rule charters. There is no good reason for diversity in the main lines of municipal organization in the several cities of any one state, and yet it seems impossible to get good general legislation on this point. The details of organization ought to be left to the locality in any case, and under existing circumstances there is reason to believe that the whole matter of municipal organization should be left to the people of the locality without any reference to the legislature or the governor for approval or veto.

The third and most important right of municipal home rule — that is, the right of every city to determine the scope of its own functions is generally included in the right to frame its own charter. It is, however, distinct in principle. Many cities not having the right to frame their own charters have a considerable latitude for expanding or contracting their municipal activities. It is here, however, that the need of municipal home rule is greatest. This applies particularly to problems arising out of the grant or operation of street franchises, but may affect other matters of importance at any time. The American rule of enumeration of powers ought to be reversed, and cities be given a local grant of authority to attend to all local matters, leaving the courts to decide, whenever the question is raised as to the city's overstepping its jurisdiction. It is in this direction that the home-rule program should be most aggressive.

In the matter of taxation and borrowing money the general rule is that the city should be limited

either by specific maximum levies and loans or by the withholding of these rights except for definite purposes. So far as the latter is true the limitation amounts to an absolute veto upon home rule; for practically nothing can be done without money. It seems perfectly proper that the state should put a definite maximum limit upon local taxation and local debt, though in the case of debt the limit should not apply to debt created for the purchase, construction, or equipment of self-supporting enterprises. So long as we rely upon a variety of taxes for the support of government, it would be advantageous for the state to select certain special sources of revenue for general purposes, and leave the cities free to adopt any other forms of taxation which they might consider advantageous. In this case a debt or tax limit might be put on a per capita basis rather than a basis of assessed valuation. A state municipal government board with authority to advise cities in regard to bonding and taxation, with a veto upon local action within certain limits, might be conducive to careful municipal financiering, and certainly would not be in violation of legitimate home-rule rights.

The most strenuous objection urged against municipal home rule, both in general and in particular cases, is the ignorance or depravity, or both, of the masses of people living in cities. In so far as it is true that city populations are ignorant and corrupt, in so far does home rule become not only expedient, but necessary from the standpoint of

democracy; because, according to our theory, selfgovernment and definite political responsibility are the sovereign remedy for ignorance and corruption. Home rule frees the hands of good citizens and offers the opportunity to make one's efforts toward civic betterment count for something. With home rule, an individual citizen, or a body of citizens, is not compelled to confound any project of municipal reform with the irrelevant issues of state and national politics, or to appeal to an irrelevant body of men, chosen by constituencies only remotely interested in the questions involved. The ideal of municipal democracy is to have such a system of government that every citizen who has time, intelligence, and inclination to serve his city, will be enabled to do so with the least possible waste of effort.

The crowning argument in favor of home rule is, that it would make municipal organization more fluid and less cumbersome, more a means of carrying out rather than of tiring out the people's will.

CHAPTER XII

MUNICIPAL REVENUES

THE raising of revenue with which to carry out the primary purposes of government is a matter that is all important in its practical aspects. It is in this that the people realize the necessity of paying for the benefits of government. There is no magic in the name of municipal coöperation to conjure up substantial benefits for the public without money and without price. If this practical limitation upon the operation of municipal coöperation prevents the people from enjoying all the imagined advantages of government, it also makes them appreciate better the advantages they do receive and necessitates more or less constant practice of public economy, which, in itself, is a good thing for the people under the conditions of life that surround us all.

The thirty-eight American cities with a population of over 100,000 have a total net indebtedness of about $55 per capita, and spend $20 per capita every year for maintaining their governments.1 In other words, the people of these cities spend $20 a

1 The data here given are taken from the Bulletin of the United States Department of Labor for September, 1902, in which are given "Statistics of Cities."

year of their own money for the benefits of municipal government, and have spent in addition a total of $55 apiece for public improvements generally called permanent. So far as these improvements are unproductive, this expenditure is the expenditure of our children's money. New York and Boston are by long odds the most expensive of these cities. The net debt of each is more than $80 per capita, while the current expenditures are nearly $30 per capita for New York and nearly $40 for Boston. It should be stated also that these thirty-eight cities own property, not counting streets and sewers, which is worth in the judgment of the city authorities about $125 per capita. Of this property $85 per capita is in the form of parks, other lands, and public buildings which are not financially productive, and, in all likelihood, will never be turned into money. The annual cost of the government is $20 per capita in addition to the free use of this property for governmental purposes. The productive and semi-productive public works, such as waterworks, gas-works, docks, markets, ferries, bridges, and cemeteries, amount to a little over $40 per capita in value, in the opinion of the city officials.

Some allowance should be made for exaggeration in estimating the value of municipal assets. There is no adequate standard by which to measure these values. Often the estimate is based on the cost, as, for example, the city hall and city hall site of Philadelphia, which are set down as worth