competition. The voters do, however, approve the most stringent regulations against divesting the rights of the public in streets or other public property, and are abundantly willing to tax the gross profits of public service corporations. Probably the Portland voters are regarded by most conservative representatives of large business interests as being fearfully radical, but nevertheless a certain conservatism plainly shows itself in these votes.

Another fact which appears unmistakable on the face of these returns is that the voters pay very little deference to their own officers in passing upon the desirability of the measures submitted, but like to exercise their own judgment. In 1913, a few months after the commission charter had been adopted, the council submitted and urged the adoption of some fifteen measures, most of which were designed to correct what they considered defects in the charter and to make it work more smoothly. A good many persons thought that the council was unnecessarily fussy about the amendments, and while there was practically no discussion, except for some arguments made on behalf of the council at public meetings, every single one of the amendments was defeated, most of them by very large majorities. One of the most curious phenomena of modern politics is the wide-spread distrust by the public of the very officers whom they have deliberately chosen to administer their affairs and the extraordinary confidence which they show in a single executive who has shown notable ability, courage and trustworthiness.

Measures looking toward social betterment or humane administration of public affairs, such as turning over the city pound to the Humane Society under regulations which made that society responsible for its proper conduct, a free employment bureau, an indeterminate sentence law, a law providing a woman auxiliary police officer to look after offenses especially affecting women, billboard regulation, and the like, are almost invariably passed. The measures providing for a commission form of government in Portland were twice defeated and on a third submission approved. The change was partly due to the campaign of education which had been carried on in the meantime, partly perhaps due to differences in the form of amendment, although the last was much more

radical than the first submission. Two proposals to defeat the commission charter and return to the old system have been defeated, although the commission system has not made any brilliant or dramatic appeal to the average voter and is extremely objectionable to the small politician who finds himself deprived of his much valued influence through the doing away of ward council

men.

Attention should be called to the recall election held in 1914. The commission charter had then been in operation only a little over a year and there was not only acute hostility to it among the small politicians who had been dethroned by its operation, but a pretty general dissatisfaction with some of the commissioners who, although excellent officers, had been very tactless. The general election the following year showed that the majority were strongly dissatisfied with these officers; but at the recall election they were nevertheless retained in office by a very respectable majority, apparently on the theory that they were entitled to a fair show, which could hardly be had without allowing them to serve out their terms.

The home rule provisions of the Oregon constitution make no express reference to the power of the legislature to enact general laws which, by implication, might amend the charters of all cities, nor do they impose any express limitation on local charter making as affecting matters of general state concern, nor otherwise define the limits of municipal authority. The provisions with respect to the procedure by which they were to be put into effect are also somewhat indefinite and wanting in detail. Now, while it was obviously the purpose of the people in granting the cities home rule powers to set bounds to the authority of the state, it is not to be thought that they intended to make of each town an independent government, imperium in imperio, as the courts are fond of saying, and to cut the power of the state clean off at the city gates; nor is it probable that they meant to confer upon the city entirely unfettered governmental powers even when the state had no occasion to interfere. And what was to be said of the authority of the city without its borders, an authority which had been fre

quently granted in city charters enacted by the legislature? The labors of the courts in working out the answers to the questions thus suggested form a very important contribution to the development of the home rule system in Oregon, and may not be without value in other communities.

After a considerable period of doubt and hesitation by the courts, the superior rights of the people at large to direct their affairs over those of any locality have been firmly established. In well considered opinions in the cases of State v. Port of Astoria (79 Oregon I; 154 Pacific 399) and Rose v. Port of Portland (82 Oregon 541; 162 Pacific 498), Mr. Justice Harris, who had come on the bench since the earlier decision in Kalich v. Knapp (73 Oregon 558; 142 Pacific 22), undertook a thorough and minute examination of the two constitutional amendments in question, and as a result of a cogent and masterly analysis of their text, reinforced by other considerations, arrived at the conclusion that the legislature may enact a general law which modifies the charter or acts of incorporation of all cities, towns, municipalities or districts. The writer is convinced that this rule is essentially sound and imposes an important and indeed necessary limitation upon the development of municipal home rule.2

2For further discussion of the legal questions before the Oregon courts see article to appear in the National Municipal Review.

AND ITS WORK

WM. J. LOCKE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

One day in December, 1898, a handful of men assembled in the city of San Francisco, and formed the organization which has proved since to be such a great factor in the progress and development of California's cities and towns. At that time there were about a hundred municipalities in the state. Municipal government throughout the country was in a deplorable condition. James Bryce in his American Commonwealth had referred to it as our one conspicuous failure. Graft, bossism, and inefficiency were prevalent in all the large cities of the country, and a general cry had been raised throughout the land for municipal reform.

This was the situation when it was suggested to the mayor of a small town near San Francisco that it would be a good idea to have a state organization of the cities and towns. The suggestion appealed favorably to those with whom he consulted, and finally a meeting was called which resulted in the formation of the League of California Municipalities. Twenty-nine officials, representing thirteen cities, participated in the first convention. The growth and influence of the organization were continuous from the outset, and since that first meeting in San Francisco nineteen years ago, annual conventions of city officials have been held each year in some city of the state; meanwhile the league has increased its membership from thirteen to two hundred and sixteen cities and towns. Prior to the formation of the league no record was kept of municipal work. Each city and town was entirely in the dark as to what the others were doing or how they were doing it; there was no stimulus to do very much, and most of their officials simply drifted along in a careless, indifferent way, apparently without any plans or ideas for the future growth and development of their respective municipalities.

Following the organization of the league all this was changed. An official organ, giving an account of the various municipal im

provements going on throughout the state, was published and distributed monthly to the officials of those cities and towns belonging to the organization. Such accounts of what some of the cities were doing stirred others to action. New life was injected into the municipalities, and a demand was created for sanitary improvements, street pavements, parks, playgrounds, and other public betterments. From time to time comparative tables were published showing the work under way, and calling special attention to those cities and towns which were making the greatest progress. At the annual conventions, it was the practice to call upon the representatives present to give an account of the achievements of their respective municipalities during the preceding year. These accounts served as an additional stimulus to further improvement, natural pride prompting the desire to keep up with the pace.

However, the principal value of the annual meetings has been found to lie in the fact that they serve as a clearing house of ideas and experiences, affording an opportunity for officials to report the results of their tests and experiments and thus enable others to profit by their example. It is customary to have the various subjects treated in a practical rather than an academic manner; for example, instead of discussing municipal ownership as a question of economics, short talks are invited on experiences in operating municipal waterworks or lighting systems. In this way the successful operation of public utilities is emphasized, and towns which have encountered difficulties are stimulated to further endeavor. Besides the benefits which are derived from these informal discussions much good is accomplished by the private talks between delegates. During recess, at meal times, and in fact wherever and whenever two or more officials get together, the discussions are continued and extended. Everybody seems to talk shop and the amount of interest and devotion shown by the delegates is truly remarkable.

In order to accomplish the greatest amount of good it has been found advisable to divide the morning sessions into departments, the city attorneys meeting in one room, the clerks, auditors and assessors in another, and the engineers, councilmen and street superintendents in another. The program is so arranged that