St. Paul daily globe., 1896-04-05
THE PURPOSE OF THE CHANGES
PROPOSED BY THE HOWARD
CHARTER.
MAYORS DUTIES ARE DEFINED,
AND HIS POWERS MORE NARROW
LY LIMITED THAN IN THE OLD
CHARTER.
ONLY A "CHIEF EXECUTIVE,
Who Is Held Accountable for the
Proper Execution of the City,s
Laws.


The central purpose of the Howard
charter is to enlarge the powers of
the common council In furtherine
this purpose the Office of MAYOR is
| made to surrender a share of it's now
ers. In st. Paul's present system
| the scope OF the mayors duties Is not
| large; under the proposed charter it
would be more narrowly confined.
! The Howard act confers upon the
mayor, who is sonorousIy styled chief
executive, substantially these powers
and duties: A qualified veto upon the
councils legislation to appoint. con-
! troll and remove the police: to an
| point the commissioner of health. the
superintendent of the workhouse. the
school board and the park board: TO
sign city contracts and warrants
Gointly with other officers); to request
reports from city officers: and to
make an annual report to the council
| on the general condition of the city.
The mayor Of st. Paul now has all
the powers just enumerated, or their
equivalent, and in addition appoints
a board of public works, a fire board
and water board. All the duties of
these three boards would. under the
Howard charter, go to the council.
1t is true that, these duties of the
mayor are important; but it is doubt
full whether they afford him anything
like the influence In city affairs with
which he is credited in common belief.
Many a vote is cast in a mayoraIty
contest under the conviction that the
issue of the contest directly involves
foY tox.
can possibly be concerned in it. In
every general city election the candi-
dates for mayor are the principal sub
jects for discussion, both as to their
personal fitness for office and as to
their associate and tendencies in
city affairs. Yet when this candidate
or that is elected, he and his Supporters
soon find that he can but slightly mod
ify or control the citys adninistra-
ton. Schemes for personal gain and
promoters of public good alike have
learned this lesson; but the great body
OF voters, untaught as to actual de-
tails of their own local government.
cling to the tradition of the mayor s
eminent importance, only wondering
sometimes why it seems to make so
little difference who is mayor.
If 1t is an advantage to make the
mayors office Of little account. the
Howard charter is better in this re-
spect than the present charter of ST.
Paul; but if that is a disadvantage
then, although the present charter
may not be satisfactory, the Howard
charter is still worse.
Seth Low, recently mayor of Brook
lyyTl icJ -.
equipped reformers of our day. in
both the theory and the practice of
city government He advocates pIac-
ing large power in the mayors hands
In business, he argues, it is settled
that executive work must be committed
to one man; but city charters, with
few exceptions, run counter to that
plan, and so obstruct good govern
ment. In Brooklyn the departments
of police. fire. health, buildings and
public works are now directly under
the mayors control, and mot single
voice has been raised suggesting a re-
turn to old methods" The present
Brooklyn charter is, in this respect, a
model, according to Mr.. Low.
The drift of opinion among students
of municipal government seems to be
in the line of the Brooklyn experience.
Among those whose opportunities for
observation give weight to their
words, ex-Mayor Hart, of Boston,
urges that executive duties be re-
moved from legislative duties; ex-
Mayor Davidson, of Baltimore, holds
that the mayor should have entire au-
thority over executive subordinates;
and ex-Mayor Bishop, of Buffalo, that
heads of executive departments should
be appointed by the mayor
What is the reason for this opinion?
An obvious reason is this: To fix re-
sponsibility for the executive branch
of city government on a single official
head, whereby the people can directly
and effectively assert their control
Philadelphia formerly had thirty-two
separate executive departments, all
independent of each other and of any
head save councils. Responsibility
was reduced to a minimum; and Phila-
delphia's city government became a
shining mark of corruption. By con-
centration of responsibility upon the
shoulders of the mayor the issue of
good government is simplified and
brought within the reach of every
voter for his effective action
The most efficient executive is that
which recognizes the ordinary business
system-a single brain, a single will,
having ultimate control, appointing
subordinates and responsibly controll-
ing their line Of conduct. That is the
system Of national government. Any
other must involve more or less con-
fusion and inefficiency. The great Bos-
ton fire is said to have owed it's vast de-
structiveness to the separate response
bility of fourteen assistant fire chiefs,
not to common head, but to the
source of their appointment.
Boss Croker is not ranked as a re-
former, but as an organizer he is most
successful, and the friends of reform
may sometimes learn from it's enemies.
Speaking of New York, he said: 'Tt
is easy enough to find fault with any
government; but the theorists can say
what they please. You can't get good
government in a city like this with
out system and direct responsibility,
This city is just like any other big cor
poration. If you have no organization
If individuals are not held responsible
by some central power, you make no
progress. Concentration of manage
ment is the key to success. Well, what
does that mean? In business, it means
consolidation; in politics, it means or
ganization, or a machine, or whatever
you.mish to caal 1t. You divide the
management. and you divide the re-
sponsibility; and divided responsibility
means bad government"
st. Paul has suffered enough from
bad government resulting from di-
vided responsibility. 4 The provisions of