7. 435 437 438 New York (Proposed, Constitution, 1915). 10. Wisconsin Proposed Amendment, 1919. 438 442 445 447 I. SUMMARY. The State and Municipal Government in Illinois: At the basis of the legal relations between the state and municipal government in Illinois is the principle of legislative supremacy, except as modified by provisions in the state constitution. Under the first state constitution which contained no definite restrictions, this doctrine was expressed in judicial opinions in sweeping terms; and while later opinions have recognized the limitations in the second and third constitutions, the general principles of legislative control, except as specifically limited, have been restated. Until 1870 municipal government in Illinois was regulated for the most part by special laws for particular towns and cities. A general law for incorporated towns was enacted in 1831, but special legislation continued for many towns as well as for all cities. Up to 1848 the total amount of this legislation was not large; but with the rapid development of the state after that date, it increased rapidly; and from 1857 on, there was a flood of special and private laws. In 1869 there were four volumes of such laws, with a total of 3,350 pages, of which 1,850 pages related to cities, towns and schools. The result was a bewildering chaos of legislation, with no. semblance of policy or responsibility. A few provisions in the Constitution of 1848 had placed some restrictions on the General Assembly, mainly in reference to counties and taxation for corporate purposes; but these had practically no effect on the legislation for cities and towns. In the Constitution of 1870 a sweeping prohibition on special legislation for cities, towns and villages was adopted, also a constitutional limitation on municipal debt, and provisions relating to special assessments and requiring local consent for street railways. These restricted the power of the General Assembly over municipalities, but there was no positive grant to cities of municipal home rule. Beginning with the optional law of 1872 for the incorporation of cities and villages, legislation on municipal government in Illinois has been general in form. The number of separate acts and the volume of such legislation has increased steadily, and now forms a total of probably 500 pages in the most generally used edition of the Statutes. This legislation also lacks systematic arrangement, and presents a confusing mass of detailed provisions badly in need of orderly codification and simplification. To some extent variations in the laws relating to municipal. government have been secured by the passage of optional laws, by the classification of municipalities, and by provisions for special districts. Optional laws, adoptive by popular vote, have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Classification has also been recognized to some extent; but while not carried so far as in some other states, no one definite system of classification has been put in force. Laws for special districts have multiplied the number of overlapping local authorities and added much to the complexity of local government in Illinois. In addition to special arrangement secured in these ways, an amendment to the Constitution adopted in 1904 has authorized special legislation for Chicago subject to a local referendum. Some laws have been adopted under this provision; but a comprehensive charter framed by a local convention, but modified by the General Assembly (in 1907), was defeated at the local referendum. Section 4 of Article XI, requiring the consent of the local authorities for street railways in cities, as first construed by the Supreme Court, appeared to give cities a large measure of control over such utilities. But in later decisions it has been held that this is subject to the paramount police power of the legislature in all matters that affect the public safety, welfare, comfort and convenience. Under present conditions, local communities in Illinois are protected from arbitrary legislative interference; but there is a demand for a larger degree of municipal home rule. Status of Municipalities in Other States. The prevailing rule in American States, as to the basic legal relations between the state. and municipalities is the same as in Illinois. Municipal corporations are created by the state, derive all their powers from the state, and are subject to the control of the state legislature, except as limited by the state constitution. Under the earlier state constitutions, with few restrictions of any sort on the legislature, the power of the legislature over local governments was practically unlimited. But in later constitutions and amendments provisions have been adopted restricting legislative control and also restricting municipalities. Most state constitutions now contain provisions relating to counties and county officers. Massachusetts in 1821 required a local referendum on the formation of cities; and beginning with New York in 1846 several states have provisions for the local election or appointment of city officers. Beginning with Indiana and Ohio in 1851, special legislation on municipal corporations has been prohibited in thirty states, while several other states impose some restrictions on such special legislation. These provisions have checked legislative interference in local affairs; but by means of the classification of municipalities and the continued practice of detailed legislation, a good deal of what is practically special legislation continues to be enacted. In a few states other methods have been adopted. In New York special city laws are subject to a suspensive local veto by the mayor or mayor and council; and in Michigan special acts