UC-NRLf; 
 
 B 
 
 J s 
 
 4 
 
 \ 
 
 iliiiiii 
 
 *i Q a ^B 50 Single Num >ers, 25c. 
 
 •No. 4. , July, 1900. 
 
 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 Parsons. 
 
 WITH 
 
 THE REASONS FOR MUNICIPAL LIBERTY, 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND STATUTORY ENACTMENTS 
 
 LREADY ADOPTED TO SECURE SELF-GOVERNMENT IN LOCAL AFFAIRS, 
 
 AND, SUGGESTIONS 
 
 FOR IMPROVED AMENDMENTS AND STATUT ES 
 
 AND FOR 
 
 A MODEL CHARTER. : 
 
 No Copyright. 
 
 On the contrary, an invitation is extended to all to do their utmost 
 in every -way to spread the truths contained' lu the following pages. 
 Newspaper* and maga«ines are at liberty to quota as freely as they will, 
 due credit only being askt. 
 
 PUBLU.HT BY 
 
 C. K. TAYLOR 
 1520 Chestnut Street, Philadllphia, Pa, 
 
The Bondage of Cities 
 
 A REPRINT OF CHAPTER III, (WITH ORIGINAL PAGING FROM THE WORK EN- 
 TITLED "THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE," ON THE SUBJECT OF HOME 
 RULE FOR CITIES, SHOWING THE BONDAGE OF CITIES TO STATE 
 LEGISLATURES, WITH A DISCUSSION OF METHODS FOR 
 OBTAINING FREEDOM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT. 
 
 The whole subject REVISED and NfcW MATTER of much importance added. 
 
 BY 
 
 FRANK PARSONS 
 
 Lecturer in Boston University Law School; Member Boston Bar; Author of Parsons' Edition of Morse on Banks 
 and Banking ; Editor of May on Insurance, Perry on Trusts, and other legal works ; Professor of His- 
 tory and Political Science, and Dean of Kxtension Lecture Department College of ocial Science 
 President National League for Promoting Public Ownership of Monopolies; Member 
 International Co-Operative Union, American Social Science Association, and 
 National Institute of Art, Science and Letters ; Author of f The World's 
 Best Books," "The Power of the Ideal," "The New Political 
 Economy," " The Telegraph Monopoly " Chapters in 
 "Municipal Monopolies" of the Ely Economic 
 Series, etc., etc. 
 
 No Copyright. 
 
 On the contrary, an invitation is extended to all to do their utmost 
 in every way to spread the truths contained in the following pages. 
 Newspapers'and 'magazines are at liberty to quote as freely as they will, 
 due credironly being asked. 
 
 PUBLISHT BY 
 
 C. F. TAYLOR 
 
 1520XHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
CD 1^ 
 
 Lan- 
 guage is 
 a growth rather 
 than a creation. The 
 growth in our vocabulary 
 is seen in the vast increase in size 
 of our dictionaries during the past cen- 
 tury. This growth is not only in amount, but 
 among other elements of growth the written forms 
 of words are becoming simpler and more uniform. For 
 example, compare English spelling of a century or two cen- 
 turies ago with that of to-day ! It is our duty to encourage and ad- 
 vance the movement toward simple, uniform and rational spelling. See the 
 .recommendations of the Philological Society of London, and of the American 
 Fhi^oicgical Association, and list ot amended spellings, publisht in the Century 
 Dictionary (fallowing the letter z), and also in the Standard Dictionary, Webster's Die- ^ 
 tionary, and other authoritative works on language. The tendency is to drop silent letters in 
 .bwre of die mott flagrant instances, as ugh from though, etc., change ed to t in most places where 
 o pronounced (where ittloes not affect the preceding sound), etc. 
 
 The National Educational Association, consisting of ten thousand teachers, recom- 
 mend the following : 
 
 "At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the N. E. A. held in Washington, D. C., 
 July 7, 1898, the action of the Department of Superintendence was approved, and the list 
 of words with simplified spelling adopted for use in all publications of the N. E. A. 
 as follows : 
 
 tho (though); program (programme); 
 
 altho (although); catalog (catalogue); 
 
 thoro (thorough); prolog (prologue); 
 
 thorofare (thoroughfare); decalog (decalogue); 
 
 thru (through); demagog (demagogue); 
 
 thruout (throughout); pedagog (pedagogue). 
 
 "You are invited to extend notice of this action and to join in securing the general 
 
 adoption of the suggested amendments— IRWIN SHEPARD, Sec'y." 
 
 The publisher of this Series feels it a duty to recognize 
 
 the above tendency, and to adopt it in a 
 
 reasonable degree. 
 

 Chapter III. 
 HOME RULE FOR CITIES. 
 
 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES MUST CEASE. 
 
 Our Jaw classes cities with women as having no right to self- 
 government — a fact which may be regarded as affording legal 
 grounds for the custom of calling a city "she." A few illus- 
 trations will show how absolutely cities and towns are sub- 
 jected to the control of the state legislature. 
 
 1. One of the strongest illustrations of the severe State 
 paternalism to which our cities are subject is the fact that a 
 city of half a million people cannot connect two of its own 
 public buildings with an electric wire, the city being unable 
 to obtain legislative permission against the opposition of the 
 electric companies. Boston is the city of which I am speak- 
 ing. A little while ago she wished to run a wire from the 
 City Hall to the Old Court House, either over or under the 
 little back street 50 or 60 feet wide that lies between the two 
 buildings. The object was to enable the city to light the Old 
 Court House from the dynamo in City Hall. A bill was in- 
 troduced for the purpose, accompanied by petition of the 
 mayor of Boston (House Bill No. 747, 1898), but the electric 
 companies did not wish municipalities to use a dynamo in a 
 public building to operate lights outside of the building, and 
 the Legislature refused to pass the bill, and Boston cannot run 
 a wire between two of her own buildings over or under her 
 own street. 
 
 A municipality has no independent initiative of its own, and 
 it is the only human thing in America that hasn't got it. The 
 nation has a right of independent initiative in national affairs, 
 the state in state affairs, and the individual in individual affairs, 
 but the municipality must have permission from the legis- 
 lature for everything it does. 1 If Portland wants to establish 
 
 1 It is bad enough to hold life as a tenant at will, but even that might 
 be endurable if the ciiy were allowed to have the attributes of a living being 
 while entrustgd with existence. But, to have no power of self activity; to 
 be required to get permission to move /—that is unbearable. 
 
 387 
 
 46&0G4 
 
S8& 
 
 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 a gas plant, she must consult witn Augusta, and Bangor and 
 Dickey ville, and all the other towns and cities in the state, 
 and get the consent of their representatives in the legislature. 
 If Salem, learning of the great success of municipal telephone 
 exchanges in other countries, desires to build such a system 
 for herself, she must ask authority of a lot of men from Bos- 
 ton, Worcester, Springfield, Osterville, Lenox, etc., who 
 mostly know nothing about Salem, or municipal telephones 
 and are much more apt to feel an interest in the Bell Tele- 
 phone Company than in a municipal exchange in Salem. 
 When Syracuse wants to build an electric light plant, or a sub- 
 way, she must ask permission from a body of men representing 
 Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, New York, Brooklyn, Birming- 
 ham, Rynex's Comers, Smith's Mills, Phillips Creek, Pool- 
 ville, and all the other 3,000 cities and towns of the state, and 
 representing also, even more accurately perhaps, a large num- 
 ber of powerful corporations, whose interest it is to do all in 
 their power to prevent Syracuse or any other city or town 
 from establishing a municipal lighting plant, or taking any 
 steps in the direction of a municipal street railway. Such 
 undertakings are clearly beyond the individual sphere. Each 
 individual cannot build a street railway, or a telephone system 
 for himself. And they are not 'state interests. Albany and 
 Buffalo have nothing like a common interest with Rochester 
 in the water, gas, electric light, or telephone system of Roches- 
 ter, and should have nothing like equal powers of decision in 
 respect to the Rochester gas works, or telephone plant; yet, 
 under the present system, Buffalo and Albany have more to 
 say as to what shall be done with Rochester telephones and 
 gas pipes than Rochester herself. Yet the interest is dis- 
 tinctly local, and the final power of decision and right of con- 
 trol should be local, subject only to broad general pro- 
 visions, to give the people a firm grasp of the city government, 
 and secure deliberation, harmony and just dealing. 
 
 2. The legislature has such power over municipalities that 
 it can plan and construct the public buildings of a city without 
 reference to the wishes of the citizens, and then compel them 
 to pay for the work. In 1870, the legislature of Pennsylvania 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 389 
 
 arrived at the conclusion that Philadelphia should have a new 
 city hall; so it passed an act to that effect, naming certain gen- 
 tlemen as commissioners to erect the building, with absolute 
 power to create debts for that purpose, and require the levy of 
 taxes on the city for their payment. The act was held consti- 
 tutional, 1 and for about a quarter of a century the people of 
 Philadelphia have been paying enormous sums, millions more 
 than the buildings were fairly worth, for work they did not au- 
 thorize, and over which they have had no control, altho it con- 
 sisted simply of the construction of municipal buildings for 
 their own city — a remarkable example of the intense patern- 
 alism (to use the mildest word that suggests itself) to which 
 the law subjects municipalities. It would be deemed a very 
 strange thing for the legislature to say to an individual citizen: 
 "Mr. Smith, your old brick house is getting a trifle small for 
 "you and your servants, and isn't very handsome anyway ; you 
 "are able to build a palatial marble dwelling, and I guess we'd 
 "better have it done. I'll plan the thing, and see it con- 
 structed to suit my taste, and you can pay for it, as you are 
 "the one who will have to live in it." The courts would not 
 allow the legislature to act in this way toward a single indi- 
 vidual, but a million individuals who constitute a city must be 
 left, in such a case, entirely at the legislative mercy. 
 
 3. Another proof of municipal infancy is the fact that the 
 legislature may compel a city or town to pay a claim made 
 against it, altho such claim has been denied by the courts and 
 may have no foundation in law or justice. 2 If the legisla- 
 ture ordered Mr. Smith to pay Mr. Jones the amount of a 
 claim made by Jones upon Smith, which had been tried in the 
 courts and rejected, or if the legislature should order the 
 Boston & Albany, or the Pennsylvania Railroad, or the 
 Adams Express to pay such a claim, the courts would unhesi- 
 tatingly declare the act unconstitutional; but a million men 
 in a public corporation have almost no rights which the legis- 
 lature is bound to respect. 
 
 P) Peridns v. Slack, 86 Pa. 270 (1878). 
 
 C 2 ) 13 N. Y. 143. If the claim wore manifestly without any foundation, 
 lofral or moral, the legislative order might be held void ns amounting to taxa- 
 tion for private purposes (see G4 N. Y. 92, 99). But, if the baselessness of the 
 claim does not appear clearly on the face of the facts before the court, the 
 legislative order will stand. 
 
390 
 
 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 4. It is held that the legislature may take city water works, 
 or gas works, or other municipal properties entirely out of the 
 hands of the city, and give the management of them to state 
 officers. 1 
 
 5. A franchise granted by the legislature to a city or town 
 is not a contract. A franchise to establish, own and operate 
 ferries, water works, gas works, electric plants, street railways, 
 etc., is a franchise if granted to an association of stockholders 
 constituting a private corporation, and is protected by the 
 Federal Constitution, but is not a franchise if granted to an 
 association of individuals constituting a city, and is not pro- 
 tected by the constitution, or anything else, but may be taken 
 without compensation at the pleasure of the legislature. 2 
 
 6. The charter of a private corporation is held to be a con- 
 tract within the constitution, but the charter of a public cor- 
 poration is not. Municipal corporations are creatures of the 
 legislature. They have only such powers as may be given to 
 them by the legislature, which may, at its pleasure, alter, 
 abridge or annul their powers and privileges, divide them, or 
 consolidate two or more of them into one without their assent, 
 attach a condition to their continued existence, or abolish them 
 completely. 3 Imagine Congress passing an act to annex 
 Rhode Island to Connecticut, or divide ]STew York state, or 
 declare that Illinois shall no longer be a state! Yet such an 
 act enforced without the assent of the states affected would be 
 an apt parallel to the arbitrary powers possessed and exercised 
 by many of our legislatures in respect to cities. 
 
 These illustrations of municipal dependence seem sufficient 
 to justify the conclusion that our cities are in bondage — sub- 
 
 ( J ) 44 Oh. St. 348; 7 Houst. (Del.) 44; some courts hold otherwise— see 
 below. 
 
 ( 2 ; East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 How. (U. S.) 511. Legisla- 
 tive act taking away the Hartford ferry justified on the broad ground that 
 the grant of a franchise to a municipality is not a contract. See also 77 Va. 
 214, and compare 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 223. 
 
 (-) See 102 U. S. 472, 511; 93 U. S. 266; 4 Wheat. 518; 74 N. Y. 161, 166; 
 and Judge Dillon's famous legal text book on Municipal Corporations, §§54, 
 64, 85. 89.— the highest authority on the subject. 
 
 A municipality Is not only a creature of enumerated powers, but those 
 powers are for the most part strictly construed. It Is held tliat a munlclpaf 
 corporation can exerciae no powers except those granted to it In express 
 words, or necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers ex- 
 pressed, or indispensable to the declared objects and purposes of the cor- 
 poration, and "any reasonable doubt concerning the existence of the power 
 is resolved by the courts against the municipal corporation, and the power 
 la denied." Von Schmidt v. Widber, 105 Cal. 151, 157. 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 391 
 
 ject to external control in regard to matters which they ought 
 to have a right to decide for themselves. A state legislature 
 has no more right to impose its judgment upon a city in respect 
 to the local business affairs of that city than the Federal Gov- 
 ernment has to impose its judgment upon a particular state in 
 regard to the local affairs of that state. There is no more 
 sense or justice in requiring Baltimore to consult all the cities 
 and towns of the state as to what she shall do with her street 
 railways than there would be in requiring Mrs. Deland to con- 
 sult all the women in Boston and get permission before she 
 puts new paper on her hallways, or makes any other change 
 in her housekeeping. 
 
 THE REASONS FOR ALL THIS. 
 
 The reason sometimes given for the legislative power of 
 strangling a municipality is that it was created by the legisla- 
 ture, and as the breath of life was breathed into it by the state 
 authorities they have the right to withdraw the said breath at 
 their pleasure. On similar grounds a parent would have a 
 right to murder his child, and we should go back to the 
 Roman plan of placing the power of life and death in the head 
 of the family. Moreover, private corporations, as well as 
 public, are created by the legislature and if creation confers 
 a right of limitless modification even to dissolution in the one 
 case, why not in the other? Finally, cities and towns are not 
 created by the legislature. They may exist and frequently 
 have existed without any legislature, and before there was any 
 legislature. Their existence gives them the right of local 
 self government. People living together in the same locality 
 have a right to associate themselves for the accomplishment of 
 common purposes, and to control their local affairs without 
 ■dictation from distant cities and without permission from any 
 legislature. The legislature may use cities and towns to ac- 
 complish state purposes, and in that relation may properly 
 mold their governments and functions; but it has no more 
 right to deprive them of freedom and self control in local mat- 
 ters than congress has to deprive a state of its freedom and 
 self control in internal concerns. 
 
392 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 The real reason for the present state of municipal law 
 appears to be a failure of the law so far to embody in its phil- 
 osophy, with sufficient fullness and precision, the fundamental 
 distinction between the functions of cities and towns as state 
 agencies for enforcing state laws, and their functions as local 
 business concerns. When the principles of the Common Law 
 were crystalizing, the functions of municipalities were almost 
 entirely confined to the first class, and the doctrine naturally 
 grew up that municipalities were merely creatures of the state, 
 doing a part of the state's work, and subject entirely to the 
 state's orders — a doctrine fairly reasonable as long as muni- 
 cipal functions were confined to keeping order, administering 
 justice, attending to education and other state interests, but 
 wholly inappropriate in reference to the ownership and man- 
 agement of water works, gas works, electric light works, street 
 railway systems, lodging houses, wharves,, ferries, printing 
 establishments, telephone exchanges, baths, and other local 
 business enterprises that have crept into the municipal field. 
 The precedent-loving law has clung to the rule of former 
 times, bending a little in the strong hands of two or three 
 liberal courts, but with no due regard as a rule for the modi- 
 fication required by the changes of modern life. 
 
 "We may set it down as a reasonably certain conclusion, I 
 think, that the sweeping subjection of cities to legislative 
 authority that characterizes our law appears to arise from 
 the failure to distinguish between the two spheres of municipal 
 activity. So far as the municipality is an agent of the state 
 to carry out state policy in respect to state interests, such as 
 education, order, administration of justice, protection from 
 disease, etc., large control by the legislature is right; but so 
 far as the municipality is a local co-operative business 
 concern, the legislature should have no more power over it 
 than it has over any other individuals or corporations engaged 
 in similar business. 
 
 LIMITATIONS ON THE LEGISLATURE. 
 
 In spite of the law's rigidity, and the powerful trend in the 
 past toward state absolutism in municipal affairs, some notches 
 have been cut in this legislative omnipotence. 
 
HOME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 39S 
 
 1. Taxation must be for a public purpose, and one that per- 
 tains to the district taxed. 
 
 2. The legislature cannot deprive a city of the use of ite 
 private property, such as water works, gas plants, etc. Even 
 if a city or town is abolished, such property rights are not de- 
 stroyed but go to the state in trust for the inhabitants of the 
 municipal area. The management of the property may be- 
 taken away, but not the use of it. 
 
 3. A few courts hold that the legislature cannot take away 
 the management of "private" property from the municipality,, 
 there being an inherent right to local management and control 
 of local business, and local selection of the officers who are to 
 administer such business. 
 
 Inherent Right of Local Self-government. 
 
 In People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44 (1871). Chief Justice Campbell 
 and Justices Cooley and Christiancy held that the legislature could 
 not appoint a board of public works to control the public building's, 
 pavements, sewers, water works, engine houses, etc., in the city of 
 Detroit, altho no express provision of the constitution neg-atived 
 the act. The court held that there is "a clear distinction between 
 "what concerns the state and that which does not concern more- 
 "than one locality." 
 
 A municipal government has two sets of functions. It is a state- 
 agency to attend to state affairs in its locality, and it is a municipal 
 agency to attend to business of a local nature, such as water works r 
 fire service, etc. In its sphere of state agency, the legislature may- 
 control it except where express constitutional provisions may inter- 
 vene. But the people of a city or town have a right to the manage- 
 ment of their local concerns, and the selection of their local officers- 
 who are to control such concerns, and this right cannot be taken 
 from them by the legislature, for it rests upon the principle of 
 self-government, which is inherent in free institutions, and un- 
 derlies the constitution as the purpose for which the constitution 
 was established. 
 
 Chief Justice Campbell and Justices Cooley and Christiancy gave* 
 the matter great consideration and rendered separate opinions all 
 based upon the principle that local self-government of local affairs- 
 is an essential part of our system. "The history of the country 
 "and the nature of our institutions" show "the vital importance- 
 "which in all the states has so long- been attached to local muni- 
 cipal governments by the people of such localities, and their rig-hts> 
 "of self-government." 
 
 Chief Justice Campbell distinguishes People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich- 
 492, where the validity of an act establishing state control of city 
 
394 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 police is sustained, saying the question was "whether the police 
 "board is a state or municipal agency," and added, "I think it is 
 
 "clearly an agency of the state government There is a 
 
 ""clear distinction in principle between what concerns the state and 
 
 "that which does not concern more than one locality There 
 
 "is no dispute concerning the character of the public works act. 
 "Its purposes are directly and evidently local and municipal." He 
 decided that the municipality could not be deprived of the right 
 to choose the men who should manage its public works. "Our con- 
 stitution," he said, "cannot be understood or carried out at all, 
 
 "except on the theory of local self-government The 
 
 "confusion existing on this subject has arisen from the custom 
 "prevalent under all free governments of localizing all matters of 
 "public management as far as possible, and of making use of local 
 "corporate agencies whenever it can be done profitably, not only 
 ""in local government, but also for purposes of state." (pp. 81, 84, 
 •89.) 
 
 Judge Cooley made an extensive review of the pertinent historic 
 facts and general principles, and concluded against the "legislative 
 "power to appoint for municipalities the officers who are to manage 
 "the property, interests and rights in which their own people are 
 "alone concerned. The municipality as an agent of government, is 
 "one thing; the corporation as an owner of property is, in some 
 "particulars, to be regarded in a very different light. . . In the 
 "case before us, the offices in question involve the custody, care, 
 "management and control of the pavements, sewers, water works, 
 "and public buildings of the city, and the duties are purely local. 
 "The state at large may have an interest in an intelligent, honest, 
 "upright, and prompt discharge of them, but this is on commercial 
 "and neighborhood grounds, rather than political." (pp. 103, 104, 
 105.) 
 
 In Board of Park Commissioners v. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228 (1873), 
 where the legislature appointed state officers to buy land and im- 
 prove it for a park for, and at the expense of, the city of Detroit, 
 Judge Cooley said: "We affirm that the city of Detroit has the 
 "right to decide for itself upon the purchase of a public park. . . . 
 "It is as easy to justify, on principle, a law which permits the rest 
 "of the community to dictate to an individual what he shall eat, 
 "and what he shall drink, and what he shall wear, as to show any 
 "constitutional basis for one under which the people of other parts 
 "of the state dictate to the city of Detroit what fountains shall be 
 "erected at its expense for the use of its citizens, or at what cost 
 "it shall purchase, and how it shall improve and embellish, a park 
 "or boulevard for the recreation and enjoyment of its citizens." 
 <Pp. 241, 242.) 
 
 A passage from the opinion of the same judge in the former case, 
 24 Mich, at 97, is interesting in connection with the last quotation. 
 "The doctrine," says the learned judge, "that within any general 
 ^'grant of legislative power by the constitution there can be found 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 395 
 
 ^authority thus to take from the people the management of their 
 "local concerns, and the choice, directly or indirectly, of their local 
 "officers, if practically asserted, would be somewhat startling- to our 
 ""people, and would be likely to lead hereafter to a more careful 
 "scrutiny of the charters of government framed by them lest some- 
 "time, by an inadvertent use of words, they might be found to have 
 "conferred upon some agency of their own, the legal authority to 
 "take away their liberties altogether." 
 
 The Michigan constitution says, Art. XV, §14, that "judicial 
 "officers of cities and villages shall be elected, and all other officers 
 "shall be elected or appointed, at such time and in such manner, 
 "as the legislature may direct," but the Michigan judges hold that 
 in the light of history and fundamental principle, the election or 
 appointment of municipal officers proper must be by local authority 
 in such time and manner as the legislature may direct. 
 
 In State v. Denny, 118 Ind. 382 (1888), an act creating a board of 
 public works to be appointed by the legislature, and to have con- 
 trol over streets, alleys, sewers, water works and lights, was held 
 invalid as infringing the right of local self-government inherent in 
 municipal corporations under our system of free institutions. The 
 right of local self-government ante-dated the constitution, and was 
 not surrendered by it. Judge Coffey, citing Cooley on Constitu- 
 tional Limitations, 5th ed., page 208, says: 
 
 "It does not follow that in every case the courts, before they 
 "can set aside a law as invalid, must be able to find in the consti- 
 tution some specific inhibition which has been disregarded 
 
 "If the authority to do an act has not been granted by the sover- 
 eign to its representatives, it cannot be necessary to prohibit its 
 "'being done" (pp. 394-395). The Court continues: "The constitu- 
 tion must be considered in the light of the local and state govern- 
 
 "ments existing at the time of its adoption The principles 
 
 "of local self-government constitute a prominent feature in both 
 ""the federal and state governments. ... It existed before the 
 "creation of any of our constitutions, national or state, and all of 
 "them must be deemed, to have been formed in reference to it, 
 
 ""whether expressly recognized in them or not The object 
 
 "'of granting to the people of a city municipal powers is to give 
 "them additional rights and powers to better enable them to govern 
 "'themselves, and not to take away any rights they possessed before 
 "'such grant was made. It may be true that as to such matters as 
 •"the state has a peculiar interest in, differing from that relating 
 "'to other communities, it may, by proper legislative action, take 
 "'control of such interests; but, as to such matters as are purely 
 "'local, and concern only the people of that community, they have 
 "'the right to control them subject only to the general laws of the 
 "'state, which affect all the people of the state alike. The construc- 
 tion of sewers in a city, the supply of gas, water, fire protection, 
 "'and many other matters that might be mentioned, are matters in 
 "which the local community alone are concerned, and in which the 
 
 i 
 
396 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 "state has no special interest more than it has in the health and 
 "prosperity of the people generally, and they are matters over 
 "which the people affected thereby have the exclusive control, and 
 "it cannot, in our opinion, be taken away from them by the legis- 
 lature." 
 
 In Evansville v. State, 118 Ind. 426 (1888), it was held that an 
 act placing" the police and fire departments of certain cities, and 
 the property connected therewith, under the exclusive control of 
 State commissioners was void as a denial of the right of local self- 
 government. The court says that securing an efficient police 
 department is a State purpose, but the remainder of the act affected 
 purely local concerns (p. 437). 
 
 This Michigan doctrine of the inherent right of local selec- 
 tion of officers and management of property guarantees self- 
 government within the sphere of local business permitted by 
 the charter, but the charter itself is subject to limitation or re- 
 peal at the will of the legislature, and there is at best no power 
 of initiating a business or policy beyond the foreordained enu- 
 merations and permissions of the charter. Moreover, the 
 courts that take this position are few. The great majority 
 hold, with Ohio and Delaware, that the legislature may take 
 city property out of the hands of the city, and give its control 
 to state officials. 1 
 
 (*) The reasoning by which this course Is sustained Is well expressed In 
 148 Mass. 375. at 383-6. "It Is suggested, tho not much Insisted on, that the 
 statute of 1885, c. 323, is unconstitutional, because it takes from the city 
 the power of self-government in matters of internal policy. We find no 
 provision in the constitution with which it conflicts, and we cannot declare 
 an act of the legislature invalid because It abridges the exercise of the 
 privilege of local self-government in a particular in regard to which such 
 privilege is not guaranteed by any provision of the constitution." 
 
 The court then referred to constitutional provisions to make "wholesome 
 regulations," etc., and to "erect municipalities" and "grant powers," etc. 
 The constitution did not say the legislature could take away powers once 
 granted, but this was held to be the case by the court which continued as 
 follows: 
 
 "Under these provisions," as is said by C. J. Chapman: 'There can be no 
 doubt that the power to create, change and destroy municipal corporations is 
 In the legislature. This power has been so Jong and so frequently exercised nion 
 counties, towns and school districts, in dividing them, altering their boundary 
 lines, increasing and diminishing their powers, and in abolishing some of 
 them, that no authorities need be cited on this point. The constitution does 
 not establish these corporations, but vests in the legislature a general juris- 
 diction over the subject by its grant of power to make wholesome laws, as it 
 shall judge to be for the general good and welfare of the commonwealth.' 
 It 'may amend these charters, enlarge or diminish their powers, extend or 
 limit their boundaries, consolidate two or more into one, and abolish tliem 
 altogether, at its own discretion.' " 
 
 "We have no doubt that the legislature has the right in its discretion to 
 "change the powers and duties created by itself, and to vest such powers and 
 "duties in officers appointed by the governor, * * * instead of leaving 
 "such officers to be elected by the people, or appointed by the municipal 
 "authorities." 
 
 The law under consideration In this case established a state police for 
 Boston, and so was not within the limits of the Michigan and Indiana 
 decisions, but the reason covered the whole field, and is often referred to as 
 authority against the Michigan doctrine. 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 397 
 
 4. In some states, constitutional provisions have been 
 adopted securing more or less municipal freedom as a right; 
 and, as a matter of fact our legislatures accord municipalities 
 a considerable degree of self-control, tho only as a courtesy, 
 subject to recall at the pleasure of the legislature except where 
 the Michigan Doctrine or the constitutional provisions just 
 mentioned, interfere with State absolutism. (See diagrams 
 below, Tables I and II.) 
 
 THE GENERAL SITUATION. 
 
 Summing up the situation it appears to be as follows: 
 
 1. Cities have no independent initiative of their own. They 
 belong to the dependent and defective classes. 
 
 2. They have as a rule no recognized right to choose their 
 own officers. 
 
 3. They have as a rule no recognized right to control and 
 manage their own property. 
 
 4. They have no recognized right to continued existence — 
 no recognized right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. 
 
 5. Neither a franchise grant, nor the charter as a whole, is 
 regarded as a contract, or within the protection of the Federal 
 Constitution. 
 
 6. Cities cannot be taxed except for a public purpose, and 
 one that pertains to the district taxed. 
 
 7. The people in the municipal area have a right to the use 
 of the business property of the municipality, and perhaps of 
 its public property also. 
 
 8. Some courts recognize an inherent right In municipali- 
 ties to control their business property and manage their local 
 affairs, and elect their own officers to exercise such control and 
 management. 
 
 9. In fact, considerable local self-control exists by legisla- 
 tive permission as a revocable courtesy. 
 
 10. In some states, the prevailing rules of law as to muni- 
 cipal subjection have been altered by constitutional provisions, 
 and there is a strong movement of thought in favor of such 
 modification. (See diagrams and explanation.") 
 
398 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 CONSEQUENCES OF MUNICIPAL DEPENDENCE. 
 
 Some of the consequences of the present condition of muni- 
 cipal law are: — 
 
 First. A chaotic mass of legislation and decisions, mighty 
 in bulk, complexity and conflict of opinion, but weak in the 
 definite simplicity, uniform interpretation, and steady har- 
 mony with fundamental principles that characterize the per- 
 fect law. 
 
 Second. An eternal running to the legislature for special 
 legislation. • Turning to a pile of notes on special laws, the 
 first sheets I pick up contain a list of twenty acts passed by 
 the Virginia legislature in one year to authorize the building 
 of wharves by persons named in the acts. Here are a few 
 specimens. They are all substantially alike. 
 
 Major W. Pilchard to erect a wharf at Greenbackville. 
 
 C. W. Warner allowed to erect a wharf. 
 
 Tomlin Braxton to erect a wharf in King" William. 
 
 R. H. Atkerson to erect a wharf on Chuckatuck Creek, etc. 
 
 Taking another random handful of papers, I find a mass of 
 local laws enacted in Mass. in 1896, '97 and '93. Look in the 
 index of any Mass. blue book under the titles "Cities" and 
 "Towns" and you will find materials enough for a lengthy ser- 
 mon on special legislation. In 1896, there were 49 special 
 acts relating to street railways in 5 cities and 44 towns, and 25 
 acts about water, 8 relating to cities and 17 to towns. Those 
 are only two items. In 1897, there were 130 entries under 
 Cities, only 7 of them general laws. In 1898 there were 255 
 entries under "Cities" and "Towns" and only 18 of them re- 
 ferred to general laws. A considerable number of the special 
 acts relate to municipal water works, and another large group 
 consists of acts permitting some railway to lay its tracks in some 
 town or city. Here are a few examples of what Mass. can do 
 in the way of special legislation : — 
 
 Barre, the Barre St. By. Co. may lay its tracks and operate its 
 railway in, 
 
 Belchertown may accept a certain bequest. 
 
 Berkley, water supply. 
 
 Blandford, the Hudson Bv. & B. Bd. Co. may construct its rail- 
 road thru . (There are many of these Bd. acts.) 
 
HOME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 399> 
 
 North Adams hospital may establish a school for training nurses. 
 
 Beverly, draw in Essex bridge may be relocated. 
 
 Boston, Aberdeen street may be laid out and occupied as a public 
 highway. 
 
 Boston may accept legacy of John L. Randidge. 
 
 Boston may grant a pension to John Rogers. 
 
 Boston may pay a sum of money to widow of C. L. 
 
 Boston may relocate Chilmark street. 
 
 Boston may pay a sum of money to widow of John (several 
 
 such acts). 
 
 Boston, sale of old public library building. 
 
 Boston, extension of Cove street. 
 
 Brockton, name of Franklin Meth. Epis. Chapel changed to the 
 Franklin Meth. Epis. Church. 
 
 Brockton, Taunton and Brockton St. Ry. may operate cars in, 
 
 Edgartown, taking of eels in oyster pond in, 
 water supply for. 
 
 New Bedford, Board of Public Works of, may elect a clerk. 
 
 Northfield, a bridge to be constructed in, 
 
 Somerville, appointment of certain members of fire depart- 
 ment in, 
 
 Springfield, salary of justice of police court in, 
 
 Wayland, bridge in may be removed. 
 
 Orange, the Orange & E. Street Railway may construct its rail- 
 way in, 
 
 These are from '97. A few from the long lists of '98 will 
 show that the quality is about the same from year to year. 
 
 Boston may pay a sum of money to (many such acts). 
 
 Boston, to change the name of Penitent Female Refuge, 
 
 Boston, relative to Bennington street in, 
 
 Boston, widening of Rutherford avenue. 
 
 Boston, relative to alleys in, 
 
 Boston may finish the construction of its public parks. 
 
 Bourne, the Plymouth & Sandwich St. Ry. Co. may construct and 
 
 operate its road in (many such acts), 
 Chicopee, filling of vacancies in board of aldermen. 
 Falmouth, water supply for (a number of such laws), 
 Salem, appointment of assistant assessors in, 
 Revere, election of selectmen in, 
 Taunton, custody of shade trees in, 
 
 West Newbury may appropriate money for constructing a wharf, 
 Windsor, may construct a telephone line to Dalton. 
 
 No wonder Governor Russell advocated an enlargement of 
 the powers of municipalities. In his address to the Mas?, 
 legislature, Jan. 8, 1891, pp. 24 to 26, he says: — 
 
400 
 
 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 "Much special legislation is enacted in behalf of cities and towns 
 "and is made necessary by their limited powers. Twenty-th^ee 
 "cities and forty-one towns were the subjects of special acts at 
 "the last legislature. In my opinion, greater powers can be given 
 "to cities and towns with safety and advantage, not only as- a relief 
 "to the legislature, but as a just and proper extension of local self- 
 "goveimment." Speaking of the terms and conditions on which 
 street franchises should be granted, and of an act that passed the 
 House requiring the sale at auction of such franchises, he says: 
 "In my judgment, each community is best fitted, has the right and 
 "ought to have the power, to determine this question for itself;" 
 and he recommended the passage of a law allowing each muni- 
 cipality to fix the terms on which such grants should be made. 
 
