Home rule. Constitutional provisions for municipal home rule charters for cities, and in some cases also for villages, have been adopted in thirteen states. The operation of these provisions and their applicability to Illinois has been discussed in Bulletin No. 6 on Municipal Home Rule; and the possible extension of such powers to include county government and the consolidation of local governments. in Cook County have been set forth in Bulletin No. 11 on Local Governments in Chicago and Cook County. Attention may, however, be given to the question as to similar provisions for county home rule and the consolidation of local governments in other parts of the state. As already noted, two states (California and Maryland) have recently adopted constitutional provisions for county home rule charters. In both of these states, the constitutional provisions contain a good deal of detail as to procedure. The California provisions also contain much more detail as to the content of county charters and as to county officers; and still further details have been added in a later amendment adopted to meet the special conditions in Alameda county. The result is to place in the state constitution a good deal of what would more properly be statutory legislation; and in the case of the later California amendment what is practically special legislation. Four counties in California have adopted home rule charters; but no county in Maryland has thus far exercised this power. A shorter proposal for county home rule (although also including details of procedure) has been introduced in the Ohio general assembly, with additional provisions for the consolidation of local governments in counties including large cities. But this proposal makes no distinction between the powers of counties and those of cities under the municipal home rule provisions of that state. In support of constitutional provisions for county home rule, it may be said that counties in Illinois (as in other states) differ so widely in size and population and the importance of their county and other local governments, that their detailed regulation by general law makes impossible a satisfactory organization in many localities; and that a locally framed and adopted system of organization will be more likely to be adapted to local conditions. On the other hand, it may be urged that county officers are to a large extent primarily local agents of the state government; and that they should, therefore, be under more direct state control than may be necessary in the case of cities and villages, which are to a large extent organs for distinctly local purposes. If, however, state authority over the state functions of county officers is adequately protected, local control over the organization of county officers would seem to be less open to objection than the present system of local election of such officers without adequate state supervision. Three main types of counties may be recognized in Illinois. Most counties are mainly agricultural in character, with some villages and small cities; but even these vary to a considerable extent in area and population. In sharp contrast with these is the metropolitan county of Cook, with more than 2,500,000 population, mostly in the city of Chicago, but with 80 other cities and villages as well as several hundred other local authorities. An intermediate type is the counties contain ing one or more cities of considerable size; and in which the urban population is a majority of the total population. These counties in turn present a number of variations in size and the distribution of population. Provisions for constitutional home rule would permit different plans of organization to be adopted, not only for the main types of counties, but also adapted to meet the different conditions within each type. If a system of county home rule is considered, it will be advisable on the one hand to avoid detailed provisions such as those in the California constitution, and on the other hand to avoid the vagueness of the proposed Ohio provisions. If a detailed enumeration of county powers and duties in the constitution is to be avoided, it will be necessary to recognize clearly the authority of the general assembly to prescribe duties and to define the powers which must be provided for in home rule county charters. Provision may also be made by which, in connection with county home rule charters, the machinery of local government in any county may be more effectively co-ordinated and simplified. This may be done by authorizing the consolidation of local governments (for large city counties) or the adoption of a federated system, as has been proposed for Alameda county, California. Proposals for county home rule are intended primarily to obtain systems of county government more readily adapted to the needs of counties of varying sizes and interests. The purpose to be accomplished may of course also be attained by omitting detailed regulations from the constitution, leaving to the general assembly wider power than at present to deal with the county problem, through laws generally applicable to all counties or by laws subject to a local referendum. APPENDIX NO. 1. REFERENCES. American Political Science Review. VII. 234 (May 1913), County Legislation. VIII. 411 (August 1913) California's Experiment with (County) Home Rule Charters. IX. 111 (Feb. 1915), The Reorganization of County Government in 1913 and 1914. XII. 678 (Nov. 1918) Special Municipal Corporations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 47 (May, 1913), County Government. Vol. 61 (March, 1916), Movement for Responsible County Gov ernment. Buck, G. S. The Organization of County Government. Academy of Political Science Proceedings, V. 312, (Jan. 1915). Crandall, C. A. The Relation of Cities and Counties to the State. Case and Comment, XXI, 288 (Sept. 1914). Cyclopedia of American Government I, 492. County Government. Dwyer, W. A. Putting Character into Counties, World's Work XXX, 605 (Sept. 1915). Fairlie, John A. Local Government in Counties, Towns and Villages (2d ed. 1914). Fairlie, John A. Town and County Government in Illinois. A report prepared for the Joint Committee of the Forty-Seventh General Assembly on County and Township Organization, and Roads, Highways and Bridges (1913). Gilbertson, II. S. The County. The "Dark Continent" of American Politics. (1917). James, H. G. County Government in Texas. Univ. of Texas Bulletin, June 5, 1917. King, C. L. Chairman. Report of the City-County Committee of the American Political Science Association. Proceedings at the Fifth Annual Meeting (1914). Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. Bulletin No. 8. County Government in Massachusetts. (1917.) New York Constitutional Convention Commission. ernment (1915). County Gov North Carolina Club Year Book. County Government and County Affairs in North Carolina (1918). Proceedings of Conferences for the Study and Reform of County Government. Dec. 1913; Jan. 1914. Proceedings of Conferences for Better County Government in New York State, Nov. 1914; Dec. 1916. Review of Reviews, vol. 46, 604 (Nov. 1912). The Discovery of the County Problem. Vol. 55, 185 (Feb. 1917). Running States and Counties on Busi ness Lines. Russell Sage Foundation. Springfield, Ill., Oct. 1917. City and County Administration in APPENDIX NO. 2. ILLINOIS COUNTIES. List of Illinois Counties with areas, population in 1910, and type of County. Adams Alexander Bond Boone Brown Clinton county government. Area Population - 842 Form of County Organization. 64,588 22,741 17,075 15,481 10,397 43,975 8,610 18,035 17,372 51,829 34,594 23,517 18,661 22,832 34,517 Special Bd. County Commrs. Township organization. Township organization. Township organization. Township organization. |