Natioaai 
 
 Muaicipal 
 
 Review 
 
 '^ol. XI, No. 8 August, 1922 Total No. 74 
 
 The Political Integration 
 of Metropolitan Communities 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 ATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEAGUE 
 
 RUMFORD BUILDING, CONCORD, N. H. 
 EDITORIAL OFFICE, 261 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 second-class matter April 15, 1914, at the post-office at Concord, New Hampshire, under the Act of August 24, 1912. 
 : for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3. authorized December 24, 1920. 
 
NATIONAL 
 MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY THE 
 
 National Municipal League 
 
 Harold W. Dodds, Editor 
 
 The NATIONAL MUNICIPAL Ri:\'IEW is sent to all members of the 
 National Municipal League. Those who do not desire to lieconie members of 
 the League may subscrilie to the REVIEW l)y paying five dollars a year in 
 advance. Canada subscription rates 6.5. 'iS in advance; foreign $5.50. Checks 
 should be made payable to the National Municipal League and mailed to 261 
 Broadway, New York, N. Y. 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Intboductio.v as 
 
 IL What Has Been .Accomplished iSO 
 
 Detachment of Baltimore from Baltimore County; Formation of Greater Philadelphia; 
 Consolidation of City and County of San Francisco; Separation and Simplification at 
 St. Louis; Formation of (Ireater New York; Separation and Consolidation of Denver; 
 Union of .Mlegheny with Pittsburgh; Wheeling Absorbs Her Suburbs; Washington, 
 D.C. 
 
 HL What Remafns to be .ArcoMPLisHEn 445 
 
 The Greater Boston Movement; Chicago's Problem; I nihcation Proposed for ('leve- 
 land; Defeat of Proposed Consolidation, .\lamcda County, (California; Proposed City 
 and CountyConsolidalion, Portland, Oregon; Consolidation Movement in Los.Vngeles; 
 Problem of Essex County, New Jersey; Uni6cation Receiving .\ttention in Other Cities. 
 
 I V. Summary 251 
 
 Griffenhagen & Associates, Ltd. 
 
 An organization of engineers, accountants, and specialists in the 
 administrative and financial problems of public bodies with over 
 ten years of practical experience in efficiency and economy work. 
 
 HeadquartersOffices AT 116 S0UT.4 MICHIGAN AVE., CHICAGO 
 
NATIONAL 
 MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 Vol. XI, No. 8 
 
 AUGUST, VMi 
 
 Total No. 74 
 
 THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF 
 METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES 
 
 BY CHESTER C. MAXEY 
 
 Western Reserve Universily 
 
 I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 A VERY slight acquaintance with 
 municipal conditions in the United 
 States discloses the fact that one handi- 
 cap under which practically every city 
 of magnitude is laboring, is political 
 disintegration. The city as a political 
 entity is not identical with the metro- 
 politan community as a social and 
 economic fact; and so, like a house 
 divided against itself, the metropolitan 
 district finds itself obliged to struggle 
 for civic achievement amid the con- 
 flicts, dissensions, and divergences of 
 its several component political jurisdic- 
 tions. In no two communities are 
 conditions precisely the same, and yet 
 in all the fundamental difficulty is 
 political disunity. There are cases in 
 which the principal source of difficulty 
 is the overlapping of city and county, 
 the latter, owing to the growth of pop- 
 ulation, having become a superin- 
 cumbent city government; in others 
 contiguous suburban municipalities 
 participating in and to a large extent 
 dominating the social and economic life 
 of the city, are politically independent of 
 it; and in still other cases both of these 
 
 conditions co-exist in varying degree 
 and form. -^ 
 
 To assume, as is often done, that the 
 political dismemberment of a metro- 
 politan community is not a matter of 
 challenging importance is a fatuous 
 mistake. Not only does it militate 
 against economical and efficient ad- 
 ministration of local government but 
 it gravely impedes all progressive 
 and comprehensive public imder- 
 takings. The great problems which 
 demand governmental action in metro- ^ 
 politan communities — public health, 
 recreation, public utilities, crime, 
 and the like — hold political boundaries 
 in contempt. And the only effect of 
 multiplying political jurisdictions for 
 dealing with such problems is to ob- 
 struct and defeat the primary purposes 
 for which local government exists. 
 
 It is only fair to remark that such 
 absurd and anomalous structures of 
 local government are not the result of 
 conscious creation. It is well known 
 that political development seldom keeps 
 pace with social and economic facts. 
 Moreover, the metamorphosis of a 
 
 dSnSiY 
 
230 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 small rity into a huge, sprawling center 
 of trade and industry is inevital)ly at- 
 tended with all sorts of bungling legis- 
 lation, and is doubtless nuich affected 
 by the vicissitudes of factional and 
 partisan warfare. The anomalous po- 
 litical dismemberment of the poinila- 
 tion of a larger metropolitan district is 
 in most cases, therefore, largely a mat- 
 ter of historical accident, and being 
 such, is commonly accepted by the in- 
 habitants as a natural and normal state 
 of affairs. 
 
 There are, however, a few places 
 where movements for the political 
 unification of the metropolitan area 
 have been inaugurated and ])ushe(l 
 through with varying degrees of suc- 
 
 <-ess; and there are many other places 
 in which such movements are now in 
 progress. These movements consti- 
 tute an interesting and imjjortant 
 jihase of oiu- nnmicipal histor>\ but 
 unfortunately they are recorded only 
 in fugitive documents or fragmentary 
 articles, or not recorded at all. In 
 order to spare the student of municipal 
 institutions the extensive and arduous 
 research neces.sary to consult all of 
 these ob.sciu-e and widely dispersed 
 sources, the attempt is here made to 
 bring within the compass of a short es- 
 say a sununary of the main facts re- 
 garding each of the various movements 
 for the i)olitical integration of metro- 
 politan areas in the United i^tatcs. 
 
 II. WHAT HAS BEEN AUCOMPLISHED 
 
 DETACHMENT OF B.\LTIMORE FROM 
 n.\LTIMORE fOlNTY: 18,51 
 
 The city of Haltimore was never 
 politically engulfed in a county like the 
 majority of American cities. From the 
 beginning the city of Baltimore and 
 the county of the same name were 
 separately represented in the legislature 
 of the colony, and this separate repre- 
 sentation was continued by the con- 
 stitutions of 1776 and 1788. (^on- 
 .sequently the city early became an 
 independent factor in the politics of the 
 state, and it was not therefore a radical 
 departure to complete the detachment 
 of the city by severing it entirely' from 
 the county. This stej) was taken in 
 lH."il; and although the inner history 
 of tliee\ent remains somewhat obscure, 
 it appears to have been an incident of a 
 fierce political struggle which con- 
 vul.sed the entire slate. Prior to 1S")1 
 the government of Marj'land was in 
 theory and practice a loose confeder- 
 ation of coimties and cities similar in 
 s|)irit to the national gt)\ernmenl under 
 
 the Articles of Confederation. The 
 governing body was a bicameral 
 legislature in which counties and 
 cities were equally repre.sented re- 
 gardless of size. i)oi)ulation, taxable 
 |)ro|)erty, or any other basis of ditfer- 
 enlialion. In(ieed the theory frankly 
 avowed in the early history of the 
 state was that these counties and cities 
 had confederated as corporate entities, 
 and conse(|uently that equality was 
 the only fair basis of representation in 
 the legislature. 
 
 But time plays havoc with all theo- 
 ries. The rapid growth of Baltinutre 
 city (piickly engendered acute dis- 
 satisfaction with the c(|ual rcjtresenta- 
 lion principle, and this was aggravated 
 by the increasingly shameless way in 
 which the rural legislators took ad- 
 vantage of their power to enact tax 
 l:iws exi)loiling the city for the benelil 
 of the rural .sections. On top of this 
 came the nation-wide surge of liemo- 
 (Tatic.senli men t. overt urningall existing 
 political alignments and sweeping 
 ,\ndrew .bu'kson into the Presiilency. 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 231 
 
 In Maryland, the city of Balti- 
 more and the other urban sections 
 of the state were thrown into the ranks 
 of the Jacksonian i)arty, while the 
 riu^al sections of the state remained in 
 control of the opposition, a feeble and 
 hojieless minority. Immediately there 
 was a vehement demand for legislative 
 reapportionment, but the minority in- 
 trenched behind the provisions of an 
 illiberal constitution refused to he 
 mo\ed. The demand was repeated 
 with increasing insistence, and in 1836 
 the struggle culminated in a crisis 
 which carried the state to the brink of 
 civil strife. ' Unable to resist longer, 
 the legislature in 1839 proposed a con- 
 stitutional amendment which modified 
 the existing basis of representation but 
 did not provide representation in pro- 
 portion to population. Still the agi- 
 tation for a more equitable basis of rep- 
 resentation did not subside, and as a 
 consequence a constitutional convention 
 was called in 1849. This body, after a 
 prolonged struggle, submitted a consti- 
 tutional draft (which was ratified in 
 1851) embodying the popular basis of 
 representation with restrictions apply- 
 ing only to the city of Baltimore. As 
 a part of the bargaining by which this 
 compromise was effected, the complete 
 detachment of Baltimore city from 
 Baltimore county was agreed upon. 
 Accordingly the constitution of 1851 
 I)rovided a full complement of county 
 officers for the city of Baltimore and 
 conferred upon the city the status of a 
 county. - 
 
 From time to time, as the city of 
 Baltimore has grown, its boundaries 
 have been extended by the annexation 
 of suburban communities. The most 
 recent enlargement of the city in this 
 fashion occured in 1918 when the legis- 
 lature of the state passed an act sub- 
 
 iScharf, History of Man/land, Vol. Ill, pp. 187-195. 
 « Debates and Proceedings of Constitutional Conven- 
 tion of 1849, passim. 
 
 trading .some sixty square miles from 
 Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties 
 and adding them to the city of Balti- 
 more. Although the law provided for 
 no referendum, it did provide for com- 
 pensating the counties which had lost 
 territory or property by the annexation. 
 The annexation law was attacked in the 
 courts because of the absence of a 
 referendum provision, but the courts 
 declined to invalidate it on that ac- 
 count. One of the prime purposes of 
 the annexation measure was to double 
 the waterfront of the city, and thus en- 
 able it to extend its port and terminal 
 facilities. It was estimated that 
 100,000 people were added to the popu- 
 lation of the city of Baltimore by this 
 annexation of suburban communities. 
 
