USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Municipal history of the town and city of Boston during two centuries : from September 17, 1630, to September 17, 1830 > Part 17
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
Having thus authorized the purchase of two engines and a hydraulion, and the constructing of three reservoirs, each to con- tain twenty-five thousand gallons of water, the City Council refer- red the subject of " the organization of a fire department, on the principle of distinct and individual responsibility," to the next City Council, the period of a reorganization of the city govern- ment being now approaching.
The inconvenience of leaving city expenditures subject to the control of several boards, some of whom claimed an independ- ence of the City Council, a practice which had been borrowed from that of the town government, began to be seriously felt, and a change was demanded by the plainest dictates of expedi- ency. The Mayor, therefore, in January, 1824, by a special mes- sage, recommended to the City Council the consideration of " a more systematic accountability for publie moneys, and a more efficient check upon the expenditures of the city." A joint Com- mittee of the City Council was accordingly appointed on the subject, who, in the April following, made a report, stating the system of accountability then practised, representing its un- satisfactory nature, and the reasons for the change it recom- mended. Four boards were then intrusted with the expenditure of public moneys, namely, - the Mayor and Aldermen, the Overseers of the Poor, the Commissioners of Health, and the Directors of the House of Industry. To each of these various sums were advanced, in the form of appropriations, and ex- pended by votes of the respective boards, under the agency of committees. The members of these committees made the ex- penditure or the contract, and vouched the bill for the article
١
164
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
delivered or the services rendered, including the rate of compen- sation or the price. A committee from the board, once in each month, examined the account of expenditures of that month, re- ceived the vouchers, and, where they agreed, passed the accounts. The course of proceeding was very similar in all the boards. However well suited such a course might have been in the early stage of municipal institutions, when the numbers affected by their authorities were small, and the amounts expended incon- siderable, the Committee deemed that a more systematie and uniform accountability ought to be established to satisfy the increasing demands and expenditures of a city rapidly augment- ing in wealth and population.
It seemed to them sufficiently loose and unsatisfactory in point of efficient accountability, that the whole city expenditures should be made by forty or fifty members of four distinct boards, chosen annually for general purposes, with no particular refer- ence to their adaptation to the particular class of expenditures which they were called upon to superintend. That these indi- viduals, acting gratuitously, without compensation, could not be expected to give more than a certain general and occasional oversight to the objects on which expenditures were made; and that, of course, they must act chiefly by minor agents, which, as they multiplied, necessarily increased the chance of mistake and imposition.
The great defect in this organization, with reference to an effi- cient accountability for public moneys was, in the opinion of the Committee, the fact, that the accountability for the expendi- ture of each board was to committees of its own; in other words, the power to expend and the power of calling to account was efficiently the same; an arrangement, which, however in- consequential in boards destined for the mere care of property and pecuniary investment, must have important consequences in boards charged with the oversight of great expenditures, rela- tive to objects comprising numerous details, and requiring the employment of many subordinate agents.
The labors of the committee of accounts were lessened by dividing the members of the board into monthly committees, of a number deemed expedient, - usually two.
All the members of the board undertook by turns this labor and responsibility.
165
CITY GOVERNMENT.
The consequence was, that there was no such general super- intendence as is implied and effected by accountability to one practical mind, habituated to the rules and routine of a single department. As there was no distinct, uniform rules for pro- ceeding, committees were guided by such principles as on the instant were deemed applicable. Admissions or rejections thus unavoidably often depended upon the particular state or temper of mind of the members of the committees. The circumstances of the individual were often considered instead of the case; and the results were often very different from what they would have been had the same accounts been subjected to the analysis of other members of the same board. No stronger evidence could be given of the incorrectness of these financial arrangements, than the fact that persons having accounts to settle with the city, have been known to inquire who the monthly committee of accounts were, and to postpone presenting their accounts until those they deemed most likely not to sift severely came to exer- cise the power.
