large a part of our volumes of session laws.
The doctrine of the enumeration of powers has greatly limited
the competence of the local authorities. Yet, in the absence
of an administrative control, the very principle of local self-ad-
ministration has made it necessary for the legislature to keep
its powers of interference in local affairs unhampered. The
system of legislative control has proven itself entirely inade-
quate. Some other method must be adopted. The obstacles
in the way, arising from our historical development, do not
make our task hopeless, for several reasons. First, we have an
example of centralized administration in the national govern-
ment, and so we need not go abroad to find a system for im-
portation into the states. Second, as has already been re-
remarked, the presence of such a large proportion of foreign
citizens in our borders will render us more ready to accept the
results of foreign experience in matters of detail. Third, in
our own courts, notably those of Michigan, a tendency is show-
ing itself to define more or less sharply the line of cleavage
between purely local affairs and state affairs administered by
local authorities. Fourth, notwithstanding the enumeration
of municipal powers, which has seemed so hopelessly imbedded
in American law and politics, the right has been granted to
cities to form their own charters in three states of the Union.
178 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [496
This may be the opening wedge through whose application the
idea of larger municipal powers may be adopted. Fifth, there
is a very strong tendency among us to give the city a footing
in constitutional law, and in spite of failures in specific meth-
ods tried, the constitution-makers have not become discour-
aged. Sixth, our universities are beginning to do important
work in the study of municipal science and comparative con-
stitutional and administrative law.
The position of the American city as an organ of govern-
ment is peculiar. In spite of its helplessness in law, except
for specific constitutional provisions in this state or that, the
city is continually setting up the claim to an inherent right of
self-government. In Michigan this doctrine of a higher law
than the written constitution has even been recognized by the
Supreme Court. The status of the city is undetermined.
There are conflicting claims. As with our national govern-
ment under the Articles of Confederation, law and fact do not
coincide. The great problem of our future politics is to estab-
lish on a firm basis the legal relations of the city, and bring
those legal relations to coincide with the demands of the city’s
natural position. The city is in fact a distinct unit in its pub-
lic interests. It must be recognized as such in law. There
have been persons willing to go so far as to advocate the erec-
tion of New York city into a separate and independent com-
monwealth of the Union. This suggestion will probably not
soon be carried out, but if it were, the problem of city govern-
ment in the United States would not be much nearer solution,
for it would not be possible to make many cities into separate
states. The solution will have to be worked out by the sev-
eral commonwealths. It is not improbable that the city may
introduce into the federal system a new category of govern-
ments.* With the powers of state and municipal governments
In the Netherlands, the municipalities as well as the provinces are recognized
in the national constitution, and their position is thus made independent of the
national and provincial governments to some extent.
497] IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO. 179
carefully delineated in the state constitutions, and with charters
in the shape of self-framed constitutions, there is no reason why
the federal experiment should not be elaborated. The great
cities themselves cannot be completely centralized. The spirit
of local autonomy by districts or wards will come to be
more strongly developed, though unity of administration will
always be more necessary for the city than for the common-
wealth.
If we intend to persist in the trial of self-government, the
status of the city in politics must be determined. It is hard
now to discover who is to blame for city misgovernment.
The habit of legislative interference is so strong that city
populations are sure to be thwarted if they try to govern
themselves in a responsible manner. The ultimate solution of
the problem must lie in the greater centralization of general
administrative functions under the state government, and the
more complete localization of municipal administrative func-
tions under the city government. The Ohio plan of prohib-
iting special legislation altogether, is as undesirable as it is
impossible. It is law on an arbitrary basis, and refuses to
recognize the facts of local and special legislative needs.
