USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia > Municipal government history and politics, Vol. V > Part 2
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
INTEGRAL PARTS.
The Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen, and Common Councilmen composed what was known to the writers of the day as the integral parts. The Mayor was the head of the corporation, and at common law as well as by the charter his presence was essential to the despatch of corporate business. It was his duty, with the Recorder and at least three aldermen, to summon a corporate meeting as they saw occasion, and to preside at such meeting,1 but he had neither by charter nor common law a veto or casting vote.
Any citizen elected as one of the integral parts was liable to fine upon refusal to serve, but such was the expense and labor,.
1 Willcock on Corporations, p. 103.
. 2
1
18
The City Government of Philadelphia.
incident to the office of Mayor, that frequently persons so elected preferred to pay the fine rather than accept. At the expiration of his year of office, it was the custom of the mayor to give an expensive banquet to the members of the corpora- tion, a custom which many of the later mayors abandoned, and, instead, presented the city with an equivalent amount of money.1 At first no salary was paid, and with the growth of the city the difficulty of getting a proper person to serve increased. At length, in 1747, a salary of one hundred pounds was granted ; and although three years afterward the the salary was abandoned, it was subsequently revived.2 In case of misconduct the Mayor might be removed by the Recorder and at least five Aldermen and nine Common Councilmen ; in case of such removal or death, another person was to be chosen within four days, and in the interval the eldest Alderman acted as Mayor. Besides his duties under the charter the Mayor, from time to time, had additional duties imposed upon him by councils. Thus he is appointed City Treasurer; he is ordered once every month to inspect the bread bakers and to seize and dispose of all bread found deficient in weight, according to law.
The Recorder ranked next to the Mayor. The duties of this ancient office are described in Bohun's Privilegia Lon- dini,3 where it is said that the Recorder was " one skillful in the laws and customs of the city, and was chief assistant to the Mayor & Aldermen for their better direction for admin- istering law & justice. And being the mouth of the City he learnedly delivers the sentences and judgments of their Court." His qualifications are thus set down in the book called Liber Albus : " He shall be one of the most skillful and virtuous apprentices of the law in the whole Kingdom. He is to sit on the right hand of the Maior in recording pleas and passing
1 Minutes of C. C., pp. 463, 511.
2 Minutes of C. C., pp. 480, 485, 511, 666.
3 Page 63.
19
Second Period, 1701-1789.
judgments. The Maior & Aldermen set forth all the custom and business touching the City before the King and Council as also the King's court by Mr. Recorder as a chief man endued with wisdom and eminent for eloquence." We have to look to the common law for the qualifications of the Recorder of Philadelphia, as his duties are nowhere set out in detail, but he seemed to be the legal adviser and mouthpiece of the city and drew up the ordinances and contracts. He was elected by the corporation and held office for life, but might be removed for cause by the Mayor and two-thirds of the Aldermen and Councilmen. The Aldermen held office for life by common law and by the charter. They did not represent any ward or precinct. The important distinction between them and the Common Councilmen was the judicial power of the former, and this leads us to a consideration of the judicial functions of the corporation which constituted a peculiar part of the power in the municipalities of that day.
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.
The Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen were appointed by the Charter Justices of the Peace and Justices of Oyer and Termi- ner. This custom of appointing municipal magistrates justices of the peace by charter began much earlier than the reign of Richard II.1 They had both civil and criminal jurisdiction within the city and liberties. The Mayor and Recorder were further of the quorum of the justices for the county.
COUNCILMEN.
The Councilmen held office for life, and did not represent any ward or district. Common Councilmen were not recog- nized by the common law as a select body. They may be said to have been the faint vestige of the ancient liberties once enjoyed by the freemen of the boroughs.
1 Report of English Municipal Coms., p. 17.
20
The City Government of Philadelphia.
