Full text of "Local government in counties, towns and villages"

See other formats

Professor R. G. Gettell

%dtf&l

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
IN COUNTIES, TOWNS AND
VILLAGES

ttbe Hmerican State Series

Eight volumes describing comprehensively
the manner in which the Governmental agen-
cies of the American State are organized and
administered.

Edited by W. W. WILLOUGHBY,

Associate Professor of Political Science at

the Johns Hopkins University.

Each about 320 pages, $1.25 net.

THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.
An introduction to the series, by the Editor.

CITY GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.
By F J. Goodnow. Professor of Administrative Law,
Columbia University.

PARTY ORGANIZATION By Jesse Macy, Profes-
sor of Political Science at Iowa College.

THE AMERICAN EXECUTIVE AND EXECUTIVE
METHODS. By President J. H. Finlky, College
oi the City of New York.

AMERICAN LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLA-
TIVE METHODS. By Professor Paul R. Kkinsch,
University of Wisconsin.

THE AMERICAN JUDICIARY. By Simeon E.
Baldwin, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of
Errors of Connecticut, and Professor of Constitutional
Law in Yale University.

TERRITORIES AND COLONIES. By W. F. Wil-
louohby, Treasurer of Porto Rico.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN TOWNS, COUNTIES,
AND VILLAGES. By Professor John A. Faiblik,
University of Michigan.

Gbe Century Co., flew H>ork

XLbc Hmerfcan State Series

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

IN COUNTIES, TOWNS AND

VILLAGES

JOHN A. FAIRLIE, Ph.D.

UNIVERSITY OP MICHIGAN

NEW YORK

THE CENTURY CO.

1906

but ■.
faxed

THE DE VINNE PRESS

35 ^-bk

TABLE OF CASES

Amrine v. Kansas Pacific Ey. People v. Draper (15 N. Y.,

Co. (7 Kans., 178), 118 532), 267

People v. Hallet (1 Colo., 358),

Bloomfield v. Charter Oak Bank 102

(121 U. S., 121), 143 People v. Hurlbut (24 Mich.,

Blue, In re (46 Mich., 268), 93 80), 267

Brown v. Morris C. & B. Co. (27 People v. Mahaney (13 Mich.,

N. J. Law, 648), 93 481), 267

Burch v. Hardwicke (30 Grat- People v. May (3 Mich., 598),

tan, Va., 24), 268 102
Buttrick v. Lowell (Allen,

Mass., 172), 268 Eidenour v. Board of Educa-

Commonwealth v. Martin (9 *°£ <7.?«? ' Ja State ^

Kulp, Pa., 69); 109 Porter' 155>> 216

Commonwealth v. Eoxbury (9

Gray, Mass., 451), 144 Shanklin v. Madison County (21

Ohio State, 583), 85
Davis v. Eumney (67 N. H., South v. Maryland (18 Howard,

591), 143 396), p. 109

State v. Clark (4 Indiana, 316),
Howard v. Burns (14 S. Dak., 85

283), 102 State v. Clough (23 Minn., 17),

Hurd v. People (25 Mich., 405), 102

104 State v. Downs (60 Kans., 788),

65
Lynch v. Eutland (66 Vt., 570), State v. Harwie (6 Kans., 588),

143 74

State v. Hunter (38 Kans., 578),
Madden v. Lancaster County 268

(65 Fed. Eep., 188; 12 C. C. State v. Moise (48 La. Ann.,

A., 566), 65 109), 104

Marengo County v. Martin (134

Ala., 275), 74 Thorndike v. Camden (82 Me.,

Newport v. Horton (22 B. I., 39)> 143

196), 143

"Weymouth Fire District v.
People v. Dorsey (32 Cal., 302), County Commissioners (108

103 Mass., 142), 143

ivi63^386

PAET I
HISTORICAL

PEEFACE

This book deals mainly with local institutions of
the present time. For this reason the historical
discussion occupies a much smaller share of space
than has been usual in previous accounts of Amer-
ican local government. And since the historical as-
pects of the subject have been so thoroughly consid-
ered before, what is given here in that branch is
largely a condensed summary of earlier writings. But
an attempt has been made to show the process of
development more clearly as a continuous movement;
and, particularly in dealing with the events of the
nineteenth century, it is believed that the various
steps in the extension of local institutions through-
out the country are presented in a more comprehensive
and connected way than heretofore.

In describing the institutions of to-day a some-
what different method of treatment has been fol-
lowed from that which has become traditional. It has
seemed clear that in regard to county government,
the classification by geographical divisions must give
an inadequate account without a large amount of

PREFACE

repetition. As usually presented this method over-
looks some of the main resemblances in county gov-
ernment throughout the country; and at the same
time underestimates the points of difference between
different states in the same geographical group. For
these reasons the county has here been considered
as essentially a similar institution in practically all
of the states; while the variations between different
states are presented in dealing with each of the var-
ious county authorities.

On the other hand, the geographical grouping still
forms the best basis for describing the smaller units
of local government. But it will perhaps be a sur-
prise to many to learn that the westward movement
of the township has stopped, for the present at least,
with the arid plains ; and that the region beyond may
be compared institutionally with the Southern states.

An explanation may be necessary for some of the
terms used for groups of states with similar institu-
tions. The New England states form, of course, a well-
known group. For the main classification the whole
body of Southern states from Maryland to Texas are
grouped together; but there are many variations
within this group which, however, do not mark off any
well-defined smaller groups. The largest and most
important class includes the states from New York
and New Jersey westward to the Dakotas and Kansas.

PREFACE

These are called collectively the Central states; while
the eastern and western sections are sometimes re-
ferred to as the Middle-Atlantic and Middle-West
or North Central groups. The Western states are
those from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific.

Some states are partly in two divisions. The south-
ern part of Illinois belongs with the Southern states;
and the northern part of Missouri with the Central
states. And the westward counties of Nebraska and
the Dakotas may be classed with the Western group.

The fourth part, on State Supervision, draws at-
tention to recent centralizing tendencies affecting
local government. Fifty, or even twenty-five years
ago these tendencies were so insignificant as to be
hardly discernible. To-day, however, they are impor-
tant factors in local administration, and the most
significant of recent developments. In all probabil-
ity, too, they have not yet reached their maximum.

In preparing for this book an examination has been
made of the state constitutions and the latest avail-
able editions of the revised statutes or compiled laws
of each of the states and territories. This has been
supplemented by a study of the more important
statutes enacted since the various general collections.
But it has not been possible to make an exhaustive
analysis of this material or of the great volume of
minutely detailed and special legislation, and some

vii

PREFACE

recent changes of considerable importance may have
been overlooked.

This study of constitutions and statutes has been
further supplemented by an examination of most of
the printed writings on local government, by corre-
spondence with officials and many others, and by a
good deal of personal observation in different parts of
the country. The bibliography at the end of the book
includes only the more general works. The foot-
notes are far from exhaustive, and are intended
mainly to supplement the general bibliography and
to make some acknowledgment to the many friends
who have furnished information and suggestions. To
economize space these references have been restricted
to one for each person, although some have given
assistance on many pages.

It may not be amiss to note that my opportunities
for personal observation have covered a number of
widely separated states, including residence for sev-
eral years each in one of the Southern states, Massa-
chusetts, New York and Michigan, and brief visits to
most of the states east of the Mississippi River and a
number of those further west.

Further thanks are also due to my colleagues, Pro-
fessors A. C. McLaughlin, C. H. Van Tyne and A. L.
Cross, who have read the historical chapters and
given valuable suggestions ; to Mr. Charles V. Chap in

viii

PREFACE

of Providence, R. I., for permission to use a paper of
his as Chapter 14; and to the American Political
Science Association for its consent to the reprinting of
two papers read at its meeting in December, 1904.

J. A. F.

University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, June, 1906.

CONTENTS

PART I. HISTORICAL

Chapter Page

i Local Institutions in England 3

ii The Colonial Period 18

m Under State Governments 33

PART II. THE COUNTY

iv General Characteristics 57

v The County Board 75

vi Justice and Police — Courts 95

Prosecuting Attorneys 100

The Sheriff 106

Coroners 112

Court Clerks and County Clerks . . . .115

vn Other County Officers 119

Finance Officials 119

Registers of Deeds 127

School Officials 132

Minor Officers 135

PART III. MINOR DIVISIONS

vm New England Towns 141

Town Meetings 147

Town Officers 156

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

ix Townships in the Central States .... 164

Township Meetings 168

Township Officers 174

School Districts 182

x County Districts in the South and West . 186

Southern States 187

Western States 195

xi Villages and Boroughs 200

PART IV. STATE SUPERVISION

xii Public Education 215

xhi Charities and Correction 225

xrv Public Health 237

xv Local Finance 249

Taxation 249

Auditing and Accounting 255

xvi Miscellaneous 264

Bibliography 273

Index 281

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN
COUNTIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES

CHAPTER I

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

Local government in the United States has developed
from institutions established in the colonies, which
institutions were in many respects similar to those
existing at the time in England. The origin and early
history of these English institutions are difficult to
trace. In many important features the later Anglo-
Saxon system bears close analogies to the Germanic
system in the first century a. d., as described by the
Roman historian, Tacitus, and it is evident that the
one has developed from the other. But in the his-
torical records there is a long gap which makes it
impossible to describe the process of evolution. Also
there are many unsettled questions in connection with
the extent of the early Roman influence on the devel-
opment of institutions in England during the first
centuries of the Anglo-Saxon period. It will be suffi-
cient for our purpose here to sketch briefly the growth
of English local institutions from the time when they
can be clearly understood, in the latter part of the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Anglo-Saxon period, describing somewhat more at
length the system of local government existing at the
time of the first settlements in America.

When in the ninth century the various Anglo-
Saxon kingdoms had been united in the kingdom of
England, the country was divided for purposes of
local government into shires, these into districts, known
as hundreds, and these again into townships. The
township, whether a development from the so-called
Teutonic mark, or from the Roman villa, was a social
and economic, rather than a political, district. It was
a small rural community composed mainly of peas-
ants. Local affairs were managed by an assembly of
the inhabitants, who elected a president, known as the
town-reeve, a tithing man, constable, and four men,
who with the reeve and priest represented the town-
ship in the courts of the hundred and the shire.
After the organization of the Church, parishes had
also been established, usually coterminous with town-
ships; and ecclesiastical affairs were managed by a
similar assembly of inhabitants under the name of
the vestry.

The hundred was a district composed of several
townships. Here the management of affairs was in
the hands of a court held monthly, composed of all
individual landlords within the district and the repre-
sentatives from the various townships noted above.
As executive officials there were a deputy of the shire-
reeve, an elected hundreds-ealdor, and (at any rate
towards the close of Anglo-Saxon times) a standing
committee of twelve senior thegns. The main func-
tions of this court were judicial in character, includ-

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

ing both civil and criminal jurisdiction. In
theory justice was administered by the whole
body of lawful attendants or suitors at the
court; but in practice this function fell very largely
to the committee of twelve, whose further duty it was
to present persons accused of more serious crimes in
the shire court.

Above the hundreds were the shires. These were, in
the south and extreme north, the districts of older
kingdoms or distinct bodies of the Teutonic peoples
which retained certain features of self-government
after their absorption into the larger kingdom. In
the midlands the shires were artificial districts created
for convenience of administration. Whatever its ori-
gin, the affairs of each shire were managed by a semi-
annual court, composed of the representatives from
each township and the individual landowners, though
later the place of the latter may have been taken by
the twelve senior thegns from each hundred. The
principal function of this court, as in the hundred, was
the administration of justice.

The initative and active control of business rested
in three officials : the ealdorman or earl, the shire-reeve
or sheriff, and the bishop. The ealdorman represented
the extinct royalty in the earlier kingdoms; and
although later nominated by the King, he retained
much of the dignity suggested by the origin of the
office. Several shires "were grouped under each eal-
dorman, who was preeminently the leader of the mili-
tary forces. The sheriff originally had been the stew-
ard of the royal estates and chief representative of the
Crown, but became also the president and chief execu-

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

tive of the shire court. In ecclesiastical cases, how-
ever, the bishop presided over the court.

After the Norman conquest the earls retired from
the active administration of shire business, and the
position became merely a title of nobility and highest
dignity. At the same time the separation of civil and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction led to the disappearance of
the bishop from the shire court. These changes paved
the way for the supremacy of the sheriff in the county,
as the shire came to be called. This officer became the
King's representative in military affairs; as police
magistrate he was responsible for maintaining the
peace and supervising the elaborate system of securi-
ties for good behavior; as steward of the royal
estates, his financial powers were increased; and for
a time his judicial functions gained in importance
with the development of the shire court and the
decline of the hundred court. The jurisdiction of the
shire court was extended, and its sessions became more
frequent, until they were held as often as once a
month. This led to a falling off in attendance of the
local representatives, with a corresponding increase
in the influence of the sheriff. Criminal courts in
each hundred were also held by the sheriff twice a
year. In fact the sheriff became the chief agent in
a strongly centralized prefectoral administration.

Another result of the Norman conquest was the
development of feudal manorial courts, at the expense
of the hundred courts. Even in Saxon times many
thegns had judicial jurisdiction within their estates,
covering one or more townships; and these were
exempt from the hundred court. This system was

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

now extended with other features of the feudal
regime. In each manor, courts or assemblies of the
inhabitants were held, different sessions being known
as the court customary, the court baron, and the court
leet. Here, as in the hundred and shire courts, the
judgments were rendered by the whole body of attend-
ants, but under the supervision of the lord's steward,
who occupied in a smaller way a position similar to
that of the sheriff in the shire court.

Arbitrary exercise of his enormous powers made the
sheriff an unpopular official, and at the same time the
tendency for the office to become hereditary in power-
ful local families caused it to be distrusted by the
Crown. As a consequence his authority was grad-
ually reduced by the development on the one hand
of the itinerant royal courts, and on the other of the
justices of the peace, until he became simply a minis-
terial officer of the courts, a conservator of the peace,
and returning officer in elections.

Special royal commissioners had occasionally been
sent throughout the kingdom from the time of Alfred.
A regular system of circuit judges was established
under Henry I; and under Henry II this developed
into the common law courts, which took over the most
important judicial business from the sheriffs and the
shire courts.

During the thirteenth century a new class of peace
officers were appointed from time to time, with execu-
tive police powers of rather more importance than the
old constables. Those appointed were landowners,
who served without salary. In the reign of Edward
III judicial powers were given to these magistrates;

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

and in the next century many of the functions of the
sheriff were transferred to the new justices of the
peace; in other respects they replaced the manorial
courts, while still more powers were added. Most of
the remaining jurisdiction of the shire court was
transferred to the quarter sessions of the justices, and
the former remained in existence mainly for the elec-
tion of coroners and members of Parliament. The
hundred as an administrative district almost disap-
peared. The old local officials— sheriffs, coroners, con-
stables, and manorial bailiffs— became the servants of
the justices and often their nominees. The justices
at their quarter sessions also constituted the fiscal
board of the shire, which assessed, levied and managed
the expenditure of county funds and maintained
county roads and bridges, prisons and public build-
ings.

Under the Tudors there was a further development
in the power of the justices of the peace, with other
changes in county government; and at the same time
the establishment of new organs of local government
in the parishes made the town of much greater rela-
tive importance than before.

Additions to the authority of the justices may be
noted in three directions: They became charged with
the duty of preliminary investigations in criminal
cases of all kinds. They were given control over the
administration of a vast mass of statutory police legis-
lation, both old and new, including laws against vaga-
bonds and beggars, the regulation of wages, apprentice-
ship and prices, licensing beer-houses and other trades,
and, after the Reformation, ecclesiastical laws against

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

papists and non-conformists. Lastly they were given
important powers of supervision over the newly
established parish system, in reference to police mat-
ters, poor relief, highways and local taxation. These,
with their former powers, gave the justice of the
peace the position well described as "the state's man-
of -all-work. ' '

Other changes in county government affected the
militia system, the local administration of which was
placed in the hands of a new official, known as the
lord-lieutenant. Most of the important judicial busi-
ness was now in the hands of the royal judges,
although the sheriff 's county court and in some places
the manorial courts lingered on as decaying institu-
tions.

While in earlier times the township had never been
an important unit of civil administration, on its eccle-
siastical side the parish had always an active and a
continuous existence. With the separation from
Rome, the priest was replaced by the rector as the
ecclesiastical head of the parish, assisted in financial
matters by two churchwardens chosen by the parish
vestry— which had the power to levy. a local tax or
church rate for the maintenance of the church prop-
erty.

This ecclesiastical organization was now made the
basis of a distinctly civil administration. Under
Mary, the parish vestry was authorized to elect a
surveyor of highways, and levy a highway rate; but
local roads continued to be maintained for the most
part by a labor tax. Poor relief had always been con-
sidered an ecclesiastical affair, administered through

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

the parish or in later times largely by the monasteries.
But the dissolution of the monasteries and economic
changes made necessary a new system; and a long
line of Parliamentary statutes, beginning in the reign
of Henry VIII and culminating in the Poor Law of
1601, definitely established a system of parish taxa-
tion for the care of the poor, to be administered by the
churchwardens and a new class of officials, known as
overseers of the poor. It may also be noted that what-
ever was done in the way of popular education was
also done through the parish officials, but this was as
yet considered a purely ecclesiastical matter.

As has been seen, the parish officials in the exercise
of these new functions were placed under the active
supervision of the justices of the peace. The justices,
in turn, and other executive officers, were controlled
in all their functions by the statutes of Parliament
enforced by the royal judges. There was also an
active administrative control exercised by the Privy
Council. Also, as a means of central control, sheriffs,
justices and local executive officers, down to village
constables, were subject to dismissal from office.

Few changes of importance were made in English
local government under the first two Stuarts, and
those made can be best noted in a description of the
whole system as it existed in the early part of the
seventeenth century, at the time when the first perma-
nent English settlements were being made in America.

At the head of the county or shire were now two
officials, the sheriff and the lord-lieutenant. The
sheriff was the more important and was still an offi-
cial of considerable power and much dignity, although

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

the requirement of constant residence in the county
and the expenditures made necessary by law and
social customs were heavy burdens. Sheriffs in most
cases were chosen by the King, each from a list of
three, selected by the Privy Council, and by law the
same man could not be appointed for two successive
yeaito. The duties of the sheriff were many and va-
ried. Each month he held a county court for small
civil cases, although this was a fast-waning institu-
tion. He presided also at the sessions of the county
court for the election of members of Parliament, and
here often wielded considerable influence on the
result. At the semi-annual assizes of the royal judges,
the sheriff summoned juries, executed the judgments
of the courts, had charge of the jail, and acted as
local host to the visiting representatives of the Crown.

More dignified was the position of lord-lieutenant,
which in some sense revived that of the Anglo-Saxon
earl. This post was usually given to the highest noble-
man with estates in the county, and appointments were
not frequently changed. It was the main duty of the
lord-lieutenant to supervise the local militia, which
was called into service to suppress riots and the like,
but other duties were added under the Stuarts.

Much less dignified and less powerful than either
of these was the ancient office of coroner, filled by elec-
tion in the county court. His functions were now
mainly confined to the duty of investigating sudden
deaths, and binding over for trial those indicated by
the inquest jury. As a survival of his former impor-
tance the coroner under some circumstances took the
place of the sheriff.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

But the real work of county administration was
now performed by the justices of the peace. There
were from twenty to sixty of these in each county,
chosen by the lord chancellor from the rural gentry.
They were usually men of good family and of some
ability and education, who discharged the burden-
some duties practically without pay, but were recom-
pensed by the social dignity and sense of authority
conferred in the office.

The powers and duties of the justices of the peace
were so multifarious as to defy classification or sim-
plicity of statement. A writer of the time names 293
statutes passed before 1603 in which justices are men-
tioned and given some jurisdiction and duties ; and 36
more were added in the reign of James I. Legal text-
books on the subject required 500 or 600 pages to
enumerate the list. Some of their functions were per-
formed by individual justices, others by two or more
acting jointly, and the most important by the justices
in each county in their regular quarter sessions, held
four times a year.

At the quarter sessions all of the justices in the
county were presumed to attend, but in practice
attendance was irregular and incomplete. One jus-
tice at least had to be from those known as the
"quorum," presumably those learned in law. There
had a] so to be present the custos rotalorum, or keeper
of the rolls, who was apt to be the lord-lieutenant ; but
he was usually represented by a deputy. In addition
there was necessary the sheriff or his deputy, the
jailor with his prisoners, the high constable and bail-

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

iffs, the coroners, jurors, and all persons committed for
trial.

Primarily the quarter session was a court of crim-
inal jurisdiction for the trial of all but the most petty
and the most serious crimes. It was also the adminis-
trative board for the county, charged with the care of
roads and bridges, county property and the levy of
county taxes.

In petty sessions of two or more, the justices also
performed both judicial and administrative functions.
They had summary jurisdiction in petty cases, and
single justices committed accused persons to trial
before the higher courts. They granted licenses to
ale-houses, regulated wages and apprenticeship, and
punished ecclesiastical recusants. They were fre-
quently called in to give special relief or to take other
action in emergencies, while, in addition, they were
constantly subject to the instructions of the Privy
Council, whose communications became more frequent
and more drastic from the end of the sixteenth cen-
tury.

Some important functions which were to come
within the sphere of civil administration in America,
were under the control of the ecclesiastical courts,
held in each diocese by the bishop or a judge ordinary
appointed by him. These functions included substan-
tially all matters connected with marriage and divorce,
the proof of wills, the granting of letters of adminis-
tration and of guardianship, and the administration
of personal estates.

The hundred had become the least important admin-
13

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

istrative division of England. The sheriff continued
to hold a desultory semi-annual ' ' tourn ' ' in each hun-
dred, and the district was also used for the purposes
of taxation, military organization and in the mainte-
nance of peace. The high constables, chosen annually
at the quarter sessions, were the only officers of the
hundred.

For the smallest administrative district the use of
terms was confusing and often indiscriminate. Town
or township was the most general term, applying to
either manor or parish. Manors with their special
privileges and duties were fast becoming obsolete;
but courts leet and courts baron continued irregularly
in a few places. The parish was now the most usual
name for the smallest unit of local government; and
the development of its functions, already described,
made it an important district.

The most active and conspicuous officer of the parish
was the constable, chosen in some places by the stew-
ard or lord of the manor, elsewhere by the court leet,
by the vestry, or by the justices of the peace.
Although charged with a long list of duties as peace
officer on his own initiative, practically the constable
was now simply the agent or instrument of the jus-
tices, for making arrests and executing warrants and
judicial sentences, for collecting taxes, or for other
purposes.

Other parish officials of some importance were the
churchwardens chosen at a vestry meeting of the par-
ishioners in Easter week of each year. They levied the
local taxes imposed by the justices and those for parish
purposes and were ex officio overseers of the poor.

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

A vestry clerk existed in some parishes, the prototype
of the American town clerk. And there were many
other petty officers such as beadles, sextons, hay wards,
ale-conners, way-wardens, sidesmen, synodomen, and
questmen.

All of these parish officials were drawn from a
lower social rank than the gentry who filled the posts
in the county government. The offices in the rural
parishes were usually given to copyholders, small
retailers, artisans or even laborers. Their duties were
simple and in most cases took but little time, so that,
except for constables and a few others paid by fees,
there was no payment attached to the offices.

It remains to describe the vestry meeting or gen-
eral assembly of the parish. All inhabitants were
ordinarily entitled to attend these meetings,— land-
owners, free tenants, copyholders, laborers, and even
those who held land in the parish but lived elsewhere.
But there is little evidence as to the actual practice.
What records exist do not suggest an active assembly.
The attendance consisted only of the more substantial
members of the community and of the officers who
had to present reports. The name vestry, taken from
the small room where the meetings were held, indi-
cates that only a few persons were usually present.
Early in the seventeenth century it was customary to
appoint in the open vestry a select committee to advise
the parish officers, which suggests the selectmen of
the New England towns. In England, however, in
many parishes this committee came to fill vacancies
in its own membership, and the select vestry— as
it was called— developed into a close corporation,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

whose powers were later recognized as legal by pre-
scription.

The whole system of local administration was under
the control of an energetic national government; the
bulk of active administration was performed by the
county officials drawn from the propertied classes,
but acting largely under instructions from above;
while at the bottom was the parish with indefinite, but
unutilized powers of self-government. It differed
from the decentralization of the Anglo-Saxon period,
and the feudal disorganization of the Plantagenet era,
and also from the extreme centralization under the
Norman kings. In form it was highly centralized, with
sheriffs and justices appointed by the central govern-
ment, and under the active supervision of the Privy
Council. But the hierarchy of control was not sys-
tematically organized, as it might have been had the
former authority of the sheriff been revived. More-
over the local officers, instead of being trained and sal-
aried, were usually unpaid and the most important
were drawn from an independent class— the rural
gentry— while the traditions of the offices went back
to a time of large local autonomy.

Such were the local institutions with which the Eng-
lish colonists in America were familiar; and as was
natural, most of them were introduced in the new col-
onies. But different conditions led to many important
changes. The central government of England could
not exercise direct control over minor officials at such
a distance, and indirect control through the colonial
governors was very ineffective. Many of the most
important functions of local government in England,

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

such as poor relief, were of no importance in the col-
onies. Other functions, such as education, became im-
portant. The class of rural gentry did not exist in
America, and even with similar laws a different class
of officials appeared. And as time went on additional
changes were introduced from various causes. But
the development of American local government is a
continuous process from the English institutions of
the first part of the seventeenth century.

CHAPTER II

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

In the European settlements established within the
limits of the thirteen colonies, there was at first no
distinction between the local and central government
of each colony. But as population increased and
spread over a larger area, special local institutions
became necessary; and those established were natu-
rally similar to those of the mother country. There
were, however, important modifications of the Eng-
lish institutions almost from the beginning ; and other
changes developed during the colonial period.

Virginia followed the English system most closely.
The first subdivisions of this colony were styled
plantations and hundreds, but there was no
revival of the organization of the old Eng-
lish hundred. These early districts soon became
de facto parishes; and before long the latter
name became the more common, and new parishes
were established from time to time. Each parish, as
in England, was both an^ ecclesiastical and civil dis-
trict, with a vestry, minister and churchwardens for
the management of local affairs. The vestry consisted
usually of twelve ' ' selected men, ' ' chosen at first by the
parishioners, but later the practice of coaptation be-
came established as in the "select vestry' ' of England.

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

But on the large scattered plantations which
physical conditions made the economic unit in Vir-
ginia, many local matters were attended to by the own-
ers ; there was little opportunity for political activity ;
and before long the parish was overshadowed by the
county as a district for local administration. In 1634
Virginia was divided into eight shires and new shires
or counties were gradually organized. The county
became the unit of representation in the colonial
assembly, and the unit of military, judicial, highway
and fiscal administration. The officers were the county
lieutenant, the sheriff (who acted as collector and
treasurer), justices of the peace and coroners. All
were appointed by the governor of the colony on the
recommendation of the justices, and the latter thus
became a self-perpetuating body of aristocratic
planters controlling the whole county administration.
The justices also appointed the clerk of the monthly
county court, who acted also as recorder of deeds ;
and each county had also a land surveyor, appointed
by the surveyor-general of the colony.

Maryland was originally organized for purposes of
local government, like the county palatine of Durham
in England, with hundreds and manors as the sub-
divisions. But in 1650 three counties were estab-
lished ; and new counties were organized from time to
time. At the same time the hundred as a subdivision
of the county was continued, and new districts of this
name were organized for election, fiscal and military
purposes. The erection of manors also continued until
towards the close of the seventeenth century, but very
soon after the transfer to a royal province the coun-

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ties were subdivided into parishes. And during the
eighteenth century a number of towns were created
by special acts.1 Thus, while the organization of hun-
dreds and manors delayed the development of coun-
ties and parishes in Maryland, toward the end of the
colonial period the local institutions tended to become
more nearly like those in Virginia.

Outside of Maryland hundreds and manors had
little permanent influence on local government. The
name hundred appears in the early records of Vir-
ginia and Maine; and was permanently established
in Delaware, where it was in fact a modified township.
Manors were established in New York, and were pro-
vided on paper for Carolina.

In New England the main unit of local government
was the town, although the county was also organized
as in England. The notable development there of the
town was due to various causes. It has been described
as a revival of the early Germanic and Anglo-Saxon
institutions, and analogies can be drawn in many fea-
tures. But the historical connection is through the
later English parish and manor, and there is no evi-
dence of conscious imitation of older institutions.
The recurrence of primitive conditions explain the
reappearance of some similarities, but a more impor-
tant factor was the system of settlement in compact
communities (partly as a means of protection against
Indian attacks) by groups of small landed proprie-
tors, each of which formed at the same time a church
congregation, while an underlying cause was the dem-
ocratic philosophy of the Puritans, which affected

1 Mereness, "Maryland as a Proprietary Province, " Ch. 6.
20

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

alike their economic, ecclesiastical and political organ-
ization.

The New England town has been described as a
manor without a lord. But its activities included
those of the English manor, the civil functions of the
parish and many others. In addition to maintaining
highways and caring for the poor, it supported public
schools, regulated private business of every sort in
most minute fashion, and was the unit for the assess-
ment and collection of taxes, for militia organization
and for representation in the colonial assemblies, and
in some colonies, also for land records and judicial
purposes. In most of the New England colonies some
of the towns were older than the central government ;
and in Connecticut and Rhode Island the latter was
considered more as a federation of towns than as a
superior sovereign authority.

Control of town affairs was in the hands of the town
meeting of the inhabitants, held in the early days
with great frequency. Each town meeting organized
itself by the election of a moderator. At the annual
meeting a long list of town officers were elected,— but
these were limited by the appropriations made, taxes
levied, and by-laws passed by the town meeting, which
thus retained an active supervision over every branch
of local administration. The meeting resembled the
assembly of freeholders and tenants in the manorial
courts, without the presence of the lord's steward.
It was clearly more democratic than the "close ves-
try," and probably was more democratic in practice
than the open vestry.

In England and Virginia large landed estates and
21

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

the Episcopalian Church system encouraged the rule
of a small class, while in New England the small free-
holders and Congregational Church system promoted a
more popular participation. At the same time even in
the New England towns there were leading families
which exercised a large measure of influence in town
affairs.

Most important of the town officers were the select-
men or townsmen, a committee of three to thirteen
members, annually elected at the town meeting. This
feature of the town government seems to have been a
development from the committee or " selected men,"
which formed a stage in the evolution of the select
vestry in England and Virginia. But the New Eng-
land selectmen were simply an executive body for the
town meeting, and never became a close corporation,
taking the place of the open meeting of all the inhabi-
tants. Even where the same persons continued to fill
the office from year to year, they were regularly
elected at the town meeting, which issued instructions
and formed an active center for discussion of their
actions. In Rhode Island the body corresponding to
the selectmen was known as the town council.

For the most part the functions of the selectmen
were regulated by the town meeting; and on this
account their duties were so varied that exact state-
ment is impossible. Nearly everything that could be
done by the town meeting was at times performed by
the selectmen. In general they were "to manage the
prudential affairs of the town." More specifically,
they conducted the financial administration, acted as
legal agents of the town, had charge of the common

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

lands, summoned the town meeting, and acted as elec-
tion officers. At times they appointed minor town
officers, and even assessed taxes and enacted by-laws,
under authority from the town meeting. To some
extent duties were imposed by the general court or
assembly of the colony; and they were in this way
made direct agents of the central government and in
a slight degree of the English* Crown. Thus in Con-
necticut and Plymouth they were given judicial pow-
ers; and in Connecticut and Rhode Island they had
probate jurisdiction.

A constable was a necessary officer in every town;
but in New England he was preeminently the agent of
the town meeting, and freed from the active tutelage
of the justices of the peace. Of more importance and
higher social rank was the town clerk, who far sur-
passed his prototype, the English vestry clerk. He
was not only secretary to the town meeting and the
selectmen, but also a register of deeds and a recorder
of vital statistics. Other officers of some importance
were the treasurer, assessors, collectors, surveyors of
highways, fence viewers and clerks of the markets.
Besides these a long list of additional petty function-
aries were chosen, such as hog reeves, field drivers,
pound keepers, overseers of the poor, tithing men,
town criers and many others. Not all of these were
chosen by every town; but the list in each case was
numerous enough to give a public position to a good
proportion of the inhabitants.

In emphasizing the development of the town, many
writers have neglected or ignored the county as a
local government district in New England. But in

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Massachusetts the county was early established and
became an important institution, which influenced the
development of the county system throughout the
country. And in the neighboring colonies counties
were organized, at least for judicial purposes.1

The first steps in the development of the Massachu-
setts county were taken in 1636, when the colony was
divided into four judicial districts, in each of which
a quarterly court was provided. At the same time
three militia districts were created. In 1643 four
shires or counties were definitely organized, both as
judicial and militia districts ; and additional counties
were afterwards established. Local magistrates for
the county courts and town commissioners for trying
petty cases were at first appointed by the general
court; but after 1650 they were nominated by local
election, subject to the approval of the higher authori-
ties.

Fiscal administration was also of some importance.
While the town was the primary unit for the assess-
ment of taxes, there was established before 1650 a
system of representative commissioners from each
town, who met at the shire town to equalize
the apportionment of taxes between the various
towns,— a plan which foreshadows the boards
of supervisors that later developed more fully in New
York. And since as yet there was no sheriff, the elec-
tive office of county treasurer was created in 1654,
to look after fiscal affairs.

Other county functions and officials were soon
added to these. The county was a militia district;

1 Howard, "Local Constitutional History," Part HI, Ch. 7.
24

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

but in place of an appointed lieutenant, the chief
militia officer in each district was made elective. The
county became further the district for the system of
registering land titles, which had been originally
established as a duty of town officers. In 1642 it was
enacted that the clerk of every shire town should
record deeds ; and later the county clerk was given the
additional title of county recorder. And in the
absence of the ecclesiastical courts of the Anglican
church, probate duties became a function of county
administration. This jurisdiction was at first vested
in the governor and council; but in 1652 the clerks
of the county courts were made registers of wills, and
in 1685 the county courts were authorized to act as
probate courts.1

Minor changes were made in this county system
from time to time; and under the provincial charter
of 1691 there was a general reorganization more on
the lines of the English system. Sheriffs, justices and
militia officers were henceforth appointed by the gov-
ernor or the general court ; and the justices exercised
administrative as well as judicial functions, as in Eng-
land, acting singly and in petty and quarter or gen-
eral sessions. The justices also had some supervision
over the town officers and the joint meetings of town
commissioners for equalizing taxes. For the trial of
civil cases four justices in each county were named as
an inferior court of common pleas.

In three of the other New England colonies the de-
velopment of the county was largely influenced by

1 Extracts from the Massachusetts Records in C. D. Wright's
"Public Records of . . . Massachusetts," pp. 365, 370.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Massachusetts. New Hampshire was under its jurisdic-
tion from 1641 to 1679, and Maine after 1652 ; and the
county system was applied to these districts. Ply-
mouth in 1685 was divided into three counties, and in
a few years these became part of Massachusetts.

Connecticut first established county courts, with
judicial and probate jurisdiction, in 1666, soon after
the charter uniting New Haven and Hartford. Each
court was held by one of the assistants and two com-
missioners appointed by the general court, but
the term justices of the peace was introduced
in place of commissioners by Governor Andros,
and continued in use thereafter. In connection
with these county courts there developed an
important change in methods of criminal prose-
cution, which has extended throughout the United
States. In England there had been no system of
local prosecuting officers, but the magistrates in
Connecticut assumed the power of investigating crime ;
and in 1704 there was authorized for each county
an attorney "to prosecute all criminal offenders. . .
and suppress vice and immorality. ' ' * From this has
developed the important American office of prosecut-
ing attorney, which exists under various titles in all
of the states. The Connecticut county was used in
militia as well as judicial administration; but as a
whole it was of less importance than in Massachusetts.

Not until 1703 were counties organized in Rhode
Island, and in this colony they served only as judi-
cial districts.

1 Hammersley, Connecticut Courts, in "The New England
States," I, 489.

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

In the Middle colonies, the early Dutch settlements
established by the "patroons" were manors, similar
to the feudal institutions of continental Europe. But a
little later there grew up a number of self-governing
village communities along the Hudson, and on Long
Island. After the English conquest of New Nether-
lands, in 1664, a system of local government was pre-
scribed by the "Duke of Yorke's Laws," which com-
bined features of the English and New England sys-
tem with some novel developments. Existing institu-
tions and customs were recognized by making the
town the basis of local government. Here authority
was vested in a constable and several overseers, who
were elected by the freeholders, and had power to
adopt by-laws, to levy taxes, and to act as executive and
judicial officers. Two overseers were to act as church-
wardens. There was a town meeting, but its functions
seem to have consisted simply in the election of offi-
cers. At the same time rudimentary counties were
established. The name Yorkshire was given to Long
Island, which was divided into three "ridings," as
was the English county of that name. In each riding
there was a court of sessions held several times a year
by justices of the peace; and a high sheriff was pro-
vided for the whole district.

From Long Island where they were first applied,
these provisions were extended with some amendments
to other parts of New York, New Jersey and Pennsyl-
vania. County courts were established in New Jersey
in 1675, and courts of session for the settlements on the
Delaware in 1676, the latter exercising fiscal and
administrative as well as judicial functions. Towns

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

were also organized in New Jersey, but as yet were of
little importance, and in many regions the parish was
the smallest unit of local government.1

A few years later the English county system was
more definitely introduced. In 1682 new counties were
established or old counties reorganized in New Jer-
sey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. A year later New
York was divided into ten counties. For these were
established the usual appointed sheriffs and justices,
the latter having both judicial and administrative
functions, while probate or orphans' courts were
also provided in each county.

In 1691, following the establishment of an elec-
tive legislative assembly in New York, came a most
important change in the local government of that
province. This was the creation of elective county
boards of town supervisors, which were to become the
principal feature in the local institutions of lead-
ing states. This action at that time was the more
striking in contrast to the contemporaneous legislation
in Massachusetts, limiting somewhat the sphere of
local elections. The new body established for New
York counties consisted of a freeholder elected from
each town to supervise, levy and assess the local taxes
for county purposes. This did not do away with the
justices of the peace, nor even take away at once all
of their administrative functions ; but during the next
half century, the latter powers were gradually trans-
ferred from the justices to the supervisors, and the
justices remained with only judicial powers, which

1 H. L. Osgood, " The American Colonies in the Seventeenth

Century," II, 285.

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

m turn were limited by the development of other
courts.1

New Jersey developed a similar system. In 1693
provision was made for the election of town assessors
to assist the justices in each county in the assessment
of taxes; and from these were developed the county
boards of chosen freeholders.

In Pennsylvania a special administrative county
authority also developed, but the absence of strong
town governments led to a different organization,
which was to spread through a large part of the United
States. Assessors to assist the justices in tax matters
were provided as in New Jersey, at first chosen by the
local members of the assembly, but after 1696 elected
by the county at large. Nearly thirty years later the
place of the justices in tax assessments was taken by
three elected commissioners in each county, who became
the chief county administrative authority, correspond-
ing to the New York board of supervisors. Meanwhile,
too, as early as 1705, the office of sheriff had, for the
first time, been made elective, while in 1715 there had
been established the new county office of recorder of
deeds, filled by appointment by the governor.

Even without these changes the county in the middle
colonies would have been a more important adminis-
trative district than in New England. With the devel-
opment of these elective officers, however, the county,
which was also the district for electing members of the
colonial assemblies, became the center of political
activity. In New York and New Jersey the towns had

^airlie, "Centralization of Administration in New York
State,' ' pp.114, 151.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

important powers of local government and were recog-
nized in the county organization. But in Pennsyl-
vania the towns were of little importance, and the
machinery and functions of town government were
vague and indefinite.

Active settlement in the colonies south of Virginia
did not set in until the eighteenth century, and the
development of an organized system of local govern-
ment could only come after this had begun. Locke's
Constitution for Carolina had provided an elaborate
scheme ; but this was never carried out, and the insti-
tutions established were for the most part the familiar
ones of England.

In North Carolina justices of the peace and county
courts with judicial, probate and administrative
powers had been established before it became a royal
province.1 In 1746 the system was re-organized, and
the county courts more fully developed. Quarterly
sessions were to be held, and the system of public
prosecutions, previously established in Connecticut,
was introduced, a deputy attorney-general for this
purpose being appointed in each county by the attor-
ney-general of the province.2 Counties were rapidly
multiplied, and by 1765 there were thirty-two in the
province.

South Carolina was divided into three counties as
early as 1682; but although county courts were
ordered to be established, there are no records of them,
and all important cases were tried at Charleston. Jus-

1 The extant records of one county court begin as early as
1693. Osgood, " American Colonies/' II, 284.
'Baper, "North Carolina," 160, 166.
30

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

tices of the peace for the arrest of offenders and the
trial of small cases were, however, in existence by the
end of the seventeenth century. In 1706 the province
was divided into parishes for ecclesiastical purposes,
each with a rector, seven vestrymen and two church-
wardens. A few years later the care of the poor was
given to the parish officers, and the parishes were made
election precincts for members of the assembly.1 But
no strong local government developed under this sys-
tem.

In 1721, soon after the transfer of the province from
the proprietors to the Crown, another act was passed
providing for county courts. But as their jurisdiction
was limited, and the judges were not trained in the
law, the tendency still was for the central court at
Charleston to absorb all business. The disadvantages
of this became more pressing as the back districts
became settled; but it was not until after a long
struggle that an act providing circuit courts became
law in 1769, and not until four years later that the
courts were opened.2

There was less development of local government in
Georgia during the colonial period than in any of the
other colonies. The only court of general jurisdiction
was held at Savannah, although justices for petty
cases were provided after the transfer to the Crown
in 1754. Parishes were erected in 1758 for ecclesias-
tical purposes, the care of the poor, and the election

1 McCrady, ' ' South Carolina under the Proprietary Govern-
ment,' ' pp. 193, 447, 559, 693.

8 McCrady, " South Carolina under the Koyal Government, ' '
pp. 43, 642.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

of members of the assembly, as in South Carolina.
But the large element of dissenters in the population
prevented the Anglican parish system from becom-
ing an active center of local political life.1 Counties
were not organized until after the Revolution.

1C. C. Jones, "History of Georgia,' » I, 465, 524; Stevens,
"History of Georgia," I, 391, 444.

