Libraries, Parks, and Playgrounds.--The educational advantages furnished by the city are not for the children alone. Public libraries and museums serve adults as well. Recreation is provided by means of parks, public playgrounds, and open-air gymnasiums. These will become more common when their educational influence is more fully understood.

Committees or Boards.--The important questions that arise in connection with administrative departments are, how shall they be organized? and how shall the officers who control them be appointed? Two general methods prevail: (1)In the smaller cities the members of the council are grouped into _committees_, which have charge of the various administrative departments. In large cities there are _boards_ or _commissioners_, distinct from the council, and these may be composed of salaried officers. In either case the board may employ a superintendent to take charge of the work under its jurisdiction. The princ.i.p.al criticism which can be offered against this method of managing administrative departments is that responsibility cannot be definitely located. No single member of a board or commission will a.s.sume responsibility for mismanagement; and when responsibility is divided among several persons, none of them feels it very strongly.

(2)Single Heads of Departments.--As a remedy for this defect, administrative departments in some cities are placed under the control of _single officers_. These are given authority to appoint their subordinates, and they are held strictly accountable for the management of the department. Responsibility is further concentrated in some cities by giving the mayor power to appoint these heads of departments.

The Commission Form of City Government.--This form is found in a number of cities throughout the country. In place of the mayor and council these cities have a small body of men (generally three or five) who both make and execute city ordinances. They are elected at large from the city. Each of the commissioners is in charge of one or more of the city departments, and all subordinate officers are appointed by them. The commissioners are expected to devote their entire time to their duties and they are paid liberal salaries. Thus, it is hoped, city government will become more business-like and efficient.

In most cities that have the commission form provision is made for the _initiative, referendum_, and _recall_. The initiative enables a body of citizens who sign a pet.i.tion to obtain a certain law by popular vote, if the commission refuses to pa.s.s it. The referendum enables citizens to vote for or against a law that the commission has pa.s.sed, and thus to repeal it if they desire. Under the recall a member of the commission can be made to stand for re-election, or else to resign, at any time during his term of office, if a certain number of citizens pet.i.tion for this action.

Qualifications of City Officers.--Grave questions are involved in these matters of organization, but the efficiency of city government depends in the greatest measure upon the character of the officers who are placed in power. We need to recognize the importance, in city affairs as in private business, of securing officials who are qualified by training and by successful experience to serve the public. Economy and honesty in munic.i.p.al government cannot be expected when politics alone determines appointments to office. The establishment of civil-service-examination systems in certain cities is a step in the right direction.

Public Utilities.--Besides the administrative departments already mentioned, we have in large cities those which control the supply of water, light, and transportation facilities. The industries furnishing these necessities may belong to the city, but in most cases they are owned by individuals and corporations.[5] Even then they should be subject to strict regulation by the city, for several reasons: (1) These industries make use of public streets. The right to do this is granted by the council in a _franchise_. (2) The product that is supplied being in each case a necessity, it is the duty of the city government to protect the citizens from any abuse or inconvenience that may arise in connection with it. (3) In nearly every case the industries in question are monopolies; i.e., compet.i.tion between rival plants is not possible. For this reason the public may suffer either from high rates or from imperfect service.

[Footnote 5: On this topic see "Government in State and Nation," pp.

33-36.]

The Question of Munic.i.p.al Ownership.--The opinion is gaining ground that no amount of munic.i.p.al control will cure the evils of private ownership in these industries. Since they are "natural monopolies," it is argued they should be operated by the city government. This opinion is seen to have great weight when we consider the corruption and the lack of attention to the public welfare that accompany the granting of franchises to corporations. The bribery of aldermen and the granting of valuable privileges without compensation are frequent occurrences. On the other hand, the facts that bad officers are sometimes elected in our cities, and that they ignore public interests, raise a very serious question whether they should be intrusted with the management of great industries, such as water and lighting plants and street-car systems.

