never lay down an absolute dividing line of course, but the principle of local self-government, if that is what you want to call it, demands that we leave just as much of the administration of all forms of governments, whether it affects the people of the locality alone, or people of the locality in conjunction with the rest of the state, to the people in the locality. I outlined last year a system which I think would work, and it is not pure theory, because it has worked in certain localities. I would let the mayor appoint the chief of police, let the governor remove the chief of police if he refuses to enforce state laws, but let him be re-appointed again in the locality. I think we need the inspection they have in England and other countries in order to standardize the work of our police departments so that the police work of one city can be compared with the work accomplished in another city, and that we should provide that the state government shall pay part of the expense of the police force upon condition that the standard of the work of that force is sufficiently high. I think that would go a long way toward getting efficient enforcement of state laws, because no municipality would want to tax itself for the refusal to enforce certain laws. If the people of the state are so vitally interested in the efficient policing of a city, as I grant they are, it would be nothing more than fair that they should by taxation pay a portion of that expense. Finally I think we need a state bureau of police, to which all police forces should be required to report, so that you can have one central bureau of information regarding police conditions. And, further, I think we ought to have small state detective forces at the control of the governor, who could send men to see whether the statutes are being enforced. I do not think we are going to get in any of our states any such thorough-going system introduced immediately, but a long first step would be to give the governor the power of removing the chief of police for failure to enforce state law. Then the next step would be to require state inspection. That far we might go now without doing violence to any of our principles of home rule. MR. MAYO FESLER, Cleveland, Ohio: I should like to say in behalf of the plan suggested by Professor Hatton, that Governor Hadley, of Missouri, whose life has been made miserable by the police situation in two cities, and who spent about half his time chasing between Kansas City and St. Louis, fully agrees with the position taken by Professor Hatton in his address last year before the National Municipal League. He had some doubt about the state inspection of the forces, but that was a matter of temporary difficulty only. MR. JOHN MARTIN, New York: Professor Hatton said that the argument for the appointment of a police commissioner by the state rests on the assumption that the state is more virtuous than the city. I cannot help thinking that his contention that the governor should have the power of removal of a police commissioner who neglects to enforce state laws, is based upon a similar assumption, namely, that the up-state legislators are more virtuous or wiser than the local legislators, and that anything that they lay down is necessarily for the highest morality and should of necessity, whether the locality desires it or not, be enforced in that locality. Fundamentally I think we have to come back to an examination of the basis upon which we deny the cities the authority to say for themselves what shall be the rule with respect to these matters upon which there is such difference of opinion, gambling houses, saloons and places of ill resort. His examples drawn from England, I think, do not apply in this country, for the simple reason that in England the imperial government is much superior in power, in experience, in impartiality, to the local governments. In America that is not the case with the state governments, at any rate not so markedly. No New Yorker would admit offhand that Albany was superior in wisdom, in virtue, in impartiality, to New York City. For example, in England, subsidies are made by the imperial exchequer to local communities, and the administration of the police is based effectively on that subsidy. The imperial taxes are drawn from other sources than the localities to which the subsidies are granted. If we had that in New York State it would be simply taking money out of Father Knickerbocker's pocket with one hand and putting part of it back in the shape of a subsidy with the other hand, and therefore the same method would, I think, not prove effective. In fact, I should say that the first step to be taken is not to diminish home rule by empowering the governor to remove a police commissioner who in his opinion is not enforcing the state laws, but to extend home rule by limiting the pettifogging interference of the state with the regulation of purely local affairs, such as the hours during which the saloons shall be opened in the cities. MR. ANTHONY PRATT, Detroit: We have a rather peculiar situation in Detroit. Two and a half years ago there was a strong local sentiment for the removal of the police commissioner. We had not the power to remove the commissioner in the city, but had to apply to the governor, and the governor refused to act. Many of us felt at that time that had we been able to have the power of removal placed in the hands of the mayor, even the street railway question, which had been the paramount issue in elections for years and years, might have been subordinated at that time to the question of the re-election of mayor on the ground of his action in matters of police regulation. A largely attended luncheon to consider the question of the commission form of municipal government was presided over by Harvey S. Chase, of Boston, a member of the Executive Committee of the League. In view of the fact that that committee has in contemplation the publication at an early date of a volume dealing with this question only a general outline of the very interesting discussion will be given. Sufficient, however, is included to present in concise form the main arguments pro and con. Dr. Bradford's paper on "A Comparison of Commission Forms of Government to Date" (see pages 246-280) was made the basis of discussion. DR. BRADFORD: Any form of government which can command one hundred American cities is worthy of the most careful and respectful attention from students of government. With this idea, with the thought Popularity of that it might be possible to determine what the results have been in various cities, and what the commission plan really is, it was my privilege to visit a considerable number of cities, Galveston, Houston, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Keokuk, Burlington, Huntington, W. Va., and