Page images
PDF
EPUB

In 1851, Baltimore City was separated from Baltimore County; and the state constitution of that year, by provisions for courts and for the election of members of the legislature, judges, court clerks, register of wills, sheriff and state's attorney, gave the city the status of a county, though not officially naming it as such. Since then the local government has combined city and county functions.

The state constitution of 1867 also contained many provisions relating to Baltimore City. In provisions for the election of members of the legislature, judges, register of wills, sheriff and state's attorney, it was placed on the same footing as a county. There were also special provisions for a series of six courts in Baltimore City, and a distinct article on the city of Baltimore dealing with its municipal government.

In 1888 the area of the city was nearly doubled, by the annexation of a part of the surrounding belt of suburbs. In 1898 a new charter prepared by a commission was passed by the general assembly.

After the adoption of the home rule amendment to the Maryland constitution, a charter was framed and adopted in November, 1917. This did not attempt any fundamental changes in the city government; but in the main codified the existing arrangements and placed them. on the new home rule basis. The elective city officers are the mayor, comptroller and president of the second branch of the city council, elected at large, and members of each branch of the council elected by districts and wards.

The city charter, however, does not include provisions relating to the courts and county officers, which are definitely provided for by the state constitution. There are six different courts in Baltimore city: two circuit courts, criminal court, superior court, court of common pleas and city court. The judges of these courts also form collectively the supreme bench of Baltimore City, which acts as a central coordinating agency. There is also an orphans' court of three judges.

Clerks are elected for each court, except the supreme bench, and a register of wills for the orphans' court. Other elective court officers are the state's attorney, sheriff and surveyor. Appointed officers include coroners, notaries public, justices of the peace (by the governor), and constables (by the mayor and council).7

District of Columbia. In the local government of the District of Columbia, functions elsewhere exercised by cities, counties and states are combined to a considerable extent; though the several local authorities are not effectively organized into a single consolidated government; and some local matters are controlled directly by agencies of the United States national government.

The territory ceded to the United States by the states of Maryland and Virginia for the seat of the national government formed a part

Cyclopedia of American Government. I. 105. B. C. Steiner: The Institutions and Civil Government of Maryland. A. S. Niles: Maryland Constitutional Law (1915). Baltimore City Charter, 1917.

of two Maryland and one Virginia counties, and included the two incorporated towns of Alexandria, Va. (organized in 1749 and incorporated in 1779) and Georgetown, Md. (incorporated in 1789). From the cession in 1790 until 1801, the two parts of the district remained under the laws of the two states.

In 1801 Congress divided the district into two counties: Washington, lying east of the Potomac river, and Alexandria west of the river. A year later the city of Washington was incorporated by Congress. These governing agencies continued until 1846, when Congress retroceded to Virginia the part of the District west of the Potomac. In the remainder of the District, the county of Washington, the town of Georgetown and the city of Washington continued in existence until 1871. From time to time acts of Congress were passed relating to these local governments. In 1861 the whole District was formed into a Metropolitan Police District.

In 1871 the separate county and municipal governments were abolished; and a new government was established for the District, similiar to that of the organized territories, but also exercising municipal functions. There was provided a governor, secretary, board of health and board of public works, all appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate. Members of the council were appointed in the same way; while a house of delegates and a delegate in Congress were elected by popular vote. The police board was continued, and there were also four boards of education.

Under this territorial government extensive plans for public improvements were undertaken, beyond the financial resources of the District, which in a few years became bankrupt. In 1874 the territorial government and the elected delegates were abolished, and replaced by at temporary board of commissioners, appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate, and vested with the executive powers of the governor and board of public works. But the separate boards of police, health and education continued in existence.

In 1878 another law for the government of the District was enacted, which has remained the basis of District government until now, though subject to many changes. This law aimed at centralizing and consolidating local administrative authority. The board of commissioners was continued as the main body in control of local administration. Two commissioners are appointed by the President from residents of the district, the third is an officer detailed from the engineer corps of the army. The commissioners have enumerated powers of passing local ordinances, and have general supervision over the administrative officers and departments, each commissioner being assigned to a distinct group of subordinate offices. In line with the policy of centralization in 1878, the police and health boards were abolished, and the board of education was made subordinate to the commissioners. In addition to the usual municipal officers, the commissioners have supervision over the assessor, tax collector, coroner, and insurance superintendent. Recently the commissioners have been made ex-officio a public utilities commission for the District.

But the authority of the commissioners does not cover the whole field of District affairs; and in recent years there has been an increasing tendency to divide authority. The district courts and their officers are. independent of the commissioners. A board of charities created in 1900 is appointed by the President and is largely independent, as is also the board of education created in 1906. The supervision of banks is vested in the Comptroller of the Currency. Practically the whole park system and a large part of the water supply system are under the control of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the Insane is under the U. S. Department of the Interior, as is also the Columbia Institution for the Deaf and Dumb. The district jail and reform schools are under the supervision of the Attorney-General of the United States.

The courts of the District include a municipal court, police court, juvenile court, supreme court and court of appeals. All of the judges are appointed by the President, with the approval of the Senate, as are also the marshal, United States Attorney and Recorder of Deeds. The several courts appoint their clerks, and bailiffs are appointed by the police court. The District supreme court holds special terms as the circuit court, the criminal court, the district court of the United States, the equity court, the probate court and the bankruptcy court.

Finally, Congress is the legislative and appropriating authority for the District. The ordinance powers of the commissioners are less than that of municipal councils; and congressional statutes for the District deal with matters often found in municipal ordinances as well as matters dealt with in state laws. Appropriations are made and taxes are levied by Congress.

