the boss and the machine- 第7部分

*　Between　1860　and　1890　the　number　of　cities　of　8000　or　more
inhabitants　increased　from　141　to　448；　standing　at　226　in　1870。
In　1865　less　than　20％　of　our　people　lived　in　the　cities；　in　1890；
over　30％；　in　1900；　40％；　in　1910；　46。3％。　By　1890　there　were　six
cities　with　more　than　half　a　million　inhabitants；　fifteen　with
more　than　200；000；　and　twenty…eight　with　more　than　100；000。　In
1910　there　were　twenty…eight　cities　with　a　population　over
200；000；　fifty　cities　over　100；000；　and　ninety…eight　over　50；000。
It　was　no　uncommon　occurrence　for　a　city　to　double　its　population
in　a　decade。　In　ten　years　Birmingham　gained　245％；　Los　Angeles；
211％；　Seattle；　194％；　Spokane；　183％；　Dallas；　116％；　Schenectady；
129％。


The　governmental　framework　of　the　American　city　is　based　on　the
English　system　as　exemplified　in　the　towns　of　Colonial　America。
Their　charters　were　received　from　the　Crown　and　their　business
was　conducted　by　a　mayor　and　a　council　composed　of　aldermen　and
councilmen。　The　mayor　was　usually　appointed；　the　council　elected
by　a　property…holding　electorate。　In　New　England　the　glorified
town　meeting　was　an　important　agency　of　local　government。

After　the　Revolution；　mayors　as　well　as　councilmen　were　elected；
and　the　charters　of　the　towns　were　granted　by　the　legislature；
not　by　the　executive；　of　the　State。　In　colonial　days　charters　had
been　granted　by　the　King。　They　had　fixed　for　the　city　certain
immunities　and　well…defined　spheres　of　autonomy。　But　when　the
legislatures　were　given　the　power　to　grant　charters；　they　reduced
the　charter　to　the　level　of　a　statutory　enactment；　which　could　be
amended　or　repealed　by　any　successive　legislature；　thereby
opening　up　a　convenient　field　for　political　maneuvering。　The
courts　have；　moreover；　construed　these　charters　strictly；　holding
the　cities　closely　bound　to　those　powers　which　the　legislatures
conferred　upon　them。

The　task　of　governing　the　early　American　town　was　simple　enough。
In　1790　New　York；　Philadelphia；　Boston；　Baltimore；　and　Charleston
were　the　only　towns　in　the　United　States　of　over　8000
inhabitants；　all　together　they　numbered　scarcely　130；000。　Their
populations　were　homogeneous；　their　wants　were　few；　and　they　were
still　in　that　happy　childhood　when　every　voter　knew　nearly　every
other　voter　and　when　everybody　knew　his　neighbor's　business　as
well　as　his　own；　and　perhaps　better。

Gradually　the　towns　awoke　to　their　newer　needs　and　demanded
public　servicelighting；　street　cleaning；　fire　protection；
public　education。　All　these　matters；　however；　could　be　easily
looked　after　by　the　mayor　and　the　council　committees。　But　when
these　towns　began　to　spread　rapidly　into　cities；　they　quickly
outgrew　their　colonial　garments。　Yet　the　legislatures　were　loath
to　cast　the　old　garments　aside。　One　may　say　that　from　1840　to
1901；　when　the　Galveston　plan　of　commission　government　was
inaugurated；　American　municipal　government　was　nothing　but　a
series　of　contests　between　a　small　body　of　alert　citizens
attempting　to　fix　responsibility　on　public　officers　and　a　few
adroit　politicians　attempting　to　elude　responsibility；　both　sides
appealing　to　an　electorate　which　was　habitually　somnolent　but
subject　to　intermittent　awakenings　through　spasms　of
righteousness。

During　this　epoch　no　important　city　remained　immune　from　ruthless
legislative　interference。　Year　after　year　the　legislature　shifted
officers　and　responsibilities　at　the　behest　of　the　boss。　〃Ripper
bills〃　were　passed；　tearing　up　the　entire　administrative　systems
of　important　municipalities。　The　city　was　made　the　plaything　of
the　boss　and　the　machine。

Throughout　the　constant　shifts　that　our　city　governments　have
undergone　one　may；　however；　discern　three　general　plans　of
government。

The　first　was　the　centering　of　power　in　the　city　council；　whether
composed　of　two　chambersa　board　of　aldermen　and　a　common
councilas　in　New　York；　Philadelphia；　and　Chicago；　or　of　one
council；　as　in　many　lesser　cities。　It　soon　became　apparent　that　a
large　body；　whose　chief　function　is　legislation；　is　utterly　unfit
to　look　after　administrative　details。　Such　a　body；　in　order　to　do
business；　must　act　through　committees。　Responsibility　is
scattered。　Favoritism　is　possible　in　letting　contracts；　in　making
appointments；　in　depositing　city　funds；　in　making　public
improvements；　in　purchasing　supplies　and　real　estate；　and　in　a
thousand　other　ways。　So；　by　controlling　the　appointment　of
committees；　a　shrewd　manipulator　could　virtually　control　all　the
municipal　activities　and　make　himself　overlord　of　the　city。

The　second　plan　of　government　attempted　to　make　the　mayor　the
controlling　force。　It　reduced　the　council　to　a　legislative　body
and　exalted　the　mayor　into　a　real　executive　with　power　to　appoint
and　to　remove　heads　of　departments；　thereby　making　him
responsible　for　the　city　administration。　Brooklyn　under　Mayor
Seth　Low　was　an　encouraging　example　of　this　type　of　government。
But　the　type　was　rarely　found　in　a　pure　form。　The　politician
succeeded　either　in　electing　a　subservient　mayor　or　in　curtailing
the　mayor's　authority　by　having　the　heads　of　departments　elected
or　appointed　by　the　council　or　made　subject　to　the　approval　of
the　council。　If　the　council　held　the　key　to　the　city　treasury；
the　boss　reigned；　for　councilmen　from　properly　gerrymandered
wards　could　usually　be　trusted　to　execute　his　will。

