The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-28

mixture of functions, comforting unlimited
powers upon the same men, may work Well
III Englanu wnere Suffrage is restricted tc
a property basis, but it is the very root OF
all evil in this country of universal suffrage.
our county government IS also antique.
originally all the powers of the county or
ganization in England and in the colonies
were vested in a county court. The Judge
not merely tried, cases, but also levied
taxes, distributed poor relief, built roads
and performed all of the public business.
When the Northwest Territory was organ
Izeu tilis was the form or government At
very early day, here and elsewhere, the
judge of the county, which at that time was
practically as large as State is now, found
mat ne had too much to do. His powers
were then divided and a new set of officials
were created to exercise the power of levy
ms taxes and carrying on public business.
Ihus the judge became exclusively jul
dlclal officer. and legislative and executive
powers were placed in the hands of the
Jew county officials
When this division of functions took place
in each community one of two plans was
adopted. In New York the business of the
county was Entrusted to a board of super
vlsors. consisting of representatives from
the various townships. On the other hand,
IN IN pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and other
states, instead of creating a representative
body: the powers of the county were vested
IN highly centralized board of three men,
pers, elected from the whole county, and
called by us county commissioners. While
the former plan. which is to this day known
as the New York plan, was more popular
and more representative, it was urged that
the small board of three members was more
efficient. When we consider that our board
of county commissioners has practically re-
manned unchanged from pioneer times to
the present day, when our State contains
two and one-half million people and the
public business involves untold millions ey-
cry year, is it surprising that the county
board is not adapted to the changed circuni-
stances, particularly in populous and
wealthy counties? Rather is it not surpris-
ing that this highly centralized institution
exercising both legislative and administra-
tive powers and having even a trace of ju-
01cldl power has survived 50 in lie
present form?
In township governments the public bust
ness was originally transacted by the
justices of the peace. Then there came a
division of this power and the levy of taxes
and transaction of business was placed in
otner hands. Here, too, there was great
difference in the method provided for trans
acting township business. In New York
and other States the people of the township
fixed the tax levy in an annual town meet
ing OF all the voters. The town meeting is
regarded as the germ of free institutions.
IL was not invented in New York nor in
New England, but certainly i'm Old Eng
land, If 1t did not exist among the Germans
themselves. In Indiana, unfortunately, we
chose IN our township government, as in the
case of county government, to reject the
plan which gave the people a larger con-
troll in local affairs, and adopt highly CEN
tralized, If not despotic, form of local gov
eminent. Thus, the township trustee fixes
the tax rate for his township. The people
of the township have no effective represent
tation In liking the tax rate and controlling
expenses. No despotc country does worse
than to have the tax rate fixed by single
man. The levy of school taxes was In
deed, originally made by the people of the
township assembled in town meeting. I'm
happily. in 1865, this popular form of gov
eminent was abandoned and the fixing of
the school tax, as well as the expenditure
of school moneys, was concentrated in the
hands. of single person known as the
township trustee.
The next article will suggest certain
changes in our county government
AUGUSTUS l.. MASON. Chairman
Committee on Municipal Affairs, Indians
State Board OF Commerce.