never heard of is not to insure popular control, but to endanger it. It is much better to vote for one man whose reputation we know, and then to hold him strictly responsible for the appointments he makes. The Brooklyn system seems to be a step toward lifting city government out of the mire of party politics. This system went into operation in Brooklyn in January, 1882, and seems to have given general satisfaction. Since then changes in a similar direction, though with variations in detail, have been made in other cities, and notably in Philadelphia. Notion that the suffrage ought to be restricted. In speaking of the difficulties which beset city government in the United States, mention is often (and perhaps too exclusively) made of the great mass of ignorant voters, chiefly foreigners without experience in self-government, with no comprehension of American principles and traditions, and with little or no property to suffer from excessive taxation. Such people will naturally have slight compunctions about voting away other people's money; indeed, they are apt to think that "the Government" has got Aladdin's lamp hidden away somewhere in a burglar-proof safe, and could do pretty much everything that is wanted, if it only would. In the hands of demagogues such people may be dangerous, they are supposed to be especially accessible to humbug and bribes, and their votes have no doubt been used to sustain and perpetuate most flagrant abuses. We often hear it said that the only way to get good government is to deprive such people of their votes and limit the suffrage to persons who have some property at stake. Such a measure has been seriously recommended in New York, but it is generally felt to be impossible without a revolution. seems. Testimony vania Muni cipal Com Perhaps, after all, it may not be so desirable as it The ignorant vote has done a great deal of harm, but not all the harm. In 1878 it was of Pennsyl- reported by the Pennsylvania Municipal Commission," as a remarkable but notorious mission. fact, that the accumulations of debt in Philadelphia and other cities of the state have been due, not to a non-property-holding, irresponsible element among the electors, but to the desire for speculation among the property-owners themselves. Large tracts of land outside the built-up portion of the city have been purchased, combinations made among men of wealth, and councils besieged until they have been driven into making appropriations to open and improve streets and avenues, largely in advance of the real necessities of the city. Extraordinary as the statement may seem at first, the experience of the past shows clearly that frequently property-owners need more protection against themselves than against the non-property-holding class."1 This is a statement of profound significance, and should be duly pondered by advocates of a restricted suffrage. Dangers of a restricted suffrage. It should also be borne in mind that, while ignorant and needy voters, led by unscrupulous demagogues, are capable of doing much harm with their votes, it is by no means clear that the evil would be removed by depriving them of the suffrage. It is very unsafe to have in any community a large class of people who feel that political rights or privileges are withheld from them by other people who are their superiors in wealth or knowledge. Such poor people are apt to have exaggerated ideas of what a vote can do; very likely they think it is be 1 Allinson and Penrose, Philadelphia, 1681-1887; a History of Municipal Development, p. 278. cause they do not have votes that they are poor; thus they are ready to entertain revolutionary or anarchical ideas, and are likely to be more dangerous material in the hands of demagogues than if they were allowed to vote. Universal suffrage has its evils, but it undoubtedly acts as a safety-valve. The only cure for the evils which come from ignorance and shiftlessness is the abolition of ignorance and shiftlessness; and this is slow work. Church and school here find enough to keep them busy; but the vote itself, even if often misused, is a powerful educator; and we need not regret that the restriction of the suffrage has come to be practically impossible. mixing city politics with effects of national The purification of our city governments will never be completed until they are entirely divorced from national party politics. The connection opens a limitless field for "log-rolling," and rivets upon cities the "spoils system," which is always and everywhere incompatible with good government. It is Baneful worthy of note that the degradation of so many English boroughs and cities during the Tudor and Stuart periods was chiefly politics. due to the encroachment of national politics upon municipal politics. Because the borough returned members to the House of Commons, it became worth while for the crown to intrigue with the municipal government, with the ultimate object or influencing parliamentary elections. The melancholy history of the consequent dickering and dealing, jobbery and robbery, down to 1835, when the great Municipal Corporations Act swept it all away, may be read with profit by all Americans. It was the city of London only, whose power and independence had kept it free 1 See Parliamentary Reports, 1835, "Municipal Corporations Commission;" also Sir Erskine May, Const. Hist., vol. ii. chap. xv. from complications with national politics, that avoided the abuses elsewhere prevalent, so that it was excepted from the provisions of the Act of 1835, and still retains its ancient constitution. In the United States the entanglement of municipal with national politics has begun to be regarded as mischievous and possibly dangerous, and attempts have in some cases been made toward checking it by changing the days of election, so that municipal officers may not be chosen at the same time with presidential electors. Such a change is desirable, but to obtain a thoroughly satisfactory result, it will be necessary to destroy the "spoils system" root and branch, and to adopt effective measures of ballot reform. To these topics I shall recur when treating of our national government. But first we shall have to consider the development of our several states. QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT. Give an account of city government in the United States, under the following heads : 1. The American city : a. The mayor. b. The heads of departments. c. The city council. d. The judges. e. Appropriations. f. The power of committees. 2. The practical workings of city governments :— a. The contrast they show between theory and practice. b. Various complaints urged against city governments. c. Their effect upon the old-time confidence in the perfection of our institutions. 3. The growth of American cities: a. The cities of Washington's time and those of to-day. b. The population of cities in 1790 and their population to day. c. City growth since 1840. 4. Some consequences of rapid city growth :a. The pressure to construct public works. b. The incurring of heavy debts. c. The wastefulness due to a lack of foresight. d. The increase in government due to the complexity of a city. e. An illustration of this complexity in Boston. f. The consequent mystery that enshrouds much of city gov ernment. 5. Some evils due to the fear of a "one-man " power : d. The lack of unity in the administration of business. e. The inefficiency of committees for executive purposes. f. The alarming increase in city debts. 6. Attempts to remedy some of the evils of city government :— a. The power of veto granted to the mayor. b. The limitation of city indebtedness. c. State control of some city departments. 7. Difficulties inherent in state control of cities : a. Lack of familiarity with city affairs. b. The tendency to "log-rolling." c. Lack of time due to the pressure of state affairs. d. The failure of state control as shown in the rule of the Tweed ring. 8. The government of the city of Brooklyn :— a. The elevation of the "one-man "" the "ring." b. Officers elected by the people. c. Officers appointed by the mayor. power above that of d. The principle of well-defined responsibility. e. The appointment of certain boards by the mayor. f. The holding of the purse-strings. g. The inadequacy of the township elective system in a city like Brooklyn. 9. Restriction of the suffrage :— a. The dangers from large masses of ignorant voters. b. The responsibility for the debt of Philadelphia and other cities. c. The dangers from large classes who feel that political rights are denied them. d. Suffrage as a “safety-valve.” |