While, therefore, some measure of consolidation has been accomplished, there is room for further concentration of authority both. as to matters of local administration and as to local courts, and also room for a more effective organization of the relations of district officials to the United States government.8

St. Louis. The union of city and county functions in the local government of St. Louis bears some resemblance to that of Baltimore. In both cases, the city was separated from the county of which it had previously formed a part; while in the case of Philadelphia and San Francisco, consolidation was brought about by extending the city to include the same area as the county.

St. Louis was incorporated as a town in 1809, when within the territory of Louisiana: and received a city charter from the Missouri legislature in 1822. This charter was frequently amended, and also supplemented and modified by special laws; and changes increased in number especially after 1850. In 1870 a revised charter was enacted. At that time there was vigorous complaint of the control of city affairs by the state legislature, and the frequent changes by special legislation;

8 W. F. Dodd: Government of the District of Columbia. (1909). Congressional Directory.

and also of extravagance of the county government. County taxes were paid mostly by the city, and expended very largely outside of the city; and the double system of government was felt to involve useless waste.9

A Taxpayers League, organized in 1872, was influential in advocating the separation of the city and county, in the constitutional convention of 1875, and in securing the subsequent adoption of a new charter.

In the constitution of 1875, provisions were adopted requiring general laws and prohibiting special legislation on local government, and also placing restrictions on municipal debt. In addition a series of provisions were adopted for any city with a population of over 100,000 inhabitants, and another series of special and more detailed provisions for St. Louis, authorizing the consolidation of city and county government and the framing and adoption of home rule charters by such cities.

Under the special provisions for St. Louis, a board of freeholders might be elected by the city and county: "To propose a scheme for the enlargement and definition of the boundaries of the city, the reorganization of the government of the county, the adjustment of the relations between the city thus enlarged and the residue of St. Louis County, and the government of the city thus enlarged, by a charter in harmony with and subject to the constitution and laws of Missouri." The proposed scheme should then be submitted to the voters of the whole county, and the charter to the voters of the city as enlarged.

The constitution also contained some specific provisions affecting the adjustments between the city and county, and also required the charter to provide for a chief executive and two houses of legislature, and authorized a gradation of tax rates in the territory annexed to the city.

Under these provisions a board of freeholders was elected on April 4, 1876; and a scheme of separation and a new charter were submitted to the voters on August 22, 1876. In the face of a good deal of opposition, both the scheme and the charter were declared adopted,the former by a vote of 12,181 to 10,928; the latter by a vote of 11,309 to 8,088.

The charter of 1876 eliminated a number of duplicate authoritiesnotably the county court of seven members, which had exercised the functions of a county board. But the governmental machinery remained highly complicated, with an elaborate series of checks and balances. The municipal assembly was composed of two houses (as required by the state constitution), a council elected at large and a house of delegates elected by wards. There were fifteen elective administrative officers, for city and county purposes. The mayor had a large power of appointment in the middle of his four-year term. A board of public improvements made provision for correlation in connection with public works.

This situation may be contrasted with that of San Francisco in 1856, when criticism was directed at the city government, while the county government was considered economical and efficient.

Financial results under the new charter seem to have been highly satisfactory. Expenses and taxes were reduced. The abolition of the county court, some county offices and the county tax resulted in important savings. The issue of so-called "anticipation bonds" was reduced from $1,550,000 in 1875-6 to $350,000 in 1879-80. The board of public improvements worked well, reducing expenses while securing better improvements.

The new arrangements thus appear to have secured a large improvement in respect to city and county matters and more efficient administration. State legislation was also reduced to a considerable extent, but was not entirely eliminated. It was recognized from the outset that the city's charter powers did not authorize it to supersede the courts or the existing state-appointed police board. Subsequent state laws provided for a state excise commission (in 1893), a board of election commissioners (in 1895), and a locally elected board of education (in 1897). Judicial decisions have held that state laws regulating education, elections, police, public utilities and other matters of state concern supersede charter provisions on these subjects. It has also been held that each city with home rule charter powers constitutes a distinct class, for which the legislature may enact laws on such subjects of state

concern.

From time to time attempts were made to amend the charter of 1876. But most of these failed, many because of the requirement of three-fifths of the total vote at the election. Five amendments, submitted at special elections were adopted. As time progressed, the demand for charter changes grew stronger. Corruption appeared in the city government, and officials were convicted of bribery. Amendments aimed at preventing further instances of this kind, and to secure a simpler and more efficient government were urged.

To meet difficulties caused by some of the details in the original constitutional provisions, a constitutional amendment was proposed by the legislature in 1901 and ratified by the voters in 1902. This omitted the limitation upon the proposal of charter amendments to "intervals of not less than two years"; provided that charter amendments could be adopted by three-fifths of those voting on the question; expressly authorized a general revision of the charter; omitted the limit of 90. days on the time given the board of freeholders; and substituted for the requirement of two houses of legislation, "at least one house of legislation to be elected by general ticket."

After several years of further delay, a new board of freeholders to revise the charter was elected in 1909. But the revised charter was rejected by a vote of 65,324 to 24,817 (January 31, 1911). In 1913 another board of freeholders was chosen, and its work was ratified, June 30, 1914, by a vote of 46,839 to 44,158.

The revised charter provides a much simpler organization, with a single board of aldermen, a mayor with large powers of control, a shorter ballot, a limited number of departments, and the initiative, referendum and recall. The only elective city officers are the mayor, comptroller and aldermen, (28 elected at large, but one alderman must be a resident of each ward.) The mayor appoints the efficiency board

1

« PreviousContinue »