USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia > Municipal government history and politics, Vol. V > Part 3
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
The ordinances for this period are, with few exceptions, lost, and there is nothing left to indicate their character except a few titles scattered about in different records. Among these may be mentioned, in order to convey an idea of the character of the municipal legislation : ordinances to restrain the num- ber of dogs, &c., to encourage the building of a slaughter- house, a public burial-ground, to prohibit galloping horses and fast driving; regulating price of victuals, requiring the sellers of meat and grain to open the mouths of the sacks that inhabitants may see what they buy, regulating wages ; to pre- vent frequent and tumultuous meetings of the slaves, gaming,
31
Second Period, 1701-1789.
cursing, swearing ; and finally, "inasmuch as the Recorder reports that certain persons had lately taken upon them to act plays in the city, and as he was informed intended to make a frequent practice thereof, which it was to be feared would be attended by very mischievous effects, such as the encouraging of idleness and drawing great sums of money from weak and inconsiderate persons who are apt to be fond of such kinds of entertainment, though the performance be ever so mean and con- temptible," therefore an ordinance was unanimously passed requesting the Magistrates to send for the actors and to bind them to their good behavior, or to deal with them by such other means as they judge proper.
THE REVOLUTION.
The corporation came to an end by the Revolution, the last records extant bearing date of February, 1776. An act was passed enjoining all officers, such as street commissioners, asses- sors, &c., to exercise their duties till successors were appointed ; and, March 14, 1777, a very important act was passed, provid- ing for the election of Justices of Peace in Philadelphia by wards, reciting the various officers created to act in conjunction with the officers of the corporation, and finally vesting in the Justices of the Peace the functions theretofore exercised by the corporation.1 Municipal affairs fared as well as they could under this meagre skeleton of government left from the wreck of the old corporation. During a part of the time the city was under military rule. The confusion and imminent dan- gers of war and revolution do not account, however, for this long delay of legislative action. The citizens could doubtless have had a new charter as early as 1777, as in that year an act was passed renewing the charter of the borough of Lan- caster, which, having been granted by the Proprietor, was deemed cancelled by the war. In fact the old corporation had
' Bailley's Laws, p. 37.
32
The City Government of Philadelphia.
turned out so inefficient and had so excited the jealousy of the people that there was a general distrust about creating an- other one. As early as 1773 this feeling was very strong among the citizens and gave vent, among other things to a broadside entitled " An address to my fellow citizens Friends to Liberty and Enemies to Despotism," signed Andrew Marvel, in which he charges that the corporation have exceeded their powers, and concludes by calling on the people "to lay the ax to the root of this unprofitable tree and apply to the crown for a dissolution of the charter." While the abuses in Philadelphia were never as extensive as in the towns and bor- oughs of England, they were sufficient to afford ample cause for the universal complaint. The condition of the revenue has been described. The minute distribution of authority and the constant distrust and jealousy between the corporation and the various boards and commissions were principal causes of the disordered condition of affairs. The streets were in a wretched condition. The magistrates and assessors were hampered by the necessity of calling a meeting of the Common Council every time a minute exigency for summons arose, however trivial. The business of the Council was conducted without system, and, in consequence of the absence of officers possessing adequate ex- ecutive authority, the time was largely frittered away in trivial matters. But the leading defect that went to the root of the abuses incident to the system, and explains the distrust and dislike of the people for the municipal government was, that the government consisted of a corporate body, existing inde- pendently of the community. The corporation came to look upon itself as a separate and exclusive body, and, while it had powers and privileges within the city, in many cases all iden- tity of interest was lost. The inhabitants at large possessed very imperfect knowledge of the proceedings of the corpora- tion ; the ordinances which were passed, as well as those re- pealed, were often unpublished or were printed upon loose broadsides ; great ignorance prevailed as to their provisions and those of the acts of legislature and as to the extent of powers
.