Boroughs existed in England from the earliest period. The burgesses were the permanent free inhabitants, performing the duties and enjoying the privileges as the free inhabitant house- holders, paying scot and bearing lot, presented, sworn, and enrolled in the court list.1 The first charter of incorporation was granted by Henry VI., and it superinduced upon the origi- nal character of burgesses that of corporators also. The Common Council or corporate meeting consisted of the definite classes and as many of the indefinite class as chose to attend, without any other qualification but that of being freemen, and such a common council was incident to all corporations of common right, unless otherwise regulated by charter.2 But this right of the commonalty to form part of the Council or town meeting was gradually lost by the usurpation above alluded to, till its restoration in later times in a modified form. At all events the freemen as such had no voice in the Common Council of Philadelphia. The Assembly of the Integral Parts of the corporation in a corporate meeting for the transaction of business, was called the Common Council. The meetings were convened at the call of the Mayor, Recorder, and three Alder- men. Their procedure when so convened was simple. There were no standing committees in the modern acceptance of the term. When a public necessity arose requiring legislation, it was " ordered " by councils that an ordinance be drawn, and the Recorder or a committee consisting of a few of the Alder- men were appointed to draw up an ordinance and report at a subsequent meeting. Frequently a second committee would be appointed to act on the report of the first.
The ordinances were published, if at all, upon single broad- sides, and no accurate record was kept of them. That none of them are extant to-day is not surprising, as appears from the records of the minutes of the Common Council, of which this is an instance : " Alderman Coxe proposed that there has
1 Merewether & Stephen, Hist. of Boroughs, p. v, Introduction.
2 Willcock, ¿ 764.
21
Second Period, 1701-1789.
lately appeared a necessity of putting into execution some of the ordinances, . . . and as the ordinances are dispersed among several members, a committee be appointed to collect and lay them before this Board." P. 657.
All members sat together and their votes were of equal value. They had power to add to their number from time to time, and were authorized to make all such laws and ordinances as were necessary and convenient for the government of the city, and execute them through the proper officers. They might impose fines for the violation of such ordinances. A few officers were regulated by the charter, who were not members of the corpo- ration, i. e. a town clerk to be elected by the corporation, and a clerk of the markets, who was appointed by the Mayor. The Sheriff and Coroner of the county were also to act for the city, but the inhabitants of the city, " to have equal liberty with the county to elect sheriffs and coroners who shall reside within the city." The Sheriff was also Water Bailiff, and as such it was his duty to preserve the river from all encroachment, and exercise a general control over the fisheries.1
THE FREEMEN.
While the corporation, in its strict legal sense, is composed of the integral parts already described, there remains yet another class which once was likewise an integral part, and in a larger sense and for many purposes is to be consid- ered as still forming a part, viz., inhabitants entitled to the freedom, and enjoying in consequence of the incorporation certain franchises and privileges. The freedom was gained by acquiring certain qualifications or by purchase. The qualifications were that the freeman should be a free denizen of the province, twenty-one years of age and a resident of the city, possessed of a freehold estate therein, or a resident for two years, possessed of a personal estate worth fifty pounds.
1 Bohun's Privilegia Londini.
22
The City Government of Philadelphia.
Women as well as men were admitted to the freedom. Besides the qualification of holding office the freemen enjoyed certain privileges, such as the right of retail trade and certain mechanical trades.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
.
The limits of the city were fixed as before; the ends of the streets were to remain free for the use of the people, although the corporation might improve them. The corporation was empowered to erect a gaol and courthouse, and to hold two market-days every week and two fairs annually. The city was constituted a port. Finally it was provided that the charter should be construed most favorably and beneficially to the corporation. Modelled after the corrupted constitution of the old English borough and in a period most unfavorable to municipal privileges, it is not surprising that the power granted in the charter was soon found to be entirely insufficient for the rapidly growing city. As early as 1706 it is ordered, by councils, "that a new charter be .drawn containing such privileges as the present charter is deficient in and sent to the Proprietor." Nothing came of this attempt nor of subse- quent ones to obtain assistance from the Legislature, although several efforts were made about 1710.
REVENUE.
