Kenosha tribune & telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1856-1859, 1859-02-24
County Commissioners

sioners in each county, instead Of one
supervisor from each town in the coun-
ty, has passed one branch of the Legis
lature. Some of the reasons urged in
favor Of this measure, exhibit most
singular stupidity. The idea is convey
ed that the commissioner system Of
county management, is a newly discov-
cred theory something which modern
science has developed III this progress
sive age, to simplify and economic hui
man government. The truth is, the
commissioner system ismuch older than
the supervisor system. The plan Of ha'
wing the affairs of county committed
othe hands ofofficers ofsome sort, sim
liar to that Of commissioners, as now pro
posed in our Legislature, was among the
earliest adopted in most Of the States.
A consolidated county government, alb
sorbing the distinctive rights Of town
ships, is an old way Of doing business.
In the progress Of governmental knowl-
edge, it has been seen that towns have
distinctive rights; that they are in
proper degree, independent sovereign
ties, Towns are as much soyereignties
with certain rights pertaining to them,
in their local matters, as counties are
Each organized township has interests
Of its own to be protected, and has a
right to be represented in the legislation
of the county.
One ofthe important provisions of our
State Constitution is that which contem-
plates comforting on the several coun-
ties the privilege Of local legislation
No legislative reform is more necessary
than radiance of local business. Here
tofore from one half to three fourths Of
the time of the Legislature, has been an.
nually employed i'll local legislation,
which properly belonged to the counties
to transact, and which could have been
better done by Boards Of Supervisors.
A large proportion Of Legislative expen.
SEES might be avoided, were all the bust
ness properly local, in all cases referred
to the Boards of Supervisors. But sup
pose the Supervisor system Of county
government should be abolished and
the county commissioner system proyi-
ded instead thereof? Would it not de,
feat the object contemplated in that sec
ton of the State Constitution which says
"The Legislature may confer upon
Boards Of Supervisors Of the several
counties of the State, such powers of a
local, legislative and administrative cha
racter, as they shall from time to time
prescribe"
Could the Legislature confer this pow
er on County Commissioners They
are not town officers, and if commission
ers can be invested with tho authority
of local legislation, then can any other
officers OF the county. Bnt admitting
that by stretch ofpower, commission
ers might exercise local legislation, who
would regard it as safe and proper a DO
dy as Board of Supervisors, represen.
ting each town in county?
But it is urged that by lessening the
number of officers, expenses are proper
tionably cheapened. In the matter now
under consideration, this argument is
unworthy a common school boy. If the
Legislature are so intent on economy,
regardless of the rights Of the people.
they might about as well propose to let
the government Of the counties out to
the lowest bidder; such bidder giving
bonds for faithful performan ce of the
duty. This might induce a saving of
money in the matter of services. At all
events, if the county supervisor system
Is to be abolished, on the plea of econo-
my, then, to carry out the reform, the
right of the people to be represented in
the Legislature by counties and Assem-
bly, districts ought next to be abolished.
Give us three commissioners from the
three Congressional districts in the State
invested with authority to do the Legis-
lative business of the people, and the
cost Of the annual sessions would be
greatly diminished. The truth is, the
project to abolish the office of supervi-
sOr and create the Office of commission
er, is aretrograde movement in the mat
ter of government.