 In his address of January 7, 1892, page 42, he again recommend! 
 the "extension of the powers of cities and towns and of local self- 
 "government, especially in matters of taxation, control and sale of 
 "franchises, and extending the limits of municipal work and of 
 "municipal ownership." 
 
 And finally, in his address to the legislature, January 5, 1893, 
 page 12, et seq., under the caption "Eight of Local Self-Government 
 in Town and City," the governor said: "The right of self-govern- 
 "ment is an axiom uf our political system. Wherever this right 
 "can be exercised directly by the people themselves, such exercise 
 "should be carefully conserved. . . Due regard for the right of 
 "loca^ self-government requires not only non-interference by the 
 "State in the purely local affairs of cities and towns, but also the 
 "grant to them of greater powers in order that there may be the 
 "most successful treatment and control of the ever increasing prob- 
 lems of local concern. A reference to the acts of last year shows 
 "that nearly one-third of its four hundred and forty acts were 
 "special laws passed on the application of twenty-five cities and 
 "eighty-five towns [in respect to little local matters], and there 
 "were also eighty-seven special acts relating to other corporations," 
 and he repeated his recommendations of former years for the sake 
 of progress, for the relief of the legislature, and as a matter of 
 justice and right. 
 
 The Fassett Committee appointed in 1890 by the New York 
 Senate to investigate municipal government in that state 
 found that in 6 years, 1884 to 1889 inclusive, the New York 
 legislature passed 1234 acts relating to the 30 cities of the state 
 —390 of the acts affecting the city of New York. In 1886, 
 280 out of 681 statutes were local municipal laws. (See Sen. 
 Rep. Fassett Com. 1891, Yol. Y, p. 459.) For examples of 
 New York special legislation, see Appendix II, S. 
 
 In Wisconsin in 1895 the General Laws occupied a volume 
 of 812 pages and "City Charters and their Amendments" 
 filled a second volume of 1360 pages. As specimens of some 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 401 
 
 of the local measures that absorb the attention of Wisconsin 
 legislators, we may name an act providing that bath houses 
 may be maintained at Hicks Lake, and an act to amend the 
 charter of Milwaukee in respect to sprinkling the streets. 
 In the Minnesota statutes of the last session (1897) I find: 
 
 Cities are authorized to compromise and settle claims. 
 Empowered to repair market houses and city property. 
 Authorized to issue bonds for water works, hospitals, etc. 
 Time for payment of local improvement assessments extended. 
 Empowered to prevent fights, disorderly conduct, etc. 
 Empowered to change abandoned cemeteries into parks. 
 Empowered to take bequests in trust for public libraries. 
 Cities over 50,000 authorized to buy any water plant or combined 
 
 water and light plant in operation in such city. 
 Fire limits may be prescribed by Councils, etc., etc. 
 
 Think of it! A city has to have legislative permission to 
 compromise and settle a claim, to repair its own property, to 
 change its own cemetery into a park, buy a water or light 
 plant, or take a bequest for a public library! 'No individual 
 of age and apparent discretion, nor any association of indi- 
 viduals whatever, except a municipality, would think, of asking 
 permission to repair its own property — but a city or town — 
 well, it would ask permission to sneeze if it needed to perform 
 that operation; it can't even stop a fight legally till the legisla- 
 ture says it may. 
 
 A large part of our state legislation consists of acts that deal 
 with, insignificant local matters that should be left under gen- 
 eral laws, to the discretion of municipal and county authori- 
 ties. In Massachusetts more than a hundred towns and cities 
 apply in a single year for special legislation in their behalf to 
 the great overburdening of committees, the dissipation of legis- 
 lative energy, the decision of numberless local questions by 
 men who know little or nothing about the case, the prevention 
 of due consideration of important State affairs, the general 
 distraction of attention and encouragement of loose methods 
 of passing laws, or allowing them to pass without finding out 
 whether they ought to pass, and the serious congestion of the 
 statute book, entailing on the public treasury the needless cost 
 of printing hundreds of laws for the State every year, when 
 
402 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 an entry on the books of a city, town, or county, would do just 
 as well, or better. 
 
 The New Jersey General Statutes, 1895. contain seven 
 special acts as to cities besides numberless fragments affecting 
 them more or less. There is an act concerning cities of the 
 first class, or those over 100,000 population; another as to 
 cities of the second class between 12,000 and 100,000, another 
 as to third class cities, all those not in the first or second 
 class, except Sea-side resorts; another as to Sea-side resorts; 
 another relating to cities between 6,000 and 10,000; another 
 about cities below 5,000; and another as to cities generally. 
 There is an enormous amount of repetition — the councils have- 
 powers that are similar to a large extent in the different 
 groups, but there is difference enough so that it is almost im- 
 possible to tell just what the authority of a particular city is 
 under any given circumstances — quite impossible without em- 
 ploying a lawyer to investigate the statutes and decisions. The 
 General Statutes are composed of three big volumes containing 
 4,098 enormous pages — over 1,200 words to a page, and 
 nearly 5,000,000 words altogether, and every legislative ses- 
 sion adds another book of laws ; 30 of the giant pages are given 
 to a dissertation on oysters and clams, and 400 pages, or nearly 
 50,000 words are devoted to cities and towns, besides the quan- 
 tities of scraps, to exhaust which one must search the imper- 
 fectly indexed volumes under 40 or 50 heads. 
 
 This egregious violation of the laws of liberty and decen- 
 tralization, burdening the legislature with a mass of local con- 
 cerns about which they know little, and care little, taking their 
 time and attention from the broad interests they ought to deal 
 with, diminishing their respect for and interest in law mak- 
 ing, subjecting local business to irresponsible "foreign" con- 
 trol, and depriving municipalities of the benefits of self-gov- 
 ernment, constitutes one of the great evils of our time. 
 
 Third. Another result of our present system is a great lack 
 of elasticity and spontaneity in municipal action. 
 
 Fourth. The absence of municipal independence cripples 
 local patriotism, creates a disastrous apathy in many honest 
 citizens, forfeits the educational development that comes of 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 403 ; 
 
 earnest attention to public questions. The people do not 
 manifest the interest in local business, especially in the larger 
 cities, which they would manifest if the right of decision and 
 initiative rested with them. As the Fassett Committee says: 
 "Our cities have no real local autonomy, local self-govern- 
 ment is a misnomer, and consequently so little interest is felt 
 in matters of local business that in almost every city in the 
 state it has fallen into the hands of professional politicians." ** 
 As Prof. Goodnowsays, in subtance: "The indifference Which, 
 has been too evident in many of our large municipalities, has- 
 undoubtedly been due in part to the feeling of the people that 
 their efforts were of little avail. Citizens have little motive 
 or encouragement to act in New York when they know that 
 their efforts can be at any time, and as a matter of fact have 
 frequently been, frustrated at Albany."** 
 
 Fifth. Municipal dependence helps the politicians and! 
 lingsters not merely thru the apathy it causes, but also by* 
 shifting the scene of action to a field where corruption wins 
 more easily in respect to city affairs than it usually would in 
 the city itself. It is easier to persuade Mr. B. to favor a bill 
 that will take money out of A's pocket than it is to persuade 
 A to favor that bill. Mr. rJ., representative from Cleveland 
 draws up a bill to extend the franchise of a street railway com- 
 pany for which he is counsel. The representative from Col- 
 umbus, S, has a bill to establish a state commission to control 
 the city's water supply on the understanding that he, S, will 
 be appointed commissioner. Mr. Z, of Cincinnati, is engaged 
 in a law suit which will become more hopeful for him if a 
 law is enacted changing the remedy in that class of cases, and 
 so he introduces a bill for that purpose. In one case a legis- 
 lator who kissed a woman on the street without permission, 
 and was sued for damages, introduced a bill to the effect that 
 the damages for kissing a woman on the street should not ex- 
 ceed $250 — the woman was pretty and he feared the jury 
 might give her heavy damages. Mr. X, of Toledo, has an equ- 
 ally public spirited measure on hand and so have other repre*- 
 
 ♦(Senate Rep. Fassett Com., 1891, Vol. V., p. 13.) 
 ** Polit. Sc. Quar., March, '95. 
 
404 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 sentatives. X. says to S. Z. X. & Co. : "You vote for my bill, 
 and Til vote for yours." "All right," say S. Z. X. & Co. 
 Some members vote as X. wishes because they are friends of 
 bis, and have no interest in the Cleveland matter, and don't 
 know anything about it, and don't care. Other members are 
 too busy to pay any attention to the bill, tho it is part of the 
 business they are paid to attend to. So altogether, by negli- 
 gence, indulgence, log-rolling, and pressure of influence, and 
 of money if need be, many municipal and other measures are 
 enacted, which have no public purpose for a motive, but exist 
 for private advantage and profit. In this way, scheming men 
 are able, thro legislative influence, to secure the creation of 
 lucrative offices to be sustained at city expense, to line their 
 pockets with the people's money under color of municipal con- 
 tracts and public works which a really self-governing city 
 would never have authorized, and to obtain valuable fran- 
 chises in relation to water, gas, electricity, transit, etc., without 
 remuneration to the city whose streets are used, and often 
 without the consent of the people or their municipal agents. 
 And it happens not infrequently ^hat a state senator or repre- 
 sentative from a city becomes, thru his power in the legisla- 
 ture, the virtual ruler of that city, subject of course to the big 
 politicians and bosses, like Croker, Piatt, Quay, Hanna, etc., 
 who can control not only cities, but anything else the legisla- 
 ture has a right to act upon, except, perhaps, a great railroad 
 or a giant monopoly. These industrial bosses and political 
 bosses understand each other so well that we have not had a 
 chance to see which would win in a fight to the finish. 
 
 Sixth. The path of progress and reform is obstructed or 
 blocked by the inertia consequent on the necessity of fighting 
 every upward measure thru the legislature against the force 
 of antagonistic private interests, the indifference of over- 
 crowded and more or less alien legislators, and the weighty 
 lack of local patriotism and public spirit due to municipal 
 dependence. 
 
 Sometimes the private interests opposed to municipal pro- 
 gress form a state wide union to resist with their whole power 
 tny measure looking toward reform in any city. When a 
 
HOME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 405 
 
 bill was brought before the New York legislature to authorize 
 a municipal subway in Syracuse, a prominent lobbyist told the 
 mayor of Syracuse that he was wasting his time working for 
 the bill; it might pass the legislature but it would not become 
 law; it would be killed either in the legislature or afterward, 
 for all the electric companies in the state had put funds in j» 
 pool in the hands of a lobbyist he knew (and named) to be 
 used against any bill tending toward public ownership. In 
 this case, the bill passed the legislature, but died in the Gov* 
 ernor's hands. 
 
 The lack of home rule hinders development in other ways 
 than those already mentioned. For example, Governor Pin- 
 gree tells me that if Detroit had possessed home rule a few 
 years ago, it would have been possible to accept the offer made 
 by a responsible syndicate to run all the street railways of the 
 city as one system on a uniform 2^ cent fare with free trans- 
 fers, and pay the interest on the sum expended by the city in 
 obtaining possession of the roads under the right of eminent 
 domain. It was a splendid offer, but Detroit was still in her 
 nonage, she could not act for herself, and the legislature was 
 not in session, and, if it had been, a long and costly fight with 
 the companies would have been necessary, with defeat for the 
 city perhaps at the end. The Governor knows whereof he 
 speaks, for he spent $75,000 of his own money fighting corpor- 
 ations while he was Mayor of Detroit. 
 
 THE REMEDY. 
 
 The cure for the evils of municipal dependence is muni- 
 cipal independence. A certain amount of dependence is good 
 — essential to state and national organization, and the co- 
 ordination of effort for wide purposes; but over-dependence 
 is an evil, and the excess should give place to independence. 
 Instead of having to get permission for every move in local 
 concerns, municipalities should be free under general regu- 
 lations, to act in any way they please so long as they do not 
 conflict with superior law. This we may call Ue Manhood 
 Principle, as distinguished from the Infancy Principle, 
 whereby the child, or municipality, acts by permission. This 
 
400 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 rule would give municipalities a strong initiative, a power of 
 self-movement, after the manner of living things, instead of 
 compelling them to remain motionless, like a lifeless machine, 
 till the legislature turns on the steam. The Manhood Prin- 
 ciple prevails in some countries of Europe, 1 is imperfectly ex- 
 
 P) In England, the same law holds respecting municipalities as in this 
 ■country; a city can do nothing without permission, but Parliament has 
 generally been quite liberal in granting permissions, and much good has 
 t>een done, especially by such sweeping enactments as the Tramways Act 
 of 1870, under which municipalities may build their own tramways if they so 
 ■desire, or if the city chooses to allow a private company to build the lines, 
 then at the end of 21 years, and of each subsequent franchise period of 7 
 years, the city has 2 years in which it may buy the railways at the actual 
 value of the physical plant. About one-quarter of the tramways of England 
 and Scotland are owned by municipalities, and additions to the list are being 
 •constantly made as the franchise periods expire. Special permission, how- 
 ever, must be obtained if the city wishes to operate us tramways. This has 
 been secured by a number of cities without serious difficulty, Out permissions 
 to buy up and rebuild the slum districts, and to own and operate a municipal 
 telephone system are not so easily obtained, as Glasgow has reason to know 
 the difficulty in the latter case being due to the reluctance of the postal 
 authorities to grant telephone licenses that will result in a duplication of 
 exchanges in the same locality, preferring to wait until the whole system 
 •can become public at reasonable cost without incurring the complexities and 
 wastes of competition. Notwithstanding the absence of municipal sover- 
 eignty de jure, a number of English cities have made considerable progress 
 toward real self-government In local concerns. Glasgow, for example, the 
 •second city in Great Britain, has control of her streets, owns and operates 
 iher street railways, gas and electric works for public lighting and sale to 
 consumers, water works, hydraulic power works to supply motive power for 
 elevators, etc., hospitals, sanitary wash-houses, sewers, garbage and street 
 cleaning plants, municipal farm, model tenements, and lodging houses, public 
 toaths and laundries, public markets, cattle yards and slaughter houses, parks, 
 play grounds, fire department and police (partly paid for by a government 
 grant, the maintenance of order being in theory and origin a general rather 
 than a local function), public ferries, steamships, docks, shipyards, in fact 
 the whole harbor and its various services. 
 
 The development of municipal control over local business affairs In Glas- 
 gow and Birmingham and other English cities in the last few decades has 
 had much to do with their transformation from among the most corruptly 
 governed to the front rank among the best governed cities of the world. 
 
 In France the dual character of the municipality is clearly recognized, 
 the mayor being distinctly understood to act in the double capacity of agent 
 tor the general government, and agent for the commune. The law expressly 
 ascribes to him this two-fold character. As agent for the nation, he must 
 attend to military matters, national taxes, registration of births, deaths and 
 marriages, and the general execution of all national laws in the commune. 
 As agent of the municipality, he is charged with the care and management 
 of the municipal property, the direction of public works of a local character, 
 leasing places in the markets, attending to various specified business trans- 
 actions in behalf of the commune, and in general with the carrying out of 
 the decisions of the municipal council. 
 
 Both in France and in Germany the re!e of law Is that a municipality Is 
 free to do any act not contrary to the laws above it— the exact reverse of our 
 rule. Here cities can do nothing without permission; there cities can do 
 anything unless forbidden. 
 
 In France, tho the principle is good, the limitations of the superior law 
 are great; but in Germany, municipal home rule really does exist to a very 
 substautial degree, and with marked advantages in awakening local patriot- 
 ism and securing men of high character and ability to manage city affairs. 
 In the 18th Century, the Prussian policy was to "sink the independence and 
 individuality of the municipalities in the absolutism of the state, going even 
 so far as to treat municipal properly as belonging to the state * * * * 
 But all this was changed by the legislation of 1808. Municipalities were 
 recognized as organic entities, with their own properties and functions, and 
 with the right of entire self-government within the sphere of their strictly 
 local and neighborhood concerns. There are in the German conception of 
 city government no limits whatever to the municipal functions. It is the 
 business of the municipality to promote In every feasible way Its own 
 welfare and the welfare of its citizens." The Germans regard municipal 
 ownership and management of public utilities simply as part of a thrifty and 
 progressive municipal housekeeping. Everything is involved in the concep- 
 tion of the municipal household and the full and unlimited responsibility of 
 the city for the welfare of its citizens. "The German city holds itself re- 
 sponsible for the education of all, for the provision of amusement and the 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 407 
 
 pressed in the charters of some of our cities, and partly incor- 
 porated in the constitutions of California, Washington, 
 and some other states, and in the Missouri statutory powers 
 of first class cities, etc. While, however, this rule con- 
 fers on the municipal body the power of self-movement, and, 
 when joined with constitutional safeguards against special 
 legislation, and provisions securing the referendum, is a most 
 valuable contribution to municipal liberty, yet it doas not pre- 
 vent legislative obstruction of municipal movement. The 
 legislature can still, by positive action, completely control the 
 municipality. To prevent this in matters that should be left 
 to local discretion, a limited sphere of local activity should be 
 clearly marked off and deeded to local self-government, to 
 belong to municipalities absolutely, to the positive exclusion 
 of legislative interference. The state and the nation each has 
 such a sphere; why not the city? The idea of assigning such 
 a local area of assured self-government for municipalities is an 
 
 means of recreation, for the adaptation of the training of the young to the 
 necessities of gaining a livelihood, for the health of families, for the moral 
 Interests of all, for the civilizing of the people, for the promotion of indi- 
 vidual thrift, for protection from various misfortunes, for the development 
 of advantages and opportunities in order to promote the industrial and com- 
 mercial well being, and incidentally for the supply of common services and 
 the introduction of conveniences." Such are some of Dr. SUaw's remarks in 
 his Municipal Government in Europe, pp. 305-329, and he goes on to speak In 
 detail of the splendid efficiency of German city governments in the prosecu- 
 tion of public works and enterprises, and the care that is taken with gas, 
 electric light and street railway franchises, etc., it being a common practice 
 when a franchise is leased to a private company to provide in the contract: 
 (1) for adequate payment to the city for the privileges granted, (2) for 
 municipal supervision of accounts and control of the service, (3) for reason- 
 able rates, (4) for city purchase at the fair value of the plant estimated ac- 
 cording to methods clearly stated in the contract, and (5) for cession of the 
 entire system to the city without payment at the end of the franchise term. 
 After speaking of these matters Dr. Shaw says: "In studying these German 
 contracts one is always impressed with a sense of the first class legal, finan- 
 cial, and technical ability that the public is able to command; while Ameri- 
 can contracts always impress one with the unlimited astuteness and ability 
 of the gentlemen representing the private corporations." Ibid, p. 350. 
 
 The conception of a city as a self-governing household fully responsible 
 for the welfare of the family, and fully able to provide for that welfare, la 
 very different from the conception of a city as a creature of the legislature, 
 intended simply to carry out the will of the legislature, having no powers 
 except such as the legislature may see fit to grant, and no ability to do any- 
 thing without express permission; and to this difference is largely due the 
 superiority of German municipalities. A similar difference is one of the 
 Important factors in Glasgow's wonderful development and magnificent 
 success. The conception of the city as an independent self-governing group, 
 responsible for the welfare of its citizens and with full right and ability to 
 provide for it, 'has not yet embodied itself in British law, but the conception 
 has taken possession of the people of a considerable number of English 
 municipalities, and has transformed them, governmentally, Industrially, 
 socially, and the new sentiment will soon be too strong for any Parliament 
 to break. Home rule for cities may be practically assured in this country 
 also by the growth of a similar sentiment here, without constitutional 
 changes; but the constitutional method seems the more rapid and definite 
 and certain, and besides the discussion of the proposed amendment to our 
 constitution Is one of the most effective methods of educating ourselves to a 
 full understanding of the subject, and of developing public opiuion in favor 
 of Municipal Home Rule. 
 
408 
 
 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 application of what we may call the Democratic, or Popular, 
 or Distributed Sovereignty Principle — the principle which 
 gives to each group of men the government of those affairs 
 which are specially and peculiarly their own, so that interest 
 and power may go together, and no one be given control, in 
 his own right, of matters that really belong to other people of 
 full age and capacity. The Manhood Principle and the Dis- 
 tributed Sovereignty Principle together make up the Liberty 
 Principle, or Home Rule and Self-government, de facto and de 
 jure, established and certain. The distinction between state 
 and local interests and the importance of municipal self-gov- 
 ernment have been frequently emphasized by legal authorities, 
 and tho not yet denned and protected as they should be, they 
 have had large influence in the framing of laws and govern- 
 ments. Dillon says: "The fundamental idea of a municipal 
 corporation proper is to invest the people of a thickly popu- 
 lated place, or district, with the power of regulating their own 
 local affairs, which are of a nature not common to the state at 
 large, and which it is supposed they can regulate for them- 
 selves better than the legislature can regulate them by general 
 enactments." (§27.) 
 
 Interpreting a constitutional provision to the effect that 
 municipal officers must be elected, or appointed, by the muni- 
 cipal authorities, the New York Court of Last Resort has said : 
 "This right of self-government lies at the foundation of our 
 "institutions, and cannot be disturbed or interfered with even 
 "in respect to the smallest of the divisions into which the state 
 "is divided, without weakening the entire foundation; and 
 "hence it is a right not only to be carefully guarded by every 
 "department of the Government, but every infraction or in- 
 "vasion of it ought to be promptly met and condemned, especi- 
 ally by the courts, when such acts become the subject of judi- 
 cial investigation." 1 
 
 In People v. Ingersoll, 58 K Y. 1, The Court said that the 
 relation of principal and agent does not exist between the 
 State and a municipal corporation in respect to the exercise of 
 corporate functions. "In political and governmental matters, 
 
 <») People v. Albertson. 50 N. T. 50. 57 (1873). 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 40S 
 
 the municipalities are the representatives of the sovereignty 
 of the State, and auxiliary to it; in other matters relating to 
 property rights, pecuniary obligations, they have the attributes 
 and distinctive legal rights of private corporations." 
 
 The powerful opinions of the supreme courts of Michigan 
 and Indiana have already been cited. Almost as strong are 
 the words of Chief Justice Dixon in Milwaukee v. Milwaukee,. 
 12 Wis. 93, where it was held that the legislature could not 
 divest a town of its title to land without the town's assent, and 
 that an act annexing part of a town to a city did not divest the 
 right of the town to land in the annexed area, to which it held 
 the exclusive title. The Chief Justice distinguished between; 
 the municipality "as a civil institution or delegation of merely 
 "political power, and as an ideal being endowed with the 
 "capacity to acquire and hold property for corporate and other 
 "purposes," and said "In its political or governmental capacity,. 
 "it is liable at any time to be changed, modified, or destroyed 
 "by the legislature; but, in its capacity of owner of property, 
 "designed for its own or the exclusive use and benefit of its- 
 "inhabitants, its vested rights of property are no more the sub- 
 "ject of legislative interference or control, without the consent 
 "of the corporators, than those of a merely private corporation* 
 "or person." 
 
 In 127 Mo., 642 (1895), the Supreme Court of Missouri 
 drew a strong line between state interests and functions and 
 those which are "of merely local and municipal concern," and 
 held that the legislature could not modify the freehold 
 charters of the large cities in respect to local affairs.* (See> 
 p. 424.) 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 
 
 The best institutional remedy would seem to be an amend- 
 ment to each state constitution drawing the line between state- 
 and municipal interests as clearly as the federal constitution- 
 draws the line between state and national interests, providing 
 for municipal sovereignty within the defined sphere of muni- 
 cipal business, and full freedom to do any act even tho it may 
 
 * See further on this subject 51 Me. 3G2: 103 Mass. 409: 3 Ilill, 531; 31 
 Pa. 183; 64 Pa. 180; 18 Cal.500; 28 Mich. 228, 237; 24 Mich. 44; Compare 
 14 Oreg. 98. 
 
410 
 
 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 be beyond the said sphere, provided it does not conflict with 
 state or national law. This would establish the manhood rale, 
 plus the absolute exclusion of the legislature from a specified 
 reservation of local sovereignty. Or, the proper area could be 
 deeded to state sovereignty by metes and bounds, as the area 
 of federal sovereignty is marked out in the national constitu- 
 tion, leaving the remaining territory to b« divided between 
 individual and municipal sovereignty, under general princi- 
 ples and specific limitations, such as those applied to state 
 sovereignty in the constitution of the United States. The 
 better plan would seem to be to preserve a limited area for 
 municipal sovereignty covering franchises and public enter- 
 prises of a local character, leaving all the rest of the existing 
 state sovereignty in its present indefinite shape. This would 
 seem best to begin with because it is less of a change from 
 present conditions than the other plan, and because it is very 
 important not to diminish too much the power of the state, 
 which is the unifying, systematizing, co-ordinating power 
 upon which we must depend for uniformity, and the equali- 
 zation of burdens and benefits within the state area. It is 
 quite as important not to deprive the state of the sovereignty 
 necessary for the vigorous and effective performance of its du- 
 ties, as it is not to deprive the city of the sovereignty necessary 
 for the vigorous and effective performance of its duties. Each 
 should have its proper share of sovereignty, a due balance 
 being maintained in the same proportion that state interests 
 bear to local municipal interests, just as a due balance is main- 
 tained between state and Federal sovereignties in proportion 
 to national and state interests. 
 
 Under such a Home Rule Amendment as we have suggested, 
 each city and town would make its own charter, subject to 
 general statutes regarding state interests, and in harmony with 
 the general principles and limitations above mentioned, just as 
 each state now makes its own constitution subject to federal 
 limitations. 
 
 HOME RULE CHARTERS AND THE REFERENDUM. 
 
 In order that such municipal charters, and the ordinances 
 
ROME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 411 
 
 made under them, may be in accord with the will of the people 
 (male citizens of full age and of apparently or presumedly 
 sound discretion) it is necessary to have constitutional pro- 
 visions guaranteeing the initiative and referendum in the 
 making and amending of charters and ordinances. Other- 
 wise, municipal independence might simply mean the substi- 
 tution of mayor and councils, or mayor and aldermen for 
 governor and legislature — a change that would generally be 
 of some benefit, since mayor, aldermen and councilmen belong 
 in the city they rule, understand something of its condition, 
 .are elected by the citizens of the city, and have interests thru 
 which they can be made to feel the local public sentiment to 
 some extent, while the state legislature is almost wholly com- 
 posed of men from other cities and towns, who have little or 
 no acquainance with the city under consideration, do not 
 understand its needs, have no direct interest in it, were not 
 -elected by its citizens, and do not feel the slightest responsi- 
 bility to them. Nevertheless, home rule, without the refer- 
 endum, would still be government by the few, and tho govern- 
 ment of local business by a few who live in, understand, and are 
 elected by the city, is likely, as a rule, to be superior to govern- 
 ment of local business by a few who don't live in, nor under- 
 stand, nor owe allegiance to the city; yet government by a few 
 in any form is likely to be far less honest, just, progressive and 
 beneficient than government by the whole body of American 
 citizenship. As soon as a community has reached a stage of 
 evolution whereon it is able to govern itself without a break- 
 down, it should exercise self-rule, for, thru that exercise alone 
 can come the full justice and development of a perfect 
 •democracy. 
 
 SEPARATION OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. 
 
 A municipal government is of a two-fold character; on tha 
 one hand it is an agency of the state to deal with state affairs, 
 and on the other hand it is an agency of the municipality t© 
 ■deal with municipal affairs. In the first relation its function* 
 are political and governmental; in the second, its functions are 
 largely similar to those of the directors of a business corpor- 
 
412 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 ation whose stockholders are the citizens of the city. Most of 
 the difficulty and confusion in municipal law has come from 
 the failure of constitutions, legislatures and courts of law to 
 draw the line between these two sets of functions with proper 
 strength and clearness. 
 
 The remedy lies in establishing a separation of state and 
 municipal interests, similar in substance to the separation es- 
 tablished by the federal constitution between state and 
 national interests; the principle of decentralization, or the 
 nearest possible approach to individual freedom, being always 
 the guide; no liberty should be taken from the individual and 
 given to any public body unless the transfer is clearly for the 
 public good; no liberty within the public sphere should be» 
 taken from the municipality and placed in a wider grasp unless 
 the wider public good requires it; and no liberty of the wider 
 class should be taken from the state and given to federal power 
 unless the national good demands it. 
 
 As a business corporation dealing with property for muni- 
 cipal revenue, service, or advantage, establishing water works* 
 gas plants, telephone, electric light, and street car systems^ 
 markets, bridges, ferries, parks, etc., the city should have the 
 fullest discretion subject only to broad limitations in respect 
 to debt, unanimity, submission of measures to the people at the 
 polls, etc., to prevent improper haste or ill-considered action, 
 or possible tyranny of majorities, or injustice to private indi- 
 viduals or companies. 
 
 In this relation, the municipality is an organization for the 
 common benefit of its citizens, and its government an agency 
 whose duty it is to do all in its power for the prosperity and 
 advantage of its principals. In respect to state interests, the 
 municipality occupies a subordinate position ; yet even here it 
 should be free to act so long as it does not conflict with state 
 arrangements. For example, the preservation of order and 
 prevention of infection are state affairs; but they are also of 
 prime importance to every municipality, and it should be free 
 to establish a police or health department of its own where the 
 state does not act, or in addition to the state agencies where it 
 does not deem them sufficient; in other words, it should have 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 413 
 
 a sort of concurrent jurisdiction of state interests within its 
 own domain, wherever the state does not claim exclusive juris- 
 diction. 
 
 It may not be an easy matter to arrive at a satisfactory 
 division of state and municipal functions, but it can hardly be 
 more difficult than the separation of state and national func- 
 tions that was so satisfactorily accomplished by the maters of 
 the federal constitution. Perhaps it might be well to try a 
 similar plan in the present case; a convention of distinguished 
 judges, statesmen, philosophers, etc., might at least be able to 
 arrive at conclusions that would greatly facilitate a solution 
 of the problem, and give the courts and constitution makers 
 of the various states a standard that would help to mould the 
 law of the country into at least a semblance of consistency and 
 wisdom on this vital topic. 
 
 After the division of sovereignty is made, it would be well 
 to have state and municipal elections on different days some 
 months apart, so that the choice of men to manage the water- 
 works and grade the streets might be more dependent on fit- 
 ness and less upon the candidates' opinions about free silver, 
 or the tariff, or their affiliations with any state or national or- 
 ganization or party. 
 
 STEPS TOWARD HOME RULE. 
 
 On the way toward the solid independence outlined in the 
 last two sections a number of partial reforms may be of ad- 
 vantage. When it is not possible to get a whole loaf, half a 
 loaf is better than none. 
 
 A. Broad statutes may be passed giving cities larger 
 powers, especially in regard to the granting of franchises, and 
 the right to own and operate local business enterprises. A 
 considerable movement has taken place in this direction in the 
 last few years, but it often requires a hard fight to pass such 
 bills, and they are apt to be narrowed in scope, and gorged 
 with wind and red tape, and assassinated with ingenious 
 amendments and limitations. For example, it required a 
 three years' struggle to get the Massachusetts law permitting 
 cities and towns to establish municipal electric light works, and 
 
414 
 
 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 even then its corporation enemies succeeded in crippling it 
 with amendments which made it of little practical use. 
 
 In spite of all the imperfections of legislative enlargemei 
 of municipal powers, much good has been done in this way,, 
 and in conservative states it is probably the line of least resist- 
 ance, and the greatest immediate hope. We have seen thai 
 Governor Russell of Massachusetts was a powerful and per- 
 sistent advocate of this reform. 
 
 B. The second partial remedy lies in the possible adoption 
 of the Michigan Doctrine by the courts of other states. This 
 is probably not the most hopeful line of attack, but is worth 
 the effort wherever occasion affords an opportunity to ask for 
 a ruling in line with the principles laid down by Judge Cooley,. 
 as above stated. 
 
 C. Greater help is likely to be derived from the insertion 
 of particular provisions in the state constitutions — such provi- 
 sions, for example, as the following: 
 
 1. For the local election of municipal officers. 
 
 2. Against special legislation for laying out, or vacating 
 streets, granting franchises to railways, turnpikes, ferries, etc.., 
 creating corporations, or granting corporate powers, creating 
 municipal offices, or prescribing their duties, creating or 
 amending municipal charters, or regulating municipal affairs, 
 etc It is a marked advance to take away from the legislature 
 its power to pass special acts, and yet by means of grouping 
 the cities in classes the legislature may be able to almost, or 
 quite, attain the same individual or specific action under what 
 is called "general legislation" (or legislation affecting all the 
 cities of the same class) that it formerly attained by means of 
 what was called "special legislation. " 
 
 3. Provisions requiring local consent to street railway, gas ? 
 electric light or telephone franchises. 
 
 4. Or, still better, provisions transferring from the state to 
 the municipality the power to grant such franchises, prescribe 
 their conditions, and regulate their exercise. 
 
 6. Or, better yet, provisions establishing the right of cities 
 and towns, not only to grant and regulate, but to own and 
 operate water works, gas works, street railways, telephone sys- 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 415 
 
 terns, etc., — best when the clause is a sweeping one that gives 
 all municipalities the right to own and operate any public 
 work on the people's vote to that effect. 
 
 6. It is most important to secure the initiative and refer- 
 endum upon all municipal business, franchises, ordinances, etc. 
 Nebraska took a step in this direction in a statute passed last 
 year, but it is much better to secure the right by constitutional 
 provision as was done in South Dakota this fall (1898). Some 
 state constitutions have partial provisions requiring local con- 
 sent to incorporate street railway, electric light, telephone and 
 other franchise grants, but I know of no constitution, as yet, 
 that secures the citizens of cities their full rights of veto and 
 initiative. 
 