The inability to raise sufficient revenue for the current expenses was one of the earliest and most urgently felt deficiencies in the powers of the corporation, and affords a good illustration of how ill-adapted the antiquated system was to the necessities of a modern municipalty. Neither by the common law nor by grant of the King could there be any right of taxation, although there were certain privileges or duties of talliage. The levy of any general tax was there- fore illegal and a by-law attempting to effect it, void. Such
.
23
Second Period, 1701-1789.
antiquated and jealously restricted powers were ill-fitted to bear the support of streets, police, and other departments which fall within the scope of modern municipalities. In 1704, however, councils made a primitive enough attempt to levy a tax by ordering that every inhabitant keeping cows over two years old should pay twelve pence per annum, for each cow toward " the buying & keeping of the town bull ; " but the cow tax seems to have been insufficient as the Mayor two years later liberally advances the money necessary " for the repairs of the fframe of the Town Bull." Fines furnished a large part of the revenue. They were levied upon persons refusing to accept office, for non-attendance of members at meetings of councils and for frequent violation of laws and ordinances. Some cases are curious ; one person is fined " he being very poor and his wife like to be a charge upon the town ;" and, after the sheriff's commissions are deducted, one Laughlen McClane pays a fine which amounts to £24, 5, 0, for kissing Osborn's wife, -a large sum for those days, which would lead us to infer that kissing was a luxury and women scarce. The fines indeed were frequently severe and seldom remitted. There were certain other fees, and rents for markets and wharves became yearly of importance.
The history of the erection of the market-houses was curious and led in time to bitter complaint by certain citizens against the arbitrary conduct of the corporation in erecting them in the public streets, which in truth was without shadow of right, though generally acquiesced in. Lotteries also were frequently resorted to, and pressing expenses met by subscription to be returned out of prospective receipts. But all these sources became annually more and more insufficient. The corporation performed some remarkable feats of financiering and the con- dition of the treasury grew more and more desperate. Loans were of course speedily resorted to. It is interesting to note one of the earliest and simplest loans made by the city in the ordinance of 1706, providing that any citizen who should advance money for repairing wharves, bridges, and streets
24
The City Government of Philadelphia.
should be repaid out of the first money raised by the city ; but there is no mention of interest. Money was also borrowed from the Legislature. The bad management of the corporation added to the financial difficulty ; promissory notes were taken for fines and frequently paid in goods; rents were long in arrears and collected with difficulty ; subscriptions and advances on the part of members of the corporation were made to be repaid out of the uncertain revenue of the future, and a gen- eral scheme of personal debts and promises existed.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS FOR INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS.
The corporation, as already mentioned, never succeeded in obtaining either from the Proprietor, who indeed could not grant it, or from the Legislature, the power of taxation so urgently required; but at length the necessities of the city became so great that another plan was adopted similar to that followed in England. In the old country it had long been customary not to rely on the corporation alone for the govern- ment of the town, but additional powers were granted from time to time by local acts for various purposes, not to the offi- cers of the corporation but to trustees or commissioners largely independent of them.
A similar course was followed by the Assembly in the case of Philadelphia, and exercised a most important influence upon the development of the City Government. The first act of this character was passed in 1712, and is the basis of subse- quent legislation for the period. The cause of its passage was the great necessity of providing means to pay the public debt and defray the expense of building a workhouse, repairing the public wharves, paving and regulating the streets, and erecting markets.1 Six assessors were to be chosen annually by the voters of the city, who, in conjunction with the Mayor, Re-
1 Bradford's Laws, p. 102.
25
Second Period, 1701-1789.
corder, and Aldermen, annually at the general sessions of the peace or oftener if necessary, were to calculate the amount of the public debt and what sums were necessary for repairing streets and for other purposes. They were to appropriate cer- tain sums to certain items. Constables made the returns of the taxables, the rates were laid agreeably to the county levies, and the assessors appointed the collectors and treasurer of the fund raised ; payments were made on the order of the Mayor, Recorder, and four Aldermen, and the accounts were audited by the Mayor.