33
Third Period, 1789-1854.
granted by the charter. All were naturally violated with impunity. Not the least defeet was that executive officers, appointed by the charter for particular functions, were regarded as a necessary part of the legislative body. This notion originated in times when the separation of constitutional authority was not understood, and when legislative, judicial, and executive functions were confounded. That the public property should be mismanaged was an inevitable result of the system. Thus, while it is almost a maxim of modern legisla- tive assemblies of any kind that the individual members shall not profit in any manner from the public property under their control, the members of Councils were constantly making profit- able contracts with individual members. On the other hand it must be said that the personnel of the corporation was generally good, and comprised many of Philadelphia's most honored names.
THIRD PERIOD, 1789-1854.
At the fall of Penn's Charter with the Revolution, when the war cloud had passed by, the evils arising from the lack of systematic government became so imminent that the memories of past grievances vanished before present necessities, and, in 1783, a petition largely signed was presented to the legislature and referred to the city members. As a result of this petition we have the second charter of Philadelphia, passed on 11th day of March, 1789. The revolution of 1776 was followed by no more radical change in state and national affairs than it introduced into the municipal history of Philadelphia. The legislative charter of 1789 created a modern municipality in sharp contradistinction to the medieval character of the Pro- prietary Charter. The preamble to the new charter set out " that the government of the city, in its present form, was in- adequate to the suppression of vice and immorality, to the advancement of the public health and order, and to the pro- motion of trade, industry and happiness, &c." The Aldermen
3
34
The City Government of Philadelphia.
and Councilmen were elected by the people, the Mayor by the Aldermen, the Recorder by the Mayor and Aldermen. There was still but a single legislative chamber. The ordinances were to be published. The Mayor's Court was continued, and an Alderman's Court established. The duties, powers, con- tracts, and property of the City Wardens and Street Commis- sioners were transferred to the corporation. Such were the substantial provisions of the Act of 1789, though the full text embodies some other important details which may be consid- ered declaratory of the general powers.
CHANGE EFFECTED BY ACT OF 1789.
The radical change effected by this act is one that marks the fundamental distinction between the medieval and mod- ern municipality ; it is the total abolition of the privileged classes and of every vestige of a close corporation. The government is made essentially representative, and the admin- istration of all local affairs is fully placed in the hands of the people through their duly elected servants. The citizens elected the Common Councilmen and Aldermen ; the latter elected the Mayor from their own number; and he appointed such officers as councils thought proper to create. While the essen- tial features of this period were fixed by the Act of 1789, the charter was changed and modified in many important particu- lars by various supplementary acts.1 The bicameral system is introduced, the Aldermen, Recorder, and Mayor are stripped of all legislative prerogatives, and the two former are made appointees of the Governor, to hold office for life or good behavior. The whole legislative power of the corporation was exclusively vested in a Select and in a Common Council, who acted in separate bodies. The Mayor became elected by coun- cils from among the Aldermen, but by Act of June, 1839, his election was conferred on the citizens.
1 Acts of December 9, 1789; April 2, 1790; March 8, 1792; April 4, 1796 ; April 11, 1799 ; February 18, 1805.
35
Third Period, 1789-1854.
The records of this period are of the first importance to the student of municipal affairs of Philadelphia. We begin with the advent of Philadelphia as a modern municipality. The entire personality of the city is changed and the entire cor- porate functions are the direct grant of the new sovereign- the people. The city is now the place, and its people and all freemen have a direct voice in the election of the corporate authorities. It is simply impossible to attempt, in the allotted space, even a very general outline sketch of the various steps of development which took place in this and the following period. The most meagre suggestion of the skeleton of the organic law is all that is possible, so great is the mass of details which make up the municipal history of this century. We must confine ourselves to the general trend of affairs in the hope that such recital may have at least a suggestive value.
The life of the proprietary charter has been considered more fully because it was unique in its way, and an outline of its history did not involve such extensive treatment as does that of later times. From now on, the gravest problems of municipal government crowd upon the city fathers, and wherever we turn we find food and room for meditation. Great economic questions make changes in the departments essential. Gas, steam, electricity, railroads, all combine to introduce new problems and increase the machinery of government.
