V. COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS.

Local areas. The provisions in sections 1 to 4 of Article X of the constitution of 1870, on the formation of new counties, and on changes in county boundaries and county seats, were adopted to restrict frequent changes and the creation of small counties which had been actively carried on in the period before 1848. Not only have these purposes been accomplished; but the existing provisions have entirely prevented the formation of new counties and changes in county boundaries, even where some modifications of existing boundaries, may be desirable.

The general principle of requiring local consent for the formation of new counties or changes in county lines and county seats will probably be continued; and a minimum limit on the size of new counties may be retained as a general rule. But exception may be made so as to permit large cities to be organized as counties; and consideration may be given to the question whether all of the details in the existing provisions are needed, and whether a briefer and simpler statement of the general principles may not be adequate.

At the same time, attention should be given to the effect of other constitutional provisions in promoting legislation for the multiplication of new types of local districts. Such districts have been formed in many cases as a means of evading the constitutional provisions for uniformity of taxation in each municipal corporation and imposing specific limitations on municipal debt. Such clauses in the present constitution may be eliminated or modified, so as to remove some of the factors which help to swell the number of overlapping local areas.

On the other hand, the constitutional convention may consider the desirability of some new provisions to authorize, and so far as may seem advisable, to promote, the union of all small counties and the consolidation of existing overlapping local districts into more comprehensive and simpler areas of local government.

Detailed provisions on county government. The detailed provisions for the local election of county officers were adopted for the purpose of extending the field of local control over such officers. But these provisions, as well as those relating to the compensation of local officers, now operate as restrictions both on the general assembly and on the local districts in adapting the machinery of local government to local needs and present conditions. Attention may be given. to the question of relaxing these restrictions, so as to permit greater

freedom in the organization of local government, either by leaving the matter more largely to the general assembly, subject perhaps to local referendum (at least in cases of special legislation) or by provisions for local home rule.

In a number of states (including the New England states, Iowa and Wisconsin) there is little or nothing in the state constitution on county government, leaving the whole matter to the state legislature. In several other states (including Ohio and Minnesota) there are brief general provisions on county and township government, with no such detail as is found in the constitution of Illinois.

If, however, detailed provisions are retained in the constitution, attention should be given to modifications and adjustments of the present provisions. In the section relating to township organization, the requirements as to popular votes for the adoption and abolition of the township system should be made uniform; and greater flexibility should be permitted in the organization of local government. The requirement in section 6 that one county commissioner shall be elected each year, makes necessary an election in alternate years in counties under the county commissioner system for the sole purpose of electing one commissioner. Qualifications for county commissioners in Article VI, Section 17 should be in the article on county or local government.

A reduction in the list of elective county officers in section 8. should be considered; and special attention may be given to the omission of the coroner as a constitutional officer, as was done in the constitution of 1848. In several states, this office has been abolished. A longer term for the county judge may be proposed; the population limit for counties in which a recorder of deeds is provided may be harmonized with that for probate judges; and some provision for greater legislative power over the office of sheriff may be advisable, in view of judicial decisions as to the common law powers of this officer.1

The provisions of sections 10 and 12 relating to the classification of counties for fixing fees and salaries of county officers should be carefully examined in the light of present conditions; and the question of fixing salary limits in the constitution should be considered,

The proviso at the end of section 10 prohibiting an increase or diminution of compensation should be combined with other provisions of the same kind into one general provision.

In connection with section 13, providing for semi-annual reports of fees and emoluments by county officers, the question should be considered whether this may not be construed as a limitation on more comprehensive financial reports, and whether provisions should be made for such reports and their audit by state authority.

The special provisions relating to Cook County, in sections 7 and 9 will require thorough examination and revision. Considerations and suggestions relating to this are presented in Bulletin No. 11 on Local Governments in Chicago and Cook County.

1 Dahnke v. People, 168 111. 102 (1897); People v. Nellis, 249 Ill. 12 (1911).

Home rule. Constitutional provisions for municipal home rule charters for cities, and in some cases also for villages, have been adopted in thirteen states. The operation of these provisions and their applicability to Illinois has been discussed in Bulletin No. 6 on Municipal Home Rule; and the possible extension of such powers to include county government and the consolidation of local governments in Cook County have been set forth in Bulletin No. 11 on Local Governments in Chicago and Cook County. Attention may, however, be given to the question as to similar provisions for county home rule and the consolidation of local governments in other parts of the state.

