pality are determined almost wholly by the provisions of its charter.

In colonial times the first municipal charters were granted by the governor; but long before the Revolution we find the legislature taking a part in the government of towns. After the Revolution the legislature took municipal government entirely into its own hands and granted, revoked or amended municipal charters at its will. A century of experiment followed, each State trying in its own way to solve the problem of governing the rapidly growing cities within its borders. A complete history of municipal government in the fortysix States would fill a library. The net result, however, of a long and varied experience may be stated in a few words: The State legislatures remain in complete and undisputed control of cities, and they exercise their power freely. They do not hesitate to change or amend a municipal charter or to revoke one altogether; they will reserve to themselves or will give to the governor the appointment of officers whose duties are of a strictly municipal character; they will raise the salaries of city officers without consulting the city authorities. They may even deprive a regularly elected mayor of his office and give it to another. The habit of State interference with local matters is at times so strong as to threaten seriously the highly prized principle of local selfgovernment.

In some States the constitutions are attempting to protect municipal rights by giving to the people of the city the privilege of framing their own charter, just as the people of a State frame their own constitution.1 Missouri, California, Minnesota, Washington, Oklahoma, Colorado and Michigan are trying this plan. Under this policy the city would stand in somewhat the same relation to the State as the State does to the Union. Locality, State and nation would each be supreme in respect to those things which concern itself.

This is an attractive reform, but it suggests serious difficulties. Under our present system it is a long step down1 See Appendix C.

ward, politically, from the State to the city, immeasurably longer than from the nation down to the State. The State in the limited sphere of its action is supreme: it may educate its youth ill, its laws may be unwise, its courts corrupt, and yet the federal government may not interfere. Shall we make the city as independent of the State as the State is of the federal government? We are told that the care of the streets, parks, sewerage, city lighting, water supply, the fire extinguishment system, and many details connected with sanitary and police administration, should be placed absolutely under the control of the city. But suppose the lighting in the city is so wretchedly poor that criminals thrive in the darkness, or that the police department is inefficient, and that the peace and security of the city are threatened, shall the State not interfere? Shall it make such a surrender of its rights as will prevent it from entering the city and lighting the streets properly and improving the police service? Such questions as these are constantly arising in connection with municipal government, and they indicate how difficult it is to determine precisely where State authority should end and local authority begin.

It is perhaps impossible to draw a clearly visible line between State and local control. The State must keep a firm grasp upon all its parts, counties, townships and cities; and while it should not allow a part to operate against the welfare of the whole, it should nevertheless recognize and encourage the principle of local self-government or "home rule." Experience suggests the following rules for the guidance of the State in its dealings with cities:

1. All charters should be subject to the approval, at least, of the legislature.

2. The borrowing power of municipalities should be carefully restricted.

3. The taxing power should be limited to a certain per cent. of the assessed value of the property.

4. Reports of the expenditures of municipalities should be regularly made to the State government.

5. The municipalities should be given power according as they use it well.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

1. How are the powers of the State divided?

2. Name the functions of the local government.

3. What is the policy of the State in reference to local government? 4. Give an account of the grades of American government.

5. What is a decentralized government? Why is a decentralized government favorable to liberty?

6. How are counties and townships governed?

7. What is a corporation? What are the attributes of a corporation? What is a private corporation? What is a public corporation? 8. What is a municipal charter?

9. How does the legislature act in respect to the government of municipalities?

10. What difficulties lie in the way of municipal home rule?

11. Give five rules for the guidance of the State in its dealings with cities.

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES

1. What are the provisions of the constitution of the State in reference to local government? Can the legislature pass a special law for the government of a city? Have the cities of the State the right to frame their own charters? If not, ought they to have this right?

2. In what way could the present constitution of this State be amended so as to give cities better government than they now enjoy! 3. What is the difference between a charter and a constitution? 4. In a city which of the following services should be rendered by the State and which by the local government?-(a) the regulation of the sale of intoxicants; (b) the paving of the streets; (c) the regulating of the employment of children; (d) the granting of franchises (p. 267) to street railways; (e) the constructing of sewers; (f) the holding of courts of justice; (g) the educating of children; (h) the lighting of streets; (i) the keeping of the peace; (j) the suppression of a riot; (k) the regulation of the use of arms; (1) the construction of waterworks; (m) the collecting of taxes; (n) the regulating of the hours of labor; (o) the operating of gas-works; (p) the inspecting of steamboilers; (q) the inspecting of factories with the view of protecting the health of employees; (r) the maintaining of libraries; (s) the maintaining of parks; (t) the extinguishing of fires.

Topics for Special Work.-State Control of Cities: 14, 85-109. Municipal Government in the United States: 2, 435-451.

XI

PARTY GOVERNMENT

The Origin of Political Parties. There are always differences of opinion as to how public affairs shall be managed. Shall the county have a new court-house? Shall the State compel parents to send their children to school? Shall the federal government assist the locality in the construction of roads? Such questions are bound to divide men into opposing groups. Now government acts through the agency of men as well as through the agency of laws, and if we want it to do a certain thing we must not only have the laws on our side, but we must also have the officers of government on our side. This means that those who favor a certain measure of political action must first become the possessors of political power. They must win the support of public opinion, and they must get votes enough to elect officers who are favorable to the proposed measures or policy. Out of the struggle for the possession of power the political party emerges. Men holding the same political views organize and work together for the purpose of securing control of the government, and when they have secured control they govern as a political party.

The Origin of Political Parties in the United States. The original division of voters into parties in the United States was brought about by the collision of two forces which are always opposing each other in a free country. One of these forces tends to bestow greater and greater power upon government. If certain phases of individual freedom result

in some trifling inconvenience we are sure to find people who will instantly advise that government administer a remedy. When an affair of local government is badly managed there are always people to suggest that that affair be placed under the control of a larger and more central government. If the township does not manage its affairs well they would take its powers from it and give them to the county; if certain functions of the county are not faithfully performed they would have them performed by the State; if the State is remiss in anything they would place that thing under the control of the federal government. This tendency to take power from the local and lodge it with the central government has been called the centripetal force in politics.

In opposition to this centripetal, centralizing force are the people who, jealous of the powers of government, desire to limit them. These would lodge as little authority as possible with the central government and reserve as much as possible for the locality. They would have no interference with the individual except such as is necessary for the peace and safety of society. This tendency to restrict the power of the central government and enlarge that of the locality and of the individual has been called the centrifugal or decentralizing force in politics.

The discussion of the political questions which arose when the Constitution was put into operation offered an excellent opportunity for the free play of the centralizing and decentralizing forces. Those who believed in a strong central government advocated a liberal interpretation of the "elastic clause" (45). Foremost among these was Alexander Hamilton. That great man thought that Congress has a right to pass laws on any subject which relates to the general welfare and which requires the application of money. It is easy to see that under such an interpretation many things could be done by Congress which could not be done either under the enumerated or the implied powers of the Constitution. For example, under such a construction Congress would have the right to take charge of the public