STREETS.
One of the most urgent reasons for the passage of this act was the condition of the streets. The first plan of caring for the roads and streets followed the ancient English law, whereby the inhabitants might be compelled to furnish labor for repairs necessary. In 1711 Councils offered the privilege of commuting services for money, but this process was ill- adapted to city needs and customs, and even after the act of 1712 things did not work satisfactorily. Ordinances were passed requiring property-owners to pitch and pave in front of their lots under penalty of having it done for them. Two serious defects existed in the system introduced by the act of 1712. The first was the absence of any head or responsibility among the officers of the corporation and the assessors. Second, the inevitable jealousies and conflicts of authority. Complaints began to be made about 1739-the taxes were badly collected. The Assembly was petitioned for relief to grant a highly characteristic remedy-the erection of still another board of elective commissioners. Such a bill actually passed the Assembly, but the corporation induced the Governor not to sign it. The circumstance is interesting, however, as showing the gradual growth of that distrust of the corporation on the part of the citizens which, as will be seen, reached such a height on the termination of the charter. The second defect was the absence of any executive head to
26
The City Government of Philadelphia.
superintend the department of highways. In 17621 an act was passed with elaborate details for regulating, pitching, paving and cleaning the highways. Still another board is created of six commissioners to act with the assessors, but there is little improvement in the scheme. Under this act and supplements the streets were cared for in a fashion till the charter of 1789. These acts are full of details as to weight of wagons, speed of horses, duty of property-owners, and provide for raising money to defray the expenses of the streets, &c. The study of them is of much importance as illustrating the methods of the time and the evolution of the financial and executive policy.
POLICE.
Parallel with the legislation above referred to should be noted a series of acts relating to watching and lighting the city, and providing for the expense thereof. The modern policeman is a creature of statute. The ancient conservator of the peace was the watch and constable, much after the Dog- berry pattern, and all citizens were bound to take their turn in keeping watch. The first watchman was appointed in 1700 by the Provincial Council, and had the whole care of the city. It was his duty to go through the city at night ringing a bell, to cry out the time of night and the state of the weather. In 1704 the city was divided into precincts. The constable was the chief officer of the watch, which was not a permanent nor paid body. Much difficulty was experienced in getting the citizens to do their watch duty, and there was evidently quite as much disposition to shirk as is now found in the jury panel. There was frequent complaint and even presentment by the grand jury. The agitation culminated in 1749-or rather in 1750-when an act was passed creating another commission, known as the City Wardens, who should have charge of lighting and watching the city, and, with the
MS. Laws, chap. 480.
27
Second Period, 1701-1789.
corporation officers, form a separate board having charge of the matter.
WATER.
The water supply of this period was by means of pumps. They were originally erected and owned by private persons, but their great importance led to various ordinances for their regulation. In 1713 it was ordered that the place where a pump was to be driven " should be viewed by the Mayor, Recorder, and at least three Aldermen." Later it was pro- vided that owners of pumps should hold the same of the cor- poration for the term of twenty-one years under the annual rent of one shilling. In 1756 the control of the pumps was placed in the hands of the wardens, and in the following year they were empowered to assess such householders as used the public pumps.
POOR.
The care of the poor was one of the earliest matters requir- ing the grant of additional powers by the Legislature. By act of 1705 the Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen were em- powered to appoint overseers of the poor ; and the overseers of the poor laid and collected the tax. Later, in 1749, the overseers were incorporated and had power to levy a tax. The heavy charges incident to the support of the poor very early brought about the partial union of Philadelphia with several of the outlying districts. In 1766 Philadelphia was consolidated with the district of Southwark, the townships of Moyamensing, Passyunk, and Northern Liberties, as a poor district.
FIRE DEPARTMENT.