CHAPTER III

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

With the organization of state governments following
the Declaration of Independence, there came some sig-
nificant changes in American local institutions, but
there was no radical revolution, and the main features
of the old systems continued in the different states.
Towns in New England and the Middle states and
parishes in the Southern states remained unaltered;
and in fact are not mentioned in most of the constitu-
tions of the Revolutionary period. That of New Jersey
is exceptional in specifying that constables should be
elected in townships "at their annual town meetings
for electing other officers ;" and to this extent the
township was given a constitutional basis.

More frequently the revolutionary constitutions con-
tained provisions about county government, and here
were the important departures from colonial methods.
In Virginia no change was made : as theretofore county
officers were to be commissioned by the governor on the
nomination of the county justices; and this self -renew-
ing system was established in the constitution. In
Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maryland, the
governor and council continued to appoint most of the
county officers, but the justices were given a short
definite term, while county treasurers and registers
of deeds were elective as before. New York
entrusted the selection of county officers, for-

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

merly appointed by the governor, to a coun-
cil of appointment, consisting of the governor
and four members of the state senate chosen by the
assembly; while the supervisors continued to be
elected in the towns.

Somewhat more striking changes were made in
other states. Justices of the peace were to be chosen
by the legislature in New Jersey, South Carolina and
Georgia1 ; and were to be appointed on the nomination
or recommendation of the legislature in Delaware and
North Carolina. Definite terms were given to the jus-
tices in New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, while they
were to continue during pleasure in South Carolina
and on good behavior in North Carolina. Sheriffs and
coroners in New Jersey and sheriffs in Maryland were
made elective ; in Pennsylvania, two nominees for each
of these offices were to be chosen by popular vote, one
to be commissioned by the governor; while justices,
commissioners and assessors were directly elected.2
The Georgia constitution established counties and
county courts in that state and provided that all civil
officers not otherwise provided for should be elected.

To summarize, it may be said that there was a dis-
tinct tendency in most states towards decentralization
or an increase of local influence in choosing county

1 Also court clerks in New Jersey and registers of probate in
Georgia. By the constitution of 1798, justices of the peace in
Georgia were to be nominated by the county courts, thus estab-
lishing the same self -renewing system as in Virginia.

*By the constitution of 1790 justices in Pennsylvania were
made appointive by the governor. After 1792 sheriffs and
coroners in Delaware were chosen by the popular nomination
of two candidates, as in Pennsylvania.

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

officials, but this was to be exercised mainly through
the members of the legislature, and direct election of
the old appointive officials was established in only a
few cases. The right to vote for such officers or for
members of the legislature was still restricted by a
freehold or tax-paying qualification, except in Ver-
mont. Perhaps the most important decentralizing
measures, especially during the war with Great Brit-
ain, were the constitutional provisions in most states
in regard to the militia. Company officers were
elected by the enlisted men, regimental officers by the
company officers, and only the highest officers were
chosen by the governor or legislature.

As the tide of settlement moved westward, the local
institutions of the older states were introduced in the
new communities roughly following parallel lines of
latitude. But sometimes in the earlier stages some of
the more primitive institutions were revived for a
time, while democratic tendencies often developed
more rapidly in the newer states. In Kentucky, the
Virginia county system had been introduced before
the separation of the new state; and while the first
constitution provided for elective sheriffs and con-
stables, the second constitution in 1799 practically
restored the older methods. All county officers were
made appointive by the governor from double lists of
nominations submitted by the county courts of jus-
tices of the peace. In Tennessee almost the same sys-
tem was established, the county courts being given the
power to appoint outright the sheriffs, coroners and
trustees (a novel title for the treasurer) as well as
constables.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In the Northwest Territory the development of local
government was influenced more largely by the insti-
tutions of other states. Under the ordinance of 1787,
the appointment of local officers was vested in the gov-
ernor of the territory. In 1790 the first county was
established and appointments were made of sheriff,
coroner, treasurer, recorder of deeds, probate judge
and justices. At the same time provision was made
for rudimentary townships, for each of which a con-
stable, clerk and overseers of the poor were to be
appointed by the county court. The court of quarter
sessions was also the fiscal and administrative board,
as in the Southern states; but before the end of the
century, county boards of three appointed commis-
sioners had been created for the levy and assessment
of taxes and the audit of claims.

Town meetings were instituted, but only for pur-
poses of election ; and each town was to elect a board
of three or more trustees, a clerk, overseers of the poor,
fence viewers, assessors, constables and road super-
visors. The geographical townships marked out by
the rectangular land surveys of the national govern-
ment provided automatically the districts for new
civil townships ; and it may be questioned whether the
artificial nature of these areas has not been an impor-
tant factor in preventing the township in these regions
from attaining the social unity and political impor-
tance of the New England town. Moreover settlement
was largely on isolated farmsteads rather than in com-
pact communities ; and this again hindered the devel-
opment of a strong township government.

As soon as Ohio was admitted as a state, in 1802,
36

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

further changes were made in the county system. The
local courts were reorganized; sheriffs, coroners and
justices of the peace were made elective ; and in 1804
there were established boards of elective county com-
missioners, with the fiscal and administrative powers
of the former quarter sessions. These changes, with
the township system previously inaugurated, estab-
lished the main outlines of the " county- township "
system, similar to that of Pennsylvania, which was to
predominate throughout the Middle- West.

Indiana followed Ohio closely in the development of
local institutions. During the territorial period,
townships with elective officers were organized, but
county officers were appointive. The first state consti-
tution (1816) provided for the election of sheriffs,
coroners, clerks of courts, recorders and justices ; and
before long an elective board of county commissioners
was established for each county.

In Illinois the early settlers came largely from the
South, where there was no organized township govern-
ment ; and as a result county government preceded the
township. But the county system established was
similar to that in Ohio and Indiana, and not like that
in Kentucky, as might have been expected. When
Illinois became a state it was divided into fifteen coun-
ties. For each there was a board of elective commis-
sioners, with power to levy local taxes and appoint
election officers, road supervisors and overseers of the
poor. Sheriffs, coroners, clerks, treasurers, surveyors
and recorders were all made elective. By the first
constitution, justices of the peace and constables were
appointed by the governor; but in 1826 the justices

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

were made elective by precincts. Before long the geo-
graphical township was made a corporation for school
purposes; and the same district came to be used as a
precinct for elections, roads, justices and poor relief.

Mississippi and Alabama, which became states in
1817 and 1819, did not follow closely the local gov-
ernment of the states immediately to the North, but
were largely influenced by the more democratic insti-
tutions of Georgia. In that state the elective method
had already been further extended to clerks of courts
and justices of the peace. Both of the new Southern
states provided for elective sheriffs, and Alabama
also for elective clerks of courts. But in both justices
of the peace were appointive, as prescribed by the
general assembly.

In Missouri, admitted in 1821, the local institutions
were much the same as in the states just mentioned.
Sheriffs and coroners were made elective; justices of
the peace were appointive.

It will be noticed that in all of the states admitted
after 1800, the tendency was strongly in the direction
of exending the rule of local elections, notably for
the old offices of sheriff and coroner. South of the
Ohio river, and in Missouri, justices of the peace con-
tinued to be administrative as well as judicial officers.
North of the Ohio, the Pennsylvania plan of a special
administrative county board had been regularly
adopted ; while two of the three new states in this sec-
tion had also established township government.

Most of the older states had thus far shown few
signs of changing their local government from the
arrangements made at the end of the eighteenth cen-

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

tury. The Connecticut constitution of 1818 continued
the choice of sheriffs by the legislature ; and the Maine
constitution of 1820 carried on the plan of the former
Massachusetts government.

But the second constitution of New York, adopted
in 1821, made important changes in the local govern-
ment of that state. The council of appointment was
abolished. District attorneys were to be appointed by
the courts. Sheriffs and county clerks were made
elective. Justices of the peace were to be nominated
by the boards of supervisors and county judges, but
in a few years they too were made directly elective.
During the decade following the adoption of the new
constitution there was also a significant transfer of
poor relief administration in New York from the
towns to the counties, which altered the balance of
power between these two local districts, and affected
the later development throughout the Central states.

In the same decade several New England states
established elective county administrative authorities.
Before 1820 Massachusetts had passed several experi-
mental acts transferring powers and reorganizing the
county courts. In 1826 commissioners of highways
were established in all but two counties; and in 1828
these were abolished and elective county commissioners
were provided, as in Pennsylvania, to exercise the
administrative powers formerly vested in the courts of
sessions.1 About the same time (1827), New Hamp-
shire established direct local control over county taxa-
tion, by giving this power to county conventions com-
posed of the representatives in the legislature from th~
1C. D. Wright, "Public Records," p. 378.
39

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

towns in each county. And in 1831 Maine established
elective boards of commissioners for each county.

In the Virginia convention (1829-30) which framed
the second constitution of that state, there was a long
discussion over the system of local government. A
strong effort was made to overthrow the self-perpetuat-
ing power of the unpaid county justices, chosen from
the well-to-do landowners. The justices were charged
with undue family influence and lack of legal train-
ing; and Jefferson was quoted in opposition, and as
favoring an elective system with township govern-
ment. In answer, the administration of the justices
was defended for its honesty and its practical success ;
and the influence of Marshall and Madison (both mem-
bers of the convention) won the day for the retention
of the old system.1

Within the next decade a few other states adopted
the elective system more largely. Delaware (1831)
made sheriffs and coroners directly elective. Missis-
sippi (1832) made justices of the peace and constables
elective, and provided for a probate judge and board
of police (both elective) in each county. Tennessee
(1834) made court clerks, sheriffs, county trustees,
registers, justices and constables elective, while
coroners and rangers were to be appointed by the jus-
tices. And Pennsylvania (1838) made coroners,
clerks of courts, registers of wills, registers of probate
and justices of the peace elective.

With these changes the elective system was well

established in the Middle- Atlantic states, the new states

to the westward and the most southerly states. New

1 * ' Debates of the Virginia Convention 1829-30, ' » pp. 502-516.

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

England had its well developed town government, bnt
important county officers were still appointive. From
Maryland to South Carolina and westward in Ken-
tucky the only effective local government, that of the
county, was still administered by appointive officers.

In the states thus far noticed, where an elective
county board was established apart from the justices,
it was organized on the Pennsylvania model. But,
beginning with Michigan, the New York method was
introduced into a number of states. The county sys-
tem of the Northwest Territory had been extended to
the Michigan settlements; and when Michigan was
organized as a separate territory a similar county
government was continued. In 1825 townships were
established with town meetings and elective officers;
and at the same time Governor Cass brought about
the election of candidates, whom he appointed to the
county offices. Two years later boards of elective
town supervisors were established for each county, in
place of the small boards of county commissioners,—
a change doubtless due to the immigration from New
York which had begun after the opening of the Erie
canal. When Michigan became a state (1835-7) the
elective system was definitely established for all town-
ship and county officers.

Early settlements in Wisconsin had been or-
ganized under the Illinois system, and later under
that of Michigan. When Wisconsin territory was
organized (1837) the small board of county commis-
sioners was revived, and a year later townships were
organized for judicial, police and road administration.
Later (1841) an optional system was provided, by

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

which each county was allowed to choose between the
small board of commissioners and the larger board
of town supervisors. The state constitution (1848)
required the legislature to establish a uniform county
system; and the New York and Michigan plan was
then made general. Township and other county of-
ficers were made elective as a matter of course.

Meanwhile immigration from the Northern states
into Illinois had led to a demand for a more complete
township government in that state. Accordingly the
second state constitution (1848) authorized an
optional system, providing that where the township
system was established, the county board should be
composed of town supervisors, as in Michigan and
Wisconsin. The northern counties rapidly adopted
the township system ; while those in the southern part
of the state adhered to the older form of county gov-
ernment.

West of the Mississippi, both county and township
government was established in Iowa, Minnesota and
Kansas, but with a small county board as in Ohio and
Indiana, instead of the large board of town represen-
tatives as in Michigan and Wisconsin. Iowa was for
a brief period part of Michigan territory, and later
was part of Wisconsin territory. But the earliest
settlers seem to have ignored much of the statutory
legislation of these territorial governments and for a
time formed their own local institutions.1 After a

1 Jesse Mary, Institutional Beginnings of a Western State,
in t( Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Polit-
ical Science, ' ' vol. 2.

aB. F. Shambaugh, Constitution and Records of the Claim
42

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

time, however, counties were organized with small
boards of elective commissioners exercising both
judicial and administrative functions, and with other
elective officers. Townships were also established.
This system continued after Iowa became a state un-
til 1851, when a single elective county judge was
substituted for the board of commissioners. Ten
years later county boards of town supervisors
were introduced; but after another decade the
county board was reduced again (in 1871) to three
members.

Parts of Minnesota had been at different times
under nine territorial governments, before the organ-
ization of Minnesota territory in 1848. But the local
institutions of most of the early jurisdictions were
not effectively established in the outlying regions;
and as in Iowa there were instances of voluntary extra-
legal local organizations.1 In Minnesota territory a
county system was established, with no incorporated
townships. On admission as a state, 1858, the Illinois
system was adopted as a whole; after two years a
return was made to the simple county system, but
soon the township was re-established as an organ of
local government.

In Kansas, too, the earliest settlers formed their
own local organizations. The first territorial legis-
lature, in 1855, defined the bounds of thirty-three
counties and organized seventeen of these at once
with officers appointed by the legislature, which gave

Association of Johnson County, Iowa, in Publications of the
Iowa Historical Society, 1894.

3 Charles E. Flaudrau, ' ' History of Minnesota, ' ' p. 406.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

control to the pro-slavery party. After admission
as a state, in 1861, an elective county and township
system was established. The county officers consisted
of a board of three commissioners elected by districts,
sheriff, coroner, probate judge, county clerk, reg-
ister of deeds and county attorney.

Turning to the later Southern states, local govern-
ment was organized, as in the older states of that
region, with the county as the basis. Arkansas, in its
first constitution (1836), made the older county offi-
cers—sheriff, coroner, treasurer and surveyor-
elective. It also provided for the election by * 'town-
ships" of justices of the peace and constables; and
established in each county a county court of the jus-
tices as the fiscal authority, the presiding judge hav-
ing also probate functions. This arrangement, while
preserving the terminology of the older Southern sys-
tem, practically organized the county board on lines
similar to the boards of supervisors in New York and
other Northern states; but the townships were little
more than election and judicial districts.

In the first Florida constitution (1845) the only
section on local government is one providing that
justices of the peace may be either elected or ap-
pointed, as determined by the general assembly.

When Texas became an independent republic in
1836, the American county system was substituted for
the earlier Mexican local government. Those control-
ling the government, however, did not introduce the
decentralized system of local elections that had al-
ready become established throughout the United
States. Sheriffs, coroners, justices of the peace and

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

constables were appointed; and on admission as a
state (1845) the same system was continued.

California, like Texas, was first organized as a part
of Mexico. Under a law of 1836 the whole depart-
ment of California, including the lower peninsula,
was divided into three districts, and these into sub-
districts (partidos), with a centralized hierarchy of
officials similar to the French administrative system.
Over each district was a prefect, nominated by the
governor of the department and confirmed by the
central government of Mexico, for a term of four
years. In each sub-district was a sub-prefect, nomi-
nated by the prefect and approved by the governor.
The urban communities were organized as ayunta-
mientos, while in the country regions there were petty
justices proposed by the sub-prefects, nominated by
the prefects and confirmed by the governor.1

As soon as the state government was organized
(1850), the legislature superseded this Mexican sys-
tem by organizing twenty-seven counties. Each
county was provided with a full quota of officials,—
sheriff, district attorney, treasurer, assessor, recorder,
clerk, surveyor and constables,— all elective. Justices
of the peace and county courts were also established.2

But in the mining camps, which appeared rapidly
after the discovery of gold, local government was
carried on for many years with little reference to the
statutory system. Each camp formed its own local
institutions, and there developed a considerable body

*H. H. Bancroft, "History of Calif ornia, ' ' III, 585; IV,
533. Hittell, "History of Calif ornia, ' ' II, 258.
2 Bancroft, op. cit., VI, 317 ; Hittell, op. cit., II, 793-7.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

of customary law, governing especially crimes and
land titles. The "camp legislation" on mining
claims was later ratified by the United States Gov-
ernment. The criminal law was harsh and tended to
degenerate into lynch law; frequently there were
serious disturbances; and it was many years before
order was well established.1

During the twelve years from 1844 to 1856 most of
the older states made important changes in their sys-
tems of local government, either in connection with
general revisions of their constitutions, or by specific
constitutional amendments. New Jersey adopted a
second constitution in 1844, Louisiana its second in
1845 and a third in 1852, New York its third in 1846,
and Illinois its second in 1848. In 1850 and 1851 new
constitutions were adopted in Maryland, Virginia,
Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. Constitu-
tional amendments affecting local government were
adopted by Connecticut and Vermont in 1850, Mas-
sachusetts in 1855, and Maine in 1856.

One very definite purpose ran through all of these
constitutional changes in local government,— the more
extended application of the formula of popular elec-
tion. Old appointive offices were made elective, and
new elective ofiices were established; while in some
cases other significant changes in local institutions
were effected. In Virginia and Kentucky there was a
complete revolution, from the appointive system con-
trolled by the self -renewing justices to the election of
all county officers and justices of the peace. At the

Bancroft, " Popular Tribunals"; Hittell, op. cit., Ill,
Ch. 11; Josiah Koyce, "California," Ch. 4.

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

same time the county court in these states was re-
duced to a small body of judges specially elected for
that purpose, while in Virginia provision was made
for elective commissioners of revenue in each county.

In the New England states, sheriffs, probate officers,
and sometimes other officers, became elective;1 and
justices of the peace were made elective in Connecticut
and Vermont, but remained appointive in Massachu-
setts, Maine and New Hampshire. In the last named
state elective boards of county commissioners were
established in 1855.

In the other states the elective method had previ-
ously been largely introduced, and was now ex-
tended to other offices: in New Jersey to county
clerks, surrogates and justices; in New York to
county judges and district attorneys; in Ohio to
court clerks and probate judges; in Indiana to the
new office of county auditor ; and in Illinois to county
judges and justices.

Thus before the Civil War the main features in
the development of local institutions had been estab-
lished. Throughout the country the states were di-
vided into counties, each with a considerable number
of elective offices, but with important differences in
the organization of the fiscal authority. Everywhere,
too, the county was subdivided into smaller districts;
but these varied in importance from the New Eng-
land town, through the township of the Middle- West,
to the election and judicial precincts in the South.
The basis of the suffrage for local elections was the

1 Except in New Hampshire, where they were appointive
until 1879.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

same as for state elections ; and had been steadily ex-
tended during the half century before 1860, until the
general system was one where every free white male
citizen could vote.

Since 1860 there have been some further changes in
local institutions. Features of the Northern systems
have been introduced in the Southern states ; while the
development of local government in the newest states
of the far West has some points of interest.

As a result of the adoption of the fourteenth and fif-
teenth amendments to the national constitution, negroes
throughout the country received the suffrage; and
in the Southern states, where this addition to the vot-
ing class was of the greatest significance, the extended
suffrage was confirmed by the reconstruction state
constitutions. Nevertheless within a decade the negro
vote was practically eliminated in most of the South-
ern states ; and more recently this exclusion of negroes
from the franchise has been practically confirmed by
constitutional provisions establishing educational and
property qualifications for the suffrage, which appar-
ently avoid technical violation of the national consti-
tution.

Next in importance was the attempt to transplant
the Northern township to the Southern states. When
West Virginia was formed into a separate state (1863),
its constitution provided for dividing the counties into
townships with a number of elective officers; and the
county board was to be composed of the township
supervisors.1 In 1864 a new Maryland constitution

1 ' « Sewanee Review, ' ' 10 : 134.
48

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

required the general assembly to provide for township
government. The reconstruction constitutions of
North Carolina and Alabama provided for townships
for the election of justices and constables, and also
in the former state of school committees. And in 1870
a new Virginia constitution established an elaborate
township system, similar to that of West Virginia.

But these measures had only a slight permanent
result. In three years Maryland again revised her
constitution, and in the new document the provision
for township government disappeared. In 1872 West
Virginia abolished the boards of supervisors and town-
ships ; and revived the county court of justices elected
by districts. Two years later Virginia replaced town-
ships by magisterial districts for the election of jus-
tices, supervisors, constables and overseers of the poor.
In a number of states the name "township" has re-
placed the former "precinct;" subdivisions of the
counties have become local districts for school ad-
ministration ; and in a few states there has been some
addition to the number of elective officers in these
districts ; but no fully organized township system has
developed as in the Northern states.

Some other changes were made in the reconstruction
constitutions. In the Carolinas and Texas the elective
system was finally instituted for the old county offi-
cers, and elective boards of county commissioners were
also established. Georgia provided for a probate judge
under the old ecclesiastical title of ordinary, and gave
to this single official all of the administrative powers
of the county court over roads and finances. Missis-

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

sippi changed the title of the county boards of police
to boards of supervisors, but they remained small
boards of five members elected by districts.

Florida (1868) established boards of county com-
missioners and at the same time started what seems
at first sight like an astonishing reaction from the
decentralizing movement that had thus far marked
the history of local government throughout the coun-
try. The governor was empowered to appoint the new
commissioners, all the other county officials and jus-
tices of the peace, leaving constables as the only elec-
tive local officers. In practice, however, the formal
method of appointment was a device for preventing
negro control of local offices in the "black counties."
On election day, democratic primary elections were
held in separate polling places for nominating candi-
dates for the various appointive offices, and the candi-
dates thus chosen were regularly appointed to the
positions. When the negro vote had been eliminated,
the elective system was restored.

In other Southern states there have been similar
centralizing measures, many of which are still in force.
In 1876 the North Carolina legislature was author-
ized to appoint county commissioners and justices of
the peace. In South Carolina the governor appoints
justices and county commissioners, and in Georgia
county judges and solicitors. In Mississippi county
health and education officers are appointed by state
boards; and in Virginia the state educational author-
ities have an important voice in the selection of local
school officials.

In the most recent states of the West a striking fea-
50

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

ture of local government is the development of the
county to a position of much greater importance than
in any other part of the country.

New counties were organized in the Western regions
by the territorial governments as rapidly as popula-
tion advanced. Even before 1850 counties had been
established in New Mexico, Utah and Oregon ; by 1860
in Nebraska and Washington; and by 1870 in Colo-
rado, Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada and
Arizona. By the latter date the whole territory
included in the United States, except Indian Terri-
tory, Indian reservations elsewhere, and Alaska, had
been formed into counties; and since then new coun-
ties have been formed by sub-dividing and re-arrang-
ing the boundaries of the older counties.

Township government has also been established to
some extent in the most easterly of these later states.
In 1872 Missouri had introduced an optional plan of
county government modeled on that of Illinois;1 and
in 1875 the state of Nebraska established a similar
arrangement. When Dakota territory was formed
into two states (1889), South Dakota provided for the
organization of township government, and North
Dakota adopted the optional plan. And the territory
of Oklahoma has also established both township and
county government.

But in the states and territories west of the 104th

1 This first Missouri law was repealed the following year, but
another law was enacted in its stead, under which 20 counties
adopted township organization. The law was again repealed
in 1877, but again renewed in 1879, and under this 14 counties
have organized townships. Data from Professor Isidor Loeb,
University of Missouri.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

meridian, while counties are divided into judicial, elec-
tion and school districts, township government has not
yet been fully developed. This is doubtless due in part
to the fact that these regions are only sparsely settled,
and to the organization of municipal corporations in
the small village communities. At the same time an
analysis of county expenditure shows that the county
government is much more active than in any of the
older states.

Another development since the Civil War, affecting
local government in all parts of the country except
New England, has been the organization of large num-
bers of incorporated towns, villages and boroughs.
The special incorporation of small villages within the
townships of the Northern states and the counties of
the South, began in the colonial period, and has been
steadily gaining throughout the last century. But
the movement has been accelerated very rapidly during
the past forty years, aided by the transportation and
industrial development which has promoted the growth
of small as well as large urban communities. In 1900
there were over 10,000 incorporated communities in
the United States. In the New England states small
municipal corporations are not numerous; but in all
the other states they are to be found in abundance.

This separate incorporation of the small villages
is one of the most important factors to be considered
in explaining the relative importance of the town and
county in different parts of the country. It is due
in large measure to them that the township of the
Middle- West is of so much less importance than the
New England town; and in much the same measure

UNDER STATE GOVERNMENTS

these village corporations have enabled the states of
the South and far West to do without township organ-
ization.

Finally there may be briefly noted here the gradual
development in all the states of some central adminis-
trative supervision over certain branches of local gov-
ernment. In some lines the first steps in this direction
are to be seen even before 1850, but it is since that time,
and more noticeably during the last thirty years, that
the tentative steps have become a distinct tendency.
Beginning with school administration, and extending
to public health, charities and corrections, and the
assessment and collection of revenue, state officers and
boards have been established with varying powers of
supervision and control over local officials; and in
some cases with power to exercise direct administra-
tion in fields formerly left entirely to the local author-
ities.

As yet the movement is very far from establishing
a completely centralized system of local administra-
tion in any of the states, but it is at least a significant
reaction from the extreme decentralization that had
become established by the tendencies in force up to the
middle of the nineteenth century.

PART II
THE COUNTY

CHAPTER IV

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

In all of the states and organized mainland territories
of the United States, the major district for purposes
of local administration is that known, with a single
exception, as the county. There are larger districts
for the election of members of congress and the state
legislatures and judges of the higher courts, but these
officials belong to the national and central state gov-
ernments, while the judges carry out their functions
in direct connection with the county organization.
The exception to the term county is in Louisiana,
where the corresponding districts are known as par-
ishes. Indian reservations are usually distinct dis-
tricts, outside of the county system, and under the
direct control of the national government.

Before examining the administrative organization
and functions of counties, it is important to note
some of the general characteristics of this district,
such as the methods of formation and the social fac-
tors which underlie the political structure.

A county is one of the civil divisions of a state or
territory for judicial and political purposes, and at
the same time a district of a quasi-corporate character
for purposes of local civil administration. Counties
are created by the sovereign power of the state, and

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

may be established without the consent of the in-
habitants. Sometimes new counties are created and
existing counties are recognized by the state consti-
tution; and in such cases there are no restrictions on
the power to create. Ordinarily the legislature has
power to establish counties and may do so without
express grant of authority. In the North- Atlantic
group of states and some others, this power is not
limited by the state constitutions ; and in these states
the legislature may create new counties, divide or
consolidate them, alter their boundaries or abolish
them, at its discretion, without the consent of the
people. But most constitutions of the states in other
sections of the country impose -various restrictions on
the power of the legislature.

In many states a minimum area for counties is
named, and in some also a minimum population limit.
The most usual limit of area is about 400 square
miles; in several states it is 600 square miles, and in
Texas 700 square miles for counties created from
existing counties, and 900 square miles for counties
created in other territory.1 Exceptions are some-
times specified, as in Ohio, where a county with over
100,000 population may be divided, although the area
of one of the counties thus formed may be less than

1 In Tennessee 275 square miles for new counties, 500 square
miles for existing counties ; 400 square miles in Maryland, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and Oregon; 410 square
miles in Missouri; 12 congressional townships (approximately
432 square miles) in Iowa and Kansas; 16 congressional town-
ships in Michigan; 600 square miles in Virginia, Alabama and
Arkansas; 625 square miles in Louisiana; 24 congressional
townships in North and South Dakota.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

the usual minimum, and in Michigan, where any city
of 20,000 population may be made a separate county.
Minimum population limits vary from 1,000 in North
Dakota to 10,000 in Maryland.

In a few states counties may be formed only with
the consent of the voters, and in a larger number
changes in the boundary lines of existing counties
may be made only after popular approval in the dis-
tricts concerned on a referendum vote.1 Louisiana
authorizes the dissolution of a parish and its ab-
sorption in another only if a referendum vote has
two- thirds in favor of the proposal. Where an -exist-
ing county is divided, several state constitutions re-
quire the new county line to be at least a certain num-
ber of miles (usually ten or twelve) from the county
seat.2

A small group of neighboring states (North and
South Dakota and Wyoming) require the legislature
to provide by general law for the organization of new
counties. The Minnesota constitution provides for
the formation of new counties by petition and pop-
ular vote without the action of the legislature.

In the states east of the Mississippi River the
creation of new counties and changes in county
boundaries are now seldom made, and the counties
in these states may be considered as permanent local
districts. In the states farther west the subdivision

1 Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin (except for
counties over 900 sq. miles), Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North
and South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Colo-
rado and Washington.

'Illinois, Tennessee, Arkansas and Texas.
59

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

of old counties and the creation of new counties is
still of frequent occurrence.1

At the census of 1900 there were 2,852 counties in
the United States. The least number are in the
smallest states, Delaware with three counties, and
Rhode Island with five. Massachusetts, with only
fourteen counties, has less than any other state in
proportion to population. Texas has the largest num-
ber, 243. Most of the more important states have from
sixty to a hundred counties each.

In area the counties show great differences. Ex-
cluding the cities of Virginia, the smallest is Bristol
county, Rhode Island, covering 25 square miles; The
largest, Custer county, Montana, embraces 20,490
square miles. The average area is 1,050 square miles,
but this does not represent the typical county, as the
average is greatly increased by the large sparsely
settled counties in the West, 128 having each an area
of over 4,000 square miles. A more significant figure
is the median area, which is 615 square miles. Nearly
two-thirds of the counties are between 300 and 900
square miles in area; and the most usual areas are
between 400 and 650 square miles.

While there are considerable variations in area
within each state, the largest counties are in the less
settled Western states. In the older and more densely

1 From 1890 to 1900 there were 15 new counties established in
Oklahoma, 8 in Montana, 5 in New Mexico, 3 in California,
and 2 each in Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Texas.
In the same period 5 new counties were established in South
Carolina. On the other hand in North and South Dakota, a
number of counties were consolidated during this decade.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

populated regions east of the Mississippi River (ex-
cept in the New England states) the average area of
counties is less than 600 square miles. And in some
of the Southern states the average is notably less than
this,— in Virginia and Georgia about 425 square
miles, and in Kentucky 340 square miles.

In population counties show even greater differ-
ences than in area. At one extreme is Brown county,
Texas, with 4 inhabitants in 1900. At the other is
New York county, New York, with 2,050,600 popu-
lation. The average population is 26,646, and the
median population is about 18,000. More than half
of the whole number of counties have a population
from 10,000 to 30,000 ; but there are important varia-
tions in this respect between the states in different
sections of the country. In the Western states, nearly
two-thirds of the counties have less than 10,000 popu-
lation. In the Southern states the larger number
have from 5,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. While in the
North-Atlantic group of states nearly one-half of the
counties have over 50,000 population; and in Mas-
sachusetts eight of the fourteen counties have each
over 100,000 inhabitants.

By far the greater number of counties are ex-
clusively rural in character. Perhaps a sixth of the
whole number contain one or more cities of over
8,000 population ; but even in most of these the rural
population predominates over the urban. In a few
cases, however, a single large city contains the great
bulk of a county's population, while in a still smaller
number of instances counties are coterminous with
cities.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

New York City includes four counties within its
present limits. Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore,
San Francisco, New Orleans, Denver and the eighteen
cities of Virginia have each coincident boundaries for
the city and county. Boston is almost identical with
Suffolk county. Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Cincin-
nati, most of the other cities with over 100,000 popu-
lation, and some below that limit have much the larger
part of the population of the counties within which
they lie; although in these cases the larger part of
the county area is outside of the city.

Comparing the American county in area and popu-
lation with the districts in European countries most
nearly similar, it will be seen that the former is a
less important administrative division. English
counties average nearly a thousand square miles in
area, and (omitting the large cities, which for ad-
ministrative purposes are considered as separate
counties) 300,000 population. French departments
average over 2,000 square miles in area, and 400,000
population. Prussian provinces average over 10,000
miles in area and nearly 2,000,000 population; and
even the circles, although smaller in area (averaging
about 300 square miles), have an average population
of over 50,000.

It is almost a necessary result of its smaller social
importance that the American county has not become
a center for certain branches of public administration
which are assigned to such districts as those above
noted. Notably such specialized charitable institu-
tions as insane hospitals, which form an important
part of local administration in European countries,

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

belong in the United States to the field of state ad-
ministration. It also follows that even in the spheres
of public activity which are undertaken, the scope of
public action in an American county is of less impor-
tance than in the corresponding European districts.
While in some lines, such as road building, public ac-
tion has been so limited that the work of an American
county is of even less importance than can be explained
by the smaller population.

On the other hand the extremely decentralized
methods of administration within the American states
makes the county in this country much more impor-
tant than the districts noted in foreign countries as an
area of local self-government and local elections. In
the countries of continental Europe much of the pub-
lic administration which centers in the province or
department is performed by officials appointed by the
central government, and the locally elected author-
ities are subject to a large measure of control by such
appointed officials. In the United States practically
all the officials whose jurisdiction is defined by county
lines are elected within the county, even where the
officials are most clearly considered in law as sub-
ordinate agents of the state government. And while
there is now some supervision by state officers over a
few county officials, it is very limited in its operation
and is far from exercising an effective control over
their actions.

The powers and functions of counties and county
officers in the main are conferred by acts of the state
legislatures, but in part they are of common law
origin, and in most of the states there are now consti-

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

tutional provisions of more or less importance con-
trolling this matter. The constitutional provisions
are the most fundamental and overrule both older
common law customs and inconsistent statutory en-
actments. Subject to the constitutional provisions
the legislature can exercise full control over county
affairs. It can require any public duties or functions
to be performed by county officials. It can to a large
extent exercise control over the property and revenue
of a county, and it can validate irregular and un-
authorized acts of county officers, if they do not
violate constitutional provisions.

By constitution or statute counties are usually
created bodies "politic and corporate." This has
been said to mean that they have both political and
business functions;1 and the two terms at least mark
an important legal distinction in their powers and
duties.

As corporations their powers are limited and less
than those of a full municipal corporation. In Eng-
land until recently counties were not corporations;
and in the United States they are commonly called
quasi-corporations. They have however most of the
powers of juristic personalities. They may bring
suits in the judicial courts, and they may be sued on
contracts, but are usually not liable for damages due
to negligence. They have power to make contracts
necessary to execute authorized purposes; but the
power to contract indebtedness is in many states
limited by constitutional provisions. And they may

1McVey, "The Government of Minnesota," p. 63.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

acquire and hold both real estate and personal prop-
erty in connection with other powers.

But these corporate powers are for the most part
incidental and secondary to the governmental func-
tions of counties. The latter are so prominent that
it has been said in a judicial opinion that counties
" exist only for the purpose of the general political
government of the state. They are the agents and
instrumentalities the state uses to perform its func-
tions. All the powers with which they are entrusted
are the powers of the state, and the duties imposed
on them are the duties of the state. ' ' * And at least
it can be safely stated that "a county organization is
created almost exclusively with a view to the policy
of the state at large. ' ' 2

County powers and functions are not uniform in
all the states; and the general importance of the
county varies considerably in different states. But
most descriptions of American local government by
discussing only some variable elements have overem-
phasized them; and have underestimated the com-
mon factors in county government throughout the
country.

Everywhere and above all the county is a district for
the administration of justice. Courts of general civil
and criminal jurisdiction are held at frequent inter-
vals in each county. And while the presiding judges
are often selected from a larger district, the adminis-
trative officers of the courts (clerical and executive)

1 Madden v. Lancaster County, 65 Fed. Kep., 188, 191; 12 C.
C. A., 566.

1 State v. Downs, 60 Kans., 788,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

are regularly county officers. In connection with the
administration of justice court-houses and jails are
provided and maintained in each county. In all of
the states, too, the county is to some extent a police
and militia district. In almost every state the county
is the district for probate administration and the pub-
lic record of land titles.

Outside of the New England states, the county has
important functions in the construction and main-
tenance of roads and bridges, and sometimes of other
public works. In most states it is the district for the
administration of poor relief. Generally there is some
county school officer, and in many of the Southern
states the county is the primary unit for school ad-
ministration. In some states it is a district for sani-
tary administration.

Almost everywhere the county is a district of con-
siderable importance in finance administration. It
levies taxes for its own purposes. In most states it
not only collects its own taxes but also acts as agent
for the collection of state revenues, and sometimes
also for towns and other districts; and in the states
of the South and far West, and to some extent in
other states, it is a district for the assessment of taxes.

In all of the states the county is an important
district for election purposes. Most county officers
are elective; the county is always a unit for can-
vassing the returns for state officers; and in most
states it is the district for electing members of the
state legislature. The position of the county as an
election unit is indicated by the importance of the
county committee in the party organizations of many

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

states,1 and by the centering of campaign activity
within this district.

To some extent the county may be said to exercise
legislative power, mainly through the device of
referendal local option votes on certain measures
passed by the state legislature. The principal use of
this method has been for prohibiting locally the sale
of intoxicating liquors. Most of the Southern states
and some others provide for a popular vote on this
question in any county, usually on petition; and in
this way many counties have prohibited the traffic.2
County boards are also usually given power to enact
police regulations in enumerated classes of cases, but
there is no general authority to enact laws or ordi-
nances vested in any county official.

Measured by the number of functions and the
relative distribution of local administration between
the county and minor districts, the county is of most
importance in the Southern states and the Mountain
and Pacific* Coast states of the West. By the same
tests, it is of least importance in New England, where
the county is weakened by the centralization of the
judiciary on the one hand, and the importance of
town government on the other. In the Middle- At-
lantic and North-Central states it occupies an inter-
mediate position.

But if a quantitative standard of the intensity of
county administration is applied, the results are
somewhat different. Judged by the per capita rate

1 Macy, "Party Organization and Machinery/' 107, 115, 128,
168, 170, 173, 182.

2 Oberholtzer, ' l The Referendum in America, ' » ch. 12.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

of expenditure, the county is of much the greatest
importance in the Western group of states. Second
rank is taken by the North-Central and Middle-At-
lantic states, while by this standard the Southern
state? fall in the same group with three of the New
England states, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
Maine. In two of the remaining New England states,
Connecticut and Vermont, county finances are almost
negligible ; while in Rhode Island the county expenses
are entirely included in the state budget.

In the organization of county government there has
been only a very limited application of the doctrine
of the separation of powers, or, indeed, of any other
theoretical political principle. In every state but
two1 there is a county board, which levies taxes and
determines matters of local administrative policy;
and this has sometimes been referred to as thf legis-
lative branch of the county government. But the
legislative functions are narrowly restricted, while
the board is also an executive authority in many mat-
ters, thus placing the power of levying taxes and ex-
pending appropriations for these purposes in the
same hands.

In some of the Southern states the members of the
county board are also local justices, and the chairman
is sometimes a county judge.

Besides the county board there are a varying num-
ber of other officials, mostly elective, with executive
and administrative functions. These are usually in-
dependent of each other; and most of them are, to

1 Rhode Island and Georgia.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

a large degree, independent of the county board ; and
there is no single officer who can be considered as the
chief officer of the county, corresponding to the gov-
ernor of a state or the mayor of a city.

These county officers in most states include a county
judge or judge of probate, prosecuting attorney,
sheriff, clerk of court, county clerk, recorder of
deeds, assessor, auditor, treasurer, school commis-
sioner, surveyor and coroner. The precise titles
vary in different states, and sometimes the duties of
two offices are combined in one position. Thus the
county clerk may be also clerk of court, recorder of
deeds or auditor.

In many states there are no distinctively county
judges even for probate administration; and the
courts are held by judges either elected for larger
districts than the county or appointed for the state
at large. The prosecuting attorney is also in some of
the Southern states elected, not in each county, but
in each judicial district.

Additional officers are also found in some states.
Several Southern states have a tax collector in each
county. A number of states have county health
authorities, court commissioners, jury commissioners
and public administrators. Pennsylvania has a mer-
cantile appraiser in each county; Michigan, county
drain commissioners ; and Alabama, tax commissioners
and pension examiners.

On the other hand some of the officers named are
wanting in certain states. The county assessor is
found regularly only in the Southern and Western
states. There are no county school officers or sur-

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

veyors in the New England states; and in Vermont,
Connecticut and Rhode Island probate officers are
chosen by towns or other subdivisions of the county.
In Connecticut most of the county officers are ap-
pointed; and the sheriff is the only elective official.
In Rhode Island the only county officers are the sheriff
and clerk of court, who are chosen annually by the
general assembly.

County officers serve for terms varying from two
years to six years. In the states east of the Missis-
sippi River the terms of different officers in the same
state often vary, so that a complete list is seldom
elected at one time. West of the Mississippi most of
the states have a uniform term of two years for
county officers, and all terms expire at the same time.
A number of the Southern states have adopted the
four-year term to a large extent.

There can be no doubt that there are too many
elective county officers. Their very number makes a
popular election impossible in practice. Even the
most intelligent voters cannot become acquainted with
the merits and demerits of the numerous candidates;
and perforce must vote on the basis of a party ticket
or on vague impressions for most of the offices. The
effective choice is necessarily made in most cases by
party leaders; and the attempt to apply the elective
principle universally has the paradoxical effect of
defeating its own purpose. Moreover, elections for
short terms promote frequent changes in purely
ministerial offices which have no political functions,
and where permanence of tenure is necessary to effi-
cient administration.

COUNTY OFFICERS

States

«t

■

-7

6 &

4-
it

o
3

o
0

-■w

Maine

New Hampshire.

Vermont

Massachusetts . . .
Rhode Island

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania. . . .

Delaware

Ohio

Indiana

Michigan

Illinois

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

North Dakota . . .
South Dakota . . .

Nebraska

Kansas

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia. . .
North Carolina .
South Carolina . .

Georgia

Florida

Kentucky

Alabama . . .
Mississippi .
Louisiana . .

Texas

Arkansas

Missouri

Oklahoma . .
New Mexico

Arizona

Colorado —

Utah

Wyoming. . . ,
Montana

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

Nevada

California . . ,

3-7

X A

X ...

X —
A

X A

X X

X A

X X

X X
X

X X

X A

X X

X X
X

X X

X —

X X

X . . .

X X

— »

x mm An elective office.

8 = A county office in some counties.

O — Usually elected for a larger district than a county.

D = Chosen for a smaller district than a county.

A = Appointed.

