St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1895-05-04

AMERICAN CITIES.
fhsjr Rapid Growth and Relations to the
State.

AMERICAN CITIES.
1hsIr Rapid Growth and Relations to the
When our system of government was
established the colonies were almost
entirely composed of small towns.
Philadelphia. then the largest city in
the country, had only $3.50 when the
first census was taken in 1870; New
York 80, 13l, and Boston 1s,O3s, while
baltimore, with 1868, was the other
place whose population exceeded Prov
idence's 6,3sO. For many years the
cities grew but slowly, and the ine-
qualities of population in most of the
states were not enough to present seri-
Gus problems. 1t was both practicable
and just to govern all of the places in
state by general state laws, because
all of the places were of the same char
actcr and inhabited by the same sort
of people.
Some Of the most serious difficulties
that we encounter to-day are due to
the fact that a number of the states
are now composed of a few great cities
and many small towns, and that we
are still trying to apply one system Of
government to all of these communi-
ties. 1t is a curious reflection that
some of the hardest of these problems
arise from the purely arbitrary man.
ner in which the states were original
ly formed. So many generations have
become accustomed to the present
boundaries Of the older common
wcalths that many people unconscious
ly consider them entitled to as much
respect as the constitution itself In
point of fact, chance and caprice had
much more to do with running state
lines than judgment or foresight.
Take the state Of New York, for ex-
ample. While the Dutch were in con-
troll, they maintained their claim that
New Netherlands" included the pres
ent states of New Jersey and Delaware.
and the country eastward to the Con-
necticut river, and they even assert
cd, without enforcing, their right to
control what is now Pennsylvania.
When the English came into possess
sion, and Charles II. in 1864 made his
grant to the duke of York. it included
all of the land between the Delaware
and the Connecticut rivers, and large
part Of the present state Of Maine. II
the duke had held on to all that was
might have come into the Union in
Guiding within its boundaries. besides
the present territory, all of New Jersey
and Delaware, the western parts of
Connecticut and Massachusetts, Yer
mont and part of Maine-and even then
would have been far smaller than
Texas is now.
In point of fact, the duke bargained
away New Jersey as soon as he got
hold of it in 1864, and got rid of Della
ware in 1859. OF course, if he had SO
chosen, he might have reserved for
himself only a small tract of land near
the mouths of the North and East riv-
ers, allowing Connecticut to control
the eastern and central parts of Long
Island. as indeed it succeeded in doing
for some time, and ceding all the rest
of what now constitutes New York
state to somebody else. There would
have been quite as much sense in his
doing this as his doing what he actu-
ally did.
In that case. the state of New York
would now include the two present
cities of New York and Brooklyn. with
their suburbs, and perhaps a few out
lying towns given over to market gar
iening. The population of this small
but dcnsely settled territory would ex-
coed that of every other state in the
Union except Pennsylvania, Illinois
and Ohio. 1t would be little smaller in
territorial dimensions than Rhode
Island, while its great population and
wealth would give it perfect claim to
an equality with the vast but thinly-
settled commonwealths in the newer
parts of the country.
Such state as New York would to-
day be il the duke of York had taken a
fancy SO to make it would be the most
homogeneous commonwealth in the
Union. Many of its methods of gov
ernment would differ from those en-
ploycd along the st. Lawrence. on the
banks of the Erie canal, aud upon the
shores of Lakes Ontario and Erie,
just as the laws of the present
state of New York differ widely
from those of New Jersey, Della
ware and Maine, which might
still, perhaps. have been parts n this
state if duke had SO minded. In that
sidered the fact that this small
metropolitan state had different laws
from those on the statute book hum
dreds of miles north and west any more
a asubject for criticism than the existing
difference between the prohibiting law
of Maine and the liquor law of New
York. The people Of New York city
and Brooklyn would have the laws
that the people Of New York city and
Brooklyn wanted to have, and dwcllers
on the st. Lawrence and the lakes
would have no more to say about those
laws than dwellers on the Delaware.
the Connecticut or the Kennebec. And
everybody would say that it was right
that the metropolitan state should be
thus governed by its own people.
1t is mere chance-an unhappy
chancc-that we are not now living in
such compact and homogeneous
state, instead of constituting one Of
the many heterogeneous elements
that go to make up the present
immense and misshapen common
wealth. The caprice of two centuries
ago can not be undone. The constitu-
tion provides that mo new state shall
be formed or erected within the juris-
diction of any other state without the
consent of the legislature. as well as
of the congrcss"-and rural Legislators
will never give such consent.
But while this metropolitan commu-
nifty can never he made q separate
state. it can secure many of the advan-
tages that it would then enjoy il the
legislature of the state will give these
cities home rule. As We have already
said. everybody would admit that they
rightly possessed home rule il the duke
of York had SO peddled out his hold
ings couple OF centuries ago that