USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Fifty years of Boston; a memorial volume issued in commemoration of the tercentenary of 1930; 1880-1930, Pt. 1 > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50
In 1895 the Commission of Public Institutions was abolished and its duties transferred to the Institutions Department, in charge of a single paid officer. The office of City Architect was also abolished and each department was per- initted to obtain its own architectural advice, subject to the check of approval by the Mayor for all building operation plans. During the same year there was a centralization of the functions having to do with elections. Up to that time the responsibility for the control of the electoral procedure had been divided between the Mayor, the Board of Aldermen, the City Clerk, the Reg- istrars of Voters, the Superintendent of Public Buildings, and the City Solicitor. The need for centralization of responsibility was self-evident. In 1895, there- fore, a Board of Election Commissioners, appointed by the Mayor, was estab- lished, with a membership representing the two major political parties. It was empowered to appoint election officers, to control the recount of votes at elections and partially to regulate party caucuses, but not to control caucus officers. f But even with a minimum of regulation and in spite of the fact that it was not on the same footing as an election, the caucus was gradually developing into the primary. Already the delegates of the party were pledged in advance to sup- port certain candidates, a procedure which was only a step away from direct nomination by the voters. Furthermore, chapter 530 of the Acts of 1897 gave every voter the right to vote in a party caucus upon making oath as to his party membership .** Unfortunately, however, party caucuses were separated and there was no single primary election managed by sworn and paid caucus officers appointed by the Board of Election Commissioners, at which the political parties could cast their respective ballots. This later problem was one of the first confronting the Finance Commission when it began to consider the possi- bility of charter revision late in 1908.
In 1899 the tendency toward consolidation was advanced by transferring the control of cemeteries from the Board of Health and the Mount Hope Cente- tery Trustees to a new Cemetery Department, headed by a Board of five trus- tees holding office for five years. On the other hand, in 1897 a reaction was indicated by the disintegration of the Institutions Department. Out of this department were created four separate departments under three unpaid boards and one paid commissioner, with independent control of children's, pauper and penal institutions and the insane hospital. The splitting up of the public welfare functions after initial consolidation was the result of a conviction that certain types of administration, requiring a small measure of discipline and a large measure of public service, did not lend themselves to efficient centralization.
* The City Government of Boston, Valedictory Address, January 5, 1895, pages 12-13.
t Address of Mayor Quincy, 1897, pages 39-45.
** Public Documents, 1898, pages 71-74.
-
94
FIFTY YEARS OF BOSTON
-
Among the most important new functions and departments which were added between 1885 and 1909 were the subways, the construction of which was placed in 1894 under three subway commissioners, appointed by the Mayor, subject to the confirmation of the Board of Aldermen; the first system of daily medical inspection of all children in public schools to be established in the United States; the establishment of a Statistical Department in 1897, the first office of its kind in any American city; the creation of a Soldiers' Relief Department in 1897 to supervise the distribution of state and city aid to veterans of the Civil War; and the establishment in 1898 of the Bath Department under a board of five trustees to supervise the public gymnasia and bath houses and also a Music Department, likewise under a board of five members. In this latter year the ex officio and more or less temporary Art Commission of 1890 was replaced by a permanent Art Department, headed by a Board con- sisting of five members selected by the Mayor from the nominees of the Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts, the Trustees of the Public Library, the Trustees of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Boston Art Club, and the Boston Society of Architects. The approval of this department was necessary for the design and location of all proposed public statues, fountains, gateways, memorials, and so forth. Chapter 412 of the Acts of 1898 permitted extensive playground purchases by the Park Commission, and in the late 90's public interest was expressed in the establishment of a limitation on the height of buildings.