— — Duties performed by some other officer.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

County officers in most states are still paid mainly
or largely by fees, which are often regulated by old
statutes enacted in primitive times and unsuited to
modern conditions. As a result the offices are often
conducted so as to secure the largest amount of fees
rather than for the public interest; and in populous
counties many county officers receive very large in-
comes, sometimes more than the salary of the Presi-
dent of the United States. Such offices are the goal of
unscrupulous politicians ; and are a constant incentive
to corrupt political methods. Some of the Western
states and a few others have in recent years placed all
county offices on a salary basis.1

Every county has a county seat, where the courts
are held and most of the county officers have their
offices. Here a court-house and jail are provided, the
former including quarters for different officers; and
usually other county establishments, such as the poor-
house, are located in the neighborhood. In rural
counties the court-house is often the most imposing
building in the county.

Where a county contains a city of considerable size
the county seat will generally be located there. But
there are cases where a small village near the center
is the capital of a county containing a much larger
city. This is the case in Calhoun county, Michigan,
containing the city of Battle Creek, where the county
seat is the much smaller city of Marshall.

1 California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Kentucky and
(in 1906) Ohio. Cf. J. K. Urdahl. "The Fee System in the
United States."

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

In new agricultural sections the location of the
county seat, concentrating there the public business,
will often determine what is to be the principal com-
munity in the county. On this account there is an
eager rivalry between different places to secure this
position. Ordinarily the legislature determines the
county seat and may change it; but in about half of
the states, mostly west of the Alleghanies, there are
constitutional provisions requiring a local popular
vote for these purposes.1 In Illinois a majority vote
may move the county seat nearer the center; but it
requires a three-fifths vote to transfer it to a place fur-
ther from the center. In Tennessee, Missouri and
South Dakota a two-thirds vote is necessary to make
any change ; and in Texas the same is required if the
existing county seat is within five miles of the center.
In Kansas, the county seat can be changed only with
the consent of "a majority of the electors," instead of
the usual majority of those voting. Several states limit
the frequency with which the question of removal
can be raised. In Illinois a vote for changing the
county seat can be taken only once in ten years, in
Missouri once in five years, in Colorado and Washing-
ton, once in four years. In older states the county
seats remain stationary, and the problem of removal
seldom arises.

As a general rule the county seat is not merely the

1 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missis-
sippi, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Ober-
holtzer, < ' Referendum in America, « ' pp. 231-232, 377-380.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

lot and buildings used for public purposes, but the city
or village in which they are located. But in several
cases it has been held by the courts that territory
annexed to such a city or village after the location of
the county seat is not included ; and that to erect new
county buildings in the annexed territory would consti-
tute a removal of the county seat, for which a popular
vote was necessary.1

Some counties have more than one county seat. In
several New England states courts are held at two or
more places in most counties. At least two Iowa coun-
ties have two county seats, and Sebastian County,
Arkansas, has two court-houses.

1 Marengo County v. Martin, 134 Ala., 275; State v. Harwi,
36 Kans., 588.

CHAPTER V

THE COUNTY BOARD

With a considerable variety of structure and name,
there exists in every state, except Rhode Island, a
local authority in each county, which levies taxes, per-
forms certain administrative functions and has some
powers of supervision over other county officers
These county boards have sometimes been called the
legislative branch of the county government ; and it is
the only one in the list of county organs to which the
term could be applied in any degree. But an examina-
tion of their authority will show that they exercise leg-
islative power only to a very limited extent, while they
have in addition administrative and in some cases
also judicial functions.

It has been customary to speak of two types of
county boards;— the small board of commissioners
elected at large for each county, and the much larger
board of supervisors elected by townships and cities
within each county. But in some states the organiza-
tion of the county board is the result of a compromise
between these two typical forms ; while in other states
it contains features foreign to both. Moreover the
use of the terms has been interchanged, so that boards
organized on the "commissioner" type are sometimes

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

known as boards of supervisors; and especially in
some of the Southern states other names are still
in use, such as the county court, the levy court, or the
fiscal court. It is, therefore, necessary to examine in
some detail the various forms of organization in the
different states.

In the five New England states which have such
county boards, they usually consist of three mem-
bers, who are elected at large in each county, except
in Connecticut, where they are chosen by the state
legislature. In four of these states the board is known
as the board of county commissioners; but in Ver-
mont the duties of commissioners are performed by
the assistant judges of the county court. In New
Hampshire and Connecticut the commissioners do
not exercise the power of taxation or of making appro-
priations. These are entrusted to biennial conven-
tions of the members of the state legislature from each
county. This arrangement reduces the importance
of the county board, but avoids the danger which
exists in most other states from placing in the same
body the authority to levy taxes, to make appropria-
tions and to disburse the proceeds. In Massachusetts,
county appropriations and tax levies are made by the
legislature; but the estimates of the county commis-
sioners are regularly adopted, and there have been
some cases of extravagance if not of corruption.1

In the Middle-Atlantic and North-Central states
two distinct groups can be recognized in the organiza-
tion of county boards. In New York, New Jersey,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and most of the Illinois coun-
1 G. Bradford, ' ' The Lesson of Popular Government, » ' II, 80.

THE COUNTY BOARD

ties,1 they are composed of representatives from the
townships and cities, known usually as boards of
supervisors, but in New Jersey as boards of chosen
freeholders.

Such boards of supervisors range in distinctly rural
counties from fifteen to twenty-five members. But in
counties containing a large city the number is larger,
and in some cases is as high as fifty, and in a few
cases, usually very sparsely settled districts, counties
with only four or five organized townships have a cor-
respondingly small county board.

These boards it may be noticed are formed on the
basis of representing local districts, and only in a
small degree is population considered. Each town-
ship has ordinarily one representative, irrespective of
population. Cities are given some additional repre-
sentation, frequently one member from each ward;
but this is not in proportion to their population, and
in many cases a city with the larger part of the popu-
lation of a county will be in a hopeless minority in its
representation in the county board. Detroit, Michi-
gan, is an exception in having more than a majority
of the board of supervisors for Wayne county. Chi-
cago, by a special arrangement, elects ten of the fifteen
county commissioners of Cook county, Illinois. But
Buffalo, with eighty per cent, of the population of
Erie county, New York, has exactly one-half of the
members on the board of supervisors.

In these large county boards local representation is

formerly also in some counties of Nebraska; but in 1895
boards of 7 members were substituted for the larger boards of
township representatives.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

more fully secured than in the small boards ; and there
seems some reason to believe that the representatives
elected feel a greater degree of popular responsibility.
This form of organization would therefore seem to be
the better, in so far as the boards act as legislative and
taxing authorities. But they are also executive and
administrative authorities ; and for these purposes the
large board is unwieldy, especially in counties where
the number of members runs up to forty or fifty.
Ordinarily every item of business has to be transacted
by the whole board. For example, even in Erie
county, New York, every bill paid must be separately
voted on by the board of supervisors. Judge T. M.
Cooley criticised the working of the large boards in
Michigan, and recently there have been some com-
plaints in Wisconsin that the frequent sessions of the
boards of supervisors in large counties to transact
minor business involved a good deal of unnecessary
expense.

To obviate such difficulties and criticisms there have
been in some cases modifications in the organization of
these large county boards. Probably the most fre-
quent change is the development of a system of com-
mittees to which the detailed work of the board is
referred, while the board acts mainly as a ratifying
authority. But this tends to weaken the chain of
responsibility, while it fails to make a distinct separa-
tion between the spending and appropriating authori-
ties. Another change introduced in several Michigan
counties has been the establishment of boards of
county auditors, to relieve the supervisors of the duty
of examining claims. This partially separates two

THE COUNTY BOARD

incompatible functions: but in Wayne county, where
the system has been in existence longest, the powers
of the auditors have been gradually increased, until
they are practically the county board, and the super-
visors merely register their wishes.

Still another method has been recently introduced
in Cook county, Illinois. An act of 1893 created for
that county the office of county president, elected as a
member of the county board, who is given a limited
veto over the acts of the board and the power to
appoint the county officers not elected by popular
vote.1 Through these powers, analogous to those given
to the national, state and city executives, the county
president is made the effective and responsible head
of the county administration (so far as that is not
under independent elective officers), and the county
board becomes the representative organ for voting
supplies and determining the general policy of the
county. In a few New Jersey counties the chairman
of the county board, called the county supervisor, has
a limited veto power.2 And formerly in Kings
county, New York, there was a supervisor at large,
who presided over the board and exercised some execu-
tive functions.3

In the other states of this geographical group from
Pensylvania west to Kansas and Minnesota, the
county board is a small body of three to seven mem-
bers.4 In Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and South

1 S. E. Sparling in ' ' Political Science Quarterly, ' ' 16, p. 437.

2 Laws of 1900, ch. 89.

3 F. J. Goodnow, ' ' Administrative Law of the U. S., ' » 192 n.
* In Delaware from seven to ten members elected by districts.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Dakota, the members are elected at large in each
county. In Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Nebraska and Kansas, they are elected by districts
into which the counties are divided, a compromise
with the system of town representation used in
the states previously noted. In Iowa and Nebraska
these small county boards are called boards of super-
visors.

These small county boards in some states meet more
frequently than the larger boards of town super-
visors, and are thus more active administrative bodies.
At the same time they are the taxing and appropriat-
ing authority for the county, with no clear distinction
between their executive and legislative functions. But
it may be noted that most of the states in this group
have county auditors, who relieve the county board
of the detailed examination of claims and act as a
check to keep expenditures within the formal appro-
priations.

A few years ago Indiana made important changes
in its county system, so as to separate the power of
making appropriations from the spending authority.
There was ample evidence of carelessness and ex-
travagance, if not of dishonesty, in the conduct of
county business under the former system; and this
led to the new law of 1899. This law established in
each county a county council of seven members, four
to be elected by districts and three at large. To this
council were given the fiscal powers of the old county
board, notably the exclusive right to vote all appro-
priations for county expenses on a carefully prepared
budget, to borrow money and issue bonds, or to pur-

THE COUNTY BOARD

chase and sell real estate. The former county board
remains as the executive authority for carrying out
the policy determined by the appropriations.1 It may
be noted that these county councils occupy a some-
what similar position to the county conventions in
Connecticut and New Hampshire.

In the Southern states there is no longer a uniform
organization for county boards. In Kentucky, Ten-
nessee and Arkansas the quarterly court of the jus-
tices of the peace still constitutes the fiscal and gen-
eral administrative authority of the county. But with
the popular election of the justices by county districts
this system has become one of local representation
similar to the boards of town supervisors in the North-
ern states; and in two of these states the number of
justices on the county boards approximates to the
number of supervisors in such states as Michigan and
Wisconsin. In Kentucky, however, by recent legis-
lation, the number of magisterial districts in each
county has been reduced to eight, and this determines
the size of the county board. Governor Beckham be-
lieves the reduction in numbers has been beneficial,
in tending to improve the character and qualifications
of the justices.

Virginia has adopted some of the terminology of the
Northern system. Each county is divided into from
three to eight magisterial districts, and each district,
besides other local officers, elects a supervisor to the
county board. In Louisiana the parish authority
corresponding to the county board is known as the
police jury, which is elected by wards, and is thus also
1 « < Political Science Quarterly, > ' 16, p. 437.
81

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

a body organized on the principle of local represen-
tation.

In the other Southern states the county board is a
small body of three to five members. In West Vir-
ginia and Missouri it is known as the county court.
In Mississippi (where it consists of five members
elected by districts) it is called the board of super-
visors. Elsewhere the board is composed of county
commissioners, sometimes elected at large (Alabama),
sometimes by districts (Florida and Texas), and in
most of the counties in South Carolina appointed by
the governor on the recommendation of the local mem-
bers in the legislature.

Two special characteristics in some of the Southern
states should be noted : One is the continued combina-
tion of judicial and administrative functions in the
same hands. This is true not only in Kentucky, Ten-
nessee and Arkansas, but also in Alabama, where the
probate judge is a member of the county board, and
in Georgia, where the probate judge or ordinary him-
self performs most of the duties of the county board,
limited in some matters by the grand jury. The sec-
ond notable feature is the tendency towards a definite
chief county officer. This reaches its maximum in the
case of the ordinary in Georgia, and the county judge
in Arkansas, who is probate judge and also the ex-
ecutive and chairman of the county court. To a
smaller degree the county or probate judge in Ten-
nessee and Alabama is the leading member of the
county court.1

1 Professor Thomas C. McCorvey of the University of Ala-
bama writes: "The judge of probate, who in most cases has had

THE COUNTY BOARD

In the Mountain and Pacific states of the West the
county board is always a small body. In most cases
it has three members, called county commissioners, in
some states elected at large, in others by districts. In
Oregon there are two commissioners constituting the
county court with probate and administrative func-
tions. In California, each county has a board of
supervisors, consisting of three to seven members, ex-
cept in San Francisco.

Counties which are coterminous with or contained
within a city do not have both a county board and a
city council. Usually the city council acts in place
of the county board, as in Boston and Philadelphia.
But in San Francisco there is a board of twelve super-
some legal training (although the law of Alabama does not
require that he shall be, like judges of other courts of record,
'learned in the law'), is usually recognized by the other
members of the board as better informed than they upon all
matters, fiscal and otherwise, that come before the board, and
they naturally look somewhat to him for guidance and leader-
ship. In a state where the population is still largely rural and
agricultural, it is natural that a majority of the commissioners
should be well-to-do planters or farmers — men who are chosen
by their county constituencies for their supposed good sense,
sound judgment, and honesty, but who are not supposed to be
authorities upon questions of law and finance. In many of
the counties the commissioners employ a county attorney, upon
whom they call for advice upon the legal phases of matters
coming before them, while in other counties the commissioners
rely more or less upon the advice of the judge of probate. But
while the probate judge usually has great influence in shaping
the action of the board, it sometimes happens that he cannot
lead the action of the commissioners — not infrequently a
majority of the commissioners voting down propositions which
he favors. ' '

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

visors, elected at large, which acts in both capacities.
Most of the other elective county officers are, how-
ever, provided in these counties or cities, in ad-
dition to the city officers.

Comparing the two main types in the organization
of county boards, the larger bodies have the advantage
of more direct local representation and popular re-
sponsibility, the smaller bodies are likely to be more
active and efficient in executive administration. But
under either system as it exists in most states there is
at least a possible danger in the union of the powers
of appropriation and expenditure in the same body.

This is avoided by the separate taxing authorities in
Connecticut, New Hampshire and Indiana; and also
by the development of a chief executive in Georgia,
Arkansas, and Cook county, Illinois. The latter
method, concentrating executive authority in a single
official, is more in accord with the methods employed
in national, state, city and even to some extent in
township organization. If to the powers of the presi-
dent of Cook county or the county judge in the South-
ern states noted were added the sheriff 's responsibility
as peace officer, there would be established a chief
county officer, exercising supervision over the less im-
portant offices, and limited by the financial control of
the county board. Such an arrangement would bring
the county system into harmony with the accepted
principles of American governmental organization.

The union of judicial and administrative functions
in some of the Southern states does not seem to involve
any serious danger ; and has practical advantages as an
economical measure, which might make a similar ar-

THE COUNTY BOARD

rangement advisable in the smaller counties of other
states.

County boards can exercise only such powers as
are expressly conferred on them, or as are necessary
to the performance of their public trusts and duties.
Their authority is, therefore, determined by statute;
and even the provisions of general application are so
numerous and so scattered throughout the volumes of
collected laws as to make impossible a comprehensive
analysis of their varying powers in the different
states. Special legislation for particular counties in
many states increase the difficulties in making general
statements.

They may, however, be called the general public
agents by which the powers of counties are exercised.
And it has been said from the bench that such a
county board "is clothed with authority to do what-
ever the corporate or political entity, the county,
might, if capable of rational action, except in respect
of matter the cognizance of which is exclusively
vested in some other officer or person. . . . It is
in an enlarged sense the representative and guardian
of the county, having the management and control of
its financial interests. " x "In legal contemplation the
board of commissioners is the county. ' ' 2

More specifically county boards manage the county
finances and property, have varying powers in regard
to highways and other public works, and the care of

1West, J., in Shanklin v. Madison County, 21 Ohio St., 583
(1871).
2 State v. Clark, 4 Indiana, 316.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

the poor, in some states have a limited ordinance and
police power, usually have some supervision over
county officers, and sometimes over townships and
other subdivisions of the county.1 A brief notice of
their activity in each of these fields may be given.

Control of the county finances constitutes the most
important function of county boards. In four states
—Connecticut, New Hampshire, Indiana, and Arkan-
sas— this power is given to bodies separate from those
exercising the administrative powers; but in other
states the two functions are combined in the same
boards. These levy taxes for county purposes and for

1 The following extract from the statutes of Arkansas is ex-
ceptional in giving most of the powers in one brief statement:

1 ' The county court of each county shall have the following
powers and jurisdictions: Exclusive original jurisdiction in all
matters relating to county taxes, in all matters relating to
roads, the appointment of viewers, reviewers and overseers of
roads, to order the erection of bridges, and directing the re-
pairing of the same; to superintend all ferries, paupers, bas-
tardy cases, vagrants and the apprenticeship of minors; to fix
the places of holding the elections; to designate apportioning
justices; to audit, settle and direct the payment of all demands
against the county; to have the control and management of
all the property, real and personal, for the use of the county;
to have full power and authority to purchase or receive, by
donation, any property, real or personal, for the use of the
county, and to cause to be erected all buildings and all repairs
necessary for the use of the county; to sell and cause to be
conveyed any real estate or personal property belonging to the
county, and to appropriate the proceeds of such sale for the
use of the county; to disburse money for county purposes, and
in all other cases that may be necessary to the internal im-
provement and local concerns of the respective counties. ' '
Arkansas, " Digest of Statutes," §1375.

THE COUNTY BOARD

the county share of the state taxes on general prop-
erty. The extent of this taxing power is however
limited to authorized purposes and is often further
restricted by a maximum rate. Sometimes a higher
rate than the ordinary maximum can be levied on a
referendum vote. In some states additional revenue
is received from licenses issued for certain trades
by the county board, the largest item coming from
liquor licenses. County boards seldom have any gen-
eral power to raise money by issuing bonds; but in
some states they can do so after popular ratification
of a proposed loan, and in all special authority to
make loans for particular purposes is given from time
to time by the state legislatures.

In many states the county boards have power to
equalize the aggregate assessment of property for taxa-
tion in the townships or other subdivisions of the
county. This does not give them control over the val-
uation of individual holdings of property ; but enables
them to apportion the taxes among the various divi-
sions of the county. The county boards do not have
this power in the New England states, nor in most of
the Southern states, where assessments are made by
a county officer. And in Indiana and Oregon this
power of equalization is given to a special board dis-
tinct from the general county authority.

Power to levy taxes ordinarily includes power to
appropriate the revenue to particular purposes. In
the case of county boards this authority is usually
restricted by statutory provisions fixing the compensa-
tion of certain county officers and requiring other pay-
ments. But outside of these the county boards can

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

make appropriations within the limits of their taxing
power.

County boards are also the final authority for the
allowance of claims and accounts and the disburse-
ment of county funds, and in most cases every pay-
ment must be specifically authorized by the board.
But the detailed examination of bills is usually per-
formed by the county auditor or county clerk.

The United States census reports on local finances *
show the relative importance of county expenditure
in the various states, and indicates, as has been noted
before, that by this standard the importance of county
administration in the different geographical groups of
states does not agree with the customary accounts of
local government. In the states of the Central group,
notably in Ohio and Indiana, county expenditure is
larger than in the Southern states; while in three of
the New England states, including Massachusetts,
county finances are of more importance than in most
of the Southern states. But the highest per capita
county expenditure is in the most westerly states.

An analysis of county expenditure shows that the
largest items are for courts, roads and bridges and
poor relief. The payments for courts are the most
general, and include not only the salaries for the offi-
cers of the courts but also the cost of court-houses,

Eleventh Census Eeport on Wealth, Debt and Taxation.
The Twelfth Census Eeport on this subject is not yet com-
pleted.

Per Capita County Expenditure, 1890:

New England States $0.97 Southern States $1.20

Central States 2.30 Western States 6.25

THE COUNTY BOARD

jails and other necessary accommodations. County
boards are required to provide these ; they have power
to erect, repair and have custody of public buildings
for such purposes, and in most counties public build-
ings have been constructed. In Virginia, however,
the county court-houses are not entrusted to the
boards of supervisors, but to the judges of the circuit
court.

Over roads and bridges the authority of county
boards varies in different states. In almost every
state they have at least power to locate the more impor-
tant roads ; usually they build the principal bridges ;
and in some states they have direct supervision over
the construction of certain roads. Judging by expen-
ditures, county roads are of most importance in Ohio,
Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and California. In New Eng-
land, county roads are of some importance only in
Maine. In Massachusetts the county commissioners
have power to regulate grade crossings of high-
ways and railroads.

Connected with the control over highways is the
power of county boards in many states to license
ferries over rivers. In a few states they have author-
ity to undertake other public works : levees or dykes
in Louisiana and Nebraska ; drains in Arkansas and
North Dakota ; and irrigation works in South Dakota.

Poor relief is still a function of town government
in five of the New England states, and to a consider-
able extent in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But in
Maine, Massachusetts and Connecticut there is some
county expenditure for this purpose, and in New
Hampshire almshouses are county and not town in-

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

stitutions. In the other states throughout the country
poor relief is an important object of county ex-
penditure, although there is sometimes also town or
city payments for the same purpose. In most states
county almshouses have been erected, where formerly
all classes of paupers were maintained; but with the
development of state institutions for special classes,
such as the insane, county administration is of less
relative importance. In some cases counties including
a large city, such as Cook county, Illinois, containing
the city of Chicago, have established various special
institutions ; and in Virginia and California all county
boards have authority to establish county hospitals.
More generally they have power to appoint county
physicians.

Outside of New England, county boards usually
have some limited police power. In the Southern and
far Western states they frequently license and reg-
ulate inns, taverns, liquor saloons, auctioneers, ped-
dlers and other kinds of business. In some of the
Central states the licensing of the liquor traffic is still
in the hands of the county board. In Pennsylvania,
however, the old licensing powers of the justices are
now exercised by the single salaried judge who holds
criminal court under the old title of quarter sessions.

In some states county boards are authorized to
offer bounties for the destruction of wild animals or
noxious weeds ; and in some they may regulate fishing.
These are almost the only powers of legislation, as
distinct from financial authority, possessed by these
county boards. In several states the constitutions
authorize the legislatures to confer local legislative

THE COUNTY BOARD

power on the county boards ; but the custom of special
acts by the legislatures seems, to be too firmly estab-
lished to allow of any important delegation of power.

While county boards are considered the general
county authority, the number of officers whom they
appoint are few. In most cases they appoint the
superintendent of the poor, and sometimes the super-
intendent of the workhouse. In Michigan they ap-
point drain commissioners; and in Connecticut, Ver-
mont, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Louisiana, they
have the more important power of choosing county
treasurers.1

Over elective officers the county boards have some
means of supervision. In many states they must ap-
prove the bonds of these officers, and examine their
accounts. In a few states, as Wisconsin and Iowa,
they have the power to fix their salaries. Occasionally
their power goes further. In Indiana the county
commissioners may remove a county treasurer for
cause; and in Nebraska they may hear complaints
against any county officer, and remove him for official
misconduct.2 But in the main there is no effective
control over the elective county officers.

Except in the New England states, county boards
usually have power to organize townships or establish
county precincts for various purposes. In Massa-

1 In New Jersey each county board appoints a county counsel,
county physician, county engineer, wardens of the penitentiary
and county jail, superintendent of the almshouse, superin-
tendents of county hospitals, and physicians for county insti-
tutions.

2 Howard, l i Local Constitutional History, ' ' 445.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

chusetts and Michigan they form districts within the
county for the election of members of the legislature.
But they seldom have any effective control over town-
ship officers. Exceptional cases are in New York,
where boards of supervisors vote the town taxes, and
in Indiana, where county commissioners audit the
accounts of township trustees.

In most states, outside of New England, county
boards have duties in regard to elections. In the
Southern and Western states, they establish polling
places and provide for ballots ; and in most states they
act as county boards of canvassers, to declare the
results of elections. Other powers are conferred on
these boards with great diversity. For example in a
number of states they act as jury commissioners; in
several they have sanitary powers; in Massachusetts
they conduct truant schools; and in Wisconsin they
can incorporate literary and benevolent societies.

An interesting problem in connection with county
boards is how to classify them under the doctrine of
the separation of powers. In historical origin a judi-
cial body, their functions are now for the most part ex-
ecutive, but with some powers which have led them to
be considered the legislative authority of the county.
The courts have been forced to recognize that they
cannot be placed exclusively in any one of the three
divisions; and in some cases have used the term ad-
ministrative to include all of their various func-
tions.

One question which has arisen in some of the North-
ern states is whether they have the power to compel
witnesses to testify before them. In the states where

THE COUNTY BOARD

they are called courts the problem may settle itself,
but in other states very different answers have been
given. In New Jersey a board of freeholders has no
authority to summon a witness or to examine him.1
In Michigan, a board of supervisors may subpoena a
witness, but may not punish for contempt if he re-
fuses to testify.2 In New York the boards of super-
visors are authorized by statute to summon witnesses ;
and on refusal to answer pertinent questions any
judge may commit the defaulting witness to jail.3
And in Massachusetts, by statute, county commis-
sioners may administer oaths, and impose petty pun-
ishments for disturbing their meetings.4

It is difficult to make any general statement as to
the character of the members of county boards. Con-
ditions in the three thousand counties throughout the
country undoubtedly vary to a great degree; while
even in the same county better or worse men will be
elected at different times. In counties containing
large cities there has frequently been much dissatis-
faction with the county boards and sometimes serious
charges have been made against them. And in some
communities movements for political reform are
directed as much at the county boards as at municipal
authorities.

In rural counties such complaints are not frequent.
But this may be due in part to a less active spirit of
investigation. In the later months of 1905 serious com-

1 Brown v. Morris C. & B. Co., 27 N. J. Law, 648.

2 In re Blue, 46 Mich., 268.

8 County Law, §27 ; Code Civ. Proc., §§855, 856.
4 Revised Laws, 1902, ch. 20, §22.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

plaints and charges have been noticed from such coun-
ties in New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Cali-
fornia.1 The chief justice of a Southern state writes
that county commissioners there "are incorruptible,
but as a rule weak. The voters regard almost anybody
as competent for such a place, and, therefore, vote
from personal predilection, rather than from a motive
to subserve the public good." And this statement
would probably apply to conditions in most parts of
the United States.

1 Sacramento Eecord-Union, Sept. 24 ; Utica Herald-Dispatch,
Sept. 28; Philadelphia Public Ledger, Oct. 28; Detroit Free
Press, January, 1906.

CHAPTER VI

JUSTICE AND POLICE

In another volume of this series,1 the organization and
functions of the judiciary in the American system of
government has been discussed. It is necessary, how-
ever, in this account of local government to pay some
attention to judicial administration in the local dis-
tricts. The degree of centralization and decentraliza-
tion in this field is an important factor in the relative
importance of local government in different states;
while the administrative officers of the courts are for
the most part elective county officers.

Thirteen states centralize the selection of judges
for courts of general jurisdiction. These include all
of the New England states, two in the Middle- Atlantic
group, and five in the South. In the four largest New
England states and in New Jersey, Delaware, Missis-
sippi and Florida, the governor makes nominations
subject to the approval of the council, the senate or
(in Connecticut) the legislature. In Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia, the
legislature elects,— a somewhat less centralized method,
as the tendency is to distribute the places among the
members of the legislature from different parts of the
state. In three of these states (Massachusetts, New
Hampshire and Rhode Island) the judges have a life
1 Baldwin, ' ' The American Judiciary. ' '
95

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

tenure; in the others they are chosen for a term of
years.

In the other thirty-two states all judges are elected
by popular vote for definite terms, usually from six
to twelve years, but in three states for longer periods.1
As a general rule the judges for courts of general
jurisdiction are chosen for a district including several
counties; and are usually called circuit or district
judges.2 Thus Illinois with 102 counties is divided
into 18 judicial circuits, Wisconsin with 70 counties
has 17 circuits, and Michigan with 85 counties has 38
circuits. Often, however, the largest county in the
state constitutes a judicial district, and the judges
are elected in the same way as county officers. Thus
New York county, although only part of New York
City, is one of the eight districts into which the State
of New York is divided for the election of supreme
court judges. Cook county forms one of the judicial
circuits in Illinois, and the City and County of St.
Louis one of the circuits in Missouri. In Ohio five
counties, and in Pennsylvania 42 of the 57 counties,
are districts for the election of common pleas judges.
In Michigan fourteen counties are districts for the
election of circuit judges. In such cases, too, there
are often a number of judges elected for the county,
while in general there is only one judge for each dis-
trict.

Although elected in districts and usually holding
court within the districts, judges of, circuit, superior

1 New York, 14 years, Maryland, 15 years, and Pennsylvania,
21 years.
3 The latter term in states west of the Mississippi Eiver.
96

JUSTICE AND POLICE

and district courts are always considered as state offi-
cers, and may exercise jurisdiction in any part of the
state. Not infrequently when a judge is personally
interested in a case to come before his court, a judge
from another district will be called in to try the case.
And in the populous counties, even with a number of
judges, the courts sometimes become overcrowded, and
judges from the country districts are designated to
relieve the crowded calendars.

Whatever the district in which judges are chosen,
courts are held in each organized county, and as a rule
the county is the smallest district for which judges
with general jurisdiction are chosen. In large cities,
however, special municipal courts are established with
an enumerated jurisdiction, which sometimes is prac-
tically as extensive as the circuit courts.

In about a third of the states local courts are estab-
lished in each county, usually in addition to the courts
of general jurisdiction just noted ; and in other states
county courts are established in some counties. The
states having such courts do not fall into any geo-
graphical or population group, but include both large
and small states scattered throughout the country.
The jurisdiction of these county courts varies a great
deal. In California they are the superior courts of
general original jurisdiction; and in Pennsylvania
the common pleas judges, who are for the most part
elected in single counties, have a similar jurisdiction.
More usually the jurisdiction is limited. In New
York, county courts may try civil cases where not
over $2,000 is involved, and must try all criminal cases
arising in the county, except murder. In Illinois the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

county judges have original jurisdiction in tax, assess-
ment and inheritance cases, and appellate jurisdiction
over the justices of the peace.

County courts in some states have more than judi-
cial functions, while in other states the non- judicial
duties are their only functions and they are courts
only in name. In Kentucky and Tennessee the county
court has administrative as well as judicial functions,
as was general in the Southern states in former times.
In three widely separated states, Georgia, Arkansas
and Oregon, the county court or judge has probate
jurisdiction and administrative powers, but no juris-
diction in civil and criminal cases. In most of the
Wisconsin counties and in North Dakota the county
judge has jurisdiction only in probate matters ; and in
West Virginia and Missouri the county court is a pure-
ly administrative body, and has no judicial functions.

In a few states where there is no general system of
county courts, provision is made for one or more court
commissioners in each county. These act as deputy
judges in matters which can be acted on out of court.
Such officers are found in Michigan, Wisconsin, Min-
nesota, Wyoming and Washington.

In two of the New England states the counties are
divided into judicial districts, each with a district
court. Massachusetts with fourteen counties has
forty-four of these districts; and Rhode Island with
four counties has twelve judicial districts.

To summarize, it may be said that, outside of New
England and a few other states, the selection of judges
is decentralized in local districts. To a considerable
extent the county is a district for such elections, but

JUSTICE AND POLICE

in less densely populated regions a larger district is
often used. In any case the administration of justice
is decentralized to the extent of being carried on in the
counties. But judicial administration differs from
most other county administration in that it is subject
to a recognized superior authority, the Supreme
Court or Court of Appeals. Through the system of
appeals the decisions of the lower courts are brought
into harmony with each other, and general rules of
law are established for each state.

Probate administration is somewhat more decentralized
than the ordinary civil and criminal jurisdiction. In
most states the settlement of estates is a county func-
tion. Where a regular system of county courts has
been established, they are usually invested with this
authority; and, as has been noted, in some cases the
probate administration is their only function of a
judicial nature. In most other states special probate
courts have been established in each county, some-
times in addition to the county courts, as in New
York, New Jersey and the larger Illinois counties.
Usually these are known as courts of probate and the
judges as probate judges. But in New York and New
Jersey the probate judges are called surrogates; in
Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland probate courts
are known as orphans ' courts ; and in Georgia there has
been revived the title of ordinary, taken from the
judge of the old English ecclesiastical courts.

In some of the New England states probate juris-
diction is exercised in districts smaller than a county.
In Vermont six counties are each divided into two

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

probate districts. In Connecticut there are over a hun-
dred probate judges, each with jurisdiction in a
small district containing one or more towns. And in
Rhode Island each town is a probate district. On the
other hand in some of the Southern and Western
states probate jurisdiction is vested in the judges
elected in districts embracing a number of counties.
In some of these states commissicfaers may be appointed
in the counties to act in probate matters. -

Special probate judges are nearly always elected by
popular vote, even where other methods of selection
are used for judges in the regular courts. Thus
county probate judges in Maine, and probate judges
for smaller districts in Connecticut, are elected. But
in Massachusetts, judges of probate, like all other
judges in that state, are appointed by the governor and
council.

In some states there has been established the office
of public administrator, to take charge of the estates
of persons without known relatives or friends. In
Missouri, California and Montana this is an elective
county office. In Alabama and Tennessee the incum-
bent is appointed by the probate judge or county court.
And in some other Southern states the sheriff acts
ex officio in this capacity.

PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS x

An important officer in the higher courts throughout
the United States is the official attorney who conducts

1 "American Law Review," 17:529.
100

JUSTICE AND POLICE

criminal prosecutions and represents the public author-
ities in civil suits. In most states he is an elective
county officer, but in some he is chosen for judicial
districts larger than a county. He is variously desig-
nated in the different states as prosecuting attorney,1
state's attorney2 district attorney,3 county attorney4
or solicitor ;5 and each title is used in widely separated
states.

This office marks a striking development in Ameri-
can criminal procedure in contrast to the English com-
mon law, at which criminal prosecutions were insti-
tuted and carried on by private persons. But, at the
same time, it is an expansion of the old English office
of attorney-general, who conducted suits in the courts
on behalf of the central government. Each of the
colonies had an attorney-general ; and beginning with
Connecticut in the early part of the eighteenth cen-
tury there were established local assistants to these offi-
cers, from whom have developed the present officials.
North Carolina was one of the first to follow Connec-

aOhio, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Arkansas, "West Virginia,
Wyoming, Idaho and Washington. In New Jersey, his title is
prosecutor of the pleas.

2 Vermont, Connecticut, Illinois, North and South Dakota,
Maryland and Florida. In Virginia and Kentucky, attorney
for the commonwealth.

8 Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missis-
sippi, Louisiana, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, California and
Oregon.

4 Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, Utah and Montana.

5 New Hampshire, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Ala-
bama. Pennsylvania has county solicitors for civil suits in ad-
dition to district attorneys.

101

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ticut. In New York assistant attorneys-general were
established in 1796, and the system of local public
prosecuting officers has long been firmly established
in all of the states.

While the jurisdiction of these officers is generally
confined to single counties, in a number of states it ex-
tends to judicial districts which are usually of larger
size. Most of these are in the South,— North and
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi and Arkansas,— but the same system is
followed in Massachusetts (for some cases), Colorado,
New Mexico and Oregon. In a few of these states, too,
— Georgia, Florida, Alabama and New Mexico,— the
office is filled by the appointment of the governor, and
in Connecticut by appointment of the superior court
judges, while elsewhere it is an elective position.

In Maryland and Kentucky the state constitutions
require public prosecuting officers to be practising
attorneys at law, and in some other states this qualifi-
cation has been established by statute, or is held by
the courts to be involved in the nature of the office.1
But in other states the courts have held that such a
requirement is not essential, and even that the legis-
lature has no power to add to the qualifications pre-
scribed in the constitution.2 Whatever the law, it is
certainly necessary for the competent discharge of the
duties of the office that the incumbent should have a
legal training.

These official attorneys are paid sometimes by fees

1 People v. May, 3 Mich., 598; People v. Hallet, 1 Colo., 358.

2 People v. Dorsey, 32 Cal., 302; State v. Clough, 23 Minn.,
17 ; Howard v. Burns, 14 S. Dak., 283.

102

JUSTICE AND POLICE

and sometimes a fixed salary. In some cases their fees
depend on the cases in which they secure convictions.
This is an incentive to vigorous prosecutions, but one
which may sometimes be carried too far, and lead
to the conviction of innocent persons.

Most important among the duties of these officers
are those connected with criminal prosecutions. They
must decide whether or not to commence a prosecution.
There are cases of technical violations of law where no
public interest would be served by pressing the charge ;
and there are many criminal cases where the evidence
is clearly insufficient to secure conviction. Under such
circumstances the prosecuting officer should not insti-
tute proceedings. On the other hand, they have no
power to make an agreement not to prosecute a par-
ticular person, and they are not justified in declining
to prosecute because they disapprove of the law, or
believe the accused should be pardoned.

In most of the states criminal prosecutions, except
for petty crimes, must be based on an indictment by
a grand jury. The prosecuting attorneys, however,
usually collect the evidence and prepare most of the
cases that come before grand juries, and give advice
which has much influence in determining what indict-
ments shall be brought. But they cannot compel the
bringing of an indictment, nor prevent a grand jury
from considering charges by declaring that the govern-
ment will not prosecute.

Some of the North-Central states1 have dispensed
with grand juries in ordinary cases ; and in these the
influence and importance of the prosecuting attorneys
1 Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

103

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

are greatly increased. Criminal trials are begun on
what is called an information, presented by the prose-
cuting attorney ; and it thus rests with him alone to
determine whether any particular case shall be
brought to trial.

Formerly public prosecutors could discontinue a
criminal trial, by entering a nolle prosequi,1 a step
which does not prevent subsequent prosecution on the
same charge. In some states this rule is still followed,
but in others this action can be taken only with the
approval of the court.2

In the conduct of a prosecution the attorney for the
public is not supposed to act as counsel for those who
bring complaints against a prisoner; but as a public
official aiding in the administration of justice. He
should treat the prisoner with judicial fairness. "The
prosecuting officer represents the public interest, which
can never be promoted by the conviction of the inno-
cent. His object, like that of the court, should be sim-
ply justice ; and he has no right to sacrifice this to any
pride of professional success."3

Criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of
the state, and the prosecuting attorney in such cases
is acting as agent of the state, rather than as a local
officer. At the same time the most direct results of his
activity are in relation to the people of the community.
He can prevent malicious prosecutions, and bring
promptly to punishment those who violate the criminal
law. Or, if he is negligent and inefficient, the guilty

1 A declaration that he will no further prosecute the particular
indictment. Abbreviated nol. pros.

2 State v. Moise, 48 La. Ann., 109.

3 Hurd v. People, 25 Mich., 405.

104

JUSTICE AND POLICE

may escape and innocent parties may be put to serious
annoyance.

The criminal jurisdiction of the prosecuting attor-
ney extends to public officials as well as to private
individuals.1 These officials are not only subject to
the ordinary criminal law, but misconduct in connec-
tion with their official duties often subjects them to
criminal penalties. The effectiveness of this judicial
control over public officers depends very largely on the
activity of the prosecuting attorneys. And the fre-
quent charges of corruption on the part of municipal
and other local officials have made this side of the
prosecutors' duties of special importance. Unfortu-
nately in many cases the close political relations of
prosecuting attorneys to accused officials have led them
to ignore or neglect such cases. In other cases vigor-
ous action in prosecuting cases of this kind has
redounded to their credit. It may be noted that in the
states where grand juries are not used in ordinary
criminal cases, they are usually summoned to present
indictments against public officials.

In addition to criminal cases these public attorneys
also act in civil matters. As attorneys for the state,
they may be called on to represent the state in any
civil suit to which it is a party, and, at least in the
states where they are elective county officers, they
represent in the same way their counties or other
county officers in civil suits, and also act as their legal
advisers. In such civil suits the prosecuting attorney
may appear on either side of a case.

^oodnow, "Administrative Law of the United States,' ' 298,
411.

105

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Of recent years the importance of this office has
come to be more fully recognized in the larger com-
munities, and effective service has brought the officers
into political prominence. Governors Deneen of Illi-
nois and Folk of Missouri were elected on their records
as prosecuting attorneys in Cook county and St.
Louis, respectively. Mayor Weaver of Philadelphia
was formerly district attorney, and District Attorney
Jerome of New York is known through the length and
breadth of the land.

In rural counties the office is apt to go to a young
attorney of little experience. The work to be done is
less burdensome, and certain forms of opposition to the
faithful performance of the duties are less active. Yet
even in these districts there is need for honest and
efficient officials.

THE SHERIFF x

Every county has a sheriff; and the office may be
called the constituent office of the county. "Without
a sheriff there is no shire. ' " He is defined as a county
officer representing the executive power of the state
within his county.3 More specifically he is the chief
conservator of the peace and chief executive agent
of the judicial courts for his county, while some traces
of his fiscal powers remain with other duties varying
to some extent in the different states. The position

1 ' « American Jurist, "2:1;" Albany Law Journal, " 8 : 398 ;
22:146; "Central Law Journal," 10:81; "Edinburgh Ee-
view," 13:170; "Century," 14:39.

2 Howard, ' ' Local Constitutional History, ' ' 455.

3 Bouvier, * ' Law Dictionary. ' '

106

JUSTICE AND POLICE

has lost much of the dignity and importance of the all-
powerful Norman sheriff, and is of less significance in
the United States than in England at the present
time, but is nevertheless one of the principal county
offices.

With the exception of a single state sheriffs in this
country are elected by direct popular vote in each
county. In Rhode Island they are chosen annually by
the general assembly of the state. The prevailing term
of service is two years; in a few states it is three
years;1 and in a few others four years.2 In many
states re-election is restricted. In Maryland, Dela-
ware, West Virginia and Missouri, no sheriff may be
re-elected for two terms in succession ; in Michigan a
sheriff can serve for only two successive terms; and
in Tennessee no person may act as sheriff for more
than six years in any period of eight years.

In England a sheriff must be a landed proprietor,
and this requirement establishes his responsibility
for damage suits in connection with his ministerial
functions. But in the United States the only qualifi-
cations required are of citizenship, adult age and resi-
dence in the county. As a substitute for the security
of the landed estates in England, the American sheriff
is required to furnish bonds for the faithful discharge
of the duties of the office.

