Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T22:44:08.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes on Municipal Affairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Thomas H. Reed*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Extract

The year which has passed since the preparation of the last “Notes on Municipal Affairs” (June 1, 1930) has been even more eventful than the preceding period.

Developments in Particular Cities. New York City. The belief which had been growing for many years that the Tammany tiger was, after all, a self-restrained, self-muzzled beast has suffered a rude shock in the exposures of flagrant corruption in the sale of judicial office, the handling of vice, the purchase of land for school purposes, and in many other directions. The district attorney's office has been exposed to the searchlight of investigator Seabury. Charges were preferred against Mayor Walker by John Haynes Holmes and Rabbi Wise in the name of a citizens' committee. Governor Roosevelt dismissed these charges with scant consideration. In the meantime, however, the legislature ordered a most searching investigation of the whole governmental situation in New York—an investigation which bids fair to rival, in extent and dramatic interest, that of the celebrated Lexow committee.

Chicago. In Chicago, Mayor Thompson's political career has suffered, if not extinction, at least a total eclipse. Though victorious against a broken field in the Republican primary, he was defeated by Anton J. Cermak in the election of April 7 by a vote of 476,932 to 671,189. It is probable that the people of Chicago were more anti-Thompson than pro-Cermak, but the new mayor is a vigorous and striking figure. For one thing, he is boss in his own right of the Democratic organization in Cook county.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jubilee in Chicago,” National Municipal Review, XX, 321325 (June, 1931)Google Scholar.

2 Ridley, Clarence E., “Recent Developments in Council-Manager Government,” Municipal Index, 1931, pp. 120122Google Scholar.

3 Bromage, Arthur W., “Why Some Cities Have Abandoned Manager Charters,” National Municipal Review, XIX, 599–603, 761766 (Sept. and Nov., 1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Two managers are added to this table who were not considered in the preceding table because they took office on March 1, 1925. Mention should likewise be made of five managers who have served two terms in the same city, but whose previous terms are not considered in this table.

In the article previously quoted, Dr. C. E. Ridley gives the average length of service of city managers as follows:

January, 1916—1 year, 7½ months

January, 1921—2 years, 15 days

January, 1926—3 years, 4 months

January, 1931—4 years, 11 months

5 “A Proposal for an Administrative Assistant to the Mayor,” Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research, Report No. 123.

6 U. S. ex rel. Atlanta v. Steuart, U. S. Daily, March 3, 1931.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.