The　third　form　of　government　was　government　by　boards。　Here　it
was　attempted　to　place　the　administration　of　various　municipal
activities　in　the　hands　of　independent　boards。　Thus　a　board　had
charge　of　the　police；　another　of　the　fire　department；　another　of
public　works；　and　so　on。　Often　there　were　a　dozen　of　these　boards
and　not　infrequently　over　thirty　in　a　single　city；　as　in
Philadelphia。　Sometimes　these　boards　were　elected　by　the　people；
sometimes　they　were　appointed　by　the　council；　sometimes　they　were
appointed　by　the　mayor；　in　one　or　two　instances　they　were
appointed　by　the　Governor。　Often　their　powers　were　shared　with
committees　of　the　council；　a　committee　on　police；　for　instance；
shared　with　the　Board　of　Police　Commissioners　the　direction　of
police　affairs。　Usually　these　boards　were　responsible　to　no　one
but　the　electorate　（and　that　remotely）　and　were　entirely　without
coordination；　a　mere　agglomeration　of　independent　creations
generally　with　ill…defined　powers。

Sometimes　the　laws　provided　that　not　all　the　members　of　the
appointive　boards　should　〃belong　to　the　same　political　party〃　or
〃be　of　the　same　political　opinion　in　state　and　national　issues。〃
It　was　clearly　the　intention　to　wipe　out　the　partizan　complexion
of　such　boards。　But　this　device　was　no　stumbling…block　to　the
boss。　Whatever　might　be　the　〃opinions〃　on　national　matters　of　the
men　appointed；　they　usually　had　a　perfect　understanding　with　the
appointing　authorities　as　to　local　matters。　As　late　as　1898；　a
Democratic　mayor　of　New　York　（Van　Wyck）　summarily　removed　the　two
Republican　members　of　the　Board　of　Police　Commissioners　and
replaced　them　by　Republicans　after　his　own　heart。　In　truth；　the
bipartizan　board　fitted　snugly　into　the　dual　party　regime　that
existed　in　many　cities；　whereby　the　county　offices　were
apportioned　to　one　party；　the　city　offices　to　the　other；　and　the
spoils　to　both。　It　is　doubtful　if　any　device　was　ever　more
deceiving　and　less　satisfactory　than　the　bipartizan　board。

The　reader　must　not　be　led　to　think　that　any　one　of　these　plans
of　municipal　government　prevailed　at　any　one　time。　They　all　still
exist；　contemporaneously　with　the　newer　commission　plan　and　the
city　manager　plan。

Hand　in　hand　with　these　experiments　in　governmental　mechanisms
for　the　growing　cities　went　a　rapidly　increasing　expenditure　of
public　funds。　Streets　had　to　be　laid　out；　paved；　and　lighted；
sewers　extended；　firefighting　facilities　increased；　schools
built；　parks；　boulevards；　and　playgrounds　acquired；　and　scores　of
new　activities　undertaken　by　the　municipality。　All　these　brought
grist　to　the　politician's　mill。　So　did　his　control　of　the　police
force　and　the　police　courts。　And　finally；　with　the　city　reaching
its　eager　streets　far　out　into　the　country；　came　the　necessity
for　rapid　transportation；　which　opened　up　for　the　municipal
politician　a　new　El　Dorado。

Under　our　laws　the　right　of　a　public　service　corporation　to
occupy　the　public　streets　is　based　upon　a　franchise　from　the
city。　Before　the　days　of　the　referendum　the　franchise　was　granted
by　the　city　council；　usually　as　a　monopoly；　sometimes　in
perpetuity；　and；　until　comparatively　recent　years；　the
corporation　paid　nothing　to　the　city　for　the　rights　it　acquired。

When　we　reflect　that　within　a　few　decades　of　the　discovery　of
electric　power；　every　city；　large　and　small；　had　its　street…car
and　electric…light　service；　and　that　most　of　these　cities；
through　their　councils；　gave　away　these　monopoly　rights　for　long
periods　of　time；　we　can　imagine　the　princely　aggregate　of　the
gifts　which　public　service　corporations　have　received　at　the
hands　of　our　municipal　governments；　and　the　nature　of　the
temptations　these　corporations　were　able　to　spread　before　the
greedy　gaze　of　those　whose　gesture　would　seal　the　grant。

But　it　was　not　only　at　the　granting　of　the　franchise　that　the
boss　and　his　machine　sought　for　spoils。　A　public　service
corporation；　being　constantly　asked　for　favors；　is　a　continuing
opportunity　for　the　political　manipulator。　Public　service
corporations　could　share　their　patronage　with　the　politician　in
exchange　for　favors。　Through　their　control　of　many　jobs；　and
through　their　influence　with　banks；　they　could　show　a　wide
assortment　of　favors　to　the　politician　in　return　for　his
influence；　for　instance；　in　the　matter　of　traffic　regulations；
permission　to　tear　up　the　streets；　inspection　laws；　rate
schedules；　tax　assessments；　coroners'　reports；　or　juries。

When　the　politician　went　to　the　voters；　he　adroitly　concealed　his
designs　under　the　name　of　one　of　the　national　parties。　Voters
were　asked　to　vote　for　a　Republican　or　a　Democrat；　not　for　a
policy　of　municipal　administration　or　other　local　policies。　The
system　of　committees；　caucuses；　conventions；　built　up　in　every
city；　was　linked　to　the　national　organization。　A　citizen　of　New
York；　for　inst