USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Metropolitan Boston; a modern history; Volume II > Part 43
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
New England Association of Manufacturers' Representatives, Frank F. Barrows, president; Harry S. Young, Geo. H. Burnett, vice-presidents; Elmer E. Mc- Gaffey, treasurer; Ernest L. Dodge, secretary, 131 State, room 210.
New England Cotton Buyers' Association, 15 Storer; Edward C. Storrow, presi- dent; Henry G. Brooks, secretary; Frank H. Dearing, treasurer.
New England Fish Exchange, Administration Building, Boston Fish Pier ; Edmund L. Dunn, president; S. E. Grueby, vice-president; George S. Grueby, secre- tary-treasurer.
New England Hardware Dealers' Association (retail), 80 Federal, room 416; Rob- ert P. Adams, president, Boston; Calvin M. Nichols, treasurer, 1246 Dor- chester Avenue; George A. Fiel, secretary, 80 Federal, room 416.
New England Historic Genealogical Society, 9 Ashburton Place; John C. Chase, president; Thornton K. Lothrop, corresponding secretary; James M. Hunne- well, treasurer ; Wm. P. Greenlaw, librarian; Henry E. Scott, recording sec- retary and editor.
New England Manufacturing Confectioners' Association, 40 Court, room 1218, George H. Bunton, president; Herbert D. Foss, vice-president ; Alton L. Mil- ler, treasurer ; Edwin F. Gibbs, clerk; Olin M. Jacobs, secretary.
New England Research Council on Marketing and Food Supply, 136 State House, Willard A. Munson, chairman.
New England Retail Clothiers' and Furnishers' Association, 8 Winter, room 1102; Robert H. Graham, president; Joseph A. Spelman, secretary and treasurer, Boston.
New England Shippers' Advisory Board, 131 State, room 504; William F. Gar- celon, president ; F. J. Dowd, general secretary; Louis M. Ross, field secretary. New England Shoe Wholesalers' Association (jobbers), 166 Essex; Frank F. Nitchy, president; Thomas F. Anderson, secretary and treasurer.
New England Shoe and Leather Association, 166 Essex, room 52; Alfred W. Don- ovan, president; Thomas F. Anderson, secretary and treasurer.
New England Shoe and Leather Exposition & Style Show, Inc., 116 Essex, room 52; Albert F. Bancroft, president; Charles C. Hoyt, treasurer; Thomas A. An- derson, clerk; Chester I. Campbell, general manager, 31 St. James Avenue, room 327.
New England Street Railway Club, 84 State, room 724; Fred D. Gordon, presi- dent, Portland, Maine; Fred F. Stockwell, treasurer; John W. Belling, secretary.
Northeastern Section, American Society of Civil Engineers, 715 Tremont Temple ; Charles W. Sherman, president; Charles W. Banks, secretary, 15 Standish, Newton Highlands.
Rotary Club of Boston, Hotel Bellevue, room 104; George A. G. Wood, president ; E. Wentworth Prescott, secretary; B. L. Goodwin, treasurer.
CHAPTER XIII. A BRIEF POLITICAL HISTORY OF BOSTON. By Albert P. Langtry, Ex-Secretary of State of Massachusetts.
The political history of Boston cannot be written comprehensively within the limits of a single article or a single volume. History is not an exact science. Historians have before now tried to trace the progress and development of government according to specific rules, but the excep- tions have been so conspicuous, the divergencies from the charted lines so frequent, that the result has been far from convincing. If this is true of the history of Nations, it is doubly true of the history of municipalities. The political history of a city is the history of its people. It reflects the change in their character, their pursuits, their degree of education, their principles and even their religion. The government of a city is more responsive to the ebb and flow of public opinion than that of a State or Nation, for it is closer to the people. The routine of daily life is inti- mately touched by the virtues or the deficiencies of those who administer the city's business. The health, the comfort and the convenience of the household are dependent upon the solicitude of the party or faction in power for the public welfare or upon its neglect of those details which in themselves seem of minor importance, but which loom large in the eyes of those whose happiness or discomfort is affected by them.
In the history of Boston will be found much to praise and much to condemn, much that is paradoxical and much that can be explained by the greed for power or for wealth, much that demonstrates the sincere love of those elected to high places for the people they were chosen to govern or to represent. The sturdy faith in their ability to work out their destiny which animated the settlers of the town has not been lost to their descendants, and the peoples of a different race and religion have become imbued with a similar spirit. Though relatively of less importance in the industrial, the commercial and the political world than in the struggling infancy of the country, the city has actually gone forward steadily, per- sistently, ignoring the scoffs of the envious and the apprehensions of the timid. In spite of the radical changes in racial origins of its population, it has remained true to the ideals of the founders.
