USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Professional and industrial history of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, Volume III > Part 12
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 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67
117
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
port of the department for 1892 says: " The entire force of the depart- ment consists of about 800 men."
The chief engineer and his assistants were elected by the mayor and city council; the fire companies were appointed by the mayor and aldermen, but elected their own foreman, and made their own rules and regulations, subject to the approbation of the mayor and aldermen. It was the old volunteer department, with a volunteer in command. This led to the very difficulties encountered by Mayor Quincy, particu- larly as premiums were paid to the ardent volunteers. From and after February 16, 1829, a salary was paid to the chief engineer, and Mayor Eliot, a man of high ability, established the important principle of a paid fire department, in 1837 (city ordinance of July 29, 183?). In 1826 it was found expedient to reorganise the entire force of the fire department (Quincy, Mun. Hist., 203, 264); Mayor Eliot did the same thing in 1837 (see his inaug. addr. of 1838, p. 3). But even the ordi- nance of 1861 left the choice of the chief and the assistant engineers to the city council, and the appointment of the companies to the mayor and aldermen, each company choosing its own foreman, subject to ap- proval. All this was swept away by the great fire of 1842, and the ordinance of 1843, which required the mayor to appoint, subject to approval on the part of the board of aldermen, a board of three fire commissioners, who appoint the chief engineer and all other members of the department, purchase supplies, and manage the department. The law of June 21, 1831, enabled the city to pay an indemnity to members of the fire department disabled in the discharge of their duties. In 1814 (ch. 61) the Boston Protective department was incor- porated, and in 1886 the office of fire marshal was established, this officer, appointed by the State, to pass semi-judicially upon fires.
In 1850 the General Court passed a special act relating to the Boston fire department (1850, ch. 262), the value of the act consisting in the repeal of old statutes, and in leaving the city free to work out its own safety. The city government decided finally in favor of a paid com- mission. Government by committee had broken down, partly because it was inefficient, partly because it was gratuitous, and mainly because it was irresponsible. Public opinion was not prepared to establish one- man power, and compromised by establishing paid commissions, such as still conduct a large part of the business of the State. The Boston fire commission has given great satisfaction. It is watched very closely, especially by underwriters. At the same time the popular interest in
118
BOSTON.
the department is lively. It is one of the few departments that has found a chronicler. It controls scores of buildings, valuable apparatus and supplies, and a numerous force; the cost of the department is not far from a million dollars a year; yet it has not been found necessary to invoke the State for regulating or reforming the establishment. Twice in the remote past the city government has disbanded the whole depart- ment ; but municipal authority has sufficed to establish order, discipline, and extraordinary efficiency. One is tempted to affirm that the depart- ments are generally efficient in proportion to the popular interest they command, and that popular opinion is apt to be right. But much is due, also, to the city council, which has created and sustained the fire department, thus proving that a city council, duly informed, is likely to consult the public good. Of all municipal departments created by the city council, the fire department is the most typical. As such it deserves special attention on the part of students devoted to municipal affairs.
RELIEF AND CORRECTION.
The charter of 1822 (sec. 19) required the election, in each ward, of an overseer of the poor, who must be an inhabitant of the ward. The charter of 1854 retained this provision without material modification. But the board of overseers had changed in its powers and duties. When Boston became a city, the overseers were the most venerable corporation, and the only branch of the government that had been formally incorporated. They had charge of the poor, of the degraded, of the insane, and of prisoners. To provide for the poor that could work, the house of industry was built in South Boston. Instead of interesting the overseers in the undertaking, they were alienated, and a long controversy ended in the defeat of the overseers. Then the house of reformation for juvenile offenders was established; also, the house of correction, a lunatic hospital, an almshouse, and a home for neglected children. All these establishments, to which the city hospital might be added, were the natural province of the overseers of the poor. They permitted the establishment of rival boards, the result being that in 1857 all indoor relief, together with the reformatory and correctional institutions, were united under twelve directors for public institutions, and that in 1864 the election of the overseers was transferred to the city council, to pass, in 1885, to the mayor, acting with the approval of the board of aldermen. In 1889 the public institutions were placed
119
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
under a board of three commissioners (1864, ch. 128; 1851, ch. 35; 1889, ch. 245).
