USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Metropolitan Boston; a modern history; Volume I > Part 25
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
The Acceptance of the City Charter-Reluctant, the voters of the town certainly were, as proven by the vote at the meeting in 1822 when the city charter was accepted. In the first month of 1822 a special meeting was held in Faneuil Hall at which a committee reported in favor of a chief executive to be known as the Intendant, who should be elected by the selectmen ; an executive board of seven persons called selectmen, to be elected by the voters on a general ticket ; and a body of mixed legis- lative and executive powers, called the Board of Assistants, to be com- posed of four persons chosen from each of twelve wards. This report was amended by changing the titles of the official, the most of which had been drawn from ancient French terminology; mayor, aldermen and Common Council replaced Intendant, selectmen and Board of Assistants. Other immediate changes fixed the Board of Aldermen at eight mem- bers, and the Common Council at forty-eight members, four from each ward. The matter was brought to a head by submitting the question to the people of Boston whether thereafter the name of the "Town of Boston" should be altered to "the City of Boston." This latter name was chosen by a vote of 2,727 to 2,087. The Governor approved the act establishing the city of Boston February 23, 1822. On March 4, of the same year, the acceptance of the charter granted by the State Legisla-
216
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
ture the previous month was put up to the still reluctant voters. The vote of acceptance-2,797 in the affirmative, and 1,881 in the negative- shows how strong the feeling was against change. "Not a few of the old residents who had fought under the eyes of George Washington in the field, and under the eyes of Samuel Adams in the town meetings, looked upon the act which divided their folk-mote into twelve separate and silent gatherings, where men delegated their rights to others, as the beginning of the end of democratic government."
The First City Government -- The new city government was not so radically different from that of the town. It was, in fact, an attempt to perpetuate the old régime, in an attempt to substitute delegated for direct control. The number of wards was the same, twelve, each forming a voting precinct. The mayor was elected annually until 1896, when the term was extended to two years. He had no power to appoint or remove officials, no veto over municipal legislation and, in general, no control of the executive work of the city except indirectly through his veto in the Board of Aldermen and the power to appoint committees. The legisla- tive body of the city consisted of eight aldermen, chosen at large, and forty-eight council, an imitation of the Senate and House forms of State government. The mayor presided over the aldermen; the council se- lected its moderator. To these bodies was given the power to transact the legislative business that had been carried on by the voters of the town. The city council also chose the assessors, the auditor, the engi- neers of the fire department, the superintendent of streets, and many other officers. Until 1885 the administration of Boston was practically in the hands of the City Council.
Weakness of First Charter-This first charter was, perhaps, the only one which could receive the approval of a people trained for nearly two centuries in the town system of government, but it was inherently weak. Josiah Quincy, the second mayor, was too great to be content with being little more than a figure-head, and tried to overcome the weakness of the charter by placing hinself at the head of all the important committees of the Board of Aldermen. He thus familiarized himself with the various activities of his city's government, and assumed greater powers than were allowed him by the charter. He accomplished much as the chief magistrate, but he brought upon himself severe abuse by his opponents. Meanwhile, Boston was fast assuming the proportions of a metropolis. It was more than a seaport, for the railroad had become a success and lines had been built into the city, so that it was in close contact with the whole Nation. Immigration had brought new elements into the city and into its politics. No longer was there a "Boston Religion," for new
217
THE PRESENT
races had introduced new churches. Business broadened, labor was of many kinds, interests had multiplied and become complex. Commit- tees in the city government usurped the work of others, and some- times refused to care for what other departments declared was theirs to do. The City Council had so interfered with other branches as to stir insurrection within the political ranks. In 1854 the charter was revised, and this revised charter, with numerous amendments, became the fun- damental law on which the present management of the city is based. A comparison of its outline with that of the first, and a realization of some of the developments of the years that followed, show very clearly that the intention and the tendency of the new charter was to increase the mayor's power and to restrict the powers of the City Council. It was only a tendency, at first, for in 1854 the mayor was still left with little more than advisory powers.
