ments, city clerk, city attorney, city engineer, municipal judges and superintendent of schools.

The work of the county commissioners has been taken over by the council and various city departments. The sheriff's office has been merged with the police department. The functions of the county treasurer and county assessor have been taken over by the revenue department. The city clerk acts as county clerk and recorder; the city attorney as county attorney; and the city engineer as county surveyor. Two municipal judges have taken over the work of three justices of the peace. One superintendent of schools serves the whole city.

The merging of city and county offices has eliminated overlapping jurisdiction to a large extent, though not entirely. Some duplications have been retained. The union of the sheriff's office with the police department has eliminated conflicts, which were notable, especially when the two were controlled by different political parties.

A comparative statement of county expenses for 1911 (when the dual set of officers was in existence) and 1917 shows a reduction from $679,100 to $476,60016

City and County of Honolulu. Local government has developed slowly in the Hawaiian Islands. But consolidation of city and county government has been established in Honolulu.

After an unsuccessful attempt in 1903, an act of the Hawaiian legislature in 1905 created five counties,-each of the four principal islands forming a separate county. Two years later, the county of Oahu (the largest island) was reincorporated as the City and County of Honolulu. The elective officers are a mayor, 7 supervisors (elected at large), sheriff, clerk, auditor, attorney and treasurer. There is also a circuit and a district court. Subordinate officers and departments include the fire, parks, engineer, electric light, garbage and roads departments, the public schools, city and county physician and insanity commission.

A charter convention was provided for in 1915, but the new charter passed by the legislature was vetoed by the governor. Local elections have been separated from the territorial elections, beginning in June, 1917.17

Other consolidation provisions and plans. In Virginia, counties have no jurisdiction over cities; and all cities in that state combine to some extent city and county functions. From the first state constitution of 1776, separate representation in the state legislature has been given to cities and boroughs as well as to counties. The constitution of 1850 provided for the election of a circuit court clerk and attorney of

16 King. C. L. History of the City and County of Denver (1911); Guthrie, W. B., The City and County of Denver (1917). 17 Reports of the Governor of Hawaii.

the commonwealth in each corporation and county in which a circuit court should be held; and also authorized the creation of corporation courts.

The constitution of 1869 contained a series of provisions for the government of cities and towns. These provided for a city judge in each city or town of over 5,000 population, and for the election in each city or town of the following officers:

A clerk of the corporation court, who shall also be clerk of the circuit court, except in cities or towns of 30,000 or more, in which a separate circuit court clerk may be elected;

A commonwealth's attorney;

A city sergeant;

A city or town treasurer, whose duties shall be similiar to those of county treasurer;

A commissioner of revenue, and a mayor.

The present constitution of Virginia (1902) contains similar provisions for the election in cities of court clerks, commonwealth attorneys, sergeants, etc., exercising functions usually assigned to county officers.

The Michigan constitution of 1850 authorized the legislature to organize any city of 20,000 inhabitants into a separate county, when approved by the voters of the county in which the city is situated. In the constitution of 1908, this provision was amended to read as follows: "When any city has attained a population of one hundred thousand inhabitants, the legislature may organize it into a separate county without reference to geographical extent, if a majority of the electors of such city and of the remainder of the county in which such city may be situated voting on the question shall each determine in favor of organizing the city into a separate county".

The Minnesota constitution has the same provision as the Michigan constitution of 1850, as follows: "The legislature may organize any city into a separate county, when it has attained a population of 20,000 inhabitants, without reference to geographical extent, when a majority of the electors of the county in which such city may be situated, voting thereon, shall be in favor of a separate organization."

The Missouri constitution of 1875, in addition to the provisions for the separation of St. Louis city and county, provides that: "In all counties having a city therein containing over one hundred thousand inhabitants, the city and county government thereof may be consolidated in such manner as may be provided by law."

The California constitution contains the following provisions for city and county consolidation:

"The legislature may provide by general laws for the performance by county officers of certain municipal functions of incorporated cities when a majority of the electors of such city voting at a general or special election so determine.

"Cities framing their own charters may by provision therein or amendment provide for the performance by county officers of certain municipal functions when the discharge of such functions is authorized by general law or by a county charter framed under the constitution.

"City and county governments may be merged and consolidated into one municipal government, with one set of officers, and may be incorporated under general laws providing for the incorporation and organization of corporations for municipal purposes. The provisions of this constitution applicable to cities, and also those applicable to counties, so far as not inconsistent or not prohibited to cities, shall be applicable to such consolidated government.'

9918

Plans for consolidated city and county government have been actively discussed in Los Angeles and in Alameda county. In Los Angeles, it has been proposed to organize the southern part of Los Angeles county, including the city of Los Angeles and a number of other municipalities into a city-county. An extended report issued by the Tax Payers' Association of California in 1917 presents the advantages in reducing elections, a unified school system, the reorganization of courts, gains in efficiency, and financial savings, estimated at a minimum of $2,688,000. A report of the Los Angeles Realty Board, however, opposed the division of Los Angeles County.19

In Alameda county, proposals for a federated city and county government have been prepared and discussed. These include plans for a series of boroughs within the county (for the existing cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Alameda and other places), each retaining its identity, controlling local taxes, and with powers of police and health regulation, public works, police and fire departments. The proposed central government included a board of supervisors, with a manager and twelve departments (dealing with taxation and finance, schools, purchases, police, attorney, municipal court, library, city planning and civil service), taking the place of 125 existing agencies.