Every sheriff is assisted by a number of deputy
sheriffs. They are appointed by the sheriff and act
under his control. Deputy sheriffs may perform any

1 Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

2 Connecticut, Illinois, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky,
South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.

107

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ministerial act within the powers of the sheriff; and
the latter, as a general rule, is held personally liable
for the errors and mistakes of his deputies.

At the common law there was no compensation
allowed to sheriffs. But statutes now authorize the
payment either of fees or a fixed salary to the sheriff
and his deputies. Under either system the office is
among the best paid of the county posts; and where
the fee system is retained in counties with a large
city the net compensation is often excessive. In New
York county the position is said to yield $50,000 a
year. In Cuyahoga county, Ohio, the sheriff receives
$15,000 a year. In other Ohio counties under the fee
system the total income of the sheriffs ranged from
$890 to $39,175 in 1904; and the net income, after
paying clerks and deputies, varied from $658 to $7,557.
In eight counties the net compensation of the sheriff
was over $4,000; and in eight others it was less than
$1,000.1

While the sheriff is considered in law as an agent of
the state government, and not as a local official, there
is no effective supervision and in most states no means
of control by the higher state officials. In a few states,
however, including New York, Michigan and Wiscon-
sin, sheriffs may be removed for cause by the governor.
And within a few years the sheriffs of two of the
largest counties in the State of New York (Kings and
Erie), and of the largest county in Michigan have been
removed on serious charges. These removals are an
indication of the decline in the character of those
elected as sheriffs under our political methods, rather
^hio, "Auditor of State's Eeport, 1904," p. 600.
108

JUSTICE AND POLICE

than a sign of any strong centralizing influence. Un-
less there is a clear violation of law or some
notorious abuse, each sheriff is allowed to conduct his
office as suits himself.

Sheriffs in the United States do not exercise the judi-
cial functions which formerly were an important part
of their powers in England, and constitute his princi-
pal duties in Scotland at the present time. And in
other respects the sheriff's authority has been dimin-
ished by changes in conditions and methods of govern-
ment. The most general powers of American sheriffs
may be considered in two classes: as conservators of
the peace, and as ministerial agents for executing the
decrees of the courts of justice.

As conservator of the peace in his county, the sheriff
is the representative of the sovereign power of the
state for that purpose. "He may upon view, without
writ or process, commit to prison all persons who break
the peace or attempt to break it ; he may award process
of the peace and bind any one in recognizance to keep
it. He is bound, ex officio, to pursue and take all
traitors, murderers, felons, and other misdoers and
commit them to jail for safe custody. For this pur-
pose he may command the posse comitatus, or power
of the county ; and this summons, every one over the
age of fifteen years is bound to obey. " x " His power is
largely a discretionary one. In all times of great
emergency, or in a crisis of unusual danger, the limits
under which his discretion may be exercised have been
held by the courts not to be fixed."2

1 South v. Maryland, 18 Howard (U. S.), 396, 402.

2 Commonwealth v. Martin, 9 Kulp (Pa.), 69, 73, 74.

109

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

This power becomes of special importance in times
of serious disturbance and threatened riot. It rests
with the sheriff to decide what measures to take to
suppress an outbreak. And if the disorder becomes
too great to control by his deputies and the posse comi-
tatus, he may call on the governor of the state for mili-
tia ; and in extreme cases through the governor may
ask for national troops.

In ordinary times the authority of the sheriff as
chief peace officer in the county is of less significance.
There are no organized bodies of county police
in any of the states; and neither the police
in cities nor constables in rural districts are
under his active supervision. Nevertheless a
good deal depends on the sheriff in the mainte-
nance of order and the enforcement of statutes
against gambling and imposing restrictions on the
liquor traffic. In the Southern states disturbances of
the peace are more frequent in the rural districts and
sheriffs are more active in arresting violators of the
law on their own motion. But in some Southern coun-
ties it is not uncommon for mobs to lynch those sus-
pected of serious crimes, especially if they are negroes ;
and occasionally a lynching takes place in other parts
of the country. These instances show the need for an
effective system of county police.

Most of the work of the sheriff's office is as execu-
tive agent of the courts. At each session of the higher
courts he must be present in person or by deputy, and
maintain order in the court room. He carries into
execution the various orders of the courts in connec-
tion with the cases before them. These are classed

110

JUSTICE AND POLICE

under two heads, as mesne process and final process.
The former includes all writs and orders from the
beginning of a case up to, but not including, the final
decree or judgment ; and embraces summons to defend-
ants, warrants of arrest, subpoenas to witnesses, writs
of attachment and other orders. All of these must be
served by the sheriff or his deputies. Final process in
civil suits involves the collection of the amounts
awarded by the judgment, if necessary by the seizure
and sale of property. Here the responsibility of sher-
iffs is great. ''They must perform their whole duty
promptly and faithfully, but they must not exceed
their authority and there must be no error in the dis-
charge of their duties."1 Failure in either respect
renders them liable for damages to the party
aggrieved.

In criminal cases the sheriff is keeper of the county
jail, has custody of the prisoners confined there, and
delivers to state institutions prisoners sentenced to
them. He has charge of hanging criminals sentenced
to death in most states ; but in a few states the death
sentence is no longer used, and in New York death by
electrocution, which has been substituted for hanging,
is carried out at the state prisons.

The sheriff must exercise reasonable care for the
preservation of the life and health of prisoners under
his charge. He is liable to a suit for damages for the
death of a prisoner by mob violence where he has
failed to take proper safeguards, and in a few states
he may be removed from office for negligence in pro-
tecting prisoners.

1 J. G. Crocker, " Duties of Sheriffs," p. 125.
Ill

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In several states there is a survival of the old fiscal
powers of the sheriff by designating him ex officio as
tax collector. This arrangement exists regularly in
North Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas,
for small counties in Texas and California, and for
counties without township organization in Illinois.
In some other states he may be called on to enforce the
collection of delinquent taxes.

Another survival of his former powers as returning
officer of elections is his duty in many states to make
official announcement of forthcoming elections.

In some Southern states the sheriff acts ex officio as
public administrator, a function probably derived
from his earlier power to look after estates which
escheated to the Crown. And still other duties are
often imposed on him by statute in the various states.

With the transfer of many powers formerly pos-
sessed, and the development of new offices, the sheriff
has lost his position as chief county officer. But the
powers retained and the traditions of the position
stand in the way of any other office attaining that
rank. One of two changes in the situation would seem
to be advisable. Either the sheriff should again
become the chief executive of the county, transferring
the ministerial functions to an under-sheriff, or some
other officer should become the chief executive, and
the sheriff be confined to his ministerial duties as
court bailiff.

coroners 1

Next to the sheriff the coroner is the oldest of our
county offices, and it is the oldest elective county office.
^'American Law Eeview," 11: 480; "Medico-Legal Jour-
112

JUSTICE AND POLICE

But its importance has been greatly reduced from that
of the English coroner of the thirteenth century, who
had jurisdiction over a wide range of criminal matters
and also over some civil pleas. In modern times the
principal function of the coroner is to hold inquests
on the bodies of persons whose deaths are supposed
to be due to violence or other unlawful means.

While in England the old method of electing cor-
oners has recently been changed to appointment by
the county councils, in this country popular election
for terms of two to four years is still the prevailing
rule. But in some states other methods are now used.

In Maine, New Hampshire and Maryland, coroners
are appointed by the governor with the consent of the
executive council or senate, as are also the medical
examiners who take the place of coroners in Massachu-
setts.

In Connecticut and Virginia coroners are appointed
by judges of the higher courts ; and in West Virginia
and Tennessee they are appointed by the county
courts. In Rhode Island coroners are town officers and
are appointed by the town councils. In New Mexico
justices of the peace act as coroners. In California
the offices of coroner and public administrator are
sometimes held by one person.

Usually there are no qualifications required by law
for coroners other than those of age, citizenship and
residence. But the medical examiners in Massachu-
setts must be licensed physicians; in Connecticut eor-

nal, 7: 500; 8: 127; 13: 57; " Massachusetts Medico-Legal
Society,' > 1: 25; "New York State Bar Asso.," 1896, p. 131;
"Political Science Quarterly," 7: 656.

113

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

oners must be "learned in the law" ; and in Louisiana
the statute provides that a coroner must be a lawful
citizen, of fair education, good moral character, pos-
sessed of general business qualities, and have a medi-
cal or surgical education.

It is the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest when
the circumstances surrounding a death are of
such a character as to make it seem probable
that it resulted from violence or other unlaw-
ful means. The inquest must be held upon
a view of the body. The coroner empanels a
jury, usually of six persons, and summons witnesses,
and as a general rule a physician or surgeon, to give
expert testimony. The procedure is distinctly differ-
ent from a trial. It is not necessary that any person
accused of murder be present, and such a one has no
right to produce witnesses or to cross-examine those
who testify, nor even to be represented by counsel
unless at the pleasure of the coroner. The coroner
instructs the jury on the law; and the jury gives a
verdict as to the facts. Any person accused by the
verdict is liable to arrest; and if not already in cus-
tody, the coroner should issue a warrant for his arrest
and commit him to jail for trial.

Expenses connected with an inquest are not charge-
able to the estate of the deceased, but are usually paid
by the county or town. In Michigan, and perhaps
in other states, the expenses of an inquest over one not
a resident of the county is borne by the state.

In addition to holding these inquests the coroner
under certain circumstances may act as sheriff. He
does this in cases where the sheriff may be personally

114

JUSTICE AND POLICE

interested in a suit, and he usually succeeds to the
office of sheriff, if it is vacated during a term.

Coroners' inquests have been a subject of derision
since the time of Shakespeare,1 and in this country
efforts have been made for nearly fifty years to reform
the antiquated procedure.2 To perform the duties
properly a coroner should be both a criminal lawyer
and a specialized medical expert. But those elected
can usually lay claim to neither qualification, and
there is little doubt that more satisfactory results
would be secured by the general adoption of the new
methods established in Massachusetts in 1877. This
provides for the appointment of competent medical
examiners; and where their reports show evidence of
crime requires further action to be taken by the regu-
lar prosecuting officers.3 In the absence of a system of
public prosecutors, the coroner served in that capacity
to a very limited degree; but with the methods of
prosecution now established in this country, there is
no occasion for retaining the primitive and less effec-
tive machinery.

COURT CLERKS AND COUNTY CLERKS

Most courts of record have a clerk or secretary to
keep the record of its proceedings. Under the old
English system where the court of quarter sessions was
also the administrative board of the county, the clerk
of the court acted also as secretary in administrative
matters. The separation of the judicial from adminis-
trative business in most of the American states has

XC/. Hamlet, Act V. Sec. 1;" Albany Law Journal," 14: 336.

2 " American Law Register," 6: 385 (1858).

8 "Forum," 7: 694.

115

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

led to some variation in different states in dividing
the duties of the former clerk of the sessions, and in
the terminology of the office.

In most states the duties of court clerk and secre-
tary to the county board are combined in one official,
who often has other duties not covered by either of his
two main functions. A clerk is chosen for each county
even where the judicial district includes more than
one county. In rather more than half of the states,
the title of clerk of the court is used for this officer;
and in some of these states his duties are confined to
those of a court clerk. In a few cases court clerks have
different titles. In Pennsylvania and Delaware the
clerk of the common pleas court is called a prothono-
tary; and in these states there are sometimes special
clerks for other courts. In Massachusetts and Maine
the clerks of the probate courts are known as registers
of probate. Sometimes there are separate clerks for
the circuit and county courts ; and in Mississippi each
county has a clerk of the circuit court and a clerk of
the chancery courts.

In rather less than half of the states the office of
county clerk has been established, this officer usually
acting as a clerk of courts, but having also other duties.
In a few scattered states there is a county clerk and
also a clerk of courts, the former having no duties in
relation to the courts; while in Minnesota the county
auditor acts as clerk of the county board, and the clerk
of courts is simply an officer of the courts.

With very few exceptions county clerks and court
clerks are elective for short terms, most often for two
years, in some cases for four years and in one or two

116

JUSTICE AND POLICE

instances for a longer period.1 In New Hampshire,
Vermont and Connecticut they are appointed by the
judges and hold during the pleasure of the appointing
power. In Rhode Island the clerks of the courts are
elected annually by the general assembly. As the
duties of the office are in no sense political, there seems
no good reason for making it elective, while more effi-
cient service would be secured if the tenure were
indefinite, subject to removal by the appointing power.

As court clerks these officers open and adjourn each
session of the court, keep the minutes of the proceed-
ings and orders, and have custody of the records and
seals. They docket all cases for trial, filing all papers
in each case together. They issue proper processes or
writs at the beginning, during and at the end of each
suit; and enter judgments rendered by the court.
They certify to the correctness of transcripts from the
records of the court; and preserve the property and
money in the custody of the court. Their duties are
for the most part purely ministerial; but some func-
tions imposed by statute, such as the taxation of costs,
the approval of bonds and the assessment of damages
in cases of default, are quasi-judicial. A court may
however, delegate any of its judicial functions to its
clerk.

As secretary to the county board, the clerks keep a
record of its proceedings. Where there is no county
auditor they act in some degree in that capacity,
examining bills and preparing them for approval by
the county board.

1 Massachusetts, five years, Maryland, six years, Virginia,
eight years.

117

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In a number of states, the clerks act also as recorders
of deeds. In most states they prepare election ballots
and receive election returns, issue marriage licenses,
and perform other functions prescribed by statute.
In Kansas the county clerk is ' ' substantially the audi-
tor of the county, and the assessor of the county for
all property that may be omitted by the regular asses-
sor ; and he may administer oaths and affirmations and
take acknowledgments of deeds and mortgages. ' ' x

1 Amrine v. Kansas Pacific By. Co., 7 Kans., 178, 181.

118

CHAPTER VII

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

In addition to the financial powers of county boards
there are other county finance officials,— assessors,
treasurers and auditors. Still other county officials are
the recorders of deeds, school officials, surveyors and
road officers, and appointive poor relief and health
officials. Each of these may be briefly noted.

FINANCE OFFICIALS

County assessors who value property for taxation are
provided in most of the Southern states and all of the
Western group. In some other states there are special
county assessing officers. And in most of the states
where the original valuations are made by township
officers, there is a county authority with power to
equalize assessments.

Usually county officers who have direct charge of
original assessments are known as assessors, but in
Virginia they are called commissioners of revenue,
and in Georgia tax receivers. They are elected by
popular vote, except in Louisiana and Arizona, where
they are appointed by the governor and boards of
supervisors respectively. Their term is uniformly
two years in the Western states ; and in the Southern
states two and four year terms are about equally
common.

119

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Exceptions to the system of county assessments in
the South are North and South Carolina and most of
the Tennessee counties, where there are township or
district assessors. In California, too, a separate valu-
ation of property for city taxes is made by city officers,
entirely distinct from the valuation by the county as-
sessors for county and state taxes. On the other hand
among the North-Central states tax assessment is a
county function in the Illinois, Nebraska and South
Dakota counties without township organization. In
such cases in Illinois the county treasurers act as as-
sessors; except in Cook county where valuations are
made by a board of county assessors.

The powers and duties of tax assessors are pre-
scribed by statute and thus differ in detail in the
various states. But the main features of their official
actions are similar. They must prepare a list of per-
sons subject to taxation, with a description and valu-
ation of their property, classified usually as real estate
and personal property. On the valuations determined
the taxes are determined at the rate levied by simple
arithmetical calculation. In many states taxpayers
are required to submit an itemized list of their prop-
erty for the information of the assessor; but such
statements are only evidence for the information of
the assessors and do not limit their valuations. In
many states the requirements as to the names of per-
sons assessed are merely directions, so that errors do
not render the assessment void; and this tends to
make such assessments, especially for real estate,
against the property rather than against the owner.
Personal property in most states may be valued in

120

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

gross, but in some the separate items must be specified.
Real estate must be described so that each parcel may
be identified, and a separate value given to each. In
fixing values assessors act in a judicial capacity ; but
administrative appeals are usually provided, and in
cases of arbitrary and grossly unequal valuations the
courts will sometimes review their decisions.

Sometimes tax-assessors perform other functions not
directly related to the assessment of taxes. Thus in
Virginia the commissioners of revenue collect statistics
of births and deaths. In Georgia the tax-receiver
compiles a register of children of school age and sta-
tistics of agriculture and manufactures.

In many of the states where original assessments
are made by township officers there is some county
supervision, and in some of these states a special
county assessing officer. In Indiana each county has
an assessor who instructs and advises the township
assessors, can examine their books and enter valu-
ations for property omitted. The assessor, with the
auditor and treasurer and two freeholders appointed
by the circuit judge form the county board of review,
which equalizes the aggregate valuations .for the dif-
ferent townships. In Wisconsin there is a county
supervisor of assessments; and in Illinois counties
with township organization the county treasurer acts
as supervisor of assessments. In Ohio the county
auditor has supervision over the township assessors,
and also assesses directly the personal property of
railroad and other corporations. In Kansas the county
clerk acts in some respects as a supervisor of assess-
ments. In Alabama, besides the elected tax-assessor,
121

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

there is in each county a tax commissioner, appointed
by the state tax commissioner to assist in administer-
ing the tax laws. In Pennsylvania each county has a
mercantile appraiser, appointed by the county com-
missioners, who may be considered an assessor for
business licenses. He investigates the sales by dealers
in merchandise, and classifies the dealers with refer-
ence to their license fees.

As already noted, in a number of states the county
board acts to a limited extent as an assessing author-
ity in equalizing the valuations of township officers.
And generally in the North-Central states the county
clerk or county auditor compiles the tax lists.

County treasurers are provided in every state of the
Union except Rhode Island. They are receivers of
state and county taxes, and in some states of other
local taxes; they have custody of the county funds;
and they disburse authorized county payments. In
a few states a separate office of tax collector is estab-
lished, or some other official than the treasurer acts as
collector. Special tax collectors are provided in Mis-
souri, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Arizona and Cali-
fornia ; the sheriffs act as collectors in Louisiana and
Arkansas, and the smaller counties of Texas and
California; and the county assessor is ex officio tax
collector in Idaho. In Tennessee the collector and
treasurer is called the county trustee; and in New
Jersey he is called the collector.

These officers are usually elected, but in Con-
necticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Kentucky and
Louisiana they are appointed by the county boards,

122

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

and in South Carolina by the governor. Their term
is usually two years, even in some states where other
county officers are chosen for four years ; but in a few
Southern states the treasurer serves for four years.
Moreover it is frequently provided that no person can
serve as treasurer for more than four years in suc-
cession,—a rule established as a means of insuring an
exact examination of the county funds on the transfer
from one officer to his successor. Treasurers are reg-
ularly placed under heavy bonds to protect the county
in case of defalcations, which are more frequent among
these elective local officers than among the appointive
financial agents of the national government.

County treasurers in many states now receive a sal-
ary determined by statute or by the county board.
But sometimes they have an additional income from
fees and commissions ; and in some states they are still
paid entirely in this way. Moreover it is a common
practice for treasurers to reserve for themselves the
interest received from banks on deposits of public
funds ; and sometimes this is done even where the law
forbids deposits in banks. The excuse given for this
practice is the heavy personal responsibility of the
treasurer for all funds in the treasury. But it would
certainly be to the advantage at least of the larger
counties to adopt the methods of most of the state
governments, and deposit county funds, when prop-
erly secured, in designated banks, which should pay
the interest to the county. In Cook county, Illinois,
the treasurer recently agreed publicly to pay over
such interest and commissions to the county treasury.
In 1904 the amount turned over was more than

123

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

$500,000, while the expenses of the treasurer's office,
formerly paid by the treasurer, was $312,000, which
left a net addition to the county treasury of $200,000.*
In Cuyahoga county, Ohio, the net compensation of
the county treasurer in 1904 was $23,000. Under either
the salary or fee system the remuneration of the
county treasurer is generally larger than for any
other county office; and for this reason the position
is much sought after by political candidates.

It is the duty of county treasurers to receive and
receipt for all money coming to their respective
counties. The largest part of this is in the form of
taxes, which may be collected directly from the tax-
payers or turned over by county or township collect-
ors. The receipts include much more than county
revenues. The county treasurers act as agents of the
state treasury for the collection of state taxes; and
in some states taxes for townships and other local
districts pass through the county treasuries. In
some states the county treasurers also collect delin-
quent taxes.

Money received by county treasurers must be dis-
bursed as provided by law. State taxes are for-
warded at stated intervals to the state treasury.
Taxes for local districts are paid over to their treas-
urers. And payments for county expenses are made
on the authority of the county board or county
auditor.

rA legislative investigation in Hamilton County, Ohio, in 1906,
led to the payment of $200,000 to the county by former county
treasurers, for gratuities received by them from banks in which
county funds were deposited.

124

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

Statutes usually require treasurers to keep ac-
counts so as to show the amount in each fund, and to
hold their books subject to inspection by the county
board. Financial statements must be made annually.
In many states there is provision for an annual ex-
amination and audit of their books ; but this is often
superficial, while in most states the accounting meth-
ods are inadequate.

County auditors have been established as regular
county officers in one-third of the states ; and in a few
other states they are provided in some counties. They
are most common and of most importance in the
North-Central states; but are found also in some
states in each of the other geographical groups. In
states where auditors are not established the county
clerks act in some respects as auditing officers.

Three New England states have county auditors,
but the office is of less significance there than in other
sections. The auditors are appointed in New Hamp-
shire by the Supreme Court, in Vermont by the judges
of the county court, and in Connecticut by the con-
vention of members of the legislature. Their duties
are confined to a brief examination of the accounts
and financial reports of other county officers at the
close of the fiscal year; and there is no systematic
audit of current expenditures. In Massachusetts, the
city auditor of Boston audits also the Suffolk county
accounts, and for other counties the accounts are
examined by the state controller of county accounts.

In New York most of the counties have no auditors
and the only examination of claims is that made by

125

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

the board of supervisors, but the comptroller of the
City of New York acts as auditor for the four coun-
ties within the city, and there is a county auditor for
Erie county. In New Jersey each county has an
auditor appointed by the board of freeholders. In
Pennsylvania each county has a board of three elected
auditors, who make an annual examination and audit
of the accounts of the county officers. Philadelphia
and Allegheny counties each have a controller.

In the North-Central states, elective county auditors
are provided in most of the states having small county
boards,— Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, and South
Dakota—, and it is in these states that the office is most
important. The county auditors keep the accounts
of the county receipts and expenditures ; they prepare
the tax lists and issue warrants for payments author-
ized by the county boards; and they are also the
secretaries of the county boards. In Ohio and Indiana
they are also sealers of weights and measures ; and in
Ohio they assess certain property for taxation.

A few counties in Michigan have boards of auditors.
That in Wayne county practically determines appro-
priations as well as audits claims, and thus has for
most purposes the powers of a county board. In the
other counties auditors have been established only
within the past few years. In Kansas, auditors are
appointed by the district court in counties with over
45,000 population. In other North-Central states the
county clerks act to some extent as auditors; and
in Cook county, Illinois, the county clerk is ex
officio comptroller, appointing a special deputy, who
has charge of the examination of claims.

In the Southern and Western states the office of
126

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

county auditor is seldom found. It is provided
in South Carolina, Mississippi, Nevada, Washing-
ton, and California, and for some counties in Utah
and Montana. In Wyoming there is an audit of
county accounts by the state examiner.

County auditors are paid sometimes at a per diem
rate, sometimes by fees, and sometimes a fixed salary.
In the important counties of the North- Central states
it is a well-paid office. In Miami county, Indiana, the
auditor receives a salary of $17,500 a year.1 In
Cuyahoga county, Ohio, under the fee system the net
compensation for 1903 was over $50,000.2

With the increasing importance of county finances
there is a growing need for more efficient methods of
accounting, and it is probable that auditing officers
will be provided before long in many of the states
that now lack them. A competent official of this kind,
giving all of his time to public business, is essential
to a thorough audit of current accounts, and should
give better results than the examination by a board
acting at intervals. It may be pointed out, however,
that in counties of small population, it is hardly
necessary to employ an official for this purpose alone.
The combination of auditor and clerk to the county
board in such cases seems a satisfactory one.

REGISTERS OF DEEDS

In all of the states a public record is kept of docu-
ments affecting titles to real estate, and in about half
of them this record is in charge of a special elective

!Eawles, '* Civil Government of Indiana," p. 78.
2 Report of the Auditor of State, 1903.

127

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

county official, known as the register or recorder of
deeds. In other states the land records are kept by
county clerks or county auditors, except in Connecti-
cut and Rhode Island, where the town clerks act as
recorders.

This system of public land records has developed
in America. At common law in England there was no
obligation to record publicly conveyances affecting
title to land. After the Statute of Uses,1 which author-
ized the transfer of estates by deed without actual
delivery of possession, there was passed the Statute
of Enrollments,* for the registry of bargains and sales.
But this measure was evaded; and while several
recording acts were passed for local districts in Eng-
land early in the eighteenth century3 no general sys-
tem was established in that country until 1875. The
ownership of land so generally in large estates and the
infrequency of transfers renders public records less
necessary, while the land owners oppose a registration
system from a dislike to publishing the details of fam-
ily settlements and domestic arrangements.5

In America, however, land registration was intro-
duced in New England with the early settlements;5
and the system was well established in many colonies
before the first of the English local acts.6 Before the

1 27 Henry VII, C. 10.

3 27 Henry VIII, C. 16.

8 Yorkshire Acts, 5 Anne, C. 18 ; 6 Anne, C. 35 ; 8 George II,
C. 6. The Middlesex Registry Act, 7 Anne, C. 20.

4 Webb, " Record of Title," pp. 17-20.

6 C. D. Wright, ' ' Public Records of Massachusetts, ' ' p. 370.
•Plymouth, 1636; Massachusetts, 1640; Connecticut, 1639;
New Jersey, 1676, and Virginia.

128

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

Revolution public land registers were almost universal
in all of the colonies.1 Such a system was more neces-
sary in this country on account of the mobility of
population and the frequent transfers of land, so as
to safeguard purchasers against previous alienation or
encumbrances. Everywhere in the United States
these public records are now the basis for land titles
and conveyancing, and the old "livery of seisin" has
disappeared.

As the practice of recording is regulated entirely
by statute, there is some variety in the instruments
required to be recorded in different states. An early
Massachusetts act provided that "no mortgage, bar-
gain, sale, or grant made of any houses, lands, rents,
or other hereditaments, shall be of force against any
other person except the grantor and his heirs, unless
the same be recorded. " 2 It is now the definite policy
in most states that the title to all interests in land
shall be apparent on the records; and practically all
documents affecting title to real estate must be re-
corded to be valid against an innocent third party.
This includes warranty and quit-claim deeds of sale,
mortgages and satisfaction of mortgages, notices of
liens, easements, and other instruments.

Some documents of importance in determining land
titles are recorded in other places than the county
recorders' offices. The record in a United States land
office of the original patent to land in the public land
states is sufficient to establish title. The record of un-

1 Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Maryland, 1715 ; Georgia,
1755.

2 Massachusetts Eecords, I, 306, 307 (1640).

129

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

paid taxes, judgments and legacies are to be found in
the treasurers', court and probate offices.

Instruments recorded take effect from the time of
filing in the recorder's office and the date and hour of
filing are noted in case of conflict between different
documents. The records are exact copies of the docu-
ments entered in large bound volumes, which form a
bulky collection, especially in counties containing
cities where there are many transfers of small parcels
of land.1 The records are made in ink, and are
usually written in long hand, but sometimes blank
forms for documents of the same character are printed
in the record books. In many states separate books of
record are required for different classes of instruments.

Usually recorders are required to prepare indexes
of the land records, but the statutes vary as to the
details prescribed. In Michigan indexes show only the
parties to the instruments. In Illinois abstract books
are prepared summarizing the records for tracts of
land. But at best the task of searching the records
to verify the title to any parcel of land is a tedious
and expensive process. Moreover as the re-
corded documents only establish a presumptive title
and are not conclusive evidence, those relying on them
take the risk of defects being disclosed at a later time.

To avoid the expense and delay of repeated examin-
ations of the records for each purchase or mortgage
and to escape the uncertainty of the results, there
have developed abstract and title guaranty companies.

!In Suffolk County, Mass., there were nearly 2,000 volumes
in 1890, and 60 volumes were added each year. Cook County,
Ills., had 4,200 volumes from 1871 to 1894.

130

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

And as a result of much discussion there has recently
been established in a few states a system of public
registration of land titles, known as the ' ' Torrens sys-
tem. ' ' * This provides for an official examination of
the recorded instruments and an investigation of titles
by the recorders, and the issuance of certificates of
title by a court, while subsequent transactions affect-
ing land so certified must be duly entered on the new
registry of titles. This important extension of the
recording system has been introduced in Massachu-
setts, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon and Cali-
fornia; but it will take many years before it covers
most of the real estate even in these states.2

In some states the recorders keep other records than
those in reference to land titles. Thus in Indiana they
record certificates of incorporation, articles of associa-
tion, articles of apprenticeship, certificates of dentists,
descriptions of fence-marks and of ear-marks and
brands of live stock; and they also preserve a file of
county newspapers. In Wisconsin they keep a record
of vital statistics, and in Minnesota a record of trade-
marks and brands.

The office of recorder is clearly an important one.
The protection of property rights is in large measure
dependent on the accuracy and honesty of the records,
but the duties can hardly be considered political or

1 From Robert Torrens, who secured the adoption of a system
of land registration in Australia, from where the idea has
spread to England, Canada, and the United States. In parts of
Continental Europe a similar system has been in use for cen-
turies.

2 J. H. Brewster, * * Conveyancing, ' ■ ch. 29 ; American Law Re-
view, 36, p. 321.

131

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

such as to make necessary the present system of popu-
lar election to the position. Indeed, the elective
method by promoting frequent changes in the per-
sonnel, prevents the development of the most efficient
expert service.

SCHOOL OFFICIALS

All of the states except the six in New England have
county officials with some powers of educational ad-
ministration. In about half of the Southern states
such county authorities have full control over the
local management of schools. In the remaining states
the powers of the county authorities are those of
supervision over officers elected in the minor districts.

The county system of school administration still
prevails in the states bordering on the Atlantic from
Maryland to Florida, and in Louisiana and Missis-
sippi. Even in these states there have been estab-
lished school-districts within the counties, but the dis-
trict trustees are appointed by the county author-
ities and are thus their agents rather than officials of
the local districts.

In this group of states the county school manage-
ment is in the hands of two classes of officers : boards
of education and school-superintendents. The boards
usually control the school property, appoint district
trustees and sometimes the teachers, and make appro-
priations. The superintendents, who generally have
had experience in teaching, act as executive agents of
the boards, visit schools, and exercise general super-
vision over the courses of study and methods of
teaching.

132

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

There is no uniformity in the methods of constitut-
ing these county boards of education. Some states
show a strong centralizing tendency. In Maryland
the county school-boards are appointed by the gov-
ernor of the state. In Virginia they are composed of a
division superintendent appointed by the state board
of education, and appointed district trustees. In
Louisiana the parish school-boards are appointed by
the state board of education. In other states the
county school-boards are appointed by other county
authorities: in North Carolina, by the county courts,
in South Carolina and Mississippi, by the county
superintendents, and in Georgia, by the grand juries.
In Florida they are elected by popular vote.

County school-superintendents are elected in South
Carolina, Florida and Mississippi. They are ap-
pointed by the county board of education in Mary-
land, North Carolina and Louisiana.

In the remaining Southern states, and in all the
Middle-Atlantic, North-Central and Western states,
rural school administration is in the immediate con-
trol of trustees or directors elected in school-districts
within the counties; but there is also in all of these
states county superintendents or commissioners of
education and in come states other county school
authorities. In most of these states the county super-
intendents are elected by popular vote; but in some
states they are appointed,— in New Jersey and Dela-
ware by the governor, in Pennsylvania and Indiana,
by the trustees of the local school-districts, in Ohio
by the judges, and in Tennessee and Arkansas by the
county court. In New York school commissioners

133

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

are elected by legislative districts, which often include
only part of a county. An unusual feature in con-
nection with these offices is the general requirement of
educational qualifications, even where the position is
elective.

The duties of county superintendents vary to some
extent according to the statutes of the different states.
In most states they examine candidates for appoint-
ment as teachers, and issue licenses authorizing them
to teach ; and in Ohio this seems to be the only func-
tion of the county school officers. But in some states 1
county examiners are provided for this work in addi-
tion to the county superintendents. They visit the
schools in their jurisdiction, to inquire into educational
methods and standards, and to inspect the material
condition of school-houses and grounds. They advise
the teachers and district trustees ; in some states have
power to decide appeals on questions of school law;
and sometimes can require the district authorities to
take action for the improvement of the schools. They
organize teachers' institutes. In many states they act
as agents for the state department of education in the
distribution of state funds to the schools, and in gen-
eral are the means of communication between the state
superintendent and the local authorities. They collect
information as to the schools and make reports to the
state authorities.

These county superintendents seldom exercise any
supervision over schools in large cities. But in the
rural sections their authority and influence is often

1 New Jersey, Michigan, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nevada, Wash-
ington, Oregon and California.

134

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

an important factor in school management, and taken
in connection with the state supervision over educa-
tional administration, to be examined later, this county
superintendence limits to no little extent the auton-
omy of the local districts, and it seems no longer
open to question that these tendencies work for the
more efficient administration of the schools than the
extreme decentralization of earlier times.

MINOR OFFICERS

County surveyors are provided in nearly all of the
states. Exceptions are the six New England states,
New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. The office is
usually elective, but in Virginia, Tennessee and Ala-
bama it is filled by the county boards. Surveyors are
usually paid by fees, including states where other
county officers are given fixed salaries.

As the name indicates, the duties of these officers are
to make surveys of lands. In the public land states
original surveys are made by United States officers.
The local surveyors act only in special cases on the
order of a court or the application of a private owner.
They appoint deputies and employ chainmen and
markers to assist in their work. Records are kept of
the surveys made, including maps, plats and field
notes ; and these are indexed and open for inspection
at any time. Copies of surveys are furnished on pay-
ment of fees.

In some states other duties have been placed on
county surveyors. In Pennsylvania they are ex officio
commissioners of county roads and bridges, and in sev-
eral other states (including Ohio, Indiana, Oregon and

135

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

California) they lay out county roads and sometimes
have charge of their construction and maintenance.
In New York the county boards may appoint county
engineers to have charge of county roads. In Indiana
the county surveyors also have charge of the construc-
tion of drainage ditches, while in Michigan the boards
of supervisors appoint county drain commissioners.

In the Southern states the county boards appoint
both county and district overseers or superintendents
of roads, who have charge of all the public highways
in their counties.

For the administration of county poor relief special
officials are provided, in many states, under the finan-
cial control of the county boards. These officials are
variously known in different states as superintendents,
directors, overseers, or commissioners of the poor.
Usually they are appointed by the county boards, but
in Pennsylvania and New York they are elected, and in
Ohio each county has three elected infirmary directors,
who appoint a superintendent.

The duties of these officers are to superintend the
county almshouse and poor farm. In many counties
the aged poor and young children are still kept in the
same institution with insane, diseased, and even vicious
paupers. In some cases, however, there are separate
hospitals and homes for the aged, while dependent
children are placed with private families or in separ-
ate institutions.1 Usually the inmates of county asy-
lums are required to assist so far as they are able in
the house or farm.

1 Fifty of the eighty-eight counties in Ohio maintain chil-
dren 's homes.

136

OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS

In Ohio and Indiana there are unpaid county boards
of visitors, appointed by the judges, who examine the
local charitable and correctional institutions and
report to the board of state charities. In Michigan,
the governor appoints for each county an agent of the
state board of charities and correction, who looks after
juvenile offenders and dependent children.

Many counties in the South and some in other parts
of the country still lease out paupers on contract to the
highest bidder. In Alabama the governor appoints a
board of examiners in each county, to investigate
applications for state aid from Confederate soldiers
or their widows.

County health officers or boards of health are estab-
lished in many states, or the county boards are author-
ized to act in this capacity. These arrangements are
established for the most part in the Southern and
Western groups of states,1 but also in Minnesota,
Nebraska, and North and South Dakota in the North-
Central group, and in Connecticut. In the last named
state, the county health officers are appointed by the
judges of the superior court, and they appoint and
supervise the town health officers. In Mississippi they
are appointed by the state board of health, and in
Florida county boards of health are appointed by the
governor. In other states appointments are made by
the county boards. The powers of these county health
authorities are most important in the Southern states.
1 Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, North Carolina, Geor-
gia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Ken-
tucky, Missouri, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Wash-
ington and California. Cf. Chapin, " Municipal Sanitation,"
p. 24.

137

PART III
MINOR DIVISIONS

CHAPTER VIII

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

In all of the states there are smaller areas within the
counties for various political and administrative pur-
poses. Each county is usually divided into towns,
townships, or districts, which together make up the
county, while the more densely populated districts are
separately organized as villages, incorporated towns,
boroughs or cities.

This chapter and those immediately succeeding will
deal with these minor civil divisions, except the cities
which are described in another volume of this series.1
These districts in the first named group differ so much
from each other in various parts of the country that
they cannot well be considered as a single subject,
and separate chapters will, therefore, be given to the
New England towns, to townships in the Central
states, and to county districts in the South and West.
Villages, incorporated towns and boroughs, as well
as the small cities in some states, are essentially sim-
ilar institutions, and all will be considered together in
one chapter.

In New England, the towns still remain the prin-
cipal units of local government. Their importance is
due in part to their exercise of functions elsewhere
1 F. J. Goodnow, ' ' City Government in the United States. ' '

141

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

performed by county officers, but at least as much to
the complete combination of the functions of rural
townships and semi-urban villages in the same organ-
ization, while interest in the institution is increased
by the continued active exercise of the purely demo-
cratic form of government.

The powers and influence of the towns reach their
maximum in Connecticut and Rhode Island. This is
due in part to the historic independence of the older
towns. In part it is due to the system of representa-
tion in the state legislatures, which gives the rural
towns an excessive influence in their respective
states, and at the same time enables the towns to
secure a free hand in their own affairs. In Connec-
ticut "it is the belief and practice of the towns that
they may exercise any authority not expressly dele-
gated to some other part of the body politic." And
"there is a tendency to regard the provisions of
statutes that are permissive in form as not really con-
ferring powers upon the towns— of these they are
already possessed— but as calling attention to things
desirable and as prescribing a uniformity of procedure
that is of advantage. ' ' *

In view of this opinion, it is of special importance
to recognize that the towns have no constitutional
basis for their autonomous position, and that in law
they are dependent on the state legislatures. ' ' Towns
in Connecticut as in the other New England states,"
says Justice Gray of the United States Supreme Court,
"are territorial corporations, into which the state is

1 C. H. Douglas, • ' The Civil Government of Connecticut, ' '
pp. 59, 60.

142

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

divided by the legislature, from time to time, at its
discretion, for political purposes and the convenient
administration of government ; they have those powers
only which have been expressly conferred upon them
by statute, or which are necessary for conducting
municipal affairs. ' ' l

In Rhode Island the older towns continue to exer-
cise peculiar local privileges, which exist as unwritten
law. The town of Bristol recently had a controversy
over the attempt to regulate the running of auto-
mobiles, on the ground that the tenure of highways
in that town is different from that in other towns of
the state.2 A few years ago an attempt was made
in the courts to secure legal recognition for the auton-
omy of the Rhode Island towns, on the basis of their
historic position.3 But the Supreme Court of the
state— the judges of which are appointed by the legis-
lature—upheld the authority of the state.4 And what-
ever one may believe as to the soundness of the argu-
ment, the legal supremacy of the legislature seems
to be clearly established in this state also.

In former times New England towns had a cor-
porate character only to a limited extent. In some
states, at least, at common law the property of any
individual inhabitant might be taken in execution

1 Bloomfield v. Charter Oak Bank, 121 U. S., 121, 129, quot-
ing Connecticut decisions. C'f. Also 82 Me., 39; 66 Vt., 570;
67 N. H., 591; 108 Mass., 142.

2 Communication from Professor William MacDonald of
Brown University.

3Amasa M. Eaton in Harvard Law Eeview, 13: 441, 570,
638; 14: 20, 116.
* Newport v. Horton, 22 Khode Island, 196.
143

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

upon a judgment against the town. But with the
development of their functions, the corporate capac-
ity of towns has been increased ; and they now often ap-
proach in character the municipal corporation proper.1

In four of the New England states the whole area
has been organized into towns, and in these new
towns are established only by the division of those
already in existence. But in the northern regions of
New Hampshire and Maine there are tracts of un-
settled land as yet unorganized, where new towns are
formed from time to time. In Maine the new dis-
tricts pass through a preliminary stage in which they
are known as plantations, before they are fully or-
ganized as towns.

New England towns, for the most part, are irreg-
ular in form and usually contain from twenty to
forty square miles. In the northern part of Maine
the rectangular survey into townships six miles
square has been followed, but this is distinctly differ-
ent from other parts of New England. Most of the
towns are predominantly rural in character, but all
have one or more "villages," where houses are more
compactly built, and in many cases towns are at least
semi-urban and some can be classed as small urban
communities.

In population these towns show large variations.
The larger places have been incorporated as cities,
and in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island
the cities now contain more than half the population
of these states. Generally the city government ab-
sorbs the town government, but in Connecticut the

1 Cf. Commonwealth v. Roxbury, 9 Gray (Mass.) 451, note p. 511.
144

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

town organization is separately maintained even in
the case of the largest cities of that state. Thus the
town of New Haven has over 100,000 population, and
the town of Hartford 80,000.

Omitting these exceptional cases, there are a good
number of towns of considerable size. Five towns
in Massachusetts and three in Rhode Island had each
over 12,000 inhabitants in 1900. Twenty other towns
in these two states and one in Connecticut (besides the
towns containing cities) had from 8,000 to 12,000
each. Ninety-three towns scattered through all the
New England states had from 4,000 to 8,000 popu-
lation. In the aggregate the population of these 122
towns of over 4,000 each amounted to more than
850,000.

Moreover most of these towns have no separate
government for the villages, and the semi-urban and
rural portions of the towns alike come under the con-
trol of the town government. Indeed in three states—
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont— the
term village has no legal significance, and is simply
used as a convenient term for the more compactly
built section of the town. In the other states— Maine,
Vermont and Connecticut— there are a small number
(twenty-six in all) of villages or boroughs incorpor-
ated within these larger towns.