By the opening of the twentieth century, and, in fact, somewhat earlier, the city had clearly become a very definite social unit as well as a public govern- mental corporation. Service to the public was becoming more and more important, and public welfare was given increased attention. "Boston has undoubtedly done more than any other American city for the comfort and pleasure of the people," wrote Dr. Delos F. Wilcox in 1910. "Boston was a pioneer, and still maintains the leadership when it comes to the activity of the city government for the people of the whole community." *
From the turn of the century until 1909, when the city government was overhauled, the most significant new functions and changes in administrative organization were the creation in 1901 of a Schoolhouse Department under a board of three commissioners, appointed by the Mayor without confirmation, to have charge of the purchase of school sites and the construction, repair and furnishing of school buildings; the abolition of the office of City Solicitor in 1904 and the transfer of his duties to a Law Department in charge of the Cor- poration Counsel; limitation of the height of buildings (1904) for the protection of health and property; the establishment of a Consumptives' Hospital Depart- ment (1906) under a board of seven trustees; the abolition of the State Board of Police Commissioners and the division of its duties between a single Police Commissioner and a Licensing Board of three members, all appointed by the Governor (1906); the setting up of a Supply Department (1908) to furnish all the material, apparatus, and other supplies required by the Public Works Department and such material for other departments as might be specially asked for by requisition. The Schoolhouse Department was established in
* Wilcox, Delos F., Great Cities in America, page 372.
:
95
THE CITY GOVERNMENT
order to relieve the School Committee of business funetions which interfered with its purely educational activities, to remove the temptation involved in the purchase of land and supplies and in the letting of contraets, and to con- centrate the responsibility for schoolhouse construction under the Mayor. The Police Department was placed under a single commissioner because the board plan of organization had resulted in a division of responsibility and inefficiency. As the result of the addition of new functions and the haphazard, patchwork organization of the administration, the number of eity departments had increased by 190S to forty-six, in charge of over one hundred and fifty heads of departments and members of boards .*
CHARTER CHANGES, 1885-1909
Turning to the more important changes in the politieal structure of the government, as distinguished from the administrative ageneies, one of the chief developments between 1885 and 1909 was the attempt to improve the eom- position of the Board of Aldermen and to make that body more responsive to the publie will. As already indicated, the Legislature in 1884 had authorized the election of the twelve Aldermen by wards instead of from the city at large. From the very beginning, however, the plan of election by wards. proved to be worse than eleetion at large. As Mayor Hugh O'Brien said in 1888, the Republican party was responsible for the actions of the Aldermen, the Demo- eratie party for the actions of the Common Couneil, while the Mayor was "held responsible for the aets, sins and omissions of both, besides his own shorteomings." f Finally in 1904, resort was made to the election of thirteen Aldermen at large under a plan of restricted voting by which no voter eould east his ballot for more than seven candidates. This system of limited voting and nomination by distriets was supposed to insure minority representation, but as it worked out it made nomination by either of the two big parties a fair guarantee of eleetion, because the major parties would not present complete nomination tiekets. Although the General Court later compelled the presenta- tion of complete tickets, the system was at best a hybrid one .** It did not have the advantage of full party responsibility under a distriet system of elee- tion nor did it fully substitute for a coherent majority a government by groups under an effective plan of proportional representation.
A second important development was the enaetment of a statute in 1891 which practically gave the Mayor an absolute veto over loans, while in 1895 his term of office was inereased to two years, a change which had been strongly urged by Mayor Nathan Matthews in his valedietory address of that same year. These changes marked a step in the direction of increasing the import- ance of the Mayor's position and helped to pave the way for the further lengthen- ing of his term and the inerease of his powers later on. A third change in the provisions of the charter having to do with popular control over publie officials was the deerease in the size of the School Committee. From 1875 to 1885 the Mayor, serving ex officio, and twenty-four members eleeted at large, and from
* Boston Finance Commission, 1907-09, Reports, page 193.
t City Documents, 1888, Volume I, Address of Mayor O'Brien, page 56.