The overseers hold trust funds amounting, in 1893, to more than $100,000. They devote about $100,000 a year to charity, but maintain a temporary home and a lodge so-called. The real mission of the board is out-door relief. The commissioners, on the other hand, deal with some 3,500 paupers, orphans, truants, insane, and malefactors, at a cost not far from $200 per head. But the complete separation of the unfortunate from the vicious has not been effected, though attempted by Mayor Quincy. On the other hand, the city provides generously for those whom it is required to support. The overseers of the poor have always served without pay; so did the directors for public institutions
from 1857 to 1889. The board of directors included three members of the city council, elected annually, and nine citizens at large, three of whom were annually elected' for three years. Of course, a board so composed was apt to lack that force which is specially required in deal- ing with thousands of unfortunates and criminals. But the fault lay largely in the law. It was to oppose the overseers of the poor that the General Court was induced to establish a separate board of directors for the house of industry, in 1823 (1822, ch. 56). In 1824 separate directors for the house of correction were authorized by the General Court (1824, ch. 28). In 1825 another board, for the house of reforma- tion, was authorized (1826, ch. 182). In 1827 the directors of the house of industry were given the same power as to paupers that overseers of the poor had; but the Boston overseers were not deprived of this power (1826, ch. 111). The wonder is that the work of dealing with the un- fortunate and vicious did not itself become more unfortunate. Had the General Court required the city to work out this problem, the city would have supplied the means. Nor is it ever well to invoke the General Court, when municipal means will answer. Municipal prob- lems are best solved by municipalities, not by outside power, It is safe to add that true municipal reform, when needed, must come from within. The new city was mistaken when it created several depart- ments to do the work of one inherited from 1691.
It was competent for the city to establish a house of industry, in which to house and employ its paupers; but law, tradition, and pro- priety vested the management of the enterprise in the overseers of the poor. It was an unfortunate precedent when a rival establishment, with like powers as the overseers had, was set up. The law of Febru-
120
BOSTON.
ary 3, 1823, under which this step was taken, has not proved a benefit, least of all in the general policy it established. The city government had the highest interest to keep down the number of independent ad- ministrative departments; by pursuing the opposite course, it has sur- rounded the mayor of Boston with a cabinet as large as a town meeting. The President of the United States has a cabinet of eight men; the mayor of Boston of about a hundred. That the General Court con- sented, is natural, as it must take its Boston information from Boston, not from Berkshire. Nor were the overseers blameless. They did not think it their duty to cooperate with the city council, and set up the idle claim that they were not accountable for their expenditures. Yet the charter provided, and still provides (1821, ch. 110, sec. 20; 1854, ch. 448, sec. 51), that all boards and officers of the city, "entrusted with the expenditure of public money, shall be accountable therefor to the city council, in such manner as they may direct." The city council. therefore, had the right to ask very close questions wherever money of the city was involved, and might have extended its enquiries to school and county matters. The claim of the overseers was not tenable, and led to their own defeat (compare Mayor Lincoln's inaugural address, 1859, page 21). The results continue in 1893, and so does the needless multiplicity of rival departments. The seed was sown in the charter; the city council and the General Court have added indiscriminately. What harvest could they expect?
