Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:42:25.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

County and Township Government in 1935–36*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Clyde F. Snider
Clyde F. Snider
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Quite generally recognized is the fact that rural local government in the United States has failed to keep pace with the improvements in governmental organization and procedure which have been made in the national, state, and municipal fields. In 1917, the county was referred to as the “dark continent” of American politics—an appellation which might have been applied with equal propriety to the rural subdivisions of counties known as towns or townships. Today, after two decades, it must be admitted that rural government still lags in its rate of progress; yet it is not the unexplored jungle of twenty years ago. In several states, comprehensive surveys have been made with a view to reorganization, and during the past few years the depression has served to stimulate local-government consciousness where previously little interest was displayed in local affairs. In increasing numbers, attempts are being made, in some instances through constitutional amendment but more often by statutory enactment, to render our local areas, organization, and functions more adequate to present-day needs. Various extra-legal developments are taking place also. It is the purpose of this article to summarize the more significant developments in the field of county and township government during the years 1935 and 1936. While not all of these developments, when measured by principles of sound public administration, can be said to be in the direction of progress, a definite trend in that direction is clearly discernible.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , October 1937 , pp. 884 - 913
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937

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 Gilbertson, H. S., The County: The “Dark Continent” of American Politics (New York, 1917)Google Scholar.

2 Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 321; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1935, ch. 332.

3 General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1935, p. 1513Google Scholar; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, p. 1365Google Scholar.

4 Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 135.

5 Jessup, Roger W., “Consolidation Pays Dividends,” Tax Digest, Vol. XIV, pp. 8–9, 22 (Jan., 1936)Google Scholar.

6 Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1935, ch. 102; Reed, Thomas H., “Consolidation of Duval County and Jacksonville Fails,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXIV, p. 402 (July, 1935)Google Scholar; Victoria Schuck, “City-County Consolidation Amendment Defeated,” ibid., Vol. XXVI, p. 96 (Feb., 1937); Paul W. Wager, note in ibid., Vol. XXV, p. 743 (Dec., 1936).

7 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, nos. 332, 448, 496; Laws of Colorado, 1936 (2nd spec. sess.), ch. 5;Laws of Illinois, 1935–1936 (1st spec. sess.), p. 70Google Scholar; Laws of Indiana, 1936, ch. 3; Acts of Louisiana, 1936, no. 14; Laws of Maryland, 1935, ch. 586; ibid., 1936 (1st spec. sess.), chs. 145,149; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1935 (spec. sess.), chs. 20, 21, 24, 30; Oregon Laws, 1935 (spec. sess.), ch. 55; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1935, ch. 554; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1935, ch. 64. In a few instances, the creation of the new welfare departments was accompanied by the abolition of certain existing welfare agencies, and to that extent resulted in simplification, rather than complication, of the local organization setup. For the most part, however, the duties imposed upon the new departments concern either newly-undertaken activities or activities which had previously been carried on directly by the county governing board.

8 Public Acts of Michigan, 1935, no. 159; Laws of Missouri, 1935, p. 308Google Scholar; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1935, ch. 170.

9 Kentucky repealed an act of 1934 consolidating the offices of jailer and sheriff, thereby re-establishing these as two separate county offices. Acts of Kentucky, 1936–37 (4th spec. sess.), ch. 14.

10 Private and Special Laws of Maine, 1935, ch. 72; In re Opinion of the Justices, 133 Me. 532, 178 A.613 (1935); Hormell, O. C., “New Legislation Affecting Cities in Maine,” Public Management, Vol. XVII, pp. 375–376 (Dec. 1935)Google Scholar.

11 See infra, “The Fee System” and footnote 70.

12 Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 112; Acts of Kentucky, 1936 (reg. sess), ch. 19; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1935, ch. 125; Laws of New York, 1935, p. 1909Google Scholar; Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1935, chs. 10, 154.

13 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, no. 423; Laws of North Dakota, 1935, ch. 102; Edwards, Charles W., “Consolidation of Offices Defeated,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXVI, pp. 145–146 (Mar., 1937)Google Scholar; letter to the writer from G. A. Gilbertson, deputy secretary of state of North Dakota, Bismarck, July 20, 1937.