** Ibid., 1899, Volume I, No. 1, pages 25-28.
96
FIFTY YEARS OF BOSTON
the latter year until 1906, the twenty-four members elected from the city at large, without the Mayor, made up the committee. In 1905 the Legislature, in keeping with the tendency throughout the United States to vest the control of city school departments in the hands of smaller boards, passed an act reduc- ing the School Committee to five members elected from the city at large. The power to purchase land or construct, repair and equip school buildings remained with the separate Schoolhouse Departinent, which had been created in 1901.
STATE CONTROL OVER FINANCES
In addition to authorizing various changes in the political structure of the city government, the General Court between 1880 and 1909 enacted several important pieces of legislation regulating the tax rate, debt limit and financial powers of the city. In 1885, as already indicated, the Legislature established the first tax limit, which prohibited the city from raising by taxation for city purposes (exclusive of requirements on account of the city debt and the state tax) a sum greater than $9 on the thousand of the average valuation for the preceding five years. It is significant of the distrust on the part of the Legisla- ture at this time in regard to the conduct of affairs in the City of Boston that the limit was lower by $3 than that set for other municipalities of the state. Also, expenditures for the County of Suffolk were regarded as municipal expend- itures and thus included in the limit of $9, a situation not found in other cities. The limit of $9 existed from 1885 until 1900, when it was raised by legislative act to $10.50, and the city was given some relief by excluding county expenses from the tax limit. The tax limit remained at this point until 1918, after which date the Legislature was called on annually to fix the limit for city department purposes.
Besides setting a limit to the tax rate, the Legislature also fixed a limit to the amount of indebtedness that might be incurred by the city. As already explained, in 1885 the Legislature reduced the debt limit from three per cent to two and one half per cent of the total assessed valuation of property in the city, with the proviso that after 1887 the limit should become two per cent. In 1900 the debt limit was restored to two and one half per cent, at which figure it stands at the present time. Owing to the fact, however, that the Legislature from time to time, usually upon request of the city government, but sometimes on its own initiative, authorized numerous loans outside the debt limit, the limita- tion almost completely failed of its purpose.
Although it has always been regarded as a violation of the principle of home rule or local autonomy, action by the Legislature in limiting the tax rate and loans in Boston was, in fact, asked for by the mayors in the 80's and was regarded as a necessity in view of the division of responsibility over local finances and the unwillingness of the City Council to follow a policy of economy. It is doubtful if the state would have launched on its policy of rigid financial control if the city government at that time had been so organized as to concentrate responsibility for expenditures and to make possible an effective system of local control. Also, the restrictions set up by the state cannot be said at first to have unduly interfered with municipal progress. Mayor Matthews, for ex- ample, in 1895 expressed the opinion that it was possible "with economy and
ยก
97
THE CITY GOVERNMENT
constant watchfulness, to administer the business of the city and county within the rate of taxation" fixed by the Legislature and that the limit in his opinion should not be increased. The city, however, had a real grievance against the policy of the state in regard to the School Committee, which produced friction and divided responsibility. The Mayor and Council were responsible for the expenditures of the School Committee, although they had no control over its membership or the direction of its expenditure. The Mayor contended that either the committee ought to be reorganized and placed under the direct con- trol of the Mayor or the control of school maintenance should be completely divorced from the Mayor and City Council, and a school tax limit should be imposed by the Legislature. Since the former alternative seemed unwise because of the special, non-political nature of the problems of education, chapter 400 of the Acts of 1898 took the latter alternative of limiting the proportion of the tax rate within which the School Committee was required to keep its expendi- tures and also gave the Mayor the item veto power over the school budget, subject to a three-fourths vote of all the members of the Committee .* . This enactment gave considerable relief to the city by giving the Mayor a check upon appropriations by the School Committee.
