Ohio. Since the Ohio municipal home-rule amendment went into effect on Jan. 1, 1913, 25 cities of the state have had under consideration the proposal to frame charters for their own government. In eight of these cities, namely, Amherst, Gallipolis, Ironton, Jackson, Mansfield, Marietta, Norwood and Washington, the voters rejected a proposal to elect a commission of 15 to frame new charters. In seven, namely, Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Elyria, Lorain, Salem and Youngstown, charter commissions were elected, but the charters which they framed were subsequently rejected by the people. In nine others, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Lakewood, Middletown, Springfield, Sandusky, Ashtabula and Toledo, charters have been adopted. According to the interpretation of the attorney-general, the cities of Ohio may provide schemes of assessment for public improvements different from the schemes provided by law, provided they do not violate any constitutional provisions. (See also Charter Revision, infra.) New York. The Municipal Empowering Act (the Cullen Levy Bill, A. Y. B., 1913, p. 204) has been upheld as constitutional by Justice Greenbaum of the New York Supreme Court (N. Y. Law Journal, Sept. 25, 1913); in this decision he upheld in every respect the contentions of the Municipal Government Association. The Optional City Charter Bill (A. Y. B., 1913, p. 204) has become a law (see Charter Revision, infra). Mayor John Purroy Mitchel of New York City has started a campaign for city home rule. In April, 1915, a state constitutional convention will be held and he aims at securing an amendment of the provisions of the present constitution which will confer greater powers of self-government on the municipalities of the state. In a recent speech the mayor said: We want in New York State home rule for cities as broad and complete as that conferred upon the cities of Ohio in 1912. It is the right of the people of the cities to manage their local affairs. That right is the essence of political democracy and that real municipal home rule should be firmly established in the fundamental law of the state. We declare it should include the right of the cities to formulate, adopt and amend their own charters and enact laws regulating their own local affairs, the right to exercise all powers of local selfgovernment and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations as local experience may demonstrate are wise, just and necessary; the right to control the organization and budget of all municipal departments and the right of autonomy as to the policy to be pursued in relation to franchise control, ownership or operation of public utilities and similar matters primarily of local concern. Maryland. An amendment to the constitution giving Baltimore the right of home rule has been passed by the legislature and will be voted upon at the general election in 1915. Illinois. The question of a homerule amendment was submitted on the "little ballot" at the April election and received a majority of 8,168. This practically amounts to a straw vote. The vote grew out of the discussion of the public-utilities law of 1913, which it is claimed violates the right of municipal home rule for Chicago. Wisconsin. A constitutional amendment, that "cities and villages have power and authority to amend their charters, and to frame and adopt new charters, and to enact all laws and ordinances relating to their municipal affairs, subject to the constitution and the general laws of the state," was defeated at the election on Nov. 3 by a vote of 138,307 to 82,247. Iowa.-The League of Iowa Municipalities at its 1914 meeting passed a resolution to the effect that it would work for home rule in Iowa and at the next meeting of the legislature it will present bills with this end in view. Municipal officials are reported as generally in favor of home rule and opposed to the idea of a state utilities commission, believing that these questions can be better settled by local authorities. Minnesota.-The Minnesota League of Municipalities has declared in favor of the local control of public utilitics and a Home Rule League to achieve the same purpose has been formed. CHARTER REVISION board of aldermen are given an opportunity to repeal the ordinance. If they do not repeal it, then its adoption must be submitted to the voters. Equal effort has been made likewise to make the recall practicable and workable. All elective officers may be recalled by a petition signed by 20 per cent. of the registered voters, with 20 per cent. of such voters in at least two-thirds of the wards of the city. No recall petition may be filed within six months after an official takes office. There is no provision for non practically all other recent charters, because, it appears, that is a state matter and governed by state laws providing for partisan nominations. St. Louis.-St. Louis voted on June | 30 to adopt a new charter which establishes a much simpler form of government with direct-legislation features. It is not exactly a short-ballot charter, although it provides for a greater concentration of authority and responsibility than the old one. There is a single legislative chamber, in place of an elaborate and complicated bicameral plan, composed of one member from each of 28 wards, although the members must be elected at large on a city ticket, a unique feature in American charters. Spe-partisan nominations, as is the case in cial pains were taken with the direct legislation provisions so as to strengthen them on the one hand, and on the other, to protect the electorate from certain abuses which have crept Cincinnati. The Cincinnati charter in elsewhere. The initiative, for in- which was defeated on July 14, alstance, is established on what is be- though it was