etc.) offered an additional section providing that cities of over 50,000 population might be created into counties. This was laid on the table. by a vote of 41 to 19. Three Cook County members (Anthony, Coolbaugh and Medill) voted for the motion to lay on the table; the other Cook County members were absent or not voting."

On May 11, 1870, when considering the report of the Committee on Revision and Adjustment, Mr. Cameron of Cook County moved the suspension of the rules so as to strike out the provision authorizing cities of over 200,00 population to be created as separate counties. He stated that he had presented twenty petitions against such a clause; and that it would be unjust to the towns outside of Chicago. Mr. Turner referred to his earlier attempt to reconsider his own motion; and stated that at that time Mr. Coolbaugh, of Cook County had mentioned a resolution of the Cook County Supervisors in favor of such a provision. Mr. Medill of Cook County said that the supervisors had passed a resolution in favor of creating Chicago and some adjoining townships as a separate county, as the result of a quarrel in the board; but that they were ashamed of it.

Mr. Cameron's motion to suspend the rules was then carried; the question was reconsidered, and the motion to strike out the provision. was agreed to without a record vote.

8

It may be noted that if Chicago had been organized as a separate county in 1870 it would have included only the city as it existed at that time, or only about one-sixth of the present area of Chicago.

Constitutional Amendment of 1904. Various proposals for consolidation of local governments have been presented from time to time, culminating in the adoption of section 34 of Article IV as an an amendment to the state constitution. The annexations to the city of Chicago in 1889 added to the complexities of local organizations, and seem to have called attention to the need for further changes. A constitutional amendment authorizing consolidation was advocated in 1891; but no action was taken. Mayor Washburne in his message of 1892 favored the abolition of township collection of taxes and the union of county and city government.

The assessment law of 1898 established a county board of assessors and a county board of review, and eliminated the township assessors in the towns within the city of Chicago. An optional act of 1901, soon adopted by Chicago, did away with township collectors for the towns in Chicago. These two measures practically eliminated the separate town governments. Further changes, however, could only be carried out by amending the state constitution.

In 1898 the Civic Federation of Chicago appointed a consolidation committee of 100 from various organizations, with Judge M. F. Tuley as chairman. This Committee agreed to a proposed amendment, which was submitted to the legislature in 1899. In his annual message of

Proceedings and Debates II, 1557.

Proceedings and Debates II, 1835-36.

that year, Mayor Carter H. Harrison, urged the consolidation of local governments within the city limits, and recommended a council committee on consolidation.

On April 11, 1899, the House Committee on Judiciary reported a proposed amendment to Article X, Section 7. This authorized the general assembly to provide for the consolidation of city and county government within the present or future limits of Chicago, and also for the extension of the city "so as to include all of the County of Cook", subject to a referendum to the voters of the city and of the county outside of Chicago. Provisions might also be made for subordinate local governments by districts; and prohibition of the liquor traffic in any local district should not be repealed or impaired.

An amendment to strike out the words "so as to include all the county of Cook" was adopted by a vote of 75 to 27, the Cook County members voting for this amendment 22 to 13. Several other minor. amendments were adopted. But no further action was taken on this proposed amendment.

In 1901 another proposed amendment was offered in the legislature, authorizing the consolidation of local governments in the city of Chicago, and the formation of a county of Chicago subject to a local referendum in Chicago and the part of Cook County outside. of the city. Mayor Harrison, in his annual message of this year, renewed his recommendations for consolidation. But no action was taken on this matter in the general assembly.

In September 1902, a committee of the Civic Federation of Chicago submitted an extended report on Chicago and the constitution, favoring a separate amendment relating to local government in Chicago rather than the calling of a constitutional convention. On October 28, a local convention was called, consisting of about 70 delegates from business and civic organizations (including the Civic Federation, the Chicago Bar Association and the Union League Club) and also from the city and county government. This convention agreed to a proposed amendment authorizing the consolidation of local taxing bodies, with provisions relating to a municipal court, the abolition of justices of the peace, and revenue and borrowing powers.

The proposed amendment was introduced in the Senate on January 20, 1903, by Mr. Campbell, and in the House on March 4, by Mr. Wilkerson. It provided for the consolidation of county and other local governments in Chicago, and for the creation of not more than two counties out of the part of Cook County outside of Chicago, subject to local referendum, which on county consolidation was to be submitted to the city and to the part of the county outside of Chicago.

On January 29, another proposed amendment was introduced by Senator Humphrey of Cook County. This was much shorter and authorized the general assembly to provide for the consolidation of town, park, school and other local governments within cities, and for the abolition of justices of the peace in cities of over 150,000 population.

On March 12, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a substitute (Senate Joint Resolution No. 12) relating to Chicago, but omit

ting the provisions of the original resolution relating to county government. This was passed by the Senate on March 18 by a vote of 39 to 1. The original House resolution was reported favorably by the House Committee on March 17. When taken up on April 4 an amendment to limit Chicago representation was laid on the table by a vote of 57 to 47. On passage, the resolution received a vote of 68 to 15; and lacking the required two-thirds vote further consideration was postponed. Taken up again on April 22, the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution No. 12 were offered by Mr. Wilkerson as a substitute and adopted. Amendments to limit Chicago representation were defeated by votes of 57 to 65, and 62 to 75; and the substitute resolution was passed by a vote of 115 to 3. On the same day the Senate concurred, by a vote of 47.

After an active campaign, this amendment was ratified at the election in November, 1904, by a vote of 678,393 to 94,038 as section 34 of Article IV. The vote in Cook County was 286,565 to 20,334.

