country by taking the law into their own hands. The brand of patriotism which confiscates land or the use of land for war gardens without paying for it, compels a man to buy a liberty bond under threat of bodily harm or imprisonment, or in any other way violates the constitutional rights of the law-abiding citizen, even though his patriotic ardor be somewhat cooler than it ought to be, that brand of patriotism closely resembles the brand of justice dealt out by the mob in accordance with the uncivilized code of lynch-law. No municipality can afford so seriously to injure the great cause which it is trying to serve.

Before embarking upon any form of patriotic endeavor, then, it is incumbent upon every city to judge carefully, in the light of such advice as it can secure from county, state, or nation, in which of these three classes just mentioned that enterprise will fall. Thus and thus only may it perform effectively its own peculiar duties, determine the things it may most efficiently do in cooperation with other agencies, and learn what it had best let alone. And all this to the end that its service may count for the very most in the winning of this great war.

It seems to me that this is not a problem in which this organization can afford to take merely a casual or purely academic interest. It is true that the Illinois Municipal League is not a body which can directly engage in war work with any real effectiveness. But it does not follow that there is nothing of value. which it can do. I submit to you that there are two distinct things which this organization might consider undertaking.

It might, in the first place, provide for or sponsor the making of a careful investigation of just what has been done by the towns and cities of Illinois in the way of effective war service, and what the possibilities in that direction are which have not been adequately developed. A report embodying these facts, coupled perhaps with such recommendations as a committee of the league might care to make would be of inestimable value to the municipalities of this state by letting them know what their neighbors are doing and how they are doing it.

In the second place, it seems to me that such an organiza

tion as this might well have a committee on municipal war work which could put itself in touch with the state council of defense, suggesting its willingness to coordinate with that body in any effective way in which its services could be utilized. The chairman of the state council of defense states that no data has been collected regarding the war work of Illinois cities nor have any plans been matured for the coordination of those activities. He declares that the state council would gladly welcome any suggestions which the Illinois Municipal League might make relating to those problems with the assurance that they would be of value and would receive careful consideration.

It seems to me that in these two ways the Illinois Municipal League might render definite service to the cities of this state and to the state itself. It would at least make clear its willingness to further the great cause of the war by helping, however slightly, to mobilize the resources of our municipalities for the effective service to the nation.

ISIDOR LOEB

University of Missouri

Special significance attaches to the subject of municipal home rule in Missouri because the home rule charter system had its origin in this state. The present Missouri constitution, which was adopted in 1875, contains provisions which authorize St. Louis and all cities of over 100,000 population to frame their own charters. It will be of interest to consider the condition which led to the adoption of these constitutional provisions.

Missouri's experience in the matter of legislative charter enactments has been similar to that of most American states. Cities were originally incorporated under special acts of the legislature and amendments and revisions of such charters were made in the same manner. In the early period, at least in the majority of cases, these acts were drafted in the local communities or embodied their ideas and sentiments. Later, however, the legislature did not hesitate to act on its own initiative and to use. its power to promote private or partisan interests. Moreover, it did not confine its action to the granting or defining of broad, general powers or the creating of fundamental organs of city government, but dealt in many cases with special matters which would ordinarily be provided for by city ordinance.

A large part of the time of each session of the legislature was devoted to these special acts affecting cities and the total mass of such enactments was considerable. St. Louis, as the largest city, was naturally the recipient of much of this legislative regulation of the affairs of municipalities. It was first incorporated by the second general assembly in 1822.1 From that time until the adoption of the constitution of 1875 every general assembly except the fourth, fifth, and ninth enacted some legislation pertaining to the city of St. Louis. Not all of the acts were formal changes in the charter, but without exception they affected the powers or the form of government of the city and many of them introduced changes of importance. The last four general 1Laws of Missouri, 1822-23, p. 38.

assemblies preceding the adoption of the constitution of 1875 enacted fifty-one laws of this character, or an average of more than twelve acts for each legislature. In addition it should be noted that many special acts relating to the county of St. Louis were due entirely to the fact that the latter included the metropolis of the state.

The excessive use of the power of special legislation had not been limited to cities but had appeared in the case of counties and private persons. It is natural that the resultant evils should have caused dissatisfaction and demands for restriction upon the legislature. In the constitution of 1865 provisions were inserted prohibiting special legislation in twelve classes of cases, including the establishment, alteration, or vacation of city streets and the grant of the right to construct railroad tracks in the streets of any city. In addition, the legislature was forbidden to pass any special law for any case for which provision could be made by general law; but as the question of whether a general law was applicable in any case was left to legislative and not to judicial determination this provision had little practical significance.* The legislature did not pass any general law for the incorporation of cities and continued to enact special acts with increasing fre

quency.

In the constitutional convention of 1875 there were insistent demands for limitation upon legislative power, including specifically the matter of special legislation. The number of classes of cases in which the legislature is forbidden to enact special laws was increased to thirty-two, and included, among others of importance to cities, the following: "regulating the affairs of counties, cities, townships, wards or school districts" and "incorporating cities, towns or villages or changing their charters."5 was also provided that no special law shall be enacted in any case where a general law is applicable, and the question of applicability

.

2Laws of Missouri, 1871, 1871-72, 1873, 1874, 1875. 3Constitution of Missouri, 1865, Art. IV, Sec. 27. 4Ibid.

5 Constitution of Missouri, 1875, Art. IV, Sec. 53.

It

was declared to be a judicial question. The constitution also requires the legislature to provide not more than four classes of cities and to enact a general law for the organization of each class."

While it was anticipated that the above provisions would prevent special legislation in the case of most of the cities of the state it was recognized that this would not be true of St. Louis. The legislature would be able to place St. Louis in one of the classes by itself, and thus under the form of general legislation for that class could continue the practice of special legislation for that city. Of the sixty-eight members of the convention, twelve were from the county of St. Louis and the majority of these were able and distinguished lawyers from the city of St. Louis. They were determined to secure provisions in the organic law which would lead to a correction of the abuses which had arisen in the county and city governments."

On May 12, 1875, one week after its opening, the convention adopted a resolution, offered by a delegate from St. Louis, providing for a standing committee on St. Louis affairs, to be composed of the twelve delegates from St. Louis County, to take into consideration all matters introduced in the convention which had specific reference to the organization and government of the county and city of St. Louis.10 Two days later the first official suggestion of a home rule charter came from another St. Louis delegate, who offered a resolution instructing this committee to investigate the expediency of permitting cities of 100,000 to be considered counties without regard to area and to be regulated by fundamental constitutional charters not liable to yearly change by the legislature, but to be as permanent as the fundamental law of the state unless changes are proposed by the concurrent action of two-thirds of the city council and mayor and are endorsed by

Ibid.

"Constitution of Missouri, 1875, Art. IX, Sec. 7.

See list of members at end of 'Schedule of the Constitution of Missouri, 1875.

Scharf's History of Saint Louis, Vol. I, note to p. 714.

10 Journal Constitutional Convention of Missouri, 1875, pp. 79, 80. Original manuscript copy.