 FORMATION OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 1854 
 
 The city of Philadelphia as laid out 
 by the founder contained an area of 
 about two square miles. Population 
 quickly overflowed these narrow limits. 
 By 1850 the population of Philadelphia 
 county was 409,045 of which only 
 121,417 resided within the corporate 
 limits of the city of Philadelphia. 
 Outside of the boundaries of the city 
 the population was quite as thoroughly 
 urban as within; in fact the entire 
 county was a unified metropolitan 
 center in all respects except govern- 
 ment. In this latter particular it was 
 preposterously dismembered, the work 
 of local government being partitioned 
 among forty different go\erning bodies 
 — ten municipal corporations, ten spe- 
 cial boards, six boroughs, thirteen 
 townships, and one county. The ef- 
 fects of this condition can be best 
 described by quoting the language 
 of the Select Committee of Senators 
 from the City and County of Phila- 
 delphia reporting to the state senate 
 in 1853: 
 
232 
 
 NATIONAL INRTNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 It is not to be supposed of Lunian Dature that 
 the people of these many separate local govern- 
 ments have not been actuated by a preference 
 and zeal for llieir separate interests, nor that col- 
 lisions and hostile feelings have not arisen ob- 
 structive to a concert of measures for the com- 
 mon welfare. With no paramount or pervasive 
 power of legislation or control, no laws, uni- 
 formly operative over the whole, could l>e 
 adopted or executed l>eyond the respective bounds 
 of each. Rioters suppressed in one jurisdiction 
 take refuge and find impunity within another. 
 Measures of public improvement, by the city or 
 respective districts, arc arrested at the extreme 
 of their narrow limits; works erected competent 
 to supply the wants of all with but slight addi- 
 tional expense, are curtailed of their usefulness; 
 and other works at large expense uselessly erected 
 by other corporations. The varying laws of so 
 many localities in close contiguity are so numer- 
 ous and so little known, that citizens in their 
 hourly movements arc subjected to legal obliga- 
 tions and powers of which they have no knowl- 
 edge. These divisions and unseen lines and 
 complication of powers, arc potential alike to 
 paralyze or arrest every effort to advance the 
 common welfare and suppress general evils.' 
 
 Appreciation of the evils described 
 in the foregoinj; quotation was cer- 
 tainly a strong; stimulus to propaganda 
 for a greater and a unified Philadel- 
 phia, but even more |)utent perhay)s 
 was the blow to Philadelphia's pride 
 when .she was out-stripped by New 
 York in the race for size and commer- 
 cial supremacy. The first ilirect step 
 toward unification of local governments 
 seems to have been taken on November 
 16, 1H4!), when a group of leading 
 citizens called a pidjlic meeting which 
 in turn chose an executive committee 
 to act until a .second meeting .should be 
 held. This committee in IH.j] ad- 
 dressed a memorial to the legislature of 
 the stale praA'ing for legislation to 
 consolidate Philadel|>hia and the subur- 
 ban mimicipalities; and two members 
 of the conuniltee, John Cadwalader 
 and Eli K. Price, were sent to Harris- 
 
 ■ Quutcd in Price, Hiatory of Comolidation in Phita^ 
 dtlphia. Chap. IV. 
 
 burg to lobby for the desired legislation. 
 However, nothing was accomplished 
 by these efforts. 
 
 Riot.i Help Con.iolidaliun 
 
 In 1853 Philadelphia was visited 
 with a series of violent and riotous dis- 
 orders for which the volunteer fire com- 
 panies were chiefly responsible, and a 
 group of influential citizens was called 
 together to consider ways and means of 
 checking these disturbances. This 
 group, which incidentally included a 
 niunljer of the champions of consolida- 
 tion, decided that drastic legislation 
 must be secured and that as a means to 
 this end a reform ticket must be put up 
 at the ensuing election. Therefore, on 
 July 30, 1853, a reform convention was 
 held, and Eli K. Price was nominated 
 for the state senate and Mathias W. 
 Baldwin and William C. Patterson for 
 the house of ^epresentati^■es. Mr. 
 Price immediately annoimced that he 
 stood for consolidation of local govern- 
 ments in Philatlel])hia county as one of 
 the prime essentials of reform, and the 
 other candidates were impliedly |)ledged 
 to the same measure. After an ardu- 
 ous campaign all of the reform candi- 
 dates were elected, and Mr. Price 
 forthwith called a conference consisting 
 of the senators and representatives of 
 the city and the county of Philadelphia 
 and certain leading advocates of con- 
 solidation. Under Mr. Price's Icailer- 
 ship this conference imdertook to frame 
 a consolidation bill and a new charter 
 for the city of Philadel|)liia. ami while 
 it was engaged in these labors an exten- 
 sive campaign of propaganda in favor 
 of unification was carried on in the 
 newspajiers of the city and the county. 
 
 The legislative measure thus ]ire- 
 pared was presented in the state senate 
 as soon as the legislature assembled in 
 1854. The forces behind it were so 
 influential and were so powerfully 
 organizeil that they pushed il through 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 233 
 
 the senate in the nnprecedentedly 
 short period of two weeks. In the 
 house of representatives it was passed 
 with equal promptness; and on the 
 second of February, 1854, it received 
 the signature of the governor. This 
 act was an out-and-out annexation 
 measure. The boundaries of the city 
 of Philadelphia were extended to coin- 
 cide with the boundaries of the county 
 of the same name, and all of the outly- 
 ing municipalities, districts, and town- 
 ships were absorbed by the city. The 
 government of the city was remodeled 
 in such a way as to render it more ade- 
 quate for the enlarged area, but no 
 striking or fundamental changes were 
 made.'' 
 
 The immediate results of the con- 
 solidation and annexation were un- 
 questionably beneficent. For many 
 years Philadelphia and her environs 
 had been disgraced by civil turbulence 
 almost impossible to prevent or con- 
 trol. Negro-baiters intimidated free 
 negroes by unchecked violence; mobs 
 of native workingmen used the same 
 methods against Irish immigrants; 
 over-zealous Protestants practised 
 shameful outrages upon Roman Catho- 
 lics; rival fire companies were wont to 
 do pitched battle in the streets; and 
 not infrequently the volunteer fire com- 
 panies refused to extinguish fires 
 started by rioters with whom they were 
 in sympathy. These disturbances and 
 disorders quickly disappeared when 
 unified local government went into 
 operation, for this made possible an ef- 
 fective police department and a paid 
 fire department. Other beneficial re- 
 sults of consolidation were the develop- 
 ment of a comprehensive system of 
 water supply and sewage disposal to re- 
 place the separate systems of the 
 former independent municipalities; the 
 establishment of a metropolitan park 
 
 * Price, Eittory of Consolidation in Philadelphia, 
 paatim. 
 
 system; and a marked increase in the 
 assessed valuation of property through- 
 out the metropolitan area. 
 
 But Philadelphia County Remained 
 
 Unfortunately the county of Phila- 
 delphia was not included in the con- 
 solidation of 1854, although many be- 
 lieve that such was the intent of the 
 law and that such a consummation 
 was only averted by the machinations 
 of scheming politicians. The follow- 
 ing newspaper comment afi'ords some 
 conception of the unfortunate conse- 
 quences of the duplication of city and 
 county : 
 
 Employes dismissed from city departments are 
 taken care of in county offices pm-ely as political 
 dependents, apparently regardless of any neces- 
 sity for their services to the public. In the city 
 employ they could not actively engage in political 
 work; in the county offices they are under no such 
 provision, and they are not affected by the civil 
 service law under which appointments under the 
 city government are made.' 
 
 On account of these conditions the 
 more progressive newspapers and q\\\c 
 organizations of Philadelphia are be- 
 ginning to advocate the consolidation 
 of the city and the coimty govern- 
 ments, but as yet no organized move- 
 ment has been launched. 
 
 CONSOLIDATION OF CITY AND COUNTY 
 OF SAN FEANCISCO: 1856 
 
 The influx of population into Cali- 
 fornia following the gold discoveries of 
 1849 was so prodigious that political 
 institutions became obsolete almost as 
 soon as they were created. The state 
 was divided into counties in 1850, and 
 later in the same year the city of San 
 Francisco was created with boundaries 
 practically identical with those of a 
 previously established county of that 
 name. Thus from the first there was 
 unnecessary duality of government in 
 
 • Philadelphia Press, Feb. 15, 1920. 
 
234 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 this largely urban area. Baneful re- 
 sults were experienced immediately. 
 Extravagance and corruption ran riot ; 
 the tax rate and the public debt 
 mounted to opi)ressive heights; and 
 every effort to improve conditions was 
 paralyzed by the deplorable inefficiency 
 of the governmental system. "And 
 what," said Senator W. W. Hawks to 
 the state senate in 18.55, "has brought 
 us to this state of things? This intri- 
 cate system of government; affording 
 a thousand chances for plunder, and 
 yrt a thousand cloaks to hide the Cai- 
 tiff who robs a trusting people. This 
 duplicate set of officers, officials, hang- 
 ers-on, loafers, whippers-in, and gen- 
 eral plunderers." 
 
 A few turbulent years under the 
 dual system .served to convince the 
 better elements in San FrancLsco that 
 a drastic remedy must be applied. 
 Public discussion left no doubt that 
 nothing short of a majoroijeration could 
 effect a cure. Wiile there was much 
 diversity of opinion as to what the 
 nature of the operation should be, there 
 was univer.sal agreement in the propo- 
 sition that it nuist bring about simpli- 
 fication. A bill for the con.soli<lation of 
 the city and county of San Francisco 
 was introduced in the legislature in 
 1855 by Horace Hawes, an assembly- 
 man from San Francisco, anti enough 
 supjwrt was gained to force its final en- 
 actment on \\)r\\ 19, 1850. Under the 
 I)ro\isions of this act the charter of the 
 city of San Francisco was repealed, and 
 there was created a corporation styled 
 "The City and County of San Fran- 
 cisco," which was to act in the twofold 
 capacity of city and county. The 
 changes in the form of the government 
 were not radical in principle, being 
 chiefly excisions and consolidations. 
 The bicameral city council was super- 
 seded by the county board of super- 
 visors; the city a.ssessors were rejilaced 
 bv the counlv assessor; the county tax- 
 
 collectors gave way to the citycollector; 
 and many similar changes were made. 
 A few duplications survived, as in the 
 case of city attorney and district at- 
 torney, but they were not sufficiently 
 numerous to defeat the purpose of con- 
 solidation. 
 
 In the matter of economy the ad- 
 vantage of unified local government 
 Ijecame a])i)arent at once. The histo- 
 rian Hittel records that under the new 
 scheme of government the exi)enses of 
 city and county government were re- 
 duced from $5,640,000 in 1855 to 
 $.350,000 in 1857. Such a record for 
 economical administration certainly 
 has not been maintained in San Fran- 
 cisco throughout the succeeding years, 
 but no one can doubt that but for the 
 unified local government the history of 
 public finance in San Francisco would 
 have been much more sordid than it is. 
 Other benefits claimed to be attribut- 
 able to the unified government are 
 increased efficiency, freedom from legis- 
 lative meddling, and greater adapta- 
 bility to the practical exigencies of local 
 go^■ernInent.* 
 
 While there have lieen important 
 charter changes in San Francisco since 
 1856, there have been no departures 
 from the basic features of the consoli- 
 dation act. 
 
 SEP.\It.\TION AND SIMPLIFIC.VTIOX 
 
 ST. LOUIS: 1876 
 
 The story of St. Louis differs from 
 any that have preceded.' Prior to 
 1876 St. Ixiuis county included the city 
 of St. Ivouis and an extensive rural area 
 lying outside of the corporate bound- 
 aries of the city. The rajjid growth of 
 the city resulted in many extensions of 
 its boundaries and a decided complica- 
 tion of the i)roblems of municipal 
 
 • Anirriran Political Science Review (8upp.) Vol. VI, 
 No. 1. 
 I Ibid. 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 235 
 
 government. Although the area of the 
 county still greatly exceeded that of the 
 city, the population of the city so enor- 
 mously exceeded that of the rural parts 
 of the county as to work a profound 
 modification in the character of city 
 and county politics. While the county 
 vras a corporate entity exercising with- 
 in the city many purely municipal 
 functions and others vitally affecting 
 municipal affairs, the government of 
 the county was for the most part con- 
 trolled by rural jroliticians whose chief 
 concern was to exploit the city for the 
 benefit of themselves and the rural 
 parts of the county. The result was 
 the worst sort of misgovernment. 
 County revenues were derived prin- 
 cipally from the city and expended 
 mainly in the rural parts of the county; 
 the salaries of county officers were 
 boosted to absurd figures, and offices 
 were multiplied far beyond necessity; 
 corruption became commonplace. 
 
