USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia > Municipal government history and politics, Vol. V > Part 1
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.
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
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT HISTORY AND POLITICS
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
3 1761 00811397
STUDIES IN HISTORICAL &POLITICAL SCIENCE
PRESENTED To
THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO BY THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
BALTIMORE
1890
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
!
http://www.archive.org/details/citygovernmentof05alliuoft
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor.
History is past Politics and Politics present History - Freeman
VOLUME V
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
HISTORY AND POLITICS
PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY N. MURRAY, PUBLICATION AGENT BALTIMORE
1887 SEEN BY PRESERVATION SERVICES
DATE ... .. JAN
1989
LA
5
COPYRIGHT, 1887, BY N. MURRAY.
4/10/20
JOHN MURPHY & CO., PRINTERS, BALTIMORE.
IS 1265 A45
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE.
I-II. City Government of Philadelphia. By Edward P. Allinson, A. M. (Haverford) and Boies Penrose, A. B. (Harvard), 1
III. City Government of Boston. By James M. Bugbee, . 73
IV. City Government of St. Louis. By Marshall S. Snow, A. M. (Harvard), Professor of History, Washington University, 135
V-VI. Local Government in Canada. By John George Bourinot, LL. D., Clerk of the House of Commons of Canada, . 175
VII. The Influence of the War of 1812 upon the Consolidation of the American Union. By Nicholas Murray Butler, Ph. D. and Fellow of Columbia College, 247
VIII. Notes on the Literature of Charities. By Herbert B. Adams, 277
IX. The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. By James Bryce, M. P., 325
X. The Study of History in England and Scotland. By Paul Fredericq, Professor in the University of Ghent, · · 383
XI. Seminary Libraries and University Extension. By Herbert B. Adams, . 437
XII. European Schools of History and Politics. By Andrew D. . 471
4 White,
Index, . . 547 ·
I-II
THE CITY GOVERNMENT
OF
PHILADELPHIA
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor
History is past Politics and Politics present History .- Freeman
FIFTH SERIES
I-II
THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF
PHILADELPHIA
BY EDWARD P. ALLINSON, A. M. and BOIES PENROSE, A. B. Of the Philadelphia Bar
BALTIMORE N. MURRAY, PUBLICATION AGENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY January and February, 1887
COPYRIGHT, 1886, BY N. MURRAY.
JOHN MURPHY & CO., PRINTERS, BALTIMORE.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE.
Introductory
7 Analysis of the Subject 9
First Period, 1681-1701
10
Evidence of Organized Local Government prior to 1701 11
Second Period, 1701-1789. Penn's Charter.
14
Character of Penn's Charter
15
Integral Parts
17
Judicial Functions
19
Councilmen
19
The Freemen
21
Miscellaneous Provisions. 22
Revenue .. 22
Legislative Provisions for Independent Commissions.
24
Streets
25 26
Water
Poor
Fire Department
Party Walls.
28
Ferries
29
Markets
29
Courts
29
The Revolution
31
Third Period, 1789-1854 33
Change Effected by Act of 1789
34
The Mayor 35
Councils 36
Assumption of Executive Power by Councils. 37
Government by Committees. 37
Elective Franchise 38
City Commissioners. 39
Highways. 40
5
Police
27 27 27 28
City Officers.
.
6
Contents.
PAGE.
Gas 41
Education and Charities. 42
Police
42
Finance
.44
Review of the Third Period.
47
Fourth Period, 1854-1887.
48
City Controller
50
Gas and Water.
51
Police
52
Poor
52
Port Wardens and Board of Health
52
Fairmount Park
53
Trusts and Charities
53 53
Education
54 54
Relation of City and County
Finance
55 55
Collection of Taxes
55
Board of Revision of Taxes.
56
Expenditures
57
"Pay as You Go" Act of 1879
58
Contracts.
59
Sinking Fund
59
The Reform Movement.
61
Fifth Period, 1887. The Bullitt Bill.
65
Act for the Better Government of Cities of the First Class, &c .. 66
Department of Public Safety. 67 67
Department of Public Works.
Department of Receiver of Taxes.
67
Department of City Treasurer.
68 68 68
Department of Law.
69
Department of Charities and Correction
69
Sinking Fund Commission 69
69
Impeachment.
