together where they can meet each other.

An organization was

accordingly effected on January 3, under the name of the Political Science Association of the Central States. The constitution states the object and purpose of the association to be "the affiliation, for conference and investigation, of specialists in history, political science, economics, and sociology." The organization provides for a vicepresident for each of the four fields represented, thus foreshadowing work and conference by sections, as well as in the single body, with each vice-president as chairman of a section. Instructors and specialists in the four fields resident in the Central States are eligible to membership. The matter of the establishment of an official publication has not been settled, but it is hardly probable that any steps will be taken to that end before the next annual meeting.

The association started off with about fifty charter members. The officers for the ensuing year are as follows: President, Jesse Macy, A. M., Iowa College; Vice-Presidents, Sociology, Albion W. Small, Ph. D., University of Chicago; History, Charles H. Haskins, Ph. D., University of Wisconsin; Economics, Henry C. Adams, Ph. D., University of Michigan; Political Science, James A. Woodburn, Ph. D., University of Indiana; Secretary, George W. Knight, Ph. D., Ohio State University; Treasurer, Frank W. Blackmar, Ph. D., University of Kansas. The time and place of the next meeting has not been definitely settled, but it will probably be held at the holiday season of 1895. GEORGE W. KNIGHT.

University of Ohio.

NOTES ON MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

[This department of the ANNALS will endeavor to place before the members of the Academy all items of interest which will serve to indicate the municipal activity of the large cities of Europe and America. Among the contributors are: James W. Pryor, Esq., Secretary City Club, New York City; Sylvester Baxter, Esq., Boston Herald, Boston; Samuel B. Capen, Esq., President Municipal League, Boston; Mr. A. L. Crocker, Minneapolis; Victor Rosewater, Ph. D., Omaha Bee, Omaha; Professor John Henry Gray, Chairman Committee on Municipal Affairs, Civic Federation, Chicago.]

AMERICAN CITIES.

Philadelphia.-An important question of jurisdiction has recently arisen with regard to the power of Councils over the construction of street railway lines within the city limits. The matter arose in connection with a proposed trolley line within the limits of Fairmount Park. The Park Commission claimed the right to grant the franchise, which was disputed by a number of members of Councils. The City Solicitor, in his opinion on the subject, decided in favor of the City Councils as against the Park Commission. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1874 provides that no street passenger railways shall be constructed within the limits of any city, borough or township without the consent of its local authorities. In the opinion of the City Solicitor the Fairmount Park Commission is not to be regarded as a “local authority" within the meaning of the Constitution; that while it is given certain powers over the territory of the park, it is not a municipal corporation. The "local authority" in the city of Philadelphia, within the intent of the Constitution, is the legislative and executive branches of the city government. This does not deprive the Park Commission of the power to construct or license the construction of a passenger railway within the park; it does, however, render necessary the consent of Councils before any such authority be exercised, either by the Commission or any private corporation.

It is interesting to compare the appropriations to various municipal departments in New York and Philadelphia for the year 1895:

The Controller's Report for 1894 shows a very favorable condition of the city's finances. The total disbursements during the year amounted to $32,390,333.57 of which $3,795,893.59 represents interest and liquidation of the funded debt. During recent years, and more especially since the city has been living under its new charter, the cost of municipal departments has increased enormously. To give some idea of this increase since consolidation it is only necessary to examine the following table :

One of the most notable features of the report is the great increase in the amounts paid for mandamuses. These arise mainly in connection with street improvements. Councils for instance orders the

change of grade of any street. The owners of property injured by such changes bring suit against the city for the amount. In case the appropriations for this purpose are not sufficient to pay such damages the court issues a mandamus, ordering the city treasury to pay such amounts.