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
The charter vested "the administration of police " in the board of mayor and aldermen (1821, ch. 110, sec. 13). The charter of 1854 pre- scribed that appointments should emanate from the mayor, then to be acted upon by the aldermen (1854, ch. 448, sec. 49), while in all other cases the aldermen were to act first (sec. 48), when the mayor and aldermen were required to act (see also 1821, ch. 110, sec. 21; 1882, ch. 164). The term "police," as used in the charters of 1821 and 1854, did not mean "police officers " or " police force," but had reference to the general good order of the municipality. Even the Revised Statutes of 1836 do not mention any police force or police officers. In fact, the first law of the State authorizing the appointment of "police officers " in Boston, was passed in 1838 (ch. 123), and the first law authorizing cities and towns in general to make such appointments, was not passed by the General Court until 1851. Boston had acted in the premises soon
Chashoodycais
121
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
after the Province reign was ended, the confusion occasioned at that time requiring the employment of special officers for maintaining order in the streets. This led to the interesting ordinance on page 66 of the By-Laws of 1786, which authorized the selectmen to appoint officers called " the inspectors of the police," who were day patrolmen. The night watch had been established soon after 1630. The "inspectors of the police " were required to report once a week to the selectmen, and were otherwise inefficient. The selectmen were therefore authorized by the town to elect " one suitable person to superintend the police of this town " (By-Laws of 1801, p. 33). The term police, in this case, meant "good order," and the selectmen could appoint "assistants to the superintendent " (1. c., 34), that is, appoint day policemen, if necessary, provided there was money to pay them. The chairman of the board of selectmen was usually chosen superintendent of police, and the mayor and aldermen, in 1822, inherited the police arrangements of the town. They inherited also the night watch, which, under the law of January 29, 1802, had been appointed by the selectmen. The mayor and aldermen took charge of the day police and the night watch because these establishments had been under the care of the selectmen, who appointed them. The common council tried repeatedly to get concurrent power over the police, but failed; the legislative power the common council shared with the mayor and aldermen was not well exercised, least of all by the common council.
The city council maintained separate watch and police departments to the year 1854. In 1823 a special head for the day police was estab- lished, under the name of city marshal, who was also tithingman and constable, and soon took charge, in a measure, of street cleaning and the removal of house refuse, the ordinance of 1833 providing that " the de- partment of internal and external police, as far as it regards the pres- ervation of the health of the city, be placed under the superintendence of the city marshal " (code of 1834, pp. 174, 226). The captain of the watch, on the other hand, took charge of the street lamps. When the night watch and the day police were united, in 1854, the lamp depart- ment became a separate establishment, with a separate superintendent, but continued under the special control of the mayor and aldermen. The removal of house refuse and street refuse, after consideration, was treated, the former as a health matter under the jurisdiction of the city council (1821, 110, sec. 17), and street refuse as a police matter to be regulated by the mayor and aldermen only (1. c., sec. 13). This dis-
16
122
BOSTON.
tribution of power is related by Mayor Quincy with great spirit (Mun. Hist., 62-73). The real work drifted into the hands of the superinten- dent of streets, who had teams to work with. The ordinance of 1833 made the superintendent of streets a general officer for paving and re- pairing streets, for laying out and widening them, for building and re- pairing sewers, for the repair of public buildings, the school houses in- cluded, for supplying fuel, and "for cleaning the streets, disposing of manure, and removing house dirt " (code of 1834, 260). The superin- tendent of streets attended to this police duty until 1853, when a sep- arate department for " cleaning the streets, disposing of manure, and removing house dirt and house offal" was established and placed under a " superintendent of the health department." From 1890 to 1891 this officer was called "superintendent of sanitary police " (Rev. Ord. of 1890, 55), then to be merged again in the street department, the head of which is called superintendent of streets (ordin. of March 9, 1891). The confusion of the departments was due to a confusion of terms. From 1834 to 1834 the city marshal was superintendent of sewers (code of 1834, 246). As late as 1867 the aldermen had a committee on ex- ternal health, and another on internal health. The term police was used by the charter of 1822 in a very general sense, but soon acquired the narrower meaning of police officer, without losing the law sense that recurs in the term " sanitary police." In some instances the terms health and police were used as identical, even by Mayor Quincy, and the city marshal was actually the health officer of the city, under the ordinance of October 1, 1833 (code of 1834, p. 175). The health ordi- nance of May 31, 1824 (code of 1827, p. 170), was entitled "an ordi- nance relative to the police of the city of Boston."