Unlike many cities the history of Boston has been, during the past half century at least, entirely distinct from its business history. When in 1822 Boston changed from the town to the city form of government the men who were elected to public office, either as mayor or members of the two boards comprising the city government, were those identified
710
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
conspicuously with the business, social or professional interests of the city. Many of the first mayors had been prominent in the conduct of the affairs of the town. Nearly all were of high social standing. Not a few were prominent in the commercial life of the city. Others had been mem- bers of one branch or the other of the State Legislature.
The change in the past fifty years has been more noticeable than in those preceding. In the earlier days Boston was, generally speaking, a Whig city. It was a Republican city until long after the Whig party had broken up and been to a large extent merged in the Republican. Since the Civil War, roughly speaking, Boston has been a Democratic city, and those Republican mayors who have been elected have gone into office only because of dissension in the ranks of the Democrats. Within exception in recent years, the legislative body, whether aldermen and council, or city council, has been dominated by the Democrats. Boston has undoubtedly suffered both in the character of its politics and in the degree of its influence throughout the State by the fact that a large pro- portion of those who are most deeply interested in securing a good, hon- est and efficient government are those who have no voice in the selection of its officials. The city government of the present day and for several years past has contained few who are leaders in the commercial or pro- fessional life of the city. A list of the "big" business men will contain hardly a name identified closely with municipal politics.
Boston has also been hampered in its self-development by the constant interference of the Legislature in affairs which should, at least theo- retically, be left in the control of the people themselves. For this situa- tion there are two reasons. First, because so many whose business inter- ests lay wholly within the city were not residents; and, second, because the dominant party in the State was not the dominant party in the city. Nevertheless, in spite of the drawbacks, the municipal government of Boston has, in comparison with that in other large cities, been on the whole creditable. That there has been much indifference, much waste and some corruption is true, but no government and no individual has been able to continue through a period of years to subsist upon the municipal treasury or to carry on a system of municipal graft. No such wholesale diversion of the public funds as has been known in some large cities of the country has ever been accomplished by any individual or group.
The excuse for legislative interference in the affairs of Boston has invariably been that without action by a supposedly impartial body it would be impossible to remedy conditions that existed. This is in a measure true. For instance, the police force of the city, when placed under control of a commission appointed by the Governor and confirmed by his council, was permeated with politics from top to bottom. While
71I
A BRIEF POLITICAL HISTORY OF BOSTON
the majority of its officials were probably, at the worst, merely passive witnesses to the alliance existing between crookdom and the police, many of the rank and file, as well as ranking officers, were wholly unfit for the duties they were chosen to perform. Politics dominated the force from top to bottom. The alliance between the liquor interests and those higher in authority in the police force was notorious. The great improve- ment that took place in the force five years after the State assumed control justified the transfer of authority. Without any sweeping changes in personnel, the department soon took its place among the most effi- cient in the country.
It cannot be said that the efforts of the State to control the finances of Boston have been so successful. The finance commission, a body appointed by the Governor, has on many occasions pointed out waste, inefficiency and positive dishonesty in connection with municipal con- tracts, but in few instances has it been able to bring about any discon- tinuation of the practices of which it complained, or to establish a system whereby such practices could be eliminated.
In 1822 Boston was a city of approximately 45,000 inhabitants, with a list of registered voters numbering more than 7,000. Notwithstanding the unwieldiness of its town meetings, where only a few could take part in the actual proceedings, there was a strong opposition to any change in the form of government. "When a town meeting was held on any exciting subject, in Faneuil Hall," said Josiah Quincy, "those only who obtained places near the moderator could even hear the discussion. A few busy or interested individuals easily obtained the management of the most important affairs in an assembly in which the greater number could have neither voice nor hearing."
The adoption of the city form was the culmination of a series of move- ments dating back for fully half a century before the actual change was made. There was considerable opposition in the Legislature to the con- stitutional amendment necessary before the incorporation of the city was authorized. Although the amendment was proposed especially to enable Boston to incorporate, it was made applicable to any town in the State with a sufficient number of inhabitants. In this form it went through the Legislature and was subsequently adopted by the people.
This did not, however, end the controversy. In fact, the opponents of the new charter mustered strong at the polls when it was put upon the ballot and it was adopted by a bare majority of 700. The conservative element in Boston which strenuously fought the change from a town to a city included some of those who were afterward its chief executives.
