County expenditures had increased from $3,701,916 in 1901, largely as the result of mandatory special legislation, which in county matters is not subject to the mayor's veto, as is special city legislation. Nearly 70 per cent of the total expenditures are mandatory; and 9 per cent more is for items for which any reasonable expense necessarily incurred must be paid; leaving about 21 per cent of the county expenditure discretionary with the local authorities.

In 1915 a study of county government within the City of New York was prepared for the constitutional convention of that year by the Commissioner of Public Accounts and City Chamberlain. This pointed out the waste and inefficiency of the separate county organizations, and urged a consolidation of the several counties, and the merger of some of the county offices with municipal departments. The plan proposed would have reduced the number of county departments from 40 to 8, two of which would be merged with city offices, and would have simplified elections and secured better official service and more economical administration. The reduction in expenses was estimated at $1,000,000 a year.

No action was taken by the constitutional convention to unite the county governments. The proposed revised constitution contained provisions for the consolidation of local courts in the city; but this also failed on account of the defeat of the constitution.

Some mention may be made of the administrative subdivisions of New York for municipal purposes. The greater city is divided into five boroughs, corresponding to the five counties; and in each borough there is elected a borough president, who is a member of the city board of estimate and apportionment, and has supervision over borough property and public works including street paving and lighting, sewers and public buildings. The boroughs are also utilized as administrative districts by some of the centralized city departments, as the parks; but these are not under the control of the borough president.

The city is also divided into 25 local improvement districts, for each of which there is a local improvement board, consisting of the borough president and the aldermen (usually three) elected within the district. These boards initiate and authorize local improvements, subject to the approval of the city board of estimate and apportionment (and in cases where the city's share of the total cost is over $500,000, subject also to the approval of the board of aldermen).1

Boston, Suffolk County and the Metropolitan District. Boston comprises much the greater part of Suffolk County, both in area and population; and a good deal has been accomplished in the con

1 Arthur Ludington: The Relation of County to City Government in New York. In Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, VII, 73 (1911). Henry Bruere and Leonard M. Wallstein: Study of County Government within the City of New York and a plan for its Reorganization (1915).

solidation of city and county government for this territory. But Boston and Suffolk County comprise less than half of the metropolitan urban area, which includes parts of five counties, with a complex array of municipal authorities and state boards, subject. to no general supervision except that of the state legislature.

Suffolk County includes, besides the city of Boston, the much smaller city of Chelsea and the two towns of Revere and Winthrop. The consolidation of city and county functions began when the town of Boston was organized as a city in 1821-2. At that time, the court of session for Suffolk County was abolished, and its administrative functions (corresponding to those of the county board) were transferred to the mayor and aldermen of Boston. By the present city charter of 1909, these functions are vested in the city council and the mayor. The treasurer and the auditor of the city of Boston act as treasurer and auditor for Suffolk County. The ownership and jurisdiction of all county property is vested in the city of Boston; and the entire county expenses, including those of judicial administration, are paid by the city of Boston.

Under the Massachusetts judicial system, there are no locally elected judges. The judges and justices of the supreme judicial court, the superior court (the judges of which hold sessions in the several counties), the probate court, and the district and police courts, are all appointed by the governor and council; and are paid by the commonwealth, except the justices of the district and police courts who are paid by the county. There are, however, seven elective county officers and a number of appointive county positions. The elective county officers are: Register of probate, register of deeds, district attorney, sheriff, clerk of the supreme judicial court and two clerks of the superior court, "one for criminal and one for civil business." Among the appointive positions are the medical examiners (who act in place of the coroner)' and index commissioners. In 1910 there were a total of 596 paid county officials and employees, while for the city there was a total of 13,068.