 7. A measure more comprehensive than any in this section,, 
 except the last, is to be found in a constitutional clause per- 
 mitting municipalities to make their own charters. If the 
 line between state and municipal affairs is also drawn by the 
 constitution and legislative action excluded from the special 
 municipal sphere, we have the final remedy already spoken of ; 
 but even without this, a simple clause allowing cities to make 
 their own charters subject to state enactments has been found 
 very useful. Mo. (1875), Cal. (1879), Wash. (1890), and 
 Minn. (1896), have put provisions of this kind in their consti- 
 tutions; and, by a statute of Louisiana, passed in 1896, any 
 city or town in that state (except New Orleans) may adopt a 
 charter of its own* 1 
 
 HOME-MADE CHARTER LAWS. 
 
 The first constitutional provision was adopted by Missouri 
 in 1875; cities over 100,000 population (i. e., St. Louis and 
 Kansas City) may make their own charters. The city may 
 elect 13 freeholders to draw up a charter, which should be sub- 
 mitted to the voters of the city, and if ratified by four-fifths of 
 the qualified electors voting should supersede the former 
 charter, and all amendments thereto. Such charter may be 
 amended by proposal of the law making authorities of the city 
 published thirty days in three newspapers of largest circulation 
 in the city, submitted to the voters sixty days or more after the 
 
 O Detroit may amend its charter by direct legislation. (See Appendix T.> 
 
416 
 
 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 publication of the proposals, a ad accepted by at least 3/5 of 
 the qualified voters of such city voting at a general or special 
 election, and not otherwise (Missouri constitution, 1875, Art. 
 IX. §16). No provision is made for legislative approval of 
 the amendment. The section merely says after the words just 
 given, "but such charter shall always be in harmony with, 
 "and subject to, the constitution and laws of the state." 
 
 Section 20 of the same article gives the local authorities of 
 St. Louis authority to appoint an election at which the citizens 
 may choose a board of 13 freeholders to make a charter which, 
 if adopted by a majority of the qualified electors voting, shall 
 become the organic law of the city. 
 
 In the next year, Aug. 22, 1876, St. Louis adopted a free- 
 hold charter, and Kansas City followed, April 8, 1889. 
 
 In the other states named, the city's population does not 
 have to reach the 100,000 home rule mark established in 
 Missouri. In Washington, cities of 20,000 or more; in Cali- 
 fornia, cities over 3500, and in Minnesota, all municipalities 
 may make their own charters. The Louisiana statute adopts 
 exactly the opposite view from that of Missouri, and excludes 
 New Orleans from the privileges of home rule, apparently 
 deeming large population a disqualification, or perhaps an 
 extra enticement for the complete retention of legislative man- 
 agement. On petition of a majority of the property owners 
 of any city or town (except New Orleans) to the mayor and 
 council of such city or town, praying a referendum on a new 
 charter (a copy of which must accompany the petition), a vote 
 is to be taken, and if adopted it is to be the charter of the city 
 or town. (Laws of La., 1896; No. 135, p. 190.) 
 
 By the amendment to article IV. of the constitution pro- 
 posed by the legislature in 1895, and adopted by the people 
 in 1896, any city or village in Minnesota may frame a charter 
 for itself consistent with and subject to the laws of the state. 
 The legislature is to provide for a board of 15 freeholders to 
 be appointed by the district judges of the judicial district to 
 which the municipality belongs. The charter proposed by 
 such board must be submitted to the people and adopted by 
 4/7 of the qualified electors voting. The charter does not re- 
 
HOME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 417 
 
 quire legislative approval; but "before any city shall incor- 
 "porate under this act, the legislature shall prescribe by law 
 "the general limits within which such charter shall be 
 "framed." The board of freeholders is permanent and amend- 
 ments to the charter are to be proposed by it, and accepted by 
 3/5 of the electors voting. 
 
 In 1897, chap. 255, the legislature enacted that the judges should 
 appoint freeholders "whenever requested by an ordinance passed by 
 "the common council of any city, or village, or by petition signed 
 "by at least 8 per cent, of the legal voters thereof," and that the 
 charter might be so framed as to give the city control of street fran- 
 chises, provided that no perpetual franchise or privilege shall ever 
 be granted, nor shall any exclusive franchise or privilege be granted 
 unless the grant shall be submitted to the people and approved by 
 a majority of the electors voting, and even then the grant must not 
 be for a longer period than ten years. (The recent act. chap. 351, 
 1899, confirms these franchise provisions, but makes the petition 
 percentage 10 instead of 8, and drops the clause relating to request 
 of the common council.) 
 
 The legislature of 1897 proposed a new amendment limit- 
 ing the term of the freeholders to six years, and providing that 
 charter amendments should be submitted to the people upon 
 petition therefor, signed by 5 per cent, of the legal voters of 
 the municipality. (Adopted by the people Nov., 1898.) 
 
 This gives the people a strong initiative — 10 per cent, can 
 compel the making and submitting of a charter, and 5 per 
 cent, can secure the submission of an amendment to it. 
 
 In any city of Washington state having more than 20,000 
 people, the legislative authority of the city may order an 
 election for the choice of 15 freeholders, who must convene 
 within 10 days and prepare a charter "consistent with and sub- 
 ject to the constitution and laws of the state," which charter 
 shall be published in two newspapers in the city for at least 
 30 days before submission; and if a majority of the voters of 
 the city ratify the proposed charter, it supersedes the existing 
 charter including amendments thereto, and all special laws 
 inconsistent with the said new charter. It may be amended 
 by proposal of the legislative authority of the city, published 
 as above and adopted by a majority of the voters (Wash. 
 Const. 1890, Art. XL §10). For citizens' initiative see p. 
 435. 
 
 27 
 
418 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 The favorable experience of St. Louis caused an effort m 
 the California Constitutional Convention of 1879 to secure 
 similar privileges of self-government for San Francisco. At 
 that time the charter of San Francisco was a volume of 319 
 pages of fine print. Originally, it covered only 31 pages, but 
 more than 100 supplemental acts had been passed leading to 
 much confusion and numerous evils. Many of these acts, says 
 Oberholtzer, had been passed in the interests of single indi- 
 viduals and corporations. Half a dozen men framed them 
 and took them to Sacramento, and had them passed without 
 the wish, and often without even the knowledge, of the people 
 or even the officers of the city.* 
 
 Those in the convention who opposed home rule declared 
 that San Francisco would break loose from the rest of the state 
 and set up an independent government of its own. "This is the 
 boldest kind of an attempt at secession," they said, and offered 
 an amendment that the state should give the city all the privi- 
 leges and consideration accorded the most favored, "foreign 
 "nations, and should provide a duly accredited minister as 
 "representative of the state to the city." 
 
 In spite of all opposition, the California constitution of 
 1879, Art. XI. §8, permitted any city of more than 100,000 
 population to elect 15 freeholders to frame a charter to be 
 published in two local papers for 20 days, submitted to the 
 people within 30 days after the ceasing of such publication, 
 adopted by a majority of those voting, and approved by the 
 legislature. Amendments can be made at intervals of not less 
 than two years by proposals submitted by the legislative au- 
 thority of the city to its voters and ratified by 3/5 of the quali- 
 fied electors voting, f and approved by the legislature. In 
 1887, the privilege of home made charters was extended by 
 constitutional amendment to all cities over 10,000, and in 
 1890 all cities above 3500 were admitted to freehold charter 
 privileges. The legislature must approve or reject the charter 
 as a whole. 
 
 * B. P. Oberholtzer In Annals of the Amer. Acad, of Pol. and SoclaJ 
 Science, Vol. 3, p. 736, et aeq. 
 
 t At the Extra Session in 1000 the Legislature proposed an amendment 
 to g8 changing the requirement of a three-fifths vote for charter amend 
 a majority vote. 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 419 
 
 Under these laws, St. Louis, Kansas City. San Francisco, 
 Sacramento, Oakland, Los Angeles, Stockton, San Diego, 
 Seattle, Tacoma, Dnlntli, St. Paul, etc., have established char- 
 ters of their own making. 
 
 The St. Louis charter gives the city power to grant fran- 
 chises, construct street railways, buy and hold property, real 
 and personal, to be used for the erection of water works, or 
 gas works, to supply the city with water, or light, for the 
 establishment of hospitals, or poor houses, etc., or for any 
 other purpose; secures the local election or appointment of 
 the city officers required by the charter; and provides that 
 amendments to the charter shall be submitted to the people* 
 separately. The people have no initiative, however, as to 
 amendments, and neither initiative nor referendum as- to 
 ordinances. 
 
 In the Los Angeles charter, the 23d corporate power is as 
 follows : — 
 
 "To exercise all municipal powers necessary to the com- 
 "plete and efficient management and control of the municipal 
 "property, and for the efficient administration of the muni- 
 cipal government, whether such powers be expressly enumer- 
 ated or not, except such powers as are forbidden or are con- 
 "trolled by general law." That is suggestive of the principle 
 I have spoken of as the Manhood rule, but the explicit separ- 
 ation of municipal and state affairs, and exclusion of the 
 legislature from the distinctively municipal field are still miss- 
 ing, and a strict construction of such indefinite phrases is apt 
 to take the life and liberty out of these broad clauses. 
 
 The new charter adopted by the voters of San Francisco in 
 May, 1898, Art. II., Chap. 1, §13, provides that "upon 
 "petition signed by a number of voters equal to 15 per cent, 
 "of the votes cast at the last election, asking that an ordinance 
 "to be set forth in such petition be submitted to the voters, 
 "the Board of Election Commissioners must submit such pro- 
 "posed ordinance to the vote of the electors at the next elec- 
 tion." 
 
 The initiative and referendum upon amendments to the 
 charter is also secured to the voters thru a similar 15 per 
 cent, petition. (§22.) The purchase of land more than $50,- 
 
420 
 
 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 000 in value, the lease or sale of any public utility, or the 
 grant of any franchise for the supply of light or water must 
 be submitted to the electors — no petition is necessary. (§21.) 
 The people, I hope, will use their initiative to secure an amend- 
 ment placing street railway and other important franchises 
 on the compulsory referendum list. The granting of fran- 
 chises is in the hands of the city (Art. II, Chap. I, § 13, Chap. 
 II., §§6, 7, etc.) and Art. XII., p. 124, entitled, "Acquisition 
 of Public Utilities/' opens with this remarkable passage: — 
 
 "It is hereby declared to be the purpose and intention of 
 "the people of the city and county that its public utilities shall 
 "be gradually acquired and ultimately owned by the city and 
 "county. To this end, it is hereby ordained" — then follow 
 provisions that upon a 15 per cent, petition favoring the acqui- 
 sition of any public utility, the Board of Supervisors shall im- 
 mediately take steps to procure plans and estimates of cost and 
 enter into negotiations for the permanent acquisition of such 
 utility by construction, condemnation, or purchase, so that it 
 may, within six months after said petition, formulate a pro- 
 position to be submitted to the voters. Or, the supervisors 
 may themselves pass an ordinance embodying the idea of the 
 petition. 
 
 There is another clause that does not require a petition for 
 public ownership to put it in operation. It is to the effect that 
 "within one year of the date the charter takes effect, and at 
 "least every two years thereafter, till the object of this article 
 "shall have been fully attained, the supervisors must procure 
 "plans and estimates of the actual cost of the original con- 
 struction and completion by the city of water works, gas 
 works, electric light works, steam, water and electric power 
 works, telephone lines, street railroads, and such other 
 public utilities as the supervisors or the people by petition 
 may designate." 
 
 Article XIII, "Civil Service," requires the mayor to 
 appoint three persons "known to be devoted to the principles 
 of civil service reform" to act as a civil service commission, and 
 no two of the commissioners can at any time belong to the 
 same political party. These commissioners are to classify 
 
LOCAL GOVEBNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 421 
 
 employments, and establish "public, free, practical, competi- 
 "tive examinations." Each appointment to the classified 
 service must be made from a list of three applicants having the 
 highest rank for excellence in the examinations for health, 
 capacity and fitness for the duties of the position to which they 
 aspire. The appointment is on probation for six months. At 
 or before the expiration of this period, the head of the depart- 
 ment or office in which the candidate is employed may, with 
 the consent of the commissioners, discharge him on assigning 
 in writing to the commissioners his reason for so doing. After 
 the period of probation, the appointee "cannot be removed, 
 "except for cause, upon written charges, and after an oppor- 
 tunity to be heard in his own defence," the trial to be before 
 the commissioners, or some officer or board appointed by them. 
 
 "Laborers" are not examined, but appointed according to 
 priority of application. 
 
 The officers put in the classified service make a long list, 
 including the county clerk, assessor, tax collector, sheriff, 
 auditor, the board of public works, the police department, the 
 fire department, the board of election commissioners, board of 
 health, and all boards or departments controlling public utili- 
 ties. 
 
 A splendid charter: civil service, public ownership, initia- 
 tive and referendum, and a very substantial degree of home 
 rule — three cheers for San Francisco — and yet some of the 
 reformers of 'Frisco complain that the charter is imperfect; 
 very well, friends, you have the initiative; educate the voters 
 and perfect it. What more do you want than the initiative, 
 and a free press? You have the future in your own handa 
 subject only to the possible contingency of adverse legislation. 
 
 The constitutions of California, Washington, etc., and 
 the charters of many municipalities contain a clause de- 
 claring that: "Any county, city, town or township may 
 "make and enforce within its limits, all such local, police, sani- 
 "tary, and other regulations as are not in conflict with general 
 "laws." (Cal. Const. Art. XI., §11.) This gives munici- 
 palities considerable freedom, whether they have freehold 
 charters or not; in fact, so far as regulations are concerned, it 
 
422 
 
 THE CITY Full THE PEOPLE 
 
 is the Manhood Principle itself. But the word "regulations" 
 is not broad enough to cover radical changes of structure or 
 policy, or purchase or sale of large properties, or launching 
 into large business enterprises. 1 If the clause gave the city 
 power to do any act not in conflict with general law, we 
 should have the Manhood Principle. 
 
 Section 25 of Art. IX. of the Missouri constitution says 
 that "notwithstanding the provisions of this article the general 
 "assembly shall have the same power over the city and county 
 "of St. Louis that it has over other cities and counties of this 
 ""state." That is, it has almost unlimited power to pass 
 general laws, and is not entirely debarred from special legis- 
 lation. By Art. IV., §53, however, the general assembly is 
 forbidden to pass any local or special law: 
 
 Regulating- the affairs of counties, cities, townships, wards, or 
 school districts; 
 
 Authorizing- the laying- out, opening, altering, or maintaining, 
 roads, highways, streets, or alleys; 
 
 Vacating* roads, town plots, streets, or alleys; 
 
 Relating to ferries or bridges, except interstate; 
 
 Incorporating cities, towns, or villages, or changing their char- 
 ters; 
 
 For the opening and conducting of elections, or fixing or chang- 
 ing the places of voting; 
 
 Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers 
 in municipalities: 
 
 Regulating public schools; 
 
 Exempting property from taxation; 
 
 Regulating labor, trade, money, or manufacturing; 
 
 Creating corporations, or amending, renewing, extending, or ex- 
 plaining the charters thereof; 
 
 0) Regulations will not cover an attempt to change the charter, or abro- 
 gate a fire department established by an act which forms part of the charter. 
 <People v. Wiltshire, 96 Cal. 605, 1892). Neither will the clause justify a 
 violation of fundamental principles of justice and liberty. An ordinance pro- 
 hibiting the carrying on of a laundry in town, except in specified blocks, and 
 with a written permit upon consent in writing of a majority of the real 
 •property owners in the block, was held to be beyond the authority conferred 
 by the clause, such ordinance being considered an unreasonable interference 
 with the inalienable right to engage in a lawful occupation, and with the 
 right of the owner of property to devote it to a lawful purpose. (Ex parte 
 Sing Lee, 96 Cal. 354, 1892.) But, the courts have held the clause to be "a 
 broad i'ar reaching power, enabling cities to pass any regulation not In con- 
 flict with general laws or fundamental principles of constitutional liberty. 
 iEx parte Lacey, 108 Cal. 326, 328, sustaining an ordinance prohibiting steam 
 shoddy machines or steam beating machines within 100 feet of any church, 
 or school-house, residence or dwelling.) The clause was intended to make 
 •cities more Independent of legislation. (In re Guerrero, 69 Cal. 88; in re 
 Stuart. (51 Cal. 374.) Under it an ordinance of San Francisco regulating the 
 «ale of liquors, was held good (Ex parte Hayes, 98 Cal. 555); and, another 
 ordinance roirnlntine: the snip of opium, and prohibiting It except under 
 proper restriction, was sustained (Ej parte Hong Shen, same volume). 
 
HOME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 423 
 
 Graii ting- to any corporation, association, or individual any special 
 or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity, or to any corporation, 
 association, or individual, the right to lay down a railroad track; 
 
 Legalizing- the unauthorized or invalid acts of any state or 
 municipal officer; 
 
 In all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, 
 no local or special law shall be enacted; and whether a general law 
 could have been made applicable in any case is hereby declared a 
 judicial question, and as such shall be judicially determined, with- 
 out, regard to any legislative assertion on that subject. 
 
 Nor shall the general assembly, indirectly, enact such special or 
 local law by the partial repeal of a general law, but laws repealing* 
 local or special acts may be passed. 
 
 There are other provisions against special legislation, but 
 these are all that materially affect municipalities. One might 
 think that local legislation had. been abolished, but that is not 
 quite true. At the last session (1897) the Missouri legislature 
 passed a special act defining the boundaries of the city of 
 Palmyra, and another to give the city of Poplar Bluff au- 
 thority to vacate a cemetery. 
 
 Section 54 of Article IV., provides that NO local or special 
 law shall be passed unless a notice of it stating its substance 
 shall be published in the locality affected at least thirty days 
 before the introduction of the bill in the general assembly. 
 
 The constitutions of all the other four states we have been 
 considering provide quite fully against special, legislation, 
 largely in the same words as those just quoted from Missouri, 
 so that the freehold charters are not likely to be much inter- 
 fered with except by general legislation. 1 They are clearly 
 subject to this to some extent in all the states named, and in 
 some of them, at least, no portion of the municipal business, 
 
 (*) "A law is general and constitutional when it applies equally to all 
 persons embraced iu a class founded upon some natural or intrinsic or con- 
 stitutional distinction, it is not general if it confers particular privileges, or 
 imposes peculiar disabilities or burdensome conditions in the exercise of a 
 common right upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from the general 
 body of those who stand in precisely the same relation to the subject of the 
 law." City of Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238, 251; see also Rauer v. Wil- 
 liams, 118 Cal. 401. 
 
 Legislation affecting cities having 150,000 or more inhabitants is an im- 
 proper attempt by the act itself to create a class of municipal corporations for 
 a special purpose, without reference to the existing classification by general 
 law, and is local and special legislation. Denman v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 96. 
 
 Classification must be founded on differences defined by the constitution, 
 or which are natural, and suggest a reason which might rationally be held 
 to justify the diversity in the legislation. In a general law, none must be 
 omitted that stand on the same footing regarding the subject of legislation. 
 
 Legislatures cannot, by special act, create a class of cities of a population 
 between 10,000 and 25,000 for the purpose of increasing the salaries of pollce- 
 ner in a particular city; act void, Darey v. San Jose, 104 Cal. 642. 
 
424 THE BONDAGE' OF CITIES 
 
 however purely local it may be, is secure from legislative con- 
 trol. 1 The freehold charters themselves may be changed by 
 the legislature, and the constitutional provision as to amending 
 charters at intervals of not less than two years by proposal sub- 
 mitted to the voters by the city authorities does not prevent 
 the Legislature from changing the charter by general legis- 
 lation within the two years. 2 In California, the cities making 
 home charters found themselves so hampered by general laws 
 that they secured a new amendment to the constitution. By 
 the constitution, the charters were to supersede existing 
 charters and all special laws inconsistent with such charters. 
 In Davies v. Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 37, 40, it was held that a 
 general law relating to the opening and widening of streets 
 
 1 Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64, 78, general law about elections in. 
 cities of 100,000 or more, was held to apply to St. Louis in spite of its free- 
 hold charter, and it overruled the provisions of this charter as to the regis- 
 tration of voters. See also 122 Mo. 68 and 126 Mo. 652. 
 
 In Kansas City v. Scarritt, 127 Mo. 642, however, the court distinguishes 
 these cases and others dealing with laws affecting state interests from cases 
 dealing with laws affecting local interests, and an act giving cities organized 
 under Art. 9, §16 (the freehold charter clause of the constitution), a right to 
 take land for parks and boulevards thru a board of park commissioners, was 
 held void as .amounting to a legislative amendment of the freehold charter in 
 respect to internal municipal affairs. The court said that under the consti- 
 tution the freehold charter could be amended by vote of the people "and not 
 otherioise." It remarked that tbe legislature might pass general laws as to 
 state interests and they would be paramount to the freehold charters, and 
 referred to 85 Missouri, etc., just cited, but said: "These decisions should 
 "not be held to warrant the exercise of state legislative power over such 
 "city charters, so far as relates to the government of subjects of merely 
 local and municipal concern." This distinction and decision In 127 Mo. 
 excludes the legislature from altering the freehold charters (even by general 
 laws) in respect to matters of purely local concern. That ought to be the 
 law, but. I doubt if it is as ret, unless the courts are ready to carry the 
 Michigan doctrine to Its logical limit. In view of the fact that the constitution 
 says that the freehold charters shall "always be subject to the laws of the 
 state." it seems clear that the "not otherwise" in the clause relating to 
 charter amendments must be confined to amendments, as such. The effect 
 upon a charter by reason of its subjection to a general law of the state is 
 not called an amendment by the constitution, and the court in doing so 
 
 ffoes outside of and beyond the constitution, and makes a constitution for 
 tself. There is no distinction in the constitution between general laws 
 affecting state Interests and general laws affecting municipal interests— the 
 charters are subject to all general legislation. If a law affecting the charter 
 ts an amendment and void, as a violation of the provision that the charter 
 shall only be amended by vote of the people, then the law considered in 
 85 Mo., which concerned elections and affected the charters was an amend- 
 ment and void as a violation of the said provision, by which rule the legis- 
 lature could pass no law affecting the freehold charters, and the provision 
 subjecting those charters to state legislation would be abrogated. I wish 
 the decision in 127 Mo. were good, but I fear it is not. At least the reason 
 
 f;iven by the court will not stand. If the court had based its decision on 
 he broad principle of inherent right of local self-government carrying out 
 the line of thought suggested and acted upon by the Michigan and Indiana 
 courts, we might hope for much from the decision ; but as it is it is not likely 
 to be of much benefit. 
 
 None of the other constitutions in the freehold charter states are like 
 the Mo. constitution in the "not otherwise" clause, except the Constitution 
 of Minnesota, which says that the freehold charter may be amended by a 
 vote of "three-fifths of the qualified voters of such city or village voting at 
 the next election, and not otherwise; but such charter shall always be in 
 harmony with, and subject to the constitution and laws of the State of 
 Minnesota." 
 
 'People v. City of Coronado, 100 Cal. 571 (1898), 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 425"' 
 
 controlled the city in spite of its freehold charter. In San? 
 
 Diego all street work had to be done under state law, the city 
 
 police court was deprived of its charter jurisdiction, and the 
 
 board of education could not operate according to the charter, 
 
 Finding that this unlimited subjection to general laws largely ~~ 
 
 nullified the advantages of the new charters, the cities united 
 
 in a demand for a new amendment leaving out the word 
 
 "special." The adoption of this change by a vote of 3 to 1 was- 
 
 declared Dec. 30th, 1892. And now §8 of Art. XI of the 
 
 Cal. constitution provides that 
 
 "Any city containing- a population of more than 3500 inhabitant* 
 may frame a charter for its own government consistent with and 
 subject to the constitution and laws of this state," which charter "shall 
 become the organic law thereof, and supersede any existing charter 
 and all amendments thereof, and all laws inconsistent with such 
 charter." By the amendment of Nov. 3, 1896, "cities and towns 
 heretofore or hereafter organized, and all charters thereof framed' 
 or adopted by authority of this constitution, except in municipal' 
 affairs, shall be subject to and controlled by general laws." (Sec. 6, 
 Art. XL) 
 
 This seems like real home rule, but the sphere of "muniei*- 
 pal affairs" is not defined and the whole matter is rather in- 
 definite.* 
 
 It is quite clear as to all the States named except California 
 (and possibly Missouri) that the legislature can modify, limit 
 or annul the powers and privileges of cities under their free- 
 hold charters, but it is equally clear that the charter liberties 
 will very soon gather about them a public sentiment that will 
 protect them, and lead in the course of time to an efficient de- 
 mand for a specific, definite, constitutional division between' 
 state and municipal functions. A city that enjoys self-govern- 
 ment in local business for a few years, originating and decid- 
 ing for itself, without legislative intervention, will soon come 
 to regard the privilege as an inalienable right. The limitation- 
 of legislation to general laws tends to prevent unjust and op- 
 pressive interference in municipal affairs because a bad general' 
 bill having a wider incidence will rouse more opposition than 
 a special act. In every way the provisions of the constitutions 
 
 * The charter is to be consistent with and subject to the laws of the state, :u\< 
 yet it is to supersede all laws inconsistent with it, and later, the charter, excepts 
 In municipal affairs, is to be controlled by gene- al laws. Perhaps a fair interpre- 
 tation would be that the charter is to supersede all existing laws inconsistent wit !• . 
 it, but is to be subject to svbseqiwit general laws except in respect to distinctly 
 local matters. 
 
426 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 wider discussion appear to constitute a marked advance, and 
 to lead inevitably to a strong acceleration of the movement 
 toward assured borne rule in local municipal concerns, with 
 free initiative under general law along the whole line. 
 
 Thru the growth of public sentiment, crystallizing finally 
 into constitutional enactment, the control of streets and local 
 franchises, water works, gas works, electric light plants, street 
 railways, telephones, fire departments, bath-houses, lodging- 
 houses, hospitals, parks, market-houses and other business and 
 proprietary matters of peculiarly local character, will be se- 
 cured to the municipality free of legislative intervention, sub- 
 ject only to the requirements of the initiative and referendum, 
 the broad principles of justice and liberty that underlie and 
 permeate our institutions, and the regulative rules to secure 
 co-ordination, uniformity, symmetry, equalization, etc., that 
 are or may be incorporated in our constitutional law. 
 
 Thru and beyond the guaranteed field of exclusive local 
 sovereignty will go the all embracing right of free initiative 
 and decision except where state or national law forbids. By 
 these two improvements, with reasonable guards against 
 •special legislation, municipal independence will be achieved. 
 
 POINTS FOE CHARTER LAWS. 
 
 It is probable that in the near future other states will adopt 
 constitutional provisions in favor of home rule. In view of 
 the movement along the Missouri line, it is well to note that : 
 
 (1) The initiative in calling an election to choose free- 
 holders to make a charter should not rest entirely with the 
 city officials — the people should be able by petition to start the 
 ball, as in Minnesota and Louisiana. 
 
 (2) The charter should be required to contain provisions 
 securing the initiative and referendum on amendments and 
 ordinances. 
 
 (3) If the approval of the legislature is required, as in Cali- 
 fornia, the constitution ought to declare that the charter, when 
 approved, should be deemed a contract and protected as such. 
 
 (4) An effort should be made to get the constitution not 
 merely to authorize municipalities to make their own charters, 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 427 
 
 subject to the general law of the state, but to define a certain 
 area of local business in which the city should be supreme, and 
 from which the legislature should be absolutely excluded ex- 
 cept so far as it may be specifically empowered by the consti- 
 tution; and in addition to this it should authorize cities and 
 towns under proper restraint in respect to the referendum, etc., 
 to act in public matters beyond the specified area, in any way 
 they may see fit so long as they do not infringe the law above 
 them. This would open the doors of freedom wide to all 
 municipalities whether they made new charters or not, and 
 give them a limited field of assured self-government beyond 
 the interference of the legislature — a bit of real sovereignty, 
 or home rule de jure, instead of mere home rule de facto at 
 the pleasure of the legislature. 
 
 (5) The constitution should contain full safeguards against 
 improper special legislation. 
 
 SUMMING UP WE FIND THAT I 
 
 The cure for the evils of excessive dependence is a reason- 
 able independence. The remedy for municipal subjection is 
 municipal sovereignty. A city has a right to manage its 
 local business without interference, and should be free to act 
 outside the distinctive local sphere so long as it does not in- 
 fringe a positive law of state or nation. 
 
 The best method of establishing Home Rule would be thru 
 Constitutional provisions: 
 
 Drawing a line between state affairs and local interests as 
 clearly as the line between state and federal intersts is drawn 
 in the National Constitution ; 
 
 Excluding the legislature from the field of local municipal 
 business, so that the city may be sovereign in its own peculiar 
 sphere just as the state and nation are sovereign in their 
 spheres; free to act in its own concerns, subject only to broad 
 limitations such as those applied to states in the federal con- 
 stitution ; 
 
 Affording proper safeguards against special legislation, even 
 in matters wherein municipal life merges into state life; 
 
 Guaranjteeing the local selection of local officers: 
 
428 
 
 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 Securing to every city and town the right to do any acl 
 whatever, whether inside the field of local sovereignly or be- 
 yond it, so long as it does not conflict with state and national 
 law; reversing the present rule, and instead of the principle 
 that a city can do nothing without permission, establishing 
 the principle that a city can do anything unless forbidden — 
 a difference as great as that between servitude and liberty ; 
 
 And according to every municipality the right to frame its 
 own charter; 
 
 Thus may be secured a reasonable independence for muni- 
 cipalities from improper legislative control, but 
 
 Civil service regulations, 
 
 The Initiative and Referendum upon ordinances and charter 
 
 provisions, 
 And the public ownership of monopolies 
 
 must be established also, else freedom from legislative bossing 
 may mean subjection to councils, local politicians and pri- 
 vate corporations. 
 
 Under such Home Rule provisions each city and town might 
 make its own charter, choose its own officers and govern itself 
 subject only to the broad limitations of state and national law. 
 Nothing could do more than such local self-government for 
 the cause of municipal progress and purity. And on that 
 cause hangs the future of the Republic. A hundred years ago 
 only one-thirtieth of the population of the United States dwelt 
 in cities. In 1890 one-third of our people were in cities of 
 more than 8000 inhabitants. It will not be long before half 
 the people live in cities, and when we include the towns, it 
 appears that municipal problems already affect directly at least 
 five-sixths of our people, and indirectly, but nevertheless most 
 vitally, all the rest. 
 
 Dr. Shaw, who is probably the highest authority on muni- 
 cipal government on this side of the sea, or perhaps in the 
 world, has expressed himself in these strong words i 1 
 
 ( l ) In the last few years municipal home rule has been favored by several 1 
 other writers and speakers of high authority; Dr. Edward Everett Hale, 
 Hon. Seth Low. Senator Fassett, Prof. F. J. Goodnow of Columbia, Dr. 
 James of Chicago University, and E. P. Oberholtzer being among the number. 
 Hon. Seth Low's address on "Municipal Home Rule." at Brooklyn, October 
 6, 1882, Dr. Hale's article in the "Cosmopolitan," Vol. 16, p. 736 (1894), Prof. 
 Goodnow's "Municipal Home Rule," Macmillan & Co., 1895, OberboltzefB 
 
HOME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 429 
 
 "Good government and progress in our larger cities will 
 l<e greatly aided by the extension of their powers of local self- 
 government, or the establishment of municipal home rule, so 
 that the people may feel that they have their own municipah 
 welfare clearly and definitely in their own hands." 
 
 And again, discussing the New York charter: "We shall 
 never reach a permanent basis in this country until we have 
 attained simplicity and unity, so that the people of a large 
 town may feel that they have their own municipal weal or woe 
 clearly and definitely in their own hands. Then a strong 
 public opinion ivill arise to protect such municipal home 
 rule, and with or without constitutional safeguards, we shall 
 find that municipal government will go on steadily." 
 
 On the way toward the solid independence outlined above, 
 a number of partial reforms may be of advantage. When it 
 is not possible to get a whole loaf, half a loaf is better than 
 none. 
 
 A. Constitutional provisions may be adopted covering part 
 of the ground. This has been done to a considerable extent 
 already as is shown in the accompanying diagrams. 
 
 B. The Michigan Doctrine may be followed by the courts 
 of other states. Efforts to secure such rulings even if unsuc- 
 cessful cannot fail fo do good by directing attention to the 
 fundamental importance of local self-government and the 
 weighty opinions of Judge Cooley and others. 
 
 C. Broad statutes may be passed giving cities larger powers, 
 especially in regard to the granting of franchises, and the right 
 
 article In the "Annals of the Amer. Academy of Political and Social Science, 
 the Fassett Report, and Dr. Shaw's "Municipal Government," already re- 
 ferred to, are specially valuable. 
 
 At the convention of the League of American Municipalities, held at 
 Detroit in August, 1898, and containing mayors and aldermen and other 
 officials from a large number of the leading cities of the country, the principle 
 of municipal home rule was most enthusiastically and almost unanimously 
 endorsed; and at the conference of the National Municipal League, held at 
 Indianapolis, December, 1898, a committee consisting of Dr. Albert Shaw, 
 Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Professor Frank J. Goodnow, Horace E. Denning, 
 Chas. Richardson, Professor Leo S. Rowe, and Geo. W. Guthrie, reported In 
 favor of constitutional amendments giving all cities of 25,000 people the 
 power to frame their own charters, restricting state action to matters re- 
 quiring state uniformity, and forbidding the legislature to pass acts apply- 
 ing to single cities or groups of cities except by a vote of the cities them- 
 selves. The committee also recommends civil service reform, a single council 
 elected for 6 years, concentration of all administrative power In the mayor, 
 separation of legislative and administrative powers, and constitutional pro- 
 visions preventing councils from granting franchises for more than 21 years, 
 and requiring Itemized accounts from operating companies. Proportional 
 representation, the initiative and referendum and the recall, and some other 
 things are needed to make the list a perfect one. 
 