Smaller towns are more numerous. Altogether
there are nearly 1,400 towns of less than 4,000 in-
habitants, with an aggregate population in 1900 of
1,650,000. Here, too, the town government nearly al-
ways includes the villages and there are only 76
separately organized villages, all in the three states

145

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

previously noted. Thus the New England town per-
forms both the functions of township and of village
government in states further west. And this combina-
tion adds much to the importance of town government.1

The functions and powers exercised by these town
governments are manifold and varied. A Massa-
chusetts manual of town law enumerates nearly fifty
general subjects on which towns may act.2 The most
important are roads and drains, schools, poor relief,
and taxation for the different local purposes. But to
the simple requirements of the colonial towns in these
fields, the modern New England town adds the con-
struction and maintenance of street pavements,
sewers, water-works, electric light plants, public baths,
parks, libraries, high schools, hospitals and other pub-
lic works and institutions. They have also some power
to enact police ordinances, and notably the power to
determine whether or not the retail liquor trade shall
be licensed in the community. In Rhode Island and
Connecticut the town is also the authority for land
records, and in Rhode Island for probate matters.

In addition to their local functions the town officers
are more and more called on to act as agents of the
state government in performing duties imposed on

i NEW ENGLAND TOWNS AND CITIES, 1900.
CITIES

Maine 20 225,022

New Hampshire. 11 171,789

Vermont 6 52,845

Massachusetts . . 33 1,880,087

Rhode Island... 5 283,233

Connecticut [15 472,467]

* Austin DeWolf , ' ' The Town Meeting, ' ' Ch. 9.

146

TOWNS

OVER 8000

4000-800

UNDER 4000

26,663

529

442,781

20,451

232

219,348

19,203

245

271,593

23 252,536

304,371

232

367,352

5 64,659

44,617

36,047

16 483,068

112,182

133

313,170

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

them by the legislature. They assess and collect state
taxes; they keep records of vital statistics; they en-
force state health laws ; and perform many other im-
portant functions. Except in Maine, the towns are
the usual districts for electing members to the state
legislature,1 and in all the New England states they
are election districts for state and national elections.

In connection with these matters, and also with
much of the business usually considered local (such
as schools and poor relief), the state laws require the
town officers to act. In case of neglect the state
courts will issue various writs to compel obedience to
the law, and sometimes town officers may be removed
for neglect of duties imposed.

For the exercise of their various powers the system
of organization established in all the New England
states is almost identical. The principal authority is
the town meeting, or primary assembly of the electors
in each town. For executive work there is a long list
of elective officials. The most important are the select-
men, the town clerk, and the school committee.

TOWN MEETING

A town meeting is an assembly, duly summoned, of
the qualified voters in the town, which elects officers,
makes appropriations, levies taxes and passes local
legislative measures. An annual meeting is held in
each town in the spring months, except in Connec-
ticut, where the annual meeting generally comes in

1 In Massachusetts and New Hampshire small towns are some-
times united to form a legislative district.

147

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

October. Special meetings are called from time to
time as may be deemed necessary, and several of these
are usually held each year. A meeting for the election
of national, state and county officers is not, strictly
speaking, a town meeting.

Formal notice must be given of each town meeting,
specifying not only the day, hour and place of meet-
ing, but also the business to be transacted. A meeting
not properly summoned is not a legal meeting; and
business not mentioned in the warrant cannot be
legally transacted. The various subjects mentioned
are, however, of a general nature, and are not strictly
construed.

The persons entitled to attend are those qualified
to vote under the state laws. Briefly, this is a system
of manhood suffrage, with a residence requirement
and disqualification for insanity or pauperism, while
in Massachusetts and Connecticut voters must be able
to read and write. Women are allowed to vote for
school officers, but not to take other part in the
meeting.

Attendance at these meetings usually includes a
good proportion of the voters. A part of those who
appear to vote for officers do not remain for the busi-
ness sessions ; but a fair number is present during this
part of the proceedings. In the larger towns the
relative attendance is somewhat less than in small
towns, but even in the former an active interest is
maintained. In Brookline, Massachusetts, with about
2,500 votes cast, there are from 300 to 500 at the
business sessions. In Hyde Park, Massachusetts, with
2,500 voters, and 1,500 votes cast, from 500 to 600 at-

148

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

tend the annual appropriation meeting. In Leo-
minster, Massachusetts, with 1,400 voting, the normal
attendance is about 800.1

Meetings are usually held in a large town hall. This
is frequently in the village, but in many towns with
several villages it is erected near the geographical
center of the town, sometimes a mile or two from any
village.

The meeting is called to order by the town clerk, or,
in his absence, by one of the selectmen, and proceed-
ings begin with the election of a moderator as pre-
siding officer. In many towns the same man is chosen
year after year to this office. This action serves to
make the town meeting, in form at least, free from
the control of the town officers, whom it is supposed
to supervise. The town clerk, however, acts as secre-
tary of the town meeting.

An organization being effected in the morning, the
polls are opened and the election for the principal
town officers proceeds by secret ballot. The business
sessions usually begin early in the afternoon, before
the polls are closed; but in some of the large towns
these are held in the evening. At the annual meeting
one or more adjourned sessions are usually necessary
to transact all the business in the warrant.

As an illustration of the business discussed and de-
termined at a town meeting, the following warrant
for the annual meeting in the town of Belmont, Massa-
chusetts, is inserted. This is a town near Boston,
and between the cities of Cambridge and Waltham.

1 Data furnished by Professor George H. Haynes of Worces-
ter Polytechnic Institute.

149

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

At the time (1896) it had about 3,000 inhabitants, and
was still outside of the suburban district, into which it
has since been drawn by the extension of street rail-
way lines.

TOWN MEETING

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Middlesex, ss.
To Frank D. Chant, or either of the Constables of Belmont,

in said County, Greeting:
In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you
are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of
the town of Belmont, qualified as the law requires to vote in
elections and town affairs, to meet at the Town Hall, in said
town, on Monday, the second day of March next, at one
o'clock in the afternoon of said day, to act on the following
articles, viz.:

First To choose a Moderator for said meeting.

Second. — To choose the following town officers:

Three Selectmen for one year.

One Assessor for three years.

A Town Clerk for one year.

A Town Treasurer for one year.

One Auditor for one year.

Four Constables for one year.

One Water Commissioner for three years.

Two School Committeemen for three years.

Two Trustees of the Public Library for three years.

One Member of Board of Health for three years.

One Member of Board of Health fo two years.

One Member of Board of Health for one year.

One Commissioner of Sinking Funds for three years.
Also to vote "Yes" or "No" on the question, "Shall
licenses be granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors in
this town?" All the above to be voted on one ballot. Also
to choose all other necessary town officers for the ensuing
year.

150

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

Third — To hear the reports of the Selectmen and other
town officers, also of any committee heretofore appointed,
and act thereon.

Fourth To see if the town will accept the revised list

of jurors as prepared by the Selectmen for the ensuing year.

Fifth — To determine what sum of money shall be granted
to pay town expenses the ensuing year and to make the neces-
sary appropriations of the same for the support of schools
and other town purposes, and to determine how the same shall
be raised and act thereon.

Sixth To determine what compensation the Town Treas-
urer and Collector of Taxes shall receive for his services the
ensuing year.

Seventh — To see if the town will raise and appropriate a
sum of money for the observance of Memorial Day.

Eighth. — To see if the town will continue to allow the
use of one of the rooms in the Town Hall building to the
Belmont Savings Bank.

Ninth To see if the town will authorize its Treasurer

to borrow money in anticipation of the taxes of the current
year.

Tenth — To see if the town will appropriate a sum of
money for the maintenance of a free bed or beds in the
Waltham Hospital for the ensuing year.

Eleventh. — To see if the town will appropriate a sum
of money to build Sycamore street as ordered by the County
Commissioners, determine how the same shall be raised, or
act thereon.

Twelfth To see if the town will authorize the Selectmen

to bring and defend actions for and against the town when
they deem it for the interest of the town.

Thirteenth To see if the town will authorize the Select-
men to employ counsel and defend a suit of Patrick Quigley
vs. the Inhabitants of Belmont.

Fourteenth To see if the town will appropriate a sum

of money to purchase land for hose houses in Belmont and
Waverley, or in any way act thereon.

Fifteenth To see if the town will authorize its Water

151

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Commissioners to extend the water mains, raise money for
the same, or in any way act thereon.

Sixteenth To see if the town will take any action

relative to the adoption of a system of sewers and sewer
assessments.

Seventeenth To see if the town will accept a sewer in

Concord avenue and Leonard street as laid out by the Select-
men, raise money for the same, or act thereon.

Eighteenth To see if the town will accept sewers in

Myrtle, Goden, Oak, School and Orchard streets as laid out
by the Selectmen, raise money for the same or act thereon.

Nineteenth To see if the town will accept the pro-
visions of Chapter 51 of the Public Statutes, and Chapter
170 of the Acts of 1891, as asked for by M. Abbott Frazar
and others.

Twentieth To see if the town will purchase that por-
tion of the plant of the Somerville Electric Light Company
which lies within the limits of the town or which at the time
of its construction was within the limits of the town as then
existing.

Twenty-first To see if the town will authorize the

Selectmen to renew its contract with the Somerville Electric
Light Co., for lighting the streets of the town or make a
contract for the same purpose with any other corporation,
or in any way act thereon.

Twenty- second — To see if the town will take any action
relative to revising or adding to its code of by-laws.

The polls will be opened at 1.15 o'clock and closed at 6
o'ciock p. m., unless otherwise ordered by a vote of the town.

Hereof fail not, and make due return of this warrant, with
your doings thereon, to the Town Clerk, on or before said
day and hour of meeting.

Given under our hands, this seventeenth day of February,
in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety-six.

Thomas L. Creeley,
Joseph O. Wellington,
Thomas W. Davis,

Selectmen of Belmont.

152

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

N. B. The Registrars of Voters will be at the Selectmen's
room on Saturday, February 22, 1896, from 12 m. to 10
o 'clock p. m., for the purpose of revising the List of Voters.

Registration will cease on Saturday, February 22, 1896,
at 10 o'clock p. m. After the close of registration, no name
will be entered on the List of Voters.

And the following warrant for a special town meet-
ing in the town of Reading, Massachusetts, will fur-
ther illustrate the activity of this institution during
the interval between annual meetings. Reading is
a town of over 5,000 population, on the outskirts of
the metropolitan district, but still to a considerable
extent a farming community.

TOWN WT ARRANT

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Middlesex, ss.

To either of the Constables of the Town of Beading, Greeting :

In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you
are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of
the Town of Reading qualified to vote in elections in Town
affairs, to meet in Lyceum Hall, in said Reading, on Wednes-
day, the 28th day of June, A. D. 1905, at eight o'clock in
the evening, to act on the following articles, viz.:

Art. 1. To choose a Moderator to preside at said meeting.

Art. 2. To hear and act on the report of the committee of
the new High School building.

Art. 3. To see if the Town for the purpose of providing
funds for the erection of a High School building, will authorize
its Treasurer to borrow under the direction of the Selectmen
the sum of eighty-five thousand dollars and issue the bonds or
notes of the Town therefor, payable at such times as will extin-
guish the debt within twenty years.

153

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Art. 4. To hear and act on the report of the Selectmen in re-
gard to the discontinuance of the Tower gate house at the
Main-Ash St. crossing of the Boston & Maine Railroad.

Art. 5. To see if the Town will raise or otherwise provide
and appropriate the sum of nine hundred and twenty-five
($925.00) dollars to be expended under the direction of the
Tree Warden for the purpose of exterminating the Brown Tail
Moth, the Gypsy Moth, and other injurious pests, or what they
will do in relation thereto.

Art. 6. To see if the town will vote to change the water
rates or what they will do in relation thereto.

Art. 7. To hear and act on the report of the Committee on
Building Laws, which was appointed at the annual Town Meet-
ing, March, 1901.

Hereof fail not and make due return of this warrant with
your doings thereon to the Town Clerk at or before the time
appointed for said meeting.

Given under our hands this nineteenth day of June, A. D.
1905.

James W. Killam,
Oliver L. Akerley,
Henry R. Johnson,

Selectmen of Beading.
A True Copy,

attest: Frederic D. Merrill,

Constable of Beading.

"The thing most characteristic of a town meeting
is the lively and educating debate; for attendants on
town meetings from year to year become skilled in par-
liamentary law, and effective in sharp, quick argu-
ment on their feet. Children and others than voters are
allowed to be present as spectators. In every such
assembly, four or five men ordinarily do half the talk-
ing, but anybody has a right to make suggestions or
propose amendments; and occasionally even a non-
154

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

voter is allowed to make a statement; and the debate
is often very effective." *

In many places the town meeting is being under-
mined by the caucus, held -beforehand, to nominate
candidates for office. Here a small group of persons
not only narrow the choice for officers but often
arrange the other business to be determined at the
town meeting. Sometimes everything is "cut and
dried" before it comes up for popular discussion; and
that discussion thus becomes a mere formality.2

Other factors also affect the working of town gov-
ernment for the worse. Immigration from Europe
and French Canada has introduced in some towns
racial elements that do not harmonize with the old
New England stock. And these disturbing groups are
most numerous in towns where factories and other
industrial pursuits have developed, emphasizing the
social distinctions between employees and capitalists
that were lacking in farming communities.3 Even in
rural towns the influx of summer residents, although
without votes, gives rise to disagreements between the
new-comers and the older inhabitants.

Nevertheless the town meeting retains its hold on the
people of New England. Even in the largest towns
there is more hesitation in recent years than formerly
about changing to a city form of government. Nearly
a dozen towns in Massachusetts have now sufficient

*A. B. Hart, " Actual Government, ' ' p. 171; cf. "The Na-
tion, ' ' 56, p. 343 ; 60, p. 197.

2 Communication from Professor H. M. Bowman of Dart-
mouth College, Hanover, N. H., confirmed from other quarters.

* C. F. Adams, ' ' Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, ' '
pp. 965-974.

155

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

population (12,000) to become cities, but there is no
active effort to abandon the town system. The most
noted is Brookline, with a population of over 20,000,
entirely surrounded by the two cities of Boston and
Newton.1 Other examples are Hyde Park, Adams,
Natick, Leominster and Clinton.

But the size of these towns is forcing to the front
the question of some modification in the town meeting.
Only a small part of the voters can be admitted to the
town hall, and while it accommodates all who usually
attend, there have been occasions in some towns when
the hall has been filled and many voters turned away.
Under these conditions decisions may be made that are
disapproved by a majority of those who sought to
attend, v' while in such large gatherings debate and
deliberation become impossible.

To meet these conditions there has been proposed a
plan of a limited town meeting. This would consist
of delegates elected by the voters in districts, forming
a body of two or three hundred members, which should
exercise the business functions of the existing town
meeting. Town officers would continue to be elected
by the whole body of electors; and certain questions
would also be submitted to a general referendum vote.2
Some such plan may soon be adopted for large towns.

TOWN OFFICERS

Most important among the town officers is the com-
mittee or board known as the selectmen3 or (in Rhode

1 ' ' New England Magazine, ' ' August, 1893.

2 A. D. Chandler, ■ ' Limited Town Meetings. ' '

'The native New Englander accents the first and last sylla-

156

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

Island) the town council. The number of selectmen
varies from three to nine, three being the more fre-
quent. Generally they are elected annually, but in
Massachusetts they are sometimes chosen for three
years, retiring in rotation so that one or more is elected J
each year. Re-elections are rather frequent, and one
selectman in Brookline, Massachusetts, has occupied
the position from 1867 to 1905. In Connecticut one of
the selectmen is designated as agent of the town, but
elsewhere no one has any special powers as chief ex-
ecutive, although a chairman may be selected.

The selectmen may be called the general adminis-
trative board of the town. But they differ from the
county boards in having no authority to levy taxes,
and their powers are limited to those conferred by
statute or the town meeting. Their functions are
manifold and vary from town to town. They issue
warrants for holding a town meeting; they lay out
highways and drains ; they grant licenses ; they make
arrangements for elections; and they have charge of
the town property. They may act as assessors, over-
seers of the poor and health officers. They appoint
some minor town officers; and can fill vacancies in
most of the elective town offices.1 They adjust claims
against the town and draw orders on the treasurer for
payment. In Rhode Island the town councils exercise
bles; and an outsider is readily detected by his dictionary pro-
nunciation.

1 In New Hampshire, in case of a vacancy on the board of
selectmen, the other members must choose some one who has
previously held the office by election; and where there are only
two selectmen who fail to agree on a person for the vacancy,
the appointment is made by a judge of the Supreme Court.

157

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

jurisdiction in probating wills and granting letters of
administration. They submit an annual report of
their actions to the town meeting.

Next in importance to the selectmen is the town
clerk, who performs many duties imposed on the
county clerk in states outside of New England. He
keeps the record of the proceedings at the town meet-
ing, and has general charge of the town archives. He
issues marriage licenses and registers births, mar-
riages and deaths. In Connecticut and Rhode Island
he is a recorder of deeds, mortgages and other con-
veyances affecting title to land, as well as other legal
documents; and in Maine he keeps a record of bills
of sale and mortgages on personal property.

Although elected for only a year at a time, the
town clerk is likely to be continued in office for a long
period. One town clerk in Brookline served from
1852 to 1898; and the present town clerk of Hyde
Park, Massachusetts, has held the position since 1870.
Evidently the New England town democracy appre-
ciates the advantages of permanent tenure for this
non-political office.

Assessors of taxes are elected in the larger towns,
where the duties of the selectmen are considered too
onerous. The duties of these officers, and of the
selectmen where they act as assessors, are to value
real estate and personal property, and to -assess the
taxes levied by the town meeting and for state and
county purposes.

The town treasurer receives and has charge of the
money collected by taxes, for state, county and town
purposes, and also of other funds belonging to the

158

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

town. He forwards the state and county taxes to the
proper officers, and makes payments for town ex-
penses on orders signed by the selectmen. He keeps
accounts of receipts and disbursements, and makes an
annual report to the town meeting, which is subject
to examination and audit.

Overseers of the poor may also be elected. These,
or the selectmen acting as such, look after town
paupers, and supervise the management of the town
almshouse or workhouse, where these institutions are
established. The recent tendency is towards the cen-
tralization of poor relief. Besides the development of
state charitable institutions for special classes, in New
Hampshire county almshouses have been regularly
established, and in Massachusetts it has become com-
mon for several neighboring towns to unite in main-
taining a single almshouse for the district. These
steps secure greater economy and also more intelligent
treatment in the work of poor relief.

Justices of the peace are not considered as town
officers in New England, but in New Hampshire, Ver-
mont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island they are elected
by the towns. In Massachusetts and Maine they are
appointed by the governor and council, and in Ehode
Island the governor appoints justices in addition to
those elected in the towns.

In the three states where the system of appointment
is used, the ordinary justices are not in fact judges.
They summon witnesses and hold preliminary in-
quiries in criminal cases, and commit accused persons
for trial before a judicial court. And they may per-
form the marriage ceremony, and take acknowledg-

159

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ment of deeds. Trial or district justices are, however,
appointed, usually for more than one town, to try
the minor civil and criminal cases.

In Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont the
elected justices exercise limited judicial powers. Their
jurisdiction in civil cases is restricted to suits for less
than $200 in Vermont, $100 in Connecticut and $13.33
in New Hampshire, while they cannot decide cases
where the title to real estate is involved. In criminal
cases their jurisdiction applies to minor misdemeanors
enumerated in the statutes, or limited by the penalty
imposed.

None of the New England states gives the justices
any active part in other branches of local administra-
tion, such as they exercise in many of the Southern
states and sometimes in the Central and Western
states.

Constables are elected in every town, but the office
has lost its old dignity and importance as the head
official of the town. They are the peace officers of the
town, corresponding to the sheriff in the county, and
it is their duty to arrest violators of the law. But in
practice they act mainly as ministerial officers to ex-
ecute the writs and warrants of selectmen, justices of
the peace and sometimes other judges. They often
act as collectors of taxes, or special collectors may be
appointed and sworn in as constables.

A school committee or school-board is elected in
every town, to which women are eligible in some states.
In the four northern New England states and in some
towns in the other two states, the town committee has
direct control of all the town schools. It establishes

160

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

schools, appoints teachers, and regulates the course of
instruction. Generally a superintendent of schools is
elected or appointed either for each town or sometimes
for several towns in common. Truant officers are also
appointed to enforce attendance on the schools. Recent
tendencies are towards further centralization in school
administration. Small schools in the outlying districts
are abandoned, and the pupils are taken at public ex-
pense to a central town school, where a more efficient
graded system of instruction can be maintained.
Many of the New England towns also maintain high
schools.

In Connecticut and Rhode Island there are many
towns divided into small school-districts, each con-
taining a single school. These schools are under the
management of trustees elected by the inhabitants of
the district, while taxes are voted by a district meeting
of the voters. In these cases the town committee
supervises the district schools. Formerly this district
system was in general use, and marks the furthest
development of decentralized administration in the
United States.

Highway officers with various titles are regularly
elected in each town, except in Connecticut, where
surveyors of highways are appointed by the select-
men. In recent years a great deal of attention has
been given to the construction of substantial roads;
and in this work the towns have been aided by the
county and state authorities.1 These developments
have been most notable in Massachusetts and Con-
necticut.

1 See Chapter XVI.
161

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Park commissioners, library trustees and boards of*
health are elected in many towns; and in large towns
watchmen are appointed as a police force, and a fire
brigade is organized. There is also a long list of old
minor officers, some elected, but most of them now ap-
pointed by the selectmen. These include sealers of
weights and measures, field drivers, pound keepers,
fence viewers, surveyors of lumber, keepers of alms-
houses, forest fire-wards, fish wardens, inspectors,
weighers and measurers of grain, oil, upper leather,
beef, boilers, coal, lime, vessels, and many other
officers.

Most of these functionaries serve without compen-
sation or receive only trifling fees, and this is an im-
portant factor in explaining the multiplication of in-
significant places. But another factor is doubtless
the craving for public position; and in small towns
a large proportion of the voters can be given some
titular honor. Popular election, which is still em-
ployed for a large number of offices, seems to work
more satisfactorily in small towns than in more popu-
lous districts. The voters are personally acquainted
with the various candidates, and the town meeting
provides a means for supervising the conduct of the
officers. But in the larger towns difficulties arise.
Many of the officials who no longer perform any active
functions might well be abolished. And there is room
for extending the domain of technical expert service,
which it is difficult to secure under a system of popu-
lar election.

While the town retains an important position, the
tendency is towards larger areas of local administra-

162

NEW ENGLAND TOWNS

tion and state supervision of the local authorities.
This movement is noticeable in school management,
public charities, sanitary affairs and most recently in
road building.1 It is being realized that greater effi-
ciency can be secured through the employment of well-
paid officials with specialized technical training, than
under the unpaid decentralized methods. And in this
respect the recent tendencies in New England are but
a branch of the general movement throughout the
United States and the world away from the radical
individualistic ideas of the first part of the nineteenth
century.2

1 See Part IV.

2 Cf. Dicey, ' ' Law and Public Opinion in England. ' '

163

CHAPTER IX

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

In the great Central group of states, extending from
New York to Nebraska, towns (or townships as they
are more usually called) are local districts of consider-
able importance, but of a good deal less importance
than in the New England group. And the conditions
in this group may be taken as the most representative
or typical of the United States as a whole. Not only
do these states occupy geographically a central posi-
tion; but together they contain more than half the
population of the country; while in wealth and busi-
ness and political activity, they occupy an even more
important place.

Towns in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
the eastern part of Ohio, are irregular in form and
vary a good deal in area. Throughout the rest of this
group the land before settlement belonged to the
United States government, and was marked off by sur-
veys into geographical townships, approximately six
miles square. These geographical or congressional
townships, as they are often called, have usually been
taken as the district for the organized civil township.
But there are many exceptional cases. In sparsely set-
tled regions several congressional townships are com-
bined to form a civil township. Sometimes physical

164

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

features are followed to a limited extent in the bound-
aries of the civil district ; and cities and other incorpor-
ated places are often carved out of the geographical
township. But in the main the township of the Middle-
West is a square with straight line boundaries, con-
taining an area of about thirty-six square miles.1

In most of these states the whole area is organized
into civil townships, except for some urban districts
organized as municipal corporations. But in a few
states there are counties not subdivided into organized
townships. In Illinois 17 counties in the southern part
of the state, out of 102, do not have township organiza-
tion. In Nebraska only 25 of the 102 counties have
organized townships. These are in the easterly part of
the state, and contain about one-third of the total
population. In Missouri there are 17 of the 114 coun-
ties with township organization. In North and South
Dakota townships in some counties are organized only
for school purposes.

The relations between the townships and the urban
municipal corporations established within their orig-
inal limits vary in the different states. Generally the
cities are entirely independent of the townships; and
in a few states all or most of the villages or boroughs
have the same position. In Pennsylvania boroughs as
well as cities are independent of the townships, and in
New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota and the Dakotas
most of the boroughs and villages are independent.

1 The north and south lines of the surveyed townships follow
the meridians, and are thus not exactly parallel, but converge
a little towards the north; and the area is thus somewhat less
than the full thirty-six square miles.

165

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

More commonly villages, while specially organized for
certain purposes, remain part of the townships, as in
New York and Michigan, while in some states all or
most of the cities as well as the villages are parts of
the townships. This is the case with all municipal cor-
porations in Illinois and Indiana, and with nearly all
in Ohio and Nebraska.

But in all of these states the compactly-built districts
are separately organized as villages, boroughs or cities
for certain purposes of local government. This
reduces the importance of the township government,
which deals only with rural problems. And as at the
same time the county is more important than in New
England, the result is to make the township of consid-
erably less significance than the New England town.

Most of the townships are rural districts with a small
population. But there are also a considerable number
of populous townships, especially where villages and
cities are included within their limits. By far the
largest are the six towns comprising the city of Chi-
cago, but the town governments of these have recently
been consolidated with that of the larger community.
Other large townships in Illinois are Peoria, with 57,-
000 population, Joliet, with 40,000, and twenty others
over 12,000 each. In Indiana, Center township, Mar-
ion county, which includes the city of Indianapolis,
has 167,000, and sixteen other townships have over
12,000 each. In Ohio the largest township is Youngs-
town, with 48,000, containing the city of the same
name ; and sixteen others have each over 12,000. New
York and Iowa have each twelve towns with more than
12,000 population. Pennsylvania has four townships of

166

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

this size, and Michigan a single instance, that of Calu-
met in the northern peninsula.

In most of these cases the township government is
unimportant compared with that of the cities or vil-
lages within their limits. But the four Pennsylvania
townships1 and two of the towns in New York2 do not
include urban municipal corporations; and the town-
ship government is the only local organization. Sev-
eral other large New York towns have the greater part
of their population outside of the incorporated vil-
lages.3

Organized townships in the Central states are bodies
corporate and politic. They may sue and be sued in
the courts, may purchase and own land for corporate
purposes, and can make contracts in the exercise of
their legal powers. But their corporate capacity is
limited, and they are more properly classed as quasi-
corporations.

They are districts for purely local affairs and at
the same time subordinate agencies for county and
state business. Strictly local matters are of less rela-
tive importance than in the New England towns. To
be sure the three main objects of local administration
—highways, poor relief, and schools— are matters of
township concern ; but even in these the county plays
a more active part in the Central states than in New

1 Hazel, 15,143; Lower Merton, 13,271; Coal, 12,473; and
Mifflin, 12,366.

2 Islip, 12,545, and North Hempstead, 12,048, both on Long
Island.

3 Hempstead, 27,066; Oyster Bay, 16,334; Brookhaven, 14,592.
These and several others are also on Long Island, where the
New England influences seem to be still prevalent.

167

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

England, while the special local needs of the urban
parts of the townships are looked after by the village
and not by the township governments.

As administrative districts for the county and state,
the townships assess and collect taxes for these larger
political units as well as for local purposes. They are
also election districts for national, state and county,
as well as township, officers, and they are the primary
district for the administration of petty justice and the
enforcement of state laws. Even in matters that are
often considered local in character— such as educa-
tion and poor relief —the townships are subject to state
laws and state and county supervision.

In organization the townships of the Central states
differ to a considerable extent, and show some marked
departures from the New England system. Township
meetings of the electors are provided for by law in
some of those states, but they seldom display the same
activity as in New England. While in about half of
these states there is no assembly of voters for the dis-
cussion and decision of public business. The town-
ship officers are a numerous list, mostly elective. But
in a number of states one officer stands out prominently
as the chief official of the township.

TOWNSHIP MEETINGS

Township meetings are established by statute as the
central organ of township government in New York,
New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Nebraska, and the Dakotas. These form the northern
tier of the Central group, lying due west of New Eng-

168

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

land. And the extension of the system of direct democ-
racy is evidently due to the general movement of
population from the older states westward along paral-
lel lines.

But the authority of a township meeting is usually
less than in New England. In New York, where the
meeting is held biennially, it has no taxing power, as
the town taxes are levied by the county board of super-
visors. And apart from the election of town officers,
its powers are few and comparatively unimportant.1
Appropriations for more than $500 are made by ballot
of the property owners ; and a township meeting may be
held in a number of election districts instead of at one
place, which means that the so-called meeting becomes
simply an election by ballot. In other states the town-
ship meeting has power to levy taxes and enact local
by-laws, subject to statutory limitations. But in
Michigan the township board is authorized to levy
taxes for ordinary township purposes in case of the
refusal or neglect of the township meeting.

These township meetings and township elections in
other Central states are usually held in the spring.2
But in New York they may be held at the
time of the biennial state elections in Novem-
ber; and in Ohio township elections are now
regularly held in November. In New York,

1 It can fix the number of constables (not exceeding five) ;
can direct suits in which the town is interested; provide for
the destruction of noxious weeds and animals; abate public
nuisances that affect the public health; and care for the town
property. Town Law, §22.

8 February in Pennsylvania; elsewhere usually in March or
April.

169

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Michigan, and Wisconsin one of the town officers
acts ex officio as chairman of the meeting. In the other
states where township meetings are held, the New Eng-
land rule of electing a moderator from those who are
not officers is followed.

It is difficult to generalize in regard to the attend-
ance at the meetings held in thousands of townships
throughout these states. But replies to a considerable
number of inquiries confirm the impression of personal
observation that in many cases the number of persons
present is meagre compared with the practice in New
England. In townships with 500 to 600 voters an
attendance of 10 to 20 is often reported, while in many-
cases the business is transacted by the members of the
township board. Under these conditions there can be
little of the active popular debate, which makes the
New England town meeting an interesting object of
study.

Some townships, however, follow the New England
customs, and show a larger attendance at the township
meeting. In Boonville, N. Y., with 1,200 voters, the
average attendance is reported as 850; and in Olean,
N. Y., with the same number of voters, from 300 to 400
attend the township meeting. In Wisconsin a good
attendance seems to be more common than in the other
states. Even in small towns an attendance from 50 to
100 is frequently reported; while in Buchanan, with
500 voters, 150 usually appear, and in Franklin, with
420 voters, the average is about 300. ' In other places
the decision of an important question will bring out a
large attendance once in a while.

1 Eeplies to circular letters of inquiry sent to town officers.
170

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT

NAME OF TOWN NUMBER AVERAGE AVERAGE NO. NORMAL TOWN-
OB OF NO. OF AT TOWNSHIP SHIP APPRO-
TOWNSHIP VOTERS VOTES MEETINGS PRIATION

New York :

Cortlandt . 5087 4400 town board $ 30,000

Hempstead 7000 5000 20,000

Fishkill-on-Hudson . . 3000 2700 18,000

Southampton 2800 1600 none held 35,000

Hamburg 1750 1500

Boonville 1200 950 850

Olean 1200 850 350 1,500

Bethlehem 1250 1100 none held 8,000

Ovid 650 550 6 1,500

Pittsburgh 607 600 4 10,000

New Jersey :

North Bergen 2200 1700 20 25,000

Northampton 1545 1200 5 10,000

Michigan :

Calumet 4000 2500 none held 160,000

Osceola 1200 250 12 6,000

South Arm 800 400 200 7,500

Portland 800 650 tp. board 6,500

Sylvan 800 725 4 2,900

Otsego 780 575 12-60 4,000

Avon 750 600 5 2,500

Wright 600 450 well attended 4,000

Warren 500 440 4 1,400

Bethany 460 300 4 700

Masonville 400 200 4 9,500

Emerson 400 280 100 430

Arcada 360 180 4 6,000

Illinois :

Cicero 1800 1200 25 31,000

Centreville 1200 750 100 13,500

171

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Wisconsin :

Buchanan 500

Maple Grove 500

Franklin 420

* Plymouth 400

Somers 400

Jefferson 400

Darlington 300

S. Lancaster 280

Vinland 250

Blooming Grove .... 250

Washburn 150

Minnesota :

Belle Plaine 400

Inver Grove 325

Wilson 230

Pleasant Hill 200

Dresbach 160

Fremont 150

Utica 150

Norton 150

Mt. Vernon 120

Knife Falls 83

Morris 70

Ninth Judicial District1 80 25

Nebraska :

Creighton 400 400 tp. board.

Henderson 300 225 25

i Estimated averages of townships in this district, data furnished hy W. T.
Eckstein, of New Ulm, Minn.

300

150

3,000

400

7,000

340

10-50

1,500

200

1,000

175

275

175

900

275

2,500

170

100

2,000

125

1,000

125

200

110

10,000

300

1,500

165

1,000

125

100

700

100

1,200

1,800

1,050

600

172

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

In the southern tier of the Central states —Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri—
there are no deliberative township meetings. Town
officers are elected, and questions are submitted for
popular approval, but there is no assembly of the
town voters in one place as the official organ for debat-
ing and deciding local business.

Several factors explain the absence or weakness of
the town meeting in these states. In the southern tier
immigration from New England has been limited ; and
the representative town system of Pennsylvania was
thus introduced and extended rather than the direct
democratic assembly. In the northern tier New Eng-
land influences led to the establishment of the town
meeting by statute. But immigration from Europe and
from states to the south has brought into the rural dis-
tricts of these states as well as the cities large numbers
of voters with no experience in government by popular
assembly. And these seem to prefer the representative
to the directly democratic system.1

Again the artificial form of the township in the Mid-
dle-West has been of no little influence. Certainly in
these states the township often lacks the social unity of
the New England town. A village may develop in one
corner of a township, and become the local market for
two or three adjacent townships, while the distant
farmers of its own township trade in the village of
another. In other cases, a village may grow up across
a township line, and the political line of demarcation

'. Sometimes, however, and notably in Wisconsin and Minne-
sota, the Germans and Scandinavians take a very active interest
in township affairs.

173

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

must be followed, although there is no separation of
real interests between those who live on either side.
In states where the villages are entirely independent
of the townships, the incorporation of a village leads
to the location of the hall for township meetings in an
out of the way place.1 Under these conditions the
political unit does not accord with the economic and
social centers of activity.

Lastly, the special organization of villages removes
from the township meeting many of the important
problems of local government. An examination of the
New England town meeting warrants, in the previous
chapter, will show to how great an extent the problems
of the village are the vital subjects of discussion.
When these are taken away, what remains is hardly
enough to arouse the active interest of the voters.

TOWNSHIP OFFICERS

Nowhere in the Central states do we find the New
England title of selectmen. In their place are two dis-
tinct types of organization, and, curiously enough, the
type which corresponds closely to that of New Eng-
land is found most generally in those states which
have no township meeting. In Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas the principal au-
thority is a committee or board of supervisors or trus-
tees. In the other states there is a well defined head
officer of the township with specific powers and duties,
but assisted and checked in some matters by a town-
ship board.

1Professor W. A. Schaper, University of Minnesota.
174

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

This head officer is called the supervisor in New
York, Michigan and Illinois, and the town chairman in
Wisconsin. In these states, in addition to his duties
as township officer, he is also the township representa-
tive on the county board, and this dual function adds
to the importance of the office. In Indiana, Missouri,
Kansas and Oklahoma the chief officer is called the
township trustee.

The duties of these officers are not uniform in the
different states. In New York and Illinois the super-
visors primarily act as town treasurers. They
receive the town funds (except those for highway pur-
poses) and pay out authorized charges, keeping
accounts of receipts and expenditures. They can also
prosecute in the name of the town for penalties due the
town ; and in New York can sell town property when
authorized by the town meeting. In Michigan they are
the township assessors of property for taxation and
overseers of the poor, and they represent the township
in legal proceedings. In addition many other duties
are imposed on the supervisors in these states.

Still more important are the township trustees in
Indiana. Each trustee has charge of the township
finances, is overseer of the poor and ex officio trustee,
treasurer and clerk of the school township. He is also
election officer, preparing a list of voters and acting
as inspector of elections. And he is authorized to re-ar-
range road districts, to supervise drains and act as
fence viewer. In Kansas, the township trustee assesses
property and levies the township tax, is overseer of
the poor, divides the township into road districts and
has charge of township property. In Missouri town-

175

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ships the trustee is treasurer and has charge of the
finances of the town.

Township boards are variously constituted in differ-
ent states. Where there is a chief township officer he
is usually a member, and the board is composed of
township officers. In New York, Illinois, and Michigan,
the members are the supervisor, clerk and justices of
the peace ; and in Kansas, the trustee, clerk and treas-
urer. But in Missouri the board is composed of the
trustee and two elected members, and in Indiana of
three resident freeholders specially elected for this
purpose, while the trustee is not a member. In other
states the board consists of three members, distinct
from the other town officers. They are called super-
visors in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the
Dakotas, and trustees in Ohio and Iowa.

A primary function of these township boards is to
audit the accounts of the township officers and author-
ize the payment of claims ; and in Illinois where they
are called boards of auditors this seems to complete
their legal powers. In Kansas they act as auditors
and as boards of highway commissioners.

In other states their powers are larger. In New York
they license peddlers, can establish water, lighting and
sewer districts within the town, and act as boards of
health. In Michigan they can fill vacancies in town-
ship offices, are local boards of health, and can levy
township taxes when the town-meeting has failed to
act. In organized townships in Missouri they regu-
larly levy township taxes. In Indiana the boards
examine and approve township appropriations, fix the
rate of taxation, and can borrow money. In Wis-

176

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

consin they audit accounts, order payments, have
charge of town property, form and alter school and
road districts, and fill vacancies in town offices.

Where there is no single head officer of the town-
ships, the township boards are the general administra-
tive authority, and usually have also the power to levy
taxes. Thus in Pennsylvania they supervise the town-
ship roads and bridges, act for the townships in their
corporate capacity, and sometimes serve as overseers of
the poor. In Ohio they levy township taxes and act
as road commissioners and overseers of the poor. In
Iowa they act as boards of equalization, overseers of
the poor, highway commissioners and election officers.
In several states they form the local boards of health.
Other minor powers are granted and duties imposed in
all the states ; and often important additions are made
by special legislation.

Township clerks are elected in all the Central states
except Indiana. They act as secretaries of town meet-
ings where these are held, and as clerks of the town-
ship boards. In some states they are also clerks of the
township school-boards,1 and in some they keep records
of chattel mortgages and stray animals. In Iowa the
clerk is treasurer of the township. The office is less
important than in New England; and continued
re-elections of the same person to the office are less fre-
quent.

Assessors are also elective township officers through-
out these states. In most states a special official is
chosen, but in Michigan the supervisor acts, and in
Kansas the township trustee. In New York towns
1 Michigan and Ohio.

177

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

there are three assessors. In Pennsylvania two assis-
tant assessors are elected in the third and last year of
the assessor's term ; and in that year a general revalua-
tion of property is made. In Michigan a board of
review is established in each township, consisting of
the supervisor and two other elected members, which
decides on complaints and corrects errors in the assess-
ment roll. As has been noted in a previous chapter
there is often some county supervision or equalization
of the township assessments ; and in a few states there
is a state authority with larger powers of control over
local assessors.1

Treasurers are elected in all of the states in this
group, except where another officer acts in this capac-
ity, as the supervisors in New York and Illinois2 and
the clerk in Iowa. They receive township, county and
state taxes within their townships, and pay over the
latter to the county treasurers. They have charge of
township funds, and make payments on orders of the
township boards.

While poor relief for the most part is a county func-
tion in the Central states, some duties in this field are
performed by town officers. In Pennsylvania and New
Jersey many towns support almshouses and look after
the ordinary cases needing relief ; and in these towns
overseers of the poor are elected. Elsewhere township
officers determine who are entitled to admission to the
county poorhouse, and sometimes they have power to

1 See Chapter XV.

'Town collectors are, however, elected in New York and
Illinois. In "Pennsylvania town collectors are elected in all
towns, and town treasurers in a few towns.

178

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

grant temporary outdoor relief. Usually these matters
are attended to by the supervisors or trustees, acting
as overseers of the poor. But in New York one or two
overseers of the poor are elected in each town.

Roads in the country districts have been for the
most part constructed and repaired by a labor tax,
worked out under the supervision of highway over-
seers, often elected by road districts into which the
townships are divided. In the public land states the
roads for the most part run along section lines, with
but slight avoidance of grades or attention to the
shortest lines of traffic. Within recent years, however,
the use of money taxes and technical experts in road
building has been extended. At the same time the
tendency has been to substitute the town for the minor
district as the primary administrative unit. Progress
has also been made in the building of county roads;
and in some states the movement for better roads has
been promoted by state aid and state supervision.1
New Jersey has been the most active in this work ; and
New York ranks second. In Ohio, Indiana, Kansas
and South Dakota district overseers are still in use,
but in some cases they are elected by the town instead
of by road districts. In Pennsylvania the township
supervisors appoint district road-masters; and in
Michigan township highway commissioners are elected,
who appoint district overseers. In New York and Illi-
nois town highway commissioners are elected, and in
New Jersey, Wisconsin, Iowa and North Dakota the
town board has control of road matters,

*See Chapter XVI.
179

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Justices of the peace are elected by townships, the
number varying in the different states from two to five
for each township. Technically they are still consid-
ered, in most states, as county officers. But they
usually act only within the township for which they
are elected, and in some states they are now classed
as township officers.1

In all of the Central states justices of the peace exer-
cise judicial powers in minor cases. Their jurisdiction
is, however, strictly limited in various ways. In civil
cases they can conduct a trial in certain classes of cases
where the amount involved is not over a certain sum,
varying from $100 to $300 in different states. In Eng-
land they seem to have had no civil jurisdiction ; and
in this country this power was at first confined to
actions on contracts. It now usually applies also to cer-
tain actions in tort ; Dut does not include civil actions
for assault and battery, slander or seduction. They have
no jurisdiction in cases where title to real estate is
involved ; sometimes their jurisdiction is limited to cer-
tain prescribed forms of judicial proceedings; and
usually they have no equity powers. Their criminal
jurisdiction is less than it was in England; and is
limited, sometimes by the nature of the offense, and
sometimes by the extent of the penalty. It is confined
to petty crimes and misdemeanors, where the penalties
are small fines and brief periods of imprisonment. It
never extends to felonies or crimes punishable by a
penitentiary sentence.

