USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia > Municipal government history and politics, Vol. V > Part 8
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
There was one provision of the new charter which was introduced for the purpose of making it more acceptable to those who, like Mr. Quincy, were loath to give up the general town meetings.
The mayor and aldermen were authorized to call general meetings of the citizens qualified to vote in city affairs, " to consult upon the common good, to give instructions to their representatives, and to take all lawful measures to obtain a redress of any grievances, according to the right secured to the people by the constitution." This provision has never been of any practical value ; but it has been retained in the charter to this day, although several attempts have been made to repeal it. The acts of such a meeting would have no legal standing, and their moral influence would depend, of course, on the purpose of those who took part in the pro- ceedings.
V. THE REVISED CHARTER OF 1854.
No changes of importance were made in the laws govern- ing the city until the year 1854, when a complete revision of the charter was adopted by the general court, and accepted by the city.
27
Revised Charter of 1854.
99]
The need of increasing the power of the chief executive had long been felt, and with that view the mayor was given a qualified right to veto all acts of the city council, and all acts of either branch involving an expenditure of money. But the administration of the police and the general executive powers of the corporation were vested in the board of alder- men, which was increased to twelve members. The mayor was authorized to preside at meetings of the aldermen, but he had no vote. Practically the power of the mayor was curtailed, instead of being enlarged, although that was not the purpose of those who framed the new charter.
As chairman and member of the board, which had not only succeeded to all the executive powers formerly exercised by the selectmen of the town, but which had equal powers with the common council as a legislative body, the mayor was in a position to exert an important influence in the management of city affairs.
But what was wanted was greater direct power and responsi- bility, so as to make the mayor in fact, as well as in name, the chief executive. By giving the aldermen all the powers originally vested in the selectmen, and afterward in the mayor and aldermen, the new charter left the mayor with a mere show of executive power without the substance. He con- tinued for some years to appoint the aldermanic committees and to act as chairman of the police committee, but he acted only on sufferance, and naturally with a view to conciliate those who were the real masters of the situation.
The powers of the city council in the election of heads of departments, and in raising and appropriating the public money, were not changed. The school committee was enlarged to six persons elected from each ward, to serve for three years ; the aldermen ceased to be members of the committee,1 and the mayor was made chairman ex officio. As the expendi-
1 When a vacancy occurred in the committee during the interval between the annual municipal elections, it was filled by the committee in conven- tion with the aldermen.
28
The City Government of Boston. [100
tures of the city increased, the members of the city council began to take a more active part in the executive business. Standing committees of the two branches were appointed on the differ- ent departments of the government, and the officers elected to manage the departments were practically made subordinate to them. The amount of money which the city council was authorized to raise by taxation, or by borrowing on the city's credit, was limited only by the general-statute provisions in relation to the objects of municipal concern.1 By the city ordi- nances, and the rules of the two branches, the committees had absolute control over a large portion of the annual appropria- tions made for the different departments. It is not to be
1 By the present laws of the commonwealth, cities and towns are author- ized "to grant and vote such sums as they judge necessary for the fol- lowing purposes " : Support of public schools ; relief, support, mainte- nance and employment of poor ; laying out, making, etc., highways, and town-ways ; writing and publishing town histories ; burial-grounds ; destruction of noxious animals; necessary aid to disabled soldiers and sailors and their families ; erecting monuments, decorating graves, etc., in memory of those who fell in the late war ; conveying pupils to and from public schools ; the detection and apprehension of those committing any felony ; the maintenance of free public libraries and reading-rooms ; for centennial celebrations (not exceeding one-tenth of one per cent. of assessed valuation) ; to encourage the planting of shade-trees (not exceed- ing fifty cents for each of its ratable polls in the preceding year) ; to erect and maintain public baths ; to supply the inhabitants with pure water. In addition to the foregoing objects, cities are authorized to appropriate annually, for armories, for military companies, for the celebration of holi- days, and for other public purposes, a sum not exceeding one-fiftieth of one per cent. of its valuation.
As to the power of cities and towns to make appropriations for objects not specially enumerated in the statutes, the Supreme Judicial Court of the commonwealth has said, " An unlawful expenditure of the money of a town cannot be rendered valid by usage, however long-continued. A casual or occasional exercise of a power by one or a few towns will not constitute & usage. It must not only be general, reasonable, and of long continuance, but it must also be a custom necessary to the exercise of some corporal power, or the enjoyment of some corporate right, or which contributes essentially to the necessities and conveniences of the inhabitants." Hood v. Lynn, 1 Allen 103, 106 (1861).
29
Revised Charter of 1854.
101]
wondered at that under such a system the tax rate and debt of the city reached alarming proportions.