The chief impulse for establishing a regular police force in Boston came from Mayor Eliot, who has left his impressions in other branches of the city government. But it was an error to leave the appointment of all police officers with the mayor and aldermen. Before 1838 the night watchmen were the principal police force. When Mayor Quincy retired from office, he exclaimed : "The name of police officer has in- deed been changed to city marshal. The venerable old charter num- ber of twenty-four constables still continue the entire array of city police; and eighty watchmen, of whom never more than eighteen are out at a time, constitute the whole nocturnal host of police militant, to maintain the peace and vindicate the wrongs of upwards of sixty thou- sand citizens " (Mun. Hist., 2:2). Later the city marshal was given
123
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
deputies to aid him, but the constables continued the chief peace of- ficers. After the act of 1838 (ch. 123) the appointment of regular police officers began; but the first Municipal Register, of 1841, enumerates all police officers in two lines (p. 89), and in 1854 the force numbered but 44 men. After the union with the watch, which took place on May 26, 1854, the department consisted of 236 men. When it passed under the control of commissioners, the force was about :00 strong, every man appointed by the mayor and aldermen. Well might Mayor Cobb ask to be relieved of this business; well might he say that "the affairs of this department cannot be properly attended to by the com- mittee on police " (Inaug. Addr., 1876, 21). Mayor Lincoln had ex- pressed another view in 1864 (Inang. Addr., 25). It was finally under Mayor Pierce, and in part on his suggestion, that the police department was placed under three commissioners, appointed by the mayor and aldermen. At the same time the new commissioners were given the power to grant liquor licenses, which is not, perhaps, a police duty (1828, ch. 244; Mayor Pierce's Inaug. Addr., 1878, p. 20). With un- conscious rashness the whole " administration of police," as mentioned in the charters of 1822 and 1854, was transferred from the aldermen to the new board.
The new board was destined to have a stormy career. The civil- service law of 1884 had not been passed, the commission was exposed to the whole force of municipal pressure. In seven years it had ten different members, and in 1885 it was superseded by a board of three members, appointed by the State. They are appointed for five years, and the first change in the membership of the board was made in 1893. The law requires the board to be selected from the "two principal po- litical parties," the members of the board cannot be removed without the consent of the governor and council, and the expenses of the board in the administration of their department must be paid by the city. The number of patrolmen, and their pay, cannot be increased without the consent of the city. The board, as far as the city had any power to part with, holds all the power vested in the previous board on June 12, 1885. The city council may grant additional power. The mem- bers of the police force hold the power of constables and watchmen, as exercised ever since the days of the Colony. The principle of a board appointed by the Commonwealth, in the exercise of the constitutional right vested in the Commonwealth, but paid by the city, has been called in question, especially as interfering with municipal self-govern-
124
BOSTON.
ment. On the other hand, the city has had the benefit of a quiet and efficient police service, and the political complexion of the board has not occasioned the evils it appeared to invite. For the board is pro- fessedly a body made up of party men. Financially the arrangement has worked well, as a comparison with the kindred fire department shows. A government machine that works well, and satisfies a public want, justifies itself. But it is never well to invoke the country for redressing the evils of the city, and a city is not doing its whole duty when it occasions interference from the General Court. The latter should not be invoked by the city, except to give strength or relief, after the resources of the city and the citizens are exhausted. Nor can the supreme power ever relieve the citizen and the city of their public duty, including that of caring well for their own.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
The history of the Boston health department, as made by the city council, is mournful, and proves conclusively that the charter of 1822 made a mistake when it transferred the power of the old board of health, established in 1799, to the city council, to be exercised at pleas- ure (sec. 14). The law under which the early board acted was excep- tionally good, and the elective board showed great efficiency (see By- Laws of 1818), though Mayor Quincy holds the opposite view (Mun. Hist., 64). From the adoption of the city charter, in 1822, to 1846, the city council was the board of health. Then the mayor and alder- men were the board of health until 1873, when a better arrangement went into effect. The charter of 1822 did not contemplate that the council should be an executive board, but provided expressly that the health power vested in the city council should be carried into execution " by the appointment of health commissioners," or in some other way. The Revised Statutes of 1836 said instead: "In the city of Boston, the city council shall exercise all the powers, and perform all the duties, of a board of health for the said city " (ch. 21, sec. ? ). It is worth adding that the Revised Statutes, being the first codification of the Massachu- setts statittes, were the work of Theron Metcalf and Horace Mann. The clause. due perhaps to the dim ideas then entertained of municipal government, was repealed April 23, 1847, and on June 8 of the same year the city council appointed the mayor and aldermen health com- missioners for the city (Mun. Reg., 1848, 46, 83). They continued to be the nominal board of health until 1823, although the laws of 1849
125
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
(ch. 211) and 1854 (ch. 448, sec. 40) persisted in making the city coun- cil a board of health, with power to delegate their authority, as a board of health, to "any committee of their number." The city council delegated its power to the mayor and aldermen (code of 1851, 102; code of 1863, 306), but created the superintendent of health, in 1853, to carry out all laws and ordinances relating to " the subject of internal health." This confusion ended in 1813, with the appointment of the board of health.
