Page images
PDF
EPUB

419. The spirit of modern city life. The modern attitude toward the city is in striking contrast to that of the ancient or medieval period.

The medieval system of independent town units was succeeded by a period of political development in which the city was given a position fundamentally different from that which it occupied during previous periods. The change affected not merely the relation between city and state, but also profoundly influenced the attitude of the population toward the city and its government. . . .

In the cities of the ancient and medieval world the individual in all his personal and property interests was subordinated to the community. Every relation of trade, industry, or commerce was dependent upon the public authority. In the medieval towns, membership in the political community was a prerequisite to the exercise of any trade or calling. In consequence the attention and interest of the population were centered in the city.

The new and distinctly modern spirit first asserts itself in an intense individualism which completely changes the concept of government. The rôle of government, which in the medieval cities had been construed to include the regulation of every field of individual activity, receives a new and distinctly negative interpretation. Ideas of inherent and imprescriptible individual rights obtain general acceptance, while government is regarded as the guarantor and protector of these rights rather than as a positive factor in industrial activity. . . .

That this attitude toward government has strongly influenced the civic life of our cities is evident to every observer of American political conditions. To one section of the community the city government is a necessary evil designed to avoid the greater evil which would result from the clash of individual interests. To another it is akin to a great business corporation, justifying the use of the ordinary standards of commercial morality in obtaining favors and privileges. . . . The city's interests are rarely, if ever, identified with those of the public, and in taking advantage of incompetent or corrupt officials there is no thought of depriving the public of rights to which it is entitled. .

Another important influence in strengthening this negative attitude toward the city is closely connected with one of the strongest traits of American national character-the high development of the domestic virtues and the resulting intensity of home life. . . . Administrative efficiency has been attained only in those departments such as the police and fire services which directly affect the safety and integrity of the home. In European cities, on the other hand, those municipal

activities which contribute most to the inexclusive and social pleasures are more highly developed.

V. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

420. Character of urban population. Goodnow draws the following conclusions from an analysis of city populations :

First. The population of cities is actuated by commercial and industrial motives.

...

Second. This population is perforce heterogeneous in character, and the larger the city the greater is apt to be the heterogeneity. . . .

Third. City populations have as compared with rural populations no historical associations with the cities in which they live. Neighborhood feeling is not liable to be strong.

Fourth. Being composed in large measure of young people or people of middle life, city populations are radical rather than conservative in their tendencies; they are impulsive rather than reflective and are considerably more inclined than rural populations not to have regard for the rights of private property.

Fifth. City populations are more productive than rural populations. They can, therefore, endure a higher rate of taxation. With the greater productivity they also contain probably a smaller proportion of the dependent classes, though the presence in cities of such a large percentage of widows brings it about that there will be a large dependent class due to the death of the principal breadwinner of the family.

Sixth. City populations contain a greater proportion of criminals than the rural districts, but there are reasons for believing that on the whole they are not much if any less virtuous than rural populations.

Seventh. City populations are better educated than rural populations in the sense that a greater proportion of city than of country people can read and write and that their distinctly literary educational opportunities are greater. But because of their industrial character they are probably less capable of taking broad views than countrymen. . .

Eighth. Property is much more unequally distributed in the cities than in the rural districts. We find more very wealthy and more very poor than in the country districts.

Ninth. Family life is different in the cities from family life in the rural district. In large cities a large part of the population is often crowded together. In industrial cities where a large proportion of married women work in factories, the family does not properly discharge its most important function, viz., the care and nurture of the children, and the rate of infant mortality is very high.

Tenth. The health of city populations is on the whole not so good as is that of rural populations. The death rate is almost everywhere higher in urban than in the rural districts, although the cities contain more than their due proportion of the most vigorous part of the population.

421. Democracy and city life in America. In some respects city life hinders, in other respects it facilitates, democratic development.1

Two or three things seem to be essential to the success of democracy. In the first place, the great body of the people must be intelligent and have a large social capacity, which means that they must be able to see beyond their own garden fences and be able to coöperate with other men of considerably different habits and ideals. Then there must be a strong interest in local institutions, in that part of political life which affects men daily in and near their homes. And, finally, the conditions of life must be such that men can give a considerable amount of time and thought to those political interests in regard to which they can personally make their wills felt. . . .

All the forces here described as affecting the conditions of life in a way unfavorable to democracy culminate in cities. The city is, indeed, the visible symbol of the annihilation of distance, and the multiplication of interests.

