of commissioners, and section 8 to 12 providing for elective county officers and relating to their fees and compensation. Some of these constitutional obstacles to consolidation may be removed by changes made to meet problems of general application throughout the state. If the detailed provisions relating to courts inferior to the supreme court are omitted or modified so as to leave their organization and jurisdiction to the general assembly; and if the provisions relating to uniform taxation and requiring the election of a numerous list of county officers are substantially changed, the new provisions may be drafted so as to permit a comprehensive and unified system of local government for Chicago and Cook County. But even with considerable changes in some of the restrictive sections, some provisions which may seem to the Convention desirable for the rest of the state will operate to prevent a satisfactory solution of local problems in Cook County. This may make it necessary to consider some provisions specially applicable to Cook County, as was attempted in the amendment of 1904. If this method is followed, care should be taken to frame as simple provisions as possible, free from specific details, for such details will need to be modified from time to time by legislation or local action. Some provisions of the present constitution which stand in the way of unification in Cook County may cause little or no trouble in other parts of the state, and changes will be urged mainly on account of conditions in Chicago. For illustration, the provision that no line of a new county shall pass within ten miles of any county seat of a county or counties to be divided, absolutely prevents the formation of a consolidated city-county in which the county line will necessarily be identical. with the boundary of the county seat. If it is considered desirable to retain the ten-mile condition for other parts of the state an exception will be needed to permit the formation of any proposed city-county. The minimum limit of 400 square miles for new counties may be met if an area covering little more than the present sanitary district of Chicago is taken. But to permit a consolidated city-county corresponding to the present limits of the city of Chicago this minimum would have to be waived. If large cities other than Chicago are to be authorized to be organized as separate counties, the minimum area will have to be altered or waived in such cases. It may be assumed that the general principle of local consent for alterations of boundaries, and for additions to or divisions of counties will be continued. But some consideration may be given to the question. whether all of the present constitutional requiremens are necessary. For example, may not a majority of those voting in territory proposed to be transferred be accepted as sufficient, in place of requiring a petition by a majority of the voters? Attention is directed to the table appearing in the appendix which shows the bonded indebtedness of the local governments having jurisdiction within the limits of the city of Chicago. The total bonds authorized (including those outstanding and those unsold) amount to more than $128,000,000. Several of the governments, such as the County, and the Sanitary District, extend beyond the limits of Chi cago, but their debts are involved and are to be adjusted in any scheme of local government consolidation. In connection with the issuing of bonds, it should be pointed out that certain governments, such as the Sanitary District of Chicago and the Forest Preserve District, are not required by law to obtain the approval of the voters; and that other governments are prohibited from issuing bonds without a sanctioning referendum. For a number of reasons it is impossible to name the exact relation between the bonded debt of the community and the taxable property. The 1919 valuation figures are not yet available. A large proportion of the city's unsold bonds have been authorized on the new basis of valuation as provided by the 1919 general assembly, hence the 1918 valuation figures cannot be used. Furthermore, a certain amount of bonds outstanding are exempt from the constitutional limit of five per cent of the assessed valuation. Also, the total indebtedness is based on the valuations of geographical areas that are not all co-extensive with each other. After making allowances and adjustments, however, it is safe to say that the combined debt of the community is considerably in excess of the constitutional limit of five per cent of the assessed valuation. IV. CITY-COUNTY CONSOLIDATION IN OTHER In a number of other states provision has been made for the consolidation to some extent of city and county government for large cities; and in several European countries there is a similar consolidation of local government for larger cities. New York city includes five counties; Philadelphia city and county are identical in area; Baltimore, St. Louis and San Francisco combine city and county functions; and Boston includes most of Suffolk County. In all of these cases the city government includes some county functions and absorbs some county officers. In Denver, city and county governments have been more thoroughly consolidated. In the District of Columbia, a single government exercises some of the functions elsewhere divided between city, county and state. In Virginia, all cities are excluded from the counties; and the city government provides for county functions. Several state constitutions have provisions authorizing larger cities to be organized as counties. In Minnesota, cities of over 20,000 may be so organized; and in Michigan and Missouri, cities of over 100,000. The California constitution contains a general provision authorizing city and county consolidation, and special provisions for San Francisco and some other counties. Plans for city-county consolidation have been actively urged in recent years in a number of larger American cities. In England municipalities of over 50,000 population are regularly organized as county boroughs. In Prussia most cities of over 25,000 are classed as Kreis-stadte, combining the functions of cities. and the district known as the circle, which corresponds