The inconsistency of the state's policy regarding the control of Boston's finances and the uncertainty of the Legislature's action from year to year, however, increased the problems of administration, and in time opposition to state control became an important factor in accounting for the proposals, especially after 1890, looking toward a more responsible municipal policy with regard to financial problems. Also, the various mayors, public organizations and leaders in civic affairs were not unmindful of their own responsibility regarding the financial problems confronting the city, and, as expenditures increased, an attempt was made to develop methods which would control appropriations and make further state interference unnecessary. As early as 1886, Mayor Hugh O'Brien recommended a board of estimates and apportion- ment, to consist of the Mayor, City Treasurer, president of the Boston Board of Trade, chairman of the Boston Clearing House Association, and one citizen at large chosen by the City Council. This was the first proposal looking toward executive control of the budget .; Also, it was hoped that through such an arrangement the city could induce the Legislature to relax its control. In 1895, upon the recommendation of Mayor Curtis, a commission of finance was appointed by the Mayor to study the whole subject of sinking funds, taxation, borrowing powers and general financial methods with a view to suggesting statutory changes .** This Commission made many valuable recommendations but the time was not ripe for carrying them into effect. In his annual address of 1899, Mayor Quincy mentioned the bill proposed by the Merchants' Munic- ipal Committee for the creation of a board of apportionment, composed partly of department heads and partly of elective members. What these proposed measures had in mind was the creation of a municipal body which would have a more comprehensive view of departmental and municipal needs than a large
* City Documents, 1898, Volume I, No. 1, pages 23-25.
t Ibid., 1886, Volume III, No. 226, page 4.
** Address of Mayor Curtis, pages 18-19.
98
FIFTY YEARS OF BOSTON
city council representing purely local constituencies. From them also developed the germs of budget reform and eventually complete charter revision.
THE GROWTH OF MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES AND DEBT, 1880-1909
With the growth of population, the addition of new functions and the extension of existing services there was inevitably an increase in expenditures, indebtedness and tax levies. In 1880 the expenditures of the city, including those of Suffolk County, were $13,398,120.50 or $36.62 per capita; and the net debt was $16,009,408.28 or $44.09 per capita. By 1908 the expenditures had increased to $33,781,127.25 or $50.22 per capita; and the net debt to $70,604,- 896.23 or $104.39 per capita. Citing comparative figures of municipal expendi- tures for American cities from the 1890 Federal census, Mayor Nathan Matthews, Jr., wrote in 1895:
"The expenditures of the City of Boston for many years past have probably been greater than those of any other large city in the country. . According to the Federal census of 1890, Boston led all the large cities. The current expenses of the city - that is, the money spent annually by the several departments for running expenses, main- tenance, and repairs - are thus relatively larger than elsewhere. This is due principally to the desire of the people of this city for more and better service from the municipality than is required in other cities,- a fact particularly noticeable in everything that relates to water supply, schools, streets, libraries, collection of garbage, public lighting and similar municipal conveniences. Special reasons for the relatively high rate of expenditure may also be found in the great length of streets compared with the population of the city; in the low water . rates and ferry tolls established by the authorities in response to popular demand; in the high salaries paid to school teachers, police officers, the firemen; in the relatively large amount of work done by day labor; in the obligations from year to year imposed upon the city by the Legislature, such as extra sessions of the courts and experimental 'drunk laws'; in the insistence by the Legislature on the taxation of municipal bonds; and in its refusal to allow the municipality to obtain a revenue from the corporations using the public streets. Further reasons for a comparatively large expenditure are to be found in the necessarily excessive cost in this city for a water supply, for drainage facilities and for widening and straightening out the streets of the city proper. We cannot supply this community with pure water, wide streets and good drainage, except at great cost. The city cannot pay higher salaries and wages than private employers; it cannot operate its waterworks and ferries at less than cost; it cannot main- tain a school system more elaborate than any to be found elsewhere; it cannot build streets and sewers for the benefit of specula- tive landowners; - it cannot do all of these things, or any of them, without an inordinate annual expenditure and a correspondingly heavy tax rate."*
* The City Government of Boston, Valedictory Address, January 5, 1895, pages 29, 175.