 At the same time the government of 
 the city was in no very healthy condi- 
 tion. The legislature had always shown 
 a pernicious disposition to meddle in 
 the affairs of the city, and the govern- 
 ment of the city eventually fell into the 
 hands of a gang of machine politicians 
 who had intrenched themselves at 
 Jefferson City and who were every bit 
 as vicious as the county politicians, if 
 not leagued with them. The city of 
 St. Louis was obviously suffering from 
 two serious maladies — the dominance 
 of county politics in municipal affairs 
 and legislative intervention in local 
 matters. 
 
 Home Rule Granted Also 
 
 Simple consolidation of city and 
 county as in San Francisco would not 
 do in St. Louis. The rural sections of 
 the county could not have been 
 brought under the unified government 
 with any degree of success, and prob- 
 ably the mischievous intervention of 
 
 the state legislature in municipal af- 
 fairs would have been aggravated by 
 such a course. Secession from the 
 county became therefore the watch- 
 word of the reform party in St. Louis. 
 Agitation began as early as 1843 and 
 was carried on with great energy dur- 
 ing the decade immediately preceding 
 the constitutional convention of 1875. 
 The meeting of this constituent as- 
 sembly afforded a supreme opportunity 
 to the champions of city and county 
 separation. By virtue of adroit manoeu- 
 vering they procured the insertion in 
 the constitutional draft of sections 20 
 to 25 inclusive of Article IX. The 
 constitution was ratified by the people 
 on August 22, 1876, and went into ef- 
 fect sixty days later. The most curi- 
 ous and noteworthy fact about the 
 sections referred to above, is that they 
 not only opened the way for separation 
 of city and county, but at the same 
 time empowered the city of St. Louis to 
 extend its boundaries and to "frame a 
 charter for the government of the city 
 thus enlarged." This marked the be- 
 ginning of municipal home rule in the 
 United States. According to the testi- 
 mony of persons acquainted with the 
 "inside" history of this famous home- 
 rule provision, it was not a part of the 
 original plan for the separation of city 
 and county and was included only upon 
 the insistence of certain influential 
 German-American citizens who had in 
 mind creating for St. Louis a status 
 similar to that enjoyed by the free 
 cities of Germany — Hamburg, Liibeck, 
 and Bremen. It is said also that at 
 first the home-rule proposal was op- 
 posed by city and county alike and was 
 only carried in the convention because 
 by a separate section (section 16 of 
 Article IX) the same privilege was ex- 
 tended to all cities of the state having a 
 population of 100,000 and over. 
 
 The machinery provided for the 
 separation of city and county and 
 
236 
 
 NATIOX.\L IVIUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 framing a new government may be 
 summarized as follows: 
 
 The council of Ihc city and the county court of 
 the county were to meet in joint session and order 
 an election at which was to be chosen a board of 
 thirteen freeholders, which board should be 
 obligated "to propose a scheme for the enlarge- 
 ment and deSnition of the boundaries of the city, 
 the reorganization of the government of the 
 county, the adjustment of the relations of the 
 city thus enlarged and the residue of St. Louis 
 county, by a charter in harmony with and sub- 
 ject to the constitution and laws of Missouri, 
 which shall among other things provide for a 
 chief executive and two houses of legislation, one 
 of which shall be elected by general ticket. . . . 
 It was further provided that this scheme and 
 charter must be completed and properly filed 
 with the mayor of the city and the presiding 
 justice of the county court within ninety days 
 after the election of the board. Within thirty 
 days thereafter it was to be submitted to the 
 voters in the following manner: The scheme of 
 separation was to be submitted to the qualified 
 voters of the whole county and the charter to the 
 qualified voters of the city as enlarged. If ap- 
 proved by ft majority of those voting at the elec- 
 tion, the scheme of separation was to become the 
 organic law of the city and county and the 
 charter the organic law of the enlarged city, the 
 two to be in full force and operation within si.\ty 
 days after their adoption. 
 
 The machinery thus provided was 
 set in motion immediately after the new 
 constitution became effective. The 
 board of freeholders was duly elected 
 and the scheme and charter ])repared, 
 submitted and voted u]Hm by the ])CO- 
 ple. The certified returns showed that 
 the charter had carried by a majority 
 of 558 and that the scheme of separa- 
 tion had l>een defeated by a margin of 
 1416. This precipitated a serious 
 sitimtion, as it was not dear that the 
 scheme and the charter were ,separal)le. 
 However, there were so manycliarges of 
 fraudulent registration and voting that 
 a]iplicalion was made for a judicial 
 recount. The court of ai)|)eals of St. 
 Louis conducted the recount, and, on 
 March 5. 1877, it declared that both 
 
 the charter and the scheme of separa- 
 tion had carried by substantial majori- 
 ties. 
 
 No comprehensive survey of the 
 scheme of separation and the new 
 charter is possible within the limits 
 prescribed for this article, but a few of 
 the outstanding features may be noted. 
 The enlarged city of St. Louis was 
 completely divorced from the residue of 
 St. Louis county, which was organized 
 as a county apart from the city of St. 
 Louis. In the city all of the coimty 
 oflBccs except sheriff, coroner, and pub- 
 lic administrator were abolished. So 
 far the plan was simplicity itself, but 
 when it came to dividing public prop- 
 erty, apportioning public debts, and 
 such readjustments, the settlement was 
 not so easy. The intent of the separa- 
 tion scheme was that all public property 
 falling within the limits of the enlarged 
 city should become the property of the 
 city, but that the cotmty should l)e 
 fairly compensated for all of its losses. 
 To this end provision was made that 
 the city shoidd have all county prop- 
 erty of whatever character within its 
 extended limits, and in consideration 
 therefor should assume the entire 
 county debt (both interest and princi- 
 pal) and the ]>ark debt. A Ixiard of 
 finance was created for the imrjwse of 
 ascertaining andverifying the indebted- 
 ness of the coimty and certifying the 
 same to the city, and for other minor 
 functions. The foregoing j)rovisions 
 did not extend to school property, and 
 as this settlement was very complicated 
 it will not be discussed here. 
 
 Expenses Immediately Reduced 
 
 The lieneficial effects of separation 
 and con.solidation at St. Ivouis have 
 never been seriously questioned. A 
 reduction of the cost of government 
 was the most immediate and obvious 
 gain. In the first ycir following the 
 imificationthetax ratewas reduced Qi}^ 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 237 
 
 cents per $100 despite the augmented 
 area of the city, and a further reduction 
 of 15 cents was effected in the succeed- 
 ing year. At the same time the 
 bonded indebtedness was steadily low- 
 ered, and a long-accumulating floating 
 debt was paid off during the first fiscal 
 year of the reorganized city. Com- 
 menting on these facts one writer says : 
 
 It was not until a fiscal year had elapsed after 
 the city government had been recast and re- 
 organized under the charter and separation 
 scheme that a fair opportunity was presented of 
 summarizing and examining the results of the 
 new system. This opportunity presented itself 
 at the May session of 1878, when the mayor 
 stated that the immediate results had been re- 
 duction in taxation and in the expenses of de- 
 partments, and an improved system of public 
 institutions. . . . The municipal affairs of 
 the city for the fiscal year ending in June, 1879, 
 were prosperous and satisfactory to no ordinary 
 degree. The penal and charitable institutions 
 were in excellent order and economically man- 
 aged; the fiscal and improvement departments 
 were conducted with integrity and energy, and 
 at no period in the history of the city had its 
 credit been better or had a more practical and 
 efficient system controlled the expenditure of the 
 city revenue, the management of the city debt, 
 and the operations on public works.' 
 
 The separation of the city from the 
 county and the simplification of the 
 consolidated government did not of 
 course mark the advent of the millen- 
 nium, and it is quite probable that the 
 reform enthusiasm of the new adminis- 
 tration overmatched that of its succes- 
 sors. Certainly there have been some 
 sordid pages in the history of St. Louis 
 since 1876. Nevertheless it will not be 
 denied that the unity achieved under 
 the scheme of 1876 has been a potent 
 factor in the upbuilding of St. Louis 
 and in promoting better government. 
 The plan of 1876 was seriously defec- 
 tive in one particular; namely, failure 
 to provide for futtu-e extensions of the 
 
 8 Scharf, History of St. Louis City and County, Vol. I, 
 pp. 712-713. 
 
 boundaries of the city. The city soon 
 outgrew its extended boimdaries, and 
 is now confronted with an embarrass- 
 ing annexation problem. Although 
 the charter of 1876 was much modified 
 %\ith the passing of the years and in 
 1914 was completely set aside, it has 
 not been possible to secure the further 
 enlargement of the boundaries of the 
 city. 
 
 FORMATION OF GREATER NEW YORK: 
 1898 
 
 Doubtless the most noted case of 
 mtmicipal consolidation in this country 
 is the fashioning of the present city of 
 Greater New York out of the metro- 
 politan district formerly composed of 
 New York (Manhattan), Brooklyn, 
 Richmond county, and portions of 
 Kings, Queens, and Westchester coun- 
 ties.' On December 1, 1897, just prior 
 to the consolidation, the population of 
 this metropolitan area was estimated at 
 more than 3,000,000. This vast popu- 
 lation was for all practical purposes an 
 organic unit. The center of industrial, 
 commercial, and social life was on the 
 island of Manhattan, while the other 
 communities were for the most part 
 economic satellites of this great center. 
 Politically, however, the metropolitan 
 population was not one body, but up- 
 ward of forty. Chaos reigned supreme. 
 Cities, counties, villages, school dis- 
 tricts, detached boards, and quasi- 
 independent officers contracted debts, 
 enacted local legislation, and carried on 
 the administrative operations of local 
 government without any co-ordination 
 or co-operation. The effect was calam- 
 itous. Not only was the natural 
 evolution of the metropolitan area re- 
 tarded because of the difficulty of 
 securing united action on the great 
 
 • Leslie, History of Greater Ifew York, Vol. I, Chap. 
 19: also Henachel, Historical Sketch of Greater New 
 York, passim. 
 
238 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 problems of transportation, sanitation, 
 city planning, housing, public safety, 
 and tlie like, which were basic determi- 
 native factors in growth, but the finan- 
 cial situation, except in the case of New 
 York, was desperate. Brooklyn was 
 bonded u() to the constitutional limit 
 and indebted in excess of that limit. 
 The as.sessed valuation of property in 
 Brooklyn was high, and .so was the tax 
 rate. Analagous conditions prevailed 
 in the other suburbs, except that the 
 pinch of high taxation was i)erhaps not 
 quite so acute as in Brooklyn. New 
 York was fortunate in having a com- 
 paratively low assessed valuation and 
 tax rate and in having its debt-incur- 
 ring power practically unimpaired. In 
 fact it was asserted in 189:5 by Mayor 
 Gilroy of New York that by lifting her 
 assessed valuation New York would be 
 able to incur sufficient indebtedness to 
 buy Brooklyn outright. It is plain 
 therefore that union with New York 
 was not without a balm for the wounded 
 local pride of the communities which 
 submerged themselves in Greater New 
 York. 
 
