Government in the United States, National, State and Local

THE COUNTY-TOWNSHIP SYSTEM

In most states the general type of local government is that which we have designated as the county-township system. It is a system in which there is a more nearly equal division of local governmental functions between the county and township than is found either in New England or in the Southern states.

The Two Types.– Growing out of the fact that the county-township system has two sources it has developed into two different types: the New York or supervisor type and the Pennsylvania or commissioner type.

A. New York Type.– In New York the town with its annual meeting early made its appearance, though the town meeting there never exhibited the vigor and vitality that it did in New England. Early in the eighteenth century a law was enacted in New York providing that each township in the county should elect an officer called a supervisor, and that the supervisors of the several towns should form a county board and when assembled at the county seat should "supervise and examine the public and necessary charge of each county." In time the management of most of the affairs of the county was devolved upon the board of supervisors, and the system has continued to the present. This board is now composed of not only the supervisors of the townships but also the representatives of the various villages and wards of the cities within the county. The county board thus represents the minor civil divisions of the county rather than the county as a whole. It has charge of various matters that in New England are managed by the towns. The town meeting exists but it is not largely attended, and does not play the important rôle in local government that it does in New England. This system in time spread to those states, like Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, which were largely settled by immigrants from New York.

B. The Pennsylvania Type.– As New York was the parent of the supervisor system, Pennsylvania became the parent of the commissioner system. Instead of a county board composed of representatives from the various townships in the county, provision was made for a board of commissioners elected from the county at large. The Pennsylvania system spread to Ohio and from there to Indiana and later to Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In some states the commissioners are elected by large districts into which the county is divided for that purpose.

Thus, first to New York, and second to Pennsylvania belongs the honor of predetermining the character of local government in the West. The county-township system is the most widely distributed system of local government in the United States, and seems destined to become the prevailing system for the country as a whole.⁷ The principal difference between the two types consists in the presence of the town meeting in the northern tier of states where the New York type prevails, and its absence in the states where the Pennsylvania type was introduced; in the different manner in which the county boards are constituted; and in the relative importance of the county and township in the local governments of the two groups of states.

Conflict of Different Systems in the West.– An illustration of the attachment of the people of different parts of the country to the local institutions to which they were early accustomed, is found in the conflict which took place in Illinois between the settlers in the northern and southern parts of the state. The southern part of the state was settled largely by people from the South, who brought with them the Southern ideas of local government, and as they constituted the bulk of the population of the state at the time it was admitted to the Union, the system of county government was established by law throughout the state; but the county board was organized on the Pennsylvania plan and not according to the old Southern system. The northern part of the state, on the other hand, was settled mainly by people from New England, who were likewise strongly attached to the local government to which they had been accustomed. They succeeded, therefore, in securing the adoption of a clause in the constitution (1848), allowing the people of each county to adopt the township system whenever the majority of the legal voters of the county voting at any general election should so determine. Under the operation of this "home rule" provision, 85 of the 102 counties of the state have adopted the township system. A somewhat similar conflict occurred in Michigan, where the Pennsylvania commissioner system was first introduced, but with the influx of inhabitants from New York and New England dissatisfaction with that system increased until finally it was displaced by the New York or supervisor type.

References.– Beard, American Government and Politics, ch. xxix. Bryce, The American Commonwealth (abridged edition), chs. xlvii-xlviii. Fairlie, Local Government in Towns, Counties and Villages, chs. iv-v, viii-xi. Fiske, Civil Government in the U. S., chs. ii-iv. Hart, Actual Government, ch. x. Hinsdale, American Government, ch. lv. Wilson, The State (revised edition), secs. 1035-1043. Willoughby, Rights and Duties of Citizenship, pp. 260-265.

Documentary and Illustrative Material.– 1. A map of the state showing its division into counties. 2. A map of the county showing the towns, townships, supervisors' districts, or other civil subdivisions. 3. A copy of a town meeting warrant. 4. A copy of the proceedings of the county board or town meeting, as published in the local newspaper. 5. The legislative manual or blue book of the state in which lists of counties and their subdivisions, with their population, area, officers, and other information may be found. Usually this may be procured from the secretary of state. 6. Reports of county officers. 7. Copies of the state constitution, which may usually be obtained from the secretary of state; and, if possible, a copy of the revised statutes of the state. 8. Volume of the census report on population.