The Amended Charter-The amendments of 1885 brought about somewhat of a separation of the executive business of the city from the legislative. "The charter of 1885 took the form, of a few short amend- ments by which the executive powers of the municipality were trans- ferred to the mayor, to be administered by officials and boards of the various departments, under the supervision and control of the mayor. Thus these officials and boards were given the general direction and con- trol of all the executive business of Boston. The City Council was ex- pressly prohibited from interfering in any manner with the work of the executive in the way of employing labor, making contracts, purchasing materials, etc. The amendments, furthermore, gave the mayor the au- thority to appoint all officials and members of boards except the city messenger, but made all appointments subject to the confirmation by the Board of Aldermen." There were a number of other changes and the placing of power, but the substance of the amendments as relating to the mayor is that it placed in his hands the entire charge of, and the re- sponsibility for, the conduct of the executive business of the city. It was the substituting of a one man power for the control of city affairs by committees ; it was a distrust of the Common Council and its ability to carry on the executive business of a municipality efficiently and honestly.
The Charter of 1909-The charter of 1885 was good, but not good enough, certain weaknesses soon becoming manifest. The provision for the appointments by the mayor to be subject to the approval of the alder- men ; the failure to provide a penalty for the interference by the Council with the executive branch of the government; the illegal acts possible to many of the departments, all were flaws that called for elimination or amendment. All of which led to the Charter of 1909, which, with amend-
218
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
ments, is the measure under which the municipal government of Boston now functions.
"The Finance Commission of 1907, when entrusted with the task of framing a new city charter, sought to correct the evils which had arisen in the city administration by the means of several expedients. A com- plete separation of the executive and legislative branches of government was sought. The appointments by the mayor were no longer subject to the confirmation by the Board of Aldermen, but all heads of depart- ments were to be certified by the Civil Service Commission. A penalty was imposed for the interference with the executive business on the part of the City Council. In regard to finances, the new charter provided that all appropriations, to be met from sources other than loans, must orig- inate with the mayor. The City Council could no longer increase any item or add new ones. The mayor was given an absolute veto power over any acts of the City Council, extending to a veto of any item in a bill requiring the expenditure of money and to any part of an item. The term of the mayor was extended to four years, subject to recall at the end of two years."
"The new charter abolished the bi-cameral organization of the City Council and provided that it should consist of but nine members, to be elected at large for a term of three years, only three being elected each year. An entirely new charter feature provided for the appoint- ment of a permanent Finance Commission, with all the powers of the first commission, but its members were to be selected by the Governor, the idea being that a body quite independent of the municipal govern- ment would be able to serve as a check on the waste and corruption. The charter as drawn up by the Finance Commission of 1907 was passed by the General Court of 1909, but its political features, to be submitted to the voters for their acceptance, were divided into two plans, one provid- ing for a single legislative council, consisting of one member from each ward, to be elected for two years, and nine members at large, to be elected for three years. Also the term of the mayor was left at two years. The other plan contained the recommendation of the Finance Commission of a single legislative chamber of nine members, and this plan was adopted by the voters. The charter of 1909 has been amended in some respects, the principal changes being that the mayor shall not be eligible for reelection for the succeeding term (that is, a term of four years must elapse before a mayor can again become a candidate), the abolition of the recall of the mayor, different dates for elections, and the various changes of minor importance."
The Power of the Mayor-The tendency has been all through the various charter changes to concentrate the power of city government in
219
THE PRESENT
single or few hands. The mayor of Boston holds a position of large re- sponsibility ; the office is no longer purely honorary, conferred as a mat- ter of social distinction. In Great Britain, the town or city clerk is the real executive, holding his place because of his proven fitness. In Germany the mayor was (formerly) what might be called the City Man- ager, an individual chosen by the City Council because of his training and experience in managing the multitudinous affairs of a municipality. In Boston, and in most parts of the United States, the effort is made to combine in one man both the ornamental and practical functions of an executive, and do it by selection, or election. It may not be the ideal method of getting the best results ; men will on occasion be installed in the highest office within a municipality who have neither the experience nor fitness for the job. If one but looks over the long list of mayors who have served the metropolis, one cannot but be impressed with the good fortune of Boston during the more than a century that it has had a city form of government.