Reasons for Poor City Government.--Other arguments may be made on both sides of this question of munic.i.p.al ownership; but there are fundamental reasons why the cities of the United States are, on the whole, poorly governed, which must receive consideration before this question can be settled. The conditions accounting for the evils of munic.i.p.al government may be briefly stated as follows: (1) City governments are necessarily complex, and, in their administrative departments especially, a mult.i.tude of details must receive attention.

Citizens find it difficult to understand these transactions and even more difficult to follow them closely. (2) City governments must spend vast sums of money, and this fact is a standing temptation to dishonest men both in and out of office. (3) The rapidity with which cities have grown has increased the difficulty of their problems. (4) Individuals and corporations have found it necessary to secure franchises from cities for the operation of important industries; this has opened many opportunities for corruption in city affairs. (5) The presence of large numbers of foreigners who are ignorant of governmental affairs has enabled corrupt politicians to exert great influence upon the voters in city elections.

The Reform of Munic.i.p.al Governments.--Having reviewed the princ.i.p.al causes for the evils of munic.i.p.al government, let us now consider some of the conditions that are necessary for bringing about reforms.

(1) National politics should be entirely separated from city affairs. It may be impossible to prevent the nomination of candidates by the regular political parties; but within each party local issues, not national, should determine the selection of candidates. At the polls the voter should cast his ballot independently of party considerations.

(2) Public interest in munic.i.p.al affairs and the existence of a strong civic pride are conditions that are essential to the election of good officers and to the purity of city government.

(3) Before we can have better city governments every citizen must recognize his _responsibility_, not only on election day, but on every occasion when he can help in the work of detecting wrong, punishing corrupt officials, and encouraging better things in all departments of city life. This means unselfishness in one's att.i.tude toward the public welfare; it means willingness to sacrifice time and effort in the public service. The example set by many eminent persons who have devoted themselves unselfishly to the accomplishment of reforms in our great cities may well be imitated by every citizen in the smaller affairs of his city or his ward. And the younger generation of citizens, who are yet students in the public schools, may exert no little influence toward the betterment of the city; and they may aid in the formation of that better public sentiment without which no improvement in our standards of munic.i.p.al government is possible.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS.

Outline for the study of your city government.

1. Was the city organized under a general law of the State, or was it granted a special charter? Does the legislature enact special laws for the city?

2. The mayor: term, salary. What are his princ.i.p.al powers? Should his responsibility be increased?

3. The council or board of aldermen: number of members, term of office, manner of election, compensation?

4. The munic.i.p.al courts and judges.

5. Administrative departments: make a complete list of these. Are they controlled by boards or by single officers? How do the officers obtain their positions? Are they paid salaries? Of what business does each have charge?

6. How are the water, lighting, and street-car plants managed? Do you believe in the munic.i.p.al ownership of any of them? Give reasons for your opinion.

7. How do police officers receive appointment? If an officer fails to enforce an ordinance, what course would you take to secure its enforcement?

8. Are party lines closely adhered to by voters in city elections? Are independent party organizations formed? Are they successful?

9. What can you learn of reform movements that have taken place in your city's history? Give the causes for the success or failure of these.

10. What is the cost of your city government per annum? Is it economically administered? What are the princ.i.p.al items of expense? Has the city other sources of revenue besides taxation?

11. What are the excellent features of your city's government? What are its faults? How may the latter be corrected?

12. Mention some ways in which students can a.s.sist in bringing about better conditions in your city.

REFERENCES.

1. Reinsch, Young Citizen's Reader, 80-83. Hoxie, How the People Rule, 63-83. Dole, Young Citizen, 93-108; 132-139.

PART II.

THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

CHAPTER V.

EVENTS LEADING TO THE FORMATION OF THE UNION.

Colonial Relations.--Why was union so long delayed? How was it finally accomplished? These are always questions of great interest to the student of American government. We note the general indifference toward union among the colonies before the Revolutionary War. This may be partially accounted for by the fact that each colony had its own separate government, and was jealous of all outside interference. Lack of good roads and methods of travel made extensive communication between the scattered settlements difficult. Prejudice against strangers, and especially those of a different religious belief, was common. Bonds of sympathy, however, between the citizens of different colonies were not wholly lacking. Their language and customs were mainly English. Their chief desire was to develop a government according to their own plans.