The Michigan plan of requiring the local choice of local
officers may be in the right direction, but it certainly is
incomplete. It involves the essentially illogical idea that the
Commonwealth shall make the laws, but that the locality
shall have some discretion about their enforcement. The
experience of France and Germany proves that it is not
impossible to unite state and local functions in a single officer,
but in that case his responsibility is differentiated. We may
at least conclude from our study that any constitutional
solution of the city problem must have regard to both sets of
evils now existing, those primarily affecting the state and those
primarily affecting the locality. The state must be protected:
from the wastefulness and corruption of special legislation,
but at the same time must be protected from anarchy in the:
180 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT [498
enforcement of its general laws. The city must be protected
from state interference in local affairs in both law-making and
administration.
THE END.:
PUBLICATIONS OF
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
AN IMPORTANT HISTORICAL WORK.
BRUCE.—Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.
An Inquiry into the Material Condition of the People, based upon Original and
Contemporaneous Records. By PHILIP ALEXANDER Bruce, Author of “ The
Plantation Negro as a Freeman,” and Corresponding Secretary of the Virginia
Historical Society. 2 vols., crown 8vo, $6.00, met.
\
The Growth of British Policy: An Historical Essay. By Sir J. R.
SEELEY, Litt. D., K. C, M. G., formerly Regius Professor of Modern History
in the University of Cambridge. With Portrait. Two vols., 12mo, cloth, pp.
(Vol. I.) xxiv. + 436; (Vol. IT.) 403, $3.50, ez.
“« The work is one of the most important in the field of historical literature.”—Boston Daily
Advertiser.
Principles of the English Law of Contract, and of Agency in its Re-
lation to Contract. By Sir Wittiam R. Anson, Bart., D.C. L., of the
Inner Teiple, Barrister-at-law, Warden of All Souls College, Oxford. Eighth
Edition. First American Copyright Edition. Edited, with American Notes,
by Ernest W. Hurrcut, Professor of Law in the Cornell University School
of Law. 8vo, cloth, pp. 456, $3.00, zed.
“ The object of this edition is to give parallel references to selected American authorities
where the American law corresponds with the English law as stated by the author, and to indi-
cate clearly the points at which the American authorities either disagree wholly with the English
law, or are strongly divided among themselves.”—Albany Law Fournal.
The Law of Civilization and Decay. An Essay on History. By BRooxs
Apams. vo, cloth, $2.50.
“* A work of great dignity and erudition, showing rare familiarity with the data of history,
theology, and economics.”’"—Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.
A Treatise on Money and Essays on Monetary Problems. By J.
SHEILD NICHOLSON, M. A., D. Sc., Professor of Political Economy in the
University of Edinburgh. ‘Third Edition. With a Second Part to “ A Treat-
ise on Money.” 12mo, cloth, pp. 431, $2.00, ez.
Studies in Economics. By Wi111am Smart, M. A., LL. D., Lecturer on
Political Economy in the University of Glasgow. 12mo, cloth, pp, 341, $2.75,
net.
The Origin and History of Contract in Roman Law down to the End
of the Republican Period. (Being the York Prize Essay for the Year 1893.)
By W. H. Buck er, B. A., LL. B., of Trinity College, Cambridge. 12mo,
cloth, $1.10, set.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 Fifth Avenue, New York.
Published by The Macmillan Company.
BRYCE.—The American Commonwealth. By James Bryce, D.C. L.,
author of «‘ The Holy Roman Empire;’’ M. P. for Aberdeen. In 2 volumes.
Third Edition. Revised throughout and much enlarged. Large 12mo.
Cloth, gilt top. Vol. I. pp. 724. $1.75, zet. Vol. I]. pp. 904. $2.25,
net. The set, 2 vols.,in box. $4.00, met.
‘His work rises at once to an eminent place among studies of great nations and their insti-
tutions. Itis, so far as America goes, a work unique in scope, spirit and knowledge. There is
nothing like it anywhere extant,—nothing that approaches it. . . Without exaggeration it
may be called the most considerable and gratifying tribute that has yet been bestowed upon us
by an Englishman, and perhaps by even England herself... . . One despairs in an attempt to give
in a single newspaper article an adequate account of a work so infused with knowledge and
sparkling with suggestion... . Every thoughtful American will read it, and will long hold in
grateful remembrance its author’s name.’’—New Vork Times.
gORGEAUD.—Adoption and Amendment of Constitutions in Europe
and America. By CHArRLEs BorGeaup. Translated by C. D. Hazen,
Professor of History in Smith College. With an Introduction by J.2M. Vin-
CENT, Johns Hopkins University. Extra crown 8vo. Cloth. pp. 353. $2.00, met.