99
THE CITY GOVERNMENT
In other words, the demands of the citizens for more services, together with the fact that public improvements in an old established city are apt to be more costly than in a new community, were chiefly responsible for the large expenditures during the early part of the period under consideration. Toward the end of the period, however, and especially after 1895, there is little question, as shown by the investigations of the Finance Commission to be discussed later, that extravagance, political influence and the unbusinesslike organization and methods of administration played an important part. It was during the years from 1895 to 1908, especially, that the growth of expenditures, taxes and debt became especially alarming. During the decade from 1885 to 1895 the increase in expenditures and debt was more or less gradual as the activities of the city expanded, but from 1895 to 1908 the increase was out of all proportion to the growth of public functions or population. From 1884 to 1895 the ordinary department expenditures of the city increased from $8,595,227 to $11,241,971, or thirty per cent in eleven years, while the population increased 27.2 per cent. By 1907, however, the ordinary department expenditures had risen to $17,464,573, an increase of fifty-five per cent in twelve years, as compared with a growth in population for the same period of only 22.7 per cent. "At the close of the fiscal year 1907-08 there was for the first time in the history of the city a deficit, or excess of expenditures over appropriations. Between May 1, 1885, and February 1, 1895, the debt increased by fifty-nine per cent, or $14,665,- 317. In the twelve years from 1895 to 1907, the increase of the debt was $67,371,080 or 170 per cent, four times the increase in the preceding ten years." In fact, after 1895, the debt grew "seven and one half times as fast as popu- lation and four and one half times as rapidly as the increase (or inflation) of the assessors' valuations." *
THE BOSTON FINANCE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION, 1907-1909
"In the year 1906 it became apparent to all, as indeed it had been for many years, that the financial and social condition of Boston was in urgent need of serious consideration," stated Mr. Harvey N. Shepard. "Party politics con- trolled nominations and elections. There were so inany names upon the ballots that the attention of the voter was distracted, and it was impossible for him to know the men for whom he was called upon to vote. . The govern- ment of the city was complex and irresponsive to public opinion to the last degree."t "There was an uneasy feeling in the community," according to Mr. George R. Nutter, "that waste and extravagance were flourishing; but nobody knew what to do about it, and no relief seemed in sight. Then by a strange accident, when it was darkest, relief came. John F. Fitzgerald, who was elected Mayor in 1905, proposed a Finance Commission to be composed of seven citizens appointed by the Mayor on the recommendation of various commercial bodies." ** "What is required," stated Mayor Fitzgerald in his communication to the City Council on January 7, 1907, "is a business exam- ination of the subject by a body of such representative, able and impartial
* Boston Finance Commission Reports, 1907-09, Volume 2, page 228.
f Proceedings of Cincinnati Conference on Good City Government, 1909, page 205.
** National Municipal Review, Volume 2, 1913, page 583 .
100
FIFTY YEARS OF BOSTON
citizens of Boston that our taxpayers will have full confidence in the soundness of any conclusions which they may reach. . . . I fully realize that in order to accomplish the objects of the proposed inquiry a Finance Commission con- stituted by the city government must not only be, in fact, wholly free from par- tisan bias, but must be known to be so constituted that it cannot be affected by any personal or political influences."
Following out his recommendation, the City Council in 1907 authorized Mayor Fitzgerald to appoint a Finance Commission of seven members, one member to be nominated by each of the following civic organizations: The Associated Board of Trade, the Chamber of Commerce, the Merchants' Asso- ciation, the Clearing House Committee, the Real Estate Exchange, the Central Labor Union, and a committee made up of the presidents of local improvement organizations in different sections of the city. The members of the Commis- sion, all of whom served without compensation, were Nathan Matthews, Jr., chairman; Randall G. Morris, George U. Crocker, George A. O. Ernst, John F. Kennedy, John F. Moors and John A. Sullivan. The State Legislature by special act conferred upon the Commission authority to summon witnesses, compel the production of books and papers and take testimony. The City Council appropriated $50,000 for its expenses. In the words of Dr. Delos F. Wilcox, "Never was a citizens' committee given a more comprehensive oppor- tunity to render authorized help to a municipality." *
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.