Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
REAL ESTATE
AND
NEW YORK, APRIL 1, 1916
PARTIAL HOME RULE NEEDED BY CITY
Many of Existing Errors Could Be Righted Under Present Form of
Government—Must Agree Among Ourselves Before Albany Will Act
As the Legislature may not dele¬
gate legislative powers, it may not
give us the power to make our
o'wn charter, without an amend¬
ment of the State Constitution;
but is it necessary that we make
our charter free of the Legislature?
If we can agree among ourselves
upon the form of charter we wish,
there is every probability that the
Legislature will pass it. A charter
should be an instrument for the
guidance of the majority and the
protection of the minority.
ONE of the peculiarities of certain
schools of political philosophers is
that when they wish to escape from
the results of past errors they jump
to the conclusion that if they had some¬
thing new—although untried—it would
be better than to try to improve old
methods to which the people had be¬
come accustomed. It needs no argu¬
ment to prove that the city has suffer¬
ed in the past from mandatory legisla¬
tion, but I doubt that the present day
burdens from this source are any greater
than those which may be traced di¬
rectly to our own stupidity and lack of
foresight. Nor does it need any argu¬
ment to prove that many of our purely
administrative acts, such as making and
adopting a budget, and fixing the sal¬
aries and other expenses therein, should
be within the power of the city, with¬
out the absurdity of having such items
fixed at Albany for certain groups of
city employees.
The fact will develop after a very
cursory examination of the question that
the advocates of home rule do not de¬
sire home rule at all. They will admit
at once that they do not wish home rule
in matters of civil service, education,
taxation, indebtedness, contracts, de¬
cedent estates, insurance, excise, health'
laws and many other things in which
the interests of the city are so inter¬
twined with the interests of the State
and the Nation that to separate them
would be impossible. What they want is
"More Home Rule" and not "Home
Rule." The term home rule does not
express v/hat is wanted, and only raises
unnecessary opposition.
It must not be forgotten that the City
of New York is a governmental agency
of the State of New York, and that so
long as this is so, complete home rule
is out of the question. Indeed, inde¬
pendence of the city from the rest of
tlie State would be a misfortune for the
city, while New York City is the great
financial and commercial center of the
country, its interests must be protected
in Congress and with foreign countries,
and this may be done only through the
State.
While our ears are resounding with
the cries of "Home Rule," it might pav
us to stop and think that in most of
the functions which this city performs
for its internal government, we have
By HON. CYRUS C. MILLER
home rule. That present methods might
be improved, and can be improved, there
is no doubt, but to do this it is not
necessary to arouse the opposition of the
rest of the State or of the residents of
the City who see the futility of com¬
plete home rule.
Article XII of the State Constitution
provides that special laws relating to
any city shall be referred to the mayor
of the city for his approval or disap¬
proval within 'fifteen days. Upon his
disapproval or failure to disapprove
within fifteen days, the bill may be
passed by both houses of the Legislature.
HON. CYRUS C. MILLER.
There is a considerable list of these
special laws, and many of the laws over
which we now groan were approved by
our mayors and would be repealed if the
city demanded it.
It would be wiser if the advocates of
greater freedom in the conduct of the
city's aflfairs were to define exactly what
measure of increased self-government
would be necessary to better conditions,
rather than to content themselves with
the catch words "Home Rule."
Perhaps, after all, the question is one
of degree and not of kind, and perhaps
the advocates and opponents of home
rule will find upon comparing their
views that they are not so far apart.
For example, I do not understand that
the most ardent home ruler favors full
power in the city to incur bonded in¬
debtedness and to fix taxation, while
they who oppose home rule because thev
think its limits to be too broad will
agree that budget making and salary
fixing and other administrative acts
should be lodged in the city alone.
Many of the same men who are so
anxious for home rule for the city are
opposed to home rule in the boroughs—
thereby creating a centralized govern¬
ment far from the scene of purely local
functions, and resulting in practically
the same evils they claim ensue to the
city from control from Albany. Why
the laying out, regulating, grading and
paving of streets and the construction of
It must not be forgotten that
the City of New York is a govern¬
mental agency of the State of New
York, and that so long as it is so,
complete home rule is out of the
question. Indeed independence of
the city from the rest of the State
would be a misfortvme for the city.
While New York City is the great
financial and commercial center of
the country, its interests must be
protected in Congress and with
foreign countries, and this may be
done only through the State.
sewers, water systems and docks, the
maintenance of parks and other purely
local acts should be performed by a cen¬
tralized government and not by local
borough officials directly responsible to
the people of the locality is difficult to
see. On the other hand, such general
functions as police, fire, finance, educa¬
tion and the like must be performed by
a centralized government.
It is fashionable to lay to "Up-State
Domination" about all the ills we suffer,
but it is clear that rarely has any act
aflfecting the city been adopted without
the concurrence of the legislators from
the city, and the approval of the mayor.
When to this is added the fact that most
of our citizens are indifferent to public
affairs and interest themselves in legis¬
lation only when it aflfects them directly,
we can see that home rule or any other
rule in itself is not sufficient for good
government. The machinery we have
now is good enough if it is operated
intelligently.
We have observed a remarkable
growth in this city during the past ten
years of what are called "Social Work¬
ers," whose work consists in what they
deem social betterment. The world pro¬
gresses, and some of this work has been
necessary and helpful, but there is a ten¬
dency among all huinan beings who
spend the money of others, especially
when they themselves are the recipients
of that money, by way of salaries, to
overdo it. This, in conjunction with
the increase in the number of our
voting population, who agree with the
social workers that something for
nothing is desirable, tends to raise
a suspicion in the minds of con¬
servatives, that "home rule" with¬
out the restraining vote of the up-State
farmer may not be so desirable after all.
The past has shown the pressure which
has been brought to bear upon city of¬
ficials by the social workers and other
well intentioned people, who have not
realized the fact that all things no mat¬
ter how desirable, must be paid for.
There may be times when the veto power
of a Governor of the State will be a
very valuable check on the legislation
of a city. All through our government
runs the idea of checks and balances up¬
on legislation aflfecting the lives and
property of our citizens, by others who
are not responsible for the legislation.
(Continued on page 513.)