more difficult, though as to some obvious remedies all reformers were agreed. What seemed all but impracticable was to induce the men who had produced these evils, who used them and profited by them, who were so accustomed to them that even the honester sort did not feel their turpitude, to consent to the measures needed for extinguishing their own abused power and illicit gains. It was from the gangs of city politicians and their allies in the State legislatures that reforms had to be sought, and the enactment of their own abolition obtained. In vain would the net be spread in the sight of such birds.

The remedies proposed by the New York commission were the following:

(a) A restriction of the power of the State legislature to interfere by special legislation with municipal governments or the conduct of municipal affairs.1

(b) The holding of municipal elections at a different period of the year from State and National elections.

(c) The vesting of the legislative powers of municipalities in two bodies-A board of aldermen, elected by the ordinary (manhood) suffrage, to be the common council of each city. A board of finance of from six to fifteen members, elected by voters who had for two years paid an annual tax on property assessed at not less than $500 (£100), or a rent (for premises occupied) of not less than $250 (£50). This board of finance was to have a practically exclusive control of the taxation and expenditure of each city, and of the exercise of its borrowing powers, and was in some matters to act only by a two-thirds majority.

(d) Limitations on the borrowing powers of the municipality, the concurrence of the mayor and two-thirds of the State legislature, as well as of two-thirds of the board of finance being required for any loan except in anticipation of current revenue.

(e) An extension of the general control and appointing power of the mayor, the mayor being himself subject to removal for cause by the governor of the State.

To introduce all of these reforms it became necessary to amend the constitution of the State of New York; and the commission

1 The constitutions of eleven States now prescribe that cities shall be incorporated by general laws. This prohibition of special legislation has generally worked well, though it is sometimes evaded. See pp. 513 and 529, ante.

2 This was to apply to cities with a population exceeding 100,000. In smaller cities the rent was to be $100 at least, and no minimum for the assessed value of the taxed property was to be fixed.

drafted a series of amendments accordingly. These went before the State legislature. But the birds saw the net, and naturally omitted to submit the amendments to the people. The report, in fact, fell to the ground. But in the recent legislative charters of several cities, and notably of Brooklyn (as to which see next chapter), some of the commissioners' suggestions have been adopted, and with excellent results. The most novel of them, however, and the one which excited most hostile criticism, that of creating a council elected by voters having a tax-paying (or rent-paying) qualification, has never been tried in any great city. It is deemed undemocratic; practical men say there is no use submitting it to a popular vote. Nevertheless, there are still some who advocate it, appealing to the example of Australia, where it is said to have worked well.

Among the other reforms in city government which I find canvassed in America are the following:

(a) Civil service reform, i.e. the establishment of examinations as a test for admission to posts under the city, and the bestowal of these posts for a fixed term of years, or generally during good behaviour, instead of leaving the civil servant at the mercy of a partisan chief, who may displace him to make room for a party adherent or personal friend.

(b) The lengthening of the terms of service of the mayor and the heads of departments, so as to give them a more assured position and diminish the frequency of elections. This has been done to some extent in recent charters-witness St. Louis (see above, p. 603) and Philadelphia.

(c) The vesting of almost autocratic executive power in the mayor and restriction of the city legislature to purely legislative work and the voting of supplies.-This also finds place in recent charters, notably in that of Brooklyn, and has worked, on the

1 Though, as the commission pointed out (Report, p. 33), the principle that no one should vote upon any proposition to raise a tax or appropriate its proceeds unless himself liable to be assessed for such tax, was one generally applied in the village charters of the State of New York, and even in the charters of some of the smaller cities. The report repels the charge that this proposal is inconsistent with the general recognition of the value of universal suffrage by saying, "No surer method could be devised to bring the principle of universal suffrage into discredit and prepare the way for its overthrow than to pervert it to a use for which it was never intended, and subject it to a service which it is incapable of performing. To expect frugality and economy in financial concerns from its operation in great cities, where perhaps half of the inhabitants feel no interest in these objects, is to subject the principle to a strain which it cannot bear. All the friends of the system should unite in rescuing it from such perils."-Page 40.

whole, well. It is, of course, a remedy of the "cure or kill" order. If the people are thoroughly roused to choose an able and honest man, the more power he has the better; it is safer in his hands than in those of city councils. If the voters are apathetic and let a bad man slip in, all may be lost till the next election. I do not say "all is lost," for there have been remarkable instances of men who have been sobered and elevated by power and responsibility. The Greek proverb "office will show the man was generally taken in an unfavourable sense. proverb of the steadier headed Germans, "office gives understanding" (Amt gibt Verstand), represents a more hopeful view of human nature, and one not seldom justified in American experience.