70
Contracts.
70
General Provisions 70
Conclusion 71
Public Buildings Commission
Estimating Expenses.
Department of City Controller
Department of Education.
Appointments of Officers, Clerks, &c.
THE CITY GOVERNMENT
OF
PHILADELPHIA.1
FROM the first of April, 1887, the municipal government of Philadelphia will be administered under a new charter, the fourth in historical sequence, generally known to local fame as the Reform Charter,2 or Bullitt Bill. It is claimed by its friends that this charter is the most advanced step toward the scientific government of great cities yet made.
For a full understanding of its advent, the causes which called it into being and the remedies for present evils which it purports to bring, one must be somewhat familiar with the continued history of the City Government from the earliest times, for the story of the Bullitt Bill goes back to the landing of Penn and the founding of the city.
While there are numerous works on the history of Pennsyl- vania and Philadelphia, general and special, treating of both
1 A Paper read before a special meeting of the Historical Society of Penn- sylvania, November 22, 1886, representing the result of investigations made by Edward P. Allinson, A. M., and Boies Penrose, A. B., in preparing a vol- ume on the subject for the Extra Volume Series of the Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Studies.
2 Strictly speaking, acts of the Legislature are not charters in the legal sense of the term. A charter is a contract or grant non-revocable at the pleasure of the grantor, while all acts incorporating towns or cities may be altered or revoked at the pleasure of the Legislature. The term, however, is conventional, and is so used.
7
8
The City Government of Philadelphia.
earlier and later times, nowhere is there to be found any his- tory of the city of Philadelphia considered strictly in relation to its evolution and growth as a municipal corporation.
As the result of what we believe has been a laborious and exhaustive examination of all the evidence now available, we venture to present a condensed review in which are marshaled the salient features of the municipal history of our great city. Tempting though we have often found it, we have rigidly denied to ourselves any comment on what may be called the extra-municipal story and influence of Philadelphia, picturesque and potent as these have often been. The records of over two hundred years of municipal life present such a cloud of wit- nesses, demanding a hearing with such imperative fervor, that lay history, even when intimately bearing on the main ques- tion, has had to be passed by in silence ; although, perhaps, there has been thereby a loss of color and even of perspective.
We shall, in these pages, avoid the puerile error of com- plaining of the wickedness and corruption of professional poli- ticians. It is very common to speak of that class as something outside of and apart from the ordinary citizen. The laws which govern human nature are, in the long run, just as certain as those of mathematics and the physical sciences ; they admit of the possibility of more occasional elasticity, but in the end are as rigidly binding. The politician, professional or otherwise, follows the stamp of his age; he is just what his age or his environment demands or permits, neither better nor worse. The rules of his morality may differ from those of the clergy- man or the merchant, but it weighs about as many ounces to the pound, and we are inclined to think that, from his intimate acquaintance with human nature, he gives better weight. We have indulged in this preamble because we consider it involves a truth often lost sight of, and because we wish any criticism hereafter made to be understood as applied rather to the sys- tem than the actors.
Any plan of government which ignores the peculiar mani- festations of human nature, as exhibited in a particular time
9
First Period, 1681-1701.
or place, must in a corresponding degree prove a failure. The best plan is that which, founded on experience, makes due allowance for the necessary weakness as well as the general integrity of humanity, and grasps every chance of enlisting its better elements, which are always sufficient when called into activity. The trouble is not so much to care for emergencies; any people when stirred to its depths will take good care of itself; but it is to be looked for in the every day, prosperous times, when the Muse of History has to emigrate to find em- ployment. The most potent factors, which the lawgiver must keep always in sight, are the indifference and selfishness of the so-called better class of citizens. In formulating a city gov- ernment we must calculate on the indifferent watchfulness of the ordinary citizen in ordinary times. We should therefore endeavor to enlist the love of gain, of power, of fame, on the side of the public weal, and to do this we must make an hon- est public life systematically easy as well as possible to a pro- fessional politician. Even as it is, the practical politician is a useful citizen ; he is shrewd, far-sighted, tireless and often hon- est, as this world goes ; but practical men as a class never work continually for nothing or simply for abstract patriotism. We must have the possibility of certain, reasonably compensated, honorable continuance in public service if we expect that serv- ice to be honestly devoted to the public weal, and finally we must have executive power and responsibility so centred as to be quickly and definitely accountable to the public will if mal- administered. Let us see how far the life of municipal Phila- delphia has conformed itself to these cardinal laws.