 The New York History 
 
 The history of the New York con- 
 solidation has been so often and .so fully 
 told that it will not be re|)eatcd here. 
 Suffice it to say that after a campaign 
 whose beginnings can be traced back as 
 far as 18.S0, the legislature of the state 
 of New York in 1894 passed a measure 
 providing for a vote on the question of 
 con.solidation by the citizens of the 
 districts concerned. The vote was 
 taken on Novenil)er fi, 1894. The 
 most interesting feature of this election 
 was that the vote was advisory only 
 and in reality .settled nothing. This 
 resultc<l from the construction placed 
 upon the measure liy the Icgi.slature at 
 the time of enactment and from the in- 
 struct ions given to the voters. Wiether 
 this had any effect in jjrocuring a vote 
 
 favorable to consolidation it is im- 
 possible to say, but the total majority 
 for con.solidation was surprisingly large. 
 Despite the fact that Brooklyn, Flu.sh- 
 ing, and Mt. Vernon returned small 
 majorities adverse to consolidation, 
 these majorities were wiped out by the 
 decisive pro-consolidation vote cast in 
 the other districts voting. The case 
 of Mt. \'ernon was unique. It had not 
 been included in the districts originally 
 authorized to vote on the question but 
 was added by virtue of a special act of 
 the legislature passed at the instance of 
 a few of its citizens. Wien it voted 
 against consolidation, it was decided 
 that there was no authority to include 
 it in the ultimate consolidation. 
 
 Pursuant to the favorable vote on 
 the consolidation question, steps were 
 taken to procure legislation to put it 
 into effect. However, the manceuver- 
 ing of the opponents of con.solidation 
 forestalled this consummation until 
 May 11, 1896. when the act effectuat- 
 ing consolidation was finally signed by 
 the governor. Only a few provisions 
 of this act demand attention here. It 
 set the date (January 1, 1898) when the 
 consolidation .should become effective 
 and provided for the creation of a 
 charter commission to draft a charter 
 for the greater city. The only restric- 
 tions laid upon the charter commi.ssion 
 were that county government should 
 not be included in the con.solidation, 
 and that it should provide for an equal 
 and uniform rate of valuation and tax- 
 ation throughout the consolidated area. 
 
 The rian Very Complex 
 
 The charter of Greater New York as 
 formulated by the charter commi.ssion 
 is entirely too complex for brief analy- 
 sis. Probably the feature of most 
 interest to the student of nnmicii)al 
 unification is the system of borough 
 organization and autonomy. The jier- 
 sistence of strong local feeling in the 
 
19^2-2] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 
 
 239 
 
 several component parts of the greater 
 city made it seem inadvisable to insti- 
 tute a thoroughly centralized plan of 
 government. Accordingly the metro- 
 politan area was organized into five 
 boroughs, as follows: the borough of 
 Manhattan, consisting of Manhattan 
 Island; the borough of Bronx, composed 
 of that portion of the former city of 
 New York lying north of the Harlem 
 River plus the sections of Westchester 
 county recently annexed; the borough 
 of Brooklyn, which included the former 
 city of Brooklyn and certain portions 
 of Kings county ; the borough of Queens 
 which embraced the western portion of 
 Queens county; and the borough of 
 Richmond, consisting of the whole of 
 Staten Island. Each of these boroughs 
 elects a president who is administrative 
 head of the borough and responsible for 
 the discharge of those governmental 
 functions reserved to the boroughs by 
 the charter. These functions are con- 
 fined mainly to local improvements, 
 such as construction of sewers, sew- 
 age disposal, construction and main- 
 tenance of public highways, and the 
 maintenance and operation of public 
 buildings. The five borough presidents, 
 together with the mayor, the comptrol- 
 ler, and the president of the board of 
 aldermen, constitute the board of esti- 
 mate and apportionment, which through 
 its financial initiative and control has 
 evolved into the principal governing 
 body of the city. The members of the 
 board of estimate and apportionment 
 do not have equal voting power, the 
 votes being so distributed that those 
 who represent the city as a whole can 
 outvote those who represent the bor- 
 oughs. The distribution is as follows: 
 the mayor, the comptroller, and the 
 president of the board of aldermen cast 
 three votes each; the presidents of the 
 boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn, 
 two each; and the presidents of the 
 boroughs of Bronx, Queens, and Rich- 
 
 mond, one each. To reinforce still 
 more the control of those who represent 
 the city at large, it is provided that a 
 quorum of the board shall consist of a 
 sufficient number of members to cast 
 nine votes, including always two who 
 cast three votes each. 
 
 The most conspicuous shortcoming 
 of the unification was the exclusion of 
 the counties. In the years prior to 
 consolidation there had been a gradual 
 trimming of the functions of the coun- 
 ties of New York and Kings until they 
 became little more than districts for 
 the administration of justice and for the 
 elec^:ion of certain indispensable con- 
 stitutional county officers. At the 
 time of the consolidation the counties 
 of Queens and Richmond were re- 
 duced to a similar status. That these 
 counties as entities of local govern- 
 ment were retained largely because of 
 the political patronage they provide is 
 generally conceded, and certainly this 
 was the motive behind the creation of 
 Bronx county in 1914. The next step 
 toward the complete unification of 
 Greater New York will be the elimina- 
 tion of the five counties. 
 
 Physical Integration Followed 
 
 Of the after-effects of the consolida- 
 tion we must perforce speak very brief- 
 ly. In the realm of finance the ex- 
 perience of the greater city was 
 complex and puzzling.'" It finished its 
 first year with a deficit of over $7,000,- 
 000. The financial morass into which 
 BrookljTi in particular had sunk, and 
 the necessity of greatly extended 
 go\'ernmental services and public im- 
 provements in the outlying districts, 
 placed the new government in a very 
 trying position. In the realm of 
 economic and social development the 
 story of the greater city since consolida- 
 tion is simply fabulous. The political 
 
 wCoIer, The Financial Effects of Consolidation, 
 
240 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICirAL REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 integration of the various districts in 
 the metropolitan area soon resulted in 
 physical integration through the con- 
 struction of bridges, tunnels, rapid- 
 transit systems, and water-supply sys- 
 tems. With physical integration came 
 that marvelous development of the 
 outlying boroughs which has so as- 
 tonished the world and which has 
 brought the jxjpulation of Brooklj-n up 
 to 2,00>2,'-262, that of the Bronx to 
 732,016. that of Queens to 466,811, 
 and that of Richmond to 115,959. 
 That this basic unity of the metropoli- 
 tan district has Ijeen one of the most 
 potent factors in fostering the commer- 
 cial and industrial development which 
 has made New York the first city of 
 the world scarcelv needs to be said. 
 
 separ.\tion' axd coxsolidatiox 
 den\er: 1902-1911 
 
 The history of the unification of local 
 government in Denver is rich in inci- 
 dent. Prior to the unification Denver 
 was the county seat of Arapahoe 
 county, which was of enormous area 
 and sparsely populated except for the 
 citj' of Denver. There was very little 
 community of interest between the 
 rural sections of the county and the 
 city, and tliis conflict of interests 
 reacted upon Denver and its govern- 
 ment in a most unhappy way. The 
 structure of the city government was 
 itself seriously defective, lieing the 
 loose-jointed board-council-niayor tyjie 
 so i)opular in this country three or four 
 decades ago. The legislature of tiie 
 state was given to pernicious meddling 
 in municipal affairs, and in the two all- 
 imjrortant functions of public safety 
 and public works it had superseded the 
 city authorities with state boards. 
 Contending public utility corporations 
 were at the same time fighting desi)er- 
 ately for monopolistic dominion of the 
 city. Here was an unsuri)assed op- 
 
 portunity for the operations of preda- 
 tory jx)litical machines, and the op- 
 portunity was not overlooked; Denver 
 l)ecame notorious for the corruption 
 and turbulence of her local politics." 
 
 Several states following the example 
 of Missouri had incorjxjrated in their 
 constitutions provisions for municipal 
 home rule, and, observing these de- 
 velopments, reform leaders in Denver 
 turned to home rule as the only escape 
 from the intolerable political conditions 
 prevailing in their city. Separation of 
 city and county and simplification of 
 the government of the city were second- 
 arj- considerations to them; the para- 
 mount issue was home rule. A move- 
 ment for home rule for Denver was 
 started in the state legislature in 1899, 
 but nothing came of it. In 1901 
 Senator J. A. Rush introduced a bill 
 submitting to the electorate of the state 
 a home-rule amendment to the consti- 
 tution. The projxised amendment was 
 not confined to Denver alone, but ap- 
 plied to all cities of the first and second 
 class, thus enlisting valuable aid in 
 securing its passage by the legislature 
 and its eventual triumph at the polls. 
 It was submitted to the people and 
 overwhelmingly ratified at the general 
 election in 190-2. 
 
 At this juncture the history of the 
 now famous article XX of the Colorado 
 constitution really begins. The first 
 section of the amendment declared that 
 "The municipal corporation known as 
 the city of Denver, and all municipal 
 corjKirations and that part of the quasi- 
 municipal corporation known as the 
 county of Arapahoe, in the state of 
 Colorado, included ■nHthin the bound- 
 aries of the said city of Denver as the 
 same shall be bounded when this 
 amendment takes effect, are herebycon- 
 solidated and are hereby declared to be 
 a single body politic and corporate, by 
 
 II Sec King, Hi*tory of the Goremmmt of Dmt<r, 
 Chapa. V and VI. 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 241 
 
 the name of the 'City and County of 
 Denver.'" The implication was that 
 the boundaries of the city were to be 
 considerably extended prior to the tak- 
 ing effect of the amendment, and so it 
 came to pass. Legislation was secured 
 enlarging the area of the city by specif- 
 ically annexing certain contiguous 
 territory. In this way several former 
 suburban towns whose aggregate popu- 
 lation was about 6,000 were added to 
 the city, together with a considerable 
 amount of unsettled territory. 
 
 First Charter Defeated 
 
 Pursuant to the amendment, a 
 charter convention was elected to frame 
 a new charter for the new corporation. 
 A very commendable charter was pre- 
 pared, but it so greatly reduced the 
 possible spoils of party warfare by the 
 introduction of the short-ballot prin- 
 ciple that it aroused the hostility of the 
 machine organizations of both parties. 
 Furthermore it contained a provision 
 looking toward more stringent regula- 
 tion of public utilities, and thus earned 
 the opposition of the corporate interest. 
 These hostile forces in league were able 
 to send the charter to defeat at the polls 
 on September 22, 1903. A second 
 charter convention became necessary 
 and was assembled on December 8, 
 1903. The draft prepared by the 
 second charter convention omitted 
 the provisions which were unacceptable 
 to the politicians and the corporations, 
 and consequently it was easily ratified 
 on March 29, 1904. At the first elec- 
 tion under the new instrument, held in 
 May, 1904, city and coimty offices were 
 merged without question. But when 
 the fall campaign of 1904 came around 
 the question of whether a full set of 
 county officers could be nominated was 
 raised and finally taken to the courts. 
 It is quite unnecessary here to enter 
 into the technicalities of the extended 
 litigation which ensued and which 
 
 practically suspended until 1911 the 
 real consolidation of city and county 
 governments.'^ In the j-ear last 
 named the supreme court of the state 
 terminated this legal controversy by a 
 sweeping opinion quite the reverse of 
 its former pronouncements. A third 
 charter convention met in 1913 and 
 proposed amendments to the charter 
 of 1904, which, when approved by the 
 voters, put the commission plan of gov- 
 ernment into effect. After three years 
 this was abandoned by the adoption of 
 the so-called "Speer Amendment, " 
 which provided for a highly centralized 
 administration under an elected mayor. 
 