In the meantime the character of the population was rapidly changing. In 1840, steamship communication between Bos- ton and Liverpool was established, and special facilities were afforded for the transportation to this country of the poor classes in Great Britain and Ireland. In 1820, as already stated, the inhabitants of Boston were almost wholly of American origin. In 1850, the population had increased from 43,298 to 138,788, of which 53,923 were Irish, 2,666 Germans, and 7,877 from other foreign countries, making a total of 63,466, or 45.73 per cent. Of the 75,322 inhabitants of American origin, about 48,573, or 64.49 per cent., consisted of those, and the descendants of those, living in Boston in 1820; 10,263 of those who had come from other parts of Massachusetts ; 14,094 of those who had come from other New England States ; and 2,392 of those who had come from still other States of the Union. By the census of 1855 it appeared that the whole number of foreigners was 85,507, an increase of 22,041 in five years.
The last national census (1880) gave a total population of 362,839, of which only 36.44 per cent. were pure natives- i. e. native-born with native parents. The foreign-born numbered 114,796-those born of foreign parents 116,311, those born in the United States and having both parents born here 131,742.
That the influence of the foreign-born population began to be felt in municipal politics soon after the tide of immigra- tion set in strongly is shown by the fact that a new political organization, called the Native-American party, put forward a candidate for mayor in 1845, in opposition to the Whig and Democratic candidates, and after a prolonged contest elected him.1 Later, when the Native-American, or " Know-
1 A majority of all the votes cast was required by the charter then in force. Eight ballots were taken before the Native-American candidate received the requisite number. The charter of 1854 provided that a plurality should elect.
30
The City Government of Boston. [102
Nothing," party obtained control of the State government, the State constitution was amended so that no person of foreign birth could vote or be eligible to office until he had resided within the jurisdiction of the United States for two years subsequent to his naturalization, and was otherwise . qualified, according to the constitution and laws of the com- monwealth.1 The gallant service which the residents of foreign birth were prompt to render when the war broke out in 1861, made the dominant party in the State rather ashamed of the restrictive legislation, and in 1863 the con- stitutional amendment was annulled without serious oppo- sition, and naturalized foreigners were put on the same basis as other citizens.
VI.
RECENT CHANGES IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
Since 1854 there have been many changes in the laws relating to the government of Boston, but there has been no complete revision of the charter. During, and immediately following, the war the city's expenditures increased very rapidly. In 1860, with a population of 177,992, the amount of the tax raised for all purposes (State, county and city) was $2,530,000, and the rate was $8.99 on $1,000 of the valua- tion. In 1865, with a population of 192,318, the amount of tax was $6,521,921.84, and the rate was $15.80 on $1,000. Meanwhile the city debt had been considerably increased. While the manufacturing industries of Boston had been greatly stimulated by the war, its commerce had been seri- ously impaired, and it was for a time a question whether, for want of proper facilities for the transshipment of products from the West to Europe, the city was not going backward.
1 Art. XXIII. Amendments to Constitution, adopted 1859. Annulled by Art. XXVI. 1863.
31
Recent Changes.
103]
Many of the well-to-do citizens established their legal domi- ciles out of the city limits, in order to escape the heavy taxes on their personal property.
The increase of city expenditures called for a corresponding increase of service on the part of city-council committees, and, as no direct compensation was allowed, an indirect com- pensation was sought by the less scrupulous members. There was, in consequence, a marked deterioration in the character of the governing body elected by the people. The annexation of adjoining cities and towns had the effect, for a time at least, to arrest the downward tendency. Between the years 1867 and 1873 two cities and three towns, containing a population of about 86,000, were united to Boston. Probably more than half the voters thus added had a larger interest in the pros- perity of Boston than in the municipality in which they had formerly exercised their right of suffrage. But so long as the city council was permitted to exercise executive as well as legislative powers, to raise an unlimited amount of money by taxation, and also by borrowing on the city's credit, and to make its committees the real heads of the executive depart- ments which had the spending of the money so raised, it was impossible long to preserve a high standard of efficiency, economy, or even honesty. Under this vicious system of administration several of the principal executive departments of the government were reduced to such a state of incom- petence and corruption that the pressure of public opinion compelled a partial reform by substituting for the city-council committees, commissioners appointed by the mayor and con- firmed by the concurrent vote of the aldermen and councilmen. In 1873, a commission 1 was appointed " to revise the charter and other laws relating to the city, and report the same in a
1 The commission consisted of Benjamin R. Curtis, formerly a justice of the U. S. Supreme Court ; George T. Bigelow, formerly chief justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts; Otis Norcross, formerly mayor of the city ; Lemuel Shaw, son of the late chief justice, who drafted the original charter ; Arthur W. Austin, formerly collector of the port.