14 Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1935, p. 178Google Scholar; Public Acts of Michigan, 1935; no. 16; Laws of New York, 1935, p. 1915Google Scholar; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (spec. sess.), ch. 37; State v. Ward, 117 Fla. 585, 158 So. 273 (1934); Marshall v. Walker, 183 Ga. 44, 187 S.E. 81 (1936).

15 Laws of Colorado, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 185; Public Acts of Michigan, 1935, no. 60; Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1936 (December sess.), p. 14Google Scholar; Benson, George C. S., “State Constitutional Development in 1936,” in this Review, Vol. XXXI, pp. 280–285 (Apr., 1937)Google Scholar.

16 Cort v. Smith, 291 N.Y.S. 54 (1936); Carey v. Smith, 286 N.Y.S. 630 (1936); Morrall v. Monroe County, 271 N.Y. 48, 2 N.E. (2d) 40 (1936). See infra, “Home Rule and Optional Charters.”

17 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1935, pp. 620, 675, 728, 751, 784Google Scholar.

18 Cottrell, E. A., “Spotlight on the County Manager Plan,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXV, pp. 564–570 (Oct., 1936)Google Scholar.

19 See infra, “Home Rule and Optional Charters.”

20 Private and Special Laws of Maine, 1935, chs. 12, 48, 52, 58, 77; O. C. Hormell, loc. cit.

21 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, no. 284; Statutes of California, 1935, p. 2361Google Scholar; Pate, James E., “Henrico County Adopts Merit System,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXV, pp. 543–544 (Sept., 1936)Google Scholar; H. M. Olmsted, note in ibid., Vol. XXV, pp. 737–738 (Dec., 1936). The civil service authority established for Jefferson county, Alabama, also serves the cities of Birmingham and Bessemer.

22 Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1935, p. 132Google Scholar; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, p. 1365Google Scholar; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1935, ch. 349. Under the Wisconsin statute, an examination for deputy sheriffs in Racine county was conducted, but the proceedings were held to be irregular on the ground that the county ordinance requesting the state bureau to hold the examination did not conform to statutory requirements. (Letter to the writer from A. J. Opstedal, acting director, State Bureau of Personnel, Madison, June 7, 1937.)

23 Yeilding v. State, 232 Ala. 292, 167 So. 580 (1936); Cornell v. Harris, 59 P. (2d) 570 (Calif. Dist. Ct. of App., 4th dist., 1936).

24 State v. Guckenberger, 131 Ohio St. 466, 3 N.E. (2d) 502 (1936). Cf. Belsley, G. Lyle, “Personnel Administration,” Municipal Year Book, 1937, pp. 15–20Google Scholar.

25 Wager, Paul W., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. XXVI, pp. 40–41 (Jan., 1937)Google Scholar; and data supplied by Professor M. P. Catherwood, Cornell University.

26 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1935, ch. 61; Laws of New York, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 581; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, no. 411½.

27 Pate, James E., “Virginia County Officers Organize,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXIV, p. 273 (May, 1935)Google Scholar.

28 Smith, Wade S., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. XXIV, p. 647 (Nov., 1935)Google Scholar.

29 Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, nos. 384, 386, 419.

30 Session Laws of Minnesota, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 120; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1935, ch. 392.

31 Data from the writer's doctoral dissertation presented at the University of Illinois in 1936. Mention might also be made of the American County Association, which was incorporated under the laws of Illinois in 1933 with headquarters in Chicago. This association was apparently designed to effect a national organization of county officials and persons interested in county government, and to serve as a central clearing-house for information relative to county administration. For several months during 1935, the association published the National County Magazine as its official organ, and in October of that year a national convention was held in Chicago. During recent months, however, the organization seems to have lapsed into inactivity.