 Economy Plus Efficiency 
 
 Because of the tempestuous history 
 of the consolidation of local govern- 
 ments in Denver, the results are hard 
 to measure. Probably the most ob- 
 vious is economy. The financial re- 
 ports of the city and county show that 
 in 1911 (the last year that a complete 
 set of officers for both city and county 
 was maintained) the total cost of local 
 government was $679,400, while in 
 1917 with simplification and consolida- 
 tion in effect it was $476,600, and this 
 despite a sharp rise in price levels in 
 the meantime. It is also the well-nigh 
 unanimous testimony of those asso- 
 ciated with the consolidated govern- 
 ment that this startling economy has 
 been accompanied by increased efli- 
 ciency. 
 
 UNION OF ALLEGHENY WITH PITTS- 
 BURGH: 1906-1908 
 
 It has been asserted that the union 
 of Pittsburgh and Allegheny was a 
 Sabine marriage in which Pittsburgh 
 assumed the role of the abducting Ro- 
 man, and there are facts to support 
 such a contention. However, if there 
 
 11 For a full discussion see McBain, The Law and 
 Practice of Municipal Home Rule, pp. 498-531. 
 
242 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIP.\L REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 was ever a case vindicating the casuistic 
 argument tliat the end justifies the 
 means, this was one. Prior to the an- 
 nexa t ion , t he ci t y of Pi 1 1 sburgh occupied 
 a tongue of land formed l)y the con- 
 fluenc-e of the Allegheny and Monon- 
 gahela rivers. Tiie population of Pitts- 
 burgh at that time was estimated at 
 383,000. Across tlie .Vllegheny river 
 on a similar tongue of land was the city 
 of Allegheny with an estimated popu- 
 lation of 14"2,000; across the Mononga- 
 hela river were four incorporated bor- 
 oughs whose combined population was 
 about 8,000; and to the rear of Pitts- 
 burgh was the small townsliip of Stcr- 
 rett with a population of 600 to 1.000. 
 The.se contiguous and clustering com- 
 munities were in matters industrial, 
 commercial and social, integral parts of 
 the city of Pittsburgh, and with it they 
 constituted one homogeneous metro- 
 politan district. Pittsburgh was the 
 center of commerce and industry, while 
 the outlying communities were cither 
 economic tributaries or residential 
 suburbs. With the nuiltiplication of 
 bridges and the i>erfcction of trolley 
 systems tiiis clo.se inter-relationship was 
 greatly heightened." 
 
 A Social Unit Politically Subdiridcd 
 
 On the political side, however, this 
 metropolitan community was broken 
 into many and discordant parts. 
 Manyof the leading figures in the affairs 
 of Pittsburgh resided in the outlying 
 communities and con.scqucntly had no 
 share in the government of Pittsburgh. 
 The effect of this ab.senteeism was to 
 set the stage for the ring [)oliticians, 
 who for many years ])laycd fast and 
 loose with the affairs of the city. Plans 
 for improving the industrial and com- 
 mercial position of the city always had 
 to run the gauntlet of factional oppo- 
 sition and often were entirely thwarted 
 by the degraded city administration. 
 
 u Killikrlly, llUloru of I'Mtburi/h, pp. 241-244. 
 
 Interests which proximity made com- 
 mon to all communities in the metropol- 
 itan area could not bc])romotcd in com- 
 mon; and in the case of sewage disposal 
 and water supply the lack of harmony 
 among the various municii)alities 
 threatened to defeat large civic i)roj- 
 ects and to imperil the health of the 
 inhabitants of all. There was intense 
 jealousy in the allocation of thefinancial 
 burden of public improvements. Pitts- 
 burgh resented carrying the cost of 
 public improvements which accrued 
 largely to the benefit of the surrounding 
 communities, while the latter were in- 
 capable of footing the bills for the ex- 
 tensi\e improvements and services 
 which their metropolitan situation 
 made necessary. 
 
 In consideration of the foregoing 
 facts it is not surprising that public- 
 minded citizens early reached the con- 
 clusion that the only hoi>e of permanent 
 amelioration of conditions lay in the 
 political unification of the metropolitan 
 area, and esi)ccially in the union of 
 Pittsburgh and .\llegheny. For many 
 years, beginning as far back as 18.54, 
 this question was an i.ssue in the 
 Pennsylvania legislature; but nothing 
 was accomplished in the way of assist- 
 ing legislation until 1!)0,5 when the 
 governor, largely at the instance of 
 commercial and civic organizations in 
 Pittsburgh, summoned the legislature 
 in special session to enact a law |)er- 
 mitting cities contiguous to one another 
 to consolidate and form one city. 
 Special legislation for cities being for- 
 bidilen by the constitution of the state, 
 the legislature was unable to enact a 
 law designating Pittsburgh and .\lle- 
 gheny and em|)owering them to unite, 
 but resorted to the subterfuge which 
 the courts in most states have tolerated, 
 and on Fel)ruary 7, 1906, pa.s.sed an en- 
 abling act applicable to all cities of the 
 .second class, Pittsburgh and .VUegheny 
 being the only cities in that class. 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 243 
 
 Compulsory Annexation 
 
 There can be little doubt that the act 
 of 1906 was passed to enable Pitts- 
 burgh to absorb Allegheny without her 
 consent. Otherwise the act need not 
 have been passed, for pre-existing 
 statutes authorized one city to annex 
 another upon the initiative of and with 
 the approval of the voters of the city 
 to be annexed. The act of 1906, how- 
 ever, provided specifically that the 
 consolidation should come about only 
 by the annexation of the smaller by the 
 larger city; that the initiative might be 
 taken by the common council or by peti- 
 tion signed by two per cent of the 
 voters of either city; and that if a 
 majority of the total vote cast in both 
 cities should be in favor of consolida- 
 tion, the courtof quarter sessions should 
 issue a decree declaring them to be 
 consolidated. Thus it was made pos- 
 sible for Pittsburgh to take the initia- 
 tive away from Allegheny and to out- 
 vote her at the election; and precisely 
 that thing happened. Pursuant to the 
 provisions of the act a petition was 
 filed with the court of quarter sessions 
 of Allegheny county by certain citizens 
 of Pittsburgh praying for the union of 
 Pittsburgh and Allegheny; the court 
 conducted a hearing as required by the 
 act, dismissed the exceptions which had 
 been filed against the petition, and 
 ordered a special election to be held in 
 June, 1906. The vote of Allegheny 
 was against consolidation, but that of 
 Pittsburgh was so preponderantly for 
 it that out of a total of 37,804 votes cast 
 there was a majority of 2,504 for con- 
 solidation. Accordingly on June 16, 
 1906, the decree of the court went forth 
 declaring Allegheny to be annexed to 
 and consolidated with Pittsburgh. 
 Allegheny contested the legality of 
 these proceedings and carried the case 
 through all the courts of the state and 
 finally to the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, which on Novem- 
 
 ber 18, 1907, handed down an opinion 
 to the effect that nothing in the act of 
 1906 and the procedure of annexation 
 thereunder was in conflict with the 
 Constitution of the United States.'^ 
 
 The annexation of Allegheny did not 
 involve the other suburban boroughs 
 and townships mentioned above, but 
 they were joined to Pittsburgh at 
 about the same time imder the provi- 
 sions of the general laws on the subject 
 of annexation of contiguous munici- 
 palities. 
 
 The Actual Process of Consolidation 
 
 A detailed analysis of the act of 
 February 7, 1906, is impossible in the 
 limited space available here. Some of 
 the leading provisions have already 
 been noted, and a few others which 
 were to apply only in the event of an 
 election in favor of consolidation will 
 be briefly mentioned. There was a 
 group of provisions having to do with 
 the settlement of the financial and 
 proprietary problems resulting from 
 consolidation. It was provided, for 
 example that each of the consolidating 
 cities should be liable separately to pay 
 its own floating and bonded indebted- 
 ness, liabilities, and interest, such as 
 existed at the time of the consolidation; 
 and adequate administrative machinery 
 was created for the enforcement of this 
 rule. Another group of provisions had 
 to do with the manner in which the 
 governments of the two cities should be 
 merged. The consolidation did not 
 ipso facto deprive any officer of either of 
 the two cities of his office or salary until 
 the expiration of his term, but in this 
 interim and until a system of govern- 
 ment for the greater city could be 
 organized, a temporary government 
 was to be operative. The main fea- 
 tures of this scheme were that the coun- 
 cils of the two cities were to be merged 
 and meet as one body; that the mayor 
 
 " Hunter vs. Pittsburgh. 207 U. S. 161. 
 
244 
 
 XATION.\L MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 of the larger city was to become the 
 mayor of the greater city and the 
 mayor of tlie smaller city the deputy 
 maj'or; that every ordinance pertaining 
 exclusively to the smaller city had to be 
 presented to the deputy mayor for his 
 approval; that the executive depart- 
 ments were consolidated, the depart- 
 ment cliicf of the larger city liccoming 
 the head of the department and the de- 
 partment chief of the smaller city be- 
 coming the first assistant. The consol- 
 idation did not distiu-i) the status of the 
 school districts in either city; nor did 
 it affect the status of the county 
 government. 
 
 Improved Transportation and Taxation 
 
 The political integration of the 
 metropolitan area of greater Pittsburgh 
 brought some immediately beneficial 
 results and many that were more 
 remote. One of the quick results was 
 the vast imi)rovement of transportation 
 connections between various portions 
 of the metropolitan district by the 
 abolition of bridge tolls and the intro- 
 duction of a uniform street car fare and 
 a system of universal transfers. An- 
 other was the complete revision of the 
 formerly inequitable system of ta.\a- 
 tion. A third was the development of 
 an adequate water supi)ly system for 
 the entire metropolitan area, rejilacing 
 the contaminated water su])plied by 
 the formerly independent units. More 
 remote benefits that are traceable to 
 the awakened civic consciousness fol- 
 lowing consolidation are the inaugura- 
 tion of a city i)!an, enormous extensions 
 of |)a\ing and street imi)rovements, a 
 reorganization of the school system, the 
 building of playgrounds, markets, and 
 a tuberculosis hospital. 
 
 WHEELING ABSORBS HER SUBfRBS: 
 1940 
 
 Quite the latest achievement in 
 municipal integration is the successful 
 
 culmination of the annexation move- 
 ment at ^Mieeling, West Virginia. The 
 campaign was in charge of a represent- 
 ative committee of citizens known as 
 the Greater Wieeling Conunittcc, and 
 the chamber of commerce was probably 
 the most active civic agency in the 
 movement. 
 
 A special act had to be secured from 
 the state legislature to permit the 
 question of annexation to l>e submitted 
 simultaneously to the electorate of 
 lx)th ^Mieeling and the suburbs. The 
 election, which occurred on Novem- 
 ber '2G, 1919, resulted in favor of uni- 
 fication to become effective January 
 1, 19'20. A suburban population of 
 about 40,000 was thus added to the 
 city of Wieeling. 
 
