Page images
PDF
EPUB

and the directors of five departments, who together form a board of public service. The mayor, comptroller and president of the board of aldermen form a board of estimate and apportionment.

There are, however, also a number of elective officials provided by state laws; judges of the circuit, criminal, police and probate courts, circuit attorney, prosecuting attorney, sheriff, coroner, recorder of deeds, public administrator, license collector, and justices of the peace; also the police and excise commissioners and the election board, appointed by the governor; and the locally elected board of education.

Some problems have developed with the expansion of urban population beyond the limits established in 1876; and there is no provision for the further extension of the city. The state law provides that no city or town shall be incorporated within two miles of the limit of any other city or town in the same county. But as the city of St. Louis is not in St. Louis county, this does not prevent the incorporation of suburban municipalities immediately adjacent, and a complicated group of neighboring municipalities are developing. Questions of water supply, sewage disposal and the preservation of public order in these adjacent sections outside of the city are becoming important. Gambling and other disorderly and illegal enterprises have been carried on just across the line, and cannot be suppressed by the city. The supreme court has held that even the police of the city which are under the direct authority of the governor, cannot make arrests in St. Louis county.

Such problems, however, and the difficulties arising from state laws, which limit the scope of local control over the machinery of local government, do not destroy the advantages which have resulted from even the partial consolidation of city and county functions made possible by the separation of the city of St. Louis from St. Louis county.10

San Francisco City and County. San Francisco County was formed by an act of the first legislature of the state of California, passed February 18, 1850. The city of San Francisco was created by an act of April 15, in the same year, with a distinct list of officers independent of the county. Additional legislation, both for the county and for the city was passed during the next few years. The city government soon became notorious for its corruption, inefficiency and extravagance; while the county government was considered economical and efficient. A popular reform movement led to the formation of the famous Vigilance Committee, which was followed by a demand for the elimination of the dual machinery of government; and this resulted in the passage, on April 19, 1856, of an act "To repeal the several char

19 Truman Post Young: The Scheme of Separation of City and County Government in St. Louis-its History and Purposes. In Proceedings of the American Political Science Association VIII. 97 (1911).

Samuel B. McPheeters: Saint Louis. In Cyclopedia of American Government. III. 245 (1914).

Isidor Loeb: Municipal Home Rule in Missouri. In Proceedings of the Illinois Municipal League. IV. 43 (1917).

Roger N. Baldwin: St. Louis Successful Fight for a Modern Charter. In National Municipal Review, III, 720 (1914).

St. Louis: A Preliminary Survey of Certain Departments (1910).

ters of the city of San Francisco, to establish the boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco, and to consolidate the government thereof".

By the Consolidation Act, duplication of offices was largely reduced. A board of supervisors, elected by wards,, with a president, took the place of the county board and the mayor and bicameral council. One treasurer, one assessor and one attorney replaced former city and county officers. The constitution, however, required the election of a county judge, county clerk, district attorney, sheriff and coroner; and other elective executive officers were provided,—a total of 17 at large and 72 by wards.

The new government, under new officials, proved "a marvel of economy". Expenses of the city and county were reduced from $2,646,000 in 1855 to $353,000 in 1857. Much of this saving was ascribed to the Consolidation Act. In the constitutional convention of 1879, it was said that consolidation reduced the number of offices and expenses.

Modified by numerous amendments and supplemental legislation, the Consolidation Act remained the basis of local government in San Francisco for more than forty years. A new legislative charter, passed in 1880, was held invalid, on the ground that it had not been submitted to the people. Under the home rule provisions of the state constitution of 1879, new charters prepared by local boards of freeholders were submitted in 1883, 1887 and 1895, each to be defeated in turn. At length, in 1898 another charter was submitted and approved, and went into effect January 1, 1900. This in turn has been amended from time to time, notably by the work of a new charter board in 1910.