The relations of Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop to county and city administration are varied and peculiar. They are part of Suffolk County for the administration of justice and for the election of county officers. In some matters, Revere and Winthrop are under the jurisdiction of the county commissioners of Middlesex County; and the aldermen of Chelsea exercise in most cases the functions of county commissioners. These three municipalities also are freed from taxation for county purposes. This situation has given rise to some criticism; and there has also been complaint of the unsatisfactory condition of county finances, and of the fact that county employees are not subject to the civil service law and regulations.

It is also urged that under present conditions the court expenses borne by the city of Boston are further increased by the trial in Suffolk County of a large and growing number of cases from other counties in the metropolitan area, since the courts in

Boston are more convenient to many parties, and especially to the attorneys whose offices are located in Boston.

The metropolitan area of eastern Massachusetts has a population of more than a million and a half, of which about 700,000 (less than half) is within the city limits of Boston. Within the metropolitan area are all of one county and portions of four others (Suffolk, Middlesex, Essex, Norfolk and Plymouth), 39 municipalities, a state metropolitan park commission, and a state metropolitan water and sewer board; also a rapid transit commission, the police commissioner for Boston (appointed by the governor), and a state fire prevention commissioner.2

Under these conditions there have inevitably arisen conflicts of jurisdiction, and duplication and waste of effort; and important metropolitan problems, such as city planning, traffic and transportation, housing and industrial education have had no satisfactory means of being effectively solved.

In 1896 a metropolitan district commission, appointed by the state legislature to investigate "the subject of a general municipal administration for the city of Boston and adjoining municipalities," reported a plan for combining all the municipalities within the metropolitan area into a single county. It was proposed to vest in this county, in addition to the ordinary county functions, the functions exercised by the several state metropolitan boards. For this county, there was suggested a county council, with representatives from the several cities and towns, which were to retain their autonomy in matters of local government.

No action was taken on this plan. There was opposition to abolishing the state boards; and to the changes in county lines, especially to including the "shire towns" (county seats) of Dedham and Cambridge, which have important county buildings, land records and

But more important was the objection of the cities and towns which feared the loss of their local autonomy.

More recently (in 1911), a committee of the Boston Chamber of Commerce recommended a plan to "federate" the cities and towns of the metropolitan area, by means of a metropolitan council of representatives of the 39 municipalities, with advisory powers only. This had in mind an official conference of municipal executives for the consideration of intra-municipal problems. A somewhat similar proposal was made by a "metropolitan plan commission" established by the legislature in 1911. But no definite steps have been taken as yet toward carrying out even this limited plan of co-operation.

In 1919 Mayor Andrew J. Peters of Boston issued an appeal for the federation of the metropolitan cities and towns into a Greater Boston.3

Suffolk County includes 4 municipalities; Middlesex, 17; Essex, 4; Norfolk, 12: and Plymouth. 2. O. C. Hormell: The City and County in Massachusetts, Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, VII, 61 (1911). Report of the Metropolitan District Commission, 1896. "Real Boston", published by the Boston Chamber of Commerce, March, 1911. O. C. Hormell: Boston's County Problems, Annals of the American Academy of Social and Political Science (1913).

Andrew J. Peters: Greater Boston. An appeal for the Federation of the Metropolitan Cities and Towns (1919).

Philadelphia City and County. Since 1854 the city of Philadelphia has been co-terminous with the county of Philadelphia; and the various subordinate local governments within the county before that time have been consolidated with the city government. There has also been some consolidation of city and county government; but the county government remains in large part legally distinct from that of the city.