 Interesting features of the Wheeling 
 campaign were the adoption of the 
 commission-manager plan by Wheeling 
 in 1917 largely to meet the objections 
 of the suburbs to unification under the 
 old i)Ian of government; jjrovision for 
 the election of the members of the 
 council of the new government on a 
 general ticket, so that the annexed 
 subiubs could participate in the choice 
 of every member of the council; and 
 the development of a comj)rehensive 
 plan of public works, which could not 
 be effectually carried out under the 
 divided jurisdiction of nine distinct 
 governmental units. These, reinforced 
 by a strong ai)peal to conununity pride 
 and patriotism, did a great deal to 
 convince the suburbs of the advisabil- 
 ity of consolidation. 
 
 THE C.\SE OF W.\SHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 Perhaps Washington ought to be 
 tnentioncd as one of the cities that 
 have achieved juililical unity, although 
 it stands in a class by itself. Prior to 
 184(i the District of Columbia con- 
 tained two counties and three cities. 
 By the retrocession to Virginia of that 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 245 
 
 portion of the District lying west of the 
 Potomac the nimiber was reduced to 
 one county and two cities. In 1871 
 Congress reorganized the government 
 
 of the District by abolishing the sepa- 
 rate coimty and city governments, and 
 since that time they have had no 
 separate existence. 
 
 III. WHAT REMAINS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED 
 
 THE GREATER BOSTON MOVEMENT 
 
 The federal census of 1920 gives 
 Boston a population of 748,060 and 
 ranks Boston as the seventh city of the 
 United States, but Boston newspapers 
 and civic organizations insist that the 
 true magnitude and importance of 
 their city are not indicated by the 
 census figures. It is pointed out that 
 outsideof the corporate limits of Boston 
 but within a radius of fifteen miles of 
 the state house in Boston there dwells 
 a further population of over 700,000; 
 and it is contended that Boston proper 
 is but the torso of a great metropolitan 
 community of about 1,500,000 inhabi- 
 tants constituting an organic entity in 
 all respects except political organiza- 
 tion. At present this vast community 
 is a morass of co-existent, overlapping, 
 conflicting, and competing units of 
 local government, there being in all 
 fourteen cities, twenty-six towns, five 
 counties, and five state boards or 
 agencies functioning within the metro- 
 politan area. 
 
 What this condition means is well set 
 forth in "An Appeal for the Federation 
 of the Metropolitan Cities and Towns," 
 issued in 1919 by Mayor Peters of 
 Boston. In urging the political unifica- 
 tion of the metropolitan district Mayor 
 Peters incidentally points out that the 
 absence of political unity has had the 
 following results: (1) It has rendered 
 the metropolitan community incapable 
 of co-operating efi'ectively to secure 
 freight rates favorable to the upbuild- 
 ing of export trade and the establish- 
 ment of regular steamship service with 
 
 foreign ports; (2) it has been one of the 
 major causes of the failure of the 
 metropolitan community to provide 
 terminal facilities conducive to ship- 
 ping and trade; (3) it is responsible for 
 the failure of the metropolitan district 
 to develop adequate factory sites be- 
 cause of inability to provide street con- 
 nections and housing facilities; (4) 
 it is responsible for the decline of real 
 estate values in many sections of Bos- 
 ton owing to the want of intelligent 
 control of suburban developments; (5) 
 it is responsible for Boston's falling 
 under the domination of political or- 
 ganizations whose strength lies in 
 control of the votes of the foreign popu- 
 lation; (6) it is to blame for the failure 
 to provide for police and fire protection 
 and for street improvements on a 
 metropolitan basis; (7) it has prevented 
 the enactment of uniform health and 
 housing laws which would relieve con- 
 gestion in Boston and promote the 
 growth of the less densely populated 
 suburbs; (8) it has unduly inflated the 
 cost of local government owing to 
 duplication of services and overhead 
 organization. 
 
 The question of merging the govern- 
 mental agencies of the metropolitan 
 area has been under discussion in 
 Boston for many years. In 1896 a 
 special commission was appointed by 
 the legislature to study the problem of 
 municipal administration in Boston 
 and the adjoining municipalities, and 
 it prepared a report recommending the 
 federation of the various towns and 
 cities as a single county which should 
 have the functions of a municipal cor- 
 
246 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIP-\L REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 poration. In 1911 the Boston Cham- 
 ber of Commerce reported a plan of 
 federation through tlie creation of a 
 metropolitan council consisting of rep- 
 resentatives of the various municipali- 
 ties. In the same year the state legis- 
 lature created a second commission to 
 consider the metropolitan problem, and 
 this body recorMuiended a plan of loose 
 federation similar to the plan of the 
 Chamber of Commerce. '* In 1919 at 
 the instance of Mayor Peters of Boston 
 a bill was introduced in tlie state 
 legislature authorizing the outright an- 
 nexation of the suburban municipalities 
 by Boston. The idea of a loose federa- 
 tion of municipalities was abandoned 
 by the mayor in the hope that by press- 
 ing the movement for annexation he 
 could precipitate discussion which would 
 result in the crystallization of i)ublic 
 opinion on the subject of unification, 
 and also in the hojje that if the bill 
 should j)a.ss, some progress toward 
 unification might be made by jjiece- 
 meal annexation. It is needless to 
 say that the bill did not succeed, and 
 that unification at the present juncture 
 seems as remote as ever. 
 
 The matter of city and county dupli- 
 cation is not a large factor in the Boston 
 problem, although the metr(7])olitan 
 district intersects the boundaries of 
 five counties. The reason is that the 
 county in Massachu.sctts is i)rimarily a 
 judicial district with very attenuated 
 fumtions of local goxcrnment, and that 
 Suffolk county, which is wholly in- 
 cluded in the metropolitan district, has 
 already been largely con.solidated with 
 the city of Boston. The l)asic difficulty 
 is the evolution of some sort of plan for 
 unification that would be accejitable to 
 the suburbs, for their voting strength is 
 as great as that of IJoslon and nothing 
 could be carried against the will of the 
 
 » American Puliticnl Science Review (Supp.) Vol. VI, 
 No. 1 ; also Annala of the American Academy, 1913, pp. 
 134-IS2. 
 
 suburbs. The borough plan has been 
 considered and studied, but it is rec- 
 ognized that the application of the 
 borough plan to the Boston problem 
 would not be as ea.sy as it was in the 
 case of New York. In the latter case it 
 was onlyneces.sar\-to achieve a bilateral 
 compromise between New York and 
 Brooklyn, where in Boston a several 
 sided compromise would be necessary. 
 
 CHIC.VGO's UXIFICATIOX PROBLEM 
 
 Probably metropolitan Chicago has 
 the most bewildering .system of local 
 government in the United States at the 
 present time. It is almost incredible 
 that such a crazy-quilt of interwoven, 
 overlapping, cross-pulling political 
 agencies could be the product of sane 
 minds. Functioning within the city of 
 Chicago there are thirty-eight distinct 
 local governments, and in Cook county 
 as a whole, which includes the major 
 j)ortion of the metropolitan area, there 
 are three hundred .•iiui ninety-two. 
 Besides the city government of Chicago 
 and the government of Cook county 
 there are the sanitary district, towns, 
 villages, school districts, drainage dis- 
 tricts, park districts, forest preserve 
 districts, library districts, in endless 
 and uns[)eakable confusion. Take the 
 case of the towns, for example. There 
 are thirty-eight towns in Cook county; 
 eight are entirely within the city of 
 Chicago; six others lie partly within 
 and partly without the city; ten are 
 entirely within the .sanitary district; 
 nine are partly within and partly with- 
 out the sanitary district; and eleven 
 are entirely without the sanitary dis- 
 trict. Or take the case of the incor- 
 l)orated municipalities. There are 
 seventy-eight incor[)orated municipali- 
 ties in Cook county in addition to 
 Chicago, and f)f these forty-six are 
 within the sanitary district and the 
 remainder without. And so it is with 
 
192-2] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 247 
 
 park districts, school districts, drainage 
 districts, and the Hke. There is no 
 language obscure enough to depict the 
 reality of the chaos which exists."" 
 
 The mo^■ement for unified local 
 government in Chicago dates back as 
 far as the constitutional convention of 
 1870 when an effort was made to induce 
 the convention to include in the draft 
 submitted to the people a provision 
 authorizing any city of over 200,000 
 inlaabitants to be organized as a sepa- 
 rate county. AVhen this effort was 
 balked the consolidation idea lan- 
 guished for a niunber of years. In 1899 
 a constitutional amendment was pro- 
 posed in the legislature of the state to 
 provide for consolidation of local 
 governments in Chicago, but it did not 
 pass. Four years later another amend- 
 ment was proposed, submitted to the 
 people, and ratified. The effect of this 
 was to make possible special legislation 
 for Chicago, subject to local referen- 
 dum, and also to authorize the con- 
 solidation of local governments entirely 
 within the boundaries of the city. 
 Acting under the amendment of 1904, a 
 charter convention in the city of 
 Chicago prepared a comprehensi\'e 
 charter effecting many consolidations. 
 Unliappily this charter was modified by 
 the state legislature and subsequently 
 defeated at the polls. In 1915 a 
 second charter was prepared and sub- 
 mitted to the voters, and it also was 
 defeated . 
 
 The leading proponent of unification 
 of local governments in Chicago in 
 recent j-ears has been the Chicago 
 Bureau of Public Efficiency, which has 
 published a series of studies showing 
 the complexity of the present system, 
 the savings and improvements possible 
 under a imified plan of government, 
 and has made specific recommenda- 
 
 wSee Bulletin No. 11 prepared by the Legislative 
 Reference Bureau for the Illinois Constitutional Con- 
 vention, 1920. 
 
 tions for the consolidation and reorgan- 
 ization of local governments. In 1920 
 the Bureau of Public Efficiency drafted 
 and put before the Illinois constitu- 
 tional convention a proposed article of 
 the constitution to provide the author- 
 ization and the machinery to effect the 
 political unification of metropolitan 
 Chicago.'^ Although this proposal was 
 not accepted in toto by the convention, 
 it has formulated and adopted three 
 provisions allowing for the consolida- 
 tion of local governments in Chicago. 
 The proposed Chicago home rule article 
 pro\ides for the consolidation of all 
 local governments iii the limits of the 
 city by charter convention, subject to 
 certain reservations and conditions in 
 the event of the application of the con- 
 solidation to the Sanitary District and 
 the Forest Preserve District. The 
 other two provisions are regarded as of 
 doubtfid value and probably will never 
 be invoked. All three of these provisions 
 have passed their second reading in the 
 convention, and at the present writing 
 (June 27, 1922) the convention is meet- 
 ing to consider the entire constitutional 
 draft on third reading. 
 
 UNIFICATION PROPOSED FOR 
 CLEVELAND 
 
 The same anomalies of local govern- 
 ment that have been observed in other 
 metropolitan centers are to be found in 
 Cleveland and Cuyahoga county. The 
 population of Cleveland is 796,841, but 
 in the contiguous suburban commimi- 
 ties of East Cleveland, Cleveland 
 Heights, Lakewood, West Park, Shaker 
 Heights, Bratenahl, and Euclid Village, 
 there is a combined population of 
 101,820 which in every practical sense 
 is a part and parcel of the city of Cleve- 
 land. This integrated metropolitan 
 population is ninety-five per cent of the 
 
 II See Bulletin No. 38 of Chicago Bureau of Public 
 Efficiency, Jan, 1920 
 
248 
 
 NATION.\L MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 population of Cuyahoga county and 
 could be readily governed as one munic- 
 ipal corporation; but Cuyahoga county 
 is overlaid with ninety-three detached 
 and disconnected units of local self- 
 government, these being largely cities, 
 villages, townships, and school districts 
 in the metropolitan area. 
 