430 
 
 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 to own and operate local business enterprises. A considerable 
 movement has taken place in this direction in the last few 
 years, but it often requires a hard fight to pass such bills, and 
 they are apt to be narrowed in scope, and their usefulness im- 
 paired by amendments and limitations introduced by corporate 
 influence. Moreover, they are subject to legislative alter- 
 ation or repeal. In spite of all their imperfections, however, 
 they are very important aids while on the w r ay to solid consti- 
 tutional measures, and the growth of public sentiment around 
 them gives them, in the course of time, a practical stability 
 much greater than that which they possess theoretically. 
 
 The following tables with their explanations afford an indi- 
 cation of the present condition of municipal law on some of 
 the most important lines: 
 
 In examining the tables it must be remembered that the 
 finer shades of legislation are not indicated in them. The 
 crosses in each column represent general legislation of aome 
 sort in reference to the subject stated at the head of the col- 
 umn. But the cross opposite Missouri, for example, in a 
 given column may represent a very different law from that 
 represented by another cross in the same column opposite 
 Idaho or California. Under special legislation the provisions 
 are for the most part quite similar down" the whole length of 
 each column, the wording in many cases being identical; yet 
 even here there are some differences, especially in column B 
 (see below). It is in columns A, K and L, however, that the 
 widest variations occur. 
 
 I. Constitutional provisions requiring the local selection 
 of local officers are of great importance. In Massachusetts. 
 Pennsylvania, Missouri, Wisconsin, etc., a few county officers 
 must be locally chosen. In Ohio, Georgia, etc., county 
 officers, in general, are to be elected by the people of the 
 county. In Minnesota, county and township officers are to be 
 locally elected. In Kansas, township officers, and in Ken- 
 tucky, county and district officers, mayor and council and 
 police judges in towns and cities must be locally elected. In 
 New York the constitution provides that municipal officers 
 shall be elected by the electors of the municipality, or ap- 
 
I* 
 
 TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 
 
 4;*1 
 
 * TABLE I. 
 MUNICIPAL FREEDOM 
 
 SECURED BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 
 (including amendments to date). 
 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 D 
 
 E 
 
 F 
 
 (i 
 
 H 
 
 T 
 
 .7 
 
 o . 
 +j to 
 
 a u 
 2.2 • 
 
 L 
 
 io 
 
 4 
 
 a. 
 
 tn 
 V| 
 
 Forbidding Special Legislation. 
 
 
 OtH 
 
 E E 
 
 -a 
 
 
 As to Franchises and Cor- 
 
 
 in- 
 states ta g 
 and dates ot I g a 
 
 s . 
 
 o 2 
 
 It 
 
 JjjB 
 
 O M 
 
 5, 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 5 2. 
 
 porate Powers. 
 
 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 felt 
 
 S ► o 
 
 NH«g S3 
 
 c 
 <5 
 
 ■ S3 
 
 
 j?S«i 
 
 pi 
 
 Requiring 1 
 or appoint 
 officers. 
 
 ill 
 
 o * — 
 
 B 
 o 
 
 >-. eg 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 O 00 
 
 a,* 
 
 
 H 
 
 T3 . 
 
 82 
 
 o 
 9 
 u 
 
 •el 
 
 05 
 
 o 
 
 '3 
 
 03 
 
 2 = * 
 
 o a o 
 
 ° o * 
 
 Sf IB O 
 
 Sag" 
 
 ill 
 
 
 
 3 "3 
 S-S* 
 
 O 3 u 
 
 III 
 
 5 
 
 Hi 
 
 SO ' 
 
 a,— »- 
 S3 
 
 it* 
 
 33 e 
 
 M = ° 
 
 u Maine. ..1819 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 G N. H 1889 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ttVt 1793 
 
 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ Mass 1780 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 . R. I 1842 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 y< Conn 1875 
 
 Xd 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 5 N. Y.„...1895 
 
 S 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 3 N.J. .....1875 
 
 Xd 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 <u Penna. ..1874 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 t3 Del 1897 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 Md 1867 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 8 VV.Va....l872 
 
 cd 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 
 ja Ohio 1857 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I x 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X. Ind 18il 
 
 D 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 .S Ul 1870 
 
 . Mich 1850 
 
 cd 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 I> 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 5 Wise 184* 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 SS Minn.... 1857 cd 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 , X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 1 X 
 
 Mo 1875 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 1 X 
 
 X X 
 
 | X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 « Iowa 1846 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 2 Kans 1859 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 3 Neb 1875 
 
 cd 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X X 
 
 1 x 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 3 S. Dak.. .1889 
 
 cd 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 I x 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 N. Dak..l889 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 1 x 
 
 X 
 
 1 x 
 
 
 
 « Va 1869 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 S N. Car... 1876 
 
 cd 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 s 8. Car....l895 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 ■S Ga 1877 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 g Fla 1885 
 
 oB Ala 1875 
 
 cd 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 cd 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 A Miss 15*90 
 
 Xd 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 I X 
 
 \ X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 S La 1879 
 
 cd 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 stat. 
 
 o Texas. ..1876 
 
 cd 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X x 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 2 Ark 1874| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 S Tenn 1870 co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 * Ky 189l| S 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 . 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 _ Mont 18RS 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X x 
 
 ! x 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 8 Ida 188£ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 fe Colo 1»7I 
 
 cd 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 • Utah 189f 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 5 Nev 1864' cd 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 S3 Wyo 188' 
 
 CO 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X j X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 o Oreg 185- 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 S Wash 189( 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 S Cal 1S7< 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X=-a provision on the subject indicated at the head of the column, 
 next page. 
 
 See 
 
432 
 
 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 pointed by the authorities thereof. It lias been held under 
 this that police commissioners and similar boards are not muni- 
 cipal officers, but state officers; and may still be appointed by 
 the governor or selected in any way the legislature may direct. 
 (15 K Y. 532; 36 K Y. 285.) But 55 K Y. 50, holds that 
 police commissioners of a city or town are municipal officers, 
 and protected by the constitution, so that the state cannot 
 appoint them, except where it combines several cities or coun- 
 ties in a metropolitan police district, as was the case in 15 
 1ST. Y. The Virginia constitution requires the local election 
 of officers of cities and towns. In Utah also there is a sweep- 
 ing provision requiring the election of local officers. In 
 Michigan and Indiana, as we have seen, the courts take the 
 ground that the local selection of local officers is an inherent 
 right that exists without any express provision. An attempt 
 has been made in column A to indicate the shades of enact- 
 ment — co, meaning county; d, township or district; ct, county 
 and district or county and township; x, municipal officers; 
 S, a sweeping provision, and D a sweeping decision in favor of 
 local selection of officers. My idea at first was to indicate the 
 various shades in every column, but it proved impossible to do 
 this in some columns with any satisfactory approach to accur- 
 acy and exhaustiveness, and so the uniform sign x is used to 
 show simply that the state has a law of the kind indicated 
 .by the words at the top of the column, the shades of legisla- 
 tion being given in the text accompanying the tables. 
 
 2. Columns B to J inclusive relate to constitutional 
 safeguards against special legislation. In many states such 
 legislation is forbidden for some or all of the specified pur- 
 poses — laying out or vacating streets, granting franchises to 
 railways, turnpikes, ferries, etc., creating corporations or 
 granting corporate powers, granting to any corporation, asso- 
 ciation or individual the right to lay down a railroad track, or 
 any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise what- 
 ever (111., Pa., etc.), creating municipal offices or prescribing 
 their duties, creating or amending municipal charters or 
 regulating municipal affairs, etc. (See Pa., HI., Mo., Mont., 
 Colo., Wy., etc.) 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 433 
 
 It is a marked advance to limit the legislative power of pass- 
 ing local and special acts, for the chance of enacting bad 
 general laws without arousing effective opposition is very 
 much lees than in the case of special laws which affect fewer 
 people. Yet great as the advantage is, there are some dis- 
 advantages. First, the legislature, if left free to classify 
 municipalities, may he able to attain almost or quite 
 the same individual and specific action under "general 
 legislation" (or such as affects all the cities of the same 
 class) that it formerly attained by means of what is 
 called "special legislation." To prevent this the constitution 
 should specify the classes into which municipalities are to be 
 divided. Second. A city or town may desire special legisla- 
 tion in its behalf, of a perfectly proper sort, in cases where it 
 does not seem best to pass a general law. To provide for such 
 cases, a provision should be inserted allowing special legisla- 
 tion upon petition of the municipality or municipalities 
 affected, a favorable referendum vote in such municipalities 
 being required either on the petition or on the law that may be 
 secured by it. 
 
 The constitution may require notice of special legislation to 
 be sent to the municipality affected, and re-enactment of the 
 law by the legislature if the city or town objects to it — a sort 
 of mild municipal veto on local legislation (as in N". Y.) In 
 some constitutions notice must be given of the intention to 
 introduce a special bill so that those who object may be pre- 
 pared to fight the measure, but no veto or re-enactmen. is pro- 
 vided for (N. J., Pa., K Car., Fla., etc.) The notices thus 
 provided for are very important as a means of preventing the 
 practically secret passage of special acts, which is one of the 
 prominent evils of the existing system in several of our states. 
 
 Sometimes it is provided that there shall be no special legis- 
 lation in any case where a general law is applicable. (W. Va., 
 Minn., la., Kans., S. Dak., S. Car., Ga., Ala., Miss., La., Tex., 
 Ky., Mont, Colo., Nov., Wy.) Where the constitution also 
 says, as in Minnesota and Missouri, that the question "whether 
 a general law could have been made applicable in any case is 
 hereby declared a judicial question," the provision is srood; 
 
 28 
 
434 THE CITY* FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 otherwise, it is of little value, for, in the absence of such ex- 
 press declaration, the applicability of a general law is held to 
 be a matter for the legislature to decide (113 111. 315, 8 Col.,. 
 122, 19 Kans. 303, 29 Ind. 409, etc.). 
 
 In column I, New Jersey provides that corporations shall not be 
 crceated by special act, but "corporations" is held not to include 
 municipal corporations. In several states the pro vision against 
 creating- corporations by special act expressly excepts municipal 
 corporations. (Md., Mich., N. Car., Ala., Mont., Col., Oregon — Wis. 
 excepts cities.) 
 
 3. The principle of local consent is recognized in fifteen 
 constitutions. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina 
 and Wyoming require local consent as a prerequisite to the in- 
 corporation of a city. New York, West Virginia, Illinois, 
 Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, South Carolina, Georgia, 
 Alabama, Kentucky, Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming, require 
 local consent for the construction of a street railway. In some 
 states the provisions are broader. Kentucky does not permit 
 the construction of any street railway, gas, water, steam heat- 
 ing, telephone or electric light system in city or town without 
 its assent. South Carolina requires local consent for street 
 railways, telegraph, telephone, electric light, water and gas. 
 Wyoming requires such consent for the first four just named, 
 and South Dakota for the first three. 
 
 4. Constitutional provisions transferring from the state to 
 the municipality, the power to grant street railway, telephone, 
 water, gas, electric light and other local franchises, would be 
 very valuable. 
 
 5. Also provisions establishing the right of cities and towns 
 to own and operate water works, gas works, electric light 
 plants, telegraph and telephone systems, street railways, etc., 
 best when the clause is a sweeping one that gives all munici- 
 palities the right to own and operate any public work or ser- 
 vice on the people's vote to that effect, proper provision being 
 made respecting the purchase of existing plants. By South 
 Carolina's constitution (1895) cities and towns are empowered 
 to build or buy water works or light plants and supply the 
 inhabitants on a majority vote of the people. (See comment 
 on Table II.) 
 
HOME IUILE FOR OUR CITIES. 43t) 
 
 G. The last column is probably the most important of all 
 lit its bearing on future progress. The subject has already 
 been dealt with in the text, but a very condensed summary 
 may be useful at this point. (See further Appendix I.) 
 
 Five states have given municipalities the right to make their 
 own charters. Mo., 1875; Cal., 1879; Wash., 1890; Minn., 1896, by 
 Constitutional provision, and La. by statute in 1896. In Mo. the 
 provision applies to cities over 100,000 population, in Washington 
 to cities over 20,00C; in California to cities over 3,500; and in. 
 Minnesota to all municipalities. The Louisiana statute adopts a. 
 rule precisely opposite to the Missouri principle, and permits all 
 municipalities except New Orleans to make their own charters. 
 
 In Missouri the city elects thirteen freeholders who prepare a. 
 charter which is submitted to the people, and if ratified by four- 
 fifths of the qualified electors voting, it becomes the charter of the 
 city. St. Louis was given special authority to adopt a charter by a 
 majority vote. Amendments may be submitted by the legislative 
 authorities of the city, and adopted by a two-thirds referendum 
 vote. (Mo. Const., 1S75, Art. IX, §§ 16 to 25.) 
 
 In Minnesota, the charter is prepared by a board of fifteen free- 
 holders appointed by the district judge and must be adopted by a 
 four-sevenths vote of the people; amendments by a three-fifths vote. 
 A constitutional amendment providing that charter amendments 
 shall be submitted to the people on a 5 per cent, petition of the 
 voters, was adopted at the polls Nov., 1898, by a vote of 2 to 1, and 
 in 1899 the Legislature passed an act (chap. 351) pursuant to the 
 home-rule amendments and denning the method of procedure under 
 them. By this statute freeholders are to be appointed whenever 
 10 per cent of the voters of the city or town petition to that effect, 
 (Minn. Const. Art. iv, amendments 1896, 1898, statutes 255, 1897. and 
 351, 1899). 
 
 In Washington, the legislative authority of the city "may order 
 the election of fifteen freeholders to prepare a charter to be adopted 
 by a majority vote of the people. Amendments proposed by coun- 
 cils and adopted by majority referendum vote. By statute the city 
 council must order an election of freeholders upon a petition of 
 one-fourth of the voters of the city. (Wash. (Oust., 1890, Art. XI. 
 \ 10, and Wash. Code, \ 1142.) 
 
 In California, fifteen freeholders are elected to make the charter 
 which must be adopted by a majority vote at the polls, and ap- 
 proved by the legislature. Amendments, at intervals of not less 
 than two years, submitted by the legislative authority of the city 
 and ratified by a vote at the polls, and approved \>y the legis- 
 lature. Const, amendment, 1896, shuts out legislative control 
 over home-made charters so far as "municipal affairs" are con- 
 cerned. (Cal. Const, Art. XI, §§ 6 to 8y 2 as amended down to 1899, 
 will be found pp. LII to LIV Cal. Laws, 1899. See also Extra Session. 
 1900, Resolution of Feb. 9, proposing that charter amendments may 
 be adopted by a majority instead of three-fifths.) 
 
 In Louisiana, on petition of a majority of the property owners 
 of any city or town (except New Orleans) praying a referendum 
 on a new charter, a copy of which must accompany the petition, 
 the mayor and council shall submit the proposed charter to a 
 referendum vote, and if adopted, it is to be the organic law of the 
 municipality. (Laws of La., 1896, No. 135, p. 190.) 
 
436 
 
 THE BONDAGE uF CITIES 
 
 x Statute Provision 
 
 c=Coostitutional Provision 
 C=broad 
 X c=both Stat, and Const. Pre 
 
 TAB 
 
 MUNICIPAL 
 
 ACCORDED BY LEGISLATIVE POLICY 
 
 
 Conferring local power to establish, construct, build, buy, organize, own. 
 
 
 t 
 2 
 
 1 
 £1 
 
 — 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 * 
 
 u 
 
 4) 
 
 > 
 
 p" 
 tr. 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 '5 
 K . 
 
 00 
 
 3d 
 
 T3 
 
 a • 
 - a 
 
 of p, 
 J-. a> 
 
 fg 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 > 
 -_ 
 
 el 
 
 IS 
 
 I 
 
 Franchises 
 
 States. 
 
 if ■ 
 
 ll 
 
 r 
 
 ill 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 p 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 p 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 - N H 
 
 
 w Vi 
 
 X X 
 X X 
 
 ~ R. I 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 ^ N Y 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 CO 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 xc ; x 
 
 X ' X 
 X 
 
 § N.J 
 
 W Penna 
 
 ■rs Del 
 
 2 Md 
 
 
 "* W.Va 
 
 Xc x 
 
 ji, Ohio.. 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 p 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 p 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 | X I X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 X X 
 
 xt. X 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 r Ind 
 
 £ in 
 
 . Mich 
 
 3 Wise 
 
 ^ Minn 
 
 
 Mo 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 p 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 ! P 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 X X 
 X X 
 c X 
 
 xc 
 
 X X 
 
 
 
 2 Neb 
 
 S S. Dak 
 
 N. Dak 
 
 3 Va 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 c 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 c 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 9 N.Car 
 
 a S. Car 
 
 •B Ga 
 
 c x 
 
 X X 
 c X 
 
 1 Fla 
 
 tc Ala 
 
 
 j=. Miss 
 
 s La 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 p 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 i x 
 p 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 £ T e f as 
 
 . Ark 
 
 X X 
 X 
 X X 
 C Xc 
 
 2 Tenn 
 
 3 Ky 
 
 
 
 ^ Mont 
 
 8 Ida 
 
 £ Colo 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 CO 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 p 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ! P 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 X 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X X 
 XC X 
 XC X 
 X X 
 X 
 XC v 
 
 • Utah 
 
 — Nev 
 
 ** Wyo 
 
 
 
 
 « Ore 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 ^ Wash 
 
 X x 
 
 i* Cal. : 
 
 X 
 
 ! 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 Under these provisions St. Louis, Kansas City, San Francisco, 
 Sacramento, Oakland, Los Angeles, Stockton, San Diego, Seattle, 
 Tacoina, Duluth, St. Paul, etc., have established charters of their 
 own making*. The St. Louis charter gives the city power to grant 
 franchises, construct street railways, buy and hold property to be 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 
 
 437 
 
 LE II. 
 
 FREEDOM 
 
 EXPRESSED IN GENERAL LAWS. 
 
 co County 
 P- power to provide i'or lighting 
 I -a law with very important 
 exceptions 
 
 States. 
 
 operate, manage, control, deal with, grant, &c. • 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .22 
 
 M 
 
 si 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 «s 
 
 a, 
 
 s 
 
 x> 
 
 Ch 
 
 M 
 
 8 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 4) 
 
 ° 
 
 • CO 
 
 Provid'g for 
 
 31! 
 
 Debt Limit 
 for 
 
 Municipalities 
 
 fixed by 
 Constitution 
 
 or Statute. 
 
 Maine. 
 N. H... 
 
 Vt 
 
 Mass.. . 
 R. I ... 
 Conn. . 
 
 5$ (const.) 
 
 ■1& 2'.,, (stat) 
 '.¥, (stat.) 
 
 N. Y.... 
 
 N. J 
 
 Penna. 
 
 Del 
 
 Md 
 
 W.Va. 
 
 Ohio... 
 hid.... 
 
 Ill 
 
 Mich. 
 Wise. 
 Minn 
 
 Mo 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kans. ... 
 Neb 
 
 S. Dak... 
 N. Dak.. 
 
 Va 
 
 N. Car. 
 S. Car. 
 
 Ga 
 
 Fla 
 
 Ala 
 
 X 
 
 I X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 10$ (const.) 
 
 5$ (const.) 
 
 2^ (const ) 
 Sjf (const.) 
 
 5# (const.) 
 ltyc (stat.) 
 
 5$ (const.) 
 
 10$ 2d cl. (stat.) 
 10$ 4- (stat.) 
 5$ 4- (const.) 
 H + (const.) 
 
 tat.) 
 bond lim. 
 
 (const.) 
 
 Miss... 
 
 La 
 
 Texas . 
 Ark.... 
 Tenn. . 
 
 Ky 
 
 Mont. 
 Ida.... 
 Colo. .. 
 Utah.. 
 Nev... 
 Wyo.. 
 
 X X 
 X 
 
 X X 
 
 X \ X 
 
 ty 4- (stat) 
 10^ (bond slat.) 
 ty 4- (const.) 
 
 2% 4- (const 
 
 Ore 
 
 Wash 
 Cal. ... 
 
 82,600 (stat 
 
 o# (stat.) 
 
 used for the erection of water works or gas works, to supply the 
 city with water and light, for the establishment of hospitals or poor 
 houses, etc., or for any other purpose; secures the local election or 
 appointment of the city officers required by the cha/ter; and pro- 
 vides that amendments to the charter shall be submitted to the 
 
4:38 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 people separately. The people have no initiative, however, as to 
 amendments, and neither initiative nor referendum, as to ordi- 
 nances. 
 
 The banner charter of all is the one adopted by the voters of 
 San Francisco in May, 1898. It contains strong civil service rules, 
 declares for public ownership and operation of street railways, 
 water, gas, electric light plants, telephone systems, etc., announces 
 the policy of gradual absorption of all such monopolies, and pro- 
 vides for a popular initiative and referendum upon these questions, 
 and upon ordinances of all sorts and upon amendments to the 
 charter, upon petition signed by a number of voters equal to fifteen 
 per cent, of the votes cast at the last preceding election. 
 
 The charter is not equally good in all its parts, but these 
 admirable provisions make it possible for the people to mould the 
 charter easily to any form they desire. 
 
 The people of San Francisco appear to have their own destiny 
 more conrpletel}' in their own hands than the people of any other 
 large city in the country. Their control is subject only to general 
 laws, and the approval of the legislature to charter amendments, 
 which, it is said, is not likely to be withheld in the case of a un- 
 reasonable amendment. 
 
 In Table II, as in the former one, two crosses in the same 
 column may represent widely different laws; both will be 
 general laws relating to the subject at the head of the column, 
 but one law may be much broader than the other. The mass 
 of statute law behind this table is too great for anything like 
 full treatment here. We can only comment briefly on a few 
 of the more important columns, and note a few general acts 
 that fall outside the limits of the table. 
 
 One of the interesting columns is that which relates to the 
 limit of municipal indebtedness with its frequent exceptions 
 in favor of water works, and its expandibility by special vote, 
 as in North Dakota, where by the constitution the municipal 
 debt is not to exceed 5 per cent, on the taxable property, ex- 
 cept that a city may expand the limit, 3 per cent. (i. e., make 
 it 8 per cent.) by a two-thirds vote, and neither limit is to pre- 
 vent the raising of funds to establish water works. There are 
 also statute provisions requiring a referendum. on the issue of 
 bonds for buildings, fire apparatus, water works, sewers, street 
 improvements, etc. 
 
 Another attractive part of the Table is that relating to local 
 selection of local officers, especially the police column, and the 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 439 
 
 results of experimenting with state boards and metropolitan 
 police laws in reference (o New York and Boston and other 
 large cities in various states. The matter of jails, poorhouses, 
 cemeteries and hospitals is very important, and the question 
 of schools, libraries, parks and baths, which may do much to 
 relieve the pressure on the aforesaid, is also of vital moment. 
 Education is undeniably a state interest. But it is also a muni- 
 cipal interest. The state properly determines the broad lines 
 of policy. The municipality properly carries on the schools 
 upon those lines, with wide discretion, local ownership and 
 large control. The state may fix a minimum, co-ordinate all 
 parts of the system and stimulate progressive movement, but 
 the city or town should be free to go as far beyond the mini- 
 mum as it can, and have large liberty to express its individu- 
 ality. 
 
 The difference of quality in the measures behind the crosses 
 in these columns is sometimes very great. For example, in 
 New York free public baths must be established in 1st and 
 2d class cities. In Massachusetts, towns may establish public 
 baths. So in most cases the provision regarding the establish- 
 ment of libraries is permissive, but in Michigan a free library 
 must be established in every township, and the clause is in the 
 constitution. The difference in quantity is also considerable 
 as well as in quality and force. Sometimes the provision only 
 applies to one or two classes of municipalities, as just noted in 
 the New York bath law; probably the smaller cities of New 
 York state are not so much in need of compulsory washing as 
 dusty New York and smoky Buffalo. As a rule, however, the 
 whole group we are studying (including all cities, towns and 
 villages) is behind each cross. 
 
 The most interesting columns of all are those relating to the 
 streets and the local services which usually involve street fran 
 chises; as gas, electric light, street railways, telegraph and 
 telephone systems, local consent and power to grant franchises. 
 It would be profitable to take each state in order, bring to a 
 focus the substance of all its provisions on these subjects and 
 then note unities and contrasts and draw conclusions. Space, 
 however, will not permit us to write out the record fully here.. 
 
440 
 
 THE CITY FOR THE PEOrLE. 
 
 We will say a word about street railways and telephones, and 
 then take municipal lighting and local control of franchises 
 for a somewhat fuller treatment, choosing these subjects for 
 detailed discussion because they represent the area of greatest 
 movement — most rapid advance toward municipal liberty in 
 the last few years. 
 
 In five states there are general laws empowering municipali- 
 ties to own and operate street railways. In Minnesota, any 
 city or village may, on a two-third referendum vote, buy and 
 operate street railways. In California, the power to build or 
 buy, own and operate street railways is given to 6th class cities 
 (those of less than 3,000 inhabitants). The same full power 
 is conferred in Indiana upon cities of 35,000 people or more, 
 belongs to every city council in Utah, and to every incorpor- 
 ated city and town in "Washington. (See Laws of 1897, Chap. 
 112, and Washington "Codes & Statutes," 1897, §1076.) 
 
 In 11 states there are general laws authorizing municipal 
 telegraphs or telephones or both, and in 6 of the states the 
 power is commercial. Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont 
 give their totems a general right to put up telegraph and tele- 
 phone wires for their own use. North Dakota and Utah allow 
 cities to erect municipal fire signals. (Cities would have this 
 right anyway under the general police power, without any 
 specific law either general or special.) 1 In Kentucky, 3d class 
 
 ( 1 ) It Is well to remember, in dealing with Table II, that the absence of 
 
 feneral legislation does not always indicate the absence of municipal power, 
 'or example, some states have no general laws conferring on cities or towns 
 the right to establish fire departments, yet it is practically a universal fact 
 that cities and towns have that right under special provisions of their 
 charters or as an implied authority under the broad power to provide for the 
 safety and welfare of the community. (Dillon, §143.) Perhaps authority to 
 establish a telegraph or telephone system for the use of city police and other 
 officials might also be implied under the general police power. Markets may 
 be established by municipalifies under implied authority based on ancient 
 usage. (23 Pick. 71, C. J. Shaw.) Power to establish cemeteries and hos- 
 pitals will doubtless be implied from the general welfare or police clause 
 usual in municipal charters, and I think the power to establish public parks 
 and bath houses, which may help to make hospitals unnecessary, ought also 
 to be implied from the said clause. The lighting of streets, being a measure 
 strongly favoring safety and morality, should fall in the same class. 
 
 A municipality having power to pass ordinances respecting the police of 
 the place, and to preserve health, is authorized as a sanitary and police 
 regulation, to procure a supply of water and may bore an artesian well or 
 take any other requisite steps. (Dillon, §146, 8 Mich. 458; 66 Ind. 396; 31 
 Ala. 542.) But while the right to establish water works is within the ordi- 
 nary broad charter powers and needs no express grant, yet it Is subject to 
 arbitrary revocation by the legislature at any time. For example, the city 
 of Memphis spent $30,000 getting plans, etc.. for water works, then the 
 legislature granted a private company the exclusive right to build water 
 works in Memphis. This was held to revoke the city's right, altho it had 
 begun to build. (Memphis v. Memphis Water Co., 5 Heisk. 495.) For gas, 
 electric light, street railway, telephone and other plants, for serving the 
 Inhabitants generally, there is no doubt that authority will not be implied, 
 
HOME EULE FOR OUR CITIES. 441 
 
 cities (8,000 to 20,000) may supply inhabitants with tele- 
 phone service. In Washington, 3d class cities (1,500 to 10,- 
 000) and towns (all municipalities of less than 1,500 inhabi- 
 tants) have authority "To permit under such restrictions as 
 they may deem proper, the laying of railroad tracks and the 
 running of cars drawn by horses, steam, electricity or other 
 power thereon, or the laying of gas and water pipes in the 
 public streets, and to construct and maintain and to permit 
 the construction and maintenance of TELEGRAPH, TELE- 
 PHONE (and electric light) lines therein." (Track and Pipe 
 clause, Codes & Statutes, 1897, §938, 13.) Note that the 
 general charter laws for 1st class cities (those over 20,000) and 
 2d class cities (those between 10,000 and 20,000) do not con- 
 tain the above clause. 2d class cities, however, in common 
 with 3d class cities and towns "may purchase, leceive, have, 
 take, hold, lease, use and enjoy property of every name and 
 description, and control and dispose of the same for the com- 
 mon benefit." One not familiar with legal ways of doing 
 things might think that this would cover the telephone and 
 everything else, and it might be so held in court. If such a 
 grant of power stood alone it would be very broadly construed, 
 but as it is accompanied by a long enumeration of powers to 
 establish water works, hospitals, docks, etc., the courts may 
 3onstrue the broad power in reference to the enumeration and 
 .iold that the broad clause gives authority to acquire and hold 
 property of all sorts when needful for the specific purposes 
 named in the express enumeration of powers. 
 
 In California, 3d class cities (15,000 to 30,000) have the 
 same Track & Pipe clause as in Washington except that the 
 italicized words and those in parenthesis are omitted — 4th, 
 5th and 6th class cities (which three classes include all munici- 
 palities under 15,000 inhabitants) have the Track & Pipe 
 clause, italicized words, and all except the parenthesis. 1st 
 class cities, or those over 100,000, have no "Track & Pipe" 
 clause except this: "To permit the laying down of railroad 
 
 that special requests are apt to meet with strenuous opposition and frequent 
 defeat, and that no substantial liberty in these directions is possessed b.r 
 municipalities in the absence of general laws or constitutional provisions. 
 The same thing Is true in respect to the columns that deal with franchises, 
 local consent and power to grant. 
 
442 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 tracks and running of cars thereon along any street, for the 
 sole purpose of excavating and filling in a street, and for 
 such limited time as may be necessary for the purpose afore- 
 said and no longer." The only power such cities have under 
 general law to construct and operate lines for the transfer of 
 intelligence by wire, is to maintain fire alarm and police tele- 
 graphs in the city or city and county. 
 
 "We find, therefore, that in California, municipalities under 
 15,000 have unrestricted power to build and operate telegraph 
 and telephone systems, but for larger places there is no general 
 provision authorizing anything more than a fire alarm and 
 police telegraph. The law so exactly mirrors the interests of 
 the corporations that one cannot help having a suspicion that 
 municipalization of the telephone is not permitted in the large 
 cities because the private companies want to keep those cities 
 for themselves, while municipalization is permitted in small 
 places because there is little or no inducement for the big 
 corporations to go there — they can use their money "to better 
 advantage" in the larger cities. 
 
 In Minnesota, any city or village, on a 2/3 referendum 
 vote, may buy and own and operate a telephone plant. And 
 in Indiana, a general law provides that any city of more than 
 35,000 inhabitants may build or buy and operate telegraph 
 or telephone lines to serve the city and its inhabitants, or may 
 purchase and hold a majority of the stock of any corporation 
 organized for such purpose. (For Wise, see Appendix II, U.) 
 
 MUNICIPAL LIGHTING LAWS. 
 
 We come now to municipal ownership of lighting-plants 
 and will then consider local control of franchises. In dealing 
 with gas and electric light, we shall try to give an idea of the 
 provisions that go with the light laws; so that they may be 
 seen in true relations to their surroundings. We shall find 
 that this method will lead us by almost insensible gradations 
 to the study of local consent and powers of grant. 
 
 In Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, 
 South Dakota, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisi- 
 ana, Arkansas, Nevada and Wyoming, there appears to be 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 443 
 
 no general legislation permitting cities and towns to own and 
 operate gas or electric light plants. 1 
 
 New Hampshire, Illinois, North Dakota and Texas have 
 general laws allowing municipalities to provide light for 
 streets. Under this authority a municipality may build works 
 of its own or contract with others to light the streets. (Levis 
 v. iSTewton, 75 Fed. 884.) 
 
 In Idaho, sl city or village may provide light for public pur- 
 poses and, by the laws of 1897, may grant exclusive gas fran- 
 chises to light the streets. 
 
 In New York, gas may be furnished for public use by any 
 village owning water works. 
 
 In Ohio the law permits any city or town to erect or pur- 
 chase gas-works whenever the council deems it expedient. 2 
 And a city may procure its own gas-works, and supply the city 
 and its citizens, altho a gas company incorporated before this 
 law was enacted is in operation in the city and is not in any 
 default. The construction of gas-works by the city under such 
 a law does not impair the obligation of contract. The gas 
 companies took their charters subject to such contingencies, 
 which might arise at any time by the exercise of legislative 
 power to authorize municipal works. 3 (See Appendix H, U.) 
 
 In Oeorgia, a town or village may erect gas . works. In 
 Oregon, any city or town may build gas works. In Montana, 
 all municipalities may build gas or electric light works, and in 
 Mississippi, all municipalities may buy gas or electric light 
 works. 
 
 Connecticut gives all municipalities the right to build or 
 buy gas or electric light works and sell to the citizens. No. 
 115 of Michigan's laws for 1891 gave any city or incorporated 
 village the right to build or buy, maintain and operate, works 
 to supply the city or village and its inhabitants with gas, 
 
 0) I say it "appears to be" because it is not easy to be absolutely certain 
 about a negative relating to large masses of miserably Indexed statutes. 
 Great care has been taken and every volume of statutes has been examined 
 under 30 odd topics or index heads. Still some pertinent facts may have 
 escaped the notice of the writer or his assistants, and if any reader discovers 
 an error of omission or commission, it will be appreciated as a favor if he 
 will call attention to it by a line to the writer at Boston University Law 
 School. 
 
 ( 2 ) Ohio Statutes, Revis. of 1897, §§2486-7; State v. City of Hamilton. 47 
 Ohio St., 52; Hamilton Gas Light Co. v. Hamilton City, 146 U. S., 258, 265-6 
 <1892t. 
 
