becomes more and more dubious every year, namely, the uncollected tax levies of two or more years' standing. Many of these are based upon forms of assessments which the courts have repeatedly declared invalid. Their collection cannot be enforced at law. It is only hoped by the municipality that in case of possible sale of the delinquent property the owner will pay up all arrears in order to give clear title to the purchaser, or that by holding over the delinquent property owner the prospect of long litigation, to defend his non-payment of taxes, thus making accumulated legal fees much more costly than the amount of the taxes themselves, he will choose the alternative of paying the taxes rather than fighting them through the courts. Both of these are slender foundations upon which to base the hopes of realizing such assets. Indeed a very recent decision of the Appellate Court of New York State-in which all the judges were unanimous— probably renders invalid all tax sales held in the county of Westchester since 1896. In this county, therefore, the total reduction of municipal assets through this decision may amount to millions of dollars. Consequently, such assets as these, the county and its various municipalities should either write off as losses (as an ordinary business man would) or else take steps, as some of the more progressive counties in the state are now attempting to do, to reinforce the validity of such assets by revising methods of assessment and levy of taxes in such a way that every such asset will be worth its face value.

A municipality that can produce a balance sheet, showing its exact financial condition, its assets and liabilities stated at their actual value, has very little trouble in disposing of its bonds or certificates of indebtedness when it is necessary to go to bankers for the purpose of raising money by such means.

Though perhaps not needed for the purpose of clarifying the foregoing argument, the following specimen of county accounting will undoubtedly prove entertaining to readers of this paper, and cannot fail to emphasize the need of revised systems of records and reports. It is taken from the actual showings of a large county of New York State. The first two columns are made up from published county reports. The third column is made up by an independent investigator from actual examination of the paid vouchers on file in the county offices. The figures are from a recent year and the discrepancies shown are about on a par with those of other years:

Of course the above items do not include the complete statement of the county's disbursements. They are only selected items. A large item provided for in the budget as "County audited bills, $237,663.06," has been mostly classified and distributed, by the investigator, among the items in the third column above. But there is no correspondence between the total amounts, even with the reported budget and the reported disbursements given in full. Nothing more need be said as to the need of better accounting and reporting.

The reports of the comptroller's examiners regarding the counties they have visited show similar conditions prevalent in various parts of the state. Therefore the example given above may be taken as fairly typical of New York State's county finances.

There are many other problems and phases of county government to be considered in a complete plan of reconstruction, but the foregoing features seem to be most prominent and most important. New York State may well take lessons from some of its younger sisters in the management of such matters. All the states should hail with enthusiasm the bold advances being made in county government reform by the Pacific members of our Union, California and Oregon. The proposals of Oregon are radical in the extreme, but I cannot help regarding them as based upon common ordinary business sense, stripped of the restrictions of canting sentiment and throwing down fearlessly some of our badly built walls of precedent.

The Oregon plan is building anew instead of shoring the tottering old with clumsy props.

Mr. Thomas L. Hinckley, director of the Westchester County Research Bureau, says in a recently published bulletin2 that the admission of county shortcomings in New York State is general, and that the remedy is within the easy reach of the people. "The worst of it is that most persons, including administrative officials, are inclined to sit helpless under the load and profess inability to mend matters" in New York State. "In California, they have gotten bravely past this infantile attitude.

As an example of what an intelligent American community can do towards raising the status of local government, the Los Angeles county charter is the most inspiring document which has appeared in many years. It marks an epoch in local government in the United States. The very idea of a county charter would seem revolutionary to many citizens in these parts, and that such a thing has actually been adopted by a progressive electorate will scarcely be believed."

What the Californians can do, what the Oregon people can do, what other progressive states can do in local government reform, New York ought to be able to do. If the younger states can progress so far, the older states, particularly one of the oldest and the wealthiest and most populous of the Union, ought to be able to advance much farther on the road of genuine progress.

2 Efficiency in County Government—The Los Angeles County Charter.

STATE AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN OREGON AND

PROPOSED CHANGES

By W. S. U'REN,

Counsellor-at-Law, Oregon City, Oregon.

The present plan is the same as that in most other American

states.

There are sixty representatives and thirty senators, every one having the power to introduce or propose amendments to appropriation bills. At the recent session more than one-half of the senators and representatives came from districts seeking appropriations for the maintenance or establishment of public institutions to be supported by state funds. The result was the usual log-rolling combination for excessive and unnecessary appropriations. No officer is responsible for the maximum of the appropriation bills. Neither is any one officer or department responsible for the expenditure of the money appropriated. There is no centralized responsibility for efficient or economical administration of the state government as a whole.

The county government is run on the same general lines. No one officer nor office is responsible, directly or indirectly, for efficient or economical expenditure of county funds. The county court, consisting of two commissioners and the county judge, is supposed to govern expenditures. But the sheriff, assessor, clerk, recorder, treasurer, school superintendent, surveyor and coroner are all elected as independent officers and in a very great degree are independent departments. No officer in the government is chosen because of his recognized ability as an executive, or because of his known efficiency as an expert in his department.

The tax levy is supposed to be high enough to pay the running expenses of the government. The "running expense" is the sum total finally agreed on as the result of the various trades, combinations and log-rollings. This applies both to state and county government. Nowhere in the system is there any limitation on the total public income, as there is with every individual and with every private corporation. There is no adjusting of the ends to the available means, as with every individual and private corporation. The whole system is run on the theory that there is no limit to the means.

The People's Power League proposes an amendment to the constitution to make the governor a member of the legislature; to require that he shall introduce all appropriation bills and that the legislature shall have no power to increase any such bill without the governor's consent entered on the journal; proposes to abolish the state senate and centralize all responsibility for the state appropriations and legislation on the house of representatives and the governor; to provide a four-year term for members of the legislature with annual sessions; to require that bills when introduced shall be placed on the calendar and be subject to action, if not sooner disposed of, up to the last day of the four-year term; to require that no bill, except an emergency measure, shall be put on its final passage until it has been printed and laid on the members' desks for five days in the form which it is to be passed or rejected.

In addition, it is proposed to elect the members of the legislature by a system of proportional representation, so that all the people shall be represented in the legislative assembly, instead of practically all the members being elected by a plurality of the voters. It is proposed also to provide for the use of the "first, second and other choices" method of electing the governor and other officers where only one is to be chosen at one election to fill the office. With this change it is proposed to introduce the cabinet form of state government, under which the governor will appoint his cabinet and other executive and peace officers on the plan of the American national government.

For the county government it is proposed to elect a board of directors of three or more, and to require that they shall hire a county business manager. The county business manager shall hire all the other county officers and hold the same position towards county business that a Prussian mayor holds towards the business of his city and the general manager of an American private corporation holds towards the business of his company. The county directors will receive no more salary than is sufficient to cover their expenses for necessary meetings. They will not be expected to do anything but lay out the general plans for the county business and see that their manager is efficient and faithful.

It is thought that the adoption of this plan will so centralize responsibility on the governor for the administration of the state government and for the maximum of appropriations, that we shall