 The disadvantages of disintegration 
 anil the corresponding advantages of 
 unification have not received adequate 
 consideration in Cleveland and her 
 suburban satellites, and consequently 
 the movement for consolidation has 
 made little progress. Two civic organ- 
 izations — The Civic I^eague and the 
 County Charter Government Associa- 
 tion — have given the matter some at- 
 tention, but have felt imable to under- 
 take an intensive and persistent cam- 
 paign. In 1919 a resolution proposing 
 an amendment to the state constitution, 
 which wouKl provide for a consolidated 
 form of city and county government, 
 was introduced in the state senate, but 
 it was shelved in committee, no op- 
 portunity being given for its considera- 
 tion. In 19'21 Representative Davis 
 of Cuyahoga county introduced a bill 
 to facilitate consolidation of local 
 governments in Cuyahoga county, but 
 this likewise received scant considera- 
 tion by the legislature. In the spring 
 of the jjresent year movements for 
 annexation develo])ed in West Park and 
 Lakewood, and commissions are now at 
 work preparing terms of annexation to 
 be later submitted to the voters. 
 
 * DEFEAT OF PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION, 
 ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 
 
 In Alameda county, California, on 
 the eastern shore of San Francisco Hay, 
 has grown uj) a metropolitan district of 
 
 * For a more detailed mi-oiint of the .\lnnieda 
 county proposnls see Uic National Mi'mncii'al 
 Hkvikw for .Inly litii, which appeared uflcr this 
 article was in type. 
 
 considerable proportions. The popu- 
 lation of Alameda county is 344,177, of 
 which 314,575 are classed as urban 
 residents by the Federal census of 1920. 
 This urban population is conc-entrated 
 mainly in the contiguous and occasion- 
 ally overlapping cities of Oakland, 
 Berkeley, Alameda, Piedmont, Emery- 
 ville, Albany and San Leandro. The 
 remainder of the county, though more 
 or less rural in character, is much 
 affected by the character of govern- 
 ment of the urban centers. 
 
 Prominent citizens have long been 
 aware that in all large public matters 
 the metropolitan district of Alameda 
 coimty should be thoroughly unified, 
 and a campaign looking toward that 
 end has been going on for many years. 
 In 1916 the City and County (iovern- 
 ment Association of Alameda County 
 presented a plan for consolidation cal- 
 culated to meet the opposition of the 
 outlying comnmnities to any form of 
 organic union with Oakland which 
 would submerge their individualities. 
 The plan propo.sed rather a loose 
 federal form of organization under 
 which the component cities would be- 
 come autonomous Iwroughs and would 
 retain important local powers while 
 such functions as police protection, pro- 
 motion of public health, assessment 
 and collection of taxes, would be dele- 
 gated to the central government. A 
 unic|ue feature of the plan was that it 
 ])roposed to combine the city-manager 
 idea with that of an elected mayor.'* 
 
 Unfortunately it was not foreseen 
 that this proposition was doomed to 
 sure defeat because of the way in 
 which, under the state constitution, it 
 had to be submitted to the voters of the 
 smaller cities. The reorganization i)lan 
 could not be ])resented directly to the 
 voters of the metropolitan district to 
 
 la For aummary of the proposed rharter see pamphlet 
 publielied by City and County Government Aaaoeia- 
 tion of Alameda County, Sept. 1016. 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 249 
 
 stand or fall on its merits. According 
 to the state constitution the initiative 
 nuist be taken by a city ha\'ing a popu- 
 lation of 50,000 or more by the preced- 
 ing Federal census, which meant that 
 only Oakland could take the lead. 
 Furthermore the question of annexa- 
 tion had fo be submitted to each of the 
 contiguous nnmici]):tlities separately. 
 This meant that the various munici- 
 palities would have to vote to merge 
 themselves with Oakland before the 
 question of a new form of government 
 could be taken up, and it did not seem 
 expedient to proceed in this way. 
 
 The proponents of the federation 
 plan then proceeded to secure an 
 amendment to the state constitution, 
 which would relieve them of the em- 
 barrassments encountered under the 
 existing provisions relating to munici- 
 pal consolidation. In 1918 an amend- 
 ment was put up and adopted, which 
 provitled that a charter might be pre- 
 pared by a board elected by the citi- 
 zens of an entire county prior to the 
 submission of the question of con- 
 solidation, and that then the question 
 of consolidation should be put to each 
 municipality separately to decide 
 whether or not it could come in under 
 the proposed charter. Acting under 
 the provisions of this amendment a 
 city-county manager charter was sub- 
 mitted to the voters of the county on 
 November 15, 1921 and defeated. This 
 outcome was said to be attributable to 
 the unwillingness of the smaller cities 
 to give up their individualitj' and 
 merge with Oakland. From the stand- 
 point of the experimentalist it is unfor- 
 tunate that this unique charter is not 
 to have a trial. So many innovations 
 are seldom combined in one instru- 
 ment of government. The governing 
 body was to have been a metropol- 
 itan council of seven members elected 
 by districts. The administrative func- 
 tions of the council would have been 
 
 exercised by a manager appointed by 
 the council at a salary of not less than 
 $12,000 a year. Only the district at- 
 torney, assessor, auditor, and judges 
 would have remained elective, and all 
 other city and county offices were to 
 ha\'e been con.solidated or abolished 
 entirely. In order to preserve a limited 
 amount of local autonomy for the sev- 
 eral cities and towns to be consolidated 
 a scheme of borough government was 
 to have been combined with the city- 
 coimty manager plan just described. 
 
 PROPOSED CITY AND COUNTY CONSOLI- 
 DATION, PORTLAND, OREGON 
 
 Since 1913 the question of the con- 
 solidation of the city of Portland and 
 the county of Multnomah has been 
 seriously agitated. This propaganda 
 led in 1919 to a movement, in which 
 fifteen civic organizations joined, for a 
 constitutional amendment to effect 
 consolidation. Committees were ap- 
 pointed by each of the cooperating 
 organizations, and after some weeks of 
 labor a proposed amendment was 
 evolved. A resolution authorizing the 
 submission of this amendment to the 
 \-oters was introduced in the state 
 senate in January, 1919, by the Mult- 
 nomah county delegation. It passed 
 the senate, but was defeated in the 
 lower house by the machinations of 
 hostile political interests. It was then 
 proposed to get it before the voters by 
 initiative petition, but this as yet has 
 not been done. 
 
 Had the amendment passed it would 
 have provided for the outright con- 
 solidation of the city of Portland, the 
 city of Gresham, the city of Fairview, 
 the city of Troutdale, the port of Port- 
 land, and county of Multnomah, all 
 school districts and road districts in 
 Multnomah county, into a single body 
 politic and corporate to be styled "The 
 City and County of Portland." 
 
250 
 
 NATIONAL MUM< IPAL RKMKW 
 
 [August 
 
 CONSOLIDATION MOVEaMENT IN LOS 
 ANGELES 
 
 The city of Los Angeles with its 
 environs south of tlie Sierra ^Lidre 
 mountains coni|)oses a metropolitan 
 district substantially unified in eco- 
 nomic and social interests, l)ut divided 
 politically into tliirty-eifjht munici- 
 palities, one hundred and eif;hty-seven 
 school districts, thirty-four lighting 
 districts, thirty-three roads districts, 
 three waterworks districts, two pro- 
 tection <listricfs and one county. The 
 population of this area is in the neigh- 
 borhood of 800,000. 
 
 Various forms of political integration 
 have been ad\-ocated for this metro])ol- 
 ilan area for many years, and many 
 investigations and stuilies have been 
 made by civic agencies and oflicial 
 bodies; but the net results have been 
 divided counsels and inability to unite 
 upon any definite plan of action. The 
 latest and most comi)rehensive survey 
 of the problem is the brochure pub- 
 lished by the 'i'ax])ayers' Association of 
 California in Octolu^r, 1917. This re- 
 port advocates the severance of the 
 metropolitan ilistrict from Los .\ngeles 
 county and the creation of a unitary 
 government of the manager type for 
 the consolidated munici[)alities. 
 
 No active campaign in behalf of this 
 plan has been midertaken, and recent 
 advices indicate that events are now 
 proceeding toward a different result. 
 The city of Los .Vngeles has established 
 an annexation and consolidation com- 
 mission, and this body is in process of 
 develoj)ing a consistent and compre- 
 hensive program of unification. The 
 policy is not aggressive, but educative. 
 The program, as the secretary of the 
 commission stales it, "consists of lend- 
 ing encouragement and a.ssistance in 
 such ways as we can to tho.se communi- 
 ties who of their own accord find rea- 
 sons that seem to argue for their be- 
 
 coming a part of the larger unit." To 
 this it might be added that the control 
 of the city of Ixis Angeles over the 
 water sujjply of the metrojwlitan area 
 and over the facilities for .sewage dis- 
 posal are such that many of the subur- 
 ban municipalities have no great dif- 
 ficulty in discovering most cogent and 
 compelling rea.sons for consolidation 
 with Los Angeles. 
 
 PROBLE.M OF ESSEX COINTY, NEW 
 JERSEY 
 
 One of the most peculiar local govern- 
 ment problems in the country is that of 
 Essez county. New Jersey. The county 
 has an area of 1'27 scpiare miles, but 
 ninety-six |>er cent of its poj)ulation is 
 in the metropolitan section lying east 
 of the Watchung ridge. Newark with 
 a |)opnlation of 414, '21G is the nucleus 
 of this metropolitan conunimily, but in 
 addition to Newark there are in the 
 metropolitan area eleven other nmnici- 
 jjalities whose aggregate population is 
 about '•2.57,000. Furthermore, this area 
 is subject to the go^■e^nment of Essex 
 county, to four stale-controlled in- 
 strumentalities for local go^•ernment, 
 and to fi\e administrative agencies ap- 
 jiointed by the courts. It was sjiid 
 tliat Newark is the nucleus of this 
 metroi)olitan area, but that is hardly 
 accurate. .Vlthough j)hysical contiguity 
 does bring alxjut considerable com- 
 munity of interest between Newark and 
 the outlying municipalities, several of 
 the latter, such as Kast Orange, (lien 
 Ridge, an<l Montclair, are tpiite as 
 innch residential suburbs of New ^'ork 
 as of .Newark. This fact tends to 
 weaken the conununity bond through- 
 out the metropolitan district and 
 engenders a fierce spirit of particular- 
 ism which is most difficult to combat. 
 
