« PředchozíPokračovat »
didates for election as delegates may appear on the ballot not only individually but in groups to be voted for as a unit. In New Jersey, candidates may have printed opposite their names individually or in a group, and under the caption "Choice for President," the name of the candidate they favor. In South Dakota, a group may go on the ballot under the common motto or pledge of not more than five words. In California, a full set of candidates for election as delegates may go on the ballot as a group, on two conditions: first, that not less than one nor more than four of the candidates shall come from each congressional district; second, that such group has “the endorsement of that candidate for presidential nominee for whom the members of said group have filed a preference, or the endorsement of such a state political organization created in support of the candidacy of said presidential nominee as shall not be repudiated by him as lacking authority to make such endorsement."
Both California and New Jersey provide for the mailing of sample presidential primary ballots to the voters for their instruction. But the former state further provides that the sample ballot of each party shall be accompanied by a sheet of "biographical sketches of presidential candidates.” These sketches are not to exceed three hundred words in length. “The biographical sketch of each candidate for presidential nomination shall be furnished by such candidate or by such state political organization created in support of his candidacy as shall not be repudiated by him as lacking authority" to do so. Those submitting such sketches must pay two hundred dollars a sketch to defray the cost of publication.
These presidential primary states form two groups with respect to the territorial or political unit of election and instruction of delegates to national conventions. In five states 18 two delegates are chosen by each congressional district and four at large, thus treating the district as the primary and the state as only a secondary election unit. All of this group of states except Pennsylvania provide for a presidential preference vote by all the party voters of the state; but make no attempt by law to define its operation, nor to add particularly to its moral and political force as an instruction to the delegates.
Illinois expressly provides that the preferential "vote of the state at large shall be taken and considered as advisory to the delegates and alternates at large to the national conventions of the respective political parties; and the vote of the respective congressional districts
18Pa., Wis., Nebr., N. J., Mass.
shall be taken and considered as advisory to the delegates and alternates of said congressional district."
In a second group of five states, 19 the delegates to national conventions are all elected by the state at large.20 The state is treated as the sole and supreme unit or agency both for electing and instructing delegates. Oregon and North Dakota seek to make the preferential vote binding by requiring every delegate to take an oath of office that he will “to the best of his judgment and ability, faithfully carry out the wishes of his political party as expressed by its voters at the time of his election.” California closely connects the choice of delegates with the presidential preference vote by providing for a full group of indorsed and pledged candidates, placed on the ballot under the name of the candidate they favor for president, so that the candidate carrying the state on the preferential vote will almost inevitably secure all the delegates. This state also has a permissive provision for a statement or pledge by a prospective delegate that if elected he will to the best of his judgment and ability support that candidate for president who received a plurality of che "votes cast throughout the entire state" by the voters of his party.
Michigan provides that the candidate receiving a plurality of the presidential preference "votes in the state
shall be declared to be the candidate and the choice of such political party for this state.” The Maryland law goes the farthest in seeking to bind the delegates by the presidential preference vote. It provides that the person receiving a majority of a party preferential vote for president “has been chosen by the voters of the party
as their choice for candidate for President in the national convention for such political party, and all the delegates of such party
shall be instructed and bound to vote as a unit in the national convention for such candidate
as long as in their conscientious judgment there is any possibility of his being nominated."
L. E. AYLSWORTH 195. D., Ore., N. D., Cal., Md.
20 In Md. all the delegates are chosen by a state convention made up of delegates chosen directly on the date of the presidential preference vote. The result of the presidential preference vote is not ascertained as is usual in primary laws, by adding up the total vote for a candidate throughout the State. The vote of each county and district is considered by itself, and the carrying of any county or district by a candidate merely serves legally to instruct and require its delegates to the state convention to vote for him. Not the party voters but the state convention voting by counties and districts under the unit rule as instructed by the primary vote formally and legally makes the presidential preference nomination.
APSR, 6( (ar)
CURRENT MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO
The question of permitting cities to take by condemnation proceedings, more private land than is actually needed for public improvements with the idea of reselling unused portions and thereby recouping themselves for part of the outlay, is one which has received a good deal of attention in various parts of the country within the last few months. Throughout Europe it has long been the practice of cities to follow the principle of excess condemnation in carrying through street improvements. It was under this system that Baron Haussmann put through his great scheme of street reconstruction in Paris a half-century ago and under somewhat similar arrangements the London County Council built the magnificent thoroughfare known as the King's Way. This latter undertaking was carried through at practically no cost to the public treasury, since the increased value of adjacent property about offset the outlay both for construction and for the acquisition of the land.