THE MAYOR.
During this period are noted repeated changes and modifi- cations affecting the Mayor, both as to his duties and methods of election. He was elected first by the Aldermen from their own number, then by councils from the Aldermen, next by councils from the body of the freeholders, and in 1839 by the people from the people. His appointing powers were pro- portionally very great after 1799, for by that act he was authorized to appoint all officers created by the ordinances of
36
The City Government of Philadelphia.
councils, but the act which provides for making his office elective by the people vests in councils the powers to pro- vide for election or appointment of all officers theretofore appointed by the Mayor. Up to the Act of 1796 he was a component part of councils, the meetings of which he or the Recorder called. He had the same judicial duties and had general supervision. He was a paid official after 1796.
The Recorder and Aldermen retained their judicial func- tions but soon ceased to be parts of the legislative body, and by Act of 1796 they became appointces of the Governor.
COUNCILS.
Under the charter of 1789 Councils consisted of the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen, and Common Councilmen. Meetings were called by the Mayor or Recorder. It sat as one body, but, in order to make a valid ordinance, the consent of the Mayor or Recorder, and a majority of the Aldermen and also of the Common Councilmen present, was necessary. The act to alter and amend the several acts incorporating the city 1 made the most radical changes in the government, and especially affected the constitution of Councils. The bicameral system is introduced, though the members of both houses are elected on a general ticket. The meetings are made public, and the whole legislative power is vested in Select and Common Councils, of which the Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen cease to form a part. Councils have power to provide for the election or appointment of all necessary agents or officers. This duty was performed by Councils until 1799, when the appointment of all officers created by ordinance of Councils was vested in the Mayor, excepting the treasurer, who was invariably elected by Councils. In 1839 the Mayor was divested of the general power of appointment, which was again conferred upon Councils.
Act, Apr. 4, 1796.
37
Third Period, 1789-1854.
ASSUMPTION OF EXECUTIVE POWER BY COUNCILS.
If there is one thing in the history of this period which stands out more clearly defined than any other, it is the trend of assumption by Councils of more and more executive duties by placing them in the hands of committees of their own body. The full fruition of this course of action was to be realized and reaped in our own day; but the policy and precedent had been fully crystallized before consolidation. No one can dispute the obvious necessity of any legislative body acting ยท more or less by committees. The time of the whole body would otherwise be frittered away in discussion of details ; but all history teaches us that the constant tendency of all legislative bodies is to absorb, when unchecked, executive and even judicial functions.
GOVERNMENT BY COMMITTEES.
The standing Water Committee is spoken of as in existence in 1806; but it took some time for the development of the system, and not till about 1833 do we see joint standing com- mittees fully recognized by a general ordinance as a per- manent factor. Two years later it is further defined as follows: "That for the purpose of auditing and controlling the expenditure of the city and giving necessary directions to the officers of the corporation, and for the prosecution of the public works, the following committees are appointed, &c." By the ordinance of February 25, 1839, these committees were forbidden to exceed their appropriations. They were to present estimates to Councils for the expenses of their depart- ments, exercise general supervision, examine claims, issue requisitions, &c. The Committee on Finance was then, as now, the most important of the committees ; it had general charge of the fiscal concerns.
It is instructive to note the changes which took place in the scheme of executive government during this short period.
38
The City Government of Philadelphia.
