and in Bavaria 43 "unmittlebar" cities had a somewhat similar arrangement. The most important effect of this arrangement is to free these cities from the supervision of the circle authorities. Each of these cities has a committee of its own, which exercises the supervisory functions vested in a circle committee for smaller places. These citycircles are however subject to the supervision of officials of the larger district-the Bezirk. Cities within circles pay a large share of the circle taxation, for which they receive little direct return; while the circle governments have been controlled by the rural districts. When a city is separately organized as a circle, financial adjustments are made. Berlin occupies a special status. It is excluded both from circle and district (Bezirk) control, and for administrative purposes is detached from the Province of Brandenburg. There is however a police commissioner appointed for Berlin, and also a district committee; and the chief president of the Province of Brandenburg has oversight over the Berlin government.23 In the "free cities" of Hamburg, Bremen and Lubeck, city and state government are combined in one system. Swiss City Cantons. Several of the Swiss Cantons are predominantly urban in character. Zurich, with an area of 666 square miles, had a population in 1913 of 534,250. Geneva had a population of 160,960 in an area of 108 square miles. The canton of Basel City had a population of 142,870 in an area of 14 square miles. In these cases the cantonal governments are controlled by the cities; and in the canton of Basel City, municipal affairs are managed by the cantonal government, and there is no separate municipal organization for the urban area. Zurich and Geneva are divided into communes; and there are separate municipal governments for the urban area and for the rural communes, distinct from the government of the canton. Paris and the Department of the Seine. The municipal government of Paris and that of the department of the Seine are partially combined and linked together. The members of the Paris municipal council are also members of the council general of the department, which includes also members from the districts outside of the city. The prefect of the department of the Seine is the chief administrative officer both for the department and for the city, except for matters under the control of the special prefect of police. 23 Dawson, W. H.: Municipal Life and Government in Germany, 465-467. For administrative purposes, Paris is divided into 20 arrondissements. These are the districts for the election of members of the municipal council; and in each there is a municipal building (mairie), where are located district offices for most branches of local administration, under the general supervision of a district mayor. 24 24 A somewhat different system of 19 administrative districts exists in Vienna. See Albert Shaw: Municipal Government in Continental Europe; John A. Fairlie: Essays in Municipal Administration. V. CONCLUSIONS. This pamphlet has sought to give in detail the information that may be desired by the constitutional convention in dealing with the local problems of Chicago and Cook County. The data have been collected upon the assumption that they should throw some light upon the issues involved in the adoption of any one of the various alternatives for the solution of these local problems. The several alternatives have been stated and discussed, with the object merely of presenting the issues which may in one form or another present themselves in the deliberations of the convention. It is assumed, however, that the constitutional convention, if it frames constitutional provisions upon this matter, will deal only with the general issues, without seeking to place the details of local organization in permanent constitutional form. The constitution of 1870 prescribes in detail the present governmental organization and judicial system of Cook County; and detailed provisions framed for a county of 350,000 have naturally ceased to be fully applicable to the county after its population has increased eightfold. The Chicago amendment to the constitution, adopted in 1904, was also detailed in character, and does not permit the solution of Chicago's governmental problems. If the important and changing problems of Chicago and Cook county are to be satisfactorily solved, the plan may well be resorted to of making it possible to meet these problems without serious constitutional restrictions. The discussion in this pamphlet of the plans adopted in other large urban communities is of value as indicating what has been done elsewhere under somewhat similar conditions, but emphasis should be laid upon the fact that the experience of one community is not precisely applicable to the problems of another. Cook County and the City of Chicago present problems of a type different in many important respects from those presented by the city and county situation in other states, and the constitutional basis for the settlement of these problems must be determined primarily by the facts of the local situation. In all discussions of proposals for consolidated government, it has been assumed that no community would be in any way forced to give up its autonomy and become a part of a larger consolidated city and county. The discussion in this pamphlet has been based upon this assumption and the several alternatives for local organization are discussed, not with the notion that any one of them will be placed in the constitution, but in order to present the several plans which might be worked out upon the basis of local consent, if the constitution were so changed as to make possible the local solution of the problems discussed. The problems of Chicago and Cook County bear a close relation to those of local government elsewhere in Illinois. The multiplicity and complexity of overlapping areas within Cook County are here discussed, but in discussing the Cook County situation, it should be borne in mind that local government in many other parts of the state is almost as complex, if not equally so. St. Clair and Rock Island counties have already begun to present situations not dissimilar from those here detailed with respect to Cook County. A separate pamphlet in this series will be devoted to the question of local government throughout the state. The issue of municipal home rule will present itself to the convention not only with respect to Chicago but also with respect to the other cities of the state as well, and the issue as to limitations on municipal indebtedness will arise as to both. The question of municipal home rule for Chicago is more important perhaps, because Chicago is the state's largest city, and also because of the fact that Chicago has a very large proportion of the state's population. The peculiar status of Chicago and Cook county raises other problems not involved in the grant of municipal home rule to other cities. In one respect, however, the problem is the same. No plan for municipal home rule for Chicago or for any other city is likely to place cities in a position independent of state authority as to matters of vital state concern. However, Chicago and Cook county present a distinct question with respect to representation and this question is likely to be connected with that of granting larger powers to Chicago and Cook county to work out their peculiarly local problems. The problem of representation has a twofold aspect. The proposal to limit the representation of Cook county and Chicago will be made for the purpose of preventing Chicago and Cook county from dominating the rest of the state. But it is probably not desired by anyone that the rest of the state should control the local problems of Chicago and Cook county. If Cook county and Chicago have limited representation in either or both houses, but continue under the necessity of getting permission from the general assembly to deal with every new aspect of a purely local problem, they are helpless, for legislative inaction denies them the things they need. If Chicago is governed largely from Springfield, reducing the representation of Chicago at Springfield is reducing the power of the city to govern itself. A discussion of the problem of representation will be found in a pamphlet on the Legislative Department, and a separate pamphlet in this series is devoted to the subject of municipal home rule. In a pamphlet devoted to the judicial department, an analysis of the present judicial system of Cook county and Chicago will be found. It may be worth while to suggest here, however, that the present judicial organization within Cook county confines its attention primarily to the questions presented by the city itself and somewhat neglects the civil and criminal matters arising in parts of the county outside of Chicago. APPENDIX NO. 1. REFERENCES. Constitutional Changes required in Cook County, by H. S. Mecartney and Enoch J. Price (1900-01). The Extent of Necessary Constitutional Amendment, by Wallace Heckman. Address to Chicago Law Club, March 29, 1901. Chicago and the Constitution. Report of Civic Federation Committee. September, 1902. Proceedings of the Chicago New Charter Convention. The Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Illinois. and a new charter for Chicago, by B. E. Sunny, April, 1904. The Chicago New Charter Movement, July, 1904. Opinion on the Amendment to Article IV of the Constitution of Illinois. By E. B. Tolman (Corporation Counsel of Chicago) December 1, 1904. The New Amendment of the Constitution of Illinois covering the Some Legal Aspects of the Chicago Charter Act of 1907. By Ernst The Park Governments of Chicago, Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, December, 1914. The Nineteen Local Governments in Chicago, Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency. December, 1913, Second Ed., March, 1915. Unification of Local Governments in Chicago, Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency. January, 1917. Tentative Propositions affecting the City of Chicago. Special Council Committee on Constitutional Proposals. December 1, 1919. |