every day in wealth, influence, and consideration among his countrymen, but never showing the slightest eagerness for political distinction. Although he was already connected with one of the great political parties and had twice held professional offices, his public career may be said to have practically begun with his nomination as Mayor of the city of Buffalo in October, 1881. He was the nominee of the Democratic party, and although the other city officers chosen at the same election were Republicans, he was elected by an overwhelming majority. His success was no party triumph, but the tribute paid by his fellow townsmen to his abilities and uprightness of character.

CHAPTER II.

MAYORALTY OF BUFFALO.

The American city-Similarity of institutions in City, State and Union-The veto power-The Mayor and the Street Commissioner's buggy-The "Plain Speech Veto"-The Sewer CommissionDecoration Day-Cleveland candidate for the Governorship of New York-Republican support.

"HE term "city" in America means what we should

TH

describe as a municipality. It is a community orga

nized with certain powers of taxation and justice within the area of the State, and the definition of the authority conceded to it is called a charter. This incorporating act may be either special or general, as in England, but the effect of either is practically the same. We have a microcosm of the State in each city government, very much as the modern State constitution is a microcosm of the Federal constitution of 1787. There is in all three cases a widely extended suffrage: sometimes the franchise in the city or state is more liberal in one locality than in another. Many states and cities admit aliens to the polls before they have completed the period of residence necessary to make them citizens of the United States, in the international meaning of the term; and admission to the suffrage in the State involves admission to vote at Federal elections. In all three cases we have a similar outline in

the distribution of public powers, -a popular representative body whose consent is necessary to the imposition of taxes, and passing of laws, and a controlling executive elected also by the constituency, and possessing some form of veto on nearly every act of the representative assemblies. The functionary exercising the veto, whether he be called Mayor, Governor, or President, is the personal expression of popular authority in restraint of the representatives of the people. In the case of most cities the representative body is known by the old English name of Common Council.

He is

The functions of the Mayor are of two kinds. authorized to give certain advice and make suggestions to the Council, whilst by-laws cannot be passed, rates levied, or expenditure legalized without his consent.

It was Mr. Cleveland's vigorous use of his veto power against the Common Council of Buffalo which first attracted attention, at a time when complaints of jobbery were heard from nearly every city in the Eastern States. The waste and corruption found in the government of cities have been acknowledged by Americans of all parties. These evils are worse in the older cities; but the towns of more recent origin, like Buffalo, have not escaped them.

The new Mayor, in his inaugural address to the City Council, lays down one or two principles which the reader might be inclined to regard as truisms, but which appear to have been truths neglected in the lake city.

"We hold the money of the people in our hands, to be used for their purposes and to further their interests as members of the municipality, and it is quite apparent that

when any part of the funds which the taxpayers have thus entrusted to us is devoted to other purposes, or when by design or neglect we allow a greater sum to be applied to any municipal purpose than is necessary, we have to that extent violated our duty. There surely is no difference in his duties and obligations, whether a person is entrusted with the money of one man or many; and yet it sometimes appears as though the office holder assumes that a different rule of fidelity prevails between him and the taxpayers than that which should regulate his conduct when, as an individual, he holds the money of his neighbours."

The theory that public administration should be conducted for the most part on the same principles which would guide an intelligent business man in the conduct of his own affairs, recurs over and over again in the official documents issued by Mr. Cleveland, whether as Mayor of Buffalo, Governor of the State, or President of the Republic.

In his first message he called attention to the discreditable condition of the streets. "The recent investigation into the affairs of this Department," he bluntly says, “has developed the most shameful neglect of duty on the part of the persons in charge." He goes on to point out that the business of the Street Commissioner is "to superintend" the various works carried on. "This superintendence means something more than certifying accounts, when presented, without any examination." Even of the accounts there was no proper record. The construction of the side-walks cost nearly 50 per cent. more than the charge for similar work done for private persons. On the other hand, the contract for cleaning the streets was fixed at a very low price, and no steps were taken to see that the work paid for was actually done.

"We should pay for the work," said the Mayor, “what it is reasonably worth, and a contract once entered into should be rigidly enforced." As regards the inspectors who should assist the Street Commissioner, he declared that the persons appointed frequently either had no idea of a proper performance of their duties, or were incapable of doing the work required of them. The closing of the city offices at 4 o'clock, whilst ordinary business premises were kept open much later, was another practice which. he condemned. He urged that the convenience of all citizens should be consulted in respect of the hours during which the offices should remain open.

With the Street Commissioner the Mayor had a prolonged struggle, which illustrates the exercise of the veto power, and affords a glimpse of ordinary municipal administration.

Early in April, 1882, an account came in and was sanctioned by the Council, allowing the Commissioner $75 for the keep of a horse and buggy during the previous quarter. Mr. Cleveland pointed out that the Charter of the city granted by the State Legislature expressly prohibited incidental additions to the income of public officers. The Commissioner had undertaken to do certain duties at a fixed salary. In this particular case there was the further objection that, previous to his appointment, some such allowance had been suggested and the Council had refused it.

"If the discharge of these duties involve the necessity of using and keeping a horse, that expense should be regarded, as it seems to me, as incidental only to the proper discharge of such duty, and there can be no valid claim for