“The work received the Rossi Prize from the Law Faculty of Paris, and is a work of very
unusual freedom and breadth of range.. . . It is one of the most suggestive, level-headed, and
statesmanlike in the whole catalogue of recent publications on political science.”’—Judependent.
ACTON.—A Lecture on the Study of History. Delivered at Cambridge,
June, 1895, by Lorp Acton, LL. D., D. C. L., Professor of Modern History.
I2mo. 75 cents.
‘A lecture which alike requires and repays the time and leisure of deliberate reading. It is
surcharged with matter to overflowing.”’— he Guardian (Manchester, Eng.).
INDERWICK.—The King’s Peace: A Historical Sketch of the Eng-
lish Law Courts. By F. A. InpERWICcK, Q. C., author of ‘Side Lights on
the Stuarts.” With 15 Illustrations and 1 Map. 12mo, cloth, pp. xxiii. +
254, BI.50. ;
New Volume of the Social England Series, edited by Kensim B. Corss, M. A., Oxon.
NORWAY.—History of the Post-Office Packet Service Between the
Years 1793-1815. Compiled from Records. Chiefly Official. By ARTHUR
H. Norway. With 6 full-page Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, $3.50.
BENEDETTI.—Studies in Diplomacy. From the French of Count BENE-
DETTI, French Ambassador at the Court of Berlin. With a Portrait. 8vo,
cloth, pp. 323, $3.00.
ECKENSTEIN.—Woman under Monasticism. Chapters on Saint Lore
and Convent Life between A. D. 500 and A. D. 1500, By LINA ECKENSTEIN.
8vo, cloth, $4.00, zet.
GREGOROVIUS.—History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages.
By FERDINAND GREGOROVIUS. Translated from the Fourth German Edition
by ANNIE EIAMILTON. Vol. III. pp. xv, 562. 12mo. Cloth. $3.00, net.
“©The author has found ample material for this book in which are a thousand pages of writ-
ing strictly historical in quality... . . Gregorovius is interesting always... . He makes the
career of Rome as a city understood.”’—T7he New Vork Times.
WILLOUGHBY.—An Examination of the Nature of the State. A
Study in Political Philosophy. By WEsTEL WoopBury WILLOuGHBY, Ph. D.,
Lecturer in Political Economy in the Johns Hopkins University. 8vo, cloth.
Nearly ready,
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK.
ECONOMIC CLASSICS.
EDITED BY
W. J. ASHLEY, M.A.,
Professor of Economic History in Harvard University.
NEW VOLUME.
The Mercantile System and its Historical Significance. Ilustrated
Chiefly from Prussian History. Being a Chapter from the “ Studien ueber die
Wirthschaftliche Politik Friedrichs des Grossen.” By Gustav SCHMOLLER,
1884. 12mo, cloth, 75 cents.
Already Published in the Same Series.
Vol. I. Selected Chapters and Passages from “The Wealth of Na-
tions’ of Apam SmitH, 1776.
Vol. Il. The First Six Chapters of “The Principles of Political Econ-
omy and Taxation” of Davin RicarDo, 1817.
Vol. III. Parallel Chapters from the First and Second Editions of “An
Essay on the Principle of Population.” By T. R. MaLtHus, 1798-1803.
Vol. IV. England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade. By Tuomas Mun, 1664.
Vol. V. Peasant Rents. By RICHARD Jonss.
r6mo, limp cloth, each 75 cents.
