each city as application was made. The result was that different cities received different kinds of charters, some more liberal than others. Besides, the time of the legislature was taken up with the consideration of applications for charters, and abundant opportunities were offered for favoritism and for the use of improper influences upon members of the legislature by cities that desired new charters or amendments to existing charters. To avoid these evils many states adopted the practice of passing a general law for the government of all cities in the state, under which any community which desired to be incorporated as a city might by fulfilling certain prescribed conditions be organized under this general act, which then became the charter of the city. Under this system all cities in the state would have practically the same organization and powers.

"Home Rule" Charters.-The feeling that the people concerned should be given some power in framing the charters under which they are to be governed has led in comparatively recent times to the adoption of "home rule" provisions in the constitutions of a number of states —that is, provisions allowing the people of each city, under certain restrictions, to frame their own charters. Thus the Missouri constitution, adopted in 1875, allows each city of more than 100,000 inhabitants to prepare its own charter, which, when approved by the voters, shall go into effect provided it is not inconsistent with the state law. Other states having "home rule" charter provisions in their constitutions are California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, Nebraska, Arizona, and Connecticut.

Powers of Municipal Corporations. With the exception of a few cities, of which Houston, Texas, is an example,

CITY HALL AND MUNICIPAL BUILDING, NEW YORK

The City Hall is in the foreground; the Municipal Building, containing additional office room for city officials, is the tallest building shown.

THE CITY CHARTER

33

the powers that may be exercised by a city are specifically enumerated with great detail in the charter, and where that is done no other powers may be exercised by the city except such as are clearly incidental to, or implied in, those enumerated. Thus when the city of New York wished to build an elevated railway, it had to secure express authority from the legislature, which body insisted that the work should be carried out under the supervision of a state commission. Likewise when the city of Chicago wanted power to prescribe the width of wagon tires to be used on its streets, recourse had to be made to the state legislature for permission, though in neither case was the matter involved one which concerned directly anybody except the people of the cities affected.

Legislative Interference in the Affairs of Cities.-The power of the state legislature over the cities has sometimes been employed to interfere in their local affairs and to force upon the cities measures or policies to which they were opposed. Thus the legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act requiring the city of Philadelphia to build an expensive city hall which cost the taxpayers of the city something like $20,000,000, though it was not a matter of direct interest to the people outside of the city. Likewise the legislature of Ohio required the city of Cleveland to erect a soldiers' monument at a cost of $300,000 against the wishes of the taxpayers who had to bear the expense.

Sometimes the legislature employs its power of control over the cities in the interest of the political party which happens to be in control of the legislature, and it frequently passes laws relating to the hours of opening and closing of saloons in the cities when local sentiment may be opposed to such laws. But as to the moral right of the legislature to enact such laws as the last mentioned, Govt. U. S.-3

there is a difference of opinion. The disposition of the legislature to interfere in the affairs of the cities by means of special acts-that is, acts applying to a single city-has come to be a crying evil and has been a cause of complaint from the people of nearly every large city. The New York legislature during a period of ten years passed nearly four hundred laws applying to the city of New York.

Constitutional Protection Against Special Legislation.—To protect the cities against special legislation and at the same time to remove the opportunity which such a practice offers for bribery and the employment of other improper means to secure special legislation or to prevent it, when it is not desired, the constitutions of many states contain provisions absolutely prohibiting the legislature from enacting laws applying to particular cities except where general laws are inapplicable. Where such constitutional provisions have been adopted, the legislatures have frequently evaded them by a system of classification by which acts are passed applying to all cities within a class when in reality there may be but a single city in such a class. And the courts have generally held such acts to be constitutional where the classifications are not unreasonable.

The New York constitution recognizes that special legislation applying to larger cities may sometimes be desirable, and instead of forbidding such legislation absolutely it classifies the cities of the state into three classes according to population, New York City, Buffalo, and Rochester constituting the first class, and allows the legislature to enact laws affecting a single city within a class, subject to the condition that the proposed law must be submitted to the authorities of the city affected, for their approval, and if disapproved it is void unless repassed by the legislature Likewise by recent amendment to the constitution of Illinois