ANALYSIS OF THE SUBJECT.
The life of the City of Philadelphia divides itself into five sharply-defined periods :
I. First period from 1681-1701.
This era of 21 years covers the period prior to the first or proprietary charter.
10
The City Government of Philadelphia.
II. The second period, 1701-1789.
This era covers the life of the proprietary charter, which fell with the Revolution, and the thirteen sub- sequent years of suspended municipal life.
III. Third period, 1789-1854.
For nearly three-quarters of a century what is now known as the old city grew and prospered under the legislative charter of 1789 and the divers acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, up to the Act of February 2, 1854, known as the Consolida- tion Act, when the city and county were merged.
IV. Fourth period, 1854-1887.
During this period Philadelphia has staggered, in common with other great cities, under a burden of laws, ordinances, customs and practices often resulting in legislative and executive maladministration.
V. Fifth period, 1887-
Is that of full development, as shown in the complete application of the Reform Charter.
FIRST PERIOD, 1681-1701.
When Penn landed on the shores of the Delaware in 1682, he came armed with quasi-regal power and found English institutions and laws engrafted on, and somewhat modified by, Dutch and Swedish customs; but his beloved city was settled on virgin soil, and presented a white page for legislation. The city, after the site had been twice purchased from the Swedes and Indians, was laid out under William Markham, Penn's Lieutenant-Governor, by Thomas Holme. The land which was to form the Province of Pennsylvania and its terri- tories passed into the hands of the Proprietor by royal charter and deed of confirmation from the Duke of York, under whose rule it had been for some years, and the colony formed one of the three proprietary governments.
By Section 10 of the Royal Charter Penn was authorized " to divide the country into towns, hundreds and counties, and
11
First Period, 1681-1701.
to erect and incorporate towns into boroughs and boroughs into cities, and to make and constitute fairs and markets therein." The scheme of government entered into between Penn and the adventurers contemplated the foundation of a city ; and an allotment of city lots was made to each original purchaser of land in the Province. This town or city was laid out, as we see, by Penn's agent, Markham, before Penn's arrival, and received the name of Philadelphia. The Province was divided into three counties-Philadelphia, Chester, and Bucks-which, together with the three lower counties of the territories, (Delaware), made up the division of Penn's domain.
Under the Duke of York we find the township the political unit, although not in the integrity established in New Eng- land. Under Penn, however, we must, from the beginning of his rule, look to the county as the unit. In the absence of complete records of this period regarding many details of administration, this fact, if kept in mind, will save us from embarrassment and enable us to. predicate certain conclusions with reasonable assurance, which otherwise we could hardly infer with certainty. Especially true is this in fixing the date of the birth of Philadelphia as a municipal entity.
By Penn's Frame, Section 10, it is provided "that the Governor and Council shall at all times settle and order the situation of cities, ports and market-towns in every county." 1 The boundaries of the city were fixed as follows: From what is now Vine street, on the north, to what is now South street, on the south, along the Delaware river nearly a mile in front or breadth on said river, and westward about two miles between said streets to the River Schuylkill.2
EVIDENCE OF ORGANIZED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO 1701.
When Penn arrived at Philadelphia, most of the people were living in caves on the banks ; but a number of houses
1 Duke of York's Laws, p. 95.
2 Holme's Map of Philadelphia.
12
The City Government of Philadelphia.
were soon erected, and, in the minutes of the Provincial Council and Acts of Assembly, we read constantly of the "town of Philadelphia" or the "city of Philadelphia." But obviously these terms may have had no significance apart from the designation of a more thickly-settled spot laid out and surveyed for a town, and established as a port and market. The use of the term city implies potential rather than actual attributes.
