Page images
PDF
EPUB

as the control actually although irregularly exercised by the State legislatures over our American municipalities; so that although the municipal administration is apparently more centralized than here, the Prussian cities in fact enjoy, it is said, a greater degree of freedom from central interposition than with us. In order to ensure the services of the best citizens, penalties are imposed on those who refuse to serve for at least half of the time for which they have been elected or appointed, that they shall lose their municipal suffrage and have their taxes increased. Suffrage, though very general, is not universal. A small property qualification is required, which may consist in the payment of taxes. But in order to give property a certain degree of influence or control, the voting population is divided into three classes: the first consisting of the largest taxpayers, who pay a third of all the direct taxes; the second class consisting of the next largest taxpayers, who pay the next third of the taxes; the third class consisting of the remaining taxpayers. Each of these classes elects a third of the members of the municipal council. This system is similar to that adopted in elections to the Prussian diet; and it is represented to work satisfactorily, and to account in a large measure for the great success of the municipal government of the Prussian cities.1

See Political Science Quarterly, Vol. III., December, 1888, p. 714, where Professor Goodnow reviews Steffenhagen's Handbuch der städtischen Verfassung und Verwaltung in Preussen. For a full account of provincial and local government in Prussia, see also Professor Goodnow's valuable articles in Political Science Quarterly, December, 1889, and March, 1890, and his "Comparative Administrative Law," Vol. I. pp. 295-337, 1893.

An enlightened observer (Professor Ely) has given it as his opinion that Berlin is the best governed large municipality in the world. Opinions may differ whether this high eulogium is merited; but undoubtedly it is a wellgoverned city. The essential features of its municipal organization are in substance stated by Mr. Baxter (lecture on Berlin) as follows:

All male persons of the age of twentyfour, who pay a tax on an income of $150, obtain the electoral franchise upon a year's residence. Over ten thousand citizens take part in the administration of municipal affairs. The most distinguished and substantial citizens consider it an honor to do so. Penalties are imposed for a refusal to

The

serve in any position to which a citizen may be elected. The municipal assembly is composed of 126 members, representing 326 wards. [At present it consists of 144 members.] One-half at least must be house-owners. members are chosen for six years, onethird retiring every two years, thus giving permanency to the governing body by making the changes gradual. This body controls the affairs of the city. It chooses, also, the upper branch of the city government, known as the magistracy, composed of the mayor and the board of aldermen, 32 in number, 15 of whom are salaried, and 17 are honorary members. The term of the mayor is twelve years; the salary about $7,500. It is regarded as a position of high honor. The salaried aldermen are elected for twelve years by the municipal assembly, with special regard to their qualifications. Their salaries are higher than those of the local judges. The custom is to re-elect good men. The term of the unpaid aldermen is six years, and they are usually chosen from men who have distinguished themselves for efficient public service. Voters who elect the municipal assembly are divided into

§ 10 (8). BRITAIN was one of the last conquests of the Cæsars, and was one of the first of the western provinces upon which they released their hold. The Latin language did not become the language of the people; nor did the Romans, as in many of the continental provinces, fill the country with memorials of their skill and arts. The impressions made by the mastery of the Roman were not destined to be permanent. According to an accurate explorer and philosophic modern historian,' Britain, when subject to Rome, was divided into thirty-three townships, with a certain share of local self-government; and quasi municipal institutions, for a long time after the withdrawal of the Roman power, constituted whatever of government the people possessed. At the time of the conquest of England by William of Normandy (A. D. 1066) the towns and boroughs were dependent upon the uncertain protection of the king or lord, to whom they owed rents or service, and were liable to discretionary, that is, arbitrary rates or talliages. They were not incorporated, and did not constitute bodies politic; and being composed mainly of tradesmen and the lower classes, were regarded by their feudal masters as possessed of no political and of but few civil rights. None of them enjoyed the right of representation in the council of the nation, and, with the exception perhaps of London and a few of the greater towns, did not have the right of internal or self-government. Sometime between 1100 and 1125 Henry I. granted to London the original charter, in which were conferred many valuable municipal privileges, with the right, among others, to choose certain of their own officers, such as sheriff, justice, and the like. But the right of local self-government was not, in gen

three classes, as stated in the text. The result is that a majority of the assembly is chosen by a minority of the voters. The next feature, so far as our observation goes, is almost wholly unknown in this country. These two chambers are supplemented in Berlin by a body of 70 citizen deputies, selected by the municipal assembly from leading citizens, to serve in joint committees for the administration of special affairs, such as the relief of the poor, schools, &c. At the meetings of these committees an alderman acts as chairman. Under this executive staff of 230 members, all honorary officials and men of independent means, there is a large staff of paid officials, appointed for life, as is the rule in the German civil service. The police is administered by the State instead of the city, the force consisting of about 3,000 men.