Common interests were at times created because of the necessity for providing protection against their Indian, French, and Dutch foes. In general, we may say, confederation was early brought about through need for defense, but union has been the result of two centuries and a half of growth.

Union of the New England Colonies, 1643.--A notable attempt was made to form a confederation among the colonies in 1643. It is known as the New England Confederation, and included Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, New Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven colonies. Their united energies were necessary to furnish protection against dangers from the Indians.

The Dutch and French also tended constantly to encroach upon their rights. The governing body of this confederation was a board of commissioners. In the annual meetings of the commissioners, two being sent from each colony, questions of war, relations with the Indians, and other matters of mutual interest were discussed. But this central government possessed advisory powers only. The colonies were to provide for their own local government. The confederation became constantly weaker, and was finally dissolved in 1684. Seventy years were to elapse before the call was sent out for a meeting of delegates from all the colonies at Albany, but the influence of the New England Confederacy was felt, no doubt, during that period.

The Albany Congress, 1754.--Open hostilities with their enemies became more and more frequent. From the outbreak of King William's War, in 1689, to 1754, the date of the Albany Congress, there were at least a dozen intercolonial conferences called to consider means for the common defense. Plans for union were also prepared. The most interesting is that of William Penn. In it the word "Congress" is used for the first time in connection with American affairs. As the final struggle with France for the possession of America was about to begin, a "Congress" of twenty-five of the leading men from seven different colonies met at Albany. They were called, primarily, for the purpose of making a treaty with the Iroquois Indians. This object secured, the resolution was then unanimously adopted that "A union of all the colonies is at present absolutely necessary for security and defense." Franklin's famous plan providing for a permanent federation of all the colonies was also adopted. When submitted to the colonies, it failed to receive the ratification of a single one. Nor was it acceptable to the English government. Said Franklin, "The a.s.semblies all thought there was too much prerogative, and in England it was thought to have too much of the democratic."

The Stamp Act Congress, 1765.--After the pa.s.sing of the stamp act by the English government, the Ma.s.sachusetts house of representatives invited the other colonial a.s.semblies to send delegations to a general congress. Nine colonies responded by sending twenty-eight men to the congress in New York City, October 7, 1765.[6] During the session of two weeks, these delegates drafted pet.i.tions to the English government and declared that the rights of the colonists were the same as those of the natural-born subjects of England. It is noteworthy that representatives had again a.s.sembled on the motion of the colonists themselves. The growth of common interests was well expressed by Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, when he said: "There ought to be no New England man, no New Yorker, known on the continent; but all of us Americans."

[Footnote 6: Virginia, New Hampshire, Georgia, and North Carolina sympathized with the movement, but did not send delegates.]

Committees of Correspondence.--Nine years were to go by before the meeting of another congress, but the colonists were prepared for a united effort at the end of this period. No sooner were the contents of the Townshend acts of 1767 known than Ma.s.sachusetts issued a circular letter to the other colonies, asking for combined action against all such unconst.i.tutional measures. The other colonial a.s.semblies agreed with Ma.s.sachusetts. Another movement which made the Revolution possible was begun by Samuel Adams. In November, 1772, he prevailed upon the Boston town meeting to appoint a committee which should carry on a correspondence with committees organized in other towns of that colony.

Rights and grievances were the chief subjects for consideration. Other colonies adopted this plan. Led by Virginia, the idea was carried one step further, and in 1773 were formed committees of correspondence between the different colonies. Thus they were prepared for united action in the First and Second Continental Congresses.

The First Continental Congress, 1774.--When the coercive acts of 1774 had been pa.s.sed, Ma.s.sachusetts, now in greatest need, called for a congress of all the colonies. Delegates from all, Georgia[7] excepted, a.s.sembled at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774. In the Declaration of Rights, and in the adoption of the Articles of a.s.sociation, they gave full expression to colonial sentiment. They commended the resistance of the people of Ma.s.sachusetts. They declared that all "America ought to support them in their opposition," if force should be used in carrying out the measures of Parliament.

[Footnote 7: Georgia was in sympathy with this movement.]