And yet, on the other hand, the city emphasizes locality and gives opportunity for coöperation. The city is the point where the resistance of space to men's efforts is focused, and, consequently, local interests become enormously increased. The opportunities, too, for formulating the popular will are greatly enhanced in cities by proximity of residence. People can gather in mass meetings on a few hours' notice, public opinion. can find immediate expression in the press, the citizen can bring personal pressure to bear upon the official without delay. The danger is that democracy will be paralyzed by its opportunities. True local interests, though of such transcendent importance to the community, tend to go by default so far as the individual is concerned. The home and the neighborhood, the natural primary units of local organization, are weakened, and in many cases nearly destroyed. Home life is little more than a name where a hundred people, often of different nationalities, live in a single tenement house; and what is left of the neighborhood where there is a density of five hundred to the acre? Among the business and professional classes, a man's friends and intimate associates may be scattered over the whole city, while he scarcely knows his nextdoor neighbor's name. It is among working people and the poor that

1 Copyright, 1904, by The Macmillan Company.

local interests retain their importance to the individual, and partly for this reason democracy appeals most directly and most safely to the masses.

422. The position of the modern city. The position of the city in the modern state may be described as follows:

The development of the past three or four centuries has brought it about that almost all powers, for the exercise of which the cities have struggled since the dawn of municipal government in the middle ages, have been recognized as powers of state rather than municipal government. The exercise of many of these powers has been assumed by the state itself, which denies to the city any participation whatever in their exercise. This is true of powers relating to foreign and military affairs and of most powers relating to judicial affairs. The exercise of another class of powers, including within them some judicial powers and such powers as relate to the preservation of the peace, the public health, the care of the poor and the schools, has not, however, been assumed exclusively by the state. The state on the contrary permits the city to share in their exercise, but regards the city as not acting exclusively or mainly in its own interest, but rather as an agent of the state government.

The massing of population in cities as a result of the changes in economic and social conditions which began at the end of the eighteenth century have made it necessary, however, to regard the city as something more than an agent of the state government; and the legislation of the nineteenth century to which reference has been made, has everywhere granted to cities large powers of a distinctly local significance. The city has, as a result of this legislation, become an organization for the satisfaction of local needs. This revival, so to speak, of the city, which has taken place during the nineteenth century has been due thus, not so much to any reversal of the decision as to the position of the city with regard to the powers which had been decided to be powers of state government, but which the cities had claimed the right to exercise, as to the belief that a new field of municipal activity had been opened which the city must occupy.

423. The mayor and the city council. Dissatisfaction in the United States with the usual working of city executive and legislature demands certain fundamental changes.1

If we wish to preserve the council, we must be prepared to make three changes: First, to deprive it of all participation in the appointment of executive officials; secondly, to transform it from a bicameral

1 Copyright, 1908, by D. Appleton and Company.

organization to a single chamber, and thirdly, to reduce its membership. Unless this is done, it is safe to predict that we shall gradually move toward a system in which both executive and legislative powers will be vested in the mayor and the heads of executive departments. . . .

The traditional fear of absolutism need not deter us from making the mayor the real executive head of the city government. Correctly interpreted, this plan offers possibilities of popular control which our present system lacks. At all events, it is well for us to understand that the demand for efficiency, which the American people place above their desire for democratic rule, will inevitably lead to this concentration of executive power. The real alternative is, therefore, whether this concentration of power will be accompanied by the destruction of the city council, or whether the city council will survive as an organ of government restricted to purely legislative functions.

424. The bürgermeister in Germany. The method of selection and the general attributes of the German city executive are in striking contrast to the corresponding features in American cities.1

In this respect the Prussian Bürgermeister may be clearly differentiated from the administrative heads of French, English, and American cities. In all these places the mayor is almost invariably some private citizen who leaves his ordinary vocation for a year or a few years, and during this period devotes a part or the whole of his time to the service of the municipality, expecting not to make a life work of local administration, but, when his term is ended, to return to private life and do his private business. He may or may not have had some experience in municipal affairs. . . . The Bürgermeister, on the other hand, is an expert, a professional administrator, who looks upon his office as a career, who seeks the post on his public record, and who expects promotion upon this alone.

The Prussian city council selects the Bürgermeister in very much the same way as a business corporation selects its general manager or other executive head. It casts about among the smaller corporations engaged in the same sort of business, and proceeds to rob one of these of its chief official by offering him a post which is more attractive. The smaller cities sometimes advertise for applicants, but the larger ones usually find a field of choice all ready for them. If a certain city like Berlin or Frankfort or Breslau desires to fill its chief magisterial post, it naturally looks to those men who have been commanding attention by their success as Bürgermeisters or paid magistrates in cities of smaller size. It examines

1 Copyright, 1909, by The Macmillan Company.

« PreviousContinue »