The defects of the system then in practice having been thus set forth, the Committee proceeded to state the remedy they proposed, which consisted in the establishment of an office of " auditor of accounts," and in tracing an outline of the duties and rules to which that office should be subjected.
This change was deemed too important to be passed with- out its being virtually submitted to the decision of the citizens. The Committee, therefore, only proposed that it should be taken into consideration by the then existing City Council, the report to be printed and distributed, recommending the whole subject to the attention of its successors; by whom it was, in August, 1824, revived, the office of auditor established, and a new system of accountability connected with it. In the same month, William Hayden was elected Auditor, and by his great ability and efficiency corrected the irregularity incident to the former system, and introduced principles for checking the facility with which additional appropriations were made, after the annual appropriation bills had been passed by the City Council.
In pursuance of the same general policy, in February, 1828, the City Council adopted a system of self-restriction, having for its object to confine the ordinary expenditures of the year within the limits of the ordinary annual incomes, by passing an
-
166
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
order of the following tenor : - " That, in the present and every future financial year, after the annual order of appropriations shall have been passed, no subsequent expenditure shall be au- thorized for any object, unless provision for the same shall be made, by expressly creating therefor a city debt; in the latter of which cases, the order shall not be passed, unless two thirds of the whole members of each branch of the City Council shall vote in the affirmative, by vote taken by yeas and nays."
CHAPTER XII. CITY GOVERNMENT. 1825.
JOSIAH QUINCY, Mayor.1
The Citizens accept the Report of their General Committee on the inexpediency of modifying the powers of the Overseers of the Poor - Overseers decline taking Care of the Poor at the House of Industry - Their Rights and Duties submitted to Legal Counsel - Their Report, and consequent Proceedings of the City Council - Measures to introduce a Supply of Fresh Water - Proceedings relative to Faneuil Hall Market- Census of the City -- Time of Organizing the City Government changed.
Tur organization of the city government was this year trans- ferred from Faneuil Hall to that of the Chamber of the Com- mon Council, and conducted with customary ceremonies. The Board of Aldermen consisted entirely of new members; all those of the preceding year having declined a reelection.
The Mayor, in his inaugural address, after expressing his gra- titude to his fellow-citizens for the unanimity of their suffrages, and paid a well-deserved tribute to the members of the Board of Aldermen of the two preceding years, for their faithful and labo- rious services,2 directed the attention of the City Council and his fellow-citizens to the critical question then pending between the Overseers of the Poor and the City Government. After stat- ing, in unequivocal terms, the incompatibility with the public inte- rest of the existence, under a city organization, of an independent Board claiming the right of expending public money without re- sponsibility to the city authorities, he explained the effect upon the character and confidence in the members of that Board, una- voidably resulting from the difference in selecting them, as now practised under the city charter, and as was formerly under the
1 The whole number of votes cast was 1891, of which the Mayor had 1836. The members of this Board of Aldermen were George Blake, John Bellows, John Bryant, Daniel Carney, John D. Dyer, Josiah Marshall, Henry J. Oliver, and Thomas Welsh, Jr.
2 See Appendix, D.
168
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
town government. This development he regarded it his duty to make, notwithstanding that the report of the Committee,1 ap- pointed by a general meeting of the citizens, in opposition to those views, was about to be taken into consideration by another general meeting of the citizens, to be held on the nineteenth of May, then instant; and no doubt could be entertained that the recommendations of that report would be adopted, so conforma- ble were they to popular habits and prejudices. The City Coun- cil, however, took no measures strenuously to oppose the accept- ance of that report. They had effected the removal of the poor to the House of Industry, and of consequence felt less interest in the immediate result. They had conscientiously fulfilled their duty to the city, by faithfully explaining to their fellow-citizens the nature and consequences of the relations and claims of that Board in respect of the interest of the city. Whatever ills or difficulties might hereafter result, could not be attributed to any want of firmness or foresight in them. The citizens were left, therefore, to the unbiased exercise of their own feelings and judg- ment, and the report of their General Committee was adopted without important opposition.