supported by the forlieved to be a workable basis, petition mer mayor, Henry T. Hunt, the Buof five per cent. of the registered vot-reau of Municipal Research, and the ers for a general election and seven per cent. for a special; but the board of aldermen are to have an opportunity to pass initiated ordinances and thus save the expense of an election. If not so passed, the proposed ordinance must be submitted to the voters. No ordinance (except strictly emergency measures) is to take effect for 30 days after passage by the board of aldermen. If within that time a petition signed by two per cent. of the registered voters is filed with the board of election commissioners, the taking effect of the ordinance is postponed for 40 days more, which are allowed to secure an additional five per cent. for a special referendum election. After the petition has been filed the reform forces generally, had many interesting features. It required that candidates be elected by a majority and not by a plurality as usually occurs now. There were provisions for an election pamphlet to be published by the authorities and for the prohibition of the circulating of anonymous campaign literature. Cleveland.-Cleveland had a charter fight directed to protecting what was adopted a year ago (A. Y. B., 1913, p. 204). Five proposals to change were submitted: (1) to substitute a small council elected by wards; (2) to eliminate non-partisan elections and preferential voting; (3) to abolish civil service for unskilled labor; (4) to transfer the division of health from the Department of Public Welfare to the Department of Public Safety; and (5) to transfer the management of parks and recreational activities from the Department of Public Welfare to the Department of Public Service. The civil service amendment was the only one adopted at the primary election on Aug. 11. Columbus.-On May 5 a home-rule charter was adopted for Columbus, under which the city will have a council of seven and a mayor, all elected at large on a non-partisan ballot for a term of four years. The mayor will have merely an advisory veto over the action of council. An important feature of the charter is the requirement that the superintendent of the Division of Public Welfare shall provide for the study of and research into causes of poverty, delinquency, crime and other similar problems in the community. Provision is made also for the appointment of a public defender, whose duty it will be to see that only justice is meted out to individuals charged with offenses in the municipal court and whose means are too limited to secure aid in preparing a proper defense. Toledo.-Toledo's charter commission recommended the straight federal plan. It provides a real short ballot, for each elector is required to vote only for mayor, vice-mayor and the councilman from his ward. Nonpartisan, preferential voting was provided for, and likewise the recall, initiative and referendum. Under the non-partisan plan any number of candidates may run for primary nominations for, say, the office of mayor. The highest three will be the candidates at the election following the primaries. Similar elimination for other offices will be determined by the primary vote. The charter was adopted at the election on Nov. 3. Seattle.-Seattle on June 30 defeated a proposed charter which was the first one emanating from so large a city to provide for a city manager. His salary was fixed in the proposal at $12,000, the same as Dayton's, and therefore relatively not so large. The city manager was to have been subject to removal by a two-thirds vote of the council and to recall by the people. The mayor was to be in charge of the police and to preside over the council. Preferential voting was to be established and primaries eliminated. That they might study the candidates and their relative fitness, sample ballots were to be mailed a week in advance of the election. Boston.-Boston had a charter fight over the retention of the single council chamber elected at large or the substitution therefor of a larger council elected on a ward basis. This question was submitted on a referendum to the people at the election in November and defeated. Chicago. Chicago has now a permanent charter commission of 15 aldermen and 15 other citizens under the chairmanship of Henry D. Capitain. The general purpose of the commission will be to bring about a greater degree of local self-government, a rehabilitation of the municipal revenue laws and a consolidation of the taxing bodies within the city limits. It will also devise ways and means of bringing about necessary constitutional amendments. New York State.-Buffalo adopted the commission form of government at the November election. This she was able to do under an enabling act passed by the legislature of 1913 (4. Y. B., 1913, p. 204). The legislature of 1914 passed the optional cities law (see Municipal Home Rule, supra; and A. Y. B., 1913, p. 204), which goes into effect in July, 1915. It gives all the cities of New York State save the largest three (New York, Buffalo and Rochester) an opportunity to choose any one of six forms of charter. To each of the six forms the following general provisions apply: The governing body is to be known as the council, elected for a term of four years, partially renewable biennially. In addition to other powers granted under the specific plans, the mayor is to have custody of the seal of the city and is required to exercise such other powers as are conferred by law upon the mayors of cities. Boards of education are not affected by the act, and as to election provisions, the general laws of the state apply. These require the holding of partisan primaries, with provision for independent nominations. The ballot is of the so-called "Massachusetts" type, with party emblems