The expense (about $400,000 a year) is borne by the city. The streets of Berlin are now taken care of by the city instead of the State, which up to 1874 had the maintenance. The revenue of the city, so far as raised by taxation, comprises an annual income tax of three per cent on all incomes above a certain amount; house rent and tax, divided between landlord and tenant; and various minor special taxes. The net debt of the city is about four millions, a decrease of nearly two millions since 1876. This is a striking contrast to New York, whose debt is several hundred millions.

1 Sir James Mackintosh, History of England, Vol. I. p. 30.

This famous charter has no date. Its substance is given in Norton's Commentaries on the History, Constitution, and Chartered Franchises of the City

eral, conferred upon towns and boroughs until the time of John, who reigned from 1199 to 1216. Meantime the towns and cities continued to grow in population and wealth, and as these increased, their disposition to submit to arbitrary exactions proportionately diminished, and their independent spirit and desire for freedom from oppressive restraints became more manifest; but still they did not acquire sufficient influence or importance to be allowed a representation in the states of the kingdom for more than two centuries after the Conquest. It was not until the time of Edward I. that cities and boroughs, then mostly incorporated, obtained the right of returning members to parliament. The legislative power of the kingdom was at this time vested in the king and the council, afterwards called the parliament. This council was constituted of the spiritual and lay peerage. The commonalty of England had no voice or part in the legislature. This wise and politic prince was greatly distressed for money, and instead of attempting to raise it by the levy of arbitrary taxes, which were submitted to with murmurs and yielded sparingly, preferred to obtain it by the prior voluntary consent of the cities, towns, and boroughs. Accordingly he caused writs to be issued to about one hundred and twenty cities and boroughs, enjoining them to send to parliament, along with the two knights of the shire, two deputies from each borough within their county, with authority from their respective communities to consent to what the king and his of London; and its various provisions of a shire, was made or recognized as explained and commented on. Pook a communa governed by a mayor; and ii. chap. ii. p. 337. In the latter causs the right to elect one annually was of this charter is an allusion to the very given by charter in 1215." ancient custom of foreign attachment in which is to be found the germ of all our foreign attachment laws. Pulling, Laws, &c., of London, 188; Hallam, Middle Ages, Vol. III. chap. viii. part

iii.

Mr. Norton gives the substance of all the charters of London from the time of William the Conqueror to the present. In the Encyc. of the Laws of England, Vol. VIII. p. 12, it is said: "The city has been a separate franchise or county for a period beyond living memory. It was governed by an alderman (eorlderman) as early as 886, and by a port-reeve and bishop at the Conquest, and possessed even at that date corporate rights independently of any charter as a distinct civitas or communitas, possibly derived from its history as a Roman municipium. It has since the Conquest received many charters dating from William I., and in 1191 the government, if it had previously been in the nature

1

Hallam, Middle Ages, Vol. III. chap. viii. Stephen thus describes the municipal institutions of England in the time of John: "The principal liberties granted in the early charters are exclusive jurisdiction, a merchant guild, the appointment of the various officers for the administration of justice, fairs and markets, with freedom from all tolls; in fact, all of the privileges granted by the borough charters were of a local character in every respect." 1 English Const. chap. iii. p. 62.

2 "It is clear that at Runimede no representatives of cities or boroughs were present." 1 Stephen, English Const. chap. iii. p. 71.

3 "In words that well became the noble King of a free people he acknowledged that 'what touched all should be approved by all."" Professor Hearn, Government of England, chap. xv. § 3, p. 423.

council should require of them. As the experiment proved successful, more money being obtained, and with less trouble, than in the former way, the practice was continued. And this, according to the best opinions of learned and careful inquirers,' is the definite commencement of popular representation, and of the House of Commons itself, the latter constituting, as Macaulay well observes, "the archetype of all the representative assemblies which now meet, either in the old or new world." 2

