Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
AND
NEW YORK, MARCH 25, 1916
HOW CAN NEW YORK CITY GET «OME RULE?
Twenty Suggestions Made Which Should Be Followed—Co-opera¬
tive, Educational Campaign Necessary to Obtain Desired Result
By Dr. WILLIAM H. ALLEN, Director, Institute for Public Service
XT O one opposes Home Rule—in prin-
A ^ ciple. Everyone believes in Home
Rule—in principle. For years no one
has opposed and everyone has favored
Home Rule, yet we are not only still
without Home Rule, but are adding new
apron strings each year.
Home Rule has remained a between-
campaign will-o'-the-wisp, primarily be¬
cause cumulative, definite, educational
work such as the Record and Guide is
now doing has not been done early
enough and continuously enough. To
urge further reasons for Home Rule is
only to harangue a convinced jury. The
question is no longer, Do we want itl
but How much of it do we w^ant? Why
don't we get it? and How can we get â–
it?
How Much Home Rule Do We Want?
Advocates of Home Rule differ among
themselves as to the amount of Home
Rule they want. Among real estate men
there are many influential ta.xpayers
who are more afraid of Home Rule than
of Albany interference, so far as cer¬
tain ta.x questions are concerned. Speak¬
ing generally, however, it is safe to say
of believers in Home Rule that for pub¬
lic consumption the overwhelming ma¬
jority want:
1—One hundred per cent, of Home
Rule over_ strictly home affairs, in¬
cluding so~caiied county affairs.
2—One hundred per cent, of Home
Rule also over those parts of State
affairs which the Legislature or the
Constitution bas asked the city to do
for the State.
3—Xo more Home Rule for New
York City than we will help Rochester
and Buffalo get for themselves.
4—Completest possible Home Rule
compatible with the State's final re¬
sponsibility for protecting every citi¬
zen against incompetent government,
"albeit." as Governor Hughes said
when removing a borough president,
"no evidence of corruption is shown."
5—Absolute freedom to determine tbe
how and tbe iclio of getting home
things done, subject only to the State's
right to set up minimum standards of
i('/iat must he done and tcho may not,
a-ftcr proved ineompetcncej continue to
do home worlc.
Two more ends of Home Rule are
added as in my opinion desirable,
though not unanimously favored as yet.
a—For city and county work in
Greater New York no salaries to be
set, no titles to be fixed, no numbers
of employees and no terms ot office to
be prescribed, no buildings to be com¬
pelled, and no mandatory pay-as-you-go
bills to be passed, by the Legislature.
b—Existing mandatory laws to be re¬
pealed so far as the Legislature is con¬
cerned ; that is. to be made the law of
the people ot Greater New York, bind¬
ing upon tbe people ot Greater New
York,, repealed by them alone.
Why Don't We Get Home Rule?
In five ways our previous efforts have
been calculated to convert the potential
oasis of Home Rule into a mirage.
1—Albany interference bas been made
a scapegoat for breakdowns and short¬
comings in home control over home
work.
2—Our present government has been
incompletely utilized.
3—A lone hand has been played by
Greater New York.
4—.Arguments for Home Rule have
been too often indefinite, abstract,
theoretical, or exaggerated and incon¬
sistent.
5—Educational campaigns have be¬
gun too late, bave been too "jumpy"
and sporadic, and have reached too lew
people.
DR. WILLIAM H. ALLEN.
As Senator Brown has reiterated, Al¬
bany's much reproached interference
has, with few exceptions, been at New
York's request, with New York votes,
and with our Mayors' signatures. No
one has gone to Albany faster and of-
tener than believers in Home Rule.
Personally, I doubt if we shall ever
get Home Rule out of a campaign di¬
rected chiefly against up-state interfer¬
ence.
Up-state did not throw away five hun¬
dred thousand odd dollars by failing to
provide for the Public Service Commis¬
sion in city-owned buildings.
Up-state did not write for us or lobby
through the Board of Estimate the sub¬
way contracts in face of "let George
do it" provisions for the city to pay
bonuses and other "extras."
Some Things Not Promised.
Up-state did not demand two parole
board sinecures or propose to give the
Chamberlain new functions instead of
extinction, or open a lunchroom for
women employees when money was
needed for safety, and when not a
baker's dozen were willing to pay $2
annual dues.
Up-state did not line up Greater New
York_ forces against Home Rule by
pled,ging school commissioners to vote
against one man and for another man
for president of the home school board.
Up-state did not sign the scores of
bills which Home Rule now seeks to
repeal.
Up-state did not propose that sinking
fund accumulations be applied as they
have been applied—in spite of the good
motive which prompted the law—for
hiding budget increases from taxpayers
by taking them out of capital instead of
out of annual taxes.
Up-state did not write the midstream
resignations which have "shot holes" in
the execution of the most ambitious con¬
structive program the nation has ever
seen promised and begun. Nor did up¬
state inaugurate the policy of "tuberose
eulogy" which has condoned delays ^nd
extravagances that local ofiicers and
other leaders of public discussion would
not dream of defending if there were no
.Albany scapegoat.
Government Incompletely Utilized.
In testifying before the Brown legis¬
lative committee several of our present
officers have declared that we have gone
about as far as we can without Home
Rule, have reached the limit under our
present organization, have cut the
budget to the bone, etc. Frankly, I feel
that if Nevv York ta.xpayers have not
more sincerity and more sense than to
endorse such hyperbole, they are not en¬
titled to Home Rule. Until such state¬
ments are challenged by outsiders and
repudiated by insiders I do not believe
vve can bring about the team work neces¬
sary to secure Home Rule.
We cannot pull together if we talk
our creed with crossed fingers.
Savings Promised.
In 1909 we were promised savings, not
of a thousand, and not even of
a few millions, not during the four-year
period, but each year. Instead our
budgets for operating city departments
the next five years exceeded by $35,000,-
000 the 1909 admittedly waste-swollen
base—and this after excluding public
school increases.
In 1913 we were promised savings
again not of a few thousands, or even
of a million, but, the present mayor
said, "millions" a year, others said $10,-
000,000 to $25,000,000. Nor were those
savings predicated upon obtaining Home
Rule, although efforts to secure Home
Rule were pledged. No candidate for
mayor or comptroller in 1917 will for
one minute admit that the relatively
small reductions effected are what either
the people or the pledgers had in mind
in 1913. And we all know that the
made-in-Albany State tax shares credit
for the 1915 reductions.
In the budgets under our absolute con¬
trol only the surface of economy has
been scratched. Go back to 1913 and
1909, think of what we all believed and
were assured of at that time, and then
think of what a paltry nuinber of em¬
ployees have been found unnecessary.
No one claims that nepotism and other
favor have yet ceased to exist. Pledged
to name employees entirely on merit,
after a nation-wide advertising of
search for ability, officers have filled
exempt positions with which Albany
had nothing to do, with persons some
of ^ whom were not known to possess
ability, others of whom were notorious
for lacking ability. Even reform or¬
ganizations have exchanged the enviable
position of frank analysts and inter¬
preters for unenviable patronage and
pose as "next of kin." "heir apparent"
and the "man behind."
Elected for Definite Purpose.
In December, 1913, an elective officer
said: "We were elected not to do the
work of any party, but to do the work
of the whole citizenry. We were elect¬
ed to give a business administration
. . . without regard to politics, and
that in so far as I have the ability and
the power, I propose to do." In 1916,
however, the spokesman for the oflicer
says ".Appointments [were] deliberately