In May, 1825, immediately after the organization of the city government, the Overseers of the Poor addressed a commimica- tion to the City Council, asking for a suitable house for the accommodation of the poor, and expressing their readiness to take upon themselves the oversight, care, and goverment of it. A Committee of the City Council, consisting of the Mayor, and Messrs. Williams, Thaxter, and Elliot, of the Common Count- cil, was immediately appointed, to whom this application was referred, and who reported on the twelfth of May, that a house, such as the Overseers applied for, had already been provided by the city ; that it was placed under the care of the Directors of the House of Industry, who were invested by law, in respect of the imnates of that house, with all the powers exercised by the Overseers of the Poor; that they were wisely and efficiently active in their oversight of it, to the content of the poor; and that their superintendence of the moral and physical condition of the inmates was highly satisfactory. The report expressed the gratification the Committee derived from the hope of being
1 See ch. x. p. 146.
169
CITY GOVERNMENT.
able to avail themselves of the general aid of the Overseers; and the readiness of the City Council to grant all those practical and useful facilities relative to providing for the poor, which, from the tenor of their application, the Overseers appeared to desire; and, in order that the poor of the city might enjoy the benefit and experience of both those Boards, the Committee presented their views in the form of three resolutions, which the City Council unanimously adopted.
By the first, the Overseers of the Poor were authorized and requested to grant permits for admission into the House of In- dustry of any person, in their judgment, entitled to the support of the city in that house, for which purpose its Directors were enjoined to provide relief and support.
By the second, the Overseers of the Poor were authorized and requested, at their discretion, with or without notice, to visit the House of Industry, to inquire into its condition and the treat- ment and employment of the poor, and make such represent- ations on those subjects as their wisdom and experience might suggest.
By the third, the Mayor and Aldermen were authorized to provide a suitable vehicle, for conveyance to the House of In- dustry of such decrepid persons as were incapacitated from going of themselves, and place the same at the disposal of both the superintending Boards.
As soon as these resolutions were received by the Overseers of the Poor, they addressed, on the twenty-third of May, 1825, a memorial in writing to the City Council, stating that " they did not feel justified in relinquishing to the Directors of the House of Industry any of the tasks assigned them by law;" and that " they would not consent to grant the permits contemplated by the above resolves ;" and gave notice to the City Council that, " unless a house is provided, to which the Overseers can remove paupers, the city will be exposed to great expense."
This memorial was referred to a Committee of the City Council, consisting of the Mayor, Aldermen Carney, Welsh, and Oliver, with Messrs. Savage, Williams, Thaxter, Elliot, Adan, Tracy, and Ware, of the Common Council; who, on the twenty-seventh of June, reported, that the tenor of the above memorial indicated so great a misapprehension in the Board of Overseers, concerning their rights and duties, as, if acquiesced
15
170
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
in, would result in consequences at once serions and embarrass- ing; and to put those rights and duties, as far as possible, be- yond all doubt and question, they had requested the Mayor to lay the whole subject before counsel learned in the law, and for this purpose had selected William Prescott, Charles Jackson, and Daniel Webster, gentlemen possessing the greatest profes- sional reputation, and whose opinion would, it was hoped, be conclusive with the Board of Overseers, and certainly with the public.
The Mayor, accordingly, on the fourth of June, 1825, ad- dressed a letter to those three jurists, and, after stating that an unhappy controversy had arisen, between the Overseers of the Poor and the City Council, in relation to their respective powers and duties, that a Committee of this body, to whom was referred the memorial of the Overseers, dated the twenty-third of the preceding May, had directed him to submit, for their inspection and consideration, certain laws and documents, and subjoin certain inquiries, for their official answer, as counsel learned in the law. The acts submitted were : -
1st. The act for employing and providing for the poor of the town of Boston, passed in the year 1735, and ratified and con- firmed in January, 1789.