Overlapping Functions of State and City-There are certain im- portant powers which have been secured or retained by the Common- wealth which overlap functions that are normally municipal. The heads of departments and members of municipal boards appointed by the mayor are subject to the approval of the Civil Service Commission of Massachusetts. There must, of course, be some reviewing body which, in the interest of the public, should have oversight of the mayor's power of appointment and removal. It is one of the anomalies of the municipal government that such a function should rest with a commission ap- pointed by the Governor of the State.
The Finance Commission which created the charter under which Boston is now ruled, and which was perpetuated by that charter, is ap- pointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth with the advice and con- sent of the Executive Council. The Finance Commission of 1907 made one of the most thorough investigations of city affairs in the history of the municipality, and made such severe and fearless condemnations of the weaknesses, and worse, in the city administration, that it led to the radical changes of the Charter of 1909. Whether this commission should have been succeeded by others as independent organizations of the State is still questioned by many. The present Finance Commission has the duty of investigating all the matters relating to the finances of Boston, or the county of Suffolk, and other investigations as may be required, and to make annual reports to the mayor, the City Council, the Governor and the General Court. The commission is authorized to employ expert counsels and other assistants as may seem necessary, but not at a cost
220
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
exceeding $25,000 a year. The findings and recommendations of the commission are embodied in documents, many in number.
Others of the city officers appointed by powers outside of the city gov- ernment, are the Licensing Board of three, appointed by the Governor ; the managers of the Franklin Fund, twelve, whose appointment rests with the Supreme Court, and the Police Commissioner, who is appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth. The policy of creating revenue and securing a proper supervision over certain selling agencies is very old, almost as ancient as the colony. Since 1822 licensing has been used more for the purpose of regulation than for income, the liquor license being the principal one until recent times. The income from the latter mentioned source was large, however. Until 1905 the authority to grant liquor license remained with the Board of Police, but the new charter, in that year, placed nearly all licensing powers in the hands of a board ap- pointed by. the Governor.
Interference by the Commonwealth in Municipal Affairs-The most notable example of State interference in the management of municipal affairs is that to be seen in the present system of police control, the Com- missioner of Police being the Governor's appointee. By some, the taking over of the control of the police by the authorities of the Commonwealth is considered as the crowning indignity heaped upon the head of the city, and the one most bitterly resented. A study of the inaugurals of the dif- ferent mayors show how thoroughly this control has been condemned. It was foisted upon Boston with the charter of 1909, but it must also be remembered that no charter has ever been imposed upon an unwilling city ; they have been accepted by the voters.
The early custom was for the selectmen to appoint two classes of police, the "watchmen" and the "constables." The watchmen served at night and patrolled the ill-lighted town with lanterns and "rattles." The constables, although liable to regular police duties, were chiefly con- cerned with serving civil processes. This organization was carried over with the establishment of the city form of government, with the appoint- ment vested in the mayor and the aldermen. With the years came extra- ordinary increases in the numbers of the "watchmen" or the police, and changes were made in the internal direction of this body and the manner in which it was officered. The dual system was continued until 1854, when the watch and the police were combined under a chief of police. Curiously, the police were not uniformed until 1858.
The first attempt to transfer the appointment of the police to the Commonwealth was during the early Civil War period when a commit- tee was appointed by the General Court to look into the conditions of the
221
THE PRESENT
Boston police force. The movement for the appointment of the police by State authorities came up several times during the following years, only to be defeated. The method of selecting police officers was modi- fied in 1863 ; they being appointed to hold their positions during good be- havior instead of annually. The power over the police was still divided between the mayor, aldermen and chief of the force. In 1878 laws were passed providing for a police commission of three, to serve three years, appointed by the mayor with the approval of the City Council. This proved unsatisfactory, and through the law of 1885 the Governor of the State was given the authority to appoint three citizens of Boston from the two leading political parties who should constitute the Board of Police. Thus another step was taken away from local self-government. The final change in the law affecting the government of the police took place in 1906, when it was turned over to a single commissioner ap- pointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth."