other cities, and at the beginning I was very doubtful as to what the commission plan could do. Any one who has observed the fads which come in the fields of government and politics as well as in other realms, naturally views with considerable hesitation and some doubt the advent of a brand new system of city government which is heralded as a panacea for all municipal ills, so it was with much skepticism that I studied the charters of these cities, and not until I had visited personally the cities I have mentioned did I come to have a proper conception of what the plan is, how it works and how different it is from the present aldermanic plan under which most of our cities are operating. KNOWLTON MIXER, of Buffalo: The impelling factor in the movement for a new charter has been the widespread dissatisfaction with the present charter. Our investigation has developed this important fact that under the existing charter this city's financial interests are not properly protected. No mayor, no comptroller, no auditor, however honest, can under the present system prevent waste of the taxpayer's money. The movement for a new charter was initiated in 1908, by a resolution adopted by the common council of Buffalo, and approved by the mayor, submitting to the electorate of the city a question which in substance read: "Shall the city of Buffalo ask the Legislature of the state of New York for a new and simplified city charter, which shall provide for the largest possible amount of home rule; to be submitted to the common council of the city, and afterwards to the electors before taking effect?" Pursuant to the adoption of this resolution the Commissioner of Elections of Erie County placed the question upon the ballot to be voted at the general election held in November, 1908. The Buffalo Movement Affirmative Negative When the actual vote on this question was duly canvassed it was found that the people of Buffalo had voted affirmatively on all three of the foregoing questions by the following vote: 13,286 4,346 17,632 Total vote Considering that this vote was an expression by the people on a principle, the poll was remarkably large, being approximately 25 per cent of the total vote cast, and the favorable plurality of more than three to one gave unmistakable evidence of the desire of the voters of Buffalo for a a new, simplified and home-rule charter as expressed therein. During the campaign of 1909 there was submitted to the electorate a petition containing the following question to be placed upon the ballot in November: "Shall the city of Buffalo ask the Legislature of the state of New York to enact a charter for Buffalo in substance similar to the charter proposed by the Referendum League of Erie County.” The second vote was taken at a general election, when forty or more city and county officers were elected. More than the number of names required under the Public Opinion Ordinance were obtained to this petition, and pursuant thereto the Commissioner of Elections placed the question upon the ballot and a vote was duly taken in November, 1909, resulting in an affirmative vote of the city as follows: Voted "Yes" Voted "No" Total vote 8,848 2,498 11,346 ANSLEY WILCOx: Fortunately, there are many things upon which we all agree, and these can be merely stated and passed away from at once. All Points of of us present here are undoubtedly in favor of reformation in the American form of city government, of which Buffalo has a rather bad example-not the worst, but among the worst-calling for radical improvements, either by way of an entirely new charter or a very decided simplification of our existing charter. All of us favor the highest degree of publicity in municipal affairs; all of us favor the most effective form of popular nomination of municipal candidates-direct nominations, if that is practicable, and most of us believe that it is practicable, at least in cities; all of us favor a short ballot for cities-few officers to be elected, and such simple, safe and sure electoral machinery as will enable the voters most readily to record their choice and make it effective; all of us favor the thorough and effective application of the merit system through civil service laws and rules of the highest efficacy; all of us favor the simplest form of city charter, which will fix responsibility directly upon those who possess power; all of us are in favor of home rule in the highest degree that is possible, that is, giving our cities the largest possible degree of authority to rule themselves, even to make their own charters, if that is desirable, and many of us think that it is. Then we come to the question whether a particular method by which it is sought to accomplish these results is the best one, either as applied to cities in general or as applied to the class of larger cities, of which Buffalo is one; and that brings us to the topic of the day, the commission form of government, as applied to the larger American cities, meaning cities of more than 200,000 inhabitants, I will say, to take a fair dividing line. The conspicuous thing about the history of this movement in these last nine years since it started after the flood in Galveston, in 1901, has been that it has been applied to a large number of small cities, none of which I think, reaches 100,000 in population, except Memphis. Memphis adopted it within the last year and has not yet given it anything like a trial; but Des Moines and Kansas City, which had adopted it before, have each about 85,000 inhabitants, and they were the largest up to the time when Memphis adopted it, if I am rightly informed. Another fact to which attention should be called is that most of these cities, even as small cities, have tried the plan for only a short time. The first inquiry in the mind of every serious man who wants to decide this question on its merits is whether any real trial has yet been given this new plan, if it is a new plan and I do not think it is really new, whether it has had a period of trial which demonThe old saying that a new broom sweeps Value and Need of Experience strates its successful working. clean is as applicable to this as to everything else. The two radical defects in this system are, first, that it is not a complete simplification of the city government, it is not a sufficient step in the direction of concentrating authority and fixing reRadical Defects sponsibility. There are five men to whom is given the executive authority, and among whom the responsibility is divided. I object to this division of responsibility. I advocate one man-absolutely one. Then there is no escaping from responsibility. We do not need and do not want five generals for an army, or five masters for a household, or five mayors for a city, but only one. |