SIMONS, A. M. The American Farmer. C. F. Emerick State and Municipal Taxation, Report of Committee. E. R. A. TARDE, G. Psychologie économique. M. M. Davis, Jr. TOWNSEND, MEREDITH. Asia and Europe Transactions of the National Liberal Club 689 522 177 182 177 184 WILSON, GEORGE GRAFTON. nett ZWIEDINECK-SÜDENHORST, OTTO VON. Lohnpolitik und Lohn- theorie POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. THE HE charter of the city of New York is of interest not merely to the citizens of the city and of the state of New York, but also to the people of the United States as a whole. New York has in the past led the way in municipal development in the United States. It was the first city of any importance to receive a charter of incorporation in the colonial period of our country. As early as 1830 the choice of mayor, who had hitherto been appointed by the governor or the common council, was vested in the voters of the city; though in this case New York was not the first in the field, as the principle of popular election had already been adopted in several other cities, e.g., Boston, St. Louis and Detroit. The New York charter of 1830 also first applied to city government certain principles of political science which were supposed to be susceptible of general application in governmental organization. It separated the council into two branches, thus introducing the bicameral principle in municipal government, and it provided for executive departments distinct from the council. In 1849 New York again applied a principle which has since that time been almost universally applied in the municipal governments of the United States. This was the detailed organization of the executive departments in the charter itself. In 1857 the legislature of the state of New York adopted, for the first time in the later history of municipal development in the United States, the principle of the appointment of important I municipal officers by the central authorities of the state government. The act of 1857 providing for a centrally appointed police commission was copied very generally in the larger cities throughout the United States. Many instances of this sort might be adduced to show the great influence which the city of New York has had upon municipal development throughout the country. But enough have been mentioned, it is believed, to prove that what is done in New York cannot fail to interest the people of the country as a whole. Since this is the case, it seems to be a fitting time to speak somewhat at length with regard to the new charter which has recently been adopted for the city, and which, as exemplifying the latest ideas of the American people with regard to the government of large cities, points the way which municipal development in the other cities of the United States will probably take. It is, of course, true that the position of New York is somewhat peculiar; for it is what may be called a metropolitan city -a kind of city of which there are but few examples in the United States. But New York has at the same time the same needs to be satisfied as the other larger cities of the United States. If we separate what may be called metropolitan problems from the ordinary municipal problems, we shall be able to distinguish those parts of the present charter which are somewhat peculiar from those parts which interest all the cities of any size in the country. We may therefore classify and study the problems of government in New York City under the two corresponding heads. I. Problems Incident to All City Government. Prior to 1895 the government of New York City was what is known as the "board system." This was the system which, about the middle of the nineteenth century, almost everywhere in this country succeeded the original form, which we may call the "council system." The characteristic of the board system as seen in New York City was this: Real authority was vested in series of independent boards and officers. The members of the boards and the officers were as a usual thing appointed by the mayor, who was himself ex officio a member of the most important boards. The comptroller, who was elected for a four years' term by the people of the city in the same manner as the mayor was elected, was the chief exception to the rule that the mayor appointed the officers of the city. The term of these officers and of the members of these boards was as a general thing longer than that of the mayor, who had practically no power of removal. No one mayor, therefore, had the power of appointing all the officers in whom real municipal authority was vested. The functions of the mayor consisted, first, in filling vacancies and, second, in acting as an ex-officio member of certain boards-for example, of the board of estimate and apportionment, in which was vested the power of determining the policy of the city, so far as that was the subject of local determination; of the board of sinking-fund commissioners, in which was vested the care of the property and the sinking fund of the city; and of the board of street openings, whose name gives a sufficiently accurate idea of its function. Under this system the city had lost practically all legislative power—that is, the power of formulating the municipal policy. This power had been assumed by the state legislature. Thus, for example, when it was desired to inaugurate a system of underground rapid transit, it was found that the powers of the city authorities were insufficient for the purpose. Application had to be made to the legislature, which enacted a very detailed law upon the subject, providing for the carrying on of the work by a commission which was not connected with the municipal authorities. The same method was pursued in the construction of the new East River Bridge. If What legislative power the municipal authorities possessed was of little use, as they had no general borrowing powers. it was desired to enter upon an undertaking which required the issue of bonds, application had to be made to the state legislature for authorization to make the issue. For example, when the city wished to establish municipal ownership of the water front, this was found to be impossible without legislative action; and when it was desired to increase the school facilities of the city by the erection of a large number of new school houses, it was necessary to appeal to the legislature in order to get the authority to issue the necessary bonds. During the years immediately prior to 1895 the legislature, as a general thing, behaved with great moderation towards the city; for the special acts relative to the city government, of which there were many, were as a rule permissive rather than mandatory in character. But, by virtue of much precedent legislation, most of the expenses of the city were mandatory and could not be fixed in amount by any municipal authority. This was particularly true of the salaries of municipal officers. This system of government on the whole worked fairly well. The city authorities did not, it is true, have much power over the local concerns of the city, so far as the formulation of municipal policy was concerned, but the people of. the city had become quite accustomed to the system. The journey from New York to Albany was an easy and comfortable one, and, as has been said, the legislature's behavior towards the city was marked generally by wisdom and moderation. Great progress was made in almost all directions of municipal government in the period from 1873, the date of the adoption of this system, up to 1895. A new system of street cleaning, known as the block system, was inaugurated; the city entered into a comprehensive policy of municipal ownership of the water front; new pavements of a far better character than those which previously existed were laid throughout large portions of the city; and its water facilities were greatly increased by the building of the new aqueduct. Owing to the fact that no one mayor had the right to make wholesale changes in the official class, the service was permanent enough to admit of a reasonable continuity in municipal policy and a reasonably efficient administration of the law. The year 1895 was marked by a most radical departure from the board system, as it has been outlined. In the years immediately prior to 1895 the political organization which, more |