For more serious criminal cases justices of the peace
have power to issue warrants of arrest, to hold pre-
lE. g., New York and Indiana.

180

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

liminary hearings, and to commit prisoners for trial
before a higher court or release them on bail. In some
states they may act as coroners, usually where the cor-
oner is not available. They have also other powers
not of a judicial nature. They can take acknowledg-
ments of legal documents and perform the marriage
ceremony. In New York, Michigan and Illinois jus-
tices of the peace are members of the town boards,—
a survival of their administrative functions. But in
none of the Central states do they have any part in
county administration.

Justices of the peace in Indiana are generally
limited to cases arising within their township. In
New York and Michigan they may hear cases from
their own or adjoining townships. But in .other states
they may try cases from any part of the county.1
Sometimes the latter arrangement leads to abuses, as
where defendants are summoned to out-of-the-way
townships which are not at all involved in the case.

No legal training is required of justices ; and outside
of the cities they are often not qualified to practice be-
fore the higher courts. In this respect they resemble the
English county justices, but the latter usually have a
clerk who is trained in the law, while the American jus-
tice is his own clerk. Moreover the English requirement
that a justice must be a landed proprietor does not
apply to the American office. And as the net result
of the change in his functions and in the kind of men
selected for it, the position is of but slight importance
compared with that of the English or colonial justice,
or the justices in some of the Southern states.
1 Illinois, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri.

181

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Constables are elected in all townships, and per-
form duties similar to those of the constables in New
England towns. They are peace officers, and as such
are specially charged with the duty of arresting known
felons or any one committing crime in their presence.
But ordinarily they act only as ministerial agents of
the justices on specific warrants to make arrests, sub-
poena witnesses and execute the judgments of the court.
They also publish notices of elections.

The long list of minor functionaries of the New
England towns does not reappear in the townships of
the Central states. In Michigan provision is made for
drain commissioners and path masters. And in sev-
eral states town officers already mentioned act as fence
viewers, to settle disputes about boundary fences. But
the multiform surveyors and inspectors are entirely
absent.

SCHOOL-DISTRICTS

School-districts in the Central states are local cor-
porations distinct from the townships.1 But they
usually either correspond in area with townships or are
subdivisions of townships. In five states2 each town-
ship generally constitutes a school-district, although
special districts are often established for villages or
cities within the townships in some of these states. In
four other states3 townships may constitute school-dis-

1 Even in Indiana, where the township trustee is also school
trustee, the two corporations are separate legal entities. 62
Ind., 230.

* New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa.

•Wisconsin, Minnesota, North and South Dakota.

182

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

tricts as a whole or may be divided into small districts.
In the remaining five states1 school-districts are ordi-
narily subdivisions of townships. Special legislation,
however, causes many exceptions to all general state-
ments.

Under the township system the tendency is to discon-
tinue outlying schools and concentrate attendance at
a single graded school, the school authorities furnish-
ing transportation for the children. But in many
cases this concentration has not been accomplished,
and there are a number of small schools in different
parts of the township. In Pennsylvania and some-
times in Ohio such townships are divided into sub-dis-
tricts, which, however, are not separate corporations.
The petty school-districts generally have only a single
school with one or two teachers. They vary in area;
but in settled agricultural regions contain from six to
nine square miles. Sometimes such districts are
formed which include parts of two or more townships.

In about half of these states provision is made for
school meetings of the voters in each district. These
are direct democratic assemblies, corresponding to the
New England town meeting. They not only elect
school officers, but vote school taxes, locate school sites
and decide other questions of school management.
They are found not only in states where township meet-
ings are authorized, such as Michigan, Wisconsin and
Minnesota ; but also in other states, like Indiana, Iowa
and Kansas, where there are no township meetings.
In most of these states women vote at the school meet-
ings. Attendance at these meetings is irregular. In
1 New York, Michigan, Illinois, Kansas and Nebraska.
183

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

some places, and on special occasions in other districts,
there will be a good attendance and active interest and
discussion. More often the voters simply attend to
vote for officers and the business is transacted by the
latter.

District officers are generally three in number,
known as trustees. These act to some extent as a
board, while special duties are often assigned to indi-
vidual members, one acting as chairman or director,
another as treasurer and the third as clerk. In New
York school-districts, there are three trustees and also
a clerk, collector and treasurer. In Pennsylvania each
district has six school directors. In Ohio each district
has a board of education of five members. In Indiana
the township trustee is school trustee, and there is also
a school director elected in each district. Where there
are no school meetings of voters these officers have full
local control. Where there are such meetings they
carry out the votes passed, appoint teachers, determine
the course of study and manage the finances of the
schools. But state aid and control and county super-
vision in school matters are much more important in
the Central states than in New England ; and the local
autonomy is thus less complete.

Township and school officers are elected for terms
varying from one to four years; and different terms
are often provided for the various offices in the same
state. In New York town elections occur only every
other year. In Indiana the most important township
officers are elected for four years. Members of town
boards are usually elected for more than one year, the
terms of the members expiring in different years.

184

TOWNSHIPS IN THE CENTRAL STATES

Re-elections are frequent ; and sometimes in the states
where township supervisors are members of the county
boards, this gives the rural districts an advantage in
these boards, on account of the larger experience of
their members over those from the cities. In most
townships the officers give only a small part of their
time to public business; and they are paid at a per
diem rate or by fees. In the larger towns some officers
receive fixed salaries.

Little is known of the character of township govern-
ment in general; and the absence of complaint seems
to indicate that on the whole it satisfies the people of
the various communities. But it may be noted that
the decline of the town meeting leaves no active control
over the officers ; and it is likely that in sparsely settled
districts there is a good deal of carelessness in the man-
agement of local affairs. A correspondent from north-
ern Minnesota1 writes that many irregularities occur
in connection with the management of township and
school-district matters in that state. A supervision
over township accounts similar to that exercised over
county accounts in some states might disclose a good
deal and pave the way for improved methods.

1 District Judge W. A. Cant of Duluth.

185

CHAPTER X

COUNTY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST

In the Southern and Western states, and in some
counties in states already noted, there is no general
system of local corporations corresponding either to
the New England towns or the organized townships of
the Central states. But even in these sections the coun-
ties are divided into districts for various purposes of
local government, such as elections, the administration
of petty justice, roads and schools. These districts
differ from towns and townships of the North in two
important points. In the first place, instead of
using one district for all local administration below
the county, different districts are established for vari-
ous purposes; and these are sometimes neither coter-
minous nor inclusive in area, but may overlap each
other. In the second place, with the exception of
school-districts in some states, these county districts
have no corporate capacity, and no power of taxation,
but are simply convenient subdivisions for performing
the functions of county government. Some officers
are, however, elected in and for these districts ; and in
a slight degree they take the place of the towns and
townships of the Central states.

186

COUNTY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST

SOUTHERN STATES

Usually one class of districts is somewhat more impor-
tant than the others ; and is sometimes used for several
distinct purposes. The names of these show a great
deal of variety. In Virginia, West Virginia and Ken-
tucky they are called magisterial districts, and in Ten-
nessee civil districts. In North and South Carolina,
Arkansas and Missouri the name township is used, and
in the two latter the congressional townships are the
areas for the civil districts ; but they are not corporate
organizations except in a few of the Missouri counties.
In Maryland, Florida and Alabama they are known
simply as election districts or precincts, and in Missis-
sippi as supervisor's districts1 which are in turn sub-
divided into school-districts and election precincts. In
Georgia the principal county divisions are called mili-
tia districts. In Delaware the old English term the
hundred is still retained. In Louisiana the subdivisions
of the parishes are known as wards. And in Texas
the counties are divided into commissioner's precincts,
and these again into justice's precincts.

Generally the number of such districts in a county
is smaller than the average number of townships in a
county of the Central states. 2 And as a corollary the
average area is larger than that of the congressional

1 In Alabama and Mississippi the term ' ' beat ' ' is also some-
times used unofficially.

2 In Virginia and West Virginia there are from three to ten
districts in each county, in Kentucky from three to eight, in
Mississippi always five, in Louisiana from five to ten, in Texas
four commissioner's districts and eight justice's districts. In
the other states the districts are more numerous.

187

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

township. The population of these districts is usually
somewhat more than that of a rural township in the
Central states. In most of these states cities and vil-
lages are regularly included within these county dis-
tricts. But a few large cities, such as Wilmington, Del.,
Charleston, S. C, Mobile, Ala., and New Orleans either
form districts in themselves, or are not included in the
county districts, as is the case with all the cities in
Virginia.

Magisterial districts in Virginia are the most impor-
tant of these county divisions. In each there is elected
one supervisor to serve on the county board, three
justices of the peace, a constable, and an overseer of
the poor. In Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas the
county divisions are districts for electing members of
the county boards, justices of the peace and constables.
In North and South Carolina the townships are dis-
tricts for assessing taxes. In the other states they are
mainly districts for electing justices and constables;
but in Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas the jus-
tices are at the same time members of the county
boards. In Tennessee most of the civil districts also
elect assessors, and in Arkansas each township may
become a road district and elect an overseer of high-
ways. In West Virginia a deputy sheriff is often
appointed for each magisterial district, and there is
some tendency to appoint deputy assessors for one or
more districts.1

These officers exercise similar functions to those of

the same name in the states already examined.

The jurisdiction of the justices is generally

1 Professor J. M. Callahan, University of West Virginia.

188

COUNTY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST

about the same as in the Central states. But
in Georgia their authority in criminal cases is
confined to the preliminary stages, and they
cannot conduct trials and impose penalties. On the
other hand, in Tennessee their civil jurisdiction is more
extensive than usual. They can try some cases where
as much as $1,000 is involved, and others up to $500,
and have also equity powers in cases up to $50. Like-
wise in Mississippi and other states, where there are
no county courts, the justice's court is an important
part of the judicial machinery.

Usually the law allows them to deal with cases aris-
ing anywhere in the county, but in Mississippi they
are for the most part confined to cases within their
district. In Kentucky, justice's courts are classed as
courts of record ; and in other states they are required
to keep a docket showing the cases brought before them.

In the three states where the justices are also mem-
bers of the county boards the combination of functions
makes them the general public agents for their dis-
tricts in local matters. And in these cases the office
is doubtless of more importance than that of township
supervisor in the Central states. In other Southern
states the justices are also of more importance than in
the Northern states. Thus in Alabama, where county
commissioners are elected at large, the justices are the
chief officials of their precincts, and besides their judi-
cial powers, they recommend persons for admission to
the poorhouse.

Justices of the peace are appointed by the governors
in Maryland and South Carolina; and in Alabama,
besides the elected justices, the governor may appoint

189

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

a notary public in each precinct with all the powers
of a justice. In some North Carolina counties, justices
are chosen by the general assembly, and besides their
usual powers the justices in each township of this state
constitute a board of road supervisors.

Election officers are usually appointed for each
county district, or, in states where the principal dis-
trict is large, for subdivisions. Overseers or supervi-
sors of roads are appointed for road districts, which
may be subdivisions of the larger districts, or may be
formed without reference to them. Road work in the
rural districts of the Southern states has generally
been performed by a labor tax and by convicted pris-
oners, but in recent years county boards have been
authorized to levy money taxes for road purposes, and
there have been some improved roads built by con-
tract.

In all of the Southern states provision is now made
for the subdivision of the counties into school-districts.
But in the states bordering on the Atlantic and in
Louisiana the district officers are appointed by the
county school authorities and in a few of these states
the appointment is optional.1 In the states west of
the Alleghany Mountains the system resembles that in
the Northern states. In West Virginia and usually in
Tennessee the school-districts are co-extensive with the
magisterial or civil districts. In the other states they
are smaller districts, generally including only a single

1 In Georgia and Louisiana. In Florida the creation of dis-
tricts within a county is optional, but if established the district
trustees are elective.

190

COUNTY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST

school.1 District trustees or directors are locally
elected; and in Kentucky, Alabama and Arkansas
there are provisions for district meetings of the
electors at which negroes are not permitted to attend.
In Kentucky women are allowed to vote for school
trustees. In Mississippi there is a regular school-dis-
trict, but without corporate powers, wherever suffi-
cient educable children can be found to justify the
establishment of a school. The trustees, whose prin-
cipal duty is to select the teachers, are elected by the
patrons.2 Many of the larger towns and villages
form school-districts with power to levy taxes for
school purposes. In all the Southern states separate
schools are maintained for the white and black races.

Steady advance is being made in the school systems
of the Southern states, but they are still much behind
those in other sections of the country. The motive
force for improvement comes mainly from the higher
authorities. And conditions in the states having the
county system of administration are slightly better
than where the petty school-district is the unit.

Why do these county districts in the South play
such a small part in local government compared with
the New England towns or the townships in the Cen-
tral states ? It has been usual to explain this situation
by the larger development of county administration;
and this in turn has been explained by the conditions
of early colonial settlements along the seaboard. But

*In Alabama the congressional township has been the school-
district; but an act of 1904 provides for redistricting the coun-
ties without reference to township lines.

•Professor J. W. Garner of the University of Illinois.

191

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

while these factors have had some influence, they are
not entirely adequate to an understanding of the pres-
ent situation. We have already noted that the impor-
tance of county administration in the Southern states,
as measured by per capita expenditure, is less than in
the Central states. And it thus appears that the total
volume of local administration in the South is much
less than in the Northern states. Moreover the failure
of the reconstruction attempts to introduce the North-
ern township in the South indicates that the underly-
ing conditions were not favorable to the experiment.

Up to the time of the Civil War local government
in the South was profoundly affected by the system
of slavery and large plantations. On the large estates
such road building and poor relief as were imperative
were provided by the land owners. Public schools were
unknown. The slaves had no votes, and the poor
whites little political influence. The whole govern-
ment was essentially aristocratic and feudal in its ten-
dencies. The county was perhaps the smallest district
where there was a sufficient number of persons with
political power to make possible any collective public
activity.

At the present time the situation is in one sense
simply a survival of the system inherited from the
earlier period; and the force of inertia, or conserva-
tism in adhering to established institutions, stands in
the way of a change, even if conditions were favor-
able.1 But the conditions are still in large measure

1 A factor in the abandonment of the reconstruction town-
ships was the opposition to Northern institutions developed in
the long sectional conflict.

192

COUNTY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST

those which have continued or developed from those of
ante-bellum days.

Slavery is gone, but the negro population remains,
and in most of the Southern states is effectually dis-
barred from political activity. Anything like a New
England town meeting would involve a revolution in
social ideas. And in large sections the number of
white people living in districts corresponding to the
Northern township are too few for any effective popu-
lar government.

Moreover land in the South is still owned in much
larger tracts than in New England and the Central
states. In Texas two-thirds of the farm area is in
farms of over 1,000 acres. In the other Southern
states about one-third of the farm area is owned in lots
of more than 500 acres by 70,000 persons. Many of
these are no longer cultivated entirely by the owners,
but are rented in small tracts to tenant farmers.
Nearly half of the farmers in the Southern states are
tenants, with farms averaging less than eighty acres
each, and in many cases of forty acres and less.1

These economic factors must affect the political sys-
tem both directly and indirectly. The owners of large
estates have larger political influence than the small
tenant farmers, while the latter are likely to be less
active in demanding or exercising political privileges
than the freeholders with larger farms in the Northern
states. On the large estates, too, some private roads
and drains are built which would be constructed as
public works where land is owned in smaller lots. And
while poor relief is of small importance in the South,
1 CJ. S. Census of 1900. Statistics of Agriculture.
193

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

some assistance is given to dependents on these estates
without any appeal to the public authorities.1

Of more importance, perhaps, is the fact that the
South is still for the most part a strictly rural coun-
try. Population is scattered, the industrial organiza-
tion is simple, and as a consequence the needs and
opportunities for public activity are few. Moreover
the compactly settled districts are organized as villages
and cities; and there provision is made for the more
pressing public needs, which form a large part of the
activity of the New England towns.

Still another factor in the slight development of
local functions is the smaller relative wealth of the
Southern states. The population of the Southern
states is about the same as that of the Northern states
of the Middle-West. But the value of farm property
in the Southern group is little more than one-third of
that in the Northern, while the latter has a much
larger proportion of other property than the former.2
This restricts the amount of taxation for purposes of
local government. And the scope of public activity
is thus" kept within narrow limits.

But some of these conditions are changing. Mining
in West Virginia and Alabama, the establishment
of cotton factories as well as other manufacturing
industries in a number of Southern states, and
immigration from Northern states and foreign

*Mr. A. H. Stone of Greenville, Miss.

Value of
Population Farm Property

•Southern states 24,523,527 $ 4,270,000,000

North-Central states 26,333,004 11,504.000,000

194

COUNTY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST

countries are adding greatly to the wealth of
these communities and altering the economic basis of
political institutions in many ways. And the general
result will be to increase the importance of local gov-
ernment, both in the counties and the county districts.
It would, however, be unwise, and perhaps futile to
attempt again to import bodily the institutions of the
Northern states. The former effort failed because the
fundamental conditions of economic and social life
in the Southern states were different from those in the
Northern states. The new conditions in the South
will still be different from those in the North. And
the local institutions should be developed to suit
their own environments.

WESTERN STATES

In the Western states the principal subdivisions of the
counties are most commonly called precincts. But in
Montana and some parts of Nevada they are known
as townships, and in California as judicial townships.
In these sparsely settled states the average area of
these districts is much larger than the congressional
township or than the districts in the Southern states.
And at the same time their population is often very
scant. Cities and villages are, however, generally in-
cluded in the county districts, except in Oregon, where
some cities are co-extensive with one or more precincts.1

One or more justices of the peace and constables are
elected in each of these precincts or townships. The

1In California the city of San Francisco constitutes a county,
and the city of Sacramento forms a principal division of the
county.

195

LOCAL. GOVERNMENT

powers and duties of these officers are much the same
as in the Central states. The civil jurisdiction of the
justices generally includes cases where as much as
$300 is involved, which is higher than in most of the
states to the east. Their criminal jurisdiction covers
the usual minor breaches of the peace and other mis-
demeanors. Constables have the customary ministerial
duties in executing justices* warrants; and in Utah
are also called on to act as pound-keepers for stray
animals. Ordinarily each justice's district is also an
election precinct, for which election officers are
appointed. But in California townships may be
divided into election precincts.

School-districts are established by the county boards
or the county superintendents of schools. Rural dis-
tricts usually contain only a single school, but city dis-
tricts may have a number of schools. In each district
there is elected a board of trustees or directors, which
employs the teachers and has control of the school
property. In some states the trustees levy taxes for
schools; or, as in Colorado, they certify the rate of
tax to the county commissioners, who levy a county
school tax. In other states, as Wyoming, the power of
taxation rests with the district meeting of voters.1

In California the school-district meeting elects the
trustees, and may instruct them in regard to the loca-
tion of the school-house, the sale and purchase of
school sites, and litigation. A county school tax is
levied by the county board of supervisors, but the elec-
tors in each district may vote for a special district
tax, which is also levied by the county board. The dis-

1 Grace E. Hebard, "The Government of Wyoming," 148.
196

COUNTY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST

trict boards of trustees have limited corporate power
to hold property and to sue and be sued. They build,
rent and repair school-houses, manage school property,
employ teachers and janitors, prescribe courses of
study and furnish text books.

Road districts are also formed by the county boards.
In Idaho and Washington district overseers are
elected ; in the other states they are appointed by the
county board. But in either case the county board has
general control as in the Southern states, and each
member of the county board acts as a road supervisor
over the overseers within his district. The usual labor
or poll tax for road purposes is required, while the
county board may also levy a property tax, which is
apportioned among the road districts.

These school and road district officers are more often
locally elected in the Western than in the Southern
states. But this decentralizing tendency has not
reached the point of establishing a general system of
organized townships in any of these states. In 1895
the State of Washington enacted an optional law for
the organization of civil townships, but none have as
yet been established. Throughout the Western states
the county is the main unit of local government, and
the county officials are the all-important local authori-
ties. And in proportion to population the activity of
the county in this section is far beyond that in any
other section of the United States.

Social and economic conditions are very different in
the West from those in the South, and the same ex-
plantations will not serve to account for the absence of
the organized township in both regions. One factor

197

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

the two sections have in common,— the ownership of
land in large tracts. But neither tenant farming nor
negro population is present in any large degree in
the Western states.

Probably the most important factor in these states
is the sparse and scattered population. Their average
density of population in 1900 was 3.5 per square mile ;
and the highest average density for any state in the
group was 9.5 in California. Under these conditions the
number of people within a geographical township or
any district of similar area is much too small to form
the basis for any effective organized government. Nor
can a larger district be taken without departing from
the essential idea of the town as a district whose
inhabitants can come together conveniently. And
with the widely scattered population each person is
necessarily more independent of others, and there is
less opportunity for common interests or the develop-
ment of public activities.

Moreover a large proportion of the limited popula-
tion is in mining and other compactly-settled com-
munities, for which city and village governments have
been organized. And with the needs of these provided
for, there is comparatively little that could be done by
township governments in the strictly rural districts.
Perhaps the absence of the surveyed rectangular
township in the mountain regions explains why there
has not been any serious attempt to introduce the
organized township. But in view of the other con-
ditions any such attempt would have been bound to
fail.

Whether population will so increase as to make a
198

COUNTY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST

township system feasible, and if so whether it will be
introduced, are problems for the future. The first prob-
lem depends largely on the extent to which irrigation
works can be successfully established. So far as they
can be, they offer a new field for public activity, which
might form the basis for important local institutions.
The second problem is likely to be affected by the devel-
opment of city and village corporations. It is at least
conceivable that these may so expand their activities
that there will be little left which cannot be better per-
formed by the county than by a township government.
On the other hand the use of the name township in
Montana and California is likely to suggest to legisla-
tors its organization as a local district. And if estab-
lished in one of these Western states, it will probably
be introduced in others.

199

CHAPTER XI

VILLAGES AND BOROUGHS1

Scattered throughout the United States are more than
10,000 small municipal corporations, called variously
villages, boroughs, and incorporated towns, and in
some states included in the title cities. These are com-
pactly built districts specially organized for certain
purposes of local government, differing from cities, in
the more ordinary use of the term, in their size, in the
smaller range of functions, and in the simpler system
of government. They differ from towns in New Eng-
land and townships in covering only small detached
areas where population is compactly settled, and in
dealing for the most part with the special needs of
such semi-urban districts.

During the colonial period a number of boroughs
were established in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
modeled after the boroughs in England. After the
Revolution the name city came to be applied to urban
municipal corporations of some size, but small com-
munities in these two states continued to be called
boroughs, and new corporations with this title were
established from time to time. In 1794 the legislature
of New York incorporated the village of Waterford,
1 "Harper's Monthly," Vol. 83, p. 111.
200

VILLAGES AND BOROUGHS

in 1798 the three villages of Troy, Lansingburgh and
Utica, and others in subsequent years. In 1800 the
borough of Bridgeport was organized in Connecticut ;
and a few other boroughs were later established in that
state.

For a time such villages and boroughs were incor-
porated by special acts of the state legislatures, in the
same manner as cities after the Revolution. But in
1834, when there were 137 boroughs in Pennsylvania,
a general law providing for the organization of
boroughs was enacted. And in 1847 a general law was
passed for the incorporation of villages in New York.

From these neighboring states the organization of
small semi-urban corporations has extended to the
South and West. Throughout the Central states they
have modified to a considerable extent the importance
of township government, and in the South and far
West they are important factors in explaining the ab-
sence of the organized townships. In New England a
few villages have been organized in Maine and Ver-
mont, as well as boroughs in Connecticut.

In many states the New York title of villages has
been given to these districts. But in a number of states
they are known as towns or incorporated towns.1 And
in some states the minimum population for the incor-
poration of cities is so low that many of the small cities
should more properly be classed as villages.2

Nearly every state has now a general law for the

1 Indiana, Iowa, Delaware, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Colo-
rado, Wyoming and generally in the Southern and Western
states.

ZA11 municipal corporations are called cities in Kansas.

201

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

organization of villages, boroughs or incorporated
towns. But special acts are frequently passed estab-
lishing such corporations, and still more frequently
amending the powers and system of government for
certain places. And in Connecticut all boroughs are
incorporated by special act. It is impossible to con-
sider here all of the variations caused by this method
of legislation; and only the more general provisions
will be noted.

Usually the procedure for incorporation requires
a petition from inhabitants of the proposed village
and a popular vote on the proposition. Sometimes the
petition is presented to the judge of the principal
local court, as the circuit judge in Wisconsin and the
quarter sessions judge in Pennsylvania. In other cases
it goes to the county board, as in Indiana and Minne-
sota. In New York the petition is presented to the
town supervisor, or supervisors if the proposed dis-
trict includes parts of more than one town. The offi-
cer or board to whom the petition is presented orders
an election, which determines whether the village will
be established. In Ohio, villages may be organized by
petition to the township trustee and a popular vote, or
on petition by the county commissioners without a
popular vote. In Missouri and some other states vil-
lages are established by the county board without a
formal vote of the electors in the district.

Frequently the statute establishes a minimum popu-
lation for new villages. In Alabama only one hundred
inhabitants are required. More generally the number

There are many small cities as well as villages in most of the
states 'of the Middle- West, the far West and some in the South.

202

VILLAGES AND BOROUGHS

is from two hundred1 to three hundred.2 Sometimes
it is provided that the required population must be
within a specified area, as a square mile in New York,
and two square miles in Michigan.

In New York and Pennsylvania the minimum popu-
lation for cities is 10,000 ; and all municipal corpora-
tions below that figure are villages and boroughs.
Sometimes, however, a village or borough increases in
population a good deal beyond this limit before the
change is made to a city. In other states the maximum
village population is much lower. In Ohio, Virginia,
and Louisiana it is 5,000, and that is about the usual
maximum for villages and boroughs in the three New
England states where such corporations are estab-
lished. In Missouri and Alabama the maximum is
3,000. In a number of states it is 2,000.

A comparison of the number of villages and bor-
oughs in different sections of the United States on the
basis of legal definitions would not indicate with any
exactness the relative extent to which small urban dis-
tricts are incorporated. For this purpose, it is better
to ignore the technical titles of the districts with vary-
ing population limits; and to consider all municipal
corporations of whatever name within uniform limits.
And the table below presents the data on this point
according to the census of 1900

1In New York, Vermont, Wisconsin and Texas.

2 In Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. In Kansas and Louis-
iana 250.

3 Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, West Virginia
and Georgia. This is also the limit for the smallest class of
cities in Kansas.

203

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SMALL MUNICIPALITIES

4000-8000 1000-4000 UNDER 1000 TOTAL. UNDER

8000

NO. POP. NO. POP. NO. POP. NO. POF.

New England States 29 173,131 43 81,658 33 17,260 105 272,049

Middle-Atlantic " 123 673,030 513 1,028,061 718 364,825 1354 2,065,916

North-Central " 231 1,287,707 1305 2,396,356 3581 1,628,084 5117 5,312,147

South-Atlantic " 52 271,894 272 510,367 1080 410,889 1404 1,193,150

South-Central " 63 339,324 392 761,249 1022 408,792 1477 1,509,365

Western " 34 192,241 209 423,714 385 177,225 628 793,180

532 2,937,327 2734 5,201,405 6819 3,007,075 10,085 11,145,807

The most striking fact disclosed in this table is the
small number of these corporations in New England,
while three of these states have none. This is due not
to the absence of small compact settlements, but to the
development of the town governments, which serve
the needs of the villages as well as the rural sections
of the towns. But even in New England there is a
slight tendency towards the separate incorporation of
the villages. Nearly half of the village and borough
corporations in that section were established between
1890 and 1900.

In all the other sections there is a large and rapidly
increasing number of village incorporations. Nearly
a third of the whole number in 1900 were organized
in the preceding decade. In the Southern states the
number of incorporated villages and their aggregate
population is less in proportion to the total population
than in the Central and Western states. But this is
not due to any hesitation about incorporating. It is
caused by the more scattered nature of the population
in strictly rural districts. In fact the tendency is for
smaller places to become incorporated in the South
than elsewhere, owing to the absence of any general
system of township government. More than half of

204

VILLAGES AND BOROUGHS

these village corporations in the Southern states have
less than 500 inhabitants, as compared with a third of
the total number in the Central and Western states.
This development of village corporations goes hand
in hand with the decline of township government.
Common causes affect both movements, while by the
mutual interplay of forces the rise of one institution
means the weakening of the other. Various factors
have been already noted in the chapters on township
government and county districts. The limited powers
of the townships in the Central states and the absence
of this institution in the South and West has made
necessary some organ of local administration to meet
the common needs of the compact settlements. The
larger needs of the village districts as compared
with the rural regions, and the opposing interests of
those living in the different sections have promoted
the demand for a special village organization even
where the township system is established. Owing to
the artificial nature of the township area in the
Middle- West, villages have developed which cross
township lines; and a single organization for the
whole village in such cases can accomplish more than
two or more township authorities who might often
have conflicting purposes.

Again the decline of the town meeting in the Central
states has been both cause and effect of village incor-
poration. On the one hand it has left no adequate
authority to deal with village problems. On the other
hand, the separate organization of the villages has
lessened the activity of and interest in the popular as-
sembly. Another factor in developing village incor-

205

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

poration has been the general tendency towards
greater specialization and more minute division of
labor. While in some cases the desire to establish
more public offices has doubtless promoted the creation
of separate institutions.

The functions and importance of village and bor-
ough government vary considerably in the different
sections of the country. They are relatively least in
the New England states, where the village supple-
ments an already active town government. Special
local needs for compact populations here comprise
their whole activity. Fire protection, police, street
pavements and sidewalks, sewers, water works and
street lighting are the main purposes of village organ-
ization. In those Central states where the villages
remain part of the township1 the general purposes of
village government are the same as in New England.
But in practice the townships are less important and
the villages relatively more important. In some cases
the villages take over some township functions, as in
Michigan and Iowa, where village assessors are
chosen.

In other Central states the villages and boroughs
are usually independent of the townships.2 In these
cases the village government adds the usual township
functions to those of the villages in the states pre-
viously noted. While throughout the South and West,

*New York, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas
and in those parts of Missouri and Nebraska where the town-
ship system is established.

'Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota and the
Dakotas.

206

VILLAGES AND BOROUGHS

although villages are generally included within the
county districts, the latter are so unimportant that
the village government in fact deals with all the
local problems except those performed through the
county officials.

Village organization is comparatively simple. The
principal authority is a board of trustees or village
council.1 This usually consists of from five to seven
members elected at large. But in some states the
number may be as small as three,2 and in some as
many as nine.3

In Missouri, Texas and other states the class of
small cities which are in fact villages, elect the mem-
bers of the council by wards. The term of these vil-
lage trustees or aldermen is usually one or two years,
in the latter case one-half of the number is elected
every year. In Iowa the councilmen are elected for
three years, two every year.

Such village councils have power to pass ordi-
nances on many subjects enumerated in detail in the
statutes. These include ordinances affecting the gen-
eral public, and ordinances establishing and regulating
village officers and their duties. In Michigan, for
example, village councils are authorized to pass police
and health ordinances on twenty-seven specified sub-
jects. They may prescribe the terms and conditions

1 Trustees in New York and generally in the Middle-West ;
council in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas and
generally in the South ; burgesses in Connecticut ; commissioners
in Maryland.

2 Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland, Mis-
souri, Texas.

3 New York, Maryland, Missouri.

207

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

for licensing taverns, peddlers and public vehicles.
They have control of streets, bridges and public
grounds ; and have authority to construct bridges and
pavements, and to regulate the use and prevent the
obstruction of the highways. They may establish and
maintain sewers and drains. They may construct and
control public wharves, and regulate and license fer-
ries. They may establish and regulate markets. They
may provide a police force and a fire department.
They may construct or purchase and operate water
works and lighting plants. They may own cemeteries,
public pounds, public buildings and parks.1

To make these powers effective requires important
financial authority. Village councils regularly have a
limited power of taxation j and generally may author-
ize special assessments for street improvements. The
power to issue bonds for permanent improvements is
seldom of importance in the general laws; but many
of the larger villages have such power by special
legislation. In New York any village may issue a
loan for furnishing a water supply to the extent of
ten per cent, of the assessed valuation. In Michigan
villages by popular vote may borrow up to five per
cent, of the assessed valuation f 01 water works and to
the same extent for lighting plants. In Ohio all
villages have the same power as cities to issue bonds
for a long list of specified purposes. Village councils
in that state may borrow not over one per cent, of
the assessed valuation in one year and not over four
per cent, altogether; while additional loans may be
made with the approval of the voters.

1 ' ' Compiled Laws of Michigan, ' ' ch. 87.
208

VILLAGES AND BOROUGHS

Everywhere the village councils control the appro-
priation and expenditure of village funds. But in
New York all extraordinary expenses, which include
any expenditure of more than $500 for one object,
must be voted by the taxpayers. The councils make
contracts, and audit claims and accounts against their
villages. And in general they control the village
finances and property.

In most states the village councils have more effec-
tive control over the executive officers than the coun-
cils in large cities. Often some of these officers are
established by statute and elected; but generally the
councils have some power to establish officers and to
make appointments; and in some states they appoint
most of the village officers, notably in the Southern
states. Sometimes the councils have power to remove
officers for misconduct. In New York they have this
power over officers whom they appoint; in Ohio they
have the same power over both elective and appointive
officers. In any case the councils can limit the activ-
ity of the village officers by their control over appro-
priations.

Every village has a chief officer, generally called a
mayor1 or president,2 but in Connecticut styled the
warden, in Alabama the intendant, and in the villages
of Indiana and Missouri simply chairman of the
board of trustees. When called chairmen they are
selected by the village boards from their own members ;

1 Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, Virginia,
West Virginia, Georgia, Texas and others.

2 New York, Vermont, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minne-
sota.

209

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

but elsewhere they are elected by direct popular vote
for one or two years. Their legal powers have not
been of much importance ; but in some states there is
now a tendency to invest them with the special author-
ity of mayors in large cities. They preside over the
meetings of village councils, and in most states have
the full rights of members. But in Michigan and
Ohio they have only a casting vote in case of a tie. In
Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas and Louisiana they have
a limited veto power over the acts of the councils.
They are generally considered as the chief executive
officers of the villages, with a vague supervision over
other village officers, and a more definite responsibility
for the enforcement of local police ordinances. Fre-
quently they can appoint policemen ; and in Michigan
and Ohio they have a somewhat larger power of
appointment of minor officials. In some of the South-
ern states the mayors of incorporated towns and vil-
lages act as local police justices.

Other village officers may be briefly noted. Every
village has a clerk or recorder and a treasurer or col-
lector. There is always a head police officer, some-
times called constable, sometimes by the more dignified
title of marshal, and occasionally sergeant or bailiff.
Nearly every village has a street commissioner. In
some states there are village assessors and attorneys
or solicitors provided for in the general law. These
statutory officers are usually elective in the states of the
Middle- West, and some of them are elective in other
states. But in Illinois and other sections of the coun-
try they are more generally appointive.

210

VILLAGES AND BOROUGHS

Sometimes each village has a justice of the peace ; in
other states the township or district justices act within
the villages. Very often villages are established as
school-districts, with the usual elected school officers.
In larger villages still other officers are provided, often
being authorized by special legislation. The New York
village law makes provision for boards of health, fire
commissioners, water commissioners, lighting com-
missioners, sewer commissioners, and cemetery com-
missioners. In every Ohio village where water
works, electric light plants or other public util-
ities are operated by the municipality, there must be
established a board of trustees of public affairs.

Mining villages in the Western states exhibit some
striking peculiarities. In many of these a single min-
ing corporation may own and control the whole town
site, regulating all of the business of the place by
license or rental. The mobile population and the con-
trol of the companies over their employees also tend to
increase the influence of the companies in local affairs.

Such proprietary towns are common in Arizona ; and
are often well governed. The administration is effi-
cient, sanitary conditions are good, and the vice of
frontier communities is effectively controlled. Thus in
Morenci, the copper company has eliminated saloons
and gambling dens from its property ; and such estab-
lishments have been moved more than a mile from the
center of the town. In other cases, such as Bisbee and
Douglas, the mining company has allowed its chief
officials to become interested in gas, electric light and
banking companies. In many towns the companies,
through the influence of their officials, are prime fac-

211

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

tors in school administration. Some companies have
provided schools, churches, gymnasiums and other in-
stitutions for the benefit of their employees.1

*K. C. Babcock, President of the University of Arizona.

212

PART IV
STATE SUPERVISION

CHAPTER XII

PUBLIC EDUCATION

A description of local government in the United States
at the present time would be incomplete without some
notice of the tendencies towards state supervision over
the local authorities, and direct state administration in
many fields formerly left entirely to local control.
These centralizing tendencies are but slightly devel-
oped in comparison with the central control in the same
branches of administration in European countries.
But they form notable departures from the earlier
regime of local independence; and are an earnest of
developments yet to come in the same direction.

State supervision of local administration began in
the field of public education. And in no other field
has the movement developed so far. As early as 1647
the general court of Massachusetts required each town
to establish a school; and general school laws were
passed in the other New England colonies during the
colonial period. After the Revolution, the states in
other parts of the country one by one enacted school
legislation. And at the present time every state con-
stitution contains provisions in regard to public educa-
tion, while these are supplemented by statutes govern-
ing the local school systems and other educational insti-
tutions. And the courts have uniformly held that

215

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

local schools are not simply local institutions, but are
parts of a state system and the local school officials
are agents of the state for the administration of a
state system of education.1

New York was the first state to establish a state edu-
cational authority. The board of regents, established in
1784, was at first little more than an advisory board
for Columbia College ; but as re-organized a few years
later it became a supervising authority over the
secondary and higher educational institutions. The
same state also introduced state administrative super-
vision over elementary schools, by creating, in 1813,
the office of superintendent of common schools, who
had charge of the distribution of state aid to the local
schools, then established on a permanent basis. After
eight years, however, the office was abolished and the
duties transferred to the secretary of state, whose
other functions prevented the development of any
effective supervision, until the office of superintendent
was revived in 1854.

In 1825 North Carolina established a state educa-
tional board, composed of other state officials. In the
same year Maryland provided for a state superintend-
ent of schools, as did Vermont two years later ; but in
both cases the office was at first only temporary.

A more effective and more permanent movement be-
gan in the next decade. Pennsylvania established a
school-superintendent in 1833, and Michigan in 1836.
Missouri provided a state board of education in 1835,
and Massachusetts one in 1837; and the secretary of
the latter, Horace Mann, became the leader in a great
xCf. "N. Y. State Keporter," 72, 155.
216

PUBLIC EDUCATION

educational movement which spread throughout the
country. Before 1840, Kentucky, Ohio, and Connecti-
cut had established state school officers. During the
succeeding ten years similar action had been taken in
the remaining New England states, and also in Iowa,
New Jersey, Louisiana and Wisconsin. By 1860 such
officers had been provided in all of the Northern states,
and also in North Carolina and Alabama. After the
Civil War they were rapidly introduced in the South-
ern states, and in the new territories and states of the
West. Arkansas in 1874 and New Mexico in 1890 were
the last to create a state educational authority, and
every state and organized territory now has such an
office.1

There is a great deal of variation in the organization
and powers of these state educational officers. And
these variations do not correspond with the groups of
states where local institutions are similar. New York
has the most systematic organization and the most
effective powers of supervision. As reorganized in
1904, there is a board of eleven regents, one member
elected by the legislature each year, and a commis-
sioner of education elected by the regents,— the first
appointment, however, being made by the legislature.
The regents are unsalaried and meet at occasional in-
tervals to determine questions of general policy.
Their executive agent and the effective authority is the
commissioner, who receives a salary of $10,000 a year,
the largest paid to any state officer except the governor
and some judges. His authority over local school offi-
cials is larger than any other one educational officer

1 Dexter, ' < History of Education in the U. S., ' » 199, 615.
217

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

in the country. He apportions the state school funds ;
he has general control over the twelve normal schools
of the state ; he directs the examination and certifica-
tion of teachers ; he regulates the actions of the school
commissioners in the assembly districts of the state;
and, most important of all, he can hear and decide
appeals from any local school officer, and his decisions
in such cases are final and cannot be called in question
in any court or any other place.

In Massachusetts and Connecticut the principal
authority is the state board of education, appointed by
the governor in Massachusetts and the general assem-
bly in Connecticut. These boards have the manage-
ment of the state normal schools, the examination and
certification of teachers, the control of teachers' insti-
tutes, and the collection and publication of statistics.
The secretaries of the boards are their executive agents ;
but these do not occupy the independent position of
the New York commissioner of education, and they do
not have his important appellate jurisdiction. But
their permanent tenure gives them larger influence in
educational matters than is indicated by their statu-
tory powers.

All of the other states have a salaried executive
school officer ; and most of them have also an unsalaried
board of education. But the powers and inter-rela-
tions of the two authorities differ a good deal in the
various states. The salaried executive officer is usually
called the superintendent of public instruction; but
in some cases the commissioner of common schools,1

1 Bhode Island, Ohio and South Dakota.
218

PUBLIC EDUCATION

superintendent of schools,1 or superintendent of educa-
tion.2 This officer is usually elected by popular vote,
but in some states is appointed, by the governor3 or
the state legislature.4 The system of popular election
makes the nominations depend on the party conven-
tions, and sometimes political factors determine the
choice. The salary ranges from $1,000 to $5,000, and
in most cases is too low to secure the most competent
officials; and the short term, from two to four
years, prevents the development of any consistent
policy.