On the other hand Acrelius, in his New Sweden, p. 112, published in 1712, speaks of Philadelphia having received its first charter in 1682, but our investigation leads us to think this a mere dictum, or very probably a reference to Penn's charter to the colonists of that date. The records of the Pro- vincial Council, under date of 5 mo., 26, 1684, have the fol- lowing minute: "Thos. Lloyd, Thos. Holme, Wm. Haigue, appointed to draw up a charter of Philadelphia, to be made a Borough, consisting of a Mayor and six Aldermen, and to call to yr. assistance any of ye council." This was before Penn's departure. There is no record that this committee ever acted. Prior to this, in 1684, a bill passed second reading in the council providing for "3 members for ye council and 6 for ye assembly from ye city of Philadelphia," but there is no record of a third reading or co-ordinate action by the assembly, and evidence is wanting as to any member sitting for the city as distinct from the county. Whether the town was really made a borough, as thus indicate.l, is not clearly shown, but there is undoubtedly evidence of some sort of government existing in 1691, but how organized or created does not clearly appear. The minutes of the Provincial council for 1691 and 1692 are lost or destroyed, but the office of Recorder of Deeds shows, in the nature of perpetuated testimony, the proceedings of the citizens of Philadelphia in 1753 to secure the dedication of the Blue Anchor landing for public use forever. These proceed- ings1 recite the minutes of the Provincial Council as being
' D. B. H. No. 7, p. 92. Penn. Hist. Magazine for April, 1886, p. 61.
13
First Period, 1681-1701.
then extant, and recite the reference of these minutes to the action of Humphrey Murrey, "the present Mayor of the City of Philadelphia," and speak also of the " Mayor and Alder- men." In Penn's charter of 1701, creating the City Corpo- ration, he says : "I have by virtue of the King's Letters Patent . .. erected the said town into a borough and do by these presents erect the said town and borough into a city, &c." From the weight of the evidence, then, we can safely infer that there must have been some local authority exercised prior to 1701 ; but the interest therein is mainly historical, for the traces thereof are vague and shadowy, and the corporation of that date seems to have been a new creation rather than an evolution of any local growth or customs of the infant town.
Up to that time there was hardly room and no imperative demand, in the nature of things, for any clearly outlined municipal life, apart from the autonomy of the county. The period when each settler was supposed to have a town lot had hardly been outgrown, and there is considerable evidence to show that Penn had conceived the idea of having all settle- ments cluster around a town which was to supplement the outlying farms, although this idea was quickly given up. The entire machinery was based on the county as the unit. County judges appointed by Penn, assisted by the grand jury, provided for much of the primitive local administration ; they levied and collected the taxes, laid out roads, other than King's highways, which fell to the Council, and provided the meagre local administration necessary to the primitive wants of a people to whom governmental functions came as a public tax or duty to be avoided rather than sought. The township and town meeting had no existence as we see them in New Eng- land. The Provincial Council had wide powers jointly with the Proprietor when present, representing him when absent. It sat as an Orphans' Court, a Court of Appeals, a Privy Council, a Senate; it proposed all bills to the lower house, tried old women for witchcraft and young men for drunken- ness ; passed regulations to punish negroes who disturbed the
14
The City Government of Philadelphia.
peace by gadding about the streets ; took cognizance of defect- ive drains, grading, market regulations, the size of bakers' loaves, and divers other kindred minutiæ which in New England would have been within the province of the town meeting.
The proceedings of the public meeting, above referred to as discovered in the office of the Recorder of Deeds, antiquated and forgotten as they are, have considerable historic value, and they may at least be taken as evidence that some sort of organi- zation existed among the citizens, whether formally delegated by the Proprietor or assumed by themselves. That officers known as Mayor and Aldermen did then exist is certain, but it is very curious that there should not remain some direct or incidental allusion to a municipal organization if such existed, because the proceedings of that time, while primitive in one sense, were very formal in all creative details, and the authority of the Proprietor was ample and unquestioned, and his pre- rogatives carefully guarded. We must, therefore, conclude that such organization as existed must have been of fugitive duration or of very limited powers.
SECOND PERIOD, 1701-1789. PENN'S CHARTER.
The charter of 1701, it may be fairly said, introduces the municipality of Philadelphia as a well-defined corporate entity. It was granted by the proprietor just before he left the Province on his second and last visit. While there is little or no record of the moving cause for such action, yet even at this distance sufficient motive is not difficult to imagine; the actual and potential importance of the place was great and the need of some sort of well-defined local government, apart from that of the Province, must have been obvious to the methodical Quaker. This charter signed and published by Penn, October 25, 1701, is worthy of careful study, not only as a chart under which Philadelphia affairs were conducted for seventy-five years, but also as contem-
15
Second Period, 1701-1789.
porary evidence of the then accepted notion of a municipal corporation by which even such a liberal and far-sighted statesman as Penn was ruled in formulating the scheme of government for his town which he had faith would become a great city.