An ordinance has recently been introduced into Councils which if passed will effectually check this evil. It provides that where property is taken for public purposes by reason of opening of streets, or changing the lines or grades, the ordinance to authorize it shall be referred to a committee, which committee shall then submit to the Survey Bureau a detailed plan of the property to be taken. Upon the return of the plan from this bureau a sub-committee of five is to be appointed by the committee, whose duty it will be to investigate claims of damages and assess benefits. The report of this committee is then to be referred to a board of three members,-the City Solicitor, the head of the department of public works or of the particular bureau interested, and a third person, familiar with real estate in the vicinity, to be selected by the other two members. The report of this board, which is to be made within one month, is to contain the claims for damages, together with agreements in writing from the propertyowners binding them to the price they agreed to accept from the city. The whole matter then goes before Councils, where appropriations for

such damages will be made according to the ordinary legal requirements. During the last few years the payments for such mandamuses have been as follows:

New York City.-The close of the Lexow investigation in New York City has awakened a desire for similar investigations in other departments of the city government. It does not seem at present that the Legislature is inclined to meet this demand. The Mayor of New York, however, is given very wide powers in the matter of investigating the work of departments. The Consolidation Act gives to him the power to appoint two Commissioners of Accounts, removable at will, whose duty it is to make quarterly examinations of the accounts of the various departments. He may furthermore order special examinations in any department of the city and county government. For this purpose, the Commissioners have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to administer oaths and to examine such persons as they may deem necessary. Under this provision, it will be comparatively easy for the Executive to carry the investigations into departments other than the police. Mayor Strong has expressed his intention of exercising this power to its fullest extent.

The comparison of the final estimate of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment for the year 1895 and the Comptroller's reports of previous years illustrate very clearly the complex, and to the average citizen, absolutely unintelligible system of accounting in that city. In this the city officials are not at fault. It has been forced upon them to a very great extent by the State Legislature. The expenditures of the city are divided into two distinct classes: the General Appropriation Account and the Special and Trust accounts. It is the evident purpose of the former to include the general expenses of the city government, that is, the interest and redemption of the city debt and the ordinary expenditures of the various city departments. When we come to examine the Special and Trust accounts, we find that many of the items therein contained ought, under any rigorous scientific classification, to be placed as a part of the general expenses of the city government. The Legislature, however, has adopted the

policy of passing innumerable special laws, authorizing and directing departments, or, as is generally the case, the City Comptroller, to issue bonds for the payment of certain improvements. These bonds do not always represent such new constructions as would justify the floating of new loans, but are often issued for purposes such as repaying and general street improvement, park improvements and the like. Another of the many anomalies which the report of the Comptroller brings out very clearly is the independent position, financial and administrative, occupied by at least one of the departments. For instance, the Department of Docks, whose expenditure amounts to two or three millions of dollars annually (for 1892, $2,950,000) is entirely independent, for its annual appropriation, of the Board of Aldermen or of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. Instead of defraying the expenses of this department out of the annual tax-levy, an act of the Legislature gives to the Department of Docks the power to defray its expenses out of special dock bonds, which it alone has the power to issue. As a result, the receipts of the department instead of flowing into the general city treasury, go to the treasury of the sinking fund for the redemption of the city debt.

These facts are merely illustrative of the difficulty of developing an orderly and systematic method of accounting, when the State Legislature continually encroaches upon the better judgment of the financial officials of the city. Had New York been left to develop its own financial system, there is not the slightest doubt that the present complicated system of accounts would not for a moment be tolerated, and that it would be possible for the average citizen to obtain at least some general information on the financial operations of his city from the annual reports. At present this is only possible for him who has given special study to the matter, and even then many points remain obscure. The report on "Receipts" shows the same involved method of accounting. The Comptroller is compelled to make a four-fold division, first, taxes; second, general fund; third, special and trust accounts; and fourth, loans.

To the ordinary observer it would seem that these four divisions would cover the entire income of the city. This, however, is not the case; the hand of the State Legislature is again felt in its disturbing influence on the city's financies. The receipts from a number of important sources of income have been pledged for the payment of the city debt-some for its redemption, others for the payment of interest. These receipts flow into the sinking fund. The most important of the former, that is for the redemption of the city debt, are such items as market rents, amounting to over three hundred thousand dollars annually; dock and slip rents, amounting to nearly two millions; and