 P> Hamilton Gas Light Co. v. Hamilton City, 146 U. S., 258, 268 (1892- . 
 
444 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 electric or other light. On petition of 100 voters the common 
 council or board of trustees must submit to a referendum at 
 the polls the question whether the city or village shall avail 
 itself of the provisions of the law. On such referendum the 
 law required a 2/3 favorable vote. This law was superseded 
 by iSTo. 186 of the same year, 1891, which provided that any 
 city or incorporated village may build or buy, maintain and 
 operate works to supply the city or village and its inhabitants 
 with gas, electric or other light, or contract for furnishing the 
 same. Then follow initiative and referendum provisions like 
 those above except that a majority vote is sufficient, and then 
 we find a proviso that the clause relating to purchase, con- 
 struction, maintenance and operation shall not apply to 
 cities having more than 25,000 inhabitants. Law No. 139 
 of- 1893, provides that any city or incorporated village of not 
 more than 8,000 population, which already owns and operates 
 electric light works for its streets, may supply the inhabitants 
 also. The private companies evidently wish to keep com- 
 mercial lighting in the big cities for themselves as long as 
 possible. 
 
 In Tennessee, all cities of more than 36,000 population may 
 build or buy gas and electric light works to supply streets and 
 public buildings and may supply gas to the people. 
 
 In West Virginia, the council of a city, town or village may 
 erect or authorize or prohibit the erection of gas, electric light 
 or water works. 
 
 In Iowa, a city or town may purchase, establish, erect, 
 maintain and operate, within or without the corporate limits, 
 water works, gas works, electric light and power plants, and 
 may grant to individuals or corporations authority to erect 
 and maintain such works. The term is not to exceed 25 years. 
 !No exclusive franchise is to be granted, and no such plants can 
 be authorized, established, erected, purchased, leased or sold, 
 or franchise extended or renewed unless the proposition is 
 favored by a majority of the electors voting on it at a general 
 or special election. Under these provisions, it is held that a 
 municipality may supply its inhabitants with light or water 
 by a plant of its own altho a franchise for the same purpose 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 445 
 
 may previously have been granted by the municipality to a 
 private company. (Thomson Houston Elec. Co. v. Newton, 
 42 Fed. Hep. 723 — bill to enjoin the city from erecting an 
 electric plant, the company having spent $20,000 in building 
 a plant under its franchise previously granted it by the city, 
 and being able to furnish all the electricity needed. See 
 Iowa Code, 1897.) This is according to the principles of com- 
 petitive business acted on by the corporations themselves — 
 if you're not sharp enough to make a cast iron contract thai 
 will protect you all round, you must suffer the consequences — 
 but it is not just for a city to disregard what is fair to others 
 any more than for a private company to do so. 
 
 Colorado gives all municipalities the right to build or buy 
 water or light works or grant light or water franchises. But 
 no water or light works shall be constructed or authorized .un- 
 til sanctioned by vote of the people. Where municipalities 
 have the power to grant franchises together with a general 
 power to build or buy without limiting words, full commercial 
 power or authority to sell to private consumers as well as to 
 light streets and public places, would seem to be implied. 
 
 Utah 9 8 statutes in a single clause give city councils power 
 to construct and maintain water works, gas works, electric 
 light works, street railways, or bath houses, or. to authorize 
 the construction and maintenance of the same by others, or 
 to purchase any or all of said works from any person or cor- 
 poration. 
 
 In New Jersey, all cities may buy electric or gas or other 
 light, or water works, and the franchise, and supply the city 
 and its inhabitants. 
 
 In Wisconsin, any city or village may buy water works or 
 light plants; municipalities may build lighting plants for 
 street, service, and may buy commercial plants, or, if there are 
 none or none willing to sell, the city may erect such plants. 
 
 In Pennsylvania, boroughs may light the streets, and 3d 
 class cities (those under 100,000 population) have the exclu- 
 sive right to supply the city with gas or other light, or with 
 water, and to erect works or authorize others to supply gas, 
 light ot water. The councils of any 3d class city, if author- 
 
446 the city fob the people. 
 
 ized by a referendum vote at the polls, may buy (for such 
 price as may be agreed on between the councils and the com- 
 pany's stockholders) all property of a water, gas or electric 
 light company, and exercise all its rights. It is further pro- 
 vided that at any time after 20 years from the introduction of 
 water or gas into any place by a private company, the town, 
 borough, city or district in which the said company is located 
 may become owners of the property by paying the net cost of 
 erecting and maintaining the same, with interest thereon at 
 10 per cent, per annum, deducting from said interest all divi- 
 dends theretofore paid. No company is to go in where the 
 municipality has built works, except by consent of the muni- 
 cipality. 
 
 In 1891, Massachusetts passed an act permitting cities and 
 towns to manufacture and distribute gas and electricity, build 
 or buy, maintain and operate, gas or electric light works, and 
 supply light to the city or town and its inhabitants. An 
 amendment in 1894 permitted municipalities to furnish gas or 
 electricity for heat and power except for operating electric 
 cars. A city must have a 2/3 vote in each council and ap- 
 proval of the mayor in each of two consecutive years, and rati- 
 fication by the majority of the electors at an annual municipal 
 election. A town must have a 2/3 vote in each of 2 legal 
 town meetings, 2 to 13 months apart. The municipality must 
 buy suitable existing works if the owners file a schedule of 
 property and terms of sale with the clerk of the city or town 
 within 30 days after the final vote to establish municipal 
 works. The price of the property "shall be its lair market 
 value for the purposes of its use (no portion of such plant to 
 be estimated however, at less than its fair market value for 
 any other purpose) including as an element of value the earn- 
 ing capacity of such plant based upon the actual earnings 
 being derived from such use at the time of the final vote. 
 Such value shall be estimated without enhancement on ac- 
 count of future earning capacity or good will, or of exclusive 
 privileges derived from rights in the public streets." Any 
 locations or similar rights acquired from private persons must 
 be paid for, and damages suffered by the severancj of any por- 
 
HOME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 447 
 
 tion of the property lying outside the municipal limits are 
 allowed, except where the main plant lies outside. Within 60 
 days after the filing of the schedule, either party may petition 
 the Supreme Court to appoint special commissioners to esti- 
 mate the price, and appeal lies from these commissioners to the 
 Supreme Court. 
 
 The Florida acts of 1897 contain a statute modelled thru- 
 out on the Massachusetts law. It does not, however, require; 
 double adoption — a 2/3 vote of council, approval of mayor 
 and ratification by the voters at the polls being sufficient with- 
 out repeating the operation the following year. If the propo- 
 sition fails at the polls, no similar proposal can be submitted 
 for ratification within one year. The extreme restrictions in 
 Massachusetts are due to the strenuous efforts and powerful 
 influence of the corporations. It took a three years' hard fight 
 to get the law, and even then it was not possible to pass it 
 except with corporation amendments which seriously dimin- 
 ish its value. 
 
 In Minnesota, any municipality may build or buy water, 
 gas, electric light or heat plants and sell to inhabitants, and 
 under another law may buy street railways or telephone or 
 power plants. (See below.) 
 
 In Missouri, any municipality may build or buy water, gas, 
 electric light or power plants and sell water, gas, etc., to in- 
 habitants. 
 
 In Kansas, under the laws of 1897, any municipality may 
 build or buy water, gas, electric light or power, water or heat- 
 ing plants, and sell to inhabitants. 
 
 In Nebraska, 1st and 2d class cities may build or buy gas 
 or electric light plants and sell the product. 
 
 In California, there are general provisions, 1st, that the 
 common council may provide for lighting the city; 2d, that 
 6th class cities (all municipalities under 3,000 inhabitants) 
 may acquire, own, construct, maintain and operate street rail- 
 ways, telegraph and telephone systems, gas and other works 
 for heat and light; 3d, that 5th class cities (municipalities be- 
 tween 3,000 and 10,000 population) may purchase, lease or 
 construct water or electric light works and sell water, heat 
 light and power 
 
448 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 South Carolina's constitution, 1895, provides that any 
 city or town, on a vote of a majority of its electors, may build 
 or buy water works or light plants and supply its inhabitants. 
 
 The Washington statutes of 1897, Chap. 112, provide that 
 any incorporated city or town may construct or buy, own and 
 operate, water works (within and without its limits), gas, elec- 
 tric light, or other light plants (to serve the city or town and 
 its inhabitants with public or private supplies of water, light, 
 heat and power), and cable, electric or other railroads within 
 its limits for the transportation of freight or passengers. A 
 referendum is necessary, and if debt is to be incurred the 
 proposition must be adopted by a 3/5 vote at the polls. 
 
 The "Indiana Statutes," of 1896, contain three most inter- 
 esting provisions as to franchises: one relating to cities of 35,- 
 000 to 50,000 population, another to cities between 50,000 
 and 100,000 and a third to cities over 100,000. The three 
 long enactments are identical. Their substance is that the city 
 board of public works (appointed by the mayor) shall have 
 power to purchase or erect, by contract or otherwise, and oper- 
 ate gas works, electric light works, street cars and other lines 
 for the conveyance of passengers and freight, telegraph and 
 telephone lines, steam and power houses and lines, to supply 
 the city and its inhabitants, or to purchase and hold a majority 
 of the stock of corporations organized for either of the above 
 purposes. Also to contract for the furnishing of gas, steam or 
 electricity, light or power to said city or the citizens thereof, 
 and in such contract fix charges. To authorize and empower 
 by contract, telegraph, telephone, electric light, gas, steam, 
 or street car or railroad companies to use any street, and pre- 
 scribe terms and conditions of such use, except that franchises 
 are not to be for longer term than 25 years nor for a less re- 
 turn than 2 per cent, of the gross receipts. The exercise of all 
 these powers is subject to the approval of the city council 
 which has "exclusive control of the streets." New Jersey, 
 Missouri, Texas and Kentucky also have provisions giving 
 municipal authorities "exclusive" control of streets. 
 
 In Kentucky, 2d class cities (20,000 to 100,000 people) 
 may provide lights, by themselves or others, for streets and 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 449 
 
 inhabitants; 3d class cities (8, 000 to 20,000 people) may pro- 
 vide the city and its inhabitants with water, light, heat, power, 
 and telephone service by contract or works of its own; 4th 
 class cities may light public places by gas or otherwise; and 
 in 1st class cities (over 100,000 i. e., Louisville) the board of 
 public works has exclusive control of the lighting and use of 
 streets. The Kentucky constitution of 1891 provides, §163, 
 that "no street railway, gas, water, steam heating, telephone 
 or electric light company in any city or town" shall lay its 
 tracks, pipes, wires, etc., without consent of the local legisla- 
 tive authority, and §164 declares that "no county, city, town, 
 taxing district or other municipality shall be authorized or 
 permitted to grant any franchise or privilege or make any con- 
 tract in reference thereto for a term exceeding 20 years. Be- 
 fore granting such franchise or privilege for a term of years, 
 such municipality shall first, after due advertisement, receive 
 bids therefor publicly, and award the same to the highest and 
 best bidder. But it shall have the right to reject any and all 
 bids. This section shall not apply to a trunk railway." 
 
 This principle of sale of franchise to the highest bidder is 
 also recognized in New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, 
 Louisiana and California. In all, the method has been applied 
 to street railway franchises, and in California, Wisconsin and 
 Kentucky it has a much wider application. Generally the sale 
 is to the company bidding the highest percentage of gross 
 receipts, but the bid may be for so much cash down, as in New 
 Orleans, or the franchise may be sold to the company agreeing 
 to serve on the lowest fare, as in the Ohio provision (relating 
 to 2d class cities, i. e., Cleveland). New Orleans has sold 
 street railway franchises for cash at various times since 1879 
 when she first advertised for sealed proposals. Chap. 370 of 
 Wisconsin's laws of 1897, provides for publication of full 
 specifications, rates, etc., and advertisement for bids, before 
 any city or village can grant a franchise to establish and oper- 
 ate a street railway, gas or electric plant, or water works or 
 telephone system or other franchise involving the use of the 
 streets. Chap. 361 provides for the submission of water and 
 lighting grants to the voters at the polls, and requires such 
 submission if 20 per cent, of the voters petition for it. 
 
 29 
 
450 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 In California, by the laws of 1897, "every franchise or 
 privilege to erect or lay telegraph or telephone wires or con- 
 struct or operate street railways- on any public street or high- 
 way, to lay gas or water pipes, erect poles or wires for trans- 
 mitting electric power, or light, or to exercise any other privi- 
 lege whatever hereafter proposed to be granted by the board 
 of supervisors, trustees, county commissioners or other govern- 
 ing body of any city, county or town (excepting steam rail- 
 roads, telegraph lines, and renewals of franchises for piers,, 
 chutes and wharves) shall be granted on the following con- 
 ditions/' viz: the application must be advertised for 10 days, 
 with a statement that bids of so much per cent, (not less than 
 3 per cent.) of gross receipts will be entertained. The bids 
 must be opened in open session and the franchise or privilege 
 must be awarded to the highest bidder. The gain to the 
 people from such notice and sale is a matter of much interest, 
 as is also the exception clause. 
 
 Ey a Missouri statute of 1895, cities, towns and villages 
 are to sell all franchises for electric light, gas, water or transit 
 to the bidder offering the highest percentage of gross receipts. 
 
 In New York state, since Jan. 1, 1875, the legislature has 
 been under constitutional prohibition in respect to special 
 legislation granting the right to lay down railroad tracks, or 
 confer exclusive privilege, franchise or immunity, and has not 
 been able even under general law to give street railway com- 
 panies a right to construct and operate roads in the streets of 
 cities and towns, the consent of the local authorities being re- 
 quired for this by the constitutional amendment of "Nov. 3, 
 1874; in force Jan. 1, 1875. In 1884, the legislature gave 
 any incorporated city or village the right to sell street railway 
 franchises at auction. The law did not require such sale. It 
 was merely optional, and the New York Board of Alderman 
 took advantage of this fact to give the Broadway Surface Rail- 
 road Company the right to operate a road from Union Square 
 to South Ferry, exacting nothing but the 3 per cent, of gross 
 receipts (5 per cent, after the first five years) which was the 
 minimum allowed by the law. The Cable Railway Company 
 had offered $1,000,000 cash in addition to the statute per- 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 451 
 
 centages, but the Broadway Surface people bribed aldermen 
 at the rate of $20,000 each and secured the franchise at a 
 cost of $500,000 for bribes, lobby expenses, etc. 1 — half a 
 million went to a few for corruption, in place of a million to 
 the public for an honest franchise. Almost all the aldermen 
 and officers of the Broadway Company were indicted, and a 
 few convicted, and public indignation over the transaction led 
 to the Cantor Act of 1886, which provided that all incorpor- 
 ated cities and towns must sell their street railway franchises 
 at auction (except in case of companies already organized in 
 municipalities of less than 40,000 people). The public sale 
 of street railway franchises was now obligatory instead of 
 optional. But as public sentiment and attention lapsed, cor- 
 porate interests made themselves felt, and in 1890, the auction 
 plan was restricted to cities above 90,000 inhabitants. In 
 1892 the Cantor plan was further eliminated from the law so 
 that it ceased to exist except as to the single city of New York, 
 and now the charter of Greater New York leaves it in doubt 
 whether the auction principle has not been banished even 
 from that city. The charter says that "nothing in this act 
 shall repeal or affect the existing general laws of the state in 
 respect to street surface railroads," but §77 looks the other 
 way and §§73 and 74 (see below) quite clearly indicate an 
 intent to substitute full discretion and publicity for the obliga- 
 tory auction plan. It would seem, therefore, that at present 
 cities and towns in New York may sell street railway fran- 
 chises at auction if they wish, but are not obliged to. 
 
 Several remarkable sales have occurred. In 1887, a 
 premium of 26.3 per cent, of the gross receipts was bid for the 
 28th and 29th Street franchise, and 35 per cent, for the Ful- 
 ton Street line in New York. The latter agreement was com- 
 promised after 6 years by the Sinking Fund Commissioners 
 for 5 & 1/8 per cent., as the company claimed that it was losing 
 money, and the 28th and 29th Street crosstown line was not 
 operated till the Commissioners agreed to let the company off 
 for half of 1 per cent, above the 3 per cent, statute minimum. 
 In 1895, the Third Avenue Extension was sold for $250,000 
 
 C 1 ) N. Y. Senate Doc. 79, 1886, Report of Road Cora, on Broadway S.R.O©. 
 
452 
 
 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 cash and a premium of 38^ per cent., making, 1 \/ith the sta- 
 tute minimum, 41£ per cent, each year for the first five and 
 43^ per cent, each year afterward besides the $50 car tax. In 
 the same year The People's Traction Company and its com- 
 petitors carried the bidding into the clouds for the capture of 
 a short route important to the People's Company as a connect- 
 ing link between its system and a prospective line outside the 
 city limits. At the end of the day's bidding, the People's 
 Company had offered 6975 per cent., or about 70 times the 
 entire gross receipts. The next day the People's Co. and one 
 of its rivals were ready to go on bidding, but a third company 
 got out an injunction on the sale. The case went into the 
 courts, and the franchise was awarded to the People's Co. for 
 100 per cent., but an appeal has been taken. It is said that the 
 People's Co. could afford to pay many times the receipts of the 
 short line rather than lose the link in its contemplated system. 
 And it is also said that the company could arrange to make no 
 •charge for transfer over the short route so that the gross re- 
 -ceipts would be nothing and the city would get nothing how- 
 ever high the bids might run, since 6975 per cent, or 10 mil- 
 lions per cent, of nothing is still nothing. 
 
 The charter of Greater New York provides (§16) that the 
 municipal assembly may grant street railway franchises, and 
 establish, maintain and regulate ferries. By §71 the rights of 
 the city in and to its water front, ferries, wharf property, land 
 under water, public landings, wharves, docks, streets, avenues, 
 parks and other public places are hereby declared to be in- 
 alienable. By §73, no franchise or light to use the streets 
 shall be granted by the municipal assembly for more than 25 
 years, but the grant may, at the city's option, contain a pro- 
 vision for renewals (at fair revaluations) not exceeding 25 
 years in the aggregate. The grant may provide that, at the 
 end of the term, the whole property of the grantee shall be- 
 come the property of the city without further compensation, 
 or it may provide for a valuation and payment of that valua- 
 tion. If the property becomes public without money pay- 
 
 0) This sale was annulled on the ground that the cash bonus was beyond 
 •the law, and that the extension Included two routes. Beckman r. Third Ave. 
 «R. R. Co.. 153 N. Y., 144. 
 
HOME RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 453 
 
 inert, the city may operate it, or lease it f r a term not exceed- 
 ing 20 years. If the city takes the property by payment it 
 must operate it for at least 5 years, after which it may con- 
 tinue to operate it or may lease it for limited periods in the 
 same manner as it does its docks and ferries. By §74, the full 
 terms of every proposed grant of franchise or right to use 
 the streets must be published in the City Record for 20 days 
 before the grant is made and at least twice in 2 daily news- 
 papers, must be approved by the board of estimate and appor- 
 tionment, must receive a 3/4 vote by ayes and noes in each 
 branch of the assembly and the approval of the mayor. A 
 5/6 vote of each branch is necessary to pass a franchise over 
 the mayor's veto, and at least 30 days must intervene between 
 the introduction of any franchise granting ordinance and its 
 final passage. 
 
 The New York Charter is complexly careful or carefully 
 complex, and yet it does not adopt the most important of all 
 checks upon corrupt or injudicious franchise grants, the in- 
 itiative and referendum, which Ave have found in the new 
 freehold charter of San Francisco, and in a less complete form, 
 in the laws of "Wisconsin, Michigan, Massachusetts, Florida,. 
 South Carolina, Colorado, Washington, Pennsylvania, and 
 Iowa. Other examples will occur as we proceed. 
 
 LO-CAL POWERS OF CONSENT, GRANT, &C. 
 
 The reader has doubtless noted, that as I predicted, we have 
 drifted from powers of ownership to powers of grant. The 
 laws often deal with the two in the same paragraph, and they 
 are in reality merely complementary portions of the right of 
 local self government in respect to local franchises. "We have 
 covered the entire body of statute law, and find that there is. 
 but one state in the Union (Louisiana) that has no general 
 legislation requiring local consent for street railways, water, 
 gas, electric light, telegraph, telephone and other street ser- 
 vices, or empowering municipalities to grant such franchises. 1 
 Delaware, Maryland and Nevada have almost nothing, but 
 
 ( a ) Perhaps the Louisiana law of 1896 empowering municipalities to make 
 their own charters should be considered as an indirect contribution under 
 this head. 
 
454 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 still there is a glimmer of light even in Delaware, it being 
 enacted that a street railway shall not use a county bridge or 
 road without consent of the county levy court elected by the 
 citizens of the county — a mere scintilla of local self govern- 
 ment in respect to franchises, but enuf to save Delaware's 
 general laws from Egyptian darkness. Maryland requires 
 consent of municipal authorities for water works, and Nevada 
 authorizes cities and towns to grant gas and water privileges 
 
 From these minimum recognitions of local right we pass by 
 a series of gradations thru the meagre measures of Alabama, 
 North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas and New York up to the 
 larger provisions of Massachusetts, South Dakota, Pennsyl- 
 vania, Ohio, Illinois, Colorado and Montana, and the sweeping- 
 laws and constitutional safeguards of Indiana, Iowa, Wis- 
 consin, Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, California, Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, Rhode Island, Utah, Wyoming, Washington. 
 South Carolina and Florida. 
 
 One of the commonest recognitions of local right to control 
 street services is a provision requiring street railways to get 
 local consent to construct their tracks and subjecting their 
 locations to municipal control. In 16 states (California, 
 Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Kentucky, Alabama, North Da- 
 kota, Kansas, IOWA, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
 Indiana, Ohio, New York, Rhode Island) there are effective 
 provisions relating to the grant of street railway rights and 
 franchises by municipalities. The states in italics provide for 
 sale of the franchise, and Iowa requires a referendum. Thirty- 
 five states expressly require local consent, and generally it is 
 a necessity, there being no appeal from the local decision. In 
 13 states (New York, West Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, 
 Nebraska, South Dakota, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, 
 Kentucky, Idaho, Colorado, and Wyoming) a provision re- 
 quiring street railways in cities and towns to get the consent 
 of the local authorities has been put in the constitution. 
 
 A constitutional clause of this kind is of course bed-rock, 
 not liable to be overturned by legislative action or appeal to 
 state commission or court — a bit of real municipal sovereignty. 
 In Kentucky, as we have seen, the provision requir- 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 455 
 
 ing local consent includes steam-heating, gas, water, street 
 railway, telephone, and electric light in cities and towns, and 
 in every case the municipality must sell the franchise to 
 the highest bidder for a term not over 20 years. In 
 South Carolina also, consent of the municipal authorities 
 is necessary by the constitution not only for street railways, 
 but for any railroad track, gas or water pipes, telegraph, tele- 
 phone or electric light wires. In Wyoming, the constitutional 
 clause covers the telegraph, telephone and electric light, and 
 in South Dakota it covers the telegraph and telephone. 
 
 Twenty-six states make local consent necessary for gas (con- 
 stitutional provision in Kentucky and South Carolina, statute 
 elsewhere), and 15 of these states with 14 others confer upon 
 local authorities the right to grant gas privileges. A right to 
 grant must be distinguished from a requirement for local con- 
 sent. The latter clearly indicates a policy of local control, but 
 accords no right of initiation; while authority to grant gives 
 power of initiation, but unless the authority is exclusive it 
 affords no certainty of control. A mere power to grant does 
 not exclude the idea of independent grants by the legislature 
 directly ; it is on its face only a concurrent power. A require- 
 ment of local consent is on its face a veto power and may be 
 more valuable than a right to grant unless it is exclusive, in 
 which case it includes the local consent idea, and is a creative 
 and a veto power in one. 
 
 Twenty-one states require local consent for electric light 
 (constitutional provision in South Carolina, Kentucky and 
 Wyoming); 10 of the 21 and 14 others confer the right of 
 grant. Eighteen states recognize by general law the principle 
 of local consent in respect to telegraph (Kentucky, South 
 Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming in the constitution); 
 5 of the 18 and 8 others accord to some or all municipalities 
 the right to grant telegraph privileges. With the telephone 
 it is local consent in 17 states (same 4 in constitution); 6 of 
 the 17 and 10 others, grant. (See Appendix II, U.) 
 
 These summaries afford some idea of the almost universal 
 recognition of the right of local self government in respect 
 to streets and franchises. The field of this recognition is of 
 
456 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 
 course much broader than this discussion. We have not at- 
 tempted to deal with municipal regulation of local services — 
 a topic of enormous girth. The lowest forms of power that 
 might fall within the lines of local consent and right of grant 
 are what may be called the right of designation (which is 
 really a regulative power) and the right of consultation. An 
 example of the first is the local right to designate locations for 
 railway tracks or telegraph posts without the right to refuse 
 all locations. (See below.) An example of the second is the 
 right of selectmen to grant or revoke licenses for telegraph, 
 telephone or electric light poles and wires, subject to appeal 
 to the Superior Court, as in New Hampshire. 
 
 The highest form of authority is a sweeping statute, or bet- 
 ter still a constitutional provision, giving complete and ex- 
 clusive powers of grant and revocation, purchase, erection, 
 ownership and operation to every municipality, subject to the 
 initiative and referendum, and possibly, in some cases, to the 
 consent of a majority of the property owners chiefly affected. 
 The principle of the initiative in respect to these franchises is 
 recognized in the general legislation of three states (Wiscon- 
 sin, Michigan and Nebraska), and the referendum in eleven 
 (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minne- 
 sota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington 
 and Wisconsin). In most cases these principles are only parti- 
 ally applied, as follows : 
 
 Colorado, gas, electric light and water. 
 
 Florida, gas, electric light. 
 
 Iowa, gas, water, electric light and power, telegraph, tele- 
 phone and street railways. 
 
 Massachusetts, gas and electric works. 
 
 Michigan, gas, electric or other light. 
 
 Minnesota, gas, electric light, street railway, water, tele- 
 phone, heat and power. 
 
 Pennsylvania, 3d class cities, gas, electric light, water. 
 
 South Carolina, gas, electric light, water. 
 
 Washington, gas, electric or other means of light, heat„ 
 power, water, cable, electric or other railways. 
 
 Wisconsin, gas, electric light, water. 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 457 
 
 Nebraska, municipal initiative and referendum covering all 
 contracts, grants, franchises and ordinances of every 
 sort (law of 1897), but the percentage of voters re- 
 quired to demand the referendum is high. 
 
 South Dakota, general state and municipal initiative and 
 referendum (amendment to constitution, passed 
 legislature, 1896, adopted by the people in Nov., 
 1898, by a large majority). 
 
 We have included water where it occurred in connection 
 with the franchises specially discussed, but have not searched 
 specially for referendum provisions relating to water works, 
 or possibly the list would be somewhat longer. 
 
 The consent of property owners is required by general laws 
 as follows: 
 
 Connecticut (see below) electric light, telegraph, telephone. 
 
 Illinois, gas, electric light, L roads. 
 
 Kansas, cities over 40,000, street railways. 
 
 Missouri, street railways. 
 
 North Dakota, street railways. 
 
 New York, (see below) street railways. 
 
 Sometimes the owners of more than half the frontage must 
 assent (as in Illinois, North Dakota, etc., see below); some- 
 times the owners of half or two-thirds of the value (see New 
 York below) ; sometimes a majority of the persons owning pro- 
 perty on the line (see Kansas below). 
 
 In Connecticut and New Hampshire, the local authorities 
 have exclusive direction of the places of tracks. 
 
 In Connecticut, no telegraph or telephone or electric light 
 company, or company distributing electricity by wires or 
 similar conductors, or using wires or conductors for any pur- 
 pose, can place them in the streets or highways without con- 
 sent of the adjoining proprietors or of tivo county commis- 
 sioners (appointed by the General Assembly). Subject to 
 this and to appeal to the superior court (appointed by the 
 Governor and Legislature), the council of a city and selectmen 
 of a town have full control of the location, re-location or re- 
 moval of the aforesaid wires and conductors. In New Hamp- 
 shire, appeal lies to the supreme court from the decision of 
 
458 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 selectmen respecting telegraph and telephone privileges. In 
 Maine, the local consent to street railways provided for by the 
 Laws of 1895, p. 81, is subject to appeal from the municipal 
 officers to the supreme court. The state lets the municipality 
 go out of doors and walk around a bit, but keeps a pretty big 
 string tied to it; except the right to build or buy light works, 
 it has really nothing but rights of consultation, designation 
 and regulation — no power of veto, little power of construction, 
 very little real sovereignty. 
 
 Several of the sweeping provisions above mentioned have 
 already been noted while speaking of municipal ownership 
 (see paragraphs about Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, 
 California, South Carolina and Kentucky a few pages back). 
 
 The Minnesota Statutes (1894) §2592, provide that no cor- 
 poration shall establish gas, electric light, heat, transportation, 
 or other improvement except on obtaining a franchise from 
 the city or village council, and making just compensation, and 
 at the end of each and every franchise period of five years the 
 council may, on a two-thirds vote of the electors of the city uir 
 village, buy at eminent domain value and own and operate 
 the gas, electric light, street railway, water, telephone, heat or 
 power works. That is something worth having in the way of 
 local self government. Take out the five year limitation, ex- 
 tend the referendum to the granting of franchises, add the 
 initiative on a 5 per cent, petition, authorize cities to build at 
 the start, and put the whole thing in the constitution, beyond 
 the reach of legislative interference, and municipal freedom 
 and sovereignty would be established in respect to the most 
 important local services of a monopolistic character. 
 
 In Kansas, by the laws of '97, any municipality may grant 
 gas, electric light, water, heat or power privileges for a term 
 not exceeding 20 years, and it may be terminated in 10 years. 
 Forty days notice of application for a franchise or renewal 
 must be published, and the municipality must reserve rents 
 for the use of streets. Provision is made for filing items of 
 construction cost, income and outgo by the companies, the 
 items to be open to public inspection. In 1st class cities (those 
 of more than 15,000 inhabitants) the mayor and council may 
 
HOME .RULE FOR OUR CITIES. 459 
 
 gTant rights of way for telegraphs, telephones and electric 
 light works; may grant street rights for laying gas, water and 
 ■*team pipes and conduits for electric light wires; provide for 
 and regulate and grant railroad and street railway rights in 
 streets, but cannot give an exclusive right; and may grant per- 
 mits to mine coal. No city of more than 40,000 people can 
 grant street railway rights without the assent of a majority- 
 of the persons owning property on the line. 
 
 Tennessee requires local consent for water, gas, and street 
 railways and provides that all municipalities may grant privi- 
 leges in the streets. Florida requires local consent for tele- 
 graph and telephone; authorizes cities and towns to grant 
 water, gas and electric light privileges; and provides that fran- 
 chises to use the streets for a public use shall be granted 
 only by the mayor and council. Utah requires local consent 
 for street railways, telegraphs and telephones, and provides 
 that city councils may grant franchises for water, gas, electric 
 light, street railways and wires in streets, and may permit or 
 prohibit railroad tracks. In Wyoming, the constitution makes 
 local consent necessary for street railways, telegraph, tele- 
 phone and electric light, and by statute local consent is re- 
 quired for gas, and any city or town may grant gas, or electric 
 light privileges, and street railway franchises are not to ex- 
 ceed 10 years on reasonable conditions. In addition to the 
 sweeping power of grant stated on p. 444, the Iowa statutes 
 provide that a city or town may authorize or forbid street rail- 
 way or any railroad construction in the streets. In Missouri 
 also, besides the constitutional necessity of local consent for 
 street railways, and the broad statute requiring cities, towns 
 and villages to sell water, gas, electric light and transit fran- 
 chises to the highest bidder, there is a statute relating to cities 
 •of the 3d class (3,000 to 30,000) which provides that the 
 council shall have exclusive power to grant street railway 
 franchises with the assent of property holders along the route. 
 Rhode Island provides that a city or town may grant "rights 
 and franchises in, over or under highways," for water, gas, 
 electric light, heat or power, street railways, and telephones. 
 The franchise granted may be exclusive for a term not exceed- 
 
460 
 
 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 ing 25 years. With the exception of California and Missouri; 
 the great states containing the giant cities have not taken a 
 very advanced position in respect to municipal control of 
 franchises. The Constitution of New York, Art. 3, §18, 
 makes consent of the local authorities necessary to the con- 
 struction or operation of a street railway in a city or town. 
 The consent of the owners of at least half the property (that is, 
 half in value) abutting on the route is also required, or else 
 the assent of three commissioners appointed by the Appellate 
 Division of the Supreme Court, which assent, when confirmed 
 by the court, will answer instead of the consent of the property 
 owners, but nothing will take the place of the consent of the 
 local authorities. Under this constitution, the right to con- 
 struct and operate a road in the streets of a municipality can 
 only be obtained from the local authorities and on such terms 
 as they choose to impose. (People v. O'Brien, 111 N.Y., 1.) The 
 legislature can authorize and regulate the organization of 
 street railway companies, but only the city or town can give 
 those companies the right to build and operate in their streets. 
 This is a little bit of real sovereignty. By statute, the consent 
 of the owners of two-thirds of the abutting property is neces- 
 sary to constitute owners' assent to a street railway in a town? 
 owners of half value will do in a city. (1896 vol. I, p. 777.) 
 A gas or electric company must get municipal consent to use 
 the streets. 
 
 The Illinois constitution requires local consent for street 
 railways. 'By statute, local consent is necessary also for tele- 
 graph and telephone wires and railroad tracks. No L road can 
 be built except by permission of the council or trustees on 
 petition of the property owners on the route. No city council 
 or president and trustees of a village or incorporated town can 
 grant a franchise or right to lay gas pipes or wires for electric 
 light except on petition of land owners representing more than 
 half the frontage on the streets, alleys, etc., to be used. (Laws 
 of 1897, p. 100. See also Kev. Stats., 1895 and 1898.) 
 
