Imágenes de páginas

“No ballot used at an annual or special city election, or at a preliminary election for nominations shall have printed thereon any party or political designation or mark and there shall not be appended to the name of any candidate any such party or political designation or mark or anything showing how he was nominated or indicating his views or opinions." A capable and representative board of five commissioners was chosen and has managed the affairs of the city with creditable results.

Before the legislature last winter there were petitions from six other cities besides Boston: Lowell, Newburyport, Lynn, Beverly, Taunton and Quincy, for more or less radical amendments of their charters in which an important feature should be the elimination of party designations. All petitions were refused except Taunton's and in this case the legislature struck out the provision for non-partisan elections and inserted the requirement of a party designation after the name of the candidate on the nomination petition.

In behalf of Boston a strenuous agitation by citizens and business organizations succeeded in getting the Finance Commission's plan for a non-partisan government submitted to a referendum though the legislature attached an alternative scheme by which nominations were regularly to be made by party conventions, with ward representation in a chamber of thirty-six. Both party machines exerted themselves in favor of this plan, but the people voted November 2d by 39,175 to 35,306 to adopt the non-partisan scheme, with a single board of nine men elected at large. Nominations are made by petition, with five thousand signatures, and there is no preliminary election. With a population of over six hundred thousand and about a hundred and ten thousand voters, Boston is by far the largest city yet to try this new method of governing a city. If it succeeds, it will emphatically endorse the method so successful elsewhere in smaller places.

California, where the cities of Fresno and Alameda had taken so early a stand in support of this principle, has seen the move

ment spread to other cities. Riverside, at a speCalifornia

cial election March 1, 1907, adopted amendments to her charter whereby, while otherwise the provisions of the general state law apply to nominations and to elections, it is especially " directed that no party name or designation shall appear on the certificates or ballots". (Chap. 25, 1907, Sec. 217.) San Diego, at a special election January 12, 1909, adopted a charter amendment for nominations by petition of fifty voters and " The ballots shall have no party or other designation or mark whatever." (Chap. 5, 1909.) Los Angeles adopted a charter amendment at a special election February 2, 1909, directing that “There shall be nothing on any ballot indicative of the party affiliation, source of candidacy, or support of any candidate.” (Chap. 22, 1909, Sec. 206.) Los Angeles does not have a commission government, but has a mayor and nine councilmen, with half a dozen other general officers elected by the people.

Berkeley, the home of the University of California, adopted a new charter, January 30, 1909, by 3,178 to 546. Its non-partisan provision that “Nothing on the ballot shall be indicative of the source of the candidacy or of the support of any candidate (Art. III, Sec. 15 of Chap. 17) is not quite as strong as that of Los Angeles. Nominations are made by twenty-five individual certificates, and in this connection Berkeley inaugurated, for the first time in America, a new method, which resembles the French system, whereby the first election is also the final one if any candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, in which case he is declared duly elected. If no candidate receives a majority, then the first election is considered to have been a primary election for the nomination of candidates, and is followed by a second election three weeks later at which those who receive the highest number of votes, to the number of twice the number to be elected, are the only candidates, and at this second election the highest number of votes elects whether it is, or is not, a majority. Berkeley elects only a mayor, four councilmen, an auditor and

а the four school directors. It has a commission government of the latest and most approved form.

This Berkeley charter follows essentially the plan proposed by Prof. William Carey Jones, head of the department of jurisprudence in the University of California, who became later the chairman of the board of fifteen freeholders chosen at the election of November 21, 1908, on which board was also Benj. Ide

Wheeler, the President of the University. Prof. Jones, when proposing his draft in November, 1907, said that it incorporated and adapted ideas from the charters of Galveston and of Des Moines, differing, however, from those in various particulars, but that he utilized also valuable material found in charters of other American cities and in the Municipal Program of the National Municipal League.