The history of the police department is told elsewhere in this work, so that it is no part of this chapter to describe the development of that important body. Whether the police measures of 1885 and 1906 have succeeded in bringing about the administrative reforms expected of them has yet to be proven. The number of policemen have increased greatly, and the expenditures for police protection have multiplied enormously. There has also been a large addition to the work placed upon the police. "The total cost for police protection in 1822 was $8,999.52, and a hundred years later, $3,787,446. . . Even in times when 'muck-raking' of city departments was in fashion all over the country the police force of Boston was credited with being clean and efficient." Too much publicity has been given to the "police strike" of 1919, probably because Calvin Cool- idge, now President of the United States, was then Governor of the Commonwealth, and with the late Edwin U. Curtis and Andrew J. Peters, then mayor, settled the famous strike. It was a time of turbu- lence and riots, and led to a radical reorganization of the force. It was but an incident in the affairs of the police department and may well be forgotten.
The Present City Government-To summarize the present situation in the city government, the municipal officials appointed by authorities of the Commonwealth are: The Finance Commission, the Licensing Board, the Police Commissioner, all selected by the Governor; and the managers of the Franklin Fund who are appointed by the Supreme Court. The Mayor, City Council and School Committee are all elected by the voters; the City Clerk is chosen by the City Council. The other officials are appointments of the Mayor. The following table shows the organization of the (1926) city government :
222
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
OFFICERS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.
Officers.
How Created
Term.
Salary.
Mayor
Statute
Four years. Begins first Monday in February.
$10,000 per annum.
Included on his staff is the License Clerk and the edi- tor of "City Record."
City Council (Nine Mem- bers)
.......
Three years.
$1,500 per annum.
Three members are elected each year. The City Coun- cil elects the City Clerk, City Messenger and Clerk of Committees.
OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS.
The following is a list of the executive departments showing the manner in which the officers in charge are appointed or elected, the time of appointment or election, the term of office as prescribed by statute, ordinance, or both, and the salary received by each. Heads of departments and members of municipal boards appointed by the mayor are sub- ject to approval by the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission.
Appointed or Elected.
Term.
Officers.
How Created.
By Whom.
When.
Begins.
Length of.
Assessors (three)
Statute
Mayor
Annually, one
April I.
Three years ..
1$4,500
Auditor
Ord.
Quadrennially.
May I.
Four years ...
7,000
Boston Sanatorium Trus- tees (seven)
Annually, one or two.
I.
Five years ...
None
Budget Commissioner ..
Quadrennially.
I ..
Four years ...
6,000
Building Commissioner ..
Statute
Quadrennially.
I.
..
6,000
City Clerk
City
Council.
Triennially ..
Ist Monday in Feb.
Three years ..
6,000
City Planning Board (five)
Ord.
Mayor
Annually, one
May I.
Five years ...
None
Collector
Statute
Quadrennially.
I.
Four years ...
6,000
Corporation Counsel
Ord.
Quadrennially.
I.
66
9,000
Election (four)
Commissioners
Statute
Annually, one
April I.
May I
66
7,500
Health Commissioner
Ord.
Quadrennially.
I.
...
7,500
Hospital Trustees (five).
Statute
Annually, one
Five years ...
None
Institutions Commis- sioner
Ord.
"
Quadrennially.
Four years ...
7,500
Library Trustees (five).
Annually, one
Five years ...
None
Markets, Superintendent of
Quadrennially.
I.
Four years ...
4,000
Overseers of the Public Welfare (twelve) ..
Statute
Annually, four
I.
Three years ..
None
..
4,000
Fire Commissioner
Quadrennially.
Salary
School Committee (Five Members)
None.
223
THE PRESENT
Appointed or Elected.
Term.
Officers.
How Created.
Salary.
By Whom.
When.
Begins.
Length of.
Park Commissioners (three)
"
Annually, one
I.
"
3
Printing, Superintendent of
Ord.
Quadrennially.
I.
Four years ...
5,000
Public Buildings, Super- intendent of
Quadrennially.
I.
..
4,500
Public Works, Commis- sioner of
=
€¢
..
Quadrennially.
I.
..
9,000
Registrar, City
Statute
Quadrennially.
I.
...
4,000
Schoolhouse sioners (three)
Commis-
€
Annually, one
June I
Three years ..
43,500
Sinking Funds Commis- sioners (six)
Annually, two
May I
I.
Four years ...