The

(d) The election of a city legislature, or one branch of it, or of a school committee, on a general ticket instead of by wards.When aldermen or councilmen are chosen by the voters of a small local area, it is assumed, in the United States, that they must be residents within it; thus the field of choice among good citizens generally is limited. It follows also that their first duty is deemed to be to get the most they can for their own ward; they care little for the general interests of the city, and carry on a game of barter in contracts and public improvements with the representatives of other wards. Hence the general ticket system is preferable.

The

(e) The limitation of taxing powers and borrowing powers by reference to the assessed value of the taxable property within the city. Restrictions of this nature have been largely applied to cities as well as to counties and other local authorities. results have been usually good, yet not uniformly so, for evasions may be practised. The New York commission say: "The apparent prohibition, both as to taxation and the percentage of debt, could be readily evaded by raising the assessment. Such restrictions do not attempt to prevent the wastefulness or embezzlement of the public funds otherwise than by limiting the amount of the funds subject to depredation. The effect of such measures would simply be to leave the public necessities without adequate provision." 1 And Messrs. Allinson and Penrose

observe

1 Another disadvantage is that such restriction may sometimes compel a public improvement to be executed piecemeal which could be executed more cheaply if done all at once. See page 503, ante.

"By the Constitution of 1874 it is provided that the debt of a county, city, borough, township, or school district shall never exceed 7 per cent on the assessed value of the taxable property therein. This provision was intended to prevent the encumbering of the property of any citizen for public purposes to a greater extent than 7 per cent. In its workings it has been an absolute failure. In every city of the State, except Philadelphia, the city is part of the county government. The county has power to borrow to the extent of 7 per cent so has the city: so has the general school district: so has the ward school district-making 28 per cent in all, which can be lawfully imposed, and has been authorized by the Act of 1874. But there is still another cause of failure to which Philadelphia is more peculiarly liable. In order to evade the provision of the Constitution limiting the power to contract debts to 7 per cent, the assessed value of property in nearly every city of the State was largely increased-in some instances, incredible as it may seem, to the extent of 1000 per cent. It is therefore clear that no sufficient protection against an undue increase of municipal debt can be found in constitutional and legislative provisions of this kind."-Philadelphia, a History of Municipal Development (1887), p. 276.

Nevertheless, such restrictions are now often found embodied in State constitutions, and have, so far as I could ascertain, generally diminished the evil they are aimed at.1

The results of these various experiments, and of others which I have not space to enumerate, are now being watched with eager curiosity by the municipal reformers of the United States. The question of city government is that which chiefly occupies practical publicists, and which newspapers and magazines incessantly discuss, because it is admittedly the weak point of the country. That adaptability of the institutions to the people and their conditions, which judicious strangers admire in the United States, and that consequent satisfaction of the people with their institutions, which contrasts so agreeably with the discontent of European nations, is wholly absent as regards municipal administration. Wherever there is a large city there are loud complaints, and Americans who deem themselves in other respects a model for the Old World are in this respect anxious to study Old World models, those particularly which the cities of Great Britain present. The best proof of dissatisfaction is to be found in the frequent changes of system and method. What Dante said of his own city may be said of the cities of America: they are like the sick man who cannot find rest upon his bed, but seeks to ease

1 See note in Appendix at the end of this volume.

his pain by turning from side to side. Yet no one who studies the municipal history of the last decades will doubt that things are better than they were twenty years ago. The newer frames of government are an improvement upon the older. Rogues are less audacious. Good citizens are more active. Party spirit is less and less permitted to dominate and pervert municipal politics.