“ Under the title ‘Economic Classics’ Macmillan & Co. are publishing a
series of thin volumes, each containinz what is thought to be most valuable in the
works of some one of the great economic writers; the selection being made by
Prof. W. J. Ashley of Harvard. There have appeared so far three of this series,
viz.: Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus, and there are promised Mun, Child,
Turgot, Quesnay, Roscher, and others. The volume upon Adam Smith consists
of selections from the ‘ Wealth of Nations,’ which amount in bulk, we should say,
to about one-third of the complete work. No doubt an edition .like the present
will reach many who would not attempt a larger volume, and the omissions ap-
pear to be judiciously made. Of Ricardo only the first six chapters are given—
sufficient to show his method and the more important of his conclusions. In the
case of Malthus a somewhat different course is pursued, parallel chapters being
taken from his first and second editions, somewhat in the line pursued by Mr.
Bonar. Both Ricardo and Malthus we believe to be practically unread nowadays,
even by those who discourse most glibly on their theories, and such as are con-
scious of delinquency herein may easily correct their error through the aid of
this series.’ Book Reviews.
THE MACMILIAN COMPANY,
66 Fifth Avenue, New York.
NEW ISSUES IN
The Cambridge Hisforical Series.
General Editor, G. W. PROTHERO, Litt. D., .
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, Professor of History in the Universtty of Edinburgh.
Ireland; to the Year 1868, by Judge O'Connor Morris. Cr. 8vo. $1.60.
The United States of America, 1765-1865. By EDWARD CHANNING,
Professor of History in Harvard University. Crown 8vo. With Maps. $1.50.
“ Particularly good in the summary sketches of men and of situations.”"— The Independent.
“We know of no recent historical work which gives better background and perspective.
There is a keen sense and appreciation of historical values.”’—Boston Daily Advertiser.
“© 1¢ falls well into line, indeed, with the former volumes in this series, and will not only attract
readers and interest them on its own merits, but will add to the value of the series as a helpful
and scholarly introduction to the history of the modern world.’ — The Scotsman.
PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED.
The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, 1789-1815. By J. H. Ross,
M. A., Christ’s College. Crown 8vo. With Maps and Plans. Second Edi-
tion. $1.25.
Outlines of English Industrial History. By W. Cunnincuam, D. D.,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and E, A. McARTHUR, Lecturer at
Girton College. Crown 8vo. $1.50, met.
The Australasian Colonies, from their foundation to the year 1893, by E.
Jenks, M. A., Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, and Professor of Law in
University College, Liverpool, late Dean of the Faculty of Law in Melbourne
University. Crown 8vo. With Maps. $1.60.
IN PREPARATION.
The Foundation of the German Empire, 1815-1871. By J. W. Hzap-
LAM, M. A., Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge.
Other Volumes will be announced shortly. +
VOLUMES FROM THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS.
MUNICIPAL HOME RULE.
A Study in Administration.
By Frank J. Goopxrow, A.M., LL.B., Professor of Administrative Law in Colum-
bia, Author of ‘Comparative Administrative Law.” r12mo., cloth, $1.50 zed.
“« The treatise is carefully written. It will be of utility in America as a guide to municipal
law, while for the world at large it is a valuable contribution to the literature of comparative
jurisprudence ’—7he Guardian (Manchester, Eng.).
“Here is without doubt one of the most trenchant and scholarly contributions to political
science of recent writing, remarkable for analytical power and lucidity of statement.”—7he
Chicago Evening Post.
Science of Statistics. Part I. Statistics and Sociology. By RicHmMonpD
Mayo SMITH, Pu. D., Professor of Political Economy and Social Science in
Columbia College. 8vo. $3.00. ‘
“ An‘exceedingly useful work.. . . From a vast range of reliable sources Professor Mayo-
Smith, an expert in statistical methods, has brought together a mass of ordered materials which
bear on social problems, and students of sociology are deeply his debtors. Many vague and in-
secure theories will be tested by the yard-stick of this Book, and no serious worker can afford to
ignore it.. . .It is a distinct merit of the work that the data compiled are arranged in a
way to excite interest and lead to results.”— The Dial.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 Fifth Avenue, New York.
