tions. It is, also, reasonable to presume that for the administration of justice the State could establish a better system than is afforded by the present justice of the peace courts. In short, the problem of functions in township and school district affairs does not seriously concern the study of home rule in Iowa. The county and municipality are the only important and vital areas in this connection.

That county government in Iowa has been unsatisfactory calls for no special proof: the fact is evident even to the most casual student of local conditions in this State. Moreover, it is altogether plausible that this situation is largely due to the confusion resulting from the dual character of the county. Very little attention has been given to the distinction between State functions discharged by the county and local functions performed by that same area. As a result there has often been insistence upon the local control of the State activities - which has been largely responsible for the development of a decentralized administrative system. To get away from this situation the home rule charter system, with a constitutional delimitation of the fields of State and local action, seems advisable both for the counties and for the municipalities.

The carrying out of such a program would result in several fundamental changes in the present system of local government. In the first place, the authority of the government of the local areas - the county and the city - would come direct from the people: the grant would be made through the charter under the provisions of the State Constitution instead of by the legislature; and, by constitutional amendment, powers could be added to or taken away from the local government. At the present time the local areas of this State have no real constitu

tional status the city and the county are mere creatures of the legislature. In the second place, the constitutional grant of power to these areas would be like the grant of power in European countries, where cities are given all the powers not specifically denied them. In Iowa the city and the county can exercise only those powers which have been expressly conferred. According to the European practice the presumption in regard to power is in favor of the city; while in Iowa the presumption is against the local area. By the home rule charter program supported by constitutional delimitation of fields of action some effective reform in both State and local government could be hoped for.

The proposition of a home rule system for Iowa comes to this: if the people living in the counties and municipalities of this State are competent to participate in the general government of the State as well as in the affairs of the National government; if this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people; then the people of these local areas are and by right ought to be able to carry on local government without State interference, without special legislation, without classification, without the disadvantages of uniformity and the other wornout practices of the present system. If self-government has any place in modern government its existence. ought to be justified in the counties and municipalities of this State.

IX

SUGGESTIONS FOR HOME RULE REFORM IN IOWA

THE foregoing analysis and survey of the home rule charter system suggests certain conclusions as to what should be included in a home rule program for a particular State. Thus, if Iowa is to follow the more progressive States in local government reform and establish a home rule system the following fundamental features should be included:

First. The Constitution of the State should set out two distinct fields of action - one for the State and the other for the locality. Moreover, the grant of authority should be in general terms: for the organic law of the State ought not to attempt to enumerate all the functions of government. Indeed, the actual line of demarcation between State and local functions must be left to the growing experience of the Commonwealth; and the line will necessarily be a fluctuating line. Furthermore, the constitutional law of the State ought not to prescribe the details of the home rule system. These should be left to legislative action; but the terms of the Constitution. should be mandatory upon the General Assembly in regard to such legislation. To provide for a complete system of home rule in a Constitution would make that instrument too cumbersome. Moreover, since many of the details must be left to statutory enactment, the organic law should place certain limitations upon the power of

the court in construing the home rule legislation enacted in pursuance of the Constitution.

Second. All the counties and incorporated municipalities of the State should be given the authority to frame their own charters. In fact the law should anticipate the adoption of this form of local government by all of these local areas. Because of local conditions, the adoption of charters generally would take a long time; but there is no reason why self-government should not be as interesting to the citizens of the numerous small towns and counties of the State as to the inhabitants of the more congested centers. By leaving the school corporation under the control of the State legislature, since education is now a State function, and by placing the township under the care of the county, as has been done in California, no confusion need arise in the discharge of State and local functions in these areas an evil which every home rule program should attempt to correct.

Third. The legislative authority of the city or county should be given power to submit the question of a charter convention to the people at its discretion; and it should be compelled to submit such a question upon the filing of an initiative petition with the clerk of the local area. In either case a majority vote of the people should determine the feasibility of holding a convention for the purpose of framing a charter for the local area. The charter convention seems preferable to the Oregon plan of proposing charters by use of the initiative petition.

Fourth. The charter convention should consist of delegates elected by the people for the sole purpose of drafting a charter. If the charter is rejected a new convention should be held by the selection of new delegates. The number of members on the charter board - that is,

the number of members elected to the charter convention might well depend upon the population in the particular area. Large boards, however, should under all circumstances be avoided. Moreover, there should be few qualifications for membership in the convention: that delegates should be qualified electors seems sufficient. Furthermore, any convention scheme should place a limit upon the time consumed in the drafting of a charter. Past experience has shown that there has been a tendency to place too short a limit upon the time of the charter board; and yet, great care must be exercised in not placing too long a limit upon the time of the convention. Three or four months would seem to be a reasonable length of time. In addition to these requirements the organization of the convention should be largely provided for by statutory enactment, as has been done in Michigan. These laws should provide for the expenses of the convention, the rules of procedure, and other routine matters.

Fifth. Publication of the charter should take place as soon as practicable after its completion. In fixing the time of publication, the date of submission should be taken into consideration - publication should not take place too far from nor too near to the actual referendum by the people. Not more than four or less than two weeks before the election would seem to be about the proper interval in which publication should be required. The best method of publishing a proposed charter is by mailing a copy thereof to each individual voter. The Oregon plan of publishing the drafted charter in an information pamphlet, together with arguments for and against its adoption, seems desirable.

Sixth. The charter should be submitted within a