opposite the names of candidates. There are no provisions in the law for direct legislation or for recall. erning body is five, not including mayor (or three in cities of less than 25,000 population, if the voters so decide), elected at large. The admin mayor. He exercises the executive and administrative powers; may veto an ordinance or resolution of council, which veto may be overridden by a three-fourths vote. His salary is three times that of a councilman. He appoints all officers of the city required by law or ordinance to be appointed. Under Plan A, known as the "lim-istration is under the control of the ited-council plan," the governing body is composed of five members (or three in cities having less than 25,000 inhabitants, if voters so determine), including a mayor elected at large. The council is required to divide the administration of the city's affairs into departments and make rules and regulations concerning them, and each Plan E, "legislative department conmember of council is to be designated sisting of nine councilmen," is the the head of one or more departments same as Plan D, except that the counover which he has special oversight cil consists of nine persons elected at and direction. Plan B, known as the large. Plan F, "legislative depart"limited-council with collective super- ment consisting of councilmen elected vision plan," is, in general, the same by districts," is the same as Plan D, as Plan A, but the individual mem-except that the council consists of as bers of the council do not serve as many members as there are wards in heads of departments, those positions the city, and one councilman is to be being filled by appointment by the elected from each ward. council. Plan C, "limited-council with appointive city manager," provides a governing body of five, including mayor, in third-class cities, or seven, including mayor, in secondclass cities, all elected at large. The administrative and executive powers are vested in a city manager, appointed by the council, to hold office during their pleasure. The city manager is to be the administrative head of the city government. Under Plan D, "separate executive and legislative departments," the gov Virginia. Another state which has passed an optional charter bill for cities under 100,000 population is Virginia. Under an act of March 13, 1914, a city may choose to be governed under the "modified commission plan," the "city-manager plan," or general councilmanic plan. The act provides for the calling of special elections upon the petition of 25 per cent. of the qualified voters. If the special election fail, there can be no further vote on a change of form for two years. GOVERNMENT BY CITY MANAGER AND COMMISSION New Jersey. At the 1914 session of the legislature, two important amendments to the commission-government law were passed, one of them making preferential voting compulsory in all cities operating under its provisions, and the other putting these cities in a separate classification. The latter was intended to give the cities a rather larger measure of self-government than they enjoy at present, but in accomplishing this end it took them from under the control of such laws as were applicable to cities of a special class and provided a general municipal law applicable to all cities to which these laws applied. This law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on May 22, on the ground that it was special legislation. Pueblo.-On June 30 Pueblo voted down a proposition to abandon the commission form. The campaign grew out of an effort on the part of some of the discarded political forces, who started a petition to amend the charter in such a way as to bring back the old form of government. Under the constitutional amendment which gives Colorado cities the right to adopt the commission form of government, any one may start a petition calling for a special election to amend the charter, and it requires only ten per cent. of the last vote to bring about a special election. The vote showed that the people were satisfied with their pres ent commission form of government, | tion of over 30,000 inhabitants which as they voted four to one to sustain have adopted a commission form of it; in fact, the petitioners did not government. succeed in having as many votes cast to change the form of government as they had names on their petition. In November, 1913, the people voted to reduce the number of city commissioners from five to three, and to raise municipal revenues thereafter under the single-tax system. Commission Government.-The following is a list of the cities adopting the commission form since the list published in the YEAR BOOK for 1913 (p. 206): The City-Manager Plan.-There has been an interesting growth of the citymanager plan. In the last issue of the YEAR BOOK (p. 208) 12 cities were reported as having adopted the plan during the year. At the end of 1914 there were 45 city-manager cities, the list being as follows: Norwood, Mass.. Grove City, Pa... Titusville, Pa. M. H. Hardin. 9,957 4,732 5,314 7,050 485 Denton, Tex. 350 Bakersfield, Cal... According to the report prepared by A report on the city-manager and the Bureau of the Census (June, commission plans of city government, 1914), there were at the close of 1913 prepared by a special committee, was 55 cities out of 199 in the United published by the National Municipal States having an estimated popula- | League in June. EFFICIENCY AND RESEARCH New York. The New York Bureau coöperated with the Curran aldermanof Municipal Research has worked ic committee in the police investigawith the comptroller in revising and tion of 1913 (A. Y. B., 1913, p. 225). installing accounting systems in the It has also prepared a study of the finance and other departments, and standardization of salaries and grades |