PUBLICATIONS
OF THE
AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.
MONOGRAPHS.
VOLUME X.
Hand-Book and Report of the Seventh Annual Meeting. Price 50 cents.
Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The Canadian Banking System, 1817-1890. By R. M.
BRECKENRIDGE, Ph.D. Price $1.50. ,
No. 4. Poor-Laws of Massachusetts and New York. By JoHN CUMMINGS,
Ph.D. Price 75 cents. .
Nos. 5 and 6. Letters of Ricardo to McCulloch, 1816-1823. Edited, with
Introduction and Annotations, by J. H. HoLtanper, Ph. D. Price, $1.25;
cloth, $2.00.
IN PRESS.
Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro. By F. L.
Horrman, F.S.S., Statistician to the Prudential Insurance Company of
America.
Appreciation and Interest. By Irvine Fisuer, Ph. D., Yale University.
ECONOMIC STUDIES.
VOLUME I.
Hand-Book and Report of the Eighth Annual Meeting. Price 50 cents.
No.1. The Theory ef Economic Progress, by JoHN B. Clark, Ph. D. The
Relation of Changes in the Volume of the Currency to Prosperity, by FRANCIS
A. WaLKerR, LL.D. Price 50 cents.
No. 2. The Adjustment of Wages to Efficiency. Three papers: Gain Sharing,
by H. R. Towne; The Premium Plan, by F. A. Hatsey; A Piece Rate
System, by F. W. TayLor. Price 50 cents.
Price of the several volumes of monographs, unbound, $4.00 each, Bound in
cloth, $5.00 each for single volumes, $400 for each additional volume. The set
of ten volumes, $41.00, sent prepaid. Any bound volume will be sent postpaid to
numbers for 75 cents in exchange for the unbound numbers, tf returned prepaid
im good condition. Copies can also be furnished, in half morocco, at 50 cents per
volume additional to the price in cioth.
Separate subscriptions by non-members, libraries, etc., for the Studies, $2.50
per year ; or $4.00 for all the publications. Any single monograph may be ob-
tained at the price given in the list.
One-sixth Discount to Members on all Orders.
Address applications for membership and inquiries to
JEREMIAH W. JENKS,
Secretary American Economic Association,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.
Address Subscriptions and orders for Studies and Monographs to the publishers,
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORE.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Studies in History and Politics.
Edited by HERBERT B. ADAMS.
FOURTEENTH SERIES.—1896.—Subscription, $3.00.
I. Constitutional History of Hawaii. By Henry E. Cuampers. 25 cents.
II. City Government of Baltimore. By TuHappeus P. Tuomas. 25 cents.
ILI. Colonial Origins of New England Senates. By F.L. Ritey. 50 cents.
IV. Slavery in North Carolina (1663-1865). By JounS. Basserr. 50 cents.
V. Representation in Virginia. By J. A. C. CHANDLER. 50 cents.
VI. The History of Taxation in Connecticut (1636-1776). By F. R. Jonzs.
VII. Neutrality of the Northern Lakes. By J. M. CALLAHAN.
VIII. Financial History of Baltimore. By J. H. HoLLanpzr.
IX. Slavery in New Jersey. By H.S. Coorzy.
Other papers will be from time to time announced.
ANNUAL SERIES, 1883-1895.
SERIES I.—Local Institutions. 479 pages. $4.00.
SERIES II.—Institutions and Economics. 629 pages. $4.00.
SERIES III.—Maryland, Virginia and Washington. 595 pages. $4.00.
SERIES IV..—Municipal Government and Land Tenure. 600 pages. $3.00.
SERIES V.—Municipal Government, History and Politics. 559 pages. $3.59.
SERIES VI.—The History of Co-operation in the United States. 540 pages. 3.50.
SERIES VIIl.—Social Science, Municipal and Federal Government. $3.50.
SERIES VIII.—History, Politics and Education. 625 pages. 8vo. $3.50.