Research Questions

1. What is the distinction between local self-government and centralized government? What are the advantages of a system of local self-government?

2. Why should counties, towns, and cities be subject in some measure to the control of the state?

3. What are the provisions in the constitution of your state in regard to local government?

4. How many counties are there in your state? What is the area and population of the largest? of the smallest?

5. How may new counties be created in your state? How may old counties be divided? How are county seats located?

6. Enter in your notebook a list of the county officers in your county. For how long a term is each elected?

7. Which one of the three forms of local government described above does the system under which you live most nearly approach?

8. How many members are there on your county board? Are they called commissioners or supervisors? Are they elected from the county at large or from districts?

9. What are the political subdivisions of your county called, and how many are there?

10. If you live in a state where the town system of local government exists, make a list of the town officers and state their duties.

11. Is the town meeting a part of the system of local government where you live? If so, how often is it held?

12. Are the public roads in your community under county or town control? the poorhouse? the assessment and collection of taxes?

13. How many justices of the peace and constables are there in your town or district? Give their names.

CHAPTER II
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CONTINUED: CITIES AND VILLAGES

Need of Municipal Government.– The systems of local government described in the preceding chapter are those which have been devised mainly for rural communities, that is, communities containing a scattered population engaged principally in agricultural pursuits. In a sparsely settled community the governmental needs of the people are comparatively few, and a simple governmental organization is sufficient for supplying those needs. In a densely populated community, however, a more complex and differently organized form of government must be provided. When, therefore, a community becomes so populous that it cannot be governed effectively by town meetings, small boards, and the other forms of political machinery described in the previous chapter, it is incorporated as a municipality, that is, the state gives it a charter which confers upon it special powers and privileges and provides it with a somewhat different type of local government for the exercise of those powers. The minimum population necessary to constitute a city varies in the different states. They all require, however, that there must be a considerable number of inhabitants occupying a comparatively small area of territory, before the community can be incorporated as a city. In Illinois, for example, any community having at least 1,000 inhabitants resident within an area not exceeding four square miles may become a city. In some other states, a population of not less than 5,000 is required, while in some a still larger number is required. The census bureau of the United States, for statistical purposes, has at different times taken 8,000 and 2,500 as the minimum population required to constitute a city.

Growth of Cities.– One of the most remarkable political and social facts of the past century was the growth of towns and cities. When the Constitution of the United States went into operation there were but thirteen cities in the whole country with populations exceeding 5,000 each. Only about four per cent of the people then lived under urban conditions: rural life was the rule, and city life the exception. Since the middle of the last century, however, there has been a remarkable change in the relative proportion of the total population living in the cities and in the country. According to the federal census of 1910 there were 1,232 cities in the United States with a population of more than 5,000 each, and in them lived 42 per cent of all the people. The number is now considerably larger. It is estimated that 90 per cent of the people of Massachusetts now live in cities of over 5,000 inhabitants, and in a few other states the urban population constitutes more than two thirds of the whole. More than half the population of New York state is now found in the city of New York alone. Even in several states of the West, as Illinois, more than half the population is now living under urban conditions. What is even more remarkable has been the rapidity with which many American cities have grown to their present size. Thus New York in a period of 100 years grew from a city of 50,000 inhabitants to a city of more than 4,000,000. The growth of Chicago was even more rapid. In 1907 there was still living in that city the first white person born within its present limits. This person saw Chicago grow from a petty prairie village to a city of more than 2,000,000 souls.

Causes of City Growth.– The causes that have led to the extraordinary growth of cities are partly economic and partly social. With the more general use of labor-saving machinery in agriculture the number of men necessary to cultivate the farms and supply the world with food has decreased relatively, leaving a larger number to engage in the manufacturing and other industries which are generally centered in the cities. One man with a machine can now do the work on the farm which formerly required several, so that fewer farmers in proportion to the total population are needed. On the other hand, the development of trade and commerce and the rise of the manufacturing industries have created an increasing demand for city workers. Many persons are also drawn away from the country by the social attractions and intellectual advantages which the cities offer. In the cities, good schools are abundant and convenient. There also are colleges, libraries, picture galleries, museums, theaters, and other institutions for amusement and education. There the daily newspaper may be left at one's door often for a cent a copy; there are to be found fine churches with pulpits occupied by able preachers; there one finds all the conveniences of life which modern science and skill can provide – everything to gratify the social instinct, and little or none of the dullness of country life. These are some of the attractions that lure the young and the old as well from the rural communities to swell the population of the cities. These are the forces that are converting us from a nation of country dwellers to a nation of city dwellers.