After experiencing the evils of independent boards of commis- sioners, power having been given the corporation to regulate its public works, it concentrated all the hitherto-scattered executive duties in one executive board -- the City Commis- sioners. With a wise recognition of the value of a responsible and effective chief magistrate, the appointment of all city officers was vested in the Mayor; but, as time went on, all discretionary power was taken from the Commissioners and vested in the respective committees, and finally all appointing power was taken from the Mayor. While we can only con- jecture the motives of this change, it is a fair presumption that it arose from the massing of details of business so that, in the absence of any well-digested system, the City Fathers turned to apparently the easiest method, the division of duties among committees ; and the rudimentary principles of sound policy having been violated by the confounding of executive and legislative duties, it is not surprising that the result was weighted with great detriment to the city. An immense business like that of a city must necessarily be very complex ; but it should and must be conducted on a practical, scientific basis if the best attainable results are to be hoped for, and such approximately best results cannot be attained under the faulty system of executive government by com- mittees. It is simply a spectacle of a bundle of uncorrelated forces ; and friction, incompetence, extravagance, and dishonesty might readily be expected. The answer of history does not disappoint that expectation.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
By the acts of 1789-1796 the power of electing Aldermen was vested in Freeholders and that of electing Councilmen in the Freemen ; after 1796 the electoral qualification was defined by the right to vote for Senators and Representatives, and we may therefore infer that State citizenship carried with it the freedom of the city. The medieval charter was, in theory
39
Third Period, 1789-1854.
and practice, a grant of certain governing rights, privileges and franchises from the proprietor to a privileged class. The commonalty may have been named among the grantees, but it was only the patient ass upon whose back the burden was to be laid with no voice as to choice of drivers. In the new municipality the rights and duties of citizenship follow from existent residence. They can neither be assumed nor laid aside by present choice or refusal. The popular sovereignty as expressed by the voice of the Legislature may impose such duties as in its wisdom seems fitting and expedient ; that the residents of a city shall have a voice in the execution of these duties and the appointing of the agents and officers is a well- grounded principle of our institutions, but the manner in which the voice shall be exercised is always within the con- trol of the Legislature.
The importance of the office of City Treasurer was always recognized ; all through this period he was elected by coun- cils and supervised by the Mayor and committees.
CITY COMMISSIONERS.
The necessity for legislative assistance arising from the de- fective character of the proprietary charter has been shown. This defect in the power to administer the most pressing inter- nal affairs was cured, in a measure, by the act of 1789, and the powers and duties of the various commissions were con- ferred on the corporation, which speedily elected an executive board known as city commissioners, who had charge of the public works. In it were combined the duties and powers of the assessors, street commissioners, and wardens, with a view of obtaining a more intelligent and effective service by reason of this concentration. The commissioners were not elected by the people, but appointed first by the Mayor and then by councils. The elaboration of their duties was the subject of frequent ordinances.
40
The City Government of Philadelphia.
HIGHWAYS.
In the consideration of the subject of highways for this, and in fact for every period, one principle must never be lost sight of. Streets and public squares belong, when once dedi- cated, to the general, rather than the local public. The muni- cipality holds them in trust for this general public. The name may be changed, but the idea is well expressed in the old title of the King's Highway. This principle is not theoretical alone, but in its application intimately connected with the multitudinous interests dependent upon the control of the highways. The Legislature may say to a city : You shall have such power and control over your streets, and such only as we grant you-our wisdom alone has the power over the King's Highway. One must examine, therefore, not only the charter of the city, but also the pamphlet laws year by year to come to a correct understanding of the subject at any one time. The care of repairs, cleaning and paving streets was, as we have seen, under the executive charge of the city commis- sioners, but by 1835 the direction of commissioners in this respect was made subject to the oversight and control of the highway committee.
As early as 1807 we note the inception of what has grown . into the survey department. The city was considered the cleanest in America, and both the cleaning and paving stand out in sharp contrast to the work of to-day. But it must be remembered that the compact limits of the wealthy city pre- sented a territory which it was child's play to control and supervise as compared with the 129 square miles of the city and county of to-day.
It would be simply attempting the impossible to follow in this paper the growth of the various departments, many of which grew into permanent shape in this period. The very names suggest a chapter of useful knowledge for each topic : City Property, City Trusts, Girard Trust, Water Department, Fire Department, Gas, Railroads, Poor, Education, Police, Finance, Debt, Revenue.
