New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-11-08
( "UOuE RUE" DECISiON.

The decision OF the Michigan Supreme Court
that the Eikholf home rule law for Detroit Is I'M
constitutional ought 10 suggest some though'S
on the Fundamental value of city government 10
the people who are forever talking about nome
rlc" and by that term meaning virtual clty
indoucndcncc of the state. Political platforms
have so long been filled with nonsense on ms
subject and dcmacogucs have 50 long been
seeking excuses for their desire TO do wrong IN
disturbed by superior authority that the true
relation between the SaIc and lis local dlNlsl"hS
has been much bluntcd in the popular MIND
The EikhoG law undertook 10 confer upon the
municipal authorities Of Detroit general leglsa-
i've. bowers for the territory over which they
presided That is what many Of our muncpal
home rulers are calling for They do not want
the State government 10 have anything 10 say
about their affairs They are not content with
Tho local regulation of local business and admin
istrafivc affairs but demand the right to control
the lif. of the city independently. To make their
own laws concerning crime. to allow vice 10
flourish if il suits the local lin general, to
have municipal anarchy if 50 be that the city
prevailing sentiment is amarchSic. Ih" de-
irnif law whether "A conscious surrender 10 such
sentiments or not was in effect an effort 10
establish such u State within the state as this
theory calls for The supreme Court Of Mchl-
gan declares il void ON The ground TINT the
state LrgiSlaiurc cannoi delegate It's sovereign
mowers under the Constitution How far this
view may be- based on specific provisions Of TN"
Michigan Constitution does not appear from the
REPORTS Of the decision which have reached MS
nur There can be no doubt that it accords with
fhc general principles of our Government. The
.1,.
much right and duty TO rule the largest city as
the smallest hamlet. Large powers Of admins
lrativc home rule ia cry are desirable just in
proportion 10 me ability shown 10y it for the
wise exercise Of those powers The only test is
cxpcdicncy i'm such matters As 10 the larger
maticrs of public policy there can be no such
DELEGATION without the abdication by the stat"
Of lis own functions.
How far il is wise to give a city free range III
lavmal,ine for itself within the limits Of per-
Missile delegation is always difficult qneS-
ton The present tendency is in the direction
Of broad grants. bur thc frequent abuse OF su'h
liberty as is granted checks The extension ~
local privileges far short of the line between
possible city ana unqucsiionably state functions.
The city politicians of course complain OF ms
but without right If they will not enforce the
general laws but take refuge In the plea that
their people DO not Ike thcm enforced. they
must expect that the State will refuse TO trust
them largely in particular concerns. but Will
prefer TO keep hand upon these unfaithfu
citizens. even in matters which might ordinarily
he intrustcd 10 them. Perhaps when they see
case where. as i'm Michigan. willing Lrgislat-
IRE is not permitted to endow a city with Ger
tain authority. they may be inclined 10 take a
rrrle more heed to their position as holders of
privilege and realize that they come seeking
franchises from the state not demanding rights
whom they ask for chartcr pOWcrs.