The political powers thus acquired by boroughs and cities gave them political importance. This power was courted and controlled by the crown. The king's judges decided that no corporation was valid without the sanction of the king, and most of the corporations from time to time applied to the crown for a grant or confirmation of privileges. Their dependence upon the crown was thus established, and the crown, as a check upon the nobles, encouraged popular elections by the whole corporate assembly.3 In the course of time it was found that these representatives were more formidable to the power of the crown than the nobility had been. In Elizabeth's reign compliant judges decided that, although the right of election was, by the original constitution or charter, in the whole assembly, still from usage, even when within the time of memory, a by-law may be presumed giving the right of election to a select class (more readily controlled by the crown) instead of the whole body.*

1 Hallam, Middle Ages, Vol. III. chap. viii.; 1 Stephen, English Const. chap. iii. pp. 95 et seq.; Hearn, Government of England, pp. 428, 480, 539; Hume, England, Vol. I. App. II.; Dr. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, book iii. chap. iii., whose account of the condition of the towns and boroughs at this period, and the decay of the power of the lords and the growth of the power of the inhabitants of the cities is, though brief, perspicuous and satisfactory. Norton, Com. Lond. 109. A distinctive feature of boroughs, in England, is the right of the borough to elect members of parliament. There the term borough includes cities as well as villages, but in the United States the term borough is not in very general use, and, when used, designates an incorporated village or town, but not a city. American Cyclopædia, Borough. In the charter of Greater New York City the term borough is used to denote municipal subdivisions of the city. Infra, § 26.

2

History England, Vol. I. chap. i.: "The Crown! it is the House of Com

mons!" said an English statesman in 1858; and the more recent history of Great Britain, in several memorable instances, shows that against the declared and positive determination of the commons neither the crown nor the lords, in any struggle relating to popular rights, can make permanent effectual resistance. Dicey, Law and Opinion in England, passim. In the United States all departments of the government ultimately respond, of course, to the public will, which is here the real sovereign power, and elects at short periods the executive and legislative branches.

3 An English municipal corporation, as will be explained hereafter, consisted usually of one or more select or definite bodies, and an indefinite body, the latter being generally composed of the burgesses or citizens, that is, the inhabitant householders; and a corporate assembly was a meeting of all the bodies, and not of the select or definite bodies alone. Post, § 53.

3

4 Willcock on Municipal Corp. 8; Hallam, Const. History, 52; 1

Afterwards, to increase the power of the crown, James incorporated towns or boroughs, endowing them with the parliamentary franchise, but confining the exercise of the right to vote to select classes. The immense power of popular representation was a most active agency in the overthrow of Charles I. This power proving inimical to the arbitrary schemes of the Protector, he expelled the members by violence, and subdued their authority in parliament by force. He then secured this power in his own favor by expelling all hostile magistrates and officers and supplanting them with others of his own creation.

On the Restoration, Charles II. found the principal opposition to the court to come from the cities and boroughs. He commenced his reign by reconstructing the corporations and filling them with his own creatures. Judges, also creatures of the king, holding commissions during his pleasure, aided him in his scheme to acquire absolute control over the corporations of the realm. London, as the largest and most influential, was selected as an example, and in 1683 the famous quo warranto was issued against the city to deprive it of its charter, for two alleged violations, one of which was stale and both were frivolous. Judgment passed, of course, against the city, and its ancient charter was abrogated. As a condition of its restoration, it was, among other things, provided that thereafter the mayor, sheriff, clerk, &c., should not exercise their office without the king's consent; and that if the king twice disapproved of the officers elected by the corporation, he might himself appoint others. In short, the city was deprived of the right of choosing its own officers, and was made dependent upon the crown. Such also was the fate of most of the considerable corporations in England. The whole power was in the hands of the king.2

Nor were these arbitrary proceedings confined to England. In 1683 writs of quo warranto and scire facias were issued for the purpose of abrogating the charter of MASSACHUSETTS. Patriotism and religion mingled their fervors and combined in its defence, but in vain. Servile judges, in June, 1684, one year and six days after judgment against the city of London, adjudged the charter to be

Stephen, English Const. chap. vi. pp. 277 et seq.

Rex v. City of London, Mich. 33 Car. II.; 2 Show. 263; Pulling, Laws, &c. of London, 14. The history of the seizure of the city franchises, by virtue of the writ of quo warranto, is given at some length by Norton, Com. on the History, &c. of London, book i.

chap. xx.; see also The Case of the City of London, 8 How. State Trials, 1340 et seq.

2 There were eighty-one quo warranto informations brought against municipal corporations by Charles II. and James II. 2 Chandl. Com. Debs. 316; 1 Stephen, English Const. chap. vii. p. 455.

« PreviousContinue »