 In Pennsylvania, local consent is necessary for street rail- 
 ways, gas, electric light, heat and power and for telegraph 
 poles and wires. 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 461 
 
 In Massachusetts, the aldermen of a city and selectmen of 
 a town may, after a hearing, grant or refuse locations for street 
 railways. Local consent is also necessary for gas and electric 
 light. In the case of telegraph and telephone companies with 
 state franchises the local authorities may designate (hut can- 
 not refuse) locations for posts, etc., and may make reasonable 
 regulations subject to appeal to state courts. Aside from this, 
 the selectmen of a town may grant telegraph and telephone 
 franchises to individuals or companies and control them en- 
 tirely. (Pub. Stat. c. 27, §§45, 48.) §45 reads as follows: 
 
 "The selectmen, upon such terms and conditions as they 
 may prescribe, and subject to the provisions of chapter 109, 
 as far as applicable, may authorize any person to construct a 
 line of electric telegraph for private use upon and along the 
 public ways of the town. Upon the erection of such line, the 
 posts and structures thereof within such ways shall become the 
 property of the town, and the selectmen may regulate and con- 
 trol the same, and may at any time require alterations to be 
 made by the parties using the same in the location or erection 
 thereof, and may order the removal thereof, having first given 
 such parties notice and an opportunity to be heard. The town 
 may at any time attach wires for its own use to such posts and 
 structures and the selectmen may permit other persons to attach 
 wires for their private use thereto or to posts and structures 
 established by the town, and may prescribe such terms and 
 conditions therefor as they deem reasonable." 
 
 A similar law exists in Vermont. 
 
 Note the clause making the telegraph posts and structures 
 municipal property immediately upon erection. Why should 
 not the same principle be applied to every local service that 
 builds its works in the streets? Allow a reasonable franchise 
 term, but put the title to the property in the municipality 
 either at the start or at the expiration of the franchise period, 
 without further compensation than that involved in the fran- 
 chise grant for the said term. 
 
 A great deal more space could be devoted to these matters, 
 but we will content ourselves with the following summary in 
 tabular form, which shows at a glance the principal provisions 
 relating to local consent and powers of grant. 
 
462 
 
 MUNICIPAL LIBERTY. 
 TABLE Iir. 
 
 
 St. Ry. 
 
 j Gas 
 
 Elec. 1. 
 
 Teleg. 
 
 Teleph. 
 
 ! Water 
 
 Rd$. 
 
 Heat Power 
 
 Me 
 
 i 1. c. a. 
 
 , 1. c. 
 
 i . 
 
 j 1. c. a. 
 
 I.e. 
 
 K« 
 
 I.e. 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 1. O. 0. 
 
 i g. b. 
 I.e. 
 1. c. 
 
 1. c. 
 | ..c. 
 
 l.c. 
 
 l.c 
 l.c. 
 
 1. c. 
 
 fl.e. 
 
 X g. 
 
 l.c. 
 l.c. 
 
 1. e. o. 
 a, 
 l.c. 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 I.e. 
 
 
 N. H 
 
 Vt 
 
 1. c. a. 
 
 { A. 
 i 8 g d. 
 
 1. e. a. 
 
 ; A 
 A 
 
 ?■ 
 
 ( 1. e. o. 
 
 a. 
 
 l.c. 
 
 : 1. e. 
 
 i 
 
 g- 
 
 : { 
 
 
 R. I 
 
 g- 
 l.c. 
 
 ,.0. 
 
 g. 
 g- 
 
 >.c g :c. 
 
 g- 
 g. 
 
 g- 
 
 
 1. c. o. 
 a. 
 
 ; i.c. 
 
 ' i.e. 
 
 ! 
 
 ; g. exc. 
 
 I 1st cl. 
 
 N.Y i 
 
 N.J 
 
 
 Pa 
 
 1. e. 
 
 X 
 
 1 c. 
 
 Del 
 
 
 l.c. 
 l.c. 
 
 l g c. 
 
 L. 1. c. 
 &o. 
 
 l.c. 
 g- 
 
 g- 
 l.c. 
 
 g. 
 
 A. 
 
 l.c. 
 
 
 Md 
 
 
 
 i. c. r. 
 
 1 g. b. 
 I.e. 
 
 ,.c g -C. 
 
 LKds 
 
 1. c. & 0. 
 
 I.e. 
 
 f I.e. 
 
 1 g. 
 
 I.e. 
 g. o. 
 
 I.e. 
 
 A 
 
 g- 
 g- 
 
 
 
 
 W. Va 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 l.c. 
 l S c. 
 
 ,0. 
 
 
 Ind | 
 
 
 
 
 
 111 J 
 
 g. 0. 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fl.e. 
 X g. 
 
 1. c. 
 g. b. R. 
 
 1. c. 
 g- 
 
 g.b. 
 
 g.R. 
 1. c. 
 g- 
 
 l.c. 
 I.e. 
 
 , 6 c. 
 
 l.c. 
 
 1. c. C 
 
 {, 
 
 g- 
 
 g- 
 
 fl.e. 
 
 t g. 
 
 A. 
 
 1. <\ C. 
 g- 
 I. c. 
 
 C, 6 o. 
 
 (ft 
 
 l.c. 
 
 g- 
 
 g.R. 
 1. c. 
 
 g- 
 
 g.b. 
 
 g.R. 
 i.e. 
 g. 
 
 . 8 c. 
 1. c. 
 
 '"'i.e.' 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 
 
 l.c. 
 
 g.R. 
 l.c. 
 
 g. 
 
 g.b. 
 g.R, 
 
 1. c. 
 
 g. 
 g- 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 g - 
 
 g- 
 l.c. 
 
 g- 
 
 l g c. 
 
 1. c.' C. 
 
 g- 
 
 l g e. 
 g.R. 
 
 
 ™ f 
 
 ........... 
 
 g- 
 
 It 
 
 g- 
 
 
 Wise J 
 
 Minn | 
 
 Mo -1 
 
 ti 
 
 g- 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 g.b. 
 
 0. 
 
 I.e. 
 g.R. 
 I. c. 
 
 g. 1st el. 
 o. 40,000 
 1. c. C. 
 
 1. c. C. 
 I.e. 
 
 V, 
 
 Tc."c.' 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 g- 
 
 j 
 
 Iowa A 
 
 i 
 
 g. R. 
 
 g.R. 
 
 g.R> 
 
 Kans ■< 
 
 Neb 
 
 g. lstcl. 
 
 g. 1st cl. 
 
 g- 
 
 
 
 8. Dak 
 
 N. Dak | 
 
 Va 
 
 1. e. C. 
 l.c. 
 
 l.c. 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 1 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 
 N. Car 
 
 8. Car 
 
 Ga 
 
 
 Fla 
 
 g. 
 
 g 
 
 g- 
 
 ....... „... 
 
 g- 
 
 l.c. 
 g- 
 
 
 Ala 
 
 1. c. U 
 
 
 Miss 
 
 
 La 
 
 l.c. 
 
 ft. 
 
 g. 
 
 1. o. C 
 
 S- 
 
 
 Texas 
 
 
 Ark 
 
 
 
 
 Tenn j 
 
 K ' { 
 
 Mont j 
 
 g. 
 1. c. C. 
 
 l g c. 
 
 7K\ 
 ■ e c. 
 
 ; 
 
 g. 
 1. c. C. 
 
 A 
 
 g- 
 
 g- 
 1. c. C 
 
 1. c. C. 
 l.c. 
 g- 
 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Colo 
 
 l.c. 
 g.R. 
 
 
 
 l.c. ; 
 ............ 
 
 l.c. 
 
 l.c. 
 
 g. 
 
 
 Utah | 
 
 Nev 
 
 
 , S c. 
 
 g- 
 g. 
 
 l g c. 
 g.b. 
 
 g- 
 
 g. 
 g- 
 
 g. 1st cl. 
 
 g- 
 
 ,8 j- ! 
 
 g- b. j 
 
 
 Wyo { 
 
 Ore 
 
 Wash 
 
 1. c. C. 
 g- 
 
 l g e 
 
 1. c. C. 
 
 g- 
 
 g. 1 c. 
 
 1. c. C. ' 
 
 i. c. c. 
 
 
 g- 
 g.(3dd.) i 
 
 g.(3d'cl.) 
 
 
 - {| 
 
 
 l.c. 
 
 
 g.b. 
 
 g.b. j 
 
 
 g.U. , 
 
 g.b. 
 
 
 
 
 See explanation on next page. Dots are run across blank spaces to carry 
 the eye where there is any further entry on the same line. 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE. 463 
 
 In this table 1. c. means local consent, 1. c. o. or o. alone means 
 consent of owners of property along the line of railway, etc 
 
 d, means right to designate locations, 
 
 a, means appeal to court or commissioners, 
 
 g, means local power to grant, 
 
 g. b. means sale or grant to highest bidder. 
 
 R, means referendum necessary, 
 
 L, means elevated road, 
 
 C, means by constitutional provision. 
 A power of grant, if exclusive, is of course equivalent to requir- 
 ing local consent, altho the laws of the state may contain no specific 
 provision as to local consent. 
 
 Municipalities that have been given control of their streets may 
 grant street railway and other rights in them. (Thompson's Law 
 of Electricity, §26.) 
 
 The legislative tendency to scatter provisions relating to a given 
 topic thruout big volumes of statutes, putting some in solitary con- 
 finement in secluded spots, and tucking others cosily under the 
 wings of statutes apparently belonging to an entirely different 
 species, together with the very imperfect indexing that character- 
 izes many of our statute books, has made it very difficult for the 
 writer and his assistants to be absolutely sure that all the provis- 
 ions relating to local consent for street franchises, etc., have been 
 captured. If any reader notes an omission and will send to the 
 author or publisher a reference to the omitted statute, the favor 
 will be deeply appreciated. 
 
 A municipal right arising from statute may, of course, at 
 any time, be altered or repealed. Theoretically, therefore, no 
 number of such rights can constitute any real municipal sov- 
 ereignty or assured power of self government, such as state 
 and nation enjoy in respect to their particular affairs, and such 
 as cities and towns should enjoy in respect to their local busi- 
 ness concerns. The practical fact accords with the theory to 
 a considerable extent. New laws and old ones not much used 
 are easily changed if corporate interests require it. It is not 
 necessary to repeal. A little insignificant looking amendment 
 that may pass without attracting any general attention can 
 take the life all out of a law. When, however, a law confer- 
 ring important privileges has grown into the life of the people 
 and has come to be regarded as part of their natural rights, 
 it is apt to be so jealously guarded that it takes on something 
 of the stability of a constitutional provision, tho it cannot 
 attain quite the same vigor and certainty until we have the ref - 
 
464 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 erendum, for the legislature can act counter to the people's 
 interest and wish if the motive be sufficient, no matter how 
 powerful the protest may be. 
 
 The statutes contain many laws affecting municipal rights 
 which fall outside the scope of Table II. Some of these are 
 very interesting. For example, the Montana laws of 1897 
 provide that cities and towns may establish free employment 
 offices, regulate and prohibit the wearing of hats and bonnets 
 at theatres or public places of amusement, provide for planting 
 trees, etc. In Maine, any town may raise money to propagate 
 fish, and I am told that a number of towns have "from 
 ancient times" municipalized the catching of a variety of shad. 
 Cities may buy and keep hay scales. This privilege is ac- 
 corded municipalities by general law in a number of states. 
 Also the right to establish standard weights and measures. 
 By the Vermont statutes of 1896, any city or incorporated 
 town can vote money for free musical entertainments, and in 
 "New Hampshire any city or town may provide coasting and 
 skating places. Pretty soon we may have general laws em- 
 powering cities and towns to purchase bicycle pumps and 
 fasten one to every mail-box post, or fix them at other con- 
 venient intervals, and provide free lunches for bicycle parties 
 on condition that the women do not wear skirts less than 2-J 
 feet in length ; but what we really want is municipal freedom 
 in the full sense, by constitutional enactment granting the in- 
 itiative and referendum, and not statutes granting privileges 
 in comparatively trivial affairs. 
 
 THE AWKWARD SQUAD AND THE HONOR LIST. 
 
 Considering the whole range of legislative and constitu- 
 tional provisions in favor of municipal liberty, 
 
 DELAWARE AND MARYLAND 
 
 Take their places at the tail of the class. They seem strongly 
 inclined to shirk general legislation favorable to municipal 
 rights. They are almost total abstainers from the performance 
 of their duties in this regard. 
 
HOME EULE FOE OUE CITIES. 465 
 
 Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas and Nevada 
 are only a little further advanced, and 
 
 THE NEW ENGLAND GROUP 
 
 as a whole has not very much to be proud of. Neither has_ 
 New York, and Louisiana, would surely have a place at the end 
 of the procession were it not for the law of 1896 in relation to 
 home made charters. 
 
 Turning to the head of the column, let us note the states 
 in the front ranks of progress toward municipal liberty. Con- 
 sidering the volume and value and the universality of the 
 rights accorded to municipalities, and taking into account the 
 attitude of the courts on common law principles, the use of 
 constitutional safeguards, and the initiative and referendum, 
 we may perhaps be justified in placing on the roll of honor the 
 names of the following states: 
 
 MINNESOTA, CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON, MISSOURI, 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA, KENTUCKY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, 
 
 INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, NEBRASKA, COLORADO AND UTAH. 
 
 But even in the best states the law is very imperfect. Frag- 
 mentary legislation, unconscionable repetition and miserable 
 indexing characterize the bulk of our statutes, and make the 
 study of statute law a soul-exasperating business. Massive 
 enactments loaded with ponderous verbosity and repeated 
 almost or quite verbatim at intervals thru the statutes under 
 each division of municipalities and perhaps various other heads, 
 together with shreds of legislation touching the same topics, 
 scattered thru thousands of pages, tied up with other bundles 
 with which they may be related in some way, nestling in some 
 proviso, or paragraph, or section of a big chapter whose head- 
 ing may not lead you to examine it for the subject you have 
 in hand and whose molecular constitution is not correctly and 
 completely registered in the index — these things and ambigu- 
 ous wordings, conflicting decisions and multitudinous diver- 
 gences in the laws and customs and charters of the various 
 states make it almost impossible to ascertain what the law is. 
 And then the terrible waste of time and space and printer's 
 ink. Rhode Island is not very large, but her legislative acts, 
 
 30 
 
466 THE BONDAGE OF CITIES 
 
 resolutions and reports come out each year in a volume as big 
 as a young dictionary. The Massachusetts Public Statutes, 
 compiled in 1882 make a big-paged book of 1,400 pages; the 
 supplement to these Public Statutes for 1882 to 1888 is a 
 volume of 1,500 pages; the supplement for 1889 to 1895 is 
 an enormous volume of 1,700 pages; — three big volumes with 
 4,600 oceanic pages. In addition to all this the legisla- 
 ture is manufacturing a fat blue book every year — and 
 every one is conclusively presumed to know the law. The 
 contrast between the efficiency of our watch factories, water 
 works, fire departments, post office and navy, and the ineffici- 
 ency of our legislative factories is awful. We have already 
 spoken (p. 402) of New Jersey's delicate creations in the statute 
 line, occupying over 4,000 pages and five million words. The 
 city acts alone fill 360 big pages with the customany repeti- 
 tions as to elections, corporate powers, duties of officers, etc. 
 Besides all this, there are 40 big pages on towns, and then we 
 have 30 blanket pages on oysters and clams,- which are not 
 more indigestible than these statutes, altho the legislature does 
 not put that conclusion in the book. 
 
 One is tempted to say: "Throw the statutes away and begin 
 all over and make the law simple and concise so that any one 
 can find it and understand it when he finds it." For all local 
 services and franchises involving the use of streets, let us have 
 one little paragraph according full powers of construction, 
 purchase, maintenance and operation of works and systems, to 
 supply the municipality (city, town or village) and its inhabi- 
 tants with water, gas, electric or other light, heat, power, street 
 railways or other transit facilities, telegraph, telephone, tele- 
 lectroscope or any other local service requiring a special use 
 of the streets or rights of way, and conferring exclusive powers 
 of grant and control upon municipalities in respect to such 
 franchises and services. A few such clauses carefully worded 
 would cover the whole field of distinctively municipal busi- 
 ness, including markets, ferries, wharves, harbors, parks, 
 baths, lodging houses, etc. Add a clause conferring the right 
 to do anything not forbidden by valid law of state or nation. 
 Put all these clauses in one small section of the constitution, 
 
TO POLITICIANS AND MONOPOLISTS MUST CEASE. 467 
 
 with another section providing for the initiative and refer- 
 endum and recall, another for the merit system of civil service, 
 and another for proportional representation — including the 
 women — then give municipalities, subject to these provisions, 
 the right to make their own charters (on legislative approval 
 as to portions that go beyond the said provisions), and yoiL 
 have municipal liberty and a simplified law, so far as it is pos- 
 sible to get them in a state which by necessity places the final 
 appeal upon the law's interpretation in a supreme court, a - 
 condition which might at times weaken, but on the whole 
 would be far more apt to strengthen the proposed constitu- 
 tional guaranties. If, after our states have done some think- 
 ing on these lines, they will join in a great convention that 
 may lead to the adoption of simple uniform provisions on these 
 and other fundamental questions, the future will be filled with 
 the hope that legislation may some day become a science. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 In going over the laws and constitutions of these forty-five 
 states from early times to the present year, a few conclusions 
 of special breadth and moment have forced themselves upon 
 my attention : 
 
 First: There is a powerful trend toward careful definition, 
 regulation and limitation of legislative power. 
 
 Second: There has been in recent years a tremendous and 
 ever accelerating movement toward legislation favorable to 
 public ownership and operation of local utilities, particularly 
 those that involve any special or privileged use of the streets. 
 
 Third: There has been an equally emphatic movement 
 toward a fuller recognition of the principle of local consent, 
 and the right of the people to be consulted about important 
 measures and vote directly upon them, and the correlative 
 right to initiate legislation if they so desire. 
 
 Fourth: The local right to grant local franchises, elect local 
 officers and manage local property, and the right of munici- 
 palities to frame their own charters have also received recogni- 
 tion. 
 
 Such are some of the principal streams that make up the 
 
468 THE CITY FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 current of enactment that is moving toward municipal liberty 
 and independence in respect to local affairs. And yet it must 
 be admitted that no real home rule has been established be- 
 yond the reach of legislative interference unless the Califor- 
 nia amendment of 1896 has that effect. 1 Legislatures still 
 have power to alter or abolish charters, and may practically 
 annul even freehold charters, for, except in California, they 
 are clearly and expressly subject, by constitutional proviso, 
 to the general laws of the state, even in respect to purely mu- 
 nicipal affairs. We have as yet no setting apart of a definite 
 local field from which state legislation shall be excluded, as 
 national legislation is excluded from state interests. Some of 
 our states have made a splendid beginning, but the end is not 
 yet. 
 
 1 Possibly Missouri should also be excepted, for the rule of 127 Mo. 642 may 
 stand by its inherent justice or the weight of precedent, in spite of the fact 
 that the reasoning on which the court based the decision, is open to serious 
 .question. (See p. 424). 
 
CHE first form of government in this country was colonial. After the 
 revolutionary war, state governments naturally succeeded the colonial 
 governments. Then only about 3 persons in 100 lived in cities of 
 over 8000 inhabitants, while now about 35 persons in 100 live in cities of over 
 8000. Then there were no cities of great size, and they were not compact 
 as our cities, of necessity, now are. Lighting was simple and primitive; 
 each household had its one or several "tallow dips'" and there was no 
 public lighting to speak of. Lanterns, rather than street lights, were de- 
 pended upon to guide footsteps in dark streets. This was the entire situ- 
 ation concerning lighting, both domestic and public. As gas was not known 
 there could be no municipal gas question. As to water, there was a well in 
 nearly every back yard ; and if not, the corner pump was near by ; and the 
 wells in so sparse a population were not unhygienic. This was the entire 
 water question of that time. As the people in the cities of that time could 
 easily walk from home to business, and even walk home for mid-day dinner 
 and back to business again in the afternoon, there was no local transporta- 
 tion question as we have it now. Hence, with a population so largely rural, 
 and with our present municipal necessities unfelt and unknown, a state 
 government fulfilled every need. But now with our population so largely 
 urban, and our cities grown to such gigantic size, new necessities have 
 rapidly come into being. Now we are toucht a dozen or a score of times by 
 our city government to once by our state government ; for example, the con- 
 dition of the water we drink, the condition of the streets, the cost and quality 
 of gas, which is now a necessity, the public order and our private safety, etc.. 
 etc., etc., depend upon our city government. This then has become of 
 direct and constant importance to us. A century ago state government was 
 much more important than municipal government, now the importance of 
 municipal government is by far the greatest. As those who planned our 
 state governments in the 18th century could not foresee the needs that would 
 arise in the 19th century, they could not be expected to provide for them. 
 We who now see and feel these new needs, should be zealous in our endeavors 
 until our cities are made completely free from the interference of state legis- 
 latures in local matters (freedom not needed then but sorely needed now), 
 and until the people of our cities are also made completely free from the 
 domination of councils and politicians, by the introduction of the initiative 
 and referendum. 
 
 '^7 
 
THE TRUE CITY 
 
 IS THE CITY WHERE JUSTICE AND MANHOOD 
 
 ARE MORE REGARDED THAN MONEY— 
 
 THE CITY WHERE POWER AND PROSPERITY ARE FOR 
 
 THE WHOLE PEOPLE 
 
 AND NOT 
 
 FOR THE PRIVATE POSSESSION 
 
 OF A FEW POLITICANS AND MONOPOLISTS. 
 
Appendix I. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE FORMS. 
 
 Forms of Constitutional and Statute Provisions Relating 
 to Municipal Liberty and Freehold Charters. 
 
 Part I. Suggested Forms. 
 
 Form A offers a method of securing constitutional amendments, 
 which gives the people a more effective control of the state constitu- 
 tion, and opens a way to municipal liberty (or other desired reform) 
 that is direct and easily available, and is of inestimable value when 
 the old road through the Legislature is obstructed or blocked. 
 
 iM)rm B offers a similar method of amending the charter of a city, 
 or municipal constitution, within stated limits. 
 
 Form <J gives cities and towns the right to make their own 
 charters entire, subject to the state constitution, and to general laws 
 relating to state interests,— home-made charters and municipal 
 sovereignty. 
 
 Form D provides for municipal sovereignty in a specified sphere 
 without the freehold charter provisions. 
 
 Sovereignty of the People, rendered more Real and Effective, 
 
 A direct and simple method, nf amending state constitutions, which, added to 
 the •methods already in use, will give the people more perfect control over their 
 constitutions and governments, and enable them to secure control of franchises, 
 municipal freedom, direct legislation, or other advance as soon as they desire 
 it and in spite of the opposition of political rings or future legislative cliques. 
 
 AMENDMENT TO STATE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Providing an additional means of making constitutional amendments. 
 
 (Insert preliminary matter appropriate in the particular state to legislative 
 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments.] 
 
 ARTICLE OF AMENDMENT. 
 
 Our petition of ] votes, filed w'th the Secretary 
 
 of Slate, asking that a specified amendment to the constitution 
 be submitted to the people, the said amendment shall be so sub- 
 mitted at the next election (occurring one month or more after 
 the filing of said petition), and if approved by a majority of 
 the legal electors voting upon it, such amendment shall become 
 a part of the constitution of the state. 
 
 1 The number of voters required on the petition may be fixed at 3000,5000 or 
 10,000, according to the size of the state, or may be a percen age, as 1, 2, 8 or 5 per 
 cent., or both element- may be used to make a compound test— 5090 legal voters 
 or a number equal to 5 per cent, of the total vote, at the last preceding election in 
 laid state, is a good form for states of medium size. 
 
 I 
 
II APPENDIX I. 
 
 ■ 
 
 B 
 
 Local Self-government rendered more Effective. 
 A direct and simple method of amending city charters. 
 
 STATUTE OR AMENDMENT. 
 
 To provide for the amendment of city charters by direct action of the people* 
 
 On petition of ? voters of any municipality, 
 
 filed with the executive or clerk of such municipality, asking 
 the adoption of a specified charter amendment providing for 
 
 ? the said amendment shall be submitted to the 
 
 voters at the next municipal election {occurring 30 days or 
 more after said petition is filed), and, if approved by a majority 
 of the legal electors of the municipality voting upon it, such 
 amendment shall become a part of the charter or organic law 
 governing the municipality. 
 
 a See note 1. Cities being usually of less population than states, the per- 
 centage may be higher but the stated number should be lower. For example, in 
 a city of 25,000 people with perhaps 5000 voters, 10 per cent, or 500 signatures might 
 be required. In a city of a million, however, with 200,000 voters or more, even 
 5 per cent, would be high. The tendency in this country so far has been to place 
 the percentage higher than is best, but it is wise to obtain such legislation even 
 if the percentage has to be put high to do it, for after the law is passed the way is 
 open to the people to reduce the percentage at any time they see fit. Some con- 
 servative authorities consider 8000 signatures a sufficient requirement for 
 Philadelphia, a city of 1,200,000 inhabitants, and over 230,000 voters. 
 
 3 The field within which such direct amendment of the charter is to be 
 authorized may be limited to a specific subject such as the local use of direct 
 legislation, proportional representation, control of franchises, voting machinery, 
 election and recall of local officers, etc., or it may be so broad us to include all 
 municipal affairs. We give two examples of bills of this sort with the blanks 
 filled in. 
 
 Bi AN ACT 
 
 To establish Local Option in the use of the Initiative and Referendum. 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., as follows: 
 
 On petition of 3000 legal voters of any municipality (or of a number equal 
 to 5 per cent, of the total vote cast at the last municipal election in such 
 municipality) asking the adoption of a specified charter amendment providing for 
 the initiative and referendum on municipal ordinances , contracts^franchises, e tc., 
 the said amendment shall be submitted to the voters at the next municipal election 
 (occurring 30 days or more after said petition is filed), and if approved by a 
 majority of the legal electors of the municipality voting upon it, such amend- 
 ment shall become a part of the charter or organic law governing the 
 municipality. 
 
 (The same provision may be made a constitutional amendment.) 
 
SUGGESTED LEGISLATIVE FORMS. Ill 
 
 B 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 
 
 To provide for direct amendment of city charters in respect to local affairs. 
 
 On petition of 3000 legal voters of any municipality (or of a number equal 
 to 5 per cent, of the total vote cast at the last preceding municipal election in 
 such municipality) asking the adoption of a specified charter amendment provid- 
 ing for any matter within the realm of local affairs or municipal busin ess as 
 distinguished from state interests, the said amendment shall be submitted to the 
 voters at the next municipal election (occurring 30 days or more after said 
 petition is filed), and if approved by a majority of the legal electors of the 
 municipality voting upon it, such amendment shall become a part of the charter 
 or organic law governing the municipality. 
 
 c 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 
 
 To enable cities and towns to make their own charters, 
 MUNICIPAL HOME-RULE. 
 
 1. Any city or town may frame a charter for itself. 
 On motion of the local legislative authorities or peti- 
 tion of 3000 of the legal voters (or a number equal to 
 5 per cent, of the total vote cast at the last preceding 
 election in said city or town) to the Executive, 15 
 freeholders shall be elected to draw up a charter to be 
 submitted to the people at the next election. Such 
 charter shall be publisht thoroly to the citizens at 
 least one month before said election, and, if adopted 
 at the polls, shall become the organic law of the 
 municipality subject to the constitution and laws of 
 the State under the limitations hereinafter stated. 
 
 2. Such charter may be amended by referendum 
 vote on the initiative of the mayor, or councils, or 
 petition of 3000 of the legal voters (or a number 
 equal to 5 per cent, of the legal voters in said city or 
 town) to the Executive. 
 
 3. Local franchises and municipal services such as 
 private corporations may engage in, and all affairs of 
 of a purely local business nature, shall be given over 
 to MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY free of legislative 
 interference. In their relation to State interests 
 
IV APPENDIX I. 
 
 municipalities shall remain fully under the control of 
 the legislature acting through general laws, or 
 through such special laws as may be asked for, or 
 adopted, by referendum vote in the municipalities 
 affected. 
 
 Under such a charter law, the city will be completely free to act 
 in respect to interests that are distinctly local, and in respect to state 
 interests, as order, education, health, etc., it will be free to act its will 
 so long as it does not run counter to state or national law. It must 
 provide the education, sanitation, etc., required by state law, but it may 
 provide more than the state law requires, — it may go beyond state 
 requirements except where excess is prohibited for the sake of uni- 
 formity, etc. The amendment gives municipal sovereignty in local 
 affairs, and in other affairs it gives municipal initiative and freedom 
 subject only to the constitution and general laws. 
 
 If it should seem possible to secure the freehold charter pro- 
 visions but not possible to pass the municipal sovereignty clause, § 3 
 and the last five words of § 1 may be omitted from the bill. 
 
 If the legislature is not willing to adopt a resolution proposing an 
 amendment that will give full liberty in the making of home-rule 
 charters, it may be willing to sanction a freehold charter amendment 
 joined with a stipulation that the charter must be approved by the 
 legislature before going into effect, or linked with a few broad limita- 
 tions and definite specifications as to form of organization, etc. In 
 such case the framers of the amendment may be aided by the following 
 suggestions concerning 
 
 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 That may be advisable in connection with freehold charter amendments. 
 
 Every city shall elect a Mayor or chief executive and a 
 Council of one or two chambers, in such manner as may be 
 prescribed by law, and at a time separated by at least one 
 month from Stale and National elections. 
 
 It shall keep accounts in accordance with forms and methods 
 prescribed by the State. 
 
 It shall establish and maintain such system of police, courts, 
 prisons, schools, sanitation and care of the poor, as may be 
 required by State law. 
 
 It shall adopt a system of civil service regulations whereby, 
 so far as practicable, (1) all appointments and promotions in- 
 cluding laborers shall be made according to fitness and merit, 
 and (£) removal or degradation shall be only for cause and 
 subject to appeal to an impartial tribunal. 
 
 It may adopt any system of direct legislation, proportional 
 representation , direct nomination, or automatic voting it may 
 deem advisable. 
 
SUGGESTED LEGISLATIVE FORMS. V 
 
 It may purchase or construct property for any lawful pur- 
 pose, or take by ivill or gift, and may hold, use, lease, mortgage 
 or sell such property and deal with it in every way like an 
 individual owner, except that no public utility plaid or franchise 
 shall be sold, leased or encumbered without a referendum vote 
 to that effect. 
 
 The Legislature shall enact a brief and comprehensive 
 Municipal Act to carry out these provisions and establish such 
 other general safeguards as State interests may require* 
 
 * It is usual In our State laws to specify a municipal debt limit, but such 
 limitations are frequently productive of the most serious i convenience and 
 delay of improvomen.s, and it is difficult to imagine why a city should be tied 
 up ith a debt limit of 5 or 10 p?r cent, any more than a state or na ion shou d be 
 so fettered, or why a state should limit a city in this way any more than the 
 •nation should limit a state. 
 
 D 
 
 MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 And freedom from legislative interference. 
 
 Municipal sovereignty in respect to local affairs may be secured 
 without the freehold charter provisions by embodying section 3 of the 
 preceding form in a constitutional amendment by itself. A smaller 
 but still very important degree of municipal self-government or free- 
 dom from legislative interference is secured by an amendment placing 
 the control of local franchises in the municipality, or providing for 
 local assent to special legislation, or both. For example: 
 
 FRANCHISES 1. 
 
 Local franchises shall be deemed within the sphere of local 
 sovereignty free of legislative interference, and the municipality 
 may, under check of the referendum, deal with them as it sees 
 fit. All grants, extensions and renewals of such franchises 
 shall be made by the municipality, under such check, and shall 
 be subject to regulation and control by the municipality. 
 
 STREET FRANCHISES 2. 
 
 Each city and town shall have full control of its streets, and 
 all grants, extensions or renewals of water, gas, electric, railway, 
 telegraph, telephone, or other important franchises and privileges 
 therein shall be on such terms as the local authorities may 
 prescribe, subject to the referendum at the option of the executive, 
 or Yb of either council, or upon petition of 5 per cent, of the 
 voters. 
 
VI APPENDIX I. 
 
 STREET FRANCHISES 3. 
 
 Street franchises and local public works of a business 
 nature such as water and lighting plaids, street railways and 
 telephone exchanges, shall be matters of sole municipal sov- 
 ereignty beyond the interference or control of the Legislature, and 
 subject only to this constitution : Provided, that all ordinances 
 or acts granting, extending, or renewing such franchises or 
 providing for the constructor, purchase, sale or lease of such 
 works, shall be subject to the referendum upon petition of 5 per 
 cent, of the voters of the municipality filed in the executive office 
 within 30 days after passage and publication of said act or 
 ordinance. 
 
 SPECIAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Special legislation affecting municipalities shall be invalid, 
 except so far as asked for or adopted by the municipality affected. 
 For the purposes of this provision, cities and towns are divided 
 into three classes; 1st, those below 8,000 population; 2d, those 
 between 8,000 and 100,000, and 3d, those above 100,000. 
 
 Sometimes one of these single-minded provisions can be passed 
 where nothing can be done with the broader measures. Work to get 
 whatever can be obtained now, even if it be only a clause against special 
 legislation. Every step in the right direction makes future progress 
 easier. Even a statute embodying the substance of one of these pro- 
 visions is worth a great deal to the cause of municipal liberty. But an 
 amendment is better and the full constitutional amendment of the last 
 section (C) is the thing to get if possible. Perhaps the best plan of all 
 is to get both the statute and the amendment — get the statute for im- 
 mediate use, and at the same time take the first steps toward getting a 
 constitutional amendment. 
 
Part II. 
 Existing Freehold Charter Amendments, Etc. 
 