These state superintendents have generally much
smaller powers than the commissioner of education in
New York. They usually apportion school funds to
the local districts, collect and publish school reports,
direct to some extent the county supervision and
teachers' examinations, and have a larger control over
the training of teachers in teachers' institutes and
sometimes over the state normal schools. In some states
they have more authority. In Pennsylvania and West
Virginia the state superintendents, like the commis-
sioner in New York, appoint the trustees of the normal
schools. In Vermont and Alabama they appoint the
county school-superintendents. In about half of the
states they have an appellate jurisdiction over the de-
cisions of local school officers. But this is often sub-
ject to a further review in the judicial courts; and in

1 Maine, West Virginia and Washington.

2 South Carolina, Alabama and Louisiana.

3 Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Minne-
sota, Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.

4 Vermont, Ehode Island and Virginia.

219

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

practice is of much less importance than the same
power in New York.

Boards of education are usually composed in part
of elected state officers ex officio, with other members
selected in many different ways, who form the active
part of the board. In some states, these active mem-
bers are professional educators;1 in others they are
appointed by the governor2 or legislature;3 in a few
states they are appointed by the state superintendent ■*
and in Michigan they are elected by popular vote.

In many states these boards of education are simply
an advisory board to the state superintendent. In a
number of states they have the management of state
normal schools.5 In California, Kansas and a num-
ber of other states their duties are confined to the
examination and certification of teachers. But in some
states, mostly in the South, they appoint local school
authorities. Thus in New Jersey, Virginia and Mis-
sissippi they appoint county superintendents, in Vir-
ginia also city superintendents and district trustees,
and in Louisiana the parish school-boards.

An important factor in the development of state
administrative control over local schools has been the
distribution of state funds to the local authorities.
By making these grants dependent on the adoption of

1 Indiana, Kansas, California, Utah, Oklahoma and New
Mexico.

2 Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, South Carolina, Ten-
nessee, Louisiana, Montana and Washington.

3 New York, Connecticut and Ehode Island.

4 Nebraska and Texas.

6 Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois,
Michigan and Tennessee.

220

PUBLIC EDUCATION

certain educational standards, the local schools have
been improved more easily than by more drastic com-
pulsory provisions. These state funds are collected
in various ways, generally in large part by direct
taxation ; and are distributed in most states in propor-
tion to the number of children of school age in each
district. This method of apportionment gives the
rural districts a larger share than their proportion
of direct taxes. Some states use other methods of
apportionment, which increases the assistance given
to the rural schools ;* and the tendency is to go further
in this direction.

Another means of supervision has been through the
examination of teachers. These examinations are con-
ducted by county or other local officers ; but in nearly
half of the states uniform examination questions are
prepared by the state authorities. In New York this
state control is most highly developed. After the ex-
aminations, all the papers are sent to the central de-
partment, and are graded by a state board of exam-
iners. Many states which have not established a uni-
form examination system provide for state teachers*
certificates to those who pass a special examination
under the state officers.

Further centralizing influences are established
through state control over the training of teachers.
Almost every state now maintains one or more normal
schools; and the graduates of these form a large and
increasing proportion of the local school teachers.
And by varying degrees of supervision over teachers'

*E. P. Cubberley, School Funds, "Columbia University Con-
tributions to Education," No. 2.
221

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

institutes, the state authorities wield an influence over
the further training of teachers, after their appoint-
ment.

Not only do all of the states require the local author-
ities to provide schools, but most of them within the
past fifty years have enacted laws for compulsory at-
tendance at school. The enforcement of these laws,
however, usually depends on the local officers ; but in-
creasing attention is being given to this matter.

Most states have now more or less central regulation
of the course of study in local schools. In about one-
third of the states, the state authorities are authorized
to prescribe a uniform course of study for the elemen-
tary schools ; and in another third certain subjects are
required to be taught. In some respects this form of
control has been carried to an extreme, as in the legis-
lation specifying instruction in physiology and hy-
giene "with special reference to the effects of alcohol
and narcotics on the human system. ' '

Even in the matter of text-books state control has
been developed to a considerable degree. Most states
have laws providing for uniformity in text-books with-
in certain local districts, and prescribing a period
during which the books in use cannot be changed.
About one-third of the states— mostly small states —
have established compulsory state uniformity in text-
books. A number of states have centralized the pur-
chase of text-books by contract ; and in California the
state publishes the school books used in that state.

Still another factor in the state supervision of local
schools is the influence exercised by the state uni-
versities and other higher educational institutions

222

PUBLIC EDUCATION

over the secondary schools. The requirements for ad-
mission to the higher institutions set. standards for
the preparatory schools. While, in connection with
the system of admission by diploma, many state uni-
versities have a regular inspection of schools on their
diploma list, which serves to improve the curriculum
and work in these schools.

These centralizing tendencies are generally recog-
nized as important forces in the steady improvement
of public education throughout the United States.
This does not mean that every step taken has been a
wise one; and it is doubtless true that mistakes have
been made in attempting to regulate too many details
by legislation rather than by rules and decisions of
expert administrators. Nor does it mean that the
states where central control is strongest — as New
York and some of the Southern states— have the best
school systems. For in many places intelligent local
initiative goes far beyond the state requirements ; and
in general the city school systems are so much better
than the state requirements that they seldom feel the
existence of any state control. But there is no ques-
tion that the central control established has made
educational conditions, particularly in rural districts,
much better than they would be without this state
supervision. And in most states a higher degree of
central control than now exists would lead to further
marked improvements in the local schools.

Another branch of state supervision in educational
matters has been in promoting the establishment of
public libraries. Beginning with Massachusetts in

223

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

1890, more than twenty states have now public library
commissions to encourage the establishment of public
libraries in towns and cities. In New York a similar
work is undertaken by a special bureau in the state
educational department. The powers and resources
of these state library authorities are usually very
limited. In most cases they send out traveling libraries
to small towns; and in some they have small
grants which can be given in money or books to local
libraries. The work of these commissions has been
most effective in Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
where practically every town now has a public library.
In most states these library commissions with such
limited powers are established as distinct bureaus in-
dependent of any other state office,— an extreme ex-
ample of the lack of organization in state administra-
tion. It would seem clear that much more effective
work could be done, if this work were officially related
to the state library, and the whole educational machin-
ery of the state government combined into one edu-
cational department with various bureaus, as is now
the case in New York. In this way the various
branches of educational work could be more effectively
correlated, and the different bureaus brought into
active co-operation, so as to secure the largest results.

224

CHAPTER XIII

CHARITIES AND CORRECTION

When the thirteen colonies first became states there
was practically no state administration in the field
of charities or correction. The only public charity was
the relief of the poor by the towns. The only correc-
tional institutions were county and town jails; while
other forms of punishment, which were then more
common than imprisonment, were also under the con-
trol of the local authorities.

Some centralizing tendencies appeared even before
the end of the eighteenth century; and others have
developed, especially in the latter half of the nine-
teenth century. This development has been in two
main directions. On the one hand state institutions
have been established for special groups of the de-
pendent, defective and criminal classes. On the other
hand a limited degree of central administrative super-
vision has been established in many states over the
local officials and even over some private institutions
dealing with these classes.

State prisons were the first of the special institu-
tions to be established. In 1785 Massachusetts, where
there had been no central prison since 1692, made

225

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Castle Island in Boston harbor a prison for convicts
of the worst class, and in 1803 built a state prison at
Charlestown. In 1796 New York began the construc-
tion of two state prisons in New York City and
Albany.1 Later state prisons were gradually estab-
lished in the other New England and Middle- Atlantic
states. In 1816 Ohio provided a state penitentiary
at Columbus; in 1839 Michigan established its first
state prison at Jackson ; and similar institutions have
been erected in the other states of the Middle- West,
and in some of those farther westward. In most of
the Southern states and some in the Western group
there are yet no state prisons; but convicts are sen-
tenced to hard labor and leased by the state to con-
tractors, who work them in convict camps.

In 1846 Massachusetts established the first state
reform school for juvenile offenders, removing this
class from the local jails and state prisons. Other
states soon established similar institutions. By 1872
they had been organized in most of the Northern
states east of the Mississippi River. And since that
they have been provided in still other states. Usually
each state has separate institutions for boys and girls ;
and moral and industrial education, rather than pun-
ishment, is the object of the schools.

New York in 1877 established the first reformatory
for adult convicts, committed under an indeterminate
sentence and treated under a system of progressive
classification and conditional release, based upon their
conduct and character while in prison. Many other

1 These have since become county penitentiaries; but other
state prisons have been established.

226

CHARITIES AND CORRECTION

states have followed this example; while the methods
of these institutions have been adopted, more or less,
in the older state prisons.1

In the field of public charities the earliest state insti-
tutions were those for the care of the insane ; and these
constitute by far the most important class of state
charitable institutions at the present time. The first
insane hospital to be established was at Utica, in New
York, in 1843 ; and from that time other states grad-
ually provided similar institutions. These state asy-
lums were at first intended only for acute and vio-
lent cases, and were for a time considered rather as
police than charitable institutions. Later the idea of
medical treatment was developed ; and with this came
a great increase in the number of inmates and a multi-
plication of state institutions. Chronic cases, however,
were mostly left to the care of local authorities until
in recent years several states have undertaken to care
for all indigent insane persons. In New York and
Minnesota local insane hospitals have been abandoned
or taken over by the state authorities. The larger
states each maintain a number of insane hospitals.
New York has twelve ; Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and
Massachusetts have each six; Indiana and Michigan
each have four.

State institutions have also been established for other
defective classes, such as the blind, the deaf and dumb
and the feeble-minded. Such institutions are provided
mainly for children ; and educational features are al-
ways an important branch of the work. Every state

1 National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1893,
pp. 140, 148.

227

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

makes some provision for deaf-mutes, either through
a state institution, or by grants to a private establish-
ment. Nearly every state makes provision for the
care of the blind. The first state institution for the
feeble-minded was established by Massachusetts in
1848. New York followed in 1851, and Pennsylvania
in 1852. And half of the states now have special
institutions for this class.

A few states have established hospitals for other
classes. Pennsylvania, beginning in 1883, has provided
seven state hospitals for the treatment of those injured
in the coal mines. Massachusetts has a hospital for
dipsomaniacs (established in 1893), and one for con-
sumptives; and several other states have within the
past year or two established hospitals for consump-
tives. Louisiana has a state hospital at Shreveport.
And a number of the state universities maintain
public hospitals in connection with their medical
schools.

Even in the simpler forms of poor relief there has
been some development of direct state administration.
The strict settlement laws in New England early
forced the central government of these colonies to fur-
nish aid to paupers not chargeable to any town. For a
long time this was done by grants to the towns for
the care of these persons. But in 1854 Massachusetts
established three state almshouses for the care of the
state poor. New York and a few other states also have
a small class of state poor ; but this work is much less
important than in New England.

Two-thirds of the states in all parts of the country
maintain homes for soldiers and sailors of the Civil

228

CHARITIES AND CORRECTION

War.1 A few states have institutions for the care of
orphan children and widows of soldiers and sailors.
State homes for dependent children in general have
been established in Michigan (in 1871) and Colorado.2
In many other states, the state boards of charities give
special attention to the placing of dependent children
in private institutions and private homes.
• As first organized the management of these state
institutions was largely influenced by the decentralized
methods of administration previously in force. Each
institution was placed in charge of a separate board
of trustees, appointed by the governor and senate.
These trustees usually resided near their respective
institutions, which were scattered in different sections
of each state. And as there was no machinery for gen-
eral supervision, the administration was in practice
distinctly localized, although the institutions were sup-
ported entirely from the state treasuries. Moreover
the work of public poor relief and other charities and
correctional institutions still in the hands of counties,
cities and towns remained subject to no state over-
sight.

Under simple conditions, when the volume of public
administration in these lines was small, the results
were perhaps as satisfactory as could be expected.
But as the demands for public activity increased, it
became evident that the decentralized management was
frequently inefficient, and at times seriously negligent
and extravagant. Investigations disclosed intolerable

1 Including homes for Confederate soldiers in nine Southern
states.

2U. S. Census, Special Report on Benevolent Institutions,
1904. 229

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

conditions in county jails and poorhouses. Serious
abuses appeared in some of the state institutions.
While a growing sentiment for the more humane treat-
ment of the weaker elements in society called for im-
proved methods of administration, which the rapidly
increasing wealth of the country furnished means to
supply.

Reforms and improvements would doubtless have
come in any event, through the gradual enlightenment
of the local communities and local authorities. But
they came more rapidly and have been more com-
pletely established as the result of a new centralizing
tendency which began after 1860. State boards of
charities and correction were established, at first with
only limited powers of inspection and advice, but with
an increasing tendency towards effective powers of
supervision over both state and local institutions ; and
in some cases powers of direct administration have
been granted. More recently, in some states, the
management of the state institutions has been more
thoroughly centralized, by uniting them under a single
authority. ,

Massachusetts, the leader in establishing many of
the state institutions, was the first to organize a state
board of charities in 1863. New York and Ohio fol-
lowed in 1867. By 1880 ten other states had estab-
lished supervisory boards; five more were organized
during the next decade; and since 1890 twelve addi-
tional states have provided supervisory or administra-
tive boards. Meanwhile several states have reorganized
the boards previously established,— Massachusetts on
three different occasions, and Wisconsin twice.

230

CHARITIES AND CORRECTION

Nearly all the New England, Central and Western
states1 now have such central state boards with powers
of supervision or administration over public charities,
and in some cases also over correctional institutions.
In the Southern states such central boards are not
general ; but they have been established in North Caro-
lina, Tennessee and Louisiana.

In about two-thirds of these states these central
boards are composed of unpaid members, appointed by
the governor and senate ; and their powers are mainly
those of inspection and advice, covering state, local
and private institutions. In a few states such super-
visory boards have been given some functions of direct
administration, notably in Massachusetts, Pennsyl-
vania and Illinois. In about half of these states one
supervisory board has jurisdiction over both charitable
and correctional institutions; New York and Massa-
chusetts have separate authorities for each of these
two classes of institutions; and in the other cases the
central board is confined to charities. Georgia has a
board of supervision over prisons alone.

Some further attention may be given to these boards
in a few of the more important states. In Massachu-
setts the state board of charities has direct executive
functions in the care of the state paupers and depend-
ent children; its supervisory powers extend to a few
state institutions, and to county truant schools, town
almshouses and private charities. A state board of in-
sanity has supervision over all public and private insti-
tutions for the insane, the feeble-minded, the epileptic

1 The exceptions are Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, North
Dakota, Montana, Idaho and New Mexico.

231

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

and dipsomaniacs. A state prison commission has
supervision over state and local correctional institu-
tions.

In New York the state board of charities has admin-
istrative powers in regard to state paupers and depend-
ent children ; and has supervisory powers over all state
charitable institutions except insane hospitals and over
some private institutions receiving state aid, local char-
itable institutions, and more limited supervision over
other private charities. The inspections under the direc-
tion of this board are unusually thorough. All county
and municipal institutions are visited at least once each
year, and the state institutions twice. The manage-
ment of insane hospitals is centralized under a lunacy
commission; and a prison commissioner has supervis-
ory powers over state and local correctional institu-
tions.

The Ohio board of state charities is the most success-
ful example of a purely advisory authority. It has no
executive functions and no legal powers of control.
But its powers of investigation and recommendation
cover all charitable and correctional institutions, both
state and local. And, through its moral influence, it
has secured a complete prison system, the establishment
of new state charities, and many improvements in local
institutions, notably the removal of children from
county almshouses.

A more centralized administration of state institu-
tions has been established in a number of states. New
York in 1877 consolidated the management of the
state prisons under one superintendent of prisons. In
1889 a lunacy commission was established in the same

232

CHARITIES AND CORRECTION

state with large powers of control over the state insane
hospitals ; and in 1902 this commission was given full
powers of management over these institutions. In the
latter year there was also created the office of fiscal
supervisor of state charities, with effective powers of
control over the expenditures of the state institutions
other than insane hospitals. In addition there re-
main in New York the supervisory boards already
noted.

Rhode Island and a number of more westerly states
have gone further, and centralized the management of
all the state charitable and correctional institutions
under a single board of control. Some of these—
South Dakota, Wyoming, Washington and Arizona—
are small and sparsely settled states where there are
only a few institutions. Of more importance are the
boards of control in Kansas, Wisconsin, Iowa and
Minnesota.

The Kansas board was established in 1873, and has
the management of all the state charitable institutions,
but has no control over correctional or local institu-
tions. Wisconsin had a supervising board of charities
from 1871 ; and in addition after 1881 had a central
board of control for state institutions. In 1890 the
two boards were consolidated, and one salaried board
established with the executive and supervisory powers
of both the former boards. This board consists of
five members, each receiving $2,000 a year, besides a
paid secretary. It has direct management of nine
charitable and correctional institutions, appointing the
superintendents and controlling the expenditures. It
inspects three other private institutions largely sup-

233

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ported by the state ; and has supervisory powers over
county jails, poorhouses and asylums for the chronic
insane, and also private charities.1

In Iowa up to 1898 there had been no central board
with powers of supervision over either state or local
institutions. In that year a single salaried board of
control was substituted for the local boards in charge
of the fourteen state charitable and correctional insti-
tutions. Two years later this board was given a
limited right to supervise some local and private char-
ities. The board consists of three members, not more
than two from one political party, each of whom re-
ceives $3,000 a year. It appoints the chief executive
officer of each state institution, has full control over
finances and accounts, and other powers of adminis-
tration, while it also has some supervision over the
finances of the state educational institutions.2

Minnesota established a supervisory board of cor-
rections and charities in 1883, covering both state and
local institutions. In 1901 this board and the local
boards over most of the state charitable institutions
were superseded by one central board of control of
state institutions, modeled closely after the Iowa
board.3

There is general agreement in support of
those centralizing tendencies in the field of char-
ity and correction illustrated by the establish-

1 S. E. Sparling, in "Annals Am. Acad. Soc. and Pol. Science."
2H. M Bowman : "The Iowa Board of Control." (Pubs. Mich/

Pol. Science Assn. vol. 4.)
3 Report of F. H. Wines to the Board of Managers of the

State Charities Aid Association of New Jersey, 1903.

234

CHARITIES AND CORRECTION

ment of special state institutions and the exer-
cise of supervision over local authorities. "The
leaders in charitable thought and action see that
local interest in charity is often weak and ignorant
of the best standards, and that on the sovereign state
rests the solemn duty of insuring that the forms and
powers of administration are the best available
ones."1 And there is no question but that the cen-
tral supervision has been largely responsible for great
improvements in public charity and the management
of penal and reformatory institutions.

On the other hand there has been much discussion
and wide differences of opinion as to the relative
merits of the completely centralized boards of control
and the unpaid boards of supervision. It seems clear
that centralized management promotes more econom-
ical and efficient business management. But many
fear that salaried officials may be inclined to secure a
good financial result at the expense of the humani-
tarian aspects of their functions; and that such posts
are liable to become involved in the degrading in-
fluences of spoils politics. Under the boards of control
supervision over the local institutions is usually neg-
lected, while the unpaid boards secure the services of
citizens of the highest intelligence on account of their
philanthropic interest in the work.

The experience of Kansas under one system and Il-
linois under the other indicates that the dangers of
spoils politics may be incurred under either method.
But political conditions in certain states may make
dangers less under the system of unpaid boards. At

ltl Conference on Charities and Correction, ' ' 1902, p. 127.
235

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

the same time the experience of Iowa with its board of
control and of New York in the unified management
of its prisons demonstrates the advantages of central-
ized administration.

A compromise suggestion may be offered as a pos-
sible solution. In the larger states, the direct ad-
ministration of groups of related institutions— such
as the insane hospitals, other charitable institutions,
and correctional institutions— might be centralized
under a single salaried official, resembling the New
York superintendent of prisons. This should secure
more efficient administration at less expense than with
the local boards of unpaid trustees for each institution.
A single unpaid board could be given powers of super-
vision over all charitable and correctional institutions,
both state and local ; while, as a step towards the better
organization of state administration, this board of
supervision could be made responsible to one of the
chief executive officers of the state. In the smaller
states one administrative authority for all of the state
institutions would probably be sufficient; and this
might also exercise supervision over the local insti-
tutions.

236

CHAPTER XIV

PUBLIC HEALTH *

In our colonial history, and also in the early part of
our national existence, public sanitation was almost
exclusively a function of local government. As occa-
sion arose from the presence of epidemics, the towns
through their regular officers, or more often through
special committees, would take such preventive meas-
ures as in each case seemed to them best. It was not
until the close of the eighteenth century that per-
manent boards of health were established, and for
three-quarters of a century such boards were confined
almost exclusively to the larger cities.

If we except Louisiana, where a state board of
health was established in 1855, almost exclusively for
the purpose of maintaining quarantine at New Or-
leans, the first state to establish a state board of
health was Massachusetts in 1869. This marks the
beginning of the states' activity in sanitary affairs.
The idea of a central control in such matters has
grown so rapidly that during the 35 years that
have since elapsed, central boards of health have been
established in all the states and territories except

1A paper written by Charles V. Chapin, Supt. of Health,
Providence, E. I., and read before the American Political
Science Association, Dec, 1904.

237

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Idaho, and also in Hawaii, Porto Rico and the Philip-
pine Islands. It was undoubtedly at first intended,
as shown by the act establishing the Massachusetts
board, that these central boards should be purely ad-
visory, and they were required merely to investigate
the causes of disease and report thereon. But it was
inevitable from the problems confronting sanitary
officials, and from the trend of public opinion in
regard to the functions of the state, that the work of
the state board of health should undergo a progressive
and rather rapid enlargement. Perhaps the best way
to consider the subject is to review as rapidly as
possible the various sanitary duties which the legis-
latures have placed upon these state officials.

Research work. Oddly enough the prime object
for which most state boards of health were established
has been generally neglected by those organizations.
The Massachusetts board was required to make "in-
quiries in respect ... to the causes of disease,
especially epidemics, and the sources of mortality and
the effects of localities, employment, conditions and
circumstances on the public health.' ' Substantially
the same phraseology is found in the acts establishing
boards in many other states. It was evidently in-
tended that the principal work of the central board
should be of a scientific and educational nature, and
should consist in the study of the causes of disease
and the publication of results. But the progress of
epidemiology and sanitary science is under little obli-
gation to our state boards. It is true there are some
exceptions, notably the work of the state board of
health of Massachusetts upon water supplies and

238

PUBLIC HEALTH

sewage, a work which has a world-wide reputation;
but in the main the state boards have become more
and more interested in purely administrative matters
and have neglected the research work for which they
were primarily established.

Control of local sanitary organization. Home
rule has for some time been the shibboleth of many
political reformers, but the state has meanwhile been
exercising a progressive control over local sanitary
affairs. This has shown itself in various ways, the
most notable being in the appointment or removal of
local officials. In eleven states the central board con-
trols the appointment of one or more of the members
of the local boards or of the local health officers, and
in three others it has the power of removal. Besides
these, in Florida, where there are few local boards,
agents appointed by the state health officer perform
the necessary executive duties. In Montana the state
board is to organize local boards in every city and
village, and in Arizona and South Carolina it is to
direct and supervise the local boards. In at least a
dozen states, when the local authority fails to appoint
a board of health, or such board fails to act, the state
board may assume full executive control, and in many
states it is provided that all expenses incurred shall
be a charge upon the local government. Sometimes,
as in New York and Pennsylvania, state-appointed
inspectors co-operate with the local officials.

Besides direct control over the local executive, the in-
fluence of the state officials makes itself felt in other
ways. Thus many states make the establishment of
boards of health obligatory upon counties, townships,

239

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

cities or other local units, but of course such laws, if
there was no authority to enforce them, would in
many, if not in most of the smaller communities, be
disregarded. Hence it is that the very existence of a
local sanitary organization depends in a vast number
of instances upon the energy and administrative abil-
ity of state officials. A study of public sanitation in
our smaller communities will convince any one that it
is almost entirely dependent upon the activity of
state officials in keeping the local authorities up to
their duty, and instructing them in proper procedures.

Under the lead of the state board, or of some of the
more efficient local officers, there have been organized
in many states conferences of sanitary officials. These
have existed for many years and from them have
developed the more formal "schools for health offi-
cers' ' which have recently been established in New
Jersey, New Hampshire, Indiana, New York and Ver-
mont. In some of these, attendance by one delegate
from each local board is made compulsory by statute,
and his expenses become a charge upon his township
or city. It is evident that by means of these confer-
ences or schools, the state board can exert a powerful
influence upon the local boards and secure much
greater uniformity of practice than would otherwise
exist. In New Jersey still another method for secur-
ing uniformity and making the influence of the state
board felt, has been put on trial. Since January 1,
1905, no health officer or sanitary inspector can be
appointed, who has not passed an examination pre-
scribed by the state board of health.

Thirty-five years ago there were no state boards of
240

PUBLIC HEALTH

health and only a few local boards. Now state and
local boards are provided for in almost every state
and territory, and the latter are in many cases under
the direct control of the former. So far as immediate
sanitary results are concerned there can be no doubt
that the movement has been decidedly beneficial.
Rural and village sanitation is almost entirely a pro-
duct of state administrative work, and genuine sani-
tary progress is hardly possible without central
direction. In regard to the specific question of the
advisability of the state control of local appointments,
there is some difference of opinion. So far as the
writer has been able to learn, such control, so far as
at present exercised, has been for the good. The state
seems to be more successful than are the local govern-
ments in selecting properly qualified health officers.
One objection to state appointments is the danger of
too great uniformity. But in the smaller communities
uniformity should usually be promoted. In the larger
cities with their varied problems, initiative and in-
dependence on the part of the health officer are often
desirable, and indeed necessary, for progress. There-
fore the exemption of the larger municipalities of
Connecticut, from the state appointment of health of-
ficers, is perhaps a wise one. The objection that state
appointments may be made for political reasons, seems
to be of little moment, as local appointments are per-
haps quite as likely to become corrupt. Judging from
the success of state appointments in Connecticut and
Vermont it would appear that the plan is worthy of
more extended trial.

Control of communicable disease. The earliest
241

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

form of state sanitary control was that of quarantine.
The advantage of uniformity in quarantine regula-
tions is very great, and the evils due to the struggle of
cities and towns among themselves in such matters are
unbearable. Hence the states have very generally
come to reserve to themselves quarantine powers. Un-
til very recently all but seven of the 22 seaboard states
either administered quarantine through state officers,
or reserved the right to interfere in local quarantine.
Since 1893 a further step in centralization has been
taken, for seven states have transferred the control of
maritime quarantine to the national government. In
1905 the State of Louisiana asked the national gov-
ernment to take over the management of the yellow
fever outbreak in that state. At present a large num-
ber of the inland states also have empowered their
state health officials to prevent the introduction of
contagious disease, and in some states the governor
may proclaim quarantine. Quite a number of states
have set aside epidemic funds of from $3,000 to
$50,000 to carry on the proposed preventive measures.
The quarantining of one city or town against another
in the same state has often been productive of great
and unnecessary hardship, particularly in the South.
Consequently many of the Southern states have of
late taken the right of quarantine from the local gov-
ernments, and conferred it upon state officials.

In the general management of communicable dis-
eases, many of the states authorize their officials to
interfere in local affairs, but usually only when the
local authority fails to act, or there are local disputes.
The state boards of health are very generally author-

242

PUBLIC HEALTH

ized to make regulations concerning contagious dis-
eases—whether constitutionally or not is perhaps open
to question— and by these rules often very directly
control local management. Of late years also the
states have begun to build and maintain hospitals, for
several states have already constructed sanatoria for
the cure of consumptives, and several more are con-
sidering the matter. A great many of the states have
for some time maintained bacteriological laboratories
to aid physicians in the diagnosis of various diseases,
and some states have begun the manufacture and free
distribution of vaccine virus and antitoxins.

Food' control. This is usually considered within
the domain of public health work, though it has closer
relations with morals and economics than with health.
So far as the prevention of general food adulteration
is concerned little has been or can be accomplished by
local effort. Much has, however, been done by state
officials. The first efficient state action was taken in
New York in 1881, and the state board of health was
entrusted with the enforcement of the law. At pres-
ent most of the states have pure food laws, and in
some their execution is entrusted to the state board of
health, but usually to food or dairy commissions, or
to agricultural or experiment station officials. Al-
though much has been accomplished by state inspec-
tion, it is generally admitted that national control is
necessary to secure the best results. In one line of
food control, namely, the inspection of meats, the na-
tional government has already taken an active part,
and is doing more than is accomplished by the states.

The protection of milk supplies has had a different
243

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

history. This inspection has been largely local, and
was undertaken by many cities before there was any
state inspection of food at all. In most cities this
method is still pursued, though there are manifest
difficulties in a city controlling producers and dealers
living in many different municipalities, and perhaps
in different states. It is on account of these difficulties
that a few states have placed the whole control of the
milk supply in the hands of the state dairy commis-
sioners. In Iowa, at least, where this plan has been
followed for some years, it is said to have proved very
successful.

Protection of the purity of public waters: If it
is difficult for a community to protect its milk supply
because it is drawn from such a wide territory, it is
even more difficult to protect its water supply, which
is drawn from an equally large territory, and is fre-
quently menaced by very powerful interests. Hence
the state has been called upon for aid. In quite a
number of states, among which are Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont, the
state board of health has been given very great power,
and is authorized to prevent by the most stringent
measures, the pollution of potable waters. This power
has been widely exercised to the great advantage of
the users of these waters. An important part of river
pollution is the sewage from municipalities, and any
efficient control of the pollution must consist in con-
trol of sewage disposal, which necessitates more super-
vision of local administration by the state. Thus in
some of the above-named states no sewerage works can

244 (

PUBLIC HEALTH

be undertaken without the approval of the state board
of health as to the method of disposal.

The gross pollution of rivers not used for domestic
supply, often causes great nuisance, which can best
be abated or prevented by the state. Such control has
sometimes been exercised by the state board of health
and sometimes by especially constituted state com-
missions.

Control of professions and trades. The practice
has gradually grown up of requiring a license be-
fore pharmacists, physicians, undertakers, barbers,
plumbers and others whose business is supposed to
affect the public health, are permitted to follow their
vocations. At first such licenses were issued by local
governments, and only in the larger cities, but now
the general practice is to establish state licensing
boards. Special boards to control the above trades
and many others, have been established in most of our
states, though in many instances the state board of
health is made the licensing agent. The writer be-
lieves that this practice has already led to grave
abuses. There seems to be excellent reason for licenses
in some kinds of work as that of engineers, physicians
and pharmacists. On the other hand, there does not
seem to be sufficient reason for the state licensing of
plumbers, barbers or undertakers. Unless great care
and discrimination is exercised, the extension of
licensing to all sorts of trades and business will re-
move the whole question of state control from the
domain of public health and safety, to the domain of
labor problems, and will perhaps cause a reaction
against licensing in any trades. Sanitary officials

245

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

should certainly be on their guard against being
drawn into any licensing scheme, unless such is plainly
required for public health reasons.

Control of vital statistics. While the collection
of vital statistics has only an indirect relation to the
preservation of public health, yet it is a fundamental
record of sanitary practice and progress. But the col-
lection of vital statistics can only be accomplished
under central control. It is true that the cities were
pioneers in this field, and some of them have done ex-
cellent work, but it is just as necessary that the births,
marriages and deaths of the whole state or nation
should be uniformly recorded, as it is that the census
should be taken. As yet only about a dozen states have
provided for an adequate system of registration, but
it is hoped that under the guidance of the national
census bureau the others will rapidly be induced to
take up the work.

It is thus seen that during the last quarter of a cen-
tury the states have gradually undertaken a vast
amount of sanitary work which was formerly not done
at all, or done imperfectly by the local governments.
From a sanitary standpoint most of the work thus
done has been extremely beneficial. The control of
local appointments thus far seems to have been satis-
factory, and it may fairly be said that the more the
local officials, at least in small communities, are sub-
ject to state supervision, the better are their duties
performed. The systemizing of quarantine, the prep-
aration for epidemics, the establishment of diagnostic
laboratories, the control of food, milk, and water

246

PUBLIC HEALTH

supplies, and sewage disposal, and the registration of
vital statistics, would all have largely been left un-
done if it had not been for the part taken by the state.
Some matters, such as the construction of state hos-
pitals for consumptives, and the production of anti-
toxins, have not yet passed the experimental stage,
though both seem promising fields for state work.
About the only specific criticism which the writer
would make of state sanitary administration, is con-
cerning trade licenses. On the whole, then, the direct
results of centralization have been good.

The arguments which can be most effectively ad-
vanced against this centralizing tendency are academic
rather than practical. Coming from a section1
where the towns came first, and the state afterwards,
and where the local units have always been intensely
jealous of any invasion of their sphere of activity, the
writer was formerly much impressed by arguments for
home rule and which would put as many administra-
tive duties as possible on the towns, and as few as
possible on the state. But even if the state should
take a still larger part in municipal affairs, there
would, with the rapid increase which is taking place
in municipal functions, be plenty of administrative
work left to be done, so that there would be no danger
of the atrophy of the civic virtues from lack of op-
portunity. Moreover, there is more to be said in favor
of centralization in sanitary affairs than in some
others. Public health work is directly dependent upon
the police power, and this power is vested in the
state, and in order that it may be exercised uniformly,
1 Rhode Island.

247

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

and that it may not be interfered with by local in-
terests, there is good reason why all forms of police
administration should be retained by the state. At
all events the writer has of late years been so im-
pressed with the practical benefits of state adminis-
tration in sanitary affairs, and so little impressed with
theoretical arguments against it, that he would not
oppose its extension wherever it promised to give
good results.

248

CHAPTER XV

LOCAL FINANCE1

State administrative control has also been established
to a noticeable extent in the field of local finance.
This has been mainly in the assessment of property
for taxation, and in the accounting for receipts and
expenditures.

TAXATION

Local authorities in this country have only such power
of taxation as is conferred by the legislatures. And
as yet no local authority in this country has been given
power to determine for itself what kind of taxes it
should levy, but may levy only those taxes specifically
authorized by statutes. There is, therefore, no room
for administrative supervision in this direction, since
the local authorities have no sphere of independent
action.

As to the rate of taxation local discretion is also
closely limited. For some taxes, notably the tax or
license for the sale of liquors, the state law often speci-
fies the rate as well as the nature of the tax. For the
general property tax more leeway is given; but on
the one hand the local authorities are compelled by

1 Beprinted with revisions from a paper read before the
American Political Science Association, December, 1904.

249

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

statute to levy taxes to meet certain expenditures, and
on the other hand are usually restricted as to the
aggregate tax rate; and between this Scylla and
Charybdis a narrow course must often be steered. Un-
der these circumstances again there is little opportu-
nity for administrative supervision; and none has
developed.

When, however, we turn to the assessment of prop-
erty for the general property tax, we find a wide field
for local discretion, and in recent years significant
steps in the direction of administrative supervision.
Under the methods prevailing in the early part of the
nineteenth century, local assessors had complete free-
dom in the valuation of property, not only for local
taxes but also for state taxes. It was in reference to
the state taxes that the first step was taken in the direc-
tion of administrative supervision.

Beginning apparently in Ohio in 1825, state boards
of equalization have been established in most states,
with power to change the aggregate valuation of coun-
ties so as to equalize the apportionment of the state
tax. These state boards of equalization differ widely
in their organization ; but none of them have the neces-
sary means to perform their work satisfactorily. In
some states they have been composed only of ex officio
members, elected to other positions, and, therefore,
unable to give much attention to their duties in regard
to assessments. In several states the boards are com-
posed of a large number of members elected in local
districts, who give only a small part of their time to
this service,— the extreme case being found in Ohio,
where it is composed of forty members, who meet once

250

LOCAL FINANCE

in ten years. In a few states, as New York and Cali-
fornia, there is a small number of salaried members,
giving most of their time to this work and that of
direct assessment ; but even in these eases it is impos-
sible for the board to make a complete investigation
of the local assessments that would be necessary for an
accurate equalization.

Tax commissioners and economists have discussed
at length the failures and defects of these boards of
equalization. Moreover they do not come strictly
within the subject of this work ; and have been noted
simply as the first stage of supervision which paved
the way for later centralizing developments. We may,
therefore, proceed to consider the latter, considering
them in their logical rather than in their chronological
order.

It may be noted here that these centralizing tenden-
cies in relation to local taxation have been but one
aspect of more general changes in the tax laws. And
it may be said that it was only after the states had
introduced some control over the administration of
assessments for state revenue, that the importance and
complexity of the* work of local assessors and the need
for effective supervision over their local duties was
understood.

Effective state supervision over local assessing offi-
cers was first established in Indiana. In 1891 there
was established in that state a state board of tax com-
missioners, consisting of two salaried members in addi-
tion to the ex officio members of the former board of
equalization, with power to prescribe forms of books
and blanks used in the assessment and collection of

251

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

taxes ; to construe the tax and revenue laws of the state
and give instructions to local officers when requested ;
to see that all assessments of property were made
according to law ; and to visit each county in the state
at least once a year to hear complaints, collect infor-
mation and secure compliance with the law. Besides
carrying out these mandatory powers, the state tax
commissioners have since 1894 annually called the
county assessors of the state to an annual conference.1

In 1896 a board of tax commissioners was established
in New York with somewhat less authority, including
the power to investigate and examine methods of
assessment within the state ; to furnish local assessors
with information to aid them, and to ascertain whether
the local assessors faithfully discharged their duties.

A Michigan statute of 1899 provided for a board
of tax commissioners with power: to exercise general
supervision over the local assessing officers ; to confer
and advise with them as to their duties ; to visit each
county in the state once a year, to hear complaints and
secure the full assessment of all property in the state.
They were also empowered to summon and examine
witnesses under oath, to inspect the local assessment
rolls, to change the assessment and to add to the rolls
property not assessed.

And a Wisconsin statute of the same year provided
for a tax commissioner with two assistant commis-
sioners to have general supervision over the system of
taxation throughout the state, with specific authority
to require reports from local officers. Two years later

^awles, "Centralizing Tendencies in the Administration of
Indiana," 273, 276.

252

LOCAL FINANCE

added powers were conferred : to supervise local asses-
sors and boards of review; to advise and direct local
assessing officers, and to initiate proceedings to enforce
the laws against negligent or delinquent officials ; and
to visit the counties and investigate the methods of
local assessors. Another statute of 1901 created the
new office of county supervisor of assessment, with
powers of supervision over town and city assessors.

These administrative measures have not solved all
of the difficulties connected with the assessment of
property for taxation ; but in most of these states they
have brought about a decided improvement both in
methods and results. Statistical results are less strik-
ing in New York than in the other states, partly per-
haps because the powers of the state tax commissioners
are less, and partly because of the subsequent develop-
ment of special taxes for state revenues which has ap-
parently caused a relaxation of the supervision of
local assessments, now used mainly for local purposes.
But in Indiana the assessed valuation of real estate
was increased by 44 per cent, in one year after the new
system went into effect.1 In Michigan the assessed
valuation of property increased over 60 per cent,
from 1899 to 1903. 2 And in Wisconsin where the
most thorough system of supervision has been estab-
lished, local assessments more than doubled in three
years.3 And it may be further noted that in each of

1 $553,937,744 in 1890; $898,600,323 in 1891. Rawles, op. cit.
276.

2 $968,189,097 in 1899; $1,537,355,738 in 1903.

3 $648,035,848 in 1899; $1,369,811,147 in 1902. Report Wis-
consin Tax Com., 1903, p. 10.

253

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

these three states the aggregate assessed valuation of
property is from thirty to fifty per cent, larger than
in the neighboring State of Illinois, whose population
and wealth is more than double that of the other states,
but where there is no efficient system of supervision.

Years before these recent measures for the super-
vision of local assessors there began the policy in many
states of a more complete centralization in the assess-
ment of special classes of property, especially railroads
and more recently other transportation companies and
also telegraph and telephone companies. In fact only
in Rhode Island, New Mexico and Texas are railroads
still assessed only by local authorities. In some cases
this centralization of assessment has been part of the
movement to secure such taxes for the state treasury ;
but in a number of states— notably in Indiana and
Illinois since 1872— the state assessment of such prop-
erty has been used for purposes of local taxation.

Usually this centralized state assessment has been es-
tablished only for the property of corporations extend-
ing over a large number of local taxing districts ; but in
New York, under a law of 1899, the state tax commis-
sioners assess for local taxation the value of special
franchises in the public streets, which are for the most
part held by local companies; in 1901 the Indiana
tax commission was given charge of the assessment of
street and electric railways; and the Illinois state
board of equalization values the capital stock of
local franchise corporations. The New York franchise
tax law has been of great value in drawing attention to
a large amount of wealth that had previously escaped
taxation ; but it may be questioned whether the separa-

254

LOCAL FINANCE

tion of the franchise from other property elements or
the complete centralization in the assessment of dis-
tinctly local property is necessary or altogether advis-
able. In other states the value of such special fran-
chises is now often included (without additional legis-
lation) in the general assessment of the owners in the
ordinary course of valuing property for taxation.

AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING

State supervision over local accounts is as yet less
developed than state supervision over local assess-
ments. This is perhaps not surprising in view of the
fact that in most states the accounts of state finances
are very far from satisfactory. It is true there have
been state auditors and comptrollers since the estab-
lishment of state governments —and in some cases simi-
lar officers in colonial times. But the functions of such
officers have often been limited ; while primitive meth-
ods of bookkeeping established in the days of insig-
nificant financial transactions have remained in use
after expenditures have come to be counted in millions
of dollars, and in the face of the development of sys-
tematic accounting in private and corporate business.
Indeed the imperfect and inadequate accounting
methods of the larger cities have often been somewhat
better than those of the states within which the cities
are located.

But within recent years there have been significant
measures taken both to establish satisfactory account-
ing systems for the state finances, and also to establish
state supervision over the accounts of local officers. It

255

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

is only the latter part of this development that can be
here considered.

Minnesota seems to have been the first state to have
undertaken any effective control over local accounts.
In J878 the office of state examiner was established,
with power to inspect the accounts of county officers.
A year later Massachusetts also inaugurated a system
of supervision over county expenditures. Appropria-
tions and tax levies for each county except Suffolk
have long been voted by the legislature, although this
is largely a matter of form and the estimates and pro-
posals of the county commissioners are regularly
adopted. In 1879, however, the commissioners of sav-
ings banks were authorized and required to inspect the
books and accounts of most of the county officers, with
power to require uniformity in methods of keeping
accounts and financial reports in accordance with pre-
scribed forms. In 1887 the state supervision was made
more effective by placing it in the hands of a newly
established office of controller of county accounts,
whose duties included the accounts of some officers pre-
viously exempted.