2d. An act relative to the relief, support, employment, and removal of the poor, passed the twenty-sixth February, 1796.
3d. An act concerning the House of Industry, passed the third February, 1823.
4th. An act concerning the regulations of the House of Cor- rection in the city of Boston, and passed twelfth June, 1826.
5th. An act establishing the City of Boston, passed the twenty-third February, 1822, called the City Charter.
The documents submitted were, -
1. The Vote of the City Council, passed twenty-ninth Sep- tember, 1823.1
2. The Memorial of the Overseers of the Poor to the City Council, without date, but which was committed in this body on the fifth of May last.
3. The Report of the Committee of the City Council on the preceding Memorial and the three Resolves subjoined, adopted and passed on the twelfth of May2 last.
1 See ch. vii. pp. 95, 96. 2 See p. 168.
171
CITY GOVERNMENT.
4. The Memorial of the Overseers of the Poor to the City Council, dated the twenty-third of May last.1
The inquiries submitted for their official answer were, -
1. Is not the erecting, providing, and endowing the house for the reception and employment of the idle and poor of the city, called the House of Industry, and the appointment of directors thereof, according to the act entitled, "An act concerning the House of Industry," a sufficient and legal exercise of the author- ity invested in the City Council, under the acts of 1735, of 1794, and of 1822 ?
2. Does not the authority given to the Directors of the House of Industry to use, regulate, and govern said house, supersede, with respect to all persons sent to it, any authority in relation to them, given by the acts of 1735 and 1791 to the Overseers of the Poor, except so far as the City Council may authorize ?
3. Have the Overseers of the Poor any right to appoint a master of said house, or to have the government thereof, or to ordain any rules or regulations concerning it ?
4. Does the saving of the act of tenth January, 1789, in the act of 1794, and the continuance in force thereby of the act of 1735, preclude the city of Boston from any of the general privi- leges of the act of 1791, which are granted by it to the other towns of the Commonwealth; or deprive the City Council, under the transfer of powers made by the city charter, from " directing the way and manner" in which poor and indigent persons shall be supported and relieved, according to the right secured to other towns in the Commonwealth by the act of 1791?
5. Is not the " direction" given by the City Council, as to " the way and manner" in which the poor and indigent shall be relieved and supported, conchisive and obligatory upon the Overseers of the Poor, under and by virtue of the act of 1791?
6. Is not the " direction" given in the vote of the City Coun -: vil, dated the twenty-ninth September, 1823,2 full and sufficient in that respect ; and have the Overseers of the Poor a right to refuse to exercise that general visitatorial power which that vote provides for and authorizes ?
7. After notice given of the passing of the first resolve, on the
I See p. 169. 2 See ch. vii. pp. 95, 96.
172
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
twelfth of May last,1 have the Overseers of the Poor a right to refuse to grant permits for admission of the poor and indigent, standing in need of relief, to the House of Industry, who are in other towns of this Commonwealth, but belong to Boston, and to support such persons in other places in said city, or in such other towns ?
8. Hlave the Overseers of the Poor in said city a right to refuse to give permits for admission to the House of Industry of the poor and indigent of said city, standing in need of relief, and to support them in other places in said city ?
9. Is there any power and authority in and over the House of Industry which the City Council can vest in the Overseers of the Poor, consistent with the powers and authorities vested by the act of third February, 1823, in the Directors of the House of Industry, other and greater than those invested and specified in the vote of the City Council, passed September 29, 1823,2 and the second resolve of that body, passed the twelfth of May last ? 3
On these laws, submitted documents, and inquiries, those jurists made the following statement of their opinions : -
"In making up our opinion on the question now pending between the City Council and the Overseers of the Poor, respecting the powers and duties of the latter, we have considered first, the general provisions of the law on this sub- ject; and secondly, the statutes which apply exclusively to the city of Boston.