32
The City Government of Boston. [104
new draft." The draft, submitted two years later, provided that the terms of office of the mayor and the members of the city council should be extended to three years ; that the city council should have entire control over all appropriations of public money and the purposes for which it was to be expended ; that the heads of the several executive depart- ments of the government (whose powers and duties were carefully defined) should be selected and appointed by the mayor and confirmed by concurrent vote of the two branches of the city council; 1 that no member of the board of aldermen or common council, acting either individually or as a com- mittee, should make any disbursement of public money, or perform any executive duty whatever, except as specially authorized by law. In their report the commissioners described the changes which had taken place in the popula- tion, the extent of territory, and the amount of taxable property since the first city charter was granted, and then went on to say :
2 " Instead of a small, compact community, the leading cit- izens of which were well known to each other, it has become a large metropolis, with a population spread over a large extent of territory, divided into numerous villages, widely separated, having but few interests in common, and the inhabitants of which are but little known to each other. With these changes have come their natural consequences. Many institutions, public works and organizations have grown up or been established, such as the public exigencies
1 This proposition-that the mayor's appointments should be subject to confirmation by the city council-was introduced with a view to secure the favor of the council in getting the measure through. But as, under the existing system, the council had the sole power of selecting the principal heads of departments, it was not disposed to accept the compromise. One ingenious member of the common council proposed that the two branches should select the officers by concurrent vote, and that the mayor should have a qualified right to veto the action, the same as in the case of orders and ordinances.
'No. 2 City Docs. Boston, 1875, pp. 5-6.
33
Recent Changes.
105]
require, and which have added largely to the duties of the public officers of the city, essentially changed their character and rendered their administration more difficult and compli- cated. Among these may be named the introduction and supply of water ; the maintenance of a large police force ; the care and preservation of the public health ; the efficient man- agement of a fire department ; the great increase of public ways and streets to be laid out, widened and kept in repair ; the multiplication of public schools, and the establishment of hospitals and libraries.
" The enumeration comprises only a portion of the duties now required of the servants of the city. All of them need constant care and supervision, in order that efficient and faithful service may be exercised in the expenditures of the large amounts of money necessary to their support.
" It would seem to be clear that duties so numerous and important cannot be properly superintended and managed by persons who render gratuitous services only, or who are chosen to office not for their experience in the duties which they may be called upon to perform, or their peculiar fitness and skill in the work of the different departments which they may have in charge. The city is a great corporation, upon which is devolved not an abstract duty only of providing for the public welfare, but the practical work of the city in admin- istering its various departments and executing the public works committed to its care. No prudent individual or well- conducted business corporation would trust the management of important affairs to the care of inexperienced, incompetent or inadequately paid agents. No good reason can be given for the adoption of a different policy by the city. The great object in providing for the performance of official services in behalf of the city should be to so regulate it that its servants should, as far as practicable, be trained by experience and practice, and be subject to proper control."
The recommendations of the commission naturally received little favor from the city council, and as there was no citizens'
34
The City Government of Boston. [106
organization to press the matter before the Legislature, the elaborate scheme of government, which had been prepared with much care, was tossed back and forth between the two branches of the council for a time and then suffered to drop out of sight. It was undoubtedly open to the criticism of covering too many of the details of administration, of estab- lishing too many offices and departments, and of failing to give sufficient power and responsibility to the chief executive. It took ten years more of committee misgovernment to bring the taxpayers up to the point of demanding a radical change of the old system ; and it was then accomplished by ignoring the city council and appealing directly to the Legislature.
In 1884 a commission, consisting of the chairman of the board of aldermen, the president of the common council, and three citizens selected by the mayor, was appointed to exam- ine the laws relating to the city and report what changes, if any, were necessary or expedient by reason of the increase in area and population. The three members of the commission selected by the mayor, constituting a majority, united in a report which stated very clearly the debased condition of the city service, and which was accompanied by a series of prop- ositions intended to secure greater efficiency, economy, and responsibility in the administration of local affairs.
It appeared that, under the system then in force, the differ- ent city officers were elected or appointed as follows: The mayor, three street commissioners and twenty-four school committeemen were elected by the qualified voters on a gen- eral ticket; twelve aldermen were elected by districts ; sev- enty-two common councilmen were elected by wards; the city clerk was elected by the city council in convention ; the heads of eight departments were appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by concurrent vote of the city council ; one hundred and seventy officers, most of whom received good salaries, were elected by concurrent vote of the city council ; the election officers (856 in number), the constables, and one hundred and twenty-nine other officers, most of whom were
35
Recent Changes.
107]
paid by fees, were appointed by the mayor subject to confir- mation by the board of aldermen; nine superintendents of bridges were appointed by the aldermen alone. The mayor had power to appoint a single clerk for his own office, but beyond that all his appointments were subject to confirmation.
