Slike strani
PDF
ePub

the part of the cities to appreciate in advance the phenomenal growth that is coming upon them; and second, from the frequent tendency of population to grow in precisely the direction where it was not expected to. A singular illustration of this last factor is to be found in the city of Washington. The Capitol was made to face towards the east, under the impression that population would settle in that direction; as matter of fact the city has grown towards the west, so that the Capitol stands with its back to the city and faces a district that is scarcely built upon at all.

Probably no detail strikes the eye of the foreigner more unfavourably in connection with the average American city than the poor paving of the streets and their lack of cleanliness. The comparison with cities. of Europe in these respects is immensely to the disadvantage of the American city. But, in this connection, it is not unfair to call attention to the fact that the era of good paving and clean streets in Europe is scarcely more than thirty years old. Poor as is the condition of the streets in most American cities now, it would be risking very little to say that it would average much higher than ten years ago. There are several contributing causes which are reflected in this situation that represent difficulties from which most European cities are free. In the first place, frost strikes much deeper in America, and is more trying to the pavements in every way. In the next place, the streets are more often disturbed in connection with gas pipes, steam pipes, and telegraph service, than in European cities. But, apart from these incidental difficulties, the fundamental trouble in connection with the streets of American cities is the lack of sufficient appropriations to put them in first-class condition and to keep them so, both

as to paving and as to cleaning. The reason for this has been pointed out.

All the troubles, however, which have marked the development of cities in the United States are not due to these causes. Cities in the United States, as forms of government, are of comparatively recent origin. The city of Boston, for example, in the State of Massachusetts, although the settlement was founded more than two hundred and fifty years ago, received its charter as a city so recently as 1822. The city of Brooklyn received its charter from the State of New York in 1835. In other words, the transition from village and town government into government by cities, has simply followed the transition of small places into large communities. This suggests another distinction between the cities of the United States and those of Great Britain. The great cities of England and of Europe, with few exceptions, have their roots in the distant past. Many of their privileges and chartered rights were wrested from the Crown in feudal times. Some of these privileges have been retained, and contribute to the income, the pride, and the influence of the municipality. The charter of an American city represents no element of prestige or inspiration. It is only the legal instrument which gives the community authority to act as a corporation, and which defines the duties of its officers. The motive for passing from town government to city government in general has been the same everywhere-to acquire a certain readiness of action, and to make more available the credit of the community in order to provide adequately for its own growth. The town meeting, in which every citizen takes part, serves its purpose admirably in communities up to a certain size, or for the conducting of public work on not too large

a scale. But the necessity for efficiency in providing for the needs of growth has compelled rapidly-growing communities, in all the States, to seek the powers of a corporation as administered through a city government. Growing thus out of the town, it happened very naturally that the first conception of the city on the part of Americans was that which had applied to the town and the village as local subdivisions of the commonwealth. Charters were framed as though cities were little states. Americans are only now learning, after many years of bitter experience, that they are not so much little states as large corporations. Many of the mistakes which have marked the progress of American cities up to this point have sprung from that defective conception. The aim deliberately was, to make a city government where no officer by himself should have power enough to do much harm. The natural result of this was to create a situation where no officer had power to do much good. Meanwhile bad men united for corrupt purposes, and the whole organization of the city government aided such in throwing responsibility from one to another. Many recent city charters in the United States proceed upon the more accurate theory that cities, in their organic capacity, are chiefly large corporations. The better results flowing from this theory are easily made clear. Americans are sufficiently adept in the administration of large business enterprises to understand that, in any such undertaking, some one man must be given the power of direction and the choice of his chief assistants; they understand that power and responsibility must go together from the top to the bottom of every successful business organization. Consequently, when it began to be realized that a city was a business corporation rather than an integral part

of the State, the unwillingness to organize the city upon the line of concentrated power in connection with concentrated responsibility began to disappear. The charter of the city of Brooklyn is probably as advanced a type as can be found of the results of this mode of thinking. In Brooklyn the executive side of the city government is represented by the mayor and the various heads of departments. The legislative side consists of a common council of nineteen members, twelve of whom are elected from three districts each having four aldermen, the remaining seven being elected as aldermen at large by the whole city. The people elect three city officers besides the board of aldermen; the mayor, who is the real, as well as the nominal, head of the city; the comptroller, who is practically the book-keeper of the city; and the auditor, whose audit is necessary for the payment of every bill against the city whether large or small. The mayor appoints absolutely, without confirmation by the common council, all the executive heads of departments. He appoints, for example, the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the health commissioner, the commissioner of city works, the corporation counsel or counsellor at law, the city treasurer, the tax collector, and in general all the officials who are charged with executive duties. These officials in turn appoint their own subordinates, so that the principle of defined responsibility permeates the city government from top to bottom. The mayor also appoints the board of assessors, the board of education, and the board of elections. The executive officers appointed by the mayor are appointed for a term of two years, that is to say, for a term similar to his own. The mayor is elected at the general election in November; he takes office on the first of January following, and for one

month the great departments of the city are carried on for him by the appointees of his predecessor. On the first of February it becomes his duty to appoint his own heads of departments, and inasmuch as they serve for the same term as himself, each incoming mayor thus has the opportunity to make an administration in all its parts in sympathy with himself. Each one of these great executive departments is under the charge of a single head, the charter of the city conforming absolutely, with one exception which is felt to be an anomaly, to the theory that where executive work is to be done it should be committed to the charge of one man. Where boards of officials exist in Brooklyn, it is because the work committed to them is discretionary more than it is executive in character. These boards, also, are appointed by the mayor without confirmation by the board of aldermen, but they are appointed for terms not coterminous with his own; so that, in most cases, no mayor would appoint the whole of any such board unless he were to be twice elected by the people. In other words, with quite unimportant exceptions, the charter of Brooklyn, a city with 750,000 inhabitants, makes the mayor entirely responsible for the conduct of the city government on its executive side, and, in holding him to this responsibility, equips him fearlessly with the necessary power to discharge his trust. This charter went into effect on the first of January 1882. It has been found to have precisely the merits and the defects which one might expect of such an instrument. A strong executive can accomplish satisfactory results; a weak one can disappoint every hope. The community, however, is so well satisfied that the charter is a vast improvement on any system which it has tried before,

VOL. II

X

« PrejšnjaNaprej »