While the danger of fire continually threatened the city the early precautions against it were extremely primitive. The chimneys were considered the great source of danger and people were fined for letting them take fire. From time
28
The City Government of Philadelphia.
to time acts were passed regulating chimneys, prohibiting fir- ing guns, &c., but there was no organization by councils of a fire department. Provisions were made for buckets, hooks, and engines, but the regulations and machinery were crude, and the service in case of fire was entirely volunteer. One hand engine was made in Philadelphia, and one in London. The formation of fire companies was from time to time sug- gested, and in 1736, mainly through the instrumentality of Franklin, the Union Fire Company was established.
PARTY WALLS.
The regulation of party walls early demanded the attention of the Legislature, and in 1721 an act was passed which in its principal features is in force to-day. By this act the cor- poration was authorized to appoint two surveyors or regula- tors, to whose care the regulation of party walls and division fences was committed.
CITY OFFICERS.
Besides the city officers already mentioned there were a number of minor officers appointed by the corporation such as town crier, beadle, wood corder, inspector of water courses, vendue master, appointed by the Governor, officers for measur- ing salt and wheat, a sealer of weights and measures, clerk of council, and a public whipper. A large part of the executive duties of the city was transacted by committees of councils which had but little resemblance to the committees of more modern times; they were merely a certain number of the members of the council to whom, from time to time, as con- venience dictated, certain matters were assigned to be attended to. Thus a certain number of Aldermen were appointed over- seers of wharves and other public works. Sometimes an Alder- man and sometimes the Mayor is appointed city treasurer. After the manner of English boroughs Philadelphia was given representation in the Legislature, distinct from the county, in
29
Second Period, 1701-1789.
1705.1 It is interesting to note that the citizens voted not only for their own burgesses, but also for the representatives from the county at large.
FERRIES.
By the royal charter Penn was given the use and control of ferries, and a right of ferriage was a proprietary grant. The corporation had by charter no power over the ferries and as they increased in importance they became a frequent source of contention between the corporation and the Government.
MARKETS.
The markets were a substantial source of revenue and were built in the centre of the street. In some cases this called forth loud protests from the property-holders, who correctly maintained that the corporation had no right to use the streets for such purpose.
COURTS.
By the Charter, in accordance with the accepted idea of me- diæval times when executive and legislative officers had fre- quently judicial duties and powers, the Mayor, Aldermen, and Recorder had given them large criminal jurisdiction to try all crimes and felonies and misdemeanors ; they had also the pow- ers of justices of the peace and authority to take cognizance of debts in actions burnell and staple. Quite carly in the city's history there was an ordinance establishing a municipal court for the collection of debts under 40s. A curious petition has been found among the Penn manuscripts asking for redress in this matter, dated in 1704: "To the Hon. John Evans Governor The Humble Petition of Diverse poor Inhabitants of the City & County of Phila Humbly sheweth That whereas &c an act of assembly has constituted a justice court for collection of
1 Chapt. 137, MSS. Laws.
30
The City Government of Philadelphia.
small debts, notwithstanding The Mayor Recorder & Aldermen have taken it upon themselves to erect a court for determining small debts & established large ffees & compelled divers of your petitioners to pay the same extravagant ffees & some of your Petitioners not having money to pay their creditors & the said Extravagant ffees have been Kept in the common gaol several weeks until they did find a person to sell themselves unto for a term of years to pay the same & redeem their bodies to the great Ruine & Destruction of themselves & families. May it therefore please Your Honour in your usual Mercy, Clemency & Goodness The premises wholly to consider and deliver your Petitioner & all other the Poor distressed Inhab- itants of this City out of the Jaws of that pernicious, devour- ing & Extravagant Court by taking such methods &c. and your distressed Petitioners & their poor families shall ever most heartily pray as in all humble duty bound for your Honour's health and prosperity."
Possibly as a result of this petition an act was passed May 28, 1715, repealing the city ordinance creating this 40 shil- lings or two weeks court, and making the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace exclusive and final. Except therefore as the Mayor and Aldermen sat as Justices of the Peace, the jurisdiction of the City Courts may be said to have been con- fined mainly to criminal matters-the County Courts being open to the civil suitor.
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.