Charter Reform in Chicago, 1890-1915: Community and Government in the Progressive Era

Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1980 Charter Reform in Chicago, 1890-1915: Community and Government in the Progressive Era Maureen A. Flanagan Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Flanagan, Maureen A., "Charter Reform in Chicago, 1890-1915: Community and Government in the Progressive Era" (1980). Dissertations. 1998. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/1998 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1980 Maureen A. Flanagan CHARTER REFORM IN CHICAGO, 1890-1915: COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT IN THE PRCGRESSIVE ERA by Maureen Anne Flanagan A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Loyola University of Chicago in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 1980 ACKNOWlEDGMENTS I take this opportunity to thank several persons who offered guidance, encouragement, and stimulation in the research and writing of this dissertation. Professor James Penick gave me the latitude to pursue my research and develop my ideas in ways that were impor tant to me, while ahlays helping me understand the larger historical context of my work. Professor William Galush offered much guidance and insight into the study of ethnic groups in the city. And Pro fessor Lew Erenberg constantly prodded me to explore and develop the important ideas, and offered constant moral support. Professors Thomas Kelly and Harold Platt introduced me to urban history as an exciting field of historical study, and Professor Platt directed and encouraged my earlier inquiries and writing of this dissertation. Finally, I want to thank Chip Radding for so much intellectual stimulation and for reading everything--more than once. ii VITA The authorJ Maureen Anne Flanagan} was born February 2JJ 1948J in ChicagoJ Illinois. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in history from Dominican College in 1970 and a Master of Arts degree in cultural studies from Governors State University in 1974. She entered the doctoral program in history at Loyola University of Chicago in 1975 and was the recipient of a University Fellowship toward completing her dissertation in 1979. iii TABlE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNQILEDGMENTS • ii VITA • • • & iii TABlE OF CONTENTS iv CONTENTS OF APPENDICES v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. CHICAGO IN THE 1890s ll III. INTEREST GROUPS AND ISSUES 41 IV. THE BmiNNINGS OF CHARTER REFORM 69 V. THE CHARTER C<EVENTION • • • • • • 8? VI. THE CAMPAIGN TO RATIFY THE CHARTER • 134 VII. CHICAGO REMAINS "UNREFORMED" • 175 BIBLIOORAPHY 191 APPENDICES • 199 iv CONTENTS OF APPENDICES Page APPENDIX I Union Locals Affiliated with Chicago Federation of I.a.bor--1907 . Oo • • • • • • G • • • • 199 AFPENDII II Member Societies of the United Societies for Local Self-Government May 1906 . • . • • • • . • . • • 20.3 APPENDIX III United Societies for Local Self-Government Officers and Executive Committee 1906 • • • • . • • • • • • 206 APPENDIX IV Delegates to Chicago Charter Convention: 1906-l'J(J? . 0 0 ') 0 • • • 209 APPENDIX V Members of the Independence League • 216 v CHAPI'ER I INTRODUCTION In 1902 a group of Chicago residents began a campaign for a new municipal charter which would both free the city from the domination of the state legislature and substantially alter the existing structure of the municipal government. For the next five years the new charter movement occupied a prominent place in municipal affairs. The people of the city debated the purposes and content of that charter, clashed on many occasions with the state legislature over the issue, and or- ganized into groups favoring or opposing the charter until the voters finally rejected the proposed charter in a special referendum in 1907. Although subsequent charter reform campaigns were undertaken in 1908 and 1914, neither were as ambitious as the initial effort, and they too failed. As a result, Chicago has been governed for most of the twentieth century under a system designed in the previous century and under the careful control of the state legislature. The Chicago c?arter reform movement was just one of many similar movements in large American cities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.1 Until that time the control of state govern- ~ward Banfield an.d James Q. Wilson, City Politics (New York: Vintage Books, 1966); Charles Beard, American City Government: A Survey of Newer Tendencies (New York: Century, 1912); Ernest Griffith, A His tory of American City Government: The Conspicuous Failure, 1870-1900 (New York: Praeger, 1974) and A History of American City Government: The Progressive Years and Their Aftermath, 1900-1920 (New York: Praeger, 1974); Martin J. S~hiesl, ~ne Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Admini stration and Reform in America, 1880-1920 (Berkeley: University of C~lifornia, 1977) provide the best overview of this subject. 