New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-01-07
CITY GOVERNMENT.
The "HoME RULE" AMENDMENT.

of" unbalanced bids by Commissioner Thompson
and the signs Of corruption in every department OF
New-York's Government have prejudiced the Legs
lature against the ropOsed Home Rule amend
ment to the State Constitution. That amendment
virtually dcprives the Legislature of any power to
correct such abuses as exist in New-YOrk depart
ments; putting the control of such matters in the
hands of the voters Of New-York. "The voters OF
New-YOrk" is phrase viii Gh rightly
interpreted means the County Democracy,
Irving Hall, and Tammany Hall. Mr.. THOMPSON
is the boss" of the County Democracy. Under
home rule" this boss would be expected to cor
rect his own abuses of administration in the De-
partment of Public WOrks-and at the present
moment, if the Home Rule Amendment were a part
o. the Constitution, would be industTiously drub-
hing his own broad back. Nevertheless, as the in
reference OF the Legislature with city governments:
has caused much loss to taxpayers, the amendment
will receive careful consideration by the Legisla-
ture before it is rejected
HISTORY OF TIE AMENDMENT.
The amendment was approved by the Legisla-
ture Of 1882, and. therefore, if passed
by the Legislature of 1854 will
be submitted to the people next November. 1t was
introduced In the Legislature by William s..
Andrews. a Democratic Assembyman from New
York and passed without opposition The passage
of specic laws for cities is forbidden by it; If 1t
becomes part of the Constitution only general
laws affecting every city in the State canbe passed
by the Legislature. Section Of Article of the
Constitution has the following addition made to it:
The Legislature shall not pass any special or local
Of city; nor shall the Legislature provide
for the filing of any municipal office now existing or
ton or by appointment of the Mayor with or without
confirmation OF the highest legislative branch OF the u
nicpal government
The further statement is then made:
The people ofevery city shall have the power TO organ
lie their own local and municipal government ana To adj
iect only TO such general laws as the Legislature may
enact
Mr. Andrews's amendment reOpens the debate
that has been going on for thirty years i'll this
State respecting the policy of having the Legislature
and the Governor interfere in the government of
cities by passing special laws for special occasions
Shall the State trust the government of cities un-
reseryedly to the people living in them1 If the
money OF taxpayers should be squandered by the
officials of cities, is there sufficient public spirit
among the voters, only small
proportion of whom are taxpayers,
to turn the incompetent officials ont and replace
them with efficient mcn9 These are questions which
again and again have been asked by the voters of
the state. They have not yet been answered.
Every year the department system i'll New-Iork
City has been in existence it has steadily lost favor
Lately there has been general suspicion that the
departments are corruptly as well ineilciently
managed. Not only will the Legislature be called
upon to make thorough invest cation Of the de-
parments but it will probsby also be requested to
remodel them.
THE BROOKLYN PLAN.
Brooklyn has concentrated her government. She
has made her MayOrthe responsible city officer, and
many residents Of Brooklyn think that the city has
solved the problem of city government by thus
making the Mayor responsible for the government
of city. For this reason they would support Mr..
Andrews's constitutional amendment, depriyIng the
Legislature of all further power to tinker with the
charter of Brooklyn OF an other city. Yet it would
seem that the experiment Of making the
Mayor of Brooklyn responsible for its gov
eminent was tried under most favorable
conditions owing to the large number
of Peep who own hou-es in that city and are,
therefore, kcenlY watching the tax rate. "RespOns
lille government" said veteran polstican lately,
that is what every city should have, but such
government Will ave the most chances OF success
IN cities wherein the proportion Of taxpayers to
voters is the IarCeStO Mr. Andrews has indeed at
tempted in his constitutional amendment to secure
attentive to the finances Of ,clty from voters
whether Ia PAYERS or not. Inc last clause Oh MS
Amendment reads as follows:
No city shall Increase s permanent debt raise the
rate OF taxation above that prevailing at the time Of The
adoption or lus nam nj, or undertake new pupuc
wOIN3, direct public funds into now channels OF cN
pcudture issue its bonds, other tlan revenue bonds,
ishcd for al est three months and thereafter submitted
TO the people OF the city ~ general election and have
received majority OF al the votes cast Tor and Sast 1t
at such election.
GOVERNOR TIIDEN's COMMISSION.
But can the voters Of New-YOrl City, ninc-teuths
of whom are not taxpayers, be trusted to manifest
an interest in financial questionsl Governor I'll
denis Municipal Commission thought not. Gov
crnor Tilden in 1876 sent message to the LcGsla-
ture in which the abuses of the city government
were described and accommodation was made
that commission be appointed to draw up a plan
for reformation The Commission consisted of
William NJ. Evarts, James c. Carter, f. l.. Godkin,
John 4. Lott, Simon Sterne, Oswald Ottcndorfcr,
William Allen Butler, Joshua NJ. Van Colt, Henry
i. DimOck aud Samuel Hand. The Commissioners
presented an elaborate report on March 7, 1877, in
which in effect, they declared that there was no
possible way of securing good and economical
government to cities except by limiting
the control of their finances to tax and rent-paycrs
They suggested that the entire management of the
finances of cities should be given into the hands of
boards of finance elected by tax aud rcnt-paYeTS:
the boards TO have the power of determining the
amount of the annual expenditures of cities, and to
appropriate it to It's various objects and purposes
The qualifications of persons entitled to vote Cor
members of the Board of Finance were to be as
follows:
The Board or Finance shall be elected by the electors
OF the city who shall Tor two years next preceding the
election, have paid annual tax property owned by
them and officially assessed for taxation In such city, Of
the assessed value OF less than $500 shall have
actually paid during the same period yearly rent OT
premises in said city occupied by them Tor purposes OF
residence or lawful business not less than $3.50.
The Municipal Commissioners appended TO their
report constitutional amendment embodyng
these suggested reforms III city governments: Ham
ilton FISH jr., then an AsSemhlyman from Putnam
County, introduced this amendment IN 1877, and il
passed the Legislature. But il was opposed by the
Democratic members OF the LEGISLATURE on the
ground that the property QUALIFICATION was limi-
tauon of the right Of suffrage. The following year,
when there was a new Senate, this objection proved
fatal. The Republicans had a scant majority IN the
Assembly aud found il impossible 10 pass he amend
ment, one TWO Republicans refusing to vote for
nauSht.
ANDREWss DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT.
Mr.. Andre SIS amendment will undoubtedly