 .Vlthough there nuiy Ik- doubt 
 whether the social and economic 
 solidarity of the metropolitan portion 
 
1922] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 251 
 
 of Essex county is as great as in most 
 metropolitan centers, it is ne\-ertlieless 
 true that the absence of political unity 
 is tlie cause of many anomalous condi- 
 tions which give rise to civic ills. In 
 the summer of 191!) the New York 
 Biu-eau of Municipal Research at the 
 request of the Newark Chamber of 
 Commerce made an administrative 
 survej' which brought to light many of 
 the pernicious consecjuences of political 
 disintegration in Essex coimty.'" It 
 was found that comprehensive city 
 planning, a necessity if the metropoli- 
 tan district is to develop properly, 
 could not be carried out because of 
 inability of the several mmiicipalities to 
 cooperate; it was found that there was 
 costly and blundering duplication in 
 the handling of dependents, defectives, 
 and criminals; it was observed that the 
 fire hazard was greatly magnified by 
 the lack of standardization of. fire- 
 fighting equipment throughout the 
 metropolitan area; it was discovered 
 that highway imi^rovements were re- 
 tarded and unintelligentlydone because 
 of the multiplicity of conflicting politi- 
 cal jiu"isdictions; and it was found that 
 the public health was constantly im- 
 perilled by a multiplicity of diverse 
 health codes and regulations adminis- 
 tered by part-time health officers. 
 
 To cure these conditions the New 
 York Bureau of Municipal Research 
 
 i» This report has not been printed in fuU, but an 
 abstract of it was published by the Newark Chamber of 
 Commerce. 
 
 recommended the detachment of the 
 metropolitan and the rural sections of 
 Essex County, and the creation of some 
 sort of political unity in the former. 
 It was suggested that the governmental 
 machinery of Essex county be merged 
 with that set up for the metropolitan 
 area, and that the municipalities with- 
 in the metropolitan area should ferlerate 
 under some sort of super-government 
 which should have power to act in all 
 matters of general, as distinguished 
 from purely local concern. No definite 
 steps have been taken to put these 
 recommendations into effect, although 
 certain civic bodies and newspapers 
 have given them support. 
 
 UNIFICATION RECEIVING ATTENTION IN 
 OTHER CITIES 
 
 The question of consolidation of 
 local governments has received atten- 
 tion in a great many other cities where 
 the situation is probably cjuite as bad 
 as in the cases discussed above, but 
 where for one reason or another no 
 definite consolidation movement has 
 crystallized. Mention may be made 
 of Detroit, Buffalo, Indianapolis, Mil- 
 waukee, Cincinnati, Seattle, Jersey 
 City, Kansas City, Mo., Rochester, and 
 Wilmington, Delaware. Word has been 
 received also that a charter commission 
 has recently been chosen in San Diego, 
 California, to prepare a consolidated 
 city and county charter. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 It is extremely hazardous to attempt 
 to draw general conclusions from such 
 a large number of widely varying cases 
 as have been reviewed in the foregoing 
 pages. There are, however, certain 
 facts which ought, for the convenience 
 of the reader, to be brought together 
 in some sort of summary. 
 
 The first striking fact with reference 
 to the process of unification is that in no 
 instance has a metropolitan district 
 been able to compass its own unifica- 
 tion. Statutory and constitutional 
 obstacles have invariably made it neces- 
 sary to obtain legislation or constitu- 
 tional amendments, and in several cases 
 
252 
 
 NATION.\L 1VIUNICIP-\L REVIEW 
 
 [August 
 
 unification has been accomplished by 
 the fiat of these enactments. It is also 
 to be observetl that gradual consolida- 
 tion by occasional annexation of cluster- 
 ing municij)alities to a central one has 
 not been a successful mode of achie\-- 
 ing political integration. It will be 
 noted also that most of the cities now 
 striving for unification have statutorj* 
 or constitutional changes as the first 
 objective of their resi)eclive canijiaigns. 
 
 Another onlstauding fact is that 
 popular con.scnt to unification has 
 .seldom been deemed indispensable. 
 The only ca.ses in which the question 
 was squarely presented to all of the 
 people concerned were St. Louis and 
 Alameda County. The referendum 
 which preceded consolidation in New 
 York had no legal force, and the result 
 was open to various constructions. 
 The Pittsburgh referentlum was de- 
 signedly a trick election, although it 
 was held legally binding. The plebi- 
 scite in the case of Den^•er included the 
 voters of the entire state, which was in 
 effect taking the power to decide the 
 matter out of the hands of the city. 
 Apparently the spirit of the present 
 time is more democratic, for nearly all 
 of the cities now working for unification 
 contemplate a reference of the question 
 to the peojjle of the districts im- 
 mediately concerned. 
 
 In the matter of iiecimiary and pro- 
 prietary adjustments each case is siii 
 generis, but there is a general tendency 
 for the succeeding government to take 
 over all of the assets and assume all of 
 the obligations of its component i>arls. 
 
 Another significant fact is that in no 
 ease has unification been unaccompa- 
 nied by some kind of governmental re- 
 organization. Except in the case of 
 New York, it has l>een jMissible to re- 
 organize the government on a unitary 
 basis; but many cities now engaged in 
 campaigns for unification have Iwen 
 greatly attracted by the borough plan 
 
 as worked out in New York. \Miether 
 that plan would be adaptable to all 
 cases may be seriously doubted. It is 
 usually possible to nuike all proper and 
 needful concessions to local sentiment 
 without granting the local autonomy 
 incident to the borough plan. In the 
 reorganization of government follow- 
 ing the consolidation of cit\ and county, 
 there has been a noticeable reluctance 
 to go the whole distance in the elimina- 
 tion of duplication, and consequently 
 we find many amusing and incongruous 
 survi\als. 
 
 Extravagant claims of efficiency and 
 economy subsequent to political uni- 
 fication have been made everywhere, 
 but are exceedingly difficult to pin 
 down to hard facts. The simplification 
 of the organization of local government 
 and the elimination of superfluous of- 
 fices arid .services .should naturally re- 
 sult in great savings, but there have 
 been instances in which such savings 
 have been hard to find. The only ex- 
 planation of these cases, aside from 
 maladministration, is that unification 
 involved an enormous expansion of 
 municipal .services, which together with 
 the pre-existing heavy burden of debt 
 made a reduction of the cost of gov- 
 ernment impossible. Efficiency is im- 
 ponderable and difficult to measure, 
 but it may be assumed that certain 
 gains in efficiency have followed polit- 
 ical unification practically every- 
 where; it could not well I>e otherwise. 
 
 One gain about which there can be 
 little doubt is the amelioration of civic 
 conditions subsequent to jwlitical imi- 
 (ication of melropolitan conuntmities. 
 Klaborate jiublic impro\ement.s, better 
 articulation of thoroughfares, extended 
 and improved public utility services, 
 more comiirehensive and careful city 
 ))lanuing, more adecpiate educational 
 and eleenui.synary institutions, and 
 better governmental .service.s — these 
 are reported as the invariable results of 
 
Idii] THE POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITIES 253 
 
 political unification. And as these are 
 in a rough way a fair measure of the 
 material and spiritual progress of com- 
 munities, it seems not too much to 
 conclude that political integration is 
 
 indispensable to every metropolitaii' 
 community that aspires to attain its 
 maximum development as a center of 
 industrial, commercial and social ac- 
 tivity. 
 
 PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 
 
 Best Basis for the City Manager Plan 
 
 Send 25c for Ut. No. IO(How PR Works in Sacramento) 
 and new Ut. No. 5 (Explanation o( Hare System of P. R.) 
 
 Still better, join the Leisuc- Due., $2. pay for quarterly 
 Review and all other literature for year. 
 
 PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION LEAGUE 
 1417 LOCUST STREET, PHILADELPHIA 
 
 R. HUSSELMAN 
 
 Consulting Engineer 
 
 Design and Construction of Power Stations and 
 
 Lighting Sj-stems 
 
 Reports, Estimates and Specifications 
 
 Appraisals and Rate Investigations 
 
 Electric. Gas and Street Railway 
 
 CUYAHOGA BLOC. CLEVELAND, OHIO 
 
 CHAS. BROSSMAN 
 
 Mem.Am.Soc.C.E. Mem. Am.Soc. M.E. 
 
 Consulting Engineer 
 
 Water Works and Electric Light Plants 
 
 Sewerage and Sewage Disposal 
 Merchants Bank, Indianapolis, Ind. 
 
 GOVERNMENTAL SURVEYS 
 
 g-Tui 
 
 -Public Wo 
 
 -Kipei 
 
 J. L. JACOBS & COMPANY 
 
 Municipal Conmuitant* and Engineera 
 Monadnock Building, Chicago 
 
 p^r 11 «rs.' ezpf rtencetnCity.Countj, and Slate Studiaa) 
 
 SPEAKERS 
 
 The National Municipal League maintain.'! a list of per.sons in various 
 
 parts of the country prepared to make addresses on 
 
 city, county and state government. 
 
 Augustus R. Hatton, Ph.D., charter consultant for the 
 National Municipal League, is prepared to speak on the 
 subjects listed below. Dr. Hatton is a ,«ound and brilliant 
 speaker and campaigner. He is obtainable on a fee basis 
 subject to prior engagement. (Address National Municipal 
 League, 261 Broadway, New York.) 
 
 SUBJECTS 
 
 1. Representative Government. What is it? Do we want it.' Can we have it? 
 
 2. The Coming of Municipal Democracy. A discussion of the evolution of types of 
 city government with a frank evaluation of the strength and weaknesses of each. 
 
 3. The Problem of the Ballot, The evolution of the forms of voting and electoral 
 processes with their effects on popular government. 
 
 •t, American Free Cities. The experience of .\merican cities with constitutional 
 home rule, 
 
 5, Is Manager Government Applicable to Oiu' Largest Cities? Conducted as a 
 debate if desired, Dr, Hatton taking the affirmative, 
 
 6, Getting Results for the People's Money, Does it matter? How can it be brought 
 about? 
 
 7, ^\'hat Is Wrong with State Governments? An analysis of the problems of state 
 organization and administration with some suggested remedies for defects everywhere 
 admitted. 
 
A M 
 Pocl- 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WiLL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1 CO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 mt 9 1933 
 iiOV 10 1933 
 
 OCT 30 1937 
 
 A ^ 
 
 Tec 
 
 yj^ 
 
 \^n^ 
 
 "W^ 
 
 ^6&i 
 
 \^ 
 
 cO 
 
 Th" 
 
 OF THE 
 EAGUE 
 
 50 cents 
 -00 per hundred 
 unty GovCTn- 
 
 d Elections. 
 Enterprises. 
 
 25 cents 
 -.00 per hundred 
 
 tandardiza- 
 ' )lic Service, 
 al Primary. 
 ; City Plan. 
 Reorganiza- 
 
 ■)St for Street 
 
 ->ning. 
 lustrated.) 
 
 25 cents 
 25 cents 
 25 cents 
 25 cents 
 25 cents 
 
 joks 
 
 meut by Com- 
 -10. 
 indemnation. 
 
 Town Planning. $2.85. 
 City Planning. $2.60. 
 Satellite Cities. $2.60. 
 The Social Center. $2.60 
 The City Manager. $2.60 
 
 jon of Munici- 
 LD2l-100m-T,'aS $2.60. 
 
 12. The Initiative, Referendum 
 and Recall. $2.85. 
 
 13. Lower Living Costs In 
 Cities. $2.60. 
 
 14. Woman's Work in Munici- 
 palities. $2.60. 
 
 15. County Government. $2.10. 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 261 BROADWAY, NEW YORK 
 
 Annual Subscription , . 
 
 Free to Members of National Municipal League 
 
48330? 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
:■:^■>o^^'■:-v: \