In most of the states of the Union constitutional provisions which forbid the taking of private property for other than strictly public purposes has placed serious obstacles in the way of many large municipal undertakings. These constitutional limitations have so restricted the authority of the city in the matter of land takings that although public improvements add greatly to the value of private property within adjacent zones, the municipal treasury gets only a small share of this increment by way of betterments. Moreover, when new thoroughfares are constructed or old streets widened, the present restrictive arrangements result in the creation of irregular and small-sized plots of land which are unsuitable for proper building development. It is coming to be realized that the replanning of American cities can be brought within the bounds of possibility only if the constitutional limitations relating to the taking of private property are somewhat relaxed.
It is now eight years since the Ohio legislature passed the first American act recognizing the principle, which, for what of a better term, is commonly called excess condemnation. A similar measure
was adopted in Maryland in 1905 and since that date Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts have made progress along the same line. An attempt to amend the constitution of New York state in the same direction was thwarted by an adverse popular vote last November. The legislature of Massachusetts has already taken advantage of its new constitutional authority and several street-widening projects which have been held in abeyance by Boston during the last few years are now being pushed forward.
Three plans for the expansion of large American cities are now receiving consideration in the municipalities concerned. A bill providing for a Greater San Francisco has been brought forward by an initiative petition and will probably be submitted to the voters next November. It is planned to take into the limits of the greater city the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda, leaving to those, however, some degree of control over their own local affairs.
The Massachusetts Real Estate Exchange has presented to the legislature a plan for the creation of a Greater Boston and Governor Foss has transmitted a special message endorsing the project. The plan contemplates the establishment of a Metropolitan Boston, taking in Cambridge, Brookline, Somerville, and a score of smaller cities and towns. The new district would have a population, according to the last census, of 1,439,120, which would give it rank as the fourth city of the United States. Provision is made in the plan for the abolition of the present Metropolitan Parks Commission and the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. The governing body of the district would consist of a council of nine members, eight elected by popular vote and one (the chairman) appointed by the governor of the state. The various cities and towns would be permitted to retain their present municipal government and to handle all matters at present controlled by them except police, fire protection, public utilities, main thoroughfares and technical education. The measure has not been favorably received by the people of the suburban municipalities, and there is little or no chance that it will be enacted into law during the present year. 1
A scheme for the creation of a Greater Baltimore, commonly known as the Field Plan, is now under discussion by the press of that city. The scheme as planned by Mayor Preston and City Solicitor Field provides for the extension of the city limits to include Roland Park, Mt. Washington, Forest Park, Arlington, and several other important suburbs.
It is proposed to divide the combined municipalities into four boroughs each of which would be allowed a considerable measure of local selfgovernment, but to combine under unified control the administration of the police, water supply, and public school systems. The plan if carried out would give Baltimore a population of about one million. Meanwhile, the new charter for Baltimore has passed the legislature and if ratified by the voters of the city will become effective in 1915. The new charter provides for a council of twenty-six members and for a board of estimate and awards, made up of the mayor and controller, the president and vice-president of the council, and the city solicitor. Many of the administrative powers formerly possessed by the council are given over to this board.
A complete list of the cities which have established a commission type of government prior to January 1, 1912, is printed in the issue of the Engineering News for April 4. Since that date the system has been adopted in Menomonie, Superior, and Janesville, Wis.; in Nebraska City, Neb.; and in Holton, Kan. The full list now comprises slightly more than two hundred cities situated in thirty-four different states of the Union. More than half of these cities are places with less than five thousand population and only six are cities above one hundred thousand.
The commission plan has now been in operation long enough to permit the drawing of some conclusions from its actual workings. One of these is set forth in a leaflet recently issued by the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, which points out that the new system of government has not changed the calibre of the men in municipal office. An examination of ten typical cities shows that of the fifty commissioners now in office, no fewer than thirty-five were municipal officeholders before the adoption of the commission plan. It appears therefore that, while the new system of municipal administration may enable those who are in office to do their work more efficiently than was possible under the old type of urban government, it does not greatly change the character of the men chosen to public office by the voters. Another criticism upon the actual working of commission government is presented in the editorial columns of the Engineering News for April 4. The complaint is made that no marked increase in the recognition given to administrative experts is apparent in those cities which have adopted the new political framework. All that commission charters sometimes do, it is claimed, is to take for granted that an inexperienced