Of course, neither the aldermen nor the city council could do execu- tive health work. In 1824 the work was divided between a health commissioner, who attended to "the external police" or health, especially quarantine matters; a superintendent of burial grounds; and the city marshal, who had control of " the internal police " or health (code of 1827, 170; Quincy, Mun. Hist., 43). In 1833 the city marshal was given control of all health matters, and up to 1853 he was virtually the Boston board of health. The duty of street cleaning and the re- moval of house refuse was transferred, in 1825, to the superintendent of streets, who performed that duty until 1853. In 1834 the city coun- cil treated sewers as a health matter, and required the city marshal, the police officer of the city, " to take the general superintendence of all common sewers" (code of 1834, 246, 144). In 1837 the office of superintendent of sewers was created, thus relieving the city marshal; but the first Municipal Register issued by the city, in 1841, treated the superintendent of sewers, the superintendent of streets, and even the surveyors of highways as parts of the "health department." So did Mayor Lyman in his inaugural address of 1835 (p. 11), as far as sewers are concerned. The division of quarantine, meanwhile, had drifted under the control of a physician, and the superintendent of burials con- tinued his special work. To promote executive efficiency, then, the early city government abolished the board of health, which should have been retained, and divided its power among three departments newly created, but not defined, for in the city the health duties of the city marshal, the superintendent of streets, the sewer department, and the two branches of the city council were commingled. The city marshal, however, was the health officer of Boston from 1823 to 1853. while the superintendent of streets, from 1825 to 1853, removed the street and house refuse.
To terminate this confusion as to "internal health " or police, the city council of 1853 created a superintendent of the health department,
126
BOSTON.
requiring him to execute all laws and ordinances relating to " the sub- ject of internal health." In truth, the superintendent had charge of the city stables and teams, and attended to street sweeping and the removal of house dirt. Later ages will wonder how such a department ever came to be called a health department. Mayors Shurtleff and Gaston (inaug. addr., 1869, 30; 18:0, 52; 1822, 18) insisted that street cleaning was one thing, and that the city needed a professional board of health. Mayor Gaston approved the ordinance of December 2, 1872, under which the health power of the city was transferred to a board of health, consisting of three men. They were to serve three years, and the arrangement has worked well, mainly because the ordinance was reasonable, although it continued the "superintendent of health," as a subordinate of the board, requiring him to "make all necessary arrange- ments for cleaning the streets, disposing of manure, and removing house dirt and house offal, to the entire satisfaction of the board of health " (code of 1876, 403). The Revised Ordinances of 1885 made the superintendent of health once more an independent officer, ap- pointed by the mayor, subject to approval on the part of the board of aldermen, and popularly his division was known as the health depart- ment (auditor's finance report for 1889-90, 97). In 1890-91 the estab- lishment was called the department of sanitary police, to be merged, by the ordinance of March 9, 1891, in the street department, which still calls the removal of house refuse its " sanitary division," beside having a street-cleaning division (rep. of street department for 1891, 1-2). The board of health, on the other hand, has become a great department. It holds all the power of the former board, with some additions. Its quarantine service is good, and beside having charge of cemeteries and undertakers, public baths and lying-in hospitals, the the abattoir, stable permits, and hawkers, it guards the general health of the city. When the city of Boston decides not to have more depart- ments than the government of the United States, the health department may include the inspection of milk and vinegar, the inspection of pro- visions, the registry department, and possibly the hospital department. Certainly there is no reason why the city should not have entrusted absolutely all health matters to the board of health, which has so amply justified the ordinance signed by Mayor Gaston. It is pleasant to add that the chairman of the board in 1893, Dr. Samuel H. Durgin, has been a member of the board from its establishment in 1873, and that the publications of the board have some scientific value.
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.