Under the home rule charter, as under the Consolidation Act, the city and county are co-extensive in area, with a single system of government. The machinery has been simplified and centralized to some extent. The board of supervisors now has eighteen members, elected at large. The mayor, county clerk, auditor, district attorney, sheriff and coroner are elected at one biennial election; and the tax collector, recorder, city attorney, public administrator and treasurer, at the next; all for four-year terms. There are also four police judges elected for four-year terms, one-half at each biennial election. The principal city departments are in charge of boards appointed by the mayor.

Six of the eleven elective administrative officers are county officers who must be provided to comply with constitutional requirements. The legislature may also create additional county officers; but under the county home rule provisions now in the California constitution, the method and manner of selection and the compensation and term of these additional officers may be determined in the local charter.

The number of officials acting in a dual capacity as both city and county officers has been increased, thus affecting considerable economy. In addition to the board of supervisors, treasurer, assessor and city attorney (under the Consolidation Act of 1856) the auditor and tax collector act both in city and county business; and the district attorney, a county officer, also prosecutes for the violation of city ordinances.

An extended report on the government of the city and county of San Francisco, prepared for the San Francisco Real Estate Board in 1916, contained important recommendations for changes in the charter and machinery of local government. These included proposals to make the mayor definitely responsible for administrative leadership, to make the board of supervisors solely a legislative and reviewing body, to make the assessor and the tax collector appointive officers, to combine certain departments and reorganize others, and to place a number of departments under single commissioners in place of boards. These recommendations would reduce the number of elective officers and simplify the machinery of government.

Another problem is that of extending the territorial area of the city and county. This is now only about 40 square miles. Any addition to the city involves a change in county boundaries; and under the present provisions of the state constitution a change in county lines is practically impossible.11

City and County of Denver. Denver had its origin in several mining settlements established during 1858 at Cherry Creek, then in the western part of Kansas. In November, 1859, a provisional territorial government was set up, which on December 5, passed an "Act to charter and consolidate the towns of Denver, Aurora and Highland". Two years later the first territorial legislature of Colorado was legally organized, under Act of Congress; and on November 7, 1861, this body granted a city charter to Denver, confirming the acts of the provisional government. The same legislature also created the County of Arapahoe, with an area of 4,860 square miles, of which Denver became the county seat.

The city charter was amended and revised from time to time as in the case of other American cities. At first the council was the dominant factor in the city government. Later the powers of the mayor were increased, notably in 1876. In 1885 a bicameral council was established. In 1889 a state-appointed board of public works was established; and in 1891 a state-appointed fire and police board. In 1893 several neighboring municipalties were annexed; and a new city charter reorganized the administrative machinery; but the state boards were continued, and the local government continued to lack unity or responsibility. State and local party politics and public service corporations were important factors in much of the legislation affecting the city.

11 Percy V. Long: Consolidated City and County Government of San Francisco. In Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, VII, 109 (1911).

Conferences on Good City Government: 1894-5. Isaac J. Milliken: Municipal Condition of San Francisco; 1901 J. Richard Freud: Municipal Affairs in San Francisco: 1903 Frank J. Symmes: The Municipal Situation in San Francisco.

Thomas H. Reed: San Francisco: In Cyclopedia of American Government, III. 251 (1914).

Report on a Survey of the Government of the City and County of San Francisco (1916).

A movement for a constitutional amendment for home rule and consolidation of local governments developed. This was promoted by difficulties in making further annexations to the city, by constitutional obstacles to the union of the several school districts within the city, and by the desire to separate the urban section from the greater part of Arapahoe county which extended eastward 160 miles to the Kansas line. A proposed amendment was passed by the legislature in 1901, authorizing municipal home rule charters for all cities of over 2,000 population, and with special provisions for the consolidation of city and county government in Denver; and this amendment was ratified at the election of 1902 as Article XX of the state constitution.