Consequences of City Growth.– The congestion of the population in the towns and cities has had far-reaching economic, social, and political effects.

Economic Results.– As the city population becomes more dense the number of those who are able to own their own homes becomes less, and thus the city tends more and more to become a community of tenants. According to the census of 1900, while more than 64 per cent of the families of the United States living on farms owned their own homes, less than 35 per cent of those living in cities were owners of the houses they occupied. In New York city the proportion was only about 12 per cent, and in the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx it was less than 6 per cent. Of these hardly more than 2 per cent owned homes that were clear of mortgages.

Social Results.– Another result of the movement of the people to the cities is the evil of overcrowding. Manifestly where the area of a city is limited, as is often the case, there must come a time when the population will be massed and crowded together under circumstances that are dangerous to the health, morals, and comfort of the people. In some of the large cities to-day the conditions resulting from overcrowding are truly shocking. According to the census of 1900, while the average number of persons to a dwelling throughout the country as a whole was about five, the number in New York city was nearly fifteen, and in the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx it was more than twenty. In several parts of the city there are blocks containing more than 1,000 persons to the acre. Under such circumstances the rate of mortality is necessarily high, and immorality and vice are encouraged. In the great cities one finds a large floating population with no local attachment or civic pride, and thousands of persons, foreigners and natives alike, with low standards of life. There also the individual is lost in a multitude, and the restraining influence of public opinion, which is so powerful in the country, is lacking. Thus the tendency to wrongdoing is greatly accentuated.

Political Results.– Finally, the growth of the cities has had important political consequences, in that it has given rise to conditions that have increased enormously the problems of local government. As long as the population of the nation was predominantly rural and the cities few in number and small in size, the difficulties of local government were not serious. But the presence of such conditions as those described above, together with the task which devolves upon the city of performing so many services for the people that are not required in sparsely settled communities, has made the problem of city government the most difficult of all governmental problems.

Movement to Check Immigration to the Cities.– The abandonment of the farms and the movement of the people to the cities is viewed by many persons with regret, not to say alarm. There are some who think that the cities are the plague spots of the country, that city life tends to produce an enfeebled race with low moral standards; that they are tending to make of us a nation of tenants, tramps, anarchists, and criminals; and that the economic welfare of the country is being endangered by the drift away from the farm. Such a view, of course, represents an exaggerated conception of the dangers, though it will be readily admitted that the change is not without serious evils.

Lately we have heard a great deal of discussion among thoughtful men as to the possibility of checking the movement of the young to the cities. And notwithstanding the movement from the country to the city it is evident that the conditions of rural life are much more favorable than formerly. The daily free delivery of mail at the doors of the farmers, the introduction of the telephone and the interurban railway, to say nothing of the use of labor-saving machinery, have done much to add to the attractiveness of country life and to diminish the hardships of farm life and other rural occupations. But these advantages have not checked the movement to the cities, and other remedies must be found.

The Position of the City in the State.– The city occupies a twofold position in the state of which it is a part. In the first place, it is an agent of the state for carrying out certain state laws and policies. Thus it acts for the state when it protects the public health, cares for the poor, maintains peace and order, supports education, and collects the taxes for the state. In the second place, the city undertakes to perform numerous services which are of interest to the people of the locality alone and which do not concern the people of the state as a whole. When acting in this latter capacity, the city is merely an organ of local government and not an agent of the state. Thus the city sometimes supplies the inhabitants with light and water, protects them against fire, maintains sewers, disposes of garbage and other refuse, builds wharves, docks, and bridges, and maintains public libraries, museums, bath houses, and other institutions.

State Control of Cities.– The organization, powers, and privileges of the city are determined for the most part by the state constitution and laws. In a few states the financial transactions of city officials are subject to state inspection and audit, and in practically all of them their power to levy taxes and borrow money is placed under restrictions. It is felt that if the cities were left entirely free from state control they could not always be relied upon by the state to carry out the laws which they are charged with enforcing, and that in other respects their action might not be in harmony with the general policy of the state. In those matters, however, which are of purely local interest, the state should interfere as little as possible. Interference in such cases is contrary to the ideas of local self-government which Americans cherish as one of their most valuable rights. However, the right of the people living in cities to regulate their own local affairs according to their own notions is not always recognized, and there are frequent complaints that state legislatures have interfered when the interests of the state did not justify it.