 The subjoined constitutional a- 
 mendments giving cities the right 
 to make their own charters to be 
 adopted and amended by popular 
 vote, are very important to all who 
 are interested in the cause of mu- 
 nicipal liberty. The Washington 
 amendment is commendable for its 
 brevity and its provision for adopt- 
 ing and amending charters by ma- 
 jority vote; the requirement of a 
 four-sevenths vote for adoption in 
 Minnesota and Missouri (except St. 
 Louis), and three-fifths for amend- 
 ment in Minnesota, Missouri and 
 California, is unnecessarily burden- 
 some. If a majority vote is suffic- 
 ient to amend the constitution of a 
 State, it surely should be sufficient 
 to amend the charter of a city.* It 
 may be well to require a three-fifths 
 or three-fourths or four-sevenths 
 vote for sudden action, or for legisla- 
 tive action without recourse to the 
 people, but to demand three-fifths 
 or more when the people are voting 
 after due notice and deliberation, is 
 simply to enable a small minority 
 to govern the majority. The pro- 
 visions in California and Missouri 
 (St. Louis) against amendment ex- 
 cept at intervals of two years is also 
 objectionable. The people of each 
 city should determine for themselves 
 how often they will allow their 
 charter to be amended. The Min- 
 nesota clause commanding the board 
 of freeholders to submit amendments 
 on petition of 5 per cent, of the 
 voters is admirable. By statute the 
 board of freeholders to frame a 
 charter, etc., is to be appointed by 
 the district judge on petition of 10 
 per cent, of the voters of the munici- 
 pality. Minnesota also leads in the 
 universality of her amendment, no 
 class of cities, large or small, being 
 excluded from its benefits. If we 
 could join in one provision the good 
 points of these various amendments, 
 brevity, majority rule, 5 per cent, 
 initiative, to set in motion the ma- 
 
 * Since this criticism was first published 
 the California Legislature has proposed a 
 new amendment changing the three-fifths 
 requirement to a majority vote. 
 
 chinery of adoption or amendment, 
 universal application to all municipali- 
 ties, and then add a clause excluding 
 legislative interference in any way with - 
 local self-government in respect to 
 specified local affairs, including street 
 franchises and other local business 
 matters, then we should have an 
 amendment that would secure real 
 municipal liberty. The people of a 
 city could adopt direct legislation in 
 respect to ordinances, and popular 
 sovereignty in local government 
 would be assured. We have tried 
 to suggest in Part I. an amend- 
 ment embodying these good points. 
 Here are the amendments so far 
 passed: 
 
 The Washington Charter Amendment. 
 
 The Washington Constitution, 
 1889, Article XI, Section 10, pro- 
 vides as follows: 
 
 Corporations for municipal purposes 
 shall not be created by special laws, 
 but the legislature, by general laws, 
 shall provide for the incorporation, or- 
 ganization, and classification, in propor- 
 tion to population, of cities and towns, 
 which laws may be altered, amended, 
 or repealed. Cities and towns hereto- 
 fore organized or incorporated may be- 
 come organized under such general laws 
 whenever a majority of the electors 
 voting at a general election shall so 
 determine, and shall organize in con- 
 formity therewith; and cities and towns 
 heretofore or hereafter organized and 
 all charters thereof framed or adopted 
 by authority of this constitution shall 
 be subject to and controlled by gen- 
 eral laws. Any city containing a popu- 
 lation of twenty thousand inhabitants 
 or more shall be permitted to frame a 
 charter for its own government consis- 
 tent with and subject to the constitu- 
 tion and laws of this state and for 
 such purpose the legislative authority 
 of such city may cause an election to 
 be had, at which election there shall 
 be chosen by the qualified electors of 
 said city fifteen freeholders thereof, 
 who shall have been residents of said 
 city for a period of at least two years 
 preceding their election, and qualified 
 electors, whose duty it shall be to con- 
 vene within ten days after their elec- 
 tion, and prepare and propose a char- 
 ter for such city. Such proposed char- 
 ter shall be submitted to the qualified 
 electors of said city, and if a majority 
 of such qualified electors voting thereon 
 ratify the same, it shall become the 
 charter of said city, and shall become 
 the organic law thereof, and supersede 
 any existing charter, including amend- 
 
 VII 
 
VIII 
 
 A IT KM MX I. 
 
 ments thereto, and all special laws In- 
 consistent with such charter. Said pro- 
 posed charter shall be published in two 
 daily newspapers published in said city 
 for at least thirty days prior to the 
 day of submitting the same to the (lec- 
 tors for their approval, as above pro- 
 vided. All elections in this section au- 
 thorized shall only be had upon notice. 
 which notice shall specify the object of 
 calling such election, and shall be giv- 
 en for at least ten days before the day 
 of election in all election districts of 
 said city. Such elections may be gen- 
 eral or special elections, and, except as 
 herein provided, shall be governed by 
 the law regulating and controlling gen- 
 eral or special elections in said city. 
 Such charter may be amended by pro- 
 posals therefor submitted by the legis- 
 lative authority of such city to the elec- 
 tors thereof at any general election, 
 after notice of said submission published 
 as above specified, and ratified by a ma- 
 jority of the qualified electors voting 
 thereon. In submitting any such char- 
 ter or amendment thereto, any altern- 
 ate article or proposition may' be pre- 
 sented for the choice of the voters, and 
 may be voted on separately without 
 prejudice to others. 
 
 The Minnesota Charter Amendment. 
 
 In Minnesota a freehold charter 
 amendment was adopted in 1896. In 
 1897 an amendment to the amend- 
 ment was proposed by act of the 
 legislature and it was adopted by a 
 vote of more than 2 to 1 in 1898. 
 In 1899 the legislature passed an 
 act (Chap. 351) to carry out this 
 amendment and define the method 
 of procedure under it. The amend- 
 ment in its final form reads as fol- 
 lows, and is part of Art. 4. of the 
 State Constitution: 
 
 City or Village may Frame its own 
 Charter. 
 Section 36. Any city or village in 
 this state may frame a charter for its 
 own government as a city consistent 
 with and subject to the laws of this 
 state, as follows: The legislature shall 
 provide, under such restrictions as it 
 deems proper, for a board of fifteen 
 freeholders, who shall be and for the 
 past five years shall have been quali- 
 fied voters thereof, to be appointed bv 
 the district judge of the judicial dis- 
 trict in which the city or village is 
 situated, as the legislature may deter- 
 mine, for a term in no event to exceed 
 six years, which board shall, within six 
 months after its appointment, return to 
 the chief magistrate of said city or 
 village a draft of said charter, signed 
 by the members of said board, or a 
 majority thereof. 
 
 Charter to be submitted to Voters. 
 Such charter shall be submitted to 
 the qualified voters of such city or vil- 
 large at the next election thereaf ter, and 
 if four-sevenths of the qualified voters 
 voting at such election shall ratify the 
 same, it shall, at the end of 30 days 
 thereafter, become the charter of such 
 
 city or village as a city, and super- 
 sede any existing charter and amend- 
 ments thereof: Provided, That in cities 
 having patrol limits now established, 
 such charter shall require a % majority 
 vote of the qualified voters voting at 
 such election to change the patrol limits 
 now established. 
 
 Legislature to Prescribe General Limits of 
 Charter. 
 Before any city shall incorporate un- 
 der this act the legislature shall pre- 
 scribe by law the general limits within 
 which such charter shall be framed. 
 Duplicate certificates shall be made set- 
 ting forth the charter proposed and its 
 ratification, which shall be signed by 
 the chief magistrate of said city or vil- 
 lage and authenticated by its corporate 
 seal. One of said certificates shall be 
 deposited in the office of Secretary of 
 state, and the other, after being re- 
 corded in the office of the register of 
 deeds for the county in which such city 
 or village lies, shall be deposited among 
 the archives of such city or village, 
 and all courts shall take judicial notice 
 thereof.. Such charter so deposited may 
 be amended by proposal therefor made 
 by a board of fifteen commissioners 
 aforesaid, published for at least thirty 
 days in three newspapers of general 
 circulation in such city or village, and 
 accepted by three-fifths of the qualified 
 voters of such city or vilage voting at 
 the next election and not otherwise; 
 but such charter shall always be in har- 
 mony with and subject to the consti- 
 tution and laws of the State of Min- 
 nesota. 
 
 Amendments to be Submitted upon Appli- 
 cation of 5 per cent, of Legal Voters. 
 The legislature may prescribe the du- 
 ties of the commission relative to sub- 
 mitting amendments of charter to the 
 vote of the people, and shall provide 
 that upon application of 5 per cent, of 
 the legal voters of any such city or vil- 
 lage, by written petition, such commis- 
 sion shall submit to the vote of the 
 people proposed amendments to such 
 charter set forth in said petition. The 
 board of freeholders above provided for 
 shall be permanent, and all the vacan- 
 eies by death, disability to perform du- 
 ties, resignation or removal from the 
 corporate limits, or expiration of term 
 of office, shall be filled by appointment 
 in the same manner as the original 
 board was created, and said board shall 
 always contain its full complement of 
 members. 
 
 Mayor and Legislative Body. 
 It shall be a feature of all such char- 
 ters that there shall be provided, among 
 other things, for a mayor or chief mag- 
 istrate, and a legislative body of either 
 one or two houses; if of two houses, 
 at least one of them shall be elected by 
 general vote of the electors. 
 
 Articles of Amendment may be Submitted 
 Separately. 
 In submitting any such charter or 
 amendment thereto to the qualified vo- 
 ters of such city or village, any altern- 
 ate section or article may be presented 
 for the choice of the voters and may 
 be voted on separately without preju- 
 dice to other articles or sections of the 
 charter or any amendments thereto. 
 
FREEHOLD CHARTER AMENDMENTS. 
 
 IX 
 
 General Laws for Cities by Divisions of 
 Population. 
 The legislature may provide general 
 laws relating to affairs of cities, the ap- 
 plication of which may be limited to 
 cities of over fifty thousand inhabitants, 
 or to cities of fifty and not less than 
 twenty thousand inhabitants, or to 
 cities of twenty and not less than ten 
 thousand inhabitants, or to cities of ten 
 thousand inhabitants or less, which 
 shall apply equally to all such cities 
 of either class, and which shall be par- 
 amount while in force to the provisions 
 relating to the same matter included in 
 the local charter herein provided for. 
 But no local charter, provision or ordi- 
 nance passed thereunder shall supersede 
 any general law of the state defining 
 or punishing crimes or misdemeanors. 
 
 Voted upon at the general election 
 held November 8, 1898, and adopted by 
 a vote of 68,754 in favor of said amend- 
 ment to 32,008 against the same. 
 
 Proclamation of the vote issued by the 
 Governor, December 29, 1898. 
 
 The California Charter Amendment. 
 
 Sections 6 to 8V2, of Art. XI, of the 
 California Constitution, as amend- 
 ed down to 1900, are as follows: (See 
 pp. LIII and LIV, Cal. Statutes, 
 1899, and the new amendment to 
 § 8 proposed at the extra session oi 
 1900.) 
 
 Sec. 0. Corporations for municipal 
 purposes shall not be created by spec- 
 ial laws; but the Legislature, by genera] 
 laws, shall provide for the incorporation, 
 organization, and classification, in pro- 
 portion to population, of cities and 
 towns, which laws may be altered, 
 amended, or repealed. Cities and towns 
 heretofore organized or incorporated 
 may become organized under such gen- 
 eral laws whenever a majority of the 
 electors voting at a general election 
 shall so determine, and shall organize 
 in conformity therewith: and cities and 
 towns heretofore or hereafter organized, 
 and all charters thereof framed or 
 adopted by authority of this constitu- 
 tion, except in municipal affairs, shall 
 be subject to and controlled by general 
 laws. (Amendment adopted November 
 3, 1890.) 
 
 Sec. 7. City and county governments 
 may be merged and consolidated Into 
 one municipal government, with one set 
 of officers, and may be incorporated un- 
 der general laws providing for the in- 
 corporation and organization of corpora- 
 tions for municipal purposes. The pro- 
 visions of this constitution applicable to 
 cities, and also those applicable to coun- 
 ties, so far as not inconsistent or pro- 
 hibited to cities, shall be aplicable to 
 such consolidated government. (Amend- 
 ment adopted November 0, 1894.) 
 
 Sec. 8. Any city containing a popula- 
 tion of more than three thousand five 
 hundred inhabitants may frame a char- 
 ter for its own government, consistent 
 with and subject to the Constitution 
 and laws of this state, by causing a 
 board of fifteen freeholders who shall 
 have been for at least five years quali- 
 
 fied .'lectors thereof, to be elected by the 
 qualified voters of said city, at any gen- 
 eral or special election, whose duty it 
 shall be, within ninety days after such 
 election, to prepare and propose a char- 
 ter for such city, which shall be signed 
 in duplicate by the members of such 
 board, or a majority of them, and re- 
 turned, one copy to the mayor thereof, 
 or other chief executive officer of such 
 city, and the other to the recorder of 
 the county. Such proposed charter <\\h\\ 
 then be published in two daily news- 
 papers of general circulation in such 
 city for at least twenty days, and the 
 'first publication shall be made within 
 twenty days after the completion of the 
 charter; Provided, That in cities con- 
 taining a population of not more than 
 ten thousand inhabitants such proposed 
 charter shall be published in one such 
 daily newspaper; and within not less 
 than thirty days after such publication 
 it shall be submitted to the qualified 
 electors of said city, at a general or 
 special election; and if a majoritv of 
 such qualified electors voting thereat 
 shall ratify the same, it shall thereafter 
 be submitted to the legislature for its 
 approval or rejection as a whole, with- 
 out power of alteration or amendment. 
 Such approval may be made by concur- 
 rent resolution, and if approved by a 
 majority vote of the members elected 
 to each house it shall become the char- 
 ter of such city, or if such city be con- 
 solidated with a county, then of such 
 city and county, and shall become the 
 organic law thereof and supersede anv 
 existing charter, and all amendments 
 thereof and all laws inconsistent with 
 such charter. A copy of such charter, 
 certified by the mayor or chief executive 
 officer, and authenticated by the seal of 
 such city, setting forth the submission 
 of such charter to the electors, and its 
 ratification by them, shall, after the ap- 
 proval of such charter by the legisla- 
 ture, be made in duplicate, and de- 
 posited, one in the office of the secre- 
 tary of state, and the other, after being 
 recorded in said recorder's office, shall 
 be deposited in the archives of the city; 
 and thereafter all courts shall take 
 judicial notice of said charter. The 
 charter so ratified may be amended, at 
 intervals of not less than two years, by 
 proposals therefor, submitted by the 
 legislative authority of the city to the 
 qualified electors thereof, at a general 
 or special election held at least forty 
 days after the publication of such pro- 
 posals for twenty days in a daily news- 
 paper in general circulation in such city, 
 and ratified by at least three-fifths of 
 the qualified electors voting thereat, and 
 approved by the legislature as herein 
 provided for the approval of the charter. 
 In submitting any such charter, or 
 amendments thereto, any alternative 
 article or proposition may be presented 
 for the choice of the voters, and may 
 be voted on separately without preju- 
 dice to others. (Amendment adopted 
 November 8, 1892.) 
 
 Sec. 8*4 It shall be competent, in all 
 charters framed under the authority 
 givt it by section eight of article eleven 
 of this constitution, to provide, in ad- 
 dition to those provisions allowable by 
 this constitution and by the laws of the 
 state, as follows: 
 
X 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 1. For the constitution, regulation, 
 government and jurisdiction of police 
 courts, and for the manner in which, 
 the times at which, and the terms for 
 which the judges of such courts shall 
 be elected or appointed, and for the 
 compensation of said judges and of their 
 clerks and attaches. 
 
 2. For the manner in which, the 
 times at which, and the terms for which 
 the members of boards of education 
 shall be elected or appointed, and the 
 number which shall constitute any one 
 of such boards. 
 
 3. For the manner in which, the 
 times at which, and the terms for which 
 the members of the boards of police 
 commissioners shall be elected or ap- 
 pointed; and for the constitution, regu- 
 lation, compensation, and government of 
 such boards and of the municipal police 
 force. 
 
 4. For the manner in which, the 
 times at which, and the terms for which 
 the members of all boards of election 
 shall be elected or appointed, and for 
 the constitution, regulation, compensa- 
 tion, and government of such boards, 
 and of their clerks and attaches; and 
 for all expenses incident to the holding 
 of any election. 
 
 Where a city and county government 
 has been merged and consolidated into 
 one municipal government, it shall also 
 be competent in any charter framed un- 
 der said section eight of said article 
 eleven, to provide for the manner in 
 which, the times at which and the 
 terms for which the several county offi- 
 cers shall be elected or appointed, for 
 their compensation, and for the number 
 of deputies that each shall have, and 
 for the compensation payable to each of 
 said deputies. (Amendment adopted 
 November 3, 1896.) 
 
 At the Extra Session in 11)00 the Cali- 
 fornia Legislature proposed an amend- 
 ment to g 8 changing the requirement of a 
 three-fifths vote (for the adoption of char- 
 ter amendments) to a provision requiring 
 only a majority vote (for said purpose). 
 
 The Missouri Charter Amendment. 
 
 The Constitution of Missouri 
 (1875), Art. IX, Sections 16 and 17 
 provide that: 
 
 Sec. 16. Any city having a population 
 of more than one hundred thousand in- 
 habitants may frame a charter for its 
 own government, consistent with and 
 subject to the Constitution and laws of 
 this State, by causing a board of thir- 
 teen freeholders, who shall have been 
 at least five years qualified voters there- 
 of, to be elected by the qualified voters 
 of such city at any general or special 
 election; which board shall, within nine- 
 ty days after such election, return to 
 the chief magistrate of such city a draft 
 of such charter, signed by the members 
 of such board or a majority of them. 
 Within thirty days thereafter, such pro- 
 posed charter shall be submitted to the 
 qualified voters of such city, at a gen- 
 eral or special election, and if four- 
 sevenths of such qualified voters vot- 
 ing thereat shall ratify the same, it 
 shall at the end of thirty days there- 
 after, become the charter of such city, 
 and supersede any existing charter and 
 amendments thereof. A duplicate cer- 
 
 tificate shall be made, setting forth the 
 charter proposed and its ratification, 
 which shall be signed by the chief mag- 
 istrate of such city and authenticated 
 by its corporate seal. One of such cer- 
 tificates shall be deposited in the office 
 of the Secretary of State, and the 
 other, after being recorded in the office 
 of the recorder of deeds for the county 
 in which such city lies, shall be de- 
 posited among the archives of such city, 
 and all courts shall take judicial notice 
 thereof. Such charter, so adopted, may 
 be amended by a proposal therefor, made 
 by the law-making authorities of such 
 city, published for at least thirty days 
 in three newspapers of largest circula- 
 tion in such city, one of which shall 
 be a newspaper printed in the German 
 language, and accepted by three-fifths 
 of the qualified voters of such city, 
 voting at a special or general election, 
 and not otherwise; but such charter 
 shall always be in harmony with and 
 subject to the Constitution and laws of 
 the State. 
 
 Sec. 17. It shall be a feature of all 
 such charters that they shall provide, 
 among other things, for a mayor or 
 chief magistrate, and two houses of 
 legislation, one of which at least shall 
 be elected by general ticket; and in 
 submitting any such charter or amend- 
 ment thereto to the qualified voters of 
 such city, any alternative section or 
 article may be presented for choice of 
 the voters, and may be voted on sep- 
 arately, and accepted or rejected sep- 
 arately, without prejudice to other ar- 
 ticles or sections of the charter or any 
 amendment thereto. 
 
 Special provision for St. Louis was 
 made in sections 20 to 23 inclusive, 
 of the same article, as follows: 
 
 Sec. 20. The City of St. Louis may 
 extend its limits so as to embrace the 
 parks now within its boundaries, and 
 other convenient and contiguous terri- 
 tory, and frame a charter for the gov- 
 ernment of the city thus enlarged, upon 
 the following conditions, that is to say; 
 The council of the city and county 
 court of the county of St. Louis, shall, 
 at the request of the mayor of the city 
 of St. Louis, meet in joint session and 
 order an election, to be held as pro- 
 vided for general elections, by the quali- 
 fied voters of the city and county, of 
 a board of thirteen freeholders of such 
 city or county, whose duty it shall be 
 to propose a scheme for the enlargement 
 and definition of the boundaries of the 
 city, the reorganization of the govern- 
 ment of the county, the adjustment of 
 the relations between the city thus en- 
 larged and the residue of St. Louis 
 county, and the government of the city 
 thus enlarged, by a charter in harmony 
 with and subject to the Constitution 
 and laws of Missouri, which shall, among 
 other things, provide for a chief execu- 
 tive and two houses of legislation, one 
 of which shall be elected by general 
 ticket, which scheme and charter shall 
 be signed in duplicate by said board 
 or a majority of them, and one of them 
 returned to the mayor of the city and 
 the other to the presiding justice of 
 the county court within ninety days 
 after the election of such board. With- 
 in thirty days thereafter the city coun- 
 
FREEHOLD CHARTER AMENDMENTS. 
 
 XI 
 
 cil and county court shall submit such 
 scheme to the qualified voters of the 
 whole county, and such charter to the 
 qualified voters of the city so enlarged, 
 at an election to be held not less than 
 twenty nor more than thirty days after 
 the order therefor; and if a majority 
 of such qualified voters, voting at such 
 election, shall ratify such scheme and 
 charter, then such scheme shall become 
 the organic law of the county and city, 
 and such charter the organic law of 
 the city, and at the end of sixty. days 
 thereafter shall take the place of and 
 supersede the charter of St. Louis, and 
 all amendments thereof, and all special 
 laws relating to St. Louis county in- 
 consistent with such scheme, (a) 
 
 Sec. 21. Scheme and charter, how au- 
 thenticated—Judicial Notice.— A copy of 
 such scheme and charter, with a cer- 
 tificate thereto appended, signed by the 
 mayor and authenticated by the seal of 
 the city, and also signed by the pre- 
 siding justice of the county court and 
 authenticated by the seal of the county, 
 setting forth the submission of such 
 scheme and charter to the qualified vo- 
 ters of such county and city, and its 
 ratification by them, shall be made in 
 duplicate, one of which shall be deposi- 
 ted in the office of the Secretary of 
 State, and the other, after being re- 
 corded in the office of the recorder of 
 deeds of St. Louis county, shall be de- 
 posited among the archives of the city, 
 and thereafter all courts shall take ju- 
 dicial notice thereof. (b) 
 
 Sec. 22. Charter, how amended.— The 
 charter so ratified may be amended at in- 
 tervals of not less than two years, by 
 proposals therefor, submitted by the 
 law-making authorities of the city to 
 the qualified voters thereof at a gen- 
 eral or special election, held at least 
 sixty days after the publication of such 
 proposals, and accepted by at least 
 three-fifths of the qualified voters voting 
 thereat. (c) 
 
 Sec. 23. Charter in harmony with con- 
 stitution and laws — various provisions un- 
 der.— Such charter and amendments 
 shall always be in harmony with and 
 subject to the Constitution and laws of 
 Missouri, except only that provision 
 may be made for the graduation of the 
 rate of taxation for city purposes in the 
 portions of the city which are added 
 thereto by the proposed enlargement of 
 its boundaries. In the adjustment of 
 the relations between city and county, 
 the city shall take upon itself the en- 
 tire park tax; and in consideration of 
 the city becoming the proprietor of all 
 the county buildings and property with- 
 in its enlarged limits, it shall assume 
 the whole of the existing county debt, 
 and thereafter the city and county shall 
 be independent of each other. The city 
 shall be exempted from all county tax- 
 ation. The judges of the county court 
 shall be elected by the qualified voters 
 outside of the city. The city, as en- 
 larged, shall be entitled to the same 
 representation in the General Asembly, 
 collect the State revenue and perform 
 all other functions in relation to the 
 State, in the same manner, as if it 
 were a county as in this Constitution 
 defined; and the residue of the county 
 shall remain a legal county of the State 
 
 of Missouri, under the name of the 
 county of St. Louis. Until the next ap- 
 portionment for senators and represen- 
 tatives in the General Assembly, the 
 city shall have six senators and fifteen 
 representatives, and the county one 
 senator, and two representatives, the 
 same being the number of senators and 
 representatives to which the county of 
 St. Louis, as now organized, is entitled 
 under sections eight and eleven of ar- 
 ticle IV of this Constitution, (d) 
 
 The Detroit Charter Law. 
 
 In Michigan the Direct Legisla- 
 tion League in 1899 secured an act 
 by which the people of Detroit can 
 amend their own charter. The Com- 
 mon Council on its own initiative 
 may submit a charter amendment to 
 a referendum of the people, or 5,000 
 voters by an initiative petition may 
 force the Council to submit a charter 
 amendment. 
 
 On the urging of the League, the 
 Common Council on August 2d, by 
 a unanimous vote, agreed to sub- 
 mit at the November election the 
 following amendment to the people 
 of Detroit: 
 
 "The Common Council of the City of 
 Detroit shall not grant to any person 
 or corporation a franchise; nor extend 
 the life of any existing franchise for 
 the use or control of any public utility, 
 unless such franchise shall have been 
 first submitted to a vote of the people 
 of said city, and until the same shall 
 have been approved by a majority of 
 the electors of the municipality voting 
 thereon at such election. All grants in 
 contravention of this provision, and 
 which shall not have been first sub- 
 mitted to a vote of the people and ap- 
 proved by a majority of the electors 
 voting thereupon, shall be null and 
 void. The Common Council of said city 
 may in its discretion submit to the 
 electors of said municipality, either at 
 a general or a special election called 
 for that purpose, any proposition em- 
 bodying the granting of rights, privi- 
 leges or franchises for the use or con- 
 trol of public utilities in the City of 
 Detroit. 
 
 "Provided, that any one and all prop- 
 ositions which are to be submitted to 
 a referendum vote shall be publisht, 
 by title and in full at least once a week 
 for eight successive weeks immediately 
 preceding said election, in at least four 
 newspapers publisht in the City of De- 
 troit, and at least six half-sheet poster 
 notices displayed conspicuously in each 
 precinct of the city; and the Common 
 Council may require that any or all ex- 
 penses thereby entailed shall be paid 
 by the party or parties applying for 
 franchise. And be it further 
 
 "Provided, That this amendment shall 
 not apply to the granting of any fran- 
 chise for an extension not exceeding 
 one and one-half (V/ 2 ) miles in length 
 on any street where a street railway 
 franchise exists, for a term equal to 
 the unexpired term of the franchise on 
 the line so extended." 
 
Appendix II. 
 
 CHARTER MAKING. 
 
 Suggestions that may be Useful in Making Charters under the 
 Proposed Home-Rule Amendment (Appendix I. C). 
 
 Or, if the Legislature is Unwilling to give Cities full Liberty 
 to Make their own Charters, it may still be 
 Willing to Adopt a 
 
 Liberal Municipal Corporations Act, 
 
 Prescribing in Concise Terms the Main Outlines of City 
 Organization, fixing the Features in respect to which Uniformity 
 is deemed desirable and leaving the rest to be determined 
 accordiny to the judgment of each particular city. 
 
 In such case the follovnng provisions (with some modifica- 
 tions and additions which will occur to any legislator dealing 
 with the matter) may be found valuable as suggesting the means 
 of framing a liberal and flexible law. 
 
 The dual nature of a municipality must be kept clearly in mind. It 
 is an agency of the State in respect to state interests, and it is also in 
 business on its own account. 
 
 In respect to order, education, general commerce, health, etc.. it 
 has interests common to the whole state, and in dealing with them acts 
 for the state as well as for itself. Within such agency and so far as it 
 may be seriously affected by the form and conditions of the city gov- 
 ernment, it is right for the state to prescribe by general laws what the 
 city may do and how it may organize. But in respect to such matters 
 as street paving, local transit, municipal franchises, etc., it is clear that 
 the local interest is paramount, and full freedom within the limits of 
 just dealing should be accorded the city in such affairs. Even where 
 the state interest is strongest as in matters of justice, education, de- 
 fense, etc., the local interest is still stronger. The citizens of a city are 
 more deeply interested in the order, education, and safety of the city 
 than the rest of the state can possibly be. By the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of free government the power should go with the interest, and 
 the city should have full liberty to work out its own well being in its 
 own way subject to such general limitations as may be necessary to 
 conserve the vital interests of the state. 1 It is right for the state to set 
 
 1 The conti-ary system now in vogue whereby the city has no rights of its 
 own but is the "creature of the legislature," as our law-books put it, is one of 
 the principal reasons for the mismanagement of our cities, the corruption of 
 
 XII 
 
SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODEL CHARTER. XIII 
 
 up general standards in respect to state interests below which no muni- 
 cipality must fall in dealing with such interests, but beyond which any 
 city or town may go as far as it chooses. As a matter of fact cities 
 frequently do exceed state requirements in provision for education, fire 
 protection, etc. 
 
 The charter of a city bears the same relation to the city and its 
 government that the constitution of a state bears to the state and its 
 government, and ordinances are to the city what statutes are to the_ 
 state. The municipal constitution like the state constitution should ne 
 simple, brief, comprehensive — a statement of elementary facts and 
 principles, an outline of municipal policy, the framework of local 
 government. The details should be left for the ordinances. This will 
 make the government clear, strong and flexible — easily understood 
 and easily molded as occasion may require. 
 
 With this thought in mind in addition to those expressed in pre- 
 ceding pages respecting municipal sovereignty in local affairs, and 
 free initiative in all affairs subject only to the constitution and general 
 laws relating to state and national interests, we present the following 
 outline as a suggestion of what may be done in the way of reducing 
 a charter to its lowest terms, and making it the simple, concise and 
 vigorous instrument it ought to be. Criticisms and suggestions from 
 our readers in regard to this outline are specially requested in order 
 that we may render it more perfect in future publications. 2 
 
 our legislatures and the lack of municipal patriotism among our people. It 
 would be manifestly absurd for the National Government at Washington to 
 control the internal affairs of New York, Philadelphia or Chicago, de- 
 ciding that one street shall be paved with asphalt, another with stone; that 
 one company should have a telephone franchise, another a gas privilege and 
 a third enjoy the street railway monopoly; that one city officer should be 
 elected and another appointed; that the salary of one city official should be 
 $5,000, another $10,000, and the terms 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc. Our 
 people would regard such control as despotic interference of outsiders in 
 affairs of local concern. Yet it is only a little less absurd to allow a Legis- 
 lature in Albany, Harrisburg or Springfield to determine such matters for 
 New York, Philadelphia or Chicago. The legislature determines whether or 
 no a city may own and operate its street railways, telephones and water 
 service, how wide its streets shall be, what officers it shall have. Down to 
 the minutest detail our Legislatures may and do regulate the organization, 
 methods, powers and activities of our cities. If it were not for the blinding 
 power of usage we should regard this also as despotic control of outsiders In 
 local concerns, and would start a crusade to free our cities from their "abject 
 slavery to legislative despotism." 
 
 2 Dr. Taylor desired an outline or skeleton of a city„ charter to send 
 to legislators and other progressive men along with the reasons for mu- 
 nicipal liberty and the proposed forms of constitutional amendment and 
 statutory enactment intended to secure such liberty, so that if the reader 
 were disposed to take a part in this great movement for truer self-govern- 
 ment, he might have before him the model of a liberty charter whereby 
 he might attain a clearer idea of the work to be done in this field from 
 start to finish. The intricacy and difficulty of the task and the lack of any 
 satisfactory precedents made me very reluctant about attempting to draw 
 a model charter. But the Doctor mildly persisted as he always does when he 
 knows he has a good idea, and finally I said I would make the effort provided 
 the thing should not be called "a model charter," but only "suggestions for 
 a model charter" to which the Doctor readily assented, that being in fact 
 exactly what he wanted. 
 
 So I gathered a pile of freehold charters adopted in western cities 
 under the homo-rule amendments, got out my notes of the various munici- 
 pal acts or statutory charters in our States, analyzed the "Municipal Pro- 
 gram" put fdrth by Dr. Albert Shaw, Hon. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Prof. 
 Rowe of Pa. University, Prof. Goodnow of Columbia, and other eminent 
 authorities, made a list of the principles and methods successfully applied 
 in public affairs in England, Germany, Switzerland and New Zealand, and 
 
XIV APPENDIX II. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODEL CHARTER. '„ 
 CHARTER. OF 
 
 Name of City. 
 
 r - 
 
 Aeticle 1. T!he City. 
 
 § 1. Name and boundaries of the city. 
 § 2. Wards or divisions of the city to be fixed by ordinance 
 and changed as occasion may require. 
 
 Article 2. Powers. 
 
 § 1. The city shall have entire control of its streets, local 
 franchises and public utilities, roads, parks, fire, water, gas 
 and electric light services, street railways, local telephone ex- 
 change and other distinctly municipal affairs. In respect to 
 safety, order, health, education, general commerce and com- 
 munication, and other state interests the city shall be free 
 to act in any way it deems best provided it does not run 
 
 In our own cities, States and nation, and lastly set down such possible 
 methods as I could think of in aid of the great purposes of municipal 
 sovereignty in local affairs, real government by and for the people, the 
 merit system of civil service and public ownership of public utilities. Then 
 I crossed oft" clause by clause what seemed superfluous or objectionable or 
 clearly unattainable, classified and condensed what remained, and so worked 
 out a charter form which was submitted to a referendum (the Dr. was 
 the referendum as well as the initiative in this case) and so fortunate 
 was the suggested charter that it was adopted on the first ballot by unani- 
 mous vote with no change but in three or tour words of Art. 3, and Art. 10. 
 
