James Garner - Government in the United States, National, State and Local

Causes of City Growth.– The causes that have led to the extraordinary growth of cities are partly economic and partly social. With the more general use of labor-saving machinery in agriculture the number of men necessary to cultivate the farms and supply the world with food has decreased relatively, leaving a larger number to engage in the manufacturing and other industries which are generally centered in the cities. One man with a machine can now do the work on the farm which formerly required several, so that fewer farmers in proportion to the total population are needed. On the other hand, the development of trade and commerce and the rise of the manufacturing industries have created an increasing demand for city workers. Many persons are also drawn away from the country by the social attractions and intellectual advantages which the cities offer. In the cities, good schools are abundant and convenient. There also are colleges, libraries, picture galleries, museums, theaters, and other institutions for amusement and education. There the daily newspaper may be left at one's door often for a cent a copy; there are to be found fine churches with pulpits occupied by able preachers; there one finds all the conveniences of life which modern science and skill can provide – everything to gratify the social instinct, and little or none of the dullness of country life. These are some of the attractions that lure the young and the old as well from the rural communities to swell the population of the cities. These are the forces that are converting us from a nation of country dwellers to a nation of city dwellers.

Consequences of City Growth.– The congestion of the population in the towns and cities has had far-reaching economic, social, and political effects.

Economic Results. – As the city population becomes more dense the number of those who are able to own their own homes becomes less, and thus the city tends more and more to become a community of tenants. According to the census of 1900, while more than 64 per cent of the families of the United States living on farms owned their own homes, less than 35 per cent of those living in cities were owners of the houses they occupied. In New York city the proportion was only about 12 per cent, and in the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx it was less than 6 per cent. Of these hardly more than 2 per cent owned homes that were clear of mortgages.

Social Results. – Another result of the movement of the people to the cities is the evil of overcrowding. Manifestly where the area of a city is limited, as is often the case, there must come a time when the population will be massed and crowded together under circumstances that are dangerous to the health, morals, and comfort of the people. In some of the large cities to-day the conditions resulting from overcrowding are truly shocking. According to the census of 1900, while the average number of persons to a dwelling throughout the country as a whole was about five, the number in New York city was nearly fifteen, and in the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx it was more than twenty. In several parts of the city there are blocks containing more than 1,000 persons to the acre. Under such circumstances the rate of mortality is necessarily high, and immorality and vice are encouraged. In the great cities one finds a large floating population with no local attachment or civic pride, and thousands of persons, foreigners and natives alike, with low standards of life. There also the individual is lost in a multitude, and the restraining influence of public opinion, which is so powerful in the country, is lacking. Thus the tendency to wrongdoing is greatly accentuated.

Political Results. – Finally, the growth of the cities has had important political consequences, in that it has given rise to conditions that have increased enormously the problems of local government. As long as the population of the nation was predominantly rural and the cities few in number and small in size, the difficulties of local government were not serious. But the presence of such conditions as those described above, together with the task which devolves upon the city of performing so many services for the people that are not required in sparsely settled communities, has made the problem of city government the most difficult of all governmental problems.

Movement to Check Immigration to the Cities.– The abandonment of the farms and the movement of the people to the cities is viewed by many persons with regret, not to say alarm. There are some who think that the cities are the plague spots of the country, that city life tends to produce an enfeebled race with low moral standards; that they are tending to make of us a nation of tenants, tramps, anarchists, and criminals; and that the economic welfare of the country is being endangered by the drift away from the farm. Such a view, of course, represents an exaggerated conception of the dangers, though it will be readily admitted that the change is not without serious evils.

Lately we have heard a great deal of discussion among thoughtful men as to the possibility of checking the movement of the young to the cities. And notwithstanding the movement from the country to the city it is evident that the conditions of rural life are much more favorable than formerly. The daily free delivery of mail at the doors of the farmers, the introduction of the telephone and the interurban railway, to say nothing of the use of labor-saving machinery, have done much to add to the attractiveness of country life and to diminish the hardships of farm life and other rural occupations. But these advantages have not checked the movement to the cities, and other remedies must be found.

The Position of the City in the State.– The city occupies a twofold position in the state of which it is a part. In the first place, it is an agent of the state for carrying out certain state laws and policies. Thus it acts for the state when it protects the public health, cares for the poor, maintains peace and order, supports education, and collects the taxes for the state. In the second place, the city undertakes to perform numerous services which are of interest to the people of the locality alone and which do not concern the people of the state as a whole. When acting in this latter capacity, the city is merely an organ of local government and not an agent of the state. Thus the city sometimes supplies the inhabitants with light and water, protects them against fire, maintains sewers, disposes of garbage and other refuse, builds wharves, docks, and bridges, and maintains public libraries, museums, bath houses, and other institutions.

State Control of Cities. – The organization, powers, and privileges of the city are determined for the most part by the state constitution and laws. In a few states the financial transactions of city officials are subject to state inspection and audit, and in practically all of them their power to levy taxes and borrow money is placed under restrictions. It is felt that if the cities were left entirely free from state control they could not always be relied upon by the state to carry out the laws which they are charged with enforcing, and that in other respects their action might not be in harmony with the general policy of the state. In those matters, however, which are of purely local interest, the state should interfere as little as possible. Interference in such cases is contrary to the ideas of local self-government which Americans cherish as one of their most valuable rights. However, the right of the people living in cities to regulate their own local affairs according to their own notions is not always recognized, and there are frequent complaints that state legislatures have interfered when the interests of the state did not justify it.