Philadelphia was first organized under a charter granted by William Penn in 1691; and during most of the colonial period was governed under a charter of 1701 by a close corporation, similar to that of English boroughs before 1832. In 1789, a legislative charter established a more popular system of government, which was frequently modified by later acts, based on varied and conflicting lines of policy. By the middle of the nineteenth century the city government formed a complex system, with responsibility divided between the mayor and a dozen council committees. At the same time the region outside the city had become closely settled, and was governed by a miscellaneous series of overlapping local authorities. In addition to the county and the city of Philadelphia, there were nine other incorporated districts, six boroughs, thirteen townships, and ten other legislative commissions for special purposes (care of the poor, the port, health, etc.,) a total of "forty corporate or quasi-corporate bodies to manage the affairs of the smallest county in the state, and with the help of them all, it was undoubtedly the worst governed, from the number of limited territorial divisions and incongruous powers and conflicting interests of these various governing and executive institutions."4

After ten years of agitation and discussion, a consolidation act was passed on February 2, 1854. This enlarged the city limits so as to include the territory in the county of Philadelphia, and abolished or absorbed the following local bodies:

The former city of Philadelphia.

Nine incorporated districts: Southwark, Northern Liberties, Kensington, Spring Garden, Moyamensing, Penn, Richmond, West Philadelphia and Belmont.

Six boroughs: Germantown, Frankford, Manayunk, White Hall, Bridesburg and Aramingo.

Thirteen townships: Passyunk, Blockley, Kingessing, Roxborough, Germantown, Bristol, Oxford, Lower Dublin, Moreland, Northern Liberties (unincorporated), Byberry, Delaware and Penn.

No radical change was made in the machinery of government of the former city, which was merely extended to the new territory with some changes of detail especially in regard to finance administration. The municipal organization was highly complicated, with a large number of elective officers, and practically independent authorities, and with no effective supervision or central control.

At the same time the identity and autonomy of the county. was distinctly preserved. County commissioners, treasurer and auditors were discontinued, and their functions transferred to city E, K. Price. History of the Consolidation of Philadelphia (1873) p. 53.

officials, but all other county officers were retained. These included the following elective officers: Judges, register of wills, recorder of deeds, clerk of quarter sessions, district attorney and coroner; also a prothonotary, appointed by the board of judges. The city councils were given no control over county officers except that they made appropriations for their expenses, and that inspectors of county prisons (elected by wards) were placed under their super

vision.

The charter of 1854 was frequently amended and modified by subsequent legislation. Most of these changes involved matters of detail, and for 30 years there was little tendency to depart from the loosely connected group of public officials. An Act of 1870, establishing a public buildings commission, emphasized the tendency towards irresponsible organs of local government.

Following another period of local discussion, the so-called Bullitt charter for the city of Philadelphia was passed by the legislature in 1885; and went into effect in April, 1887. This made far-reaching changes in municipal organization, in the direction of concentration of administrative authority. The number of departments was reduced to nine, placed under the executive control of the mayor, and the councils were limited to legislative functions. The two large councils were, however, retained. Nor was any change made in regard to county government at this time.

A further revision of the Philadelphia charter in 1919 makes important changes in council organization. The bicameral system is abandoned, and a single small council has been established. This will be elected by the same eight districts as elect state senators, the number of members from each district being based on the number of voters, making a body of 21 members, in place of the former two councils of 145 members. This continues the recent tendency towards concentration of authority.

The courts and county officers, however, remain as before. There are in Philadelphia county five courts of common pleas with three judges each, an orphan's court with five judges, and a municipal court with nine judges. County officers include district attorney, sheriff, prothonotary, register and clerk of the orphan's court, recorder, clerk of the court of quarter sessions, treasurer, county controller, receiver of taxes, coroner and solicitor.

Proposals for the merging of city and county officers and functions are being discussed in Philadelphia and will be presented to a Commission on the Constitution, to be appointed by the Governor.

Baltimore. Baltimore was laid out under an act of 1729; and in 1768 the town was made the county seat of Baltimore County. In 1798, it was incorporated as a city.

A Supreme Court decision in 1883 distinctly recognized the city controller as a county as well as city officer; and the city treasurer and city commissioners had a similar status. Taggart v. Commonwealth, 102 Pa. 354. Allinson and Penrose: Philadelphia 1681-1887. Smull's Legislative Hand Book, 1918. National Municipal Review, VIII, 417 (August, 1919).