powers on municipal corporations of a definite population at the last or any succeeding census. But after straining the possibilities to their utmost to show that some other city besides Toledo might have come under the provisions of an act referring to cities of the first class, third grade, before the time required for its provisions to be carried out,' it could not have decided with very good grace that it would be impossible for more than one city to ever have a population of just 6,046. V. General remarks. After what has gone before it is needless to say that the constitution of 1851 failed to do away with special municipal legislation. To any one reading the convention debates there can be no doubt that Judge Okey's "wish was father to the thought" that municipal corporations were not included in the section prohibiting special grants of corporate power. From the legal point of view the results of the Ohio policy have been most unfortunate, introducing a habit of legal technicality which makes legislation a mere sophistical display. This study has often seemed to me more appropriate for the subject of a humorous address than for a serious discussion. But whether we consider the course of special legislation in Ohio humorous or disgraceful, it is necessary to keep our patience and look into the causes. It is often argued by the friends of special legislation that such laws are necessary. Granting that a great many special laws were required during the forty years following the adop 1 State v. City of Toledo, 48 Ohio St., 112, supra. 2 Section two of an act passed March 29, 1873, reads: "That an act entitled, 'An Act to amend section one of an act entitled an act to repeal an act entitled, an act supplementary to an act entitled an act authorizing the appointment of metropolitan police commissioners in cities of the first class with a population of less than 100,000 inhabitants at the last federal census, passed April 5, 1866, passed March 29, 1867, and to provide a police for cities of the second class, passed April 16, 1868,' passed May 6, 1869, be and the same is hereby repealed." O. L., 70 v. 84. tion of the constitution of 1851, in order to allow the cities of Ohio to attain their best development, it may yet be successfully contended that the vast majority of the special laws actually passed during that period could have been easily dispensed with under a careful system of general legislation. Either local self-government is a failure, or the popularly elected authorities of villages and cities can be trusted with the power to transfer moneys from one municipal fund to another in case of need, without a special act of the legislature. If this detailed special legislation is really a necessary thing, it seems strange that the Ohio convention of 1873 and 1874, after twenty years' experience, should have recommended to the people much more stringent provisions limiting the power of the legislature than were provided in the constitution of 1851. Perhaps we may say that the most important forces which led to the peculiar development of Ohio legislation were these two: distrust of municipal authorities in financial matters, and the desire to allow each community to do as it pleased in the management of its local affairs if it would only ask for permission. The result of the former of these forces was the very carefully defined and limited powers of borrowing money and levying taxes granted in the general municipal acts. The result of the latter force, was the varied legislation granted for the asking to particular localities according to their individual whims. Some village wanted to sink natural gas wells, a city wanted to build a railroad or car shops, or to aid manufacturing enterprises, or the people of some locality wanted two chambers in their city council, to defend them against the one chamber that these same people had elected. In laws as well as in Convention debates, we find everywhere the evidence of unlimited confidence in the people themselves and their desires, but great distrust for the local authorities elected by the people. The legislature granted the localities what they wanted, but made them ask for it. CHAPTER VI. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DETROIT'S CHARTER. A CHRONOLOGICAL outline of Detroit's legislative history would give one of the best possible illustrations of the way a city government is built up bit by bit from year to year under the system of special legislation. The trouble with such a sketch is that it becomes wearisome. It is not easy to show the true course of development, and at the same time arrange the materials of charter history in any logical order. For special legislation, even when left to its natural course according to the growing desires and needs of a given locality, especially where the locality itself is going through a course of rapid development, does not readily yield itself to a scientific analysis. But when political forces also come in to change the natural course of charter evolution, the chief characteristic of special legislation becomes its lack of logical sequence. The history of Detroit is no exception to this rule. It would be very hard, indeed, to find any clear-cut and satisfactory division of Detroit history into periods, from the point of view of local government alone. But as our main object in this. study is to find out something of the relations existing between the city and the state, we may take advantage of certain fairly well-marked periods in the political history of Michigan and Detroit, in their relations to each other. These periods do, as a matter of fact, correspond roughly with different tendencies in the local government. The first period down to 1813, when Lewis Cass became Governor of Michigan Territory, may be styled the military period. Detroit was first of all a military and trading post, 409] 91 for the possession of which white nations fought with each other and the Indians. Its civil government was incidental. The period from 1813 to 1854 is marked by the dominance of Lewis Cass and the Democratic party in Michigan. The city and the state were in political accord, and the form of local government approached the "council system." But in 1854 the triumph of the new Republican party in the state, while the city remained Democratic, opened the way for political interference in the municipal legislation and administration. About the same time the "board system" began to be introduced into the city charter. This system appeared in all parts of the country at about that time, and proved itself to be the form of city government most adapted to the demands of legislative interference in local affairs for political purposes. Hence, although it is not at all likely that the system was first introduced into the Detroit charter for political reasons, it is quite certain that its later development was intensified by its inherent adaptability to the partisan ends of legislatures unfriendly toward the politics of the city. In the year 1889, a political revolution in Detroit brought the city and the state once more into political accord; and while this fact has not seemed to have a very marked influence on charter legislation, there has been a slight tendency to increase the powers of the mayor in accordance with the general movement throughout the country during recent years. But the most important characteristic of this last period of Detroit's history, is the strong development of the civic spirit and the increased activity of the administration under the personal leadership of Mayor Pingree. 1 See Historical and Scientific Sketches of Michigan, p. 17, where Lewis Cass says, speaking of Detroit, " How numerous and diversified are the incidents, com. pressed within the period of its existence! No place in the United States presents such a series of events interesting in themselves and permanently affecting, as they occurred, its progress and prosperity. Five times has its flag changed, three different sovereignties have claimed its allegiance, and since it has been held by the United States, its government has been thrice transferred; twice it has been beseiged by the Indians, once captured in war, and once burned to the ground." 1. The military period, 1610 to 1813. As early as 1610, Frenchmen from Montreal visited the present site of Detroit, but the first permanent settlement was made by Cadillac in 1701. During all of the eighteenth century Detroit remained a military post, the houses of the settlement being crowded together inside the palisades for defense from the Indians. But although the population was very small, the post was the centre for an immense fur trade, and hence of the greatest commercial importance. Upon the capture of Montreal in 1760, the whole of the northwest passed into English hands. After that time a few Englishmen came to Detroit to live, and the American immigration set in when the post was occupied in 1796 by the United States government under Jay's treaty. In January, 1802, the settlement was incorporated as a town by the act of the governor and legislature of the Northwest Territory, which assembled at Chillicothe. The officers to be chosen for the town were five trustees, a secretary, an assessor, a collector, and a marshal. Soon after, upon the creation of the State of Ohio, Detroit was transferred to Indiana Territory, of which it remained a part till 1805, when the territory of Michigan was formed. On June 11 of this year, Detroit was burned to the ground. Very soon afterwards the judges and governor of the new territory arrived, and took matters into their own hands. They were authorized by act of Congress to adopt laws from the statutes of any of the old states, and hence for the next few years all the acts of Governor Hull and Judges Woodward and Bates were excerpts from the statute-books of New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, etc. The local acts referring to the government of Detroit were taken. chiefly from Maryland. On September 13, 1806, Detroit was incorporated as a city. There were to be a mayor appointed 1 Farmer's History of Detroit and Michigan, p. 133. 2 Mich. Terr. Laws, 4 v. 3-6. |