The new Article contained eight sections, six of which dealt with the city and county of Denver. Section 1 provides that:

"The municipal corporation known as the city of Denver, and all municipal corporations and that part of the quasi-municipal corporation known as the county of Arapahoe, in the State of Colorado, included within the territorial boundaries of the said city of Denver, as the same shall be bounded when this amendment takes effect, are hereby consolidated and are hereby declared to be a single body politic and corporate, by the name of the 'City and County of Denver'." This included within the city and county six former towns, and a total area of 5912 square miles. This section also provided for further annexations of contiguous territory; and in addition to vesting the municipality with all property of the city of Denver and the included municipalities, gave power to construct, acquire, maintain and operate water works, light, power and heating plant, transportation systems and any other public utilities.

Section 3 provided for the transfer of government, and specifically provided for merging the existing city and county officers. Sections 4 and 5 set forth the procedure for framing and adopting a charter, and for new charters, amendments and measures. Section 7 provided for consolidating and merging the various school districts.

Section 6 authorized all cities of the first and second class to frame, adopt and amend their charters; and section 8 declared that any provisions in the state constitution inconsistent with this amendment to be inapplicable to matters covered by the amendment.

Under the provisions of the amendment a charter convention was elected on June 2, 1903. Its work was completed on August 1, and the charter was submitted to popular vote on September 22. Opposition by the party organizations and public utility corporations led to its defeat.

On December 2, a second charter convention was elected. This body eliminated from the defeated charter provisions which cut off political patronage and those which restricted the public utility companies, continued the bicameral council, and amended the initiative and referendum provisions. But the structural machinery for a centralized mayoralty government was retained. The revamped charter was voted for on March 29, 1904, and was adopted. The first election was held on May 17, and the new government began on June 1.

Meanwhile legal controversies were begun which continued for nearly ten years, and delayed the enforcement of some consolidation

features. In the first case, the validity of the constitutional amendment as a whole was attacked; but the amendment was upheld both by the Supreme Court of the State and the United States Circuit Court.12 In a second case, it was decided that the state-appointed boards became part of the new municipality, and their members were no longer subject to appointment and removal by the governor.13

But in 1905 a reorganized Supreme Court, enlarged from three to seven members, held that the amendment must be considered as limited to local affairs, and that not even by constitutional amendment could the people of the state delegate to local authorities the power to regulate county offices, which were considered to be essential state offices.1 This decision did away for a time with the merger of city and county offices, which was plainly and specifically set forth in the constitutional amendment; and a dual set of city and county officers was restored.

14

Other decisions about this time and during several years tended to limit the powers of the municipality by broad construction and interpretation of state statutes, which it was held could not be limited by the powers conferred by Article XX.

In 1911, however, with a new personnel in the Supreme Court, the decision in the Johnson case was overruled. Returning to the opinion in the earliest case upholding Article XX, and following the dissenting opinion in the Johnson case, it was held that this amendment being part of the state constitution must be enforced by the courts, and that the consolidation of city and county offices provided for did not do away with county government and was authorized by the fundamental law of the state.15

This decision brought into force again the provisions of the charter for the consolidation and merger of city and county offices; and has put to rest the legalistic objections to the validity of consolidation authorized by the state constitution.

A further amendment to the state constitution adopted in 1912 added to the specified powers of cities under the home rule provisions.

Further changes have been made in the structure of city government. A charter convention in 1913 provided for the commission form of government. But after three years, the charter was again amended in 1916, restoring the city council and vesting the mayor with greatly extended powers, so that he has been called an "elected manager.'

The consolidation of city and county government in Denver has led more thoroughly than elsewhere to a short ballot; and partisan influence in elections has been reduced by abandoning the party column ballot. Of seventeen elective county positions, only two remain. The number of local elections has been reduced to a single municipal election. The elective officers are the mayor, president and members of the council, county judge, and school commissioners. Under the amendment of 1916, the mayor appoints the heads of all administrative departments, and all commissions, boards and offices under his control. The appointive officers include the managers of the several depart12 People v. Louis, 31 Colo. 369: Watts v. Elder, U. S. Circuit Court. 13 People v. Adams, 31 Colo. 476.

14 People v. Johnson, 34 Colo. 143.

15 People v. Cassidy, 50 Colo. 503.

« PreviousContinue »