The City Charter.– The city, unlike the county, township, and other minor civil divisions described in the preceding chapter, has a charter granted to it by the state which gives the city more of the character of a public corporation. The charter contains the name of the place incorporated, a description of its boundaries, its form of organization, and a detailed enumeration of the powers which it may exercise. It is granted by the state legislature, though, unlike the charter granted to a private corporation, such as a bank or a railway company, it is not a contract but simply a legislative act which may be repealed or altered at the will of the legislature. Thus, legally, the city is at the mercy of the legislature. Its charter, indeed, may be taken away from it and the city governed directly by the legislature in such manner as it may choose, and this has sometimes been done in the case of cities which grossly abused their powers or got themselves into such hopeless financial condition that they were unable to meet their obligations or properly discharge their duties.

Methods of Granting Charters.– Formerly it was the custom in most states for the legislature to frame a charter for each city as application was made. The result was that different cities received different kinds of charters, some more liberal than others. Besides, the time of the legislature was taken up with the consideration of applications for charters, and abundant opportunities were offered for favoritism and for the use of improper influences upon members of the legislature by cities that desired new charters or amendments to existing charters. To avoid these evils many states adopted the practice of passing a general law for the government of all cities in the state, under which any community which desired to be incorporated as a city might by fulfilling certain prescribed conditions be organized under this general act, which then became the charter of the city. Under this system all cities in the state would have practically the same organization and powers.

"Home Rule" Charters.– The feeling that the people concerned should be given some power in framing the charters under which they are to be governed has led in comparatively recent times to the adoption of "home rule" provisions in the constitutions of a number of states – that is, provisions allowing the people of each city, under certain restrictions, to frame their own charters. Thus the Missouri constitution, adopted in 1875, allows each city of more than 100,000 inhabitants to prepare its own charter, which, when approved by the voters, shall go into effect provided it is not inconsistent with the state law. Other states having "home rule" charter provisions in their constitutions are California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, Nebraska, Arizona, and Connecticut.

Powers of Municipal Corporations.– With the exception of a few cities, of which Houston, Texas, is an example, the powers that may be exercised by a city are specifically enumerated with great detail in the charter, and where that is done no other powers may be exercised by the city except such as are clearly incidental to, or implied in, those enumerated. Thus when the city of New York wished to build an elevated railway, it had to secure express authority from the legislature, which body insisted that the work should be carried out under the supervision of a state commission. Likewise when the city of Chicago wanted power to prescribe the width of wagon tires to be used on its streets, recourse had to be made to the state legislature for permission, though in neither case was the matter involved one which concerned directly anybody except the people of the cities affected.

Legislative Interference in the Affairs of Cities.– The power of the state legislature over the cities has sometimes been employed to interfere in their local affairs and to force upon the cities measures or policies to which they were opposed. Thus the legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act requiring the city of Philadelphia to build an expensive city hall which cost the taxpayers of the city something like $20,000,000, though it was not a matter of direct interest to the people outside of the city. Likewise the legislature of Ohio required the city of Cleveland to erect a soldiers' monument at a cost of $300,000 against the wishes of the taxpayers who had to bear the expense.

Sometimes the legislature employs its power of control over the cities in the interest of the political party which happens to be in control of the legislature, and it frequently passes laws relating to the hours of opening and closing of saloons in the cities when local sentiment may be opposed to such laws. But as to the moral right of the legislature to enact such laws as the last mentioned, there is a difference of opinion. The disposition of the legislature to interfere in the affairs of the cities by means of special acts – that is, acts applying to a single city – has come to be a crying evil and has been a cause of complaint from the people of nearly every large city. The New York legislature during a period of ten years passed nearly four hundred laws applying to the city of New York.

Constitutional Protection Against Special Legislation.– To protect the cities against special legislation and at the same time to remove the opportunity which such a practice offers for bribery and the employment of other improper means to secure special legislation or to prevent it, when it is not desired, the constitutions of many states contain provisions absolutely prohibiting the legislature from enacting laws applying to particular cities except where general laws are inapplicable. Where such constitutional provisions have been adopted, the legislatures have frequently evaded them by a system of classification by which acts are passed applying to all cities within a class when in reality there may be but a single city in such a class. And the courts have generally held such acts to be constitutional where the classifications are not unreasonable.