SERIES 1X.—Education, History and Politics. 640 pages. 8vo. $3.50.
SERIES X.—Church and State: Columbus and America. 630 pages. 8vo. $3.50.
SERIES XI.—Labor, Slaves and Self-Government. 574 pages. 8vo. $3.50.
SERIES XII.—Institutional and Economic History. 626 pages. 8vo. $3.50.
SERIES XIIJ.—South Carolina, Maryland and Virginia. 606 pages 8vo. $3.50.
RECENT EXTRA VOLUMES.
The Supreme Court of the United States. By W. W. WicLouGuHBy. 124 pp. 8vo,cl. $1.75.
The Intercourse between Japan and the United States. By Inazo(Ota) Nirosg. 192
. 8vo, cloth. $1.25.
State and Federal Government in Switzerland. By JoHn Martin Vincent. 225 pp.
8vo, cloth. $1.50.
Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. By Frank W. Biackmar. 380 pp. and 31 plates.
8vo, cloth. $2.00. 4
Introduction to the Study of the Constitution. By M,M.Coun. 25opp. 8vo, cloth. $1.50.
The Old English Manor. By Prof.C. M. ANDREWs. 280 pp. 8vo, cloth. $1.50.
Ainge a Geographical History, 1492-1892. By Dr. W. B.Scarrg. 176 pp. 8vo,
cloth, 1.50.
Florentine Life During the Renaissance. By W. B.Scaire. 256pp. 8vo, cloth. $1.50.
The Southern Quakers and Slavery. ByS.B.Wesxs. Cloth. $2.00.
The set of thirteen series is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use,
for $39, and including subscription to the current (fourteenth) series, for $42.00.
_ The fourteen series,with fourteen extra volumes, altogether twenty-eight volumes,
in cloth as above, for $60.00,
All business communications should be addressed to THE JOHNS H
PRESS, Baltimore, Maryland. J OPKINS
Systematic Political Science
BY THE
UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE.
The University Faculty of Political Science of Columbia College
have in course of publication a series of systematic works covering
the entire field of political science proper and of the allied sciences
of public law and economics. The method of treatment is historical,
comparative and statistical; and it is the aim of the writers to pre-
sent the latest results of institutional development and of scientific
thought in Europe and America.
The series includes the following ten works :
Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law.
2vols. Published by Ginn & Co., 1891. By JOHN W. BurGEss.
Comparative Administrative Law.
2vols. Published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1893. By FRANK J. GooDNow.
International Law. Jn preparation. 2% By JoHn BAssETT Moore.
Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence.
Ln preparation. . F 3 . . By Munrok SMITH.
The Distribution of Wealth. 2 vols. ln preparation. By JOHN B. CLARK.
The Science of Statistics. 2 vols. Vol. 1, published by the Columbia Unt-
versity Press (Macmillan), 1895. ‘ By RicHMOND Mayo-SmITH.
Historical and Comparative Science of Finance.
2vols. Jn preparation. By EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN.
The Principles of Sociology. Published by the Columbia University Press
(Macmillan), 1896. ‘3 : ‘ . By FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGs.
History of Political Theories. ln» Zreparation. By WiLi1AM A. DUNNING.
Literature of Political Science. # preparation. . By GEORGE EI. BAKER.
oS i oS
fl Fe atlas Ct
es 5
menerete Boe ater tots en Pea Ge ane
ite Bieta eee mitt ohare ne toot
= eet re seats RUE eihet sae re eu
ent aae: ie, ae as pieces Sc
& ees ee
ee
a
Scitech " LEVER Senn
eas fs SST ES & ‘ tater Rati
ST rcton Ala a Ale f Aa aah aes Cone mace
: one Se ee
Rt
cane on &
eee uae —— Bee eh
a SaaS Eee wera ee
oN Seger sare cl =. et a
A ant
ae u
Sat rd enn
i eer
we Se en
KS brats tt Ni sy
RE oe a : a :
ehitareaeirnie tr tat
as otra N! 2
Sek ees ay