The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-01-30
THE NEW CITY CHARTER.

The Journal has already expressed it's
approval of the main features of the
proposed new city charter, and sees no
reason t. recall hat expression. Re-
serving opinion as to minor details and
points that may need amendment, the
Journal is decidedly of the opinion that
in it's fundamental principles and main
features the proposed charter would be
a great improvement over the present
one, and probably result in a great gain
for good government. The latter can
not be known positively until after fair
trial. Always there is more in the ad-
m~inistration than in the form of govern
ment. and bad administration can neu-
tralize the benefits of the best form of
government that can be devised. But
there is less danger of bad administra-
ton under the proposed charter than
there is under the present one, and if it
should occur the people, who are the
source of all power, can correct it quite
as easily as they can now, if not more SO.
The main features of the new charter
are the separation of legislative and ex-
~ecutive functions and the concentration
sponsibility. Undoubtedly these are
correct principles of government, and
the more they are departed from the
greater the evil. No matter what the
form of government or what the pre-
text, the mixing of legislative and ex-
ecutive functions is both mischievOus
and dangerous, and the division and
diffusion of executive responsibility is
a prolific source of evil. Every step
away from these practices is a step to-
ward reform. The Council is a legisla-
tive body, and should be confined strict
ly to legislative functions. 1t should
have nothing to do with the election or
appointment of executive officers, with
the awarding of bids, the making IF
contracts, or any executive duty. Its
powers are sufficiently numerous and
important without arrogating those that
do not properly belong to it. 1t is not
derogating from the powers of the peo-
pie to hold the legislative branch of
the city government to its proper func-
tons. On the contrary, it is an invasion
of the rights of the people for the Council
to exercise functions that do not properly
belong to it.
For many years past. eve since the
discussion of municipal reform began,
public sentiment has been tending to the
conclusion that executive power and re-
sponsibility should be concentrated as
much as possible. First, to differentiate
or separate executive functions from
legislative, and then concentrate the
former as much as possible, have been
the main objects of all movements in
municipal reform. Executive power
must be lodged somewhere, and the
fewer hands it rests in the easier it is to
fix responsibility, AS the executive head
of the city, the Mayor is the nat
ural and proper custodian of execu-
tive power. The more power he has
the greater will be his responsibility
to the people and the less the danger of
his deliberately abusing it. Diffused
power e divided responsibility, and
that means greater probability of abuses
and greater difficulty in correcting them.
Undoubtedly the Mayor, like the Coun-
Gil, should be elected by the people, and
his election should carry with it the in
vestiture of all executive power. Heads
of departments should be appointed by
and be responsible to him, and he should
be responsible to the people for each and
every one of them. 1t things go wrong
the people can call the Mayor to account
and he can call his %appointees toaccount.
1t is far easier to fix responsibility in