As already noted, two states (California and Maryland) have recently adopted constitutional provisions for county home rule charters. In both of these states, the constitutional provisions contain a good deal of detail as to procedure. The California provisions also contain much more detail as to the content of county charters and as to county officers; and still further details have been added in a later amendment adopted to meet the special conditions in Alameda county. The result is to place in the state constitution a good deal of what would more properly be statutory legislation; and in the case of the later California amendment what is practically special legislation. Four counties in California have adopted home rule charters; but no county in Maryland has thus far exercised this power.

A shorter proposal for county home rule (although also including details of procedure) has been introduced in the Ohio general assembly, with additional provisions for the consolidation of local governments in counties including large cities. But this proposal makes no distinction between the powers of counties and those of cities under the municipal home rule provisions of that state.

In support of constitutional provisions for county home rule, it may be said that counties in Illinois (as in other states) differ so widely in size and population and the importance of their county and other local governments, that their detailed regulation by general law makes impossible a satisfactory organization in many localities; and that a locally framed and adopted system of organization will be more likely to be adapted to local conditions. On the other hand, it may be urged that county officers are to a large extent primarily local agents of the state government; and that they should, therefore, be under more direct state control than may be necessary in the case of cities and villages, which are to a large extent organs for distinctly local purposes: If, however, state authority over the state functions of county officers is adequately protected, local control over the organization of county officers would seem to be less open to objection than the present system of local election of such officers without adequate state supervision.

Three main types of counties may be recognized in Illinois. Most counties are mainly agricultural in character, with some villages and small cities; but even these vary to a considerable extent in area and population. In sharp contrast with these is the metropolitan county of Cook, with more than 2,500,000 population, mostly in the city of Chicago, but with 80 other cities and villages as well as several hundred other local authorities. An intermediate type is the counties contain

ing one or more cities of considerable size; and in which the urban population is a majority of the total population. These counties in turn present a number of variations in size and the distribution of population. Provisions for constitutional home rule would permit different plans of organization to be adopted, not only for the main types of counties, but also adapted to meet the different conditions within each type.

If a system of county home rule is considered, it will be advisable on the one hand to avoid detailed provisions such as those in the California constitution, and on the other hand to avoid the vagueness of the proposed Ohio provisions. If a detailed enumeration of county powers and duties in the constitution is to be avoided, it will be necessary to recognize clearly the authority of the general assembly to prescribe duties and to define the powers which must be provided for in home rule county charters. Provision may also be made by which, in connection with county home rule charters, the machinery of local government in any county may be more effectively co-ordinated and simplified. This may be done by authorizing the consolidation of local governments (for large city counties) or the adoption of a federated system, as has been proposed for Alameda county, California.

Proposals for county home rule are intended primarily to obtain systems of county government more readily adapted to the needs of counties of varying sizes and interests. The purpose to be accomplished may of course also be attained by omitting detailed regulations from the constitution, leaving to the general assembly wider power than at present to deal with the county problem, through laws generally applicable to all counties or by laws subject to a local referendum.

APPENDIX NO. 1. REFERENCES.

American Political Science Review.

VII. 234 (May 1913), County Legislation.

VIII. 411 (August 1913) California's Experiment with (County) Home Rule Charters.

IX. 111 (Feb. 1915), The Reorganization of County Government in 1913 and 1914.

XII. 678 (Nov. 1918) Special Municipal Corporations.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 47 (May, 1913), County Government.

Vol. 64 (March, 1916), Movement for Responsible County Gov

ernment.

Buck, G. S. The Organization of County Government. Academy of Political Science Proceedings, V. 342, (Jan. 1915).

Crandall, C. A. The Relation of Cities and Counties to the State. Case and Comment, XXI, 288 (Sept. 1914).

Cyclopedia of American Government I, 492. County Government. Dwyer, W. A. Putting Character into Counties, World's Work XXX, 605 (Sept. 1915).

Fairlie, John A. Local Government in Counties, Towns and Villages (2d ed. 1914).

Fairlie, John A. Town and County Government in Illinois. A report prepared for the Joint Committee of the Forty-Seventh General Assembly on County and Township Organization, and Roads, Highways and Bridges (1913).

Gilbertson, H. S. The County. The "Dark Continent" of American Politics.

(1917).

James, H. G. County Government in Texas. Univ. of Texas Bulletin, June 5, 1917.

King, C. L. Chairman. Report of the City-County Committee of the American Political Science Association. Proceedings at the Fifth Annual Meeting (1914).

Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.

Bulletin No. 8. County Government in Massachusetts. (1917.) New York Constitutional Convention Commission. County Government (1915).

North Carolina Club Year Book. County Government and County Affairs in North Carolina (1918).