" By the statute 1793, e. 59, towns may choose any number, not exceeding twelve, Overseers of the Poor, who shall have the care and oversight of the poor, and see that they are suitably relieved, supported, and employed, either in the work-house or other tenements belonging to the town, or in such other way and manner as they (the town) shall direct, or otherwise at the discretion of the Overseers.
" By the city charter (stat. 1821, c. 110,) the City Council now has all the power, in this respect, that was formerly vested in the town. If there were no other statute on this subject, it is evident that the City Comeil would be authorized to provide a house for their poor, and prescribe the manner in which they should be supported and employed in it; or to cause them to be relieved at their own houses, or in other private houses, or, in short, in any manner which, in the discretion of the City Council, should appear best; and it would be the duty of the Overseers to comply with such directions.
"By the provincial statute, 8 and 9 Geo. II., c. 3, (passed in May, 1735,) the town of Boston was authorized to erect a house for the reception and employ-
1 See p. 168. 3 See p. 168.
2 See ch. vii. pp. 95, 96.
1 173
CITY GOVERNMENT.
ment of the idle and poor, and to discontinue the same if they should think proper; the house to be under the regulation of the Overseers of the Poor, who had power to make orders and by-laws for its government, subject to the control of the town, and to appoint the master and other officers of the house. If there were no other laws but those above mentioned, the City Council might, in their discretion, discontinue their almshouse, and require that their poor should be relieved and supported in some other place or other manner; but as long as the city had a house for the poor, in pursuance of that statute of 1735, the Overseers would have had the regulation and government of it. This last- mentioned statute furnishes the only foundation for the claims of the Overseers; and, although there might possibly be a question whether it has not been virtu- ally repealed, (at least, so far as it relates to the government of the Alms- house,) yet we have thought it more safe and expedient to proceed on the sup- position that it remains in force, excepting so far as it has been clearly altered by subsequent statutes. In the year 1823, the city had erected what they called a House of Industry. If this is to be considered as the " house for the reception and employment of the idle and poor," pursuant to the statute of 1735, the Overseers would have had the government of it, if' no other provision had been made. But by the statute of the third February, 1822, 1823, c. 56, the Legis- lature gave the government of this House of Industry to nine directors, to be chosen by the City Council. If, therefore, this is the Almshouse, the govern- ment of it is taken from the Overseers and vested in the nine Directors, and the statute of 1735 is so far repealed. The City Council could not, as we con- ceive, give to the Overseers any control over this honse, inconsistent with the authority vested by law in the Directors. On the other hand, if this Honse of Industry is a distinct establishment, and not such a poor-house, as is contem- plated in the statute of 1735, it is clear that the Overseers have nothing to do with it. It is equally clear that, whether the house is of one or the other de- scription, the City Council has authority, according to the statute 1793, c. 59, to require that the poor should be relieved, supported, and employed in that house. It may be proper here to remark that, although the law appears to give an nn- limited power to towns, to cause their poor to be relieved in any manner what- ever, yet there seems to be some limitation, arising necessarily out of peculiar cir- cumstances and from other parts of the law. If, for example, a poor person should break a limb, or be so ill that he could not be moved without endangering his life, the Overseers would be bound to relieve him immediately, without carry- ing him to the poor-house, or before he could be sent there, notwithstanding the town should have prescribed that as the place for maintaining the poor. There is another kind of exception which, though not required by law, seems to be called for by humanity and benevolence, as well as by a regard to economy, and that is, of those houscholders and others, who require only partial relief, and who may be rendered more comfortable by a small supply of necessaries at their own homes, than by being wholly supported in a poor-house. And the undersigned would suggest to the City Council, the expedieney of passing an order for the relief and employment of the poor in the House of Industry, and of excepting from its operation the two classes of persons above-mentioned.
"As to all those persons who may be lawfully relieved without being sent to the House of Industry, the care of them remains entirely with the Overseers; but as
15 *
--
174
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
to all who ought by law and the orders of the City Council to be relieved and supported in that place, the Directors have the same powers that the Overseers have to send them there, and have the sole power of governing them after they are admitted.
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.