Valuable results have come from this supervision of
county accounts. Irresponsible methods disclosed in
the 70 's have been corrected ; and important reforms
have been introduced. Governor Bates has testified to
the good that has been devised from the uniform sys-
tem of accounting established in the counties;1 and
endorsed a similar supervision over municipal ac-
counts.

1R. H. Whitten, "Administration in Massachusetts/' 149-151
(Columbia University Studies in Political Science, vol. 8).
Annual Message of Governor Bates, January 8, 1903.

256

LOCAL FINANCE

One of the youngest states in the far West was the
next to follow up these partial measures, by establish-
ing a comprehensive system of state supervision over
local accounts. The constitution of Wyoming, adopted
in 1890, provided for the office of state examiner to ex-
amine the accounts of certain state officers, clerks of
courts, county treasurers and such other duties as the
legislature might prescribe. This was followed by the
enactment of statutes, which before long placed under
the supervision of this officer the accounts of every
public officer in the state handling public funds; au-
thorized him to establish a uniform system of book-
keeping by the state and local officials, and to examine
their accounts ; and made provisions for further action
in cases of defalcation discovered through his exam-
inations. The same officer has also supervision over
banks and other private financial institutions.

"The examination of public accounts is technical and
embraces the checking of every item whether great or small,
the subsequent footing of the cash accounts, and finally their
summation. Every account paid is closely examined, the
nature of the expense ascertained, the legality of the bill
inquired into, and the amount is finally checked to the stub
of the warrant issued, and also entered in the proper column
of the expense register. Whether or not the officer con-
ducted the affairs of his office in conformity with the statute
is also made a subject of inquiry.

"The examination made, a written report setting forth
the results accompanied with criticisms, requirements and
recommendations is prepared and filed with the governor
and a copy thereof filed with the officer or officers whose
accounts were the subject of investigation. Should it ap-
pear that there had been violations of law in the conduct
of any office, the examiner must report thereon, and he

257

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

has authority to enforce his rulings. In case of defalcation
or embezzlement, his findings are absolute, until reversed
by the district or other court having jurisdiction.

"In case of the default of any treasurer and the inability
of such officer to replace funds illegally used within the time
designated by the examiner, the examiner shall at once
assume charge and in all respects he becomes the legally con-
stituted treasurer of the state, county, municipality, or
school-district, as the case may be.

"Another important feature is the meeting of the exam-
iner with the constituted boards authorized to make the an-
nual tax levy. At such time the expense budget for the
ensuing year is carefully canvassed and reductions made
wherever possible. This paves the way for a reduced levy
of taxes, and frequently the total levy may be reduced from
one-fourth to one mill or more as compared with the pre-
vious year." !

Striking evidence may be adduced of the benefits re-
sulting from this system of supervision in Wyoming.
In 1892 the expenditures of the twelve counties in the
state were $412,000, while only two counties were on
an approximate cash basis, the others generally allow-
ing their expenses to exceed their revenues and issuing
illegal warrants to pay bills. In 1899, with thirteen
counties, the total expenditures had been reduced to
$295,000; and every county was on a cash basis with
a surplus at the end of the year.8 Several governors
of the state have specially commended the work of the
state examiner in their messages to the state legisla-
ture.3

*H. B. Henderson, in Nat. Mun. League, Conference for Good
City Govt., 1900, pp. 251-252.

*H. B. Henderson, op. cit.

3 Governor Wm. A. Bichards in 1899, and D. F. Richards in
1903.

258

LOCAL FINANCE

Other states near Wyoming soon followed its ex-
ample to some extent. Montana and North Dakota
have each created the office of state examiner, with
power to examine books and prescribe accounting
methods in county offices, as well as state institu-
tions. South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas have pro-
vided a less effective supervision,— in the two first
named through the state auditor; in the last named
through a state accountant.1 More recently (in 1903)
Nevada has established a more intensive system of con-
trol. A state board of revenue must approve the loans
of local governments, prescribe the forms for financial
reports to the state comptroller, and employ an exam-
iner to inspect the accounts and records.2 And in the
same year the extreme Southern state of Florida
created the office of state auditor, whose chief duty is
to prescribe the form of county accounts and see by
inspection that they are properly kept.3

In the state of New York something has been ac-
complished in the same direction. Beginning in 1892
the state comptroller has been given power to audit
certain accounts of county treasurers, including the
court and trust funds and the accounts for the inheri-
tance tax ; while the state excise commissioner has simi-
lar authority over the accounts for the liquor tax. The
introduction of the comptroller's audit disclosed inex-
tricable confusion in the various accounts of county
treasurers, and that within a few years before there
had been defalcations or shortages in thirty-three of

1 Nebraska, Laws of 1893, Ch. 15 ; Kansas Laws of 1895, Ch.
247.

* Laws of 1903, Chs. 78, 123.
3 Laws of 1903, Chs. 14, 71.

259

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

the sixty counties in the state. A uniform system of
bookkeeping has now been introduced for these spe-
cial funds which with the regular audit discovers and
often prevents deficits and defalcations.1*

In 1903 a statute was enacted requiring all cities in
the state with less than 250,000 population to make uni-
form financial reports to the secretary of state. But
as no provision was made for the uniformity of
accounts or for an examination or audit of the books
of the city officers, nothing has as yet been accom-
plished under this provision.

Until a few years ago this movement towards state
supervision of local accounts was confined to the less
important states and to such partial measures in the
larger states as have been noted. But in 1902, the
State of Ohio enacted the most important law on the
subject yet adopted. This provided for a uniform sys-
tem of accounting, auditing and reporting for every
public office in that state, under the supervision of a
newly established bureau of inspection in the office of
the auditor of state. The act requires separate
accounts for every appropriation or fund, and for
every department, institution, public improvement,
or public service industry ; provides for full financial
reports to the auditor of state ; and authorizes annual
examinations of the finances of all public offices, with
power to the examiners to subpoena witnesses and
examine them under oath.

To carry out the provisions of the act three deputies

1 Fairlie, ' ' Centralization of Administration in New York
State,' ' pp. 185-186 (Columbia Univ. Studies in Political
Science, vol. 9).

260

LOCAL FINANCE

and a clerk were appointed by the auditor of state, all
of whom were former county auditors and experienced
in local methods. These, with the assistance of expert
accountants who had given special attention to muni-
cipal accounting, and after a thorough investigation
of existing practices, prepared complete systems of
accounting which have been installed throughout the
state in the offices of county auditors and treasurers,
city auditors and treasurers, village clerks and treas-
urers, school-district clerks and treasurers, and town-
ship clerks and treasurers. The first examinations of
the accounts have been made by the examiners
of the bureau; and from their report comparative
statistics of local finances covering the whole State of
Ohio have been published.

This brief description of these various measures
must bring into clearer light their significance and the
tendency which they illustrate. No one considered by
itself may seem of very large importance. But when
the detached and apparently disconnected pieces have
been brought together, it must be evident that in the
aggregate they indicate a distinct movement towards
state supervision of local finance. We may, therefore,
inquire into the rationale of such a movement, and con-
sider to what extent it should be encouraged.

In some respects the movement may seem in conflict
with general principles which are still declared to be
fundamental in our American system of government.
It must be admitted at least that it is not consistent
with the most extreme demands for local autonomy;
and that state control is not so clearly justified in this

261

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

field by a general state interest, as is the case in state
supervision of health administration, schools, or the
local management of state finances.

If, however, we apply the principles of such politi-
cal thinkers as John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidgwick,
it will be seen that this movement is in entire accord
with a rational political philosophy. These writers
recognize fully the advantages of locally elected
authorities for matters of local interest, as well as for
the sake of the political education of the people. But
they also point out the advantages of central supervi-
sion, not only where the interests of the larger govern-
mental units are directly concerned, but also because
of the more complete information and the larger degree
of technical efficiency which the higher government
can command.1

Both of these latter factors support state supervision
in the two branches of local finance that have been
noted. The assessment of property with any approach
to equality of treatment calls for a high degree of ex-
pert skill, and the comparison of conditions over a
wide area. A uniform system of accounting is essen-
tial for accurate information on public expenditures,
and for the comparison of outlay with returns in the
many branches of local administration. And state con-
trol over the accounts of local public authorities is cer-
tainly as important as the control that has been estab-
lished in most states over the accounts of private cor-
porations, such as railroads, banks and insurance com-
panies.

1 Mill, 1 1 ^Representative Government," Ch. 15. Sidgwick,
"Elements of Politics," Ch. 25.

262

LOCAL FINANCE

Attention may also be called to another branch of
local finance where a system of state administrative
supervision is urgently needed,— over the loans and
debts of local authorities. The need for some control
here is already recognized in the constitutional and
statutory debt limits established. But these arbitrary
limits do not and cannot adjust themselves to the vary-
ing needs and conditions of different local communi-
ties. There is a great difference between a debt in-
curred for water works, which will be met by the rev-
enue from the undertaking, and a debt for parks which
must be paid from general taxation, and a debt for
street paving that may be worn out in ten years. To
decide whether additional debt may be safely incurred
can be determined wisely only after a careful examina-
tion of a complex financial situation, involving a study,
not merely of the aggregate amount of existing debt,
but also of the provisions for meeting this debt and of
the resources of the local government concerned. Such
an examination requires expert technical knowledge,
which is entirely absent from the present crude legis-
lative limitations, and can only be supplied by a per-
manent administrative authority.

263

CHAPTER XVI

MISCELLANEOUS

Another field of public activity, formerly left to
local authorities, in which state supervision has very
recently been developed, is the construction and main-
tenance of roads. In the early part of the nineteenth
century the national government built the well-known
Cumberland road ; and there were also a few state and
territorial roads built in the period of internal im-
provements during the second quarter of the century.
But this tentative movement was soon abandoned, and
the building and care of roads was left to counties,
towns and road districts. For the most part, too,
road work was done by a labor tax; little money was
raised, and very little expert engineering construc-
tion was attempted. The rapid development of rail-
road building doubtless retarded the improvement of
highways to some extent, by offering a more efficient
means of transportation for long distances, and by
absorbing the energies of the community devoted to
the problem of communication. At any rate the
country roads of America remained* for the most part
crude and in bad weather almost impassable.

New Jersey inaugurated the new movement for
state aid and state supervision in 1891. Massachusetts
followed in 1894, Connecticut and California in 1895,

264

MISCELLANEOUS

and New York three years later. Since then other
states have taken up the work; and some steps have
now been taken in all of the New England states, in
most of the Central group and in few of the West-
ern states.

Under the present law in New Jersey the state pays
one-third of the expense of building improved roads,
ten per cent, is paid by the townships or abutting
property owners, and the balance by the county in
which the road is located. The work is done under
the supervision of a commissioner of public roads ap-
pointed by the governor ; and the practice has been to
reappoint the same official. Up to July, 1904, 1,100
miles of state roads had been built, at a total cost of
$4,930,000, of which $1,515,000 came from the state.
At first the improved roads were detached strips
scattered throughout the states, but intervening links
are being improved, and already there are several con-
tinuous highways across the state.

In Massachusetts the state roads are built under
the direction of a state highway commission, consisting
of three members appointed by the governor and
council. The state pays the entire cost of each road in
the first instance, but assesses one-fourth on the coun-
ties. Up to 1903, nearly $5,000,000 had been appro-
priated by the state; and the annual appropriation is
now $450,000 a year. Five hundred miles of state
roads have been built; and in addition the cities and
towns have constructed six hundred miles of improved
roads, under specifications similar to those in use by
the state commission.

Connecticut since 1895 has appropriated more than
265

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

$1,500,000 for state roads; and the counties have ap-
propriated about $2,000,000 for their share of the
work. The state pays two-thirds of the cost, and in
the smaller towns three-fourths. The work is done
under the direction of a state highway commissioner,
and nearly five hundred miles of improved roads
have been built.

Under the New York laws of 1898 the state pays
one-half of the cost of building improved roads, the
counties 35 per cent., and the towns or abutting prop-
erty owners 15 per cent. The work is done under the
supervision of the state engineer and surveyor, one of
the elective state officers. Up to 1904, 700 miles of
new roads had been built, and nearly $12,000,000 had
been appropriated by the state, counties and cities.
An amendment to the state constitution, adopted in
1905, authorizes the legislature to issue bonds to the
amount of $5,000,000 a year for ten years, for the
improvement of the public roads.

Pennsylvania in 1903 provided for an extensive
scheme of state roads, to be built under the direction
of a state highway commissioner. $6,500,000 was ap-
propriated for a period of six years. Two-thirds of
the cost is to be borne by the state, one-sixth by the
counties and one-sixth by the townships. A significant
feature of the Pennsylvania law is the use of state
funds for road maintenance, up to one-half of the
total expenditure for this purpose.

Vermont now levies a state road tax, and apportions
the proceeds and other state revenue to the towns, to
be expended on road building. The work must be
done in accordance with specifications furnished by

266

MISCELLANEOUS

the state commissioner, and under his direction. The
Rhode Island legislature, in 1903, appropriated
$100,000 for the construction and maintenance of
highways, under the direction of the state board of
public works. A small grant to the towns is also made
by the state of Maine.

California has for a number of years made small
appropriations for building state roads in sparsely
settled mountain regions. Maryland in 1903 appro-
priated $200,000 for road improvement, one-half of
the cost to be borne by the state. And Delaware in
the same year established a highway commission and
voted $30,000 as the state's share of the expense of
building better roads.

Other states have taken only the preliminary steps.
Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire and North
Carolina have established boards or officials to in-
vestigate existing conditions, to advise the local
authorities and to recommend plans for further action
by the state. It seems evident that the movement thus
begun will continue to gain in strength, until most, if
not all, of the states will engage actively in this work/

A long line of judicial decisions has clearly estab-
lished the rule of law in this country that locally ap-
pointed police officers are not, strictly speaking, local
officers, but are agents of the state governments for
the maintenance of the public peace and order.2 In

1Cf. Report of the Office of Public Road Inquiries, U. S.
Dept. of Agriculture, 1904.

*Cf. People v. Draper, 15 N. Y., 532; People v. Mahaney, 13
Mich., 481; People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich., 80; Burch v. Hard-

267

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

spite of this legal theory, there has been developed no
effective state administrative control in this important
branch of local government. Some occasional and
haphazard steps have been taken in many states, but
no systematic and permanent machinery has been
established.

It has been already noted1 that in a few states the
governor has power to remove delinquent sheriffs and
prosecuting attorneys, as well as other county officers.
This provides a limited degree of central control, ap-
plicable in cases of serious misconduct on the part of
the local officers. But it is very far from furnishing
any effective supervision over the performance of their
functions. Indeed there is seldom even any provision
for the collection of information about the work of the
local officers by means of reports.

Some supervision could easily be established by
making the sheriffs more clearly responsible for police
conditions in the local districts within their counties
and requiring them to make regular reports to the
governor or some other state officer. To this might be
added a regular inspection of the sheriffs in each state.
Such provisions would not involve any radical change
of policy; but would simply revive the traditions of
the sheriff's office, and energize the legal theory that
local police officers are agents of the state. Like the
state supervision established in other lines, they would
improve the work of local authorities; and would do

wicke, 30 Grattan (Va.), 24; State v. Hunter, 38 Kans., 578;
Buttrick v. Lowell, Allen (Mass.), 172; Goodnow, il Municipal
Home Rule, ' ' 133.
1 See p. 108.

268

LOCAL FINANCE

away with the more drastic centralization that has been
established by providing state appointed police boards
in a considerable number of American cities.

In a few states there have been established small
bodies of state police for service throughout the state.

Massachusetts in 1865 provided for a force
of state constables mainly for the enforcement
of the law prohibiting the liquor traffic. On the
repeal of the prohibition law in 1875 the state
police was continued as a detective force to aid in the
suppression of disorder and the enforcement of crim-
inal laws, and its functions have since been extended
to include the inspection of factories; while more re-
cently the office of fire-marshal, for the investigation
of fires, has been incorporated with the state police.1

Rhode Island in 1886 established a chief of state po-
lice with powers of direction over the sheriffs and local
police, in connection with the enforcement of the pro-
hibition law then re-enacted in that state.2 But this
office lasted only a few years. Another brief experi-
ment with state police was made by New Jersey from
1891 to 1894.

Soon after the establishment of the system of state
liquor dispensaries, South Carolina (in 1896) estab-
lished a force of state constables to aid in the enforce-
ment of liquor laws.3 The governor appoints the chief
state constable, who receives a salary of $1,500 a year,

1 E. H. Whitten, ' ' Public Administration in Massachusetts, ' '
Ch. 6. (Columbia Univ. Studies, vol. 8.)

2C. M. L. Sites, " Centralized Administration of Liquor
Laws," p. 72. (Columbia Univ. Studies, vol. 10.)

3 Ibid., pp. 73, 118.

269

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

and this officer appoints seven assistant chief constables
and other state constables to assist him in his work.
Connecticut has also organized a body of state police
(in 1903) similar to that in Massachusetts, specially
for the enforcement of the laws relating to intoxicating
liquors and gaming, and taking over the functions of
the state fire-marshal. There is provided a superin-
tendent of police at $3,000 a year, an assistant superin-
tendent and from five to ten police officers, all selected
by a board of five unpaid commissioners, who in turn
are to be chosen biennially by the judges of the supe-
rior court.

Pennsylvania in 1905 established a state con-
stabulary for maintaining order, especially in the
rural districts and during strikes in the mining
regions. This consists of about 200 men, organized in
four platoons, under a superintendent appointed by
the governor and senate.

Of a somewhat different nature are the bodies of
mounted rangers established in less settled regions for
the suppression of violent disorder and the protection
of the Mexican frontier. The Texas rangers, organ-
ized in 1901 may consist of four companies, each com-
posed of 22 men, the captains and the quartermaster
in command of the whole force being appointed by the
governor of the state. In Arizona the rangers as re-
organized in 1903 consist of 26 men mustered into ser-
vice by the governor of the territory. Both in Texas
and Arizona the governors strongly commend the work
of these rangers. A similar force was established by
the legislature of New Mexico in 1905.

270

LOCAL FINANCE

In the State of New York appointments to subordi-
nate positions in the larger counties are now made on
the basis of regulations and examinations of the State
Civil Service Commission. This extension of the
merit system was first applied, under the State Civil
Service law of 1899, to the four counties included in
New York City and to Erie county. More recently
it has been further extended to Albany, Monroe,
Onondaga and Westchester.

A system of civil service examinations under a
local commission has also been established in Cook
county, Illinois.

Many other state officers and boards have been estab-
lished under the general police powers of the states.
These include authorities for the supervision of rail-
roads, banking and insurance corporations, and, in a
few states, of lighting companies, for the inspection
and regulation of factories and mines, for the encour-
agement of agricultural interests, and for the protec-
tion of fish and game. All of these illustrate the ten-
dency towards central state administration, as con-
trasted with the earlier decentralizing policy. And
this development is steadily changing the balance be-
tween state and local government. The continuous ex-
pansion in the field of national administration marks a
still further growth in the same direction.

But to examine these in detail would be to go too far
afield from the subject of local government. They
belong rather to a study of state and national admin-
istration, and raise large questions as to the probable
and safest limits to the centralizing movement. For

271

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

the purposes of the present book, this brief reference
must suffice.

In conclusion, however, a brief estimate may be
made as to the merits of the centralizing tendencies
so far as they directly affect the functions of local gov-
ernment. In the main, the measures for establishing
administrative supervision over local authorities can
be thoroughly endorsed ; and further developments in
that line may be viewed with approval. They not only
improve the efficiency of local government; but also
furnish a means of escape for the excessive legislative
control, which seems inevitable where no administra-
tive supervision is provided. For the most part, too,
the development of direct state administration, in the
establishment of state institutions, can be approved.
But here there is, perhaps, more danger of going too
far, particularly in view of the unorganized condition
of state administration as a whole. And the most im-
portant administrative problem in our state govern-
ments to-day, is probably that of correlating and or-
ganizing the mass of minor offices into a definite sys-
tem.

272

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES.

Ben: Perley Poorer Charters and Constitutions.

New York Constitutional Convention, 1894: American State

Constitutions.
The Revised Statutes: State of Maine, 1904.
The New Maine Townsman.
The Public Statutes of New Hampshire, 1900.
The Vermont Statutes, 1894.
The Revised Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

1902.
Austin De Wolf: The Town Meeting.
W. H. Buchanan: Powers, Duties and Liabilities of Towns and

Town Officers, 1903.
General Laws of Rhode Island, 1896.
The General Statutes of Connecticut, Revision of 1902.
Swift: Digest of the Laws of Connecticut.
Swift: System of the Laws of Connecticut.
J. E. Wheeler: Connecticut Administrative Law, 1903.
Charles A. Collin : Revised Statutes of New York, 1896.
F. B. Gilbert: Supervisors' County and Town Officers' Manual

(New York).
Cummings and Gilbert: The Village Laws (New York).
General Statutes of New Jersey, 1895.
Pepper and Lewis: Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania, 1894;

Supplements, 1897, 1901.
Revised Statutes of Delaware, 1853, amended to 1893.
Clement Bates: Annotated Revised Statutes of Ohio, 4th Ed.,

1903.
W. M. Rockel: Complete Guide for Township Officers (Ohio).
Wade H. Ellis: The Ohio Municipal Code, Annotated.

273

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Harrison Burns: Annotated Indiana Statutes, 1901; Supple-
ment, 1905.

W. D. Eobinson: Powers and Duties of County and Township
Officers (Indiana).

H. B. Hurd: The Revised Statutes of Illinois, 1899.

E. M. Haines: County and Township Government (Illinois).

Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1897.

S. M. Green: Townships and Township Officers (Michigan).

Wisconsin Statutes, 1898.

C. E. Estabrook: Wisconsin Laws on Cities.

Township Trustees' Guide (Iowa).

The General Statutes of Minnesota, 1894.

C. F. W. Dassler : General Statutes of Kansas, 1901.

Township Officers' Guide (Kansas).

Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1895.

E. L. Grantham: Statutes of South Dakota, 1901.

Revised Code of North Dakota, 1899.

Township Manual (North Dakota).

J. P. Poe: The Maryland Code, 1904.

J. G. Pollard : Code of Virginia, 1904.

John A. Worth : The Code of West Virginia, 1899.

Revisal of 1905 of North Carolina.

Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1902.

The Code of the State of Georgia, 1895.

Revised Statutes of Florida, 1892.

W. L. Martin : The Code of Alabama, 1897.

The Annotated Code of Mississippi, 1892.

R. T. Shannon: Annotated Code of Tennessee, 1896, Supple
ment, 1903.

Carroll: Kentucky Statutes, 1903.

Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1899.

W. F. Kirby : A Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas, 1904.

Wolff: Constitution and Revised Laws of Louisiana, 2d Ed.,
1904.

W. F. Wilson: Revised and Annotated Statutes of Oklahoma,
1903.

Sayles: Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas, 1897, Supplements
to 1900.

274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. W. Mills: Annotated Statutes of Colorado, 1891, Supple-
ment, 1896.

Eevised Statutes of Wyoming, 1899.

Codes and Statutes of Montana, 1895.

Political Code of Idaho, 1901.

The Revised Statutes of Utah, 1898.

Ballinger: Annotated Code and Statutes of Washington, 1897,
Supplement, 1903.

Bellinger and Cotton: The Codes and Statutes of Oregon, 1902.

C. C. Pomeroy: The Codes and Statutes of California, 1901.
N. F. Henning: Laws Relating to County Government in Cali-
fornia.

Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901.
Compiled Laws of New Mexico, 1897.

SECONDARY AUTHORITIES.

ENGLISH INSTITUTIONS.

D. J. Medley: Manual of English Constitutional History.
William Stubbs : Constitutional History of England.
Rudolf Gneist: History of the English Constitution.

Pollock and Maitland: History of English Law Before Ed-
ward I.

E. P. Cheney: European Background of American History.

AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS.

George E. E. Howard: Local Constitutional History of the
United States.

American and English Encyclopedia of Law, 2d Edition.
Articles on Counties, County Commissioners, County
Seats, Coroners, Justices of the Peace, Prosecuting Attor-
neys, Recording Acts, Sheriffs and Constables, Taxation
and Towns and Townships.

J. G. Crocker: Duties of Sheriffs and Coroners.

F. J. Goodnow: Principles of the Administrative Law of the

United States.

275

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Johns HopTcins University Studies in Historical and Political
Science :

I. H. B. Adams: The Germanic Origin of New England
Towns.
Albert Shaw: Local Government in Illinois.
E. E. L. Gould: Local Government in Pennsylvania.
E. W. Bemis: Local Government in Michigan and the

Northwest.
Edward Ingle: Parish Institutions in Maryland.
John Johnson : Old Maryland Manors.
H. B. Adams: Norman Constables in America.
" Saxon Tithingmen in America.

" Village Communities of Cape Ann and

Salem.
Alexander Johnston : The Genesis of a New England

State.
B. J. Eamage: Local Government and Free Schools in
South Carolina.
II. Jesse Macy : Institutional Beginnings of a Western State.
Edward Channing: Town and County Government in the

English Colonies of North America.
Charles Howard Shinn: Land Laws of Mining Districts,
in. Edward Ingle: Virginia Local Institutions.

L. W. Wilhelm: Local Institutions in Maryland,
iv. Irving Elting: Dutch Village Communities on the Hud-
son Eiver.
Wm. E. Foster: Town Government in Ehode Island.
W. P. Holcomb: Pennsylvania Boroughs.
VII. Chas. M. Andrews: The Eiver Towns of Connecticut,
vm. D. E. Spencer: Local Government in Wisconsin,
xi. E. W. Bemis: Local Government in the South and South-
west.
xiii. E. L. Whitney: Government of the Colony of South
Carolina.

Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public

Law:
.vm. W. C. Webster: Eecent Centralizing Tendencies in State
Educational Administration.

1 276

BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. H. Whitten: Public Administration in Massachusetts.
The Relation of Central to Local Activity,
ix. John A. Fairlie: The Centralization of Administration

in New York State.
X. C. M. L. Sites: Centralized Administration of Liquor
Laws in the American Commonwealths.
XVI. S. P. Orth: The Centralization of Administration in

Ohio,
xvil. Wm. A. Rawles: Centralizing Tendencies in the Admin-
istration of Indiana.
xviii. H. M. Bowman: The Administration of Iowa.

W. T. Davis, Editor: The New England States.

John Fiske: American Political Ideas.

Mellen Chamberlain: Genesis of the Massachusetts Town.

R. W. Emerson: The Town Meeting.

E. McK. Avery: Stepping Stones of American History. Chap-
ter on ' ' The Town Meeting. ' '

Carroll D. Wright: Report on Public Records of Parishes,
Towns and Counties (Massachusetts).

Washburn: Judicial History of Massachusetts.

New Haven Colony Historical Society Papers, Vol. 4 (Con-
necticut Boroughs).

Loomis and Calhoun: Judicial and Civil History of Con-
necticut.

Connecticut Civil Officer.

J. M. Shirley: Early Jurisprudence of New Hampshire, in Pro-
ceedings N. H. Historical Society, Vol. 1.

Clarence N. Brigham: Report on the Archives of Rhode Island.

George G. Wilson: The Political Development of Rhode Island
Towns, in Field's History of Rhode Island.

Irving B. Richman: Rhode Island: Its Making and Its Mean-
ing.

M. D. Mereness: Maryland as a Proprietary Province.

Mason H. Newell: Township Government in Illinois, in Publi-
cations of the Illinois State Historical Library, No. 9.

B. F. Shambaugh: Constitutions and Records of the Claim
Association of Johnson County, Iowa, in Publications of
the Iowa Historical Society, 1894.

277

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A. S. Bicknell: Early Courts of Iowa, in Iowa Historical
Becord, 1901.

Helen G. Gill: The Establishment of Counties in Kansas, in

Kansas Historical Collections, vol. 8.
Lippincott's Magazine, vol. 30: Shires and Shire Towns in the

South.
Outlook, vol. 73 : The Passing of the County Court.

SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS.

William MacDonald: The Government of Maine.
W. C. Morey: The Government of New York.
W. H. Siebert : The Government of Ohio.
Elwood W. Kemp: The Government of Indiana.

E. B. Greene: The Government of Illinois.

Webster Cook: Michigan, Its History and Government.

F. L. McVey: The Government of Minnesota.

W. W. Stetson: History and Government of Maine.

B. A. and M. L. Hinsdale: History and Government of Penn-

sylvania.

B. A. and M. L. Hinsdale: History and Government of Ohio.
Seerley and Parish: History and Government of Iowa.
Sanford Niles: History and Government of Minnesota.
Smith and Young: History and Government of South Dakota.
V. A. Lewis : History and Government of West Virginia.

J. N. Barnard: History and Government of Missouri.
John R. Ficklen: History and Government of Louisiana.

C. H. Douglas: Civil Government of Connecticut.
Coon: Civil Government of New York State.

F. N. Thorpe: Civil Government of Pennsylvania.

Knight: Civil Government of Ohio.

W. A. Rawles: Civil Government of Indiana,

Milligan: Civil Government of Illinois.

Julia A. King: Civil Government of Michigan.

James A. Wilgus: Civil Government of Wisconsin.

F. H. Hodder: Civil Government of Kansas.

H. B. Woodworth : Civil Government of North Dakota.

J. S. Young: Civil Government of Colorado.

278

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. H. T. MePherson : Civil Government of Georgia.

T. C. McCorvey: Civil Government of Alabama.

T. C. Karns: Civil Government of Tennessee.

Hicks: Civil Government of Missouri.

G. P. Garrison: Civil Government of Texas.

B. C. Steiner: Institutions and Government of Maryland.

B. B. Smithey: The Civil Government of Virginia.

Fast and Maxwell: History and Government of West Virginia.

Brevard and Bennett: History and Government of Florida.

Thornton: The Government of Indiana.

H. P. Judson: The Government of Illinois.

Macy and Geiser : The Government of Iowa.

D. B. Hatch: Civil Government of Colorado.

Grace B. Hebard: The Government of Wyoming.

279

INDEX

Alabama: historical, 38, 48; Centralizing tendencies: in New
county government, 82, 137; England towns, 162-163. See
precincts, 187; school-dis- also State supervision
tricts, 181; incorporated Central States: county boards,
towns, 202; state supervision, 76-81; county school officers,
217, 219 133-135; townships, 164-182;
Allegheny County, Pa., 126 school-districts, 182-185; vil-
Anglo-Saxon local institutions lages, 204-206; state supervi-
3-5 sion, 231. See also Middle-
Arizona, 51, 211, 239, 270 Atlantic, North-Central and
Arkansas : historical, 44 ; coun- Middle- West States

ty government, 81, 86, 98, Charities : state supervision, 225-

112; townships, 187; school 236. See also Poor Belief

districts, 191; state supervi- Charleston, S. C, 188

sion, 217 Chicago, 166

Assessors: county, 29, 119-122; Churchwardens, 14, 18, 31

town and township, 158, 177, Civil Service examinations, 271

188; village, 206; state Clerks of Courts, 115-118

supervision, 250-255 Colorado: county government,

Audit of accounts: county, 125- 51, 73, 131; school-districts,

127; townships, 176; state 196; state supervision, 229

supervision, 255-263 Connecticut: historical, 26, 39,

47; county government, 26,

Belmont, Mass., 149 ™> & \?2> "L Probate **"

„. , ', ,.' a , 1 ministration, 100; towns, 142,

Bishops functions m local gov- ^ u^ >m> ^il-dut

r!!!Kv i?n tricts> 161J boroughs, 201,

iorough:;2i0 212 ^09; ^tate supervision, 218,

§°-^™3 ?L.r. oni Constable: in England, 3, 14;

Br!stgolPB \ 143" in the Colonies> 225 «■ th*

Bristol, n.i. 1*6 gtat 16Q lg2 18g 196 21Q

Brooklme, Mass., 148, 156, 157 c , c> , ' IU> rf 7Q> QQ

Buchanan, Wis., 170 120 123 126

Cooley, Judge T. M., 78

California: historical, 45; coun- Coroner: in England, 11; in

ty government, 83, 90, 98, the United States, 112-115

120, 131; judicial townships, Corporate character: of coun-

195 ; school-districts, 196 ; ties, 64 ; of towns, 143, 167

state supervision, 220, 222, Counties: historical, chs. 1-3;

267 power to create, 58; cor-

283

INDEX

porate character, 64; gov-
ernmental functions, 65-67 ;
governmental organization,
68-71; judicial and police of-
ficers, 95-118; other county
officers, 119-137

County Attorney, 101

County Auditors, 125-127

County Boards : organization,
75-84; powers and functions,
85-92; general character, 92-
94

County Commissioners, 29, 36,
39, 47, 76, 83

County Clerks, 115-118

County Conventions, 76

County Councils, in Indiana, 80

County Seats, 72-74

Cuyahoga County, O., 108, 124

Decentralizing measures, 33-50,
229

Delaware: colonial institutions,
20, 27; later history, 34, 40;
county government, 79n., 99;
judges appointed, 95; hun-
dreds, 187; state supervision,
267

District Attorney, 101

Duke of Yorke 's Laws, 27

Ecclesiastical Courts in Eng-
land, 6, 13

Economic conditions: in the
South, 193-195; in the West,
198

Education. See School admin-
istration

Elections: in counties, 66, 92;
in towns, 146, 157, 169; in
the South, 190; in the West,
196

England, local institutions in,
3-17

Equalization of Assessments,
87, 250-251

Erie County, N. Y., 77, 126

Examinations : teachers ', 134,
221; for health officers, 240;
for professions and trades,
245; civil service, 271

Fees: county officers, 72, 108,
123, 127; town officers, 162,
185

Finance administration : in
counties, 66, 86-89, 119-127;
in towns, 147, 158, 177; state
supervision, 249-263

Florida: historical, 44, 49;
county government, 82, 137;
judges appointedy 95; pre-
cincts, 187; state supervision,
239, 259

Fourteenth and fifteenth amend-
ments, 48

Franklin, Wis., 170

Georgia : colonial institutions,
31; later history, 34, 38, 49,
50; county government, 82,
98, 99 ; judges appointed, 95 ;
militia districts, 187

Governors: Bates, 256; Beck-
ham, 81; Deneen, 106; Folk,
106

Grand Jury, 103

Hamilton County, O., 124n
Hartford Conn., 145
Highways. See Eoads and

Bridges
Hundred, in England, 3, 14;

in the colonies, 19, 20; in

Delaware, 187
Hyde Parky Mass., 148, 156, 158

Idaho, 51, 197

Illinois: historical, 37, 42;
county government, 73, 76,
96, 98, 99, 130, 131; town-
ships, 165, 166, 168, 175, 176;
villages, 210; state supervi-
sion, 235, 254

284

INDEX

Immigration, 155, 173 over counties, 58; over

Indiana: historical, 37; county towns, 142

government, 80, 86, 88, 121, Leominster, Mass., 149, 156

126, 137; townships, 166, 173, Licensing power, 90, 146, 157

175, 176; villages, 202, 209; Licensing professions and

state supervision, 240, 251 trades, 245

Indianapolis, 166 Local Option: in counties, 67;

Insane hospitals, 227, 233 in towns, 146

Intendant, of Alabama towns, Long Island towns, 27

209 Lord Lieutenant, 11

Iowa: historical, 42; county Louisiana: parish government,

government, 80, 126; town- 81, 112, 122; wards, 187;

ships, 166, 173, 174, 176; incorporated towns, 203, 210;

incorporated towns, 206 ; state state supervision, 217, 220,

control, 233, 244 237, 242

Joliet, Ills., 166 Maine : historical, 20, 26, 40,

Justice, administration of in 47; probate judges, 100;

counties, 65, 95-99 county roads, 89; towns, 144,

Justices of the peace: in Eng- 158; villages, 201; state su-

land, 7, 8, 12-13; historical pervision 267

changes, 33-53; in New Eng- Mann, Horace, 216 »

land, 25, 26, 28, 159; in the Manors, in England, 6, 14; in

Central states, 176, 180-181 ; the colonies, 19, 20, 27

in the Southern states, 188- Marion County, Ind., 166

190; in the Western states, Maryland: colonial institu-

195; in villages, 211 tions, 19; later history, 48,

49; county government, 79,

Kansas: historical, 43; county 99; precincts, 187; state

government, 73, 80, 118; supervision, 216, 267

townships, 173, 175, 176; Massachusetts: colonial coun-

small cities, 210; state super- ties, 24; later history, 39, 47;

vision, 220, 233, 259 county government, 76, 88,

Kentucky: historical, 35, 46; 92; judicial districts, 98;

county government, 81, 98, probate judges, 100; medical

122; magisterial districts, examiners, 115; land records,

187; school-districts, 191; 129, 131; towns, 148, 155,

state supervision, 217 157; state supervision, 215,

Kings County, N. Y., 79 218, 223, 225, 228, 231, 237,

25^, 265, 269

Land records, 127-132, 158 Mayors of villages, 209

Land tenure in the Southern Mexican local institutions in

States, 193 California, 45

Lansingburgh, N. Y., 201 Miami County, Ind., 127

Legislative powers of county Michigan : historical, 41 ; county

boards, 90 government, 76, 78, 93, 96,

Legislatures, State, control of: 98, 108, 137; townships, 166,

285

INDEX

169, 171, 175; villages, 206, New Hampshire: historical, 26,
207; state supervision, 216, 39, 47; county government,
220, 226, 252 76, 86, 89; towns, 144, 145;

Middle- Atlantic States: county state supervision, 240

government, 76-81, 126; vil- New Haven, Conn., 145

lages, 204, 210; state super- New Jersey: colonial institu-
vision, 226. See also Central tions, 27, 28; later history,
States 34; county government, 76,

Middle- West: See North-Cen- 79, 93, 99, 122; judges ap-
tral and Central States pointed, 95; townships, 164,

Mill, John Stuart, 262 165, 168, 171; boroughs, 200;

Mining villages, 198, 211 state supervision, 217, 220,

Minnesota : historical, 43 ; county 240, 265

government, 80, 98, 126, 131, New Mexico, 51, 217, 270

137; townships, 165, 168, 172, New Orleans, 188

174, 176, 185; villages, 202, New York: colonial institu-
210; state supervision, 227, tions, 27, 28; later history,
234, 256 34, 39; county government,

Mississippi: historical, 38, 40, 76, 93, 97, 99, 108, 133;
49, 50; county government, towns, 164, 166, 169, 171,
82, 112, 137; judges ap- 175, 176; villages, 200, 202,
pointed„95; supervisors' dis- 208, 211; state supervision,
tricts, 187; school-districts, 216, 217, 221, 226, 232, 240,
191 ; state supervision, 220 243, 252, 259, 266

Missouri : historical, 38, 51 ; New York City, 62, 126

county government, 73, 82, New York County, 96

98; townships, 165, 173, 175, Normal Schools, 221

187; villages, 202, 209; state Norman conquest, results on
supervision, 216 English local government, 5

Mobile, Ala., 188 North Carolina: colonial insti-

Moderator, 149 tutions, 30; later history, 34,

Montana, 51, 195, 239, 259 48, 50; county government,

120; townships, 187; state

Nebraska : historical, 51 ; county supervision, 216

government, 80, 137; town- North-Central States: county
ships, 165, 166, 168, 172; government, 76-81, 103, 120,
state supervision, 259 126 ; villages, 204 ; state su-

Nevada, 51, 195, 259 pervision, 226. See also

New England: colonial institu- Central States

tions, 20-26; county govern- North Dakota: county govern-
ment, 39, 47, 67, 76, 87, 89, ment, 51, 80, 98, 137; town-
125; judges appointed, 95; ships, 165, 168, 174; state
probate administration, 99; supervision, 259

clerks of courts, 117; towns, Northwest Territory, 36
20-23, 141-163; villages, 201,

204; state supervision, 217, Ohio: historical, 36; county
231 government, 79, 88, 96, 121,

286

INDEX

126, 134, 137 ; townships, 164, Public Administrator, 100
166, 173, 174, 176; villages, Public utilities: New England

202, 208, 211; state supervi

sion, 217, 226, 232, 250, 260
Oklahoma, 51, 175
Olean, N. Y., 170
Ordinary, the, 13, 49, 82, 99
Oregon : county government, 51,

83, 87, 98, 131; precincts,

195
Orphans ' Courts, 99
Overseers of the Poor, 14, 159,

179, 188

towns, 146; villages and bor-
oughs, 208

Quarter Sessions: in England,
8, 12; in the colonies, 25, 30;
in the states, 36, 90.

Beading, Mass., 153

Kecorders of Deeds, 19, 25, 29,

127-132
Reformatories and Eeform
Schools, 226

Parishes, in England, 3, 9, 14, Rhode Island: counties, 26, 75;
15; in the colonies, 18, 19, judicial districts, 98; probate

Pennsylvania: colonial institu-
tions, 27, 29; later history,
34, 40; county government,

79, 90, 96,

administrations, 100; sheriffs,
107; towns, 143, 146; school-
districts, 161; state control,
143, 233, 267, 269

townships, 164, 165, 173, 174,

176; boroughs, 200, 202;

state supervision, 216, 219,

266, 270
Peoria, Ills., 166
Philadelphia: 62, 83, 126
Police, boards of, 49
Police jury, 81
Police powers: county boards,

90; sheriffs, 109-110; towns,

122, 135; Roads and bridges: a county

function, 66, 89, 135; in
towns, 157, 161, 179; in the
South, 190, 193 ; in the West,
197; state activity, 264-267

San Francisco, 62, 83

Sanitary administration : in
counties, 66, 137; in towns,
146, 162; state supervision,

237-248

146; villages, 207; state con- School administration: in coun-

trol, 268-270

Poor relief, in England, 9; in

counties, 66, 89, 136; in

towns, 159, 178 ; in the South,

ties, 66, 132-135; in towns,
160; in school-districts, 161,
182-185, 190-191, 196; state
supervision, 215-223

193; state supervision, 225- School Funds, 220

236
Presidents of villages, 209

Selectmen, 22, 156-158
Select Vestry, 15, 18

Privy Council, central control Sheriff, in England, 5, 6, 10;

by, in England, 10

Probate administration, in Eng-
land, 13; in the colonies, 25;
at present, 99-100, 158

Prosecuting attorneys, 26, 30,
36, 100-106

Prothonotary, 116

in the colonies, 19, 25, 29:

historical, 33-53; at present,

106-112
Shires, origin of, 4; creation of

in America, 19, 24, 27, 30, 51.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Local government in counties, towns and villages"

See other formats