Consolidation Measures. Following the adoption of the constitutional amendment of 1904, an act providing for a municipal court in the city of Chicago and abolishing justices of the peace, police magistrates and constables in that city, was passed by the general assembly in 1905, and adopted by popular vote.

To develop further the plans for consolidation, a Chicago charter convention was organized by resolution of the Chicago Council, June 19, 1905. This convention consisted of 15 members of the council, 15 members of the legislature, 15 citizens appointed by the mayor, 15 citizens appointed by the governor, and two representatives each from the board of county commissioners, sanitary district trustees, board of education, library board and the three large park boards. A comprehensive charter was prepared, providing for a consolidated municipal government, combining the powers of the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments having jurisdiction confined to or within the limits of the city of Chicago. It was expressly provided that the consolidation would not apply to drainage, improvement or forest preserve districts. The charter did not include the county or the sanitary district, nor did it consolidate the towns or other local districts partly in and partly outside of the city. Provision was made for a board of park commissioners, a board of education and a library board.

The proposed charter was introduced in the general assembly in 1907, where it was freely amended, notably by inserting a new apportionment of wards for the election of aldermen, which could not be changed after 1920. These changes aroused opposition in Chicago; and when the new charter was submitted to popular vote it was defeated.

After several years, another but less comprehensive consolidation act was prepared and was passed by the General Assembly of 1913; but this was vetoed by Governor Dunne. Two years later a similar meas

ure, modified to meet objections, was prepared and passed. This provided that:

"All powers and functions not specifically abrogated by this act which are now vested in the city, town, township, park, park district or other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within the city of Chicago or any part thereof, shall be vested and consolidated in the municipal government of the city of Chicago, and for that purpose all municipal corporations and quasi municipal corporations other than the city of Chicago whose jurisdiction is confined as aforesaid shall be dissolved and abrogated and shall be merged in and consolidated with the city of Chicago.'

It was expressly provided that nothing in this act should affect the sanitary, drainage or improvement districts, or public tuberculosis sanitarium or the board of education. Provision was made for a single board of park commissioners, and the powers of the library board were preserved. More definite provisions as to the House of Correction were made than in the charter act of 1907.

This measure, while less comprehensive than the charter act of 1907, provided for the consolidation of town and park district governments with that of the city; and would reduce to a considerable extent the present complexity of local government in Chicago. When submitted to popular vote, this measure failed to be accepted, mainly on account of temporary local political conditions. The act, however, contains provisions for resubmission, and may be adopted at a later time.

Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency Reports. In recent years the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency has published a series of reports dealing with the complex machinery of local government in Chicago and plans for unification and consolidation. These include a series of reports on county offices, and reports on the Park Governments of Chicago, published in December, 1911; on the Nineteen Local Governments in Chicago, published in December, 1913, and reissued in at second revised edition in March, 1915; and on Unification of Local Governments in Chicago, published in January, 1917.

The report on Park Governments presented the results of an extended inquiry into the organization and methods of the various park boards, made at the request and with the co-operation of the three large park boards. This recognized the excellent results in many respects of the Chicago system of parks and boulevards; but also disclosed much waste and inefficiency mainly as a consequence of the lack of unity in park management. Recommendations for improvements in expenditure and efficiency under the existing organization were made; but it was urged that there should be a unified management of park facilities, which it was estimated would mean a money saving of $500,000

Words in italics indicate changes from the corresponding provisions in the charter act of 1907.

a year, and would enable park revenues and benefits to be distributed more equitably.

The report on the Nineteen Local Governments in Chicago analyzed briefly the multiplicity of taxing bodies within the city, with illustrative charts, maps and tables of elective officials and expendi

tures.

The report on Unification of Local Governments outlined the problem of unification, discussed the defects of the existing arrangements and the benefits of unification, and recommended a number of measures, some of which could be taken without changing the constitution, and others requiring constitutional amendment. Appendices included a discussion of court consolidation, a skeleton plan of unification, tables of elections and expenditures, and illustrative charts.

Defects of present arrangements. The defects of the existing "hodge-podge of irresponsible governing agencies" were discussed by the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency under the following headings: useless overhead expenses, enormous election costs, cumbersome assessing machinery, what the courts cost, expensive law departments, the purchase of supplies and materials; rent, light and telephone service; park consolidation; sanitary district; and other economies possible.

Approximately $500,000 a year is expended on the salaries of officers which would be unnecessary under a properly reorganized and unified government. The cost of elections which approximated $1,000,000 in 1912, was more than $2,000,000 in 1916. The average annual cost of assessing and collecting general taxes and of collecting special assessments over a four-year period amounts to approximately $1,000,000. The cost of the five separate county courts and the municipal court of Chicago in 1915 was $2,255,191, in which a large saving could be made through consolidation and reorganization of the administrative machinery. The cost of the law departments of the county, city, sanitary district and three large park boards in 1915 was $984,287. The maintenance of several accounting agencies results in much needless overhead and other expense. Separate purchasing agencies and lack of standardization in supplies cause wasteful conditions. Space in public buildings is not effectively utilized; and the cost of rent, light and telephone service would be reduced by a unified system.

As previously estimated by the bureau, park consolidation alone would make possible a saving of $500,000 a year. The continuance of the Sanitary District as a separate government invites waste. Other minor economies would be possible under a unified. and reorganized government.

Estimates of present waste and possible savings for the local communities now outside of Chicago are more difficult to make, because of the still greater number of different authorities, and the relatively small amounts handled by each. But the existing com