 It will be found very unlike the complex, verbose municipal acts that 
 cumber the statute books of so many States. It is much more simple and 
 concise than even the newly adopted freehold charters of St. Louis. Kansas 
 City, Eos Angeles, San Francisco, etc. The habit of putting in city charters 
 a large amount of matter which ought to be left to the ordinances makes 
 such charters needlessly cumbersome. For example it is usual to describe 
 the wards in full in the charter, filling sometimes several pages with the 
 details of a subject that is in flux and must be dealt with from time to 
 time by ordinance and should be left to ordinances from the start under a 
 broad charter clause. If brevity is really the soul of wit, our suggested 
 charter is certainly a witty document (tho you might not discover the fact 
 without the aid of this time-honored maxim) and it contains, moreover, 
 many novel features such as the overlapping term for appointive offices of 
 a non-political nature (a new plan of cooling the plunder motive and barring 
 the spoils system now presented for the first time, so far as I am aware), 
 the civil service court, the expanded system of mutual checks between 
 administrative departments and between legislative and administrative 
 officers, the popular recall and the definit sphere of municipal sovereignty 
 (the first attempt I believe to define the sphere of local government, or 
 reduce the principle of the popular recall to definit phrasing in a charter 
 provision), direct nominations, majority choice, direct legislation, propor- 
 tional representation, etc. The substance of the provisions relating to public 
 ownership of public utilities is takeu from the new freehold charter of 
 San Francisco— a free rendering and much condensed, but retaining the 
 spirit and essence. The provision for gradual extinguishment of the capital 
 of public service plants was suggested by the policy of Prussia and Belgium 
 and other countries in respect to national railways and other public utili- 
 ties, and the practice in many of our own cities in respect to water and 
 electric plants. The industrial arbitration clause and the co-operative con- 
 struction of public works find abundant justification in the wonderful suc- 
 cess of these methods in New Zealand. The safeguards against corrupt 
 practices and the power of executive and legislative authorities to push each 
 other out of office and carry the whole policy of the government to the 
 people, are applications of principles that have proved of the utmost value 
 
SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODEL CHARTER. XV 
 
 counter to state law. Where it touches ^National interests the 
 
 city is subject to the constitution and laws of the United 
 
 States. "Where it touches state interests it is 
 
 Municipal subject to the constitution and laws of the 
 
 Sovereignty. J , •% \m • 
 
 State. But m local business and affairs dis- 
 tinctly municipal the city is sovereign. In this field it shall 
 act without interference or control by the legislature.' And 
 beyond this field it shall be free to act within the limitations 
 of state and national law. 
 
 Under this power the city may hold, use, mortgage, lease 
 or sell property, real and personal, for any lawful purpose; 
 own and operate any public utility; annex territory with 
 assent of the people of such territory and of the city upon, 
 referendum vote of each; levy and collect taxes, and do any 
 other act not inconsistent with paramount law as above stated. 
 
 Article 3. Government. 
 
 The Peoole, Mayor, Council, Appointing Power, Removal, Popular 
 Recall, Council's Power, Etc. 
 
 § 1. The government of the city, except so far as exercised 
 by the people directly, shall be vested in a Mayor and Council 
 subject to the limitations hereinafter expressed. 
 
 in England and the Australian republics. The Governor's power »to remove 
 the Mayor is from the Municipal Program, and seems clearly right. The 
 oily government with the Mayor at its head is the agent of the State 
 as well as of the city, and both principal should have the power of 
 removal. The sections relating to the controller, the debt limit, civil 
 service and publicity, also owe something to the Program, tho they do 
 not follow it exactly and entered the preliminary analyses from other 
 sources as well as from the Program. The Program charter (which is a 
 suggested municipal act or statutory charter) limits the city to a council 
 of one chamber. For a State enactment the provision of the Minnesota 
 Freehold Charter Amendment allowing a city to have one legislative body 
 or two seems preferable. The idea of having two councils is that one may 
 act as a check upon the other. Where direct legislation is adopted such 
 a check would seem no longer necessary, but the question of one chamber 
 or two should be decided by the city, not by the State. 
 
 The "Municipal Program" was adopted by the National Municipal League 
 in Nov., 1899. It consists of 10 large pages of proposed constitutional 
 amendments and nearly 40 pages of a proposed Corporations Act or 
 statute charter. This Program, tho of the great value we believe, seems 
 too long, and omits some very important provisions while adopting 
 some others that appear to us objectionable; for example we can not see 
 why the right to make home-rnle charters should be confined to cities of 
 25,000 or more. Why should a city of 10 or 15 or 20 thousand people be denied 
 the right of self government? California already permits any place of 
 3,500 people or more to make a freehold charter, and Minn, allows any city 
 or town this right of municipal liberty. Again we think it a mistake to give 
 the mayor power to appoint and remove at will all heads of departments 
 except the controller, and all officers and agents In the administrative service, 
 etc. It is well to concentrate the attention of voters at elections upon few 
 officers, but there is such a thing as carrying the process too far. We think 
 there are other officers who should be elected directly by the people besides 
 the mayor and council. It is well to fill by appointment administrative offices 
 where trained experts are needed, but it is a mistake to limit the terms 
 in these offices so that they all become vacant just as a new mayor comes in. 
 City engineer, health officer, treasurer, assessor, superintendent of schools. 
 fire marshal, street commissioner, chief of the water, gas, electric light, or 
 transit departments and nil the rest, at the disposal of the mayor at once 
 upon election, offer large temptations to organize and carry the election for 
 plunder. The power of arbitrary removal in respect to such officers seems 
 also very objectionable. Some of the suggestions as to the controller are ex- 
 
XVI APPENDIX II. 
 
 | 2. The mayor shall be elected by the people by majority 
 vote under an adequate system of preferential voting, 3 and 
 shall hold for 2 years unless sooner removed by death or the 
 Governor or the people. 
 
 The mayor may present measures to the council and may 
 be present at council meetings, and address the council hut 
 may rfot vote. He may veto auy ordinance passed by the 
 council (see below). He may present measures to the citi- 
 zens directly at the polls at a regular election or a special 
 election if he- deems it necessary. Subject to the limitations 
 hereinafter expressed* and with the approval of the council the 
 mayor shall have power to appoint all heads of departments. 
 Ho may remove the city attorney and chief of police at will, 
 and upon good cause shown at a fair public hearing he may 
 dismiss any other head of department within the mayor's 
 appointing power. He may also institute: or require the city 
 attorney to institute proceedings in the Civil Service Court 
 for the removal of any officer or employee of the city.* 
 
 In case of vacancy in the office of mayor, or his absence or 
 disability, the President of the Council shall have the powers 
 and perform the duties of mayor except that he shall not 
 remove any officer or employee until he has occupied the chair 
 mi interruptedly for 30 days. 
 
 Removal — four methods. In case of entire inability or 
 gross misconduct, or incompetence the mayor may be removed 
 by the Governor after a public hearing. The council by a 
 2/3 vote may at any time order a new election for mayor to 
 take place not less than 30 nor more than 40 days after such 
 vote is published. The mayor may issue an order calling 
 for the election of a new council in 30 to 40 days after such 
 order is published. 5 A petition of recall signed by legal 
 
 eellent but the civil service commissioners are subject to removal at the 
 pleasure of the mayor, which makes it practically impossible for them to 
 enforce the rules as to appointments and removals against the very person 
 who, under the Program, has the great bulk of appointments and removals 
 in his hands. There is no civil service court or other adequate means of 
 enforcing the law. 
 
 3 A system permitting each voter to express his relative preference for 
 each of the candidates by marking them in the order of his preference, 1st 
 choice, 2d choice, etc., so replacing the plurality rule, or minority government, 
 by majority choice. See Chap. VI, "City for the People," Equity Series, 1520 
 Chestnut St., Philadelphia. 
 
 4 The mayor is the agent of the people to enforce the law and administer 
 the government. To do this effectively the police and legal departments 
 which control the machinery of the law must be in his control. But the 
 city engineer, street commissioner, fire marshal, superintendent of schools, 
 chief of the water department or electric light, or municipal transit depart- 
 ment, henlth officer, assessor*, treasurer, city clerk, coroner, etc., are engaged 
 >n work that bears little if any relation to politics. Such officers should be 
 experts in their departments and have a tenure far above the whim of any 
 official. 
 
 s These provisions, under which either mayor or council may push the 
 other out of office in 30 days (so taking the whole government and its policy 
 to the people) embody the principle that has been found of such utility in 
 England and Australia in giving the people fuller consideration and more 
 vital control over their government, both legislative and administrative. 
 
SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODEL CHARTER. XVII 
 
 voters of the city to a number equal to a majority of the 
 total vote cast for mayor at the last preceding mayoralty 
 election shall be equivalent to an order for a new election 
 of mayor 30 to 40 days after the filing of such petition. He 
 may also be removed by the Civil Service Court. ■ 
 
 § 3. The council 6 shall consist of members elected' by the 
 
 people at large, one member to each voters. It may 
 
 be dissolved by order of the mayor or by popular recall in- 
 the manner set forth in § 2. 
 
 It may elect its own officers, divide the city into wards, 
 establish such departments and offices as it may deem best; 
 choose committees to watch the operations of each depart- 
 ment and consult with the department head appointed by 
 the mayor, levy and collect taxes, vote appropriations, grant 
 franchises and exercise all the legislative powers of the city, 
 subject to the' veto of the mayor and the control of the people 
 through the referendum. 
 
 Article 4. Ordinances. 
 Mayor's Veto ; Direct Legislation, Franchises, Etc. 
 
 § 1. The term "ordinance" shall include every contract, 
 grant, resolution, act or measure, passed by council or sub- 
 mitted to the legislative discretion of the people, or their 
 agents in council. Ordinances shall be classified as general 
 ordinances corresponding to general laws, and special ordi- 
 nances consisting of routine orders (selection of council offi- 
 cers, ordinary levies and appropriations within established 
 standards, votes upon the mayor's appointments and upon 
 dismissals, etc.), resolutions concerning the decease of dis- 
 tinguished men, acts relating to one individual or company, 
 personal orders, etc. 
 
 § 2. Every ordinance passed by council shall be sent to 
 the mayor. Within 10 days after receiving it (or at the next 
 meeting of council after the expiration of the said 10 days) 
 the mayor shall return it, with his signature or with his veto 
 and the reasons for disapproval. If not returned within said 
 time the ordinance is regarded as signed. If 
 Mayors Veto. vetoed the council may pass it over the veto 
 by a 2/3 vote. After an ordinance is passed 
 and signed by the mayor, or passed over his veto, it shall 
 be published at least once a week for 4 weeks in one or more 
 newspapers designated for the purpose by the mayor who 
 
 e With the check of the referendum a single chamber is sufficient and 
 tly simplifies the government. 
 
XVIII APPENDIX II. 
 
 may make a general order on the subject, and an additional 
 special order in any particular case: if he deems best. 
 
 § 3. Ordinances other than established routine, or urgency 
 
 measures necessary for the immediate preservation of the 
 
 public health, peace or safety, shall not go into effect for 
 
 30 days after passage and official publication, 
 
 Referendum. ^ if &w™% that time legal voters of 
 
 the city sign a petition demanding the refer- 
 endum on any such ordinance, it shall be submitted to the 
 people for final decision at the polls. 
 
 § 4. Ordinances may be proposed to council or to the voters 
 at the polls by the mayor, controller, superintendent of 
 schools, director of public works, or civil service commis- 
 sioner. One third' of the council may order any ordinance 
 or proposed ordinance to be submitted to the 
 
 The initiative. people, and on petition of of the legal 
 
 voters of the city proposing a specified ordi- 
 nance or amendment, it shall go to the polls together with 
 the action of council upon it, if any. 
 
 § 5. Council shall within a reasonable time adopt such 
 ordinances as may be needed to determine the details of 
 municipal action under this charter and carry its policy into 
 effect, and all such ordinances relating to direct legislation 
 andi the methods and details of its use shall be submitted to 
 the people and approved at the polls before going into effect. 
 
 § 4. No franchise shall be granted for a longer term than 
 20 years, and no franchise grant shall be 
 Franchises. valid till approved by the people at the polls. 
 
 Franchise grants may stipulate that at the 
 end of the temi the property shall revert to the city free 
 of debt, or at the arbitration value of the physical plant, or 
 contain any other reasonable provision on this subject, and 
 whatever other terms the city may deem best. 
 
 No public plant shall be sold, leased or encumbered except 
 upon a referendum vote to that effect. 
 
 Article 5. Nominations. 
 
 §1. Nominations of elective officers shall be made by peti- 
 tion signed by qualified voters of the city and filed in 
 
 the clerk's office. 
 
 Article 6. Elections. 
 
 Separation of State and Municipal Elections, Officers and Boards Elected, 
 
 Proportional Representation, Majority Choice, Ballot 
 
 Machines, Corrupt Practices. 
 
 § 1. Municipal elections separated from state and na- 
 tional elections bv at least 1 month, shall be held at suoh 
 
SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODEL CHARTER. X I X 
 
 times and places and. in such manner as may be designated by 
 ordinance. 
 
 § 2. The officers elected for the city shall be a Mayor \ 
 and Council, as above described, a Controller, School Board, 
 Director of Public Works, and Civil Service Court, and 
 Commissioner (see below), and such other officers as may be 
 listed for election by statute or ordinance. 
 
 § 3. A system of Proportional Representation 7 may be — 
 adopted by ordinance to be used in the election of the Coun- 
 cil, School Board, Civil Service Court and other official 
 groups that may be required. Such system may be applied 
 to all the members of council or other group or to part only, 
 the rest being elected on the district plan. 
 
 § 4. Majority Choice or Preferential Voting 8 may be 
 adopted by ordinance to replace the plurality rule in the 
 election of single officers. 
 
 § 5. The Automatic Ballot may be established by ordi- 
 nance providing for the purchase of suitable voting machines, 
 approved by the state, or in the absence of designation by 
 statute, the city may buy such machines as it deems satis- 
 factory after thorough testing on behalf of the city. 
 
 § 6. The Registration of Voters shall be conducted in the 
 manner prescribed by law and ordinance. 
 
 § 7. A candidate-elect by or on behalf of whom bribery or 
 other corrupt practice is used in the election cannot take his 
 seat. 9 This provision miay be enforced in the regular courts 
 or in the Civil Service Court. 
 
 Article 7. The Controller. 
 
 § 1. The Controller shall be elected by the people and 
 shall hold for 4 years unless sooner removed by the Civil 
 Service Court or popular recall. 
 
 § 2. He shall audit all bills and demands against the citv, 
 examine the accounts of every department and report any 
 default or delinquency he discovers in the accounts or con- 
 duct of any officer. Tie shall have power to settle claims 
 against the city, and may examine under oath persons Who 
 present claims, and other witnesses. 
 
 No payment of city funds shall be made except upon draft 
 countersigned by the Controller after he has audited the 
 claim and found it justly due. 
 
 7 See Chap. V, "City for the People," Equity Series, 1520 Chestnut St.. 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 8 See reasons and methods Chap. VI, "City for the People." 
 
 •This is the principle that has proved of such great value in England. 
 See Chap. VIII, "City for the People." 
 
xx appendix ii. 
 
 Article 8. The Schools. 
 
 § 1. The supervision and management of the schools shall 
 be vested in a superintendent appointed by the mayor (with 
 
 assent of council), and a board of members elected by 
 
 the people to hold for 6 years, 1/3 being elected every 2 
 years. The board may by 2/3 vote dismiss the superin- 
 tendent. 
 
 § 2. The board shall have charge of all school property. 
 It shall lay down courses of study and make regulations sub- 
 ject to the veto of the superintendent in like manner as 
 between mayor and 1 council. 
 
 § 3. Subject to such regulations and the Civil Service 
 rules the superintendent shall have charge of the hiring of 
 teachers and the supervision and direction of instruction in 
 the schools. 
 
 § 4. Any teacher may be dismissed by the board subject 
 to appeal to the Civil Service Court, 
 
 Article 9. Public Works. 
 
 Director of Public "Works, Public Ownership, Publicity of Corporation 
 
 Accounts, Etc. 
 
 § 1. A Director of Public Works shall be elected by the 
 people to hold for 4 years unless sooner removed by the Civil 
 Service Court or popular recall. 
 
 § 2. It shall be the policy of the city to own and operate 
 for the benefit of the whole people all local public utilities. 
 To this end the Director of Public Works shall make or cause 
 to be made careful estimates of the value and cost of con- 
 struction and operation of such plants as exist or are desirable 
 for the carrying on 1 of such services. For this purpose the 
 Director and his agents shall have full access to the books 
 and documents of any corporation, firm or person engaged 
 in such service in the city, and may summon, witnesses and 
 examine them under oath subject to the penalties of perjury 
 if they testify falsely. The information so obtained shall be 
 reduced to clear and simple form, and both in full and in 
 its reducted form, shall be kept permanently open: to public 
 inspection in the Director's office at all times during business 
 hours. 
 
 § 3. The Director shall from time to time submit to the 
 council and to the voters at the polls propositions for the 
 purchase or construction' of public service plants. 
 
 § 4. Debts incurred by the city for such plants shall not 
 be charged against the debt limit except so far as they ex- 
 
SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODEL CHARTER. XXI 
 
 oeed the fair market value of the property they represent — 
 the structure and the franchise are both assets in the hands 
 of the city balancing an equivalent value in securities. 
 
 § 5. It shall be the policy of the city to extinguish the 
 capital obligations resting upon public service plants in order 
 that they may become completely the property of the people 
 free' of debt and render sendee to the community at the 
 lowest cost. To this end measures shall be taken, through the 
 adjustment of rates or otherwise, to gradually extinguish, 
 said obligations so that the plant may be free in 20 to 50 
 years from this time, or, in case of future undertakings^ from 
 the time of construction or acquirement by the city, or in 
 a less time than 20 years if so voted' by the people on a refer- 
 endum. 
 
 § 6. The administrative headte of departments of public 
 works such as water, gas, electric light, transit, streets, parks, 
 etc., shall be appointed by the mayor with assent of coun- 
 cil, but may be removed by the Director of Public Works 
 at will, as well as by popular recall or by the Civil Service 
 Court or the mayor upon hearing. 
 
 Article 10. TkE Civil Service. 
 
 Tine merit system of appointment and promotion with 
 tenure during good behavior and efficient service shall be 
 the settled policy of the city in respect to the; employees of 
 every department,. 
 
 § 2. A Civil Service Commission shall be elected by the 
 people for 4 years, and three judges of a Civil Service Court y 
 to hold 6 years, one: to be elected every 2 years. 
 
 § 3. These four persons shall draw up and submit to the 
 people a system of rules to carry out as far as practicable the 
 principle set forth, in § 1, making it a part of the plan that, 
 (excepting private secretaries and immediate personal assist- 
 ants of heads of departments, and similar officials) any officer 
 or employee removed or degraded shall have an appeal to the 
 Civil Service Court for reinstatement unless good cause be 
 shown for his dismissal, provided of course that this is not 
 understood to overrule express provisions in this charter in 
 respect to removal in particular cases. 
 
 § 4. It shall be the Commissioners'* duty to watch the 
 conduct of every department of the city and see that the Civil 
 Service Rules are enforced^ in good faith according to their 
 spirit and purpose. He shall have full access to the records 
 and offices of all departments and may examine under oath 
 any officer or employee from the mayor to a laborer on the 
 
XXII APPENDIX II. 
 
 streets. In case of violation of the law lie may notify the 
 offender to make good the breach and conform' to the law 
 in future. If this proves ineffective or he thinks best to 
 proceed in court at once, he shall bring the case before the 
 Civil Service Court, which may, on the first offence, fine, im- 
 prison or dismiss the offender or impose any 
 service°cmlrL two or a ^ t!nr0e penalties, but on the second 
 offense shall dismiss the guilty official. The 
 action of the court shall not be confined to enforcing the 
 merit system in respect to the appointment, promotion and 
 retention of employees. It may dismiss any officer or em- 
 ployee of the city for misconduct or incompetence, and pro- 
 ceedings for this purpose may be instituted by tine Mayor, 
 City Attorney, Controller, Superintendent of Schools, Di- 
 rector of Public Works, or other head of department, and 
 upon affidavit that a. department head has been requested 
 to bring such action on reasonable cause and has refused, 
 any ten citizens may institute such proceedings in said 1 court. 
 Any employee or group of employees or any officer may 
 appeal to the court to prevent or punish a breach of the Civil 
 Service Rules, or to decide any question relating to hours, 
 wages or conditions of service, and its decision 
 ^Titration. afteT fllU bearing of all sides, shall have the 
 
 force of law subject only to the referendum 
 if a petition for it is filed in the court within 30 days after such 
 decision is published. 
 
 § 5. The Commissioner shall secure and keep on file in 
 the Tribunal open at all times to public inspection, a correct 
 list of all officers and employees of the citv, 
 Publicity. with a statement of the title and remuneration 
 
 of each, the nature of his duties, date of elec- 
 tion, appointment or employment with the name of the per- 
 son appointing or employing him, and date of termination 
 of service with the reasons therefor. 
 
 Article 11. Other Officers. 
 
 § 1. A chief of police, and a city attorney shall be ap- 
 pointed by the mayor (with assent of council) for 2 years. 
 
 § 2. Judges of the city courts established by ordinance shall 
 be appointed by the mayor (with assent of council) to. hold 
 for life unless dismissed' by the Civil Sendee Tribunal for 
 inability, misconduct or incompetence, or removed by the 
 popular recall. 
 
 § 3. A superintendent of schools, chief of the water de- 
 partment, electric light, street railway or other municipal 
 
SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODEL CHARTER. XXIII 
 
 service the city may own and operate, street commissioner, 
 fire marshal, engineer, health officer, city 
 
 J '" ( Term PPUl(/ <&&&, treasurer, assessor, collector, coroner, or 
 other officer required by law or ordinance, 
 
 shall be appointed by the mayor (with assent of council) to 
 
 hold for 3 years. 10 
 
 Article 12. Salaries and Wages. 
 
 § 1. Salaries of officers shall be fixed by ordinance but 
 shall not be changed' upon any officer during his term. 
 
 § 2. Subject to Article 10, § 4, the wages of employees 
 shall also be determined by ordinance and may be changed 
 upon 3 months' notice. 
 
 Article 13. Removals. 
 
 By the Mayor, Director of Public Works, Department Heads, Civil Service 
 Court and Popular Recall. 
 
 § 1. For removals of and by the Mayor see Article 3, § 2. 
 
 § 2. For removals of and by the Director of Public Works 
 see Article 9, § 1 and § 6. 
 
 § 3. For removals by the Civil Service Court see Article 
 10, § 4. 
 
 § 4. The head of a department may for good cause dis- 
 miss any employee under him subject to appeal to the Civil 
 Service Court and its discretion as to costs under the Civil 
 Service Rules. 
 
 § 5. A petition signed by a number of legal voters of the 
 city equal to a majority of total vote for any city office at 
 the last preceding municipal election may require a new elec- 
 tion for such office. 
 jpopuiar Eecau. In respect to any non-elective officer or 
 
 employee a petition for dismissal signed by a 
 number of voters of the city equal to a majority of the total 
 vote cast at the last preceding municipal election, shall be 
 mandatory upon the head of the department involved and 
 upon the Civil Service Court, and shall be good and necessary 
 cause for an order of removal. 
 
 10 The object of overlapping the term of the mayor is to give a year for 
 any partisan feeling awakened in the campaign to die away, and for the 
 mayor to become thoroly acquainted with the character and capacity of the 
 various department heads. Under such circumstances the mayor is much less 
 likely to be elected on a spoils basis and is also less likely to fill the offices 
 with his political or personal friends than is the case where the offices go 
 vacant at the time he comes to the chair. Thus we gain the advantages of 
 the appointment system in securing scientific experts instead of politicians for 
 the heads of departments and at the same time reduce to the lowest terms 
 the dangers of the appointing power. 
 
 The ideal we think would be that such officers as superintendent of 
 
XXIV APPENDIX II. 
 
 Article 14. Impeachment. 
 
 § 1. Any judge or head: of department, elective or ap- 
 pointive, may be impeached for gross misconduct or mal-ad- 
 ministration. Such impeachment may be brought by the 
 City Attorney or any 100 legal electors of the city, and 
 shall be tried before the council, whose adverse judgment 
 shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualifi- 
 cation for any future office, honor, or employment at the 
 hands of the city. 
 
 Article 15. Contracts. 
 
 Direct Employment, Co-operative Contracts, Etc. 
 
 § 1. It shall be the policy of the city so far as practicable 
 to substitute direct employment, and contracts with co-opera- 
 tive groups of workers, in place of contracts with middlemen 
 and ordinary non-co-operative contractors. 11 
 
 Article 16. Amendments. 
 
 § 1. Amendments to this charter may be proposed by the 
 mayor, council, or any department head, or by petition signed 
 by legal voters of the city. 
 
 § 2. Such proposal shall be submitted to the people at che 
 polls and if adopted by a majority of those voting upon it 
 shall become a part of the organic law of the city subject to 
 the limitations set forth in Article 2. 
 
 schools, head of a public utility, street commissioner, fire marshal and similar 
 officials should hold during good behavior and efficient service. Their positions 
 demand expert knowledge requiring many years of special training and experi- 
 ence, and their departments are in no sense political but are business enter- 
 prises in which a steady policy and entire freedom from anxiety about elec- 
 tions or tenure of office are of the utmost importance. It is probable however 
 that a 3 year term (overlapping the mayor and council) and removal only for 
 cause are about the best attainable provisions in the present state of public 
 opinion. 
 
 11 The principle of co-operative labor on public works has been applied 
 with the most important results in New Zealand, the men making average pay 
 nearly double the average wages received under the old system, at the same 
 time that the buildings, railroads, etc., cost the state less than under the 
 contract system. See Henry D. Lloyd's "Newest England." 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 HOME-RULE FOR CITIES, (Chap. Ill, 387-468) -^ 
 
 1. importance of subject, 7-11, 428-9 
 cities like women, 387 
 legislative paternalism, 387 
 
 city can't connect two of its own buildings with a wire except by permis- 
 sion of legislature, 387 
 
 no independent initiative, 387, 406 (Eng.) 
 
 must get permissn to move, 387 
 
 can't own or run local water, gas or telephone service without consulting 
 the other cities and towns of the State, 388 
 
 legislature can plan pub. bldgs for a city and make it pay for them, 388-9 
 compel city to pay claim rejected in court, 389 
 take water works, etc., out of city's hands (?), 390 
 
 city's franchise not a contract, 390 
 
 city's charter not a contract, 390 
 
 cities in bondage, 390-1 
 
 reasons for subjectn of cities, 391-2 
 
 dual nature of municipality— state agency and local business concern 
 
 key to the situatn, 392, 412 
 
 2. limitations on legislative omnipotence, 392-7 
 
 inherent right of local self-govt, 393 
 Michigan doctrine (Mich, and Ind. cases), 393-6 
 contra, 396 n. 
 
 3. rights of cities— general situation, 397 summary 
 
 4. consequences of municipal dependence, 398-405 
 
 chaos of laws, 398, 539 (318-320, 402, 465-6) 
 
 special legislatn, 398-402. (422 and 538) 
 
 lack of elasticity, 402 
 
 local patriotism crippled, 402-3 
 
 log-rolling, corruptn and bossism favored, 403-4 
 
 progress obstructed, 404-5 
 
 5. remedy, municipal' independence in local business, 405 
 
 the manhood principle, 405-6 
 
 assigned sphere of local sovereignty, 407-9 
 
 const, amendmts, 409, 415 
 
 home-rule charter and the referendum, 410-1, 415, 428 
 
 direct legislatn, merit system, and pub. ownshp nec'y, else freedom 
 
 from legislative bossing may mean subjectn to local politicians and 
 
 monopolists, 411, 428 
 separatn of state and municipal affairs, 411-3, 536 
 
 6. steps toward home-rule, 413-5, 429-430 
 
 7. freehold charter amendmts, 415-425, 431, 435-8. 
 
 suggested form,i-v 
 Missouri, 415-6, 435, x-xi, full text 
 Louisiana, 416, 435 
 
 Minnesota, 416-7, 435, vnr-ix, full text 
 Washington, 417, 435, vn vin, full text 
 California, 418, 435, ix-x, full text 
 St.. Louis, charter, 418-9, 422 
 Los Angeles' charter, 4i9 
 San Francisco's charter, 419-421, 438 
 
 initiative and referendum, 419 
 
 pub. ownship, 420 
 
 merit system of civil service, 420-1 
 the charters still subject to the legislatures, 424-5 
 
 8. special legislatn forbidden, 422-3, 431, 431-4 
 
 9. points for future charter laws, 426. (see appendices) 
 
 10. summary of discussn so far, 427-430 
 
 11. Dr. Shaw's views, 428-9 
 Gov. Russell's views, 399, 400 
 
 Natl. Municipal League, model charter, 228, 229 
 
 12. constitutional provisns affecting municipal liberty, 431 table, 432-8, 455, 
 
 (See appendix i) 
 
 safeguards against special legislatn, 431 table, 432-4 (see 422-3, 398-402) 
 
 local consent required, 431 table, 434 
 
 franchise grants, municipal power, 431 table, 434, 448-9 
 
 public ownership, municipal power, 434 
 
 charter making, municipal power, 431 table, 435-8 (415-425 see above) 
 
 XXV 
 
XXVI INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 HOME-RULE FOR CITIES— continued 
 
 13. statute provisns affecting municipal liberty, 436-7 table 
 
 debt limitatns, 437, 438 
 
 proposal not to count bonds issued for revenue producing utilities, 
 appendix xx-xxi 
 local choice of local officers, 437, 438-9 
 municipal baths, libraries, etc., 439 
 street franchises, 439 
 municipal ownership, 436 table 
 
 street railways, 436 table, 440, 447, 448 
 
 telegraphs and telephones, 436 table, 440-2, 447-9 
 
 gas and electric light laws, 436 table, 442-9 
 
 city may build plant tho it has previously granted franchise to a 
 private co., 443, 445 
 
 hay scales, bicycle pumps, etc., 464 
 sale of franchises at auction, 449-452 
 charter of Greater New York, 452 
 local consent and powers of grant, 436 table, 453-461, 462 table 
 
 street railways, 454, 458, 448-9, 459-461, 462 table 
 
 electric light, 455, 443-5 
 
 telegraph and telephone, 448-9, 459, 460, 461, 462 table 
 
 gas, 455, 443-5 
 
 gas, water, elect, light, st. rys., telephone, 454-5 sweep. 
 
 property owners assent, 457, 459-460, 462 table 
 appeal to court, 457, 461 
 
 14. sweeping provisns best, 456, 454-5, 458 
 
 Minn., 447, 458. la., 444 
 Wash., 448. Cal., 447 
 Ind., 448, S. Car., 448 
 Ky., 448-9. Wise, 449 
 Kans., 459. Mo., 450 
 
 15. referendum provided for, 456 summary 
 
 Minn., 442, 456, 458 sweep 
 
 Wash., 448, 456 sweep 
 
 la., 444, 456 sweep 
 
 Wise, 449, 456 (Initiative also) 
 
 Mich., 444, 456 (Initiative also) 
 
 Nebraska, 457 (Initiative also) 
 
 So. Dakota, 457 (Initiative also) 
 
 16. statute provisns easily changed, not very reliable, 463 
 
 but important laws soon gather about them a sentimt that protects 
 them, 463 
 
 17. the honor list and the awkward squad,— progressive states and backward 
 
 states, 464 
 
 18. even the best statute books very imperfect, 465 
 
 legislatures afflicted with intellectual indigestion,— ponderous ver- 
 bosity, exasperating repetitn, chaos of enactmts, largely useless or 
 worse, R. I., N. J., Mass., etc., 465-6. (398) 
 
 19. a few brief sweeping well considered measures worth more than masses 
 
 of ill-digested statutes, 466 
 
 20. conclusions, 467-8 
 LEGISLATIVE FORMS. (Appendix i) 
 
 Suggestions for constitutional amendmts and statutory enactments 
 
 in aid of municipal liberty, appendix, p. i 
 Existing freehold charter amendments, appendix, p. VII 
 MODEL CITY CHARTER, suggestions for. (Appendix n) 
 Charter making, anpendix, p. xn 
 Charter form, appendix, p. xiv 
 
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 $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 REC'p LP 
 
 J W 21 "66 12 AM 
 
 ? W*>*. 
 
 ?n e ^56WJ 
 
 — — — , .. .97 
 
 
 
 
 
 ijmvmtiMtf 
 
 NOV 23 19» 
 
 MAYn9 m 
 
 CIRCULATION DEPT. 
 
 i&m&- 
 
 ■vy'O LD 
 
 T E B 2 BS9 
 
 J . : o^:: oi 
 
 stAO^ 
 
 ia 
 
 tefMJfl^ 
 
 LD 21-100m-7,'39(402s) 
 
.V.i,£r..?,^ KELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
CITIES 
 
 M J3T GET PERMISSION TO MOVE. 
 
 THE LEGISLATURE GIVES THEM SUCH POWERS AS IT PLEASES, 
 
 ABRIDGES AT WILL, OR ANNULS THEIR PRIVILEGES, 
 
 MAY EVEN DIVIDE THEM OR CONSOLIDATE TWO OR MORE OF THEM 
 
 INTO ONE WITHOUT THEIR ASSENT, 
 
 ATTACH A CONDITION TO THEIR CONTINUED EXISTENCE, 
 
 OR ABOLISH THEM COMPLETELY. 
 
 IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW, A CITY IS 
 
 "A CREATURE OF THE LEGISLATURE." 
 
 THIS 
 
 MUNICIPAL SUBJECTION 
 
 CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL REASONSlFOR THE 
 
 MISMANAGEMENT OF OUR CITIES, 
 
 THE CORRUPTION OF OUR LEGISLATURES, 
 
 AND THE LACK OE LOCAL PATRIOTISM AMONG OUR PEOPLE. 
 
 THE REMEDY 
 
 IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 
 
 GIVING CITIES AND TOWNS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHARTERS 
 
 WITHIN BROAD LIMITATIONS, AND 
 
 SUBJECT TO LEGISLAT ON RESPECTING STATE INTERESTS, 
 
 BUT FREE OF LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE 
 
 IN LC AL BUSIN"SS AFFAIRS, 
 
 WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN OVER TO 
 
 MUNICIPAL SOVEREIGNTY 
 
 ON THE SAME FRINC1PLE THAT HAS ESTABLISHED NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY 
 
 IN NATIONAL AFFAIRS, STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN STATE AFFAIRS, 
 
 AND INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY IN INDIVIDUAL AFFAIRS.