Special districts. In addition to the more general local government units noted above, there has been a marked tendency in recent years in other states as well as in Illinois toward the creation of a great variety of other local districts for special purposes, with the result of further increasing the complexity of local government.

Early illustrations of such special districts are to be found in the precincts or districts established in the southern (and later in the far western) states where the township system was not introduced. Another early and much more widespread example is the school district, organized within towns and counties, as the primary unit of local school administration; and such school districts in many states have become more than administrative subdivisions, having their own taxing power and not infrequently being given the full legal status of a municipal corporation.

But the recent tendencies have multiplied the number and variety of such special districts to a great extent. Such special districts now include the following classes: drainage districts, in forty states; irrigation districts, flood control districts, reclamation districts, water districts, sanitary districts, local improvement districts, road districts, bridge districts, park districts, watch districts, fire and lighting districts, public health districts, and "rural communities" the last named in North Carolina. In some cases the classification has been carried further, as in the case of water storage districts, or forest preserve districts.

Not all of these classes of special districts are to be found in any one state; and some kinds of districts are found mainly in certain geographical regions. Thus irrigation districts are mainly in the far western states; and fire, lighting, and watch districts are subdivisions of towns in some of the New England states. But the number of classes and the number of special districts in many States add materially to the list of local authorities.

Among the more important special districts outside of Illinois may be noted the metropolitan park district and the metropolitan water and sewerage district in eastern Massachusetts, including Boston and about 40 neighboring towns and cities; and the port of Portland (Oregon), originally created to improve the Columbia river, to which power has been added to control towage and pilotage, terminal facilities, and markets, and also authority to own and operate transportation lines from Portland to any point in the world.

The multiplication of such special districts not only adds to the complexity of local government in many states and in the United States as a whole; but such districts necessarily overlap and cover the same territory as the more general local units. Where a number of special districts are formed over much the same territory in addition to the usual county, town, city, and school district, the result is a confusion and chaos of local government similar to that in many parts of Illinois.

On the other hand may be noted instances where steps have been taken to combine overlapping local authorities into a unified system of local government. In many places, the powers and functions given elsewhere to special districts (such as sanitary or park districts) are vested in the city or other existing municipal authorities. As already noted in many states, city and township government, and in some states, village and township government are combined in one organization. Less frequently local school administration in cities has been made a department of the city government.

In a number of the largest cities (such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, St. Louis, Denver, and San Francisco), and for all cities in Virginia, city and county government have been partially (in Denver almost wholly) consolidated in one system.3

State supervision. Local selection of local officials is a highly developed feature of public administration in the United States; and is applied even in the case of officers whose duties are mainly to act as agents of the state government. In this respect the administrative system of the states contrasts sharply with that of the national government, where the local agents are all appointed by the central government.

But, beginning about the middle of the nineteenth century, there has been a gradual development of state supervision over the functions of local officials; and this tendency has increased in recent years, along with the expansion of the field of direct administration by state officials.

State supervision began and has been developed furthest in the field of public education. Laws requiring the establishment of public schools in all localities, and providing for state financial aid, have been followed by state supervision through state superintendents and state departments of education, perhaps most highly developed in the state of New York. State institutions of higher education have also been established in all of the states.

State supervision and direct state administration have also been established to a considerable extent in the fields of public charity, public health, public finance and public utilities, State boards or departments have been set up in these fields, at first in many cases with authority only to receive reports and conduct investigations; but larger powers of supervision and control have been added in most states. New York and Massachusetts have taken the lead in this development; but the other states have followed in varying degrees.

2 Cities in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas; boroughs and villages in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Minnesota and the Dakotas.

3 See Bulletin No. 11, on Local Governments in Chicago and Cook County.

Illinois has taken part in this movement to a considerable extent; and in most lines has reached about the same stage as the average of the important states, though in some cases (as in the establishment of a state tax commission) later than in other states. But in one field-the supervision of local finances—practically nothing has been done in Illinois. The situation in this field in other states may be briefly described.

As early as 1878 Minnesota established the office of state examiner with power to examine the accounts of county officers. A year later, Massachusetts provided for the supervision and inspection of county accounts, now exercised by the state controller of county accounts. In 1890 Wyoming established a more comprehensive supervision over local accounts; and this was soon followed by other neighboring states-Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Nevada-and also by Florida. In 1892, New York authorized the state comptroller to audit certain accounts of county treasurers; and later provision was made for uniform financial reports from counties and cities.

In 1902 Ohio established a more thorough system of public accounting, auditing and reporting for every public office in the state, under the supervision of the auditor of state. Laws for uniform municipal accounts and reports have also been passed in Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, California, Wisconsin, and other states. About half of the states, including most of the larger states, have now provided in some measure for financial reports from loca1 authorities to a state officer; and a considerable number have also provided for a state audit of local accounts.

This state supervision over local accounts has brought about a marked improvement in local financial methods. In Wyoming, in which only two counties had kept their expenses within their income, county expenditures were reduced and all were brought to a cash basis. In New York the examination of county accounts disclosed defalcations or shortages in 25 of the 60 counties. In Ohio large amounts have been saved by introducing better methods of accounting.

Under present conditions in Illinois, no comparison of local finances in different communities can be made because of the lack of official reports and the varving methods of local officials. There is no general system of auditing the accounts of local officers; and if discrepancies are discovered later, the only remedy is by suit against the officers, their bondsmen, or perhaps their heirs.

A committee of the General Assembly recommended in 1913 a law for a uniform system of county accounts and the audit of such accounts by a state officer, with optional provisions for other local authorities. But no action has as yet been taken for this purpose.

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 prehensive and simpler areas of local government.

com

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 Ill. 102 (1897); People v. Nellis, 249 Ill. 12 (1911).