Spokane, Washington, May 4, 1909, adopted by vote of 6,815 to 1,850 a charter with direct non-partisan primaries. On May

II, 1909, both Concord, N. H., and Colorado Other Non

Springs, Col., adopted new charters in which the Partisan Cities

elimination of partisanship is an essential feature. Tacoma, Washington, has lately adopted the democratic form of commission government, based on the Des Moines model. Elimination of partisanship is sought to be attained by the combination of the provisions for that purpose adopted by both Berkeley and Haverhill. A candidate is nominated by twentyfive electors, who must certify that they believe “He has not become a candidate as the nominee or representative of or because of any promised support from any political party or any committee or convention representing or acting for any political party.” (Sec. 188.) The candidate himself must file his acceptance and in his acceptance he must make affidavit to the facts stated above. Tacoma likewise adopted the French or Berkeley method of “ second elections."

Grand Junction, Colorado, on September 14, 1909, adopted a new charter which, in addition to the general principles of the Des Moines model, follows the example of Tacoma in its very stringent regulations for the elimination of partisanship. Grand Junction, however, makes a new departure with reference to elections, and inaugurates for the first time in our country the preferential system of voting, in lieu of direct primaries or of second elections. The president of the charter convention writes that “the city of Grand Junction, especially during the four years immediately preceding the April election of 1909, was under the absolute control of the public service corporations,

James W. Bucklin, in Equity, October, 1909, page 118.

saloons and machine politicians. Public franchises were given away in the most outrageous way, without any regard for the future public welfare. Long-time contracts with public-service corporations were entered into, with the grossest excessive rates. The political machines of both political parties were working in unison to prevent good government and to perpetuate graft. The old form of government was a complete failure.” The new charter is probably the most advanced of any yet adopted, and, according to the prefatory synopsis, adopted by the charter convention, is intended to vest in the people of the city supreme legislative power, with easy preliminary conditions in making and changing its charter and ordinances, and also the absolute and exclusive power of authorizing, regulating, or terminating its public-service corporations, and of recalling its elective officers. Partisan and machine politics and government are inhibited and a municipal democracy substituted therefor.

Whenever the elimination of national politics from municipal elections is adopted as a principle, it is generally applied not only

to the election of mayor and aldermen or counNon-Partisan

cillors, but also to the members of the school School Boards

board. This is expressly stated in the general law of South Dakota and is true of most of the cities where this idea has been adopted. Indiana, by the Revised Statutes of 1908, Sec. 6517, applies this principle to the choice of members of the board of education in cities with a population of over 100,000; but does not provide that this non-partisan principle should govern the election of other municipal officials.

One field in which the intrusion of partisanship would seem to be entirly indefensible is that of the choice of judges of the

various courts. Judges should owe their office Non-Partisan

to the people and not to a party and should be Judiciary

under no obligation to organizations or interests. There is a movement to free the judiciary from partisan influences. Some states, like Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho, are passing laws for their non-partisan nomination and election. In other states this movement has been temporarily defeated. In Nebraska the act of the legislature for this purpose was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court,

[ocr errors]

three of whose members are candidates for renomination on the Republican ticket.

In Chicago, where the Municipal Voters' League has for a dozen years carried on a splendid fight to improve the political

condition of their city, they have fought on the The Civic

platform that the aldermanic office involved serStruggle in

vice for the whole people; that it is non-partisan Chicago

in its nature, and should be discharged without reference to party affiliations, and that the council committees should be organized strictly on the basis of integrity and fitness and without regard to party. The voters have largely followed the advice and leadership of the League and many believe that, in view of the conditions, rather remarkable success has been attained.

Brookline, in Massachusetts, is noted for the excellence of its administration, its low tax rate and its fine public improvements. Though it has a population of twenty-six thousand, far larger than scores of cities, it has remained a town, with its affairs controlled by the unfettered democracy of the town meeting. One secret of its success is disclosed by the statement of its representative and the speaker of the Legislature, Hon. Joseph Walker, that “we never interject party politics into local affairs.”

Municipal government in America has admittedly been largely a failure. In England and on the continent it is, in striking con

trast, generally a success—honest, efficient, proMunicipal gressive. In both England and Europe there Government in

are somewhat different systems by which city England

governments are organized, but usually there is a large chamber, elected by wards or districts, and working through committees; three features which in America are deemed likely to cause inefficiency and corruption. We must, therefore, look elsewhere than to this framework of government for the cause of such radical difference in results. There is one such general cause. National party organizations, almost without exception, do not in Europe and do in America, attempt to control city governments. In Europe such organizations are not permitted to place their national party designations on municipal

« AnteriorContinuar »