The commission found that. property, both real and per- sonal, was more heavily taxed in Boston than in any other large city in this country. The expenditures on city account, exclusive of payment on account of interest and city debt, amounted to $27.30 for each inhabitant. The expenditures in New York at the same time amounted to $16.76 ; in Bal- timore to $11.67 ; in Philadelphia to $10.15; in Cincinnati to $10.63.
"It is true,".the commission said, " that the city govern- ment of Boston does more for the comfort and convenience of the people than the government of the cities with which its expenditures have been compared ; but it does not do enough more to account for the very great difference in the rate of taxation. The numerous independent departments in the government, and the exercise of executive powers by committees, afford an excellent opportunity to those who seek an expenditure of the public money for purposes by which they will be directly or indirectly benefited. Our system encourages such applications, and, as a consequence, promotes 'jobbery' and 'log-rolling.' Reduce the number of depart- ments and place them under a responsible head, less amenable to political influence, and there would be fewer demands upon the treasury and a more careful scrutiny of such demands when made. . . . . In recommending that the legislative power of the local government be vested in the city council, and that the executive power be vested in the mayor and cer- tain heads of departments, we are recommending what long experience has shown to be the only safe and practical method of carrying on the government.
" The state of confusion which exists in our government, and the almost unexampled burden of taxation which rests
ยท
36
The City Government of Boston. [108
upon the people, are due largely, if not wholly, to the departure from that method. If the city council is deprived of executive power, its remaining duties can be better per- formed by one body than by two. When the attention of the voters is directed to the selection of men for one board, they will be likely to exercise more discrimination than if their attention is divided between selections for two boards. One body having the responsibility is more amenable to public opinion than two, and the voters can more easily fix the respon- sibility. By relieving the council of the wear and tear which accompanies the selection of the subordinate executive officers, and by relieving its committees of executive duty, it will be possible 'for men of business, competent and trustworthy, who have, with all honest citizens, a common and personal interest in the public welfare, to take part in the legislative branch of the government.'
"In place of the present council of seventy-two persons, elected by the several wards, we propose a council composed of two persons from each of the wards into which the city is or will be divided. This will give an adequate representation to all sections of the city. The body will not be too large for the prompt transaction of business, and it will not be so small that interested parties can easily control the majority.
"In order to carry out the idea of separating the executive from the legislative department, it is necessary that the mayor should have the appointment of all heads of executive depart- ments.
" We have already stated the objections to giving him the sole power of appointment.1 There are also serious objec-
1 The commission appointed by Governor Tilden to devise a plan of gov- ernment for the cities in New York, stated in their report, submitted in 1877, that "to bestow upon the mayor the absolute power of appointment and removal of all the principal executive officers would, in the great cities, render him an autocrat. Responsibility for maladministration would, it is true, be easily fastened upon him ; but to apply the remedy of deposition from power at an election would be a difficult task. To put into
37
Recent Changes.
109]
tions to placing the power of confirmation in the legislative branch. It is in violation of the principle which, as we have shown, lies at the foundation of responsible government. How, then, can we place a check upon the arbitrary exercise of power without unduly interfering with the executive power and responsibility ? The only satisfactory solution of the prob- lem appears to be the establishment of an executive council, composed of a small number of persons, elected from the cit- izens at large upon the minority-representation plan.
" We propose, therefore, that at the election of mayor and members of the city council each voter shall vote for three executive councillors, and that the five persons having the highest number of votes in the whole city shall be declared elected ; that the persons so elected shall constitute an exec- utive council to act upon the mayor's appointments of city officers ; that they, with the mayor, shall exercise the powers now vested in the street commissioners, and shall also per- form certain duties now performed by the board of aldermen in relation to the inspection of prisons and houses of detention, the payment of State aid, and the auditing of county accounts.
" The office being one of real power and importance, but one which will not require so much time as the present alder- manic office, with its executive and legislative duties, will call
the hands of a single man the control of twenty millions of dollars, with liberty to use it to keep himself in place, would be suicidal. On the other hand, to require the concurrence of the aldermen in appointments is to divide and destroy responsibility." A solution of the difficulty, not entirely satisfactory to the commission, was found in giving the mayor the sole power of appointment, except in the case of the chief financial and chief law officers, and checking his power of removal by requiring for that act the approval of the Governor of the State. Commenting on this, and on the condition of affairs in Brooklyn, where for some years the sole power of appointment had been vested in the mayor, the Boston commission said : " That it would not be expedient to give the sole power of appointment to the mayor, and that it would be equally unwise to place the confirming power in the legislative department, are propositions which rest on sound principles ; but experience has shown that the difficulty is not to be met by placing the mayor under the control of the chief executive of the State."
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.