41
Third Period, 1789-1854.
The poor district was under the charge of Guardians appointed by councils, and the commissioners of the dis- tricts ; this Board had general charge of the control and support of the poor, and levied a tax therefor.
The Port was under the charge of another commission, known as the Port Wardens. It came to consist of a Master Warden, appointed by the Governor, and thirteen Wardens elected by the authorities of the city and river districts.
The health of the city was the subject for the appointment of another quasi-independent commission known as the Board of Health, which, like the Guardians of the Poor, was incor- porated in 1806.
The city introduced the Schuylkill water and organized the water department in 1801. A loan of $150,000 was authorized, for payment of which the entire revenue of the city was pledged. The management of the business was placed in the charge of the Mayor and water committee. The water rents were at first collected by the tax collectors, from lists fur- nished by the committee. Many ordinances were passed from time to time, relative to waste, injury to pipes, nuisances, making connections and disconnections. The history of the water department is one of considerable interest, and the question, as before us to-day, is full of economic interest to the student of municipal questions. For a time, before con- solidation, the city supplied water to the inhabitants of the neighboring districts. Further loans were made for the purchase of the site and erection of Fairmount-works, and the protection of the works led to the purchase of Fairmount Park.
GAS.
The use of illuminating gas dates back as far as 1796, but it was not till 1835, long after it had been in successful operation in other European and American cities, that the subject was acted upon by councils. A gas company was authorized and stock taken, subject to the right of the
-
42
The City Government of Philadelphia.
corporation to purchase the plant and assume the debt, which was done in 1841. Large loans were made for the purpose, and the management of the gas works was placed in the hands of trustees as security for the payment thereof. The last of these special loans was paid off as late as 1885. A certain supervision of the subject has been exercised by coun- cils and committees, and the gas trust has finally been held to be a department of the city.
EDUCATION AND CHARITIES.
The department of Education is a creature of the State, but councils appointed school directors and voted the appropria- tions for support of the public schools in Philadelphia. From time to time various sums of money have been bequeathed to the city for various public purposes, notably the large bequest of Stephen Girard in 1832. These have been conducted and administered by the committee on trusts, and by commis- sioners of the Girard Estate.
POLICE.
The history of the Police Force of this period is of peculiar interest, as it was, so to speak, in a formative era. The police power is inherent in a municipal corporation, and in fact is a primary object of its existence. The exercise of this power or duty may very properly be divided, for convenience of treat- ment, into two distinct branches :
1st. The preservation of the public peace or safety by means of a constabulary, watch or police force.
2d. The enactment of police regulations. These regulations may be as varied and numerous as the peculiar demands of a particular locality require. Their enactment, of course, is an exercise of the legislative function ; their enforcement comes within the strict lines of executive duty.
The lack of adequate protection of the peace was one of the moving causes, both of the charter of 1789 and that of 1854.
.
43
Third Period, 1789-1854.
During the interregnum there was practically no police protec- tion to the city, and even after the Act of 1789 the same radically inadequate system continued. The force, if we may use the term, consisted of the High Constable, the constables, and the watch. By the Act of 1789 the appointment and regulation of the watch were placed in the hands of the City Commissioners, who retained the same till 1833; they were to employ and pay a sufficient number of men.
This was certainly an improvement ; a paid, regulated, and to some degree, disciplined body of men, was substituted for the unreliable and forced service imposed on the citizens as a public duty. The watch at night were wont to call the hours as they went their rounds, with such comments as they thought might be of interest to the wakeful citizen. In 1833 the will of Stephen Girard found public sentiment ripe for a new effort to obtain a better force. The city was divided into four dis- tricts, and the districts into three divisions, with a captain and lieutenant for each district, 24 policemen and 120 watchmen. The police served by day, the watch by night. They had the powers of constables at common law. But the condition of the force was deplorable, despite divers ordinances. In 1838, the mob attacked and burned Pennsylvania Hall, while the Mayor and entire force stood by powerless.
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.