1 2 ments over the internal affairs of cities had rarezy been challenged: no court had considered the question of an inherent right to local self-government until 1871 and five years later the Supreme Court had ruled that "a municipal corporation, in the exercise of all of its duties, including those most strictzy local or internal, is but a de partment of the State. 112 By the last quarter of the nineteenth century however this situation had become intolerable for both sides. Urban constituents deluged the state legislature for more and more special legislation to meet new needs brought on by rapid growth. On the other hand state lawmakers often used special legislation to keep political control of cities. They enacted laws whether or not desired by the city's residents--often over the city's objections-- arbitrarizy changed voting dates and terms of municipal offices, and gerrymande~ed wards. To relieve this problem some states tried to limit the use of special legislation. In Illinois, for example, the new constitution of 1870 subjected all incorporated areas in the state to the pro- visions of a single incorporation act and forbade the General Assembzy to enact special legislation for any one city. Chicagoans soon felt the restrictions of a law designed to apply to cities of 1000 as well as 500,000. By the 1880s the municipal sewerage system was hopelesszy inadequate; the city however could not finance a new expanded system 2 Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540 (1876). See also Howard L. McBain, 11 The Doctrine of an Inherent Right to Self-Government, 11 Columbia Law Review l6 (1916), p. 190-216 and 299-322; John F. Dillon, CommeQt~ies on the Law of Municipal Corporations, 5th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, l9ll); Amasa Eaton, "The Right to Local Self-Go7ernment, 11 Harvard Law Review 13-1.4 (1900-1901). 3 because it had reached the level of municipal indebtedness allowed by law. Its only recourse was to ask the legislature to create a separate governing body for handling this problem. Although ninety percent of the territory and population serviced by the resulting Sanitary Dis trict was within Chicago the city had no control over its activities. other states attempted to control the proliferation of special legislation by classifying cities according to size of population and allowing special legislation for all cities within a class. This method too could be detrimental to cities. In a flagrant violation of the spirit of this law, the Ohio state legislature created eleven classes, each applying to just one city, and thereby continued to interfere at will in the affairs of individual cities. Neither method satisfied city residents who accused states of ignoring their needs and best interests and demanded municipal home rule. It was only logical, they argued, that local bodies could legislate more efficiently on matters which they understood better than anyone else. And since large cities had outgrown their governing structures and were urgently in need of reforms home rule would give them the power to solve current problems and meet new ones as they arose. Efficiency and utility were not the only motives urban dwellers had for advocating municipal home rule; they also strongly believed that the antipathetic needs and lifestyles of expanding urban areas and their largely rural, small-town states made home rule imperative. To secure both local self-government and change their existing municipal structures cities throughout the United States turned to charter reform. St. Louis led the movement for home rule. In 1875 that city's representatives to a state constitutional convention per- 4 suaded their fellow delegates to include a clause permitting cities over 100 ~ 000 (at the time only St • Louis) to frame~ adopt~ and amend their own home rule charters without any intrusion by the state legis lature. Other states followed the example of Missouri and granted varying degrees of home rule to their cities or at least allowed them to draft new municipal charters. In their new or amended charters cities generally replaced the old decentralized ward-based City Council governments with a commission~ a city manager~ or a strong mayor. Regardless of the specific type of government adopted most of the new charters had the common objective of transferring power from the legislative to the executive branch.3 They stripped the Council of much of its powers to appoint and remove officials~ draw up the municipal budget, and grant fra..J.chises. In addi tion~ they often reduced the number of Council members and provided for at-large elections thereby eliminating the alderman's local base of power.

Load more