however, are both operating at the present time under the commission form of government as provided for by the general laws of the State. 154

OTHER HOME RULE DEVELOPMENTS

The movement for local self-government is not confined to cities, and the home rule charter system has led to some important home rule developments other than municipal-made charters. Within recent years the tendency to establish some definite constitutional status for the different political subdivisions of the State has been greatly strengthened by the home rule agitation. Legislatures have seen fit in a number of instances to extend large privileges of self-government to the local areas when the courts have not intervened. Some of these developments are of particular interest in connection with this study.

In New York.- In a preceding section of this paper attention was called to New York's attempt to secure a measure of home rule by referring all special acts for a particular municipality to the officers of that city for approval. This provision, which is found in the Constitution of 1894, has not proved very successful.155 As a result there is at present a movement on foot to adopt some other plan of home rule for the locality. The movement is being promoted by the Municipal Government Association of New York, which in 1912 held a home rule conference at Utica and adopted a program of reform. All three of the political parties - Progressive, Republican, and Democratic — incorporated home rule planks in their State platforms. As yet, however, no concrete results have been attained in New York.156

In Louisiana.- The State of Louisiana in 1898 conferred upon cities the power to amend their own charters

a feature of home rule which is found in the Town Charter Law of Louisiana. By the provisions of this act any municipality may propose amendments to its own charter through its mayor and board of aldermen. The proposed amendments are submitted to the Governor; and if they are not protested by one-tenth of the qualified voters of the city, the Governor, upon the advice of the Attorney General, approves them, provided they are not inconsistent with the laws of the State. When the amendments proposed by the mayor and aldermen are protested by the citizens of the municipality, the Governor must withhold his approval until the amendments have been accepted by a majority of the electors in the city. Under this system it would be possible for the people of a particular city to adopt a home rule charter subject to the Constitutions and laws of the State and the United States,157

In Michigan.— Although not extending the home rule charter system to counties, the legislature of Michigan has conferred large powers of local self-government upon these political areas of the State. Under the legislation of 1909 the board of supervisors has power to pass laws, regulations, and ordinances for purely county affairs, providing they are not in conflict with the general laws of the State and do not interfere with the local affairs of any of the other subdivisions of the State within the county. The supervisors are also given power to amend any local act of the legislature which is in force in their county and which has to do with county affairs. Moreover, the same board is given the authority to change the

boundaries of cities, villages, and school districts located within the county, and to incorporate primary school districts as provided by law. All such laws, ordinances, and regulations which are passed by the board must be referred to the Governor for his acceptance. Should the Governor not approve of the action taken by the supervisors, the regulation may by a two-thirds vote be repassed by the local board over the Governor's veto. All laws passed by the board become operative only after the expiration of sixty days. If the electors of the county within fifty days after the adjournment of the board file a petition for a referendum, signed by at least twenty percent of the voters, the ordinance does not go into effect until approved by a majority vote. It is apparent that with these powers the counties of Michigan may in the future come to enjoy as much real home rule as do the home rule charter counties of California.158

In New Jersey. In 1911 the legislature of New Jersey enacted a model charter law which any city, town, township, borough, village, or municipality may adopt. This model charter provides for the commission form of government and extends a large amount of self-government to the local areas operating under it. But before becoming operative in any of the subdivisions of the State the charter must be assented to by a majority of the legal voters at an election held upon the request of twenty percent of the legal voters of the area. A large number of the cities of New Jersey have already adopted this form of government. Moreover, the original act was amended in 1912 and 1913 for the purpose of conferring more power upon the local areas operating under the plan.159

In Virginia.- On November 5, 1912, the people of Virginia adopted an amendment to the Constitution which is known as the home rule amendment, but it does not provide for the home rule charter system. The new provision simply authorizes the legislature to vary somewhat from the old plan in granting municipal charters. But the city treasurer, city commissioner of revenue, city sergeant, commonwealth's attorney, and clerks of the various city courts must not be omitted from the list of elective officers. The amendment aims to give the cities of the State home rule and the commission form of government; but the home rule possibilities of this system are not apparent from an examination of the amendment.160

In Ohio.- Ohio has not only established a home rule charter system, but by a constitutional amendment adopted in 1912 the cities of the State were also given the privilege of adopting by referendum vote certain model plans of government to be enacted by the legislature. In 1913 the legislature passed an act embodying three different forms of city government — the federal plan, the commission plan, and the city manager plan. No city has yet seen fit to adopt any one of these legislative plans.161

VI

ANALYSIS OF HOME RULE CHARTER

SYSTEMS 162

HAVING traced the growth and development of home rule charters in the United States it is now possible to make a critical analysis of the various phases of the system. From the table which accompanies this brief analysis it will be seen that while the systems as adopted in the various States are practically the same in purpose and in principle, there are many differences in the details.

LOCAL AREAS ENTITLED TO ADOPT CHARTERS

The first point to be considered in making an analysis of the home rule charter system is the scope and application of the charter-making power, for not all of the local areas in the thirteen home rule charter States are empowered to make their own charters. In Missouri only the very largest cities have this power-cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants. The same is true in Washington, where only cities with a population of more than 20,000 are authorized to make their own charters. In Nebraska and Texas the privilege is extended to cities with a census of more than 5000. California and Arizona fix 3500 as the size of the smallest city entitled to draft a home rule charter; but California also confers the right upon all the counties of the State. The home rule laws of Colorado and Oklahoma apply only to cities of two thousand inhabitants or more. From the accompanying