The New York constitution recognizes that special legislation applying to larger cities may sometimes be desirable, and instead of forbidding such legislation absolutely it classifies the cities of the state into three classes according to population, – New York City, Buffalo, and Rochester constituting the first class, – and allows the legislature to enact laws affecting a single city within a class, subject to the condition that the proposed law must be submitted to the authorities of the city affected, for their approval, and if disapproved it is void unless repassed by the legislature. Likewise by recent amendment to the constitution of Illinois the legislature of the state is allowed to pass special laws affecting the city of Chicago alone, but such legislation cannot take effect until it has been approved by the voters of the city at a general or special election.

Functions of Municipal Government.– The functions and activities of city government are numerous and varied, much more so, of course, in large cities than in small ones. First of all, the problem of police protection, the punishment of crime, and the care of the public safety in a community where thousands of persons of all nationalities and with varying standards of respect for law are living in close proximity, is very difficult and requires a small army of officials which would be entirely unnecessary in a rural community. Likewise the duty of caring for the public health, of preventing the spread of disease, of securing a wholesome water supply, of protecting the people against impure and adulterated food, and of securing wholesome and sanitary conditions generally, is very much greater in cities than in sparsely settled rural districts or in villages and small towns. Then there are the problems of fire protection, gas and electric light, street railway transportation, the construction and maintenance of streets, education, building regulations, the care of the poor and dependent class, disposal of sewage and waste, the maintenance of hospitals, libraries, museums, and other institutions, the regulation of traffic on the streets, and many other activities too numerous to mention.

The City Council.– The legislative branch of most city governments is a council composed of members elected by the voters for a term ranging from one year in some of the cities of New England to four years in certain other parts of the country, the most usual term being two years. The number of members ranges from 9 in Boston to more than 130 in Philadelphia. The city of New York has a council of 67 members; Chicago, 70; and San Francisco, 18. In the large majority of cities this council, unlike the state legislatures, is a single-chambered body, though in a few important cities, notably Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Louisville, it is composed of two houses.

Mode of Election.– Generally, the members of the city council are chosen by districts or wards, usually one member from each, though in some cities several are elected from each district; in Illinois cities two members are elected from each ward into which the city is divided. Where the council is composed of two houses, the members of the upper house are sometimes chosen from the city at large on a general ticket, and the members of the lower house by wards. In San Francisco, where the council is composed of but one house, the eighteen members are elected from the city at large. The same is true of Boston, whose council under the new charter is composed of but nine members.

The method of election by wards is open to the objection that it tends to the election of inferior men and of men who are likely to consider themselves the special representatives of their wards rather than the representatives of the people of the city at large. On the other hand, election from the city at large, or election of several members from large districts on a general ticket, unless coupled with a system of minority representation, is likely to give the majority party an undue advantage. Perhaps the best plan would be to elect a certain number from the city at large and the rest by wards.

Moreover, in some cities, of which Chicago is a conspicuous example, the ward system has led to inequality of representation. Thus it has sometimes happened that certain wards which are largely inhabited by the worst elements of the population are over-represented as compared with wards in other parts of the city inhabited largely by the better class of citizens. Finally, where the ward system prevails, the ward becomes the seat of a local political organization whose methods are so often corrupt and dishonorable that they constitute a great hindrance to good city government.

Powers of City Councils.– Unlike the state legislature, which is an authority of general powers, the city council in America has only such powers as are conferred upon it by the charter of the city. These powers are numerous and varied and relate to such matters as the laying out and care of streets, the protection of the public health, the regulation of the sale of liquor, the control of places of public amusement, markets, bathing places, traffic on the streets, the suppression of vice and immorality, protection against fire, the disposal of waste, the lighting of the streets, and in general the preservation of the good order and peace of the community. Its powers are exercised usually through acts called ordinances, which are framed and enacted after the manner followed by the legislature in enacting laws for the government of the state. The power of the council is frequently limited by the state constitution or laws. Thus very frequently it is forbidden to incur debts beyond a certain limit, or to levy taxes above a certain amount, and frequently the purposes for which taxes may be levied and money appropriated are carefully specified.