A detailed amendment to the California constitution, adopted in 1918, contains a series of alternative provisions apparently intended to apply to the Alameda county situation. Such detailed constitutional provisions, however, seem likely to cause trouble in the future when changes may be needed. 20

Within the last few years the question of city and county consolidation has been advocated in Ohio. The matter was brought before the General Assembly in 1917, and after some investigation of local conditions in the more populous counties, a resolution for a constitutional amendment was introduced to permit counties with a city of over 100,000 to reorganize and consolidate the local governments within the county or any part of it. This resolution passed in the Senate, but did not receive the necessary three-fifths vote in the House.

At the legislative session of 1919, the question was again presented, and was especially urged by the Civic League of Cleveland in connection with the situation in that city and Cuyahoga County. A proposed county home rule amendment was presented, authorizing any county to frame and adopt a charter for its government, and with the following

18 Constitution. Article XI. Secs. 6. 7.

19 City and County Consolidation for Los Angeles. Report of the Los Angeles Realty Board on the subject of city and county consolidation (1917).

20 Centralized government for Alameda County and its cities (August, 1916). Summary of a Charter for a Federated City and County Government for Alameda County (Sept. 1916).

provisions as to consolidation: "Any county with a population of over 200,000 may provide by charter for the abolition of any or all existing governments within said county. It may provide by charter, in place thereof, a unified government over the entire county, which charter shall provide for the establishment of such local districts or boroughs for administrative and self-governing purposes, or for assessment and taxation purposes or for both, as it may deem convenient and equitable. Any single government thus established shall have the powers and privileges granted to municipalities and counties under the Constitution".

The question of city and county consolidation is also being seriously considered in Buffalo, Rochester, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Portland, Ore., and Seattle; and proposals for further consolidation are being discussed in New York city and Philadelphia. A resolution was presented in the Oregon legislature in 1919 for a constitutional amendment to consolidate the city of Portland, the county of Multnomah, and the other municipal corporations and local districts in the county, into a single body politic and corporate by the name of the "City and County of Portland".21

County Boroughs in England. Local government changes in England during most of the nineteenth century tended to develop a confusing complexity of overlapping districts and authorities. But during the last thirty years, important steps have been taken in the direction of unifying and simplifying the local agencies; and this has been most notable in the case of the larger cities (outside of London) which have been organized as county boroughs.

The borough in England is the municipal corporation corresponding most closely to the city in the United States. But in addition to the usual functions of American cities, the English borough has also (since 1902) local control of education. Many boroughs also have separate courts (justices of the peace, recorders and quarter sessions), though all judicial officers are appointed by the central government. The ordinary municipal borough is, however, subject in some respects to the jurisdiction of the county council, and also to that of the central local government board (changed in 1919 to the ministry of health).

There are 19 ancient cities or boroughs which, in addition to separate courts, have for centuries had their own sheriffs, and have thus been more largely independent of the surrounding counties.

County boroughs were created by the local government act of 1888, which established elected county councils. Most of the ancient city-counties, and also most boroughs of over 50,000 population have been classed as county boroughs,-which now number more than 70. These county boroughs are almost entirely exempt from the jurisdiction of the county councils; and the borough government has most of the powers of the county council as well as those of the ordinary municipal borough. It receives its share of central government grants

21 Senate Joint Resolution No. 18, introduced Feb. 3, 1919.

directly, instead of through the county council; it is the local education. authority for both elementary and high education; and controls charitable and other institutions usually managed by county authorities.

Most of the county boroughs do not have their own sheriffs. In county boroughs where no assizes (nisi prius sessions of the supreme court judges on circuit) are held, they must contribute to the cost of the county assizes. In some cases county boroughs unite with the neighboring county in maintaining insane hospitals and other institutions which are managed by joint committees. Joint boards from several local authorities are also established for other purposes, such as the Mersey dock and harbor authority, composed of representatives from Liverpool and a number of other local bodies. When county boroughs are formed, financial adjustments must be made with the county, and these may be revised every five years.

Special arrangements have been made for London, whose local government is still complicated and in need of further consolidation. The main metropolitan area (including parts of three counties) has been organized as an administrative county, with an elected county council. The London county council has the powers of other county councils, and also jurisdiction over a number of important matters usually given to boroughs. These include education, main drainage, fire brigade, parks, bridges, main thoroughfares, regulation of buildings, and some licensing powers.

There are several other authorities having jurisdiction over the metropolitan area as a whole. The police are under a commissioner appointed by the central government. Water supply is in charge of a metropolitan water board, composed of representatives from the local authorities. The police district and the water district differ considerably in area from each other and from the administrative county. There is also a metropolitan asylums board and a port authority.

In addition to these, there are a good number of other local authorities over smaller districts. The ancient city of London still retains a special position in the heart of the county. There are 29 metropolitan boroughs, each dealing with local matters, such as street paving, lighting, sanitation, minor housing projects, baths and washhouses, libraries and museums. In many matters the metropolitan boroughs are subject to control by the county council. Outside of the administrative county of London are a number of important urban districts within the metropolitan area. Finally there are 30 poor law unions within the administrative county.22

German City-Circles. (Kreis-Stadte). In Germany, the local government of most cities of over 25,000 population, and some below that figure, is combined with that of the "circle", the district corresponding in some respects to the American county. In 1910 there were 99 such city-circles in Prussia, detached from the surrounding circles,

22 Encyclopedia of Local Government Law, I, 565-568; Harris: Problems of Local Government, 217-219: Odgers and Maldred: Local Government, 96-97; Redlich: Local Government in England, II. 97-99, 106-108.