somewhat to the county. An examination of some of these cases of consolidated local government should be of value in considering the problem in Chicago. and Cook County. New York City. There are now five counties within the limits of the city of New York; and the county governments have been to some extent consolidated in and merged with the city government. But the counties are still retained as separate units for the administration of justice and the election of certain county officers. prescribed by the state constitution. When the first counties were established in New York, in 1683, New York county comprised Manhattan Island and some small neighboring islands; and the first charter of New York City, in 1686, gave the city the same boundaries as the county. Thereafter the two were generally referred to as "The City and County of New York". With some minor changes, the boundaries remained unaltered until 1873, when three towns in Westchester were made part of the city and county of New York; and in 1895 parts of other towns and villages. in Westchester county were added to the city and county of New York. From the beginning, the county and city government were closely connected. The sheriff of New York County was also sheriff for the city. In 1813 it was expressly provided that the chamberlain of the city and county of New York should be considered the county treasurer. When county boards of supervisors were established in New York none was provided for New York county; and the council, or mayor and aldermen, of the city were declared to be the board for that county. From 1857 to 1874 a separate board of supervisors was provided; but in the latter year its powers were again transferred to the board of aldermen of New York City. From time to time, however, various county officers were provided, who acted independently of the city government. Three of the other counties now included in New York City (Kings, Queens and Richmond) were also among the original counties created in 1683. Their government was similar to that of other counties and distinct from that of the villages and cities which developed within their limits. In 1854, however, when the city of Brooklyn included a large part of Kings county, the city and county governments were more closely inter-related; and in 1895 a larger degree of consolidation was brought about, similar to that effected in New York city and county in 1874. The powers of the county board of supervisors were devolved upon the common council of the city; and several county and city officers were abolished and absorbed in other offices. When the greater New York charter was passed in 1897, it included in New York City the counties of New York, Kings and Richmond, and the western part of Queens County. The remainder of Queens county was about the same time organized as Nassau County. All of the former municipal or public corporations within the limits of the greater city, except the four counties, were abolished and merged in the new city government. Five new divisions, known as boroughs, were, however, created for local municipal purposes. As to the counties, substantially the same transfer of functions. which had been previously made in the counties of New York and Kings, were now made from the former cities of New York and Brooklyn and from the counties of Queens and Richmond to the new city of New York. The powers of boards of supervisors were transferred to the board of aldermen and to some city officers and boards. Statutory elective county offices and some appointive county offices were abolished and their functions transferred to city officers. There remained, however, in each county a number of elective county officers, provided for by the state constitution, which could not be abolished or consolidated with the city government; and some appointive county officers were also left unchanged. In 1914 a new county of Bronx was organized, comprising the region previously in Westchester county; and for this county a similar staff of county officials has been provided. The extent of consolidation of county and city government may be noted more definitely. In the first place, the work of financial administration has been completely consolidated. Appropriations and tax levies for county purposes are made by the city board of estimate and apportionment and the board of aldermen; and the same city authorities determine salaries for county officers, so far as they are not fixed by state law. The assessment of county taxes is made by the city department. The city chamberlain acts as treasurer for all of the five counties. The city comptroller audits county expenditures. Supervision of county property and public works, ordinance powers and other auxiliary powers, formerly vested in the boards of supervisors, are now exercised by the board of aldermen. The direct management of county property is exercised by various city departments, under the general administrative control of the mayor. All local charities are in charge of the city departments. On the other hand, in the administration of justice and related matters, there continues in each county separate courts and county officials. New York County is a judicial district for the election of supreme court judges; and also elects seven judges of the court of general sessions and two surrogates, or probate judges. The other counties elect county judges, and the counties of Kings, Queens and the Bronx each elects a surrogate. The following constitutional officers are elected: Supreme Court Judges (New York County 1 district). 15 County Judges (7 in New York, 5 in Kings, 1 in each of the other counties). 5 Surrogates (2 in New York, 1 each in Bronx, Kings and Queens). 5 County Clerks. 5 District Attorneys. 3 Registers (New York, Bronx and Kings counties). 5 Sheriffs. In addition there are the following appointive county officers, provided by statute: 3 Commissioners of Records (2 in New York and 1 in Kings county). 5 Commissioners of Jurors. 5 Public Administrators. The cost of county government for 1914 was $7,348,010, as shown below: New York County Bronx County Kings County Queens County Richmond County Total $4,108,855 592,047 1,997,863 482,483 166,762 $7,348,010 |