First City Charter-The first city charter, which with some unimpor- tant changes continued in force for more than thirty years, showed the
712
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
reluctance of the Legislature to place power in the hands of one indi- vidual. The charter provided for a mayor, eight aldermen, chosen at large, and forty-eight members of the city council, four from each ward. The mayor and aldermen were considered as one body. The financial, executive, and administrative powers of the city government were vested in the mayor and aldermen and partly in the council and were exercised by the concurrent vote of both branches. The authority of the mayor was negligible. He had no power to appoint or to remove officials, no power of veto over the acts of the council and virtually no control of the executive work except through his vote in the Board of Aldermen and his power to appoint committees. One of the earlier mayors, Mayor Quincy, endeavored to overcome this handicap to the chief magistrate by placing himself at the head of all the important committees of the Board of Alder- men. By this course, he succeeded in making the influence of the execu- tive felt in a greater degree than would otherwise have been possible, but at the same time he aroused a storm of opposition and criticism, which deterred subsequent mayors from following his example. The result of this charter weakness was that for virtually sixty years the executive and administrative powers were practically in the hands of committees of the city council.
In spite of its inherent disadvantages there was no material change made in the charter until 1854. By this time the population had greatly increased, Boston had become something more than a seaport of local importance. Its foreign commerce had developed beyond expectation. It was the distributing depot for all the industries of New England. Improved methods of transportation had brought it into touch with the cities within the State and New England and also with more distant points of the country.
Though the city charter was revised there were but few substantial changes made. The principal of these were designed to give the mayor greater power. Actually his power was but little increased. He was given a qualified veto over the acts of the city council. He was placed outside the Board of Aldermen and had a certain authority to remove offi- cials, but his power of appointment remained virtually the same as under the old charter. A two-thirds vote of the City Council enabled it to pass any vote over his veto. The councillor committees retained their old authority. Under the new charter, and until the changes made in 1885, the mayor had as before little more than advisory powers.
In 1885, although the amendments made to the charter of 1854 were few in number, they effected radical changes. All of the executive powers of the municipality were conferred upon the mayor, who administered them through the officials and boards of the various departments under his supervision. The powers of the City Council were materially cur-
713
A BRIEF POLITICAL HISTORY OF BOSTON
tailed. The council was expressly forbidden to interfere in any manner with the employment of labor by the executive, with the making of con- tracts, or with the purchasing of materials and supplies. The mayor was given the power of appointment of all officials and all members of boards except the city clerk, clerk of committee and city messenger. His appoint- ments were, however, subject to confirmation by the Board of Aldermen. With the power of appointment went also the power of removal for cause. All contracts for public work required his approval. He had the power of veto over any order passed by the City Council, but the latter retained the authority to pass it over the mayor's veto by a two-thirds vote. The mayor ceased to be a member of the Board of Aldermen or of the school committee, nor had he any voice in the appointment of the committees of either of these bodies. In short, the charter changes of 1885 placed the executive business of the city in the hands of the mayor and imposed upon him full responsibility for its conduct. No material changes in the charter were made until 1909, when a complete new char- ter was adopted, largely because of the inefficiency and waste inseparable from the old system in a city of the size to which Boston had grown.
New Charter-The new charter adopted in 1909 was drawn by the finance commission of 1907. It was designed to bring about a complete separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. The power to increase appropriations was taken from the council, although it could still reduce items submitted by the mayor. All appropriations to be met from sources other than loans originated with the mayor. His appointments were no longer subject to confirmation by the council, but instead were required to receive the approval of the Civil Service Com- mission. The veto powers of the mayor were increased by giving him the authority to disallow any item in a bill requiring the expenditure of money, or to any part of the item, and he also had a veto over all acts of the council.
The term of mayor was extended from two to four years, but was subject to a recall at the end of two years. Instead of the unwieldy bi-cameral form of government there was a single chamber composed of nine members elected at large for a term of three years, three being elected each year. Further encroachments of the authority of the State on the city's financial affairs were observed by the creation of a perma- nent finance commission, whose members were selected by the Governor. The charter as proposed by the finance commission was adopted and, with some minor changes, such as the elimination of the recall, continued in force until 1926.
The charter of 1909 proved its value by enabling a far more efficient conduct of the city's business than had been possible under any of the
714
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
previous charters. It contained, however, one provision which made it unpopular. The election of the councillors at large instead of as repre- sentatives of wards or boroughs gave the impression that the government was moving away from the people. The agitation for charter changes culminated in 1924, when a measure was submitted and passed by the Legislature containing two forms of charter, one of which provided for the division of the city into five boroughs, each to be represented by three in the council; the other provided for a representative from each of the twenty-six wards to which the city had expanded. The second form was the one adopted and it became operative January 1, 1926, when for the first time since 1909 a Republican mayor was elected.
