The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-01-27
A DEFENSE OF THE CHARTER
Mr.. Augustus L. Mason Responds to the
Criticisms of Gen. John Coburn,
And Demonstrates that Radical Changes in
Present Methods Are Necessary if q Bet
torment Of Conditions Is Desired.


elaborate attack upon the proposed city
charter now pending in the Legislature.
No doubt incidental improvements in the
details Of the bill will and ought to be
made. With these j ~ nothing to do.
The present attack raises three questions.
and with these only / shall attempt to deaL.
First-Does the proposed charter author
lie the board Of public works TO make con-
tracts. binding upon the city. In advance
of or beyond the appropriations made by
the Council and Board OF Aldermen
Second-Can the executive business of
the city be carried on best by the Council
and Board of Aldermen, possessing both
legislative and executive functions, as at
present or can it be better done by sepa-
rating executive powers from legislative
functions, and placing the executive bust
ness in the hands Of separate departments
organized for that purposef
Third-If q separation OF the executive
powers from the legislative, as indicated.
e the best. how should the executive off,
GERS be selected with q view to the best per-
Torrance Of the public business. and the
projection Of the interests of our citizensf
Free discussion on these important points
Is certainly desirable Misrepresentation
of facts as to the contents and legal effect
of the document now before the public are
not fair discussion. but, waving that, 1
proceed to take up the points above set
forth.
First-The powers Of the board of public
works. The following language Is con-
tanned In the article of General Coburn:
The ability TO make contracts for the people
for various public works, involving the city and
citizens also. In advance of appropriations,
might work very serious. harm The power TO
make appropriations might be exercised too late,
and the contracts might be held binding. It
seems that the board of public works can bind
the city. There ought 20 be absolute certainty
the consent OF the representative OF the people.
The door ought 10 be locked against any con-
tingencies. believe the city could not repudi-
ate an executed contract OF the board under the
proposed charter
shall not argue this. 1t is only neces-
Bary to quote the following sections from
the proposed charter:
Sec %. No executive department., officer or
employe thereof shall have power TO bind such
city By any contract, agreement. OF In any other
way, to any extent beyond the amount Of money
etthe time already appropriated by ordinance
Tor the purposes or such department., and all
contracts and agreements, express or implied,
and all obligations OF any and every sort beyond
such existing appropriations are declared to be
Sec. 81. any city official who shall Issue any
bond, certincateo or warrant for the payment OF
such city, and be beyond the unexpended bal
znee OF any appropriation made for such pur-
pose, or who shall attempt to bind such city, by
any contract, agreement, or In any other way, to
any extent beyond the amount OF money at rhe
time already appropriately ordinance for such
Shall De liable on his Official bond to any person
injured thereby. and shall be fined In any sum
not more than one thousand dollars 81 900, and
Imprisoned In the county jail Lot more than six
months, either. r oboth.
If these words are not clearsthey should
be made so. In the light of these provIs-
ions, Will any disinterested person say that
General Coburn's statemant of the con-
tents OF the charter as to the board of pub
lie works IL c~orrectf 1t is the very corner
stone OF the proposed charter that the body
which appropriates the city's money shall
not spend 1T, and that the body which
hpends the city's money shall not appropri-
ate il.
DIVISION OF
This leads me to consider the second ques-
tion above indicated. the separation of leg
f~slative and executive functions. Again
permit me to quote General Coburn:
IL IL essentially at war with our system of pop
ular government. 1t Is aristocratic, both in form
sad substance: The arsument in its favor is
that IL 10 safer 70 trust q few selected men than
the representatives Of the people. That ia an
ergument IN favor OF monarchy; Is set up by the
every usurper as an excuse for his assumption
OF power.
Let rs see whether this is correct. For
twenty years our public press in this conn
Try has been filled with discussions of the
problem Of government of our great cities.
While republican institutions have been q
glorious success in State and national gov
ernments. ou method of municipal govern
nent has been declared to be unsatisfac-
tory; evil and dangerous. The most notori-
Gus losses of public money have come from
the treasures of cities. Inefficiency. waste,
corruption. have too frequently character
lied the conduct OF municipal affairs. If
we have suffered less In indianapolis than
In other cities, it has been owing to the
emallness Of our population and our good
fortune IN securing better men for munich
pal offices than New York or Chicago. Yet
the people OF Indianapolis have. for a long
2fnrA aar~VnaA nnu- a-1 L&&..l-
of the administration of public affairs.
Our streets, our alleged system of
sewerage, our relations with railroads and
street railways and many other matters
our long-sufering citizens, have been the
cause OF constant outcry. These CON-
plants are not local to ourselves. They
have arisen In every city In the country.
They are OF the same general character
eyefywhere. What remedy for these evils'
More than three hundred articles have ap-
peared on this subject in the magazines Of
this country in the last twenty years.
They have been written oy statesmen. poll
t%icians, political economists. scientists and
men of affairs. They represent all sections
OF the ccuntry. all shades of political
opinion. Besides these articles. many vol
umes have been published on this question
oy men OF the highest and best informed
sort Notably the Johns HOPKINS Uni
versity series should be mentioned. These
writers. some OF them Congressman, some
OF them ex-congressmen even, men of rank.
OF experience, special students of the sub
ject. ave practically all united upon the
cause of ineiiiciency in city governments of
this country. They have unanimously
pointed out the fact, as the underlying
cause. that we nave not carried the true
theory Of representative. popular aud TO
publican government into the charters of
our great cities. viz, the separation of the
legislative. the executive and the judicial
powers of the city government into three
distinct branches. These writer's have
pointed out that this was done both in the
framing of our national government and of
all our State governments It has been q
success. The people are satisfied.
notwithstanding our experience in this
regard. We have continued to follow the
old English theory of lod gina all powers of
q city government In the legislative body.
Our councils have, on the one hand, had
the power To levy taxes and appropriate
money. Next, the same men who raise the
money also have the power of expanding
tia constant source of temptation, if not
OF corruption The Mayor presides over
the legislative body and also over a police
court. There Is no separation of functions.
The whole business of the city. and the ex-
pendfture of its vast income is in the hands
OF forty men. acting through committees.
These committees, perhaps with seven
members each. meet at irregular intervals,
AZ different places, with no office and no
regular system of business. 1t being ut
terly impracticable to pay each membe of
the Council an adequate salary. to en-