As has been noted, this charter was granted by virtue of the authority conferred upon Penn by the royal charter. The charter of 1701 differs from subsequent ones in this important particular, that the former was created by the grant of the proprietor and the latter by act of Legislature. While the Legislature as the ultimate sovereign authority may grant such powers as it chooses, the King or his delegated agent, the proprietor, was restricted in many ways. He could not incorporate a community without its consent ; and while he might confer the usual powers of a municipality he could not grant extraordinary powers out of the course of the common law, as power to punish by forfeiture or imprisonment, or an exclusive right of trading.1
CHARACTER OF PENN'S CHARTER.
In accordance with these principles, Penn's charter resem- bled in its outlines a typical constitution of an English town such as prevailed from the close of the middle ages to the Reform Act of 1835. A close corporation is constituted under the name of "The Mayor and Commonalty of the city of Philadelphia," consisting of a Mayor, Recorder, eight Aldermen, and twelve Common Councilmen, and possessing the five usual powers of a corporation. The first corpo- rate officers were appointed in the charter. The Mayor was elected annually from the Aldermen, by at least five of the Aldermen and nine Common Councilmen, the Mayor or Recorder being present. When so elected he had to be presented to the Governor to be accepted. The Recorder,
1 Dillon, 2d ed., Vol. I, p. 108.
16
The City Government of Philadelphia.
Aldermen, and Common Councilmen, held office for life. The corporation might add to their number from time to time.
The important characteristic of such a charter from which many legal consequences followed was that, strictly speaking, the corporation proper was not the place or inhabitants, but a close self-elected corporate body, existing, as it were, inde- pendently of the community in which it was constituted, and possessing certain powers to govern the inhabitants. This constitution was reached by the boroughs of England after many years, in consequence of the dislike on the part of the authorities of popular elections, and, more especially, in con- sequence of the intrigues of the crown to control the election of the burgesses to Parliament. The franchise of returning members to Parliament was granted to a great number of towns about the time of Edward the First; and from that time they obtained great political importance. At first, to strengthen itself against the barons, the crown encouraged popular elections, until, perceiving it had a more formidable opponent to its powers, it began to assume a different policy and to endeavor to secure the return of its own creatures by dis- couraging popular elections of the municipal magistrates, and raising a sort of burgher aristocracy. In Elizabeth's reign the judges, upon the application of the privy council, deter- mined that from usage, within time of memory, a by-law may be presumed as restraining to a select body the right of election of the principal corporators, though vested by the ancient con- stitution in the general assembly of the freemen. In the reign of James I. they went still farther and determined that the King could, by his charter, incorporate the people of a town in the form of select classes and commonalty and vest in the whole corporation the right of sending representatives to Parliament, restraining the exercise of the right to the select classes ; and this was the form of all the new corporations. Charles I. was dethroned by the power of corporate represen- tation, then at its height, while the Protector unable to cope with them expelled them from the house. In the reign of Charles II. the famous quo warranto proceedings to repeal
17
Second Period, 1701-1789.
the charters of the obnoxious corporations on pretence of for- feiture were brought; judgment was given against London and the charter forfeited. Such consternation was spread among the other towns that most of them let judgment go by default or surrendered their charters and received new ones in return. Although the old charters were restored in the succeeding reign, the select classes, unwilling to relinquish their power and supported by the royal party and the decis- ions of the courts, retained in their grasp the municipal power, and by this means prevented the restoration of popular elec- tions until the Municipal Reform Act of 1835. The charter of Philadelphia was granted during the reign of Charles II., subsequently to the quo warranto proceedings just referred to. This was the period in which the liberties of the borough were most oppressed and the crown most active in attempting to restrain popular elections. Granted in such a period, it is not surprising to find the first charter of Philadelphia marked by many illiberal features compared with the modern idea of municipal privileges, or compared with the usually enlight- ened policy of Penn.
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.