Few cities in the country have suffered or benefited from special leg- islation to the extent of Boston. The acts of Legislature pertaining to the city exclusively, aside from the charter acts, fill several hundreds of pages. Much of this legislation had its initiative in the municipal gov- ernment itself. Much more originated in the desire to curb the authority of the municipality or to foist upon it a share of the expenses, either State or metropolitan, greater than the city would have assumed of its own volition. Notwithstanding its commanding position as the metropolis of New England, where great manufacturing interests are centered, where the retail and wholesale business exceeds that of any other city in the State and where the foreign commerce of this group of States is concentrated, Boston-political Boston-has not been able to acquire by annexation the territory and population which in most municipalities in a similar situation have been drawn to the greater city. The cities and towns composing Greater Boston have been jealous of their political independence and have sturdily resented every effort at amalgamation. In consequence the control of the government of the city has not been exercised in recent years by those who might be supposed to be most deeply concerned in a sound, honest and efficient administration of its affairs. Boston has been ready at any time to reach into the suburbs and take to itself, Brookline, Newton and Malden, as more than half a cen- tury ago it took Roxbury, Charlestown and Brighton. The reluctance of these outlying communities to become an integral part of Boston has been encouraged by the representatives in the General Court from other parts of the State.
Metropolitan District-It was only with great difficulty that the metropolitan district was created by legislative action. The district has had and has no political entity. The legislature retains full authority. The district came into legal existence because of the necessity of provid- ing an adequate water supply and sewage disposal for Boston itself and several of the communities around it. Some were in immediate need of
715
A BRIEF POLITICAL HISTORY OF BOSTON
tapping new sources outside of their own boundaries to obtain water. Others foresaw the necessity approaching. Thus the Metropolitan Water and Sewer Commission was created, followed by the Park Commission, all eventually consolidated in the Metropolitan District Commission, which combines their functions, but which has no additional authority. To this has now been added a Metropolitan Planning Board, which bids fair to play an important part in the development of the transportation facilities of the district.
The desirability of a closer union between Boston and its suburbs has long been recognized by many Boston mayors, irrespective of their party affiliations. The advantages to the larger city are obvious. The other communities affected have not yet been convinced that they would be benefited. Every movement toward bringing the component parts of the metropolitan district into closer coordination has met with deter- mined opposition, even when there was no question of the surrender of political individuality.
If Boston were in the same situation as most of the larger cities in the country, it would contain a population of some 1,800,000, and would stand fourth instead of seventh in the list of the most populous cities on the continent.
That eventually it will absorb all or nearly all of the places within a radius of twelve or fifteen miles, and possibly all of those within the metropolitan district, is probable. But the city must first show that such amalgamation would not result in more expensive and less efficient government than the cities and towns now enjoy.
First Mayor-The first mayor of Boston was elected as a compro- mise candidate. After it became settled that the new charter should be accepted, Harrison Gray Otis and Josiah Quincy were the opposing can- didates for the somewhat doubtful privilege of launching the city on its career as such. The night before the election the Democrats put in a third candidate, Thomas L. Winthrop, with the result that none of the three received the majority of votes necessary for a choice. Both Mr. Quincy and Mr. Otis then withdrew and John Phillips was elected with no material opposition.
The first mayor was well qualified for his position as far as knowledge and experience in public life went. He had been for more than twenty years in the Senate, ten years as its president. He has been described as a man of pliable disposition but of strict integrity and general good judgment. Nevertheless there was considerable fault found with his ad- ministration as the people expected a more energetic course than he pur- sued. It was the policy of the new administration to make as few changes as possible. Had he been disposed to do otherwise, it would have been
716
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
exceedingly difficult in his one year of office, as practically the whole of the time was occupied with the organization of the several departments of the city government. As his health was not of the best, Mr. Phillips declined to stand for a second term.
Successive Mayors-Josiah Quincy, who had played a prominent part in the affairs of the town, was sought as a candidate by what might be termed the progressive element and was elected, receiving 2,505 votes of the 4,776 cast. Mr. Quincy's term of office covered a period of six years, none of them peaceful but all of them marked by the accomplish- ment of many important measures. In order to secure a portion of the power that was not given him under the charter, Mayor Quincy placed himself at the head of all the committees of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen with practically the unanimous consent of his associates. His administration was marked by the extension of Faneuil Hall for market purposes, a reorganization of the police and fire departments as well as improvements in the health and charitable institutions. He enforced the laws against gambling and the sale of intoxicating liquors. The in- creased expenditures created considerable antagonism, and with the combination of elements against him, he failed to receive the majority of the votes in 1828 and withdrew his name as a candidate.
The successor to Josiah Quincy was Harrison G. Otis, who was elected virtually without opposition. His administration was not re- markable for any municipal activities. General financial conditions were unfavorable to the extension of municipal activities and his policy was one of general retrenchment. He served for three years and it was dur- ing his administration that the old State House was renovated to pro- vide accommodations for the city government. Mayor Otis in his inaug- ural address recommended the establishment of railroad communication with the Hudson River. He had the foresight to see that such communi- cation would eventually be of incalculable value to the city and was one of the first to contend that the income from the railroad would pay good interest on the capital invested. Incidentally it may be remarked that the first sound of the campaign which ended with the passage of the eighteenth amendment was heard during Mayor Otis' term of office.
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.