must be submitted to a local referendum. In a number of states several optional plans of city government have been authorized; but none of these methods gives municipalities full authority to work out their own system of local organization. Constitutional provisions have also been adopted for the limitation of municipal debts. Beginning with New York in 1846 the legislatures in a number of states are definitely required to limit the taxing and borrowing powers of municipalities. Beginning with Indiana and Ohio in 1851, thirty states prohibit municipal aid to private corporations; and several other states have partial limitations. Since about 1870 constitutional limitations on the amount of municipal debt have been adopted in twenty-eight states, South Carolina and Nebraska limiting the aggregate debt of all municipal corporations; and many states have other restrictions. These constitutional restrictions have been criticised as too rigid; and some states have modified them by exempting loans for public utilities. While some control over municipal debts is necessary, it is doubtful if this can be completely regulated by constitutional provisions. Municipal Home Rule: In a few states legislatures have passed acts authorizing cities to amend their charters or adopt new charters. An Iowa Act of 1858, for this purpose, was referred to in the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1870. Similar acts have been passed more recently in Louisiana (1896), South Carolina (1899), Mississippi (1900), and in Connecticut and Florida (1915). Such laws have been held constitutional in Iowa and Mississippi; but there are very few cases where action has been taken under them. Similar acts passed in Michigan (1899) and Wisconsin (1911) have been held invalid as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power; and a less far reaching home rule act passed in New York in 1913 has not been used, owing to distrust as to its validity. Beginning with Missouri in 1875, thirteen states have adopted constitutional provisions authorizing cities to frame and adopt their own charters of municipal government: California (1879), Washington (1889), Minnesota (1896), Colorado (1902), Oregon (1906), Oklahoma (1907), Michigan (1908), Arizona (1911), Nebraska, Ohio and Texas (1912), and Maryland (1915). In Missouri this power is given only to cities of over 100,000 population, and in Maryland only to Baltimore and the counties of that state. In the other states it applies to all cities (sometimes also to villages), or to all over a minimum population (from 2,000 in Oklahoma to 20,000 in Washington), and in California also to counties. This power has been freely used in most of these states; and altogether more than 200 cities and villages are now operating under home rule charters, including fifteen of the thirty largest cities in the country. In most of the constitutional provisions for municipal home rule, the procedure for charter making is prescribed; but in Michigan and Texas the methods of procedure are defined by statute. The first step may usually be taken either by the local council or a popular petition, with a popular vote on the question of revising the charter. In all the home rule states but Oregon a new charter is prepared by a special charter commission; and such commissions are elected by popular vote, except in Minnesota where they are appointed by the district judges. Proposed charters are in all states submitted to popular ratification. Amendments to charters may be proposed by local councils or popular petition and are submitted to popular ratification. Most of the earlier home rule provisions do not define the scope of municipal powers; and also provide that the local charters are subject to the constitution and laws of the state. Under these conditions charter provisions in conflict with state laws have been held invalid. Later provisions have included more definite and positive statements of the powers conferred; notably those of Michigan and Ohio, and amendments adopted in California and Colorado. These include a general grant of power as to "municipal concerns" or "local self government", with an enumeration of specified powers. In most home rule states, the constitutional provisions include some mandatory requirements, and also limitations. In some cases these prescribe certain officials; and in other cases provide for the limitation of taxes and debts and for financial reports. The proposed New York Constitution of 1915 contained provisions for municipal home rule more complicated and more conservative than in the home rule states; but this constitution was not ratified by the people. Proposed home rule amendments have been approved by one legislature in New York (1917) and Wisconsin (1919), but must be repassed by a second legislature in these states before submission. In Utah, a proposed home rule amendment, submitted in 1919, will be voted on in 1920. Proposed constitutional provisions for municipal home rule have been recommended by the Committee on Municipal Program of the National Municipal League. These include a general grant of power, and also some enumerated powers and provisions for legislative control by general laws in matters relating to state affairs. The problem of municipal home rule is further complicated by overlapping districts; which are probably more numerous in Illinois than in other states. In some states city and county government in large cities has been consolidated; and such consolidation is authorized in the constitutions of several other states. The constitutional provisions in Michigan and Ohio and those proposed by the National Municipal League offer the best basis. for an adequate system of municipal home rule. In most of the |