6,000
Statistics Trustees (five). Ord.
Annually, one
I.
Five years ...
None
Street Commissioners (three)
Statute
Annually, one
Ist Monday in Feb.
...
Three years ..
44,000
Supplies, ent of
Superintend-
Ord.
Quadrennially.
May
I.
Four years ...
6,000
Transit (three)
Commissioners
"
Annually
"
I.
One year.
55,000
Treasurer
Statute
Quadrennially.
66
I.
6,000
Vessels, Weighers of.
Annually, two
I.
"
Fees
Weights and Measures, Sealer of
€¢
Quadrennially.
I.
Four years ...
3,500
1Chairman, $6,000.
2Chairman, $4,500.
$Chairman, $7,000; others, none.
4Chairman, $500 additional. 5Chairman, $2,500 additional.
OTHER CITY OFFICERS.
The following table shows the manner in which officers connected with the city, other than the regular city department heads, are appointed, the time of appointment, the term of office, and the salary, if any, of each other. Appointments by the mayor marked with a * are subject to approval by the State Civil Service Commission.
Appointed or Elected.
Term.
Officers.
How Created.
Salary.
By Whom.
When.
Begins.
Length of.
Art Commissioners* (five)
Statute
Mayor
Annually, one
May
I
Five years ...
None
Board of Appeal* (five)
Aug. I.
..
2
Boston and Cambridge Bridges Commission- ers (two) . . ..
"
.......
......
May, 1898
Indefinite ...
None
46
None
Soldiers' Relief Commis- stoner
Quadrennially.
..
224
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
Appointed or Elected.
Term.
Officers.
How Created.
Salary.
By Whom.
When.
Begins.
Length of.
Finance Commission (five)
Governor1
Annually, one
Five years ...
8
Licensing Board (three)
¥
1
Biennially, one
Six years ..
23,500
Managers of the Frank- lin Fund (twelve) ..
=
Supreme Court
As Vacancies Occur
None
Police Commissioner
Governor1
Five years ...
8,000
1With the advice and consent of the Executive Council.
2Salary, $10 per day, but not to exceed $1,000 per year.
8Chairman, $5,000; other members none.
៛Chairman, $500 additional.
The Mayor an Important Official-The consideration, even the most casual, of the manner in which the city of Boston is governed leaves one with the abiding impression that the mayor is an exceedingly important official, and the office one that calls for the highest type of individual. Even in the beginning, when as far as executive powers were concerned, the mayor of the city was little more than a figurehead, the office re- quired an official of high standing in the community and State. Boston has been peculiarly fortunate in its city leaders. With few exceptions its mayors have been "leading citizens," men with forceful and constructive personalities capable of conducting the civil affairs. The roster of the officials covering more than a century contains the names of many notables, men that have not only served the municipality well, but were successful in other and, often, larger spheres of activity. The following is a list of the mayors of Boston from the beginning of the city govern- ment down to the present incumbent: 1822, John Phillips, one year ; 1823, Josiah Quincy, six years; 1829 Harrison Gray Otis, three years; 1832, Charles Wells, two years; 1834, Theodore Lyman, Jr., two years; 1836, Samuel T. Armstrong, one year ; 1837, Samuel A. Eliot, three years ; 1840, Jonathan Chapman, three years ; 1843, Martin Brimmer, two years ; 1845, Thomas Davis, one year; 1846, Josiah Quincy, Jr., three years ; 1849, John P. Bigelow, three years; 1852, Benjamin Seaver, three years ;
- 1854, Jerome V. Smith, two years; 1856, Alexander H. Rice, two years; 1858, Frederick W. Lincoln, Jr., three years ; 1861, Joseph M. Wightman, two years; 1863, Frederick W. Lincoln, four years; 1867, Otis Norcross, one year; 1868, Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, three years; 1871, William O. Gaston, two years; 1873, Henry L. Pierce, one year; 1874, Samuel C. Cobb, three years; 1877, Frederick O. Prince, one year ; 1878, Henry L. Pierce, one year; 1879, Frederick O. Prince, three years; 1882, Samuel G. Green, one year; 1883, Albert Palmer, one year; 1884, Augustus P.
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.