Imagens das páginas

are as yet too powerful in America to be trusted with unrestricted local rule.

Though foreign cities do not feel the hand of the legislature, yet they are placed under a far more effective control -that of the state central administration. In France, with the widest suffrage among the great nations of Europe, this central control is carried to the extreme, the government of Paris being administered by two appointees of the President of the Republic. In lesser cities, where the mayor is elected by the council, he, as well as all other officers, may be removed or suspended by the prefect of the department, who is in turn the appointee of the President. The only parallel to this in America is the government of the city of Washington, where even the extreme centralization of France is exceeded, since not even an advisory council can be chosen by the residents of the city. Congress enacts all laws for the city, but the entire administration is in the hands of three commissioners appointed by the President of the United States. Washington furnishes a bright contrast to the gloom of American city politics; its government is strong, efficient, honest and progressive, but it is also irresponsible, undemocratic, and paternal. It cannot be contemplated for other cities.

In Germany the fullest powers of self-government are given to cities but the central administration always retains the right to veto the choice of officials, and there are very important organs for inspection and appeal. The main advantage of administrative over legislative control is there well exhibited. Such control being always ready for action is seldom compelled to act. For this reason the mistake is sometimes made of assuming that German cities are subjected to no state control. In Berlin the state authority (Oberpräsident) appointed by the sovereign has extensive powers. Not only may he insert items in the budget and collect taxes to meet the same if the council should refuse, but he may even dissolve the council and order a new election.

During the interval commissioners appointed by the Minister of the Interior manage the local government. But, notwithstanding this most extended right of control, "no occasion for its intervention arises," since the Oberpräsident who is always at hand, is always consulted before action is taken on important matters, and thus any conflict is avoided. In England the Local Government Board is an important wheel in the government of cities. Its president is a member of the cabinet, sits in parliament, and receives a salary. The Lord President of the Council, all the Secretaries of State, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are ex-officio members. The work is done by the president and salaried officials, who are financiers, medical men, architects, engineers, and other specialists holding office on permanent tenure. This board was created in 1871 by the union of the poor-law board with that of public health. Its functions are: (1) To advise local authorities and parliament. All local and special legislation to be presented to parliament must first pass under the inspection of the board, whose recommendations are usually adopted by parliament. In America this class of laws consumes one-half to two-thirds of the time of our legislatures and results in endless logrolling. (2) The board is given complete administrative and financial control over poor law and sanitary authorities extending even to the removal of officers and the administration of local affairs by a temporary commission with power to levy and collect taxes. The educational department of the privy council has similar power over local school boards. Over municipalities proper the Local Government Board has a direct control only in the more important financial transactions. The board prescribes forms and particulars for returns to be made yearly by town clerks, giving the receipts and expenditures of the municipal corporations. These returns are published and laid before parliament. Throughout

* Report of Mr. Coleman on the Municipal Administration of Berlin, Foreign Relations, Executive Documents, Vol. I, 1881-82.

the entire Municipal Corporation Act of 1882 the existence of the Local Government Board is recognized as an essential part in the constitution of city governments. The following facts illustrate its financial control: In 1892 the board sanctioned several hundred separate loans of municipal corporations and urban sanitary authorities to the aggregate amount of £7,967,975, fixing the dates of repayment at ten to thirty years, and granted eighty-two "instruments' approving of transactions such as "sales and leases of corporate property, exchange and purchase of land, appropriation of land, the application or investment of moneys arising from the sale of land, and the appropriation of the proceeds of the transfer of government stock or annuities." The careful supervision given by the board in the matter of indebtedness, is indicated by the following passage from the Annual Report to Parliament for 1892-93: *"It has been our practice to provide against any diminution of the municipal inheritance by requiring the sum advanced to be repaid within a certain number of years, with interest, from the fund or rate on which the expense would otherwise have fallen. The sums thus repaid, as well as other capital moneys payable to corporations in respect of the sale of land or similar transactions, have generally been required by us to be invested in government annuities. In some instances the disposal of property has been in consideration of perpetual annual ground rents; and in others we have not inserted in our instrument approving of the alienation of the property any instructions as to the appropriation of the proceeds, the latter being reserved for subsequent directions."

It may be thought that, with the central control limited to only one or two features of municipal finances, the cities of Great Britain are models of local sovereignty; yet when it is remembered that the expensive departments of poor relief, sanitation and education, which are under complete administrative control, are not combined with the municipal * Page xxix.

government proper, but are organized as separate corporations, and that the police and judiciary are effectually subordinated to central authorities, it will be understood that to only an insignificant portion of municipal government in England is vouchsafed the questionable boon of unrestricted home rule.

In the United States there has been a variety of experiments in State administrative supervision and control over local authorities, especially in the matters of health, charities, prisons and taxation. The movement is as yet but tentative. Local officers are treated with consideration. Little is asked from them, less is commanded, and almost nothing is enforced through the effective agencies of penalties, suspensions and removals. But the nature of the movement is worthy of attention and it may reveal hopeful possibilities. The earliest and most essential State control is that exercised by State boards of health. The Iowa law of 1880 is typical. The governor appoints the State Board of Health which consists of the attorney-general (by virtue of his office), one civil engineer and seven physicians, who receive no salaries. The board in turn appoints a salaried secretary who must be also a physician. It has authority to make rules and regulations and sanitary investigations, and it is "the duty of all police officers, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers of the State, to enforce such rules and regulations, so far as the efficiency and success of the board may depend upon their official co-operation." The mayor and aldermen, who act as the board of health in incorporated cities, are required to enforce the regulations of the State board. In Indiana the law goes still further and provides a penalty for disobedience, which may not exceed $100 upon first conviction before a court or jury, but to which, upon second conviction, imprisonment for ninety days may be added. In case of epidemic the State board may take entire charge of the local health administration.

State boards of charities and corrections have been called

into being expressly to overcome the indifference, ignorance, corruption and brutality of local officers in the care of the poor, and also to aid in the control and administration of the State charitable and penal institutions. Previous to the creation of these boards, county almshouses were almost everywhere in the condition of the Albany City Almshouse, described by Mr. Letchworth,* as notorious for "utter indifference to sanitary laws, promiscuous association of young and old of both sexes, disregard of the rules of common decency, brutal treatment, dirt, cold, foul air, putrid meat, insufficient clothing." The failure of uncontrolled local government in poor administration had become profound and dangerous. To-day wherever State boards have been established, these conditions no longer exist. In the words of General Brinkerhoff, Chairman of the Ohio Board: "Substantially everything in the way of progress in the development of our charitable, correctional and benevolent institutions has originated with the Board of State Charities, and hardly a year has passed in which a step forward has not been taken in legislation through its influence."

These boards are now established in eighteen States. Their organization, powers and duties are widely different. It is not possible to enter here into a detailed comparison of the different boards, but as a result of the widely different experiments, the following conclusions † appear to be substantially agreed upon by the leading students and administrators of charities and corrections. The members should be appointed by the governor, from the two leading political parties, for a term of six to eight years. A long term gives opportunity for knowledge, experience and a continuous policy, while reducing the influence of politics. There should be from five to nine members, the governor of the State acting as ex-officio president, in order to increase its influence and the force of its recommendations to the legislature.

*Twenty-sixth Annual Report, State Board of Charities of New York, 1892. † Stated by Mr. Letchworth in the New York report already cited.

« AnteriorContinuar »