32 Laws of Colorado, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 222; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1935, p. 579Google Scholar; Acts of Kentucky, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 91; Acts of Louisiana, 1936, no. 222; Laws of Mississippi, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 185; Laws of Missouri, 1935, p. 327Google Scholar; Public Laws and Resolutions of North Carolina, 1935, ch. 65; Laws of North Dakota, 1935, ch. 118; Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1935 (reg. sess.), p. 132; Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), chs. 217, 218, 226; ibid. (spec. sess.), ch. 15; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1935 (reg. sess.), nos. 92, 153, 308; ibid., 1936, nos. 656, 1124, 1131; Laws of South Dakota, 1935, ch. 76; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 32; Acts and Resolves of Vermont, 1935 (reg. sess.), nos. 242, 243, 257, 263, 264; Acts of Virginia, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 252.

33 See supra, “New Offices Created”; infra, “Planning and Zoning.”

34 General Laws of Alabama, 1936 (spec. sess.), no. 127; Kansas Session Laws, 1935, ch. 138; Acts of Louisiana, 1936, no. 122; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 54; Laws of New York, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 11; Public Laws and Resolutions of North Carolina, 1935, ch. 172; Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1935, p. 343Google Scholar; Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 339; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, no. 406; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1935 (reg. sess.), no. 477; ibid. (spec. sess.) no. 601; State v. Hardwick, 144 Kan. 3, 57 P. (2d) 1231 (1936).

35 Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 369; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, no. 370; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1935 (reg. sess.), no. 330; ibid., 1936, no. 970; Laws of Utah, 1935, ch. 28.

36 Laws of Colorado, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 142; Acts of Louisiana, 1935 (1st spec. sess.), no. 17; ibid. (2nd spec. sess.), no. 22; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1935, ch. 87. Cf. Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, nos. 187, 211, providing for local referenda on questions of Sunday movies and polo games.

37 Acts of New Jersey, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 154; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1935 (1st spec. sess.), ch. 370.

38 General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1935, p. 1174Google Scholar; General Laws of Idaho, 1935 (1st spec. sess.), ch. 51; Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 239; Acts of New Jersey, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 251; Acts of Virginia, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 427; Session Laws of Washington, 1935, ch. 44. The county planning authority is designated as a “planning council” in Florida and a “planning board” in New Jersey.

39 Public Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 43.

40 Hendrickson, C. I., County Planning and Zoning (mimeographed publication of the Division of Land Economics, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, June, 1936), p. 3.Google Scholar The states having the largest numbers of commissions were Florida (67), Idaho (31), California (30), Wisconsin (29), Washington (25), and New York (19). For a list of the county planning enabling statutes in effect on January 1, 1936, see ibid., pp. 10-11.

41 Private Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, ch. 706; Laws of New Hampshire, 1935, ch. 55.

42 Acts of Louisiana, 1936, no. 38; Laws of Mississippi, 1936 (reg. sess)., ch. 189; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1935, ch. 176; Laws of New Mexico, 1935, ch. 137; Laws of North Dakota, 1935, ch. 217; Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1935, p. 87Google Scholar; Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 5; Laws of South Dakota, 1935, ch. 191.

43 Unofficial planning bodies were reported in 373 counties on January 1, 1936. The states having the largest numbers of such planning commissions were Texas (113), South Dakota (65), North Dakota (53), Missouri (33), Oregon (29), and Wyoming (23). Hendrickson, op. cit., p. 3.

44 Laws of Illinois, 1935 (reg. sess.), p. 689Google Scholar; Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 239; Public Acts of Michigan, 1935, no. 44; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 33; Session Laws of Washington, 1935, ch. 44. Tennessee also enacted a special enabling act applying to Shelby county. Private Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), Vol. II, ch. 625. Prior to 1935, California and Wisconsin had laws authorizing county zoning in all counties, while zoning was authorized in certain counties in Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia. See Hendrickson, op. cit., pp. 22–23.

45 Wisconsin Session Laws, 1935, chs. 303, 403, Cf. Rowlands, W. A. and Trenk, F. B., Rural Zoning Ordinances in Wisconsin (Circular 281, Extension Service of the College of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin, Madison, July, 1936), p. 3Google Scholar.

46 For a list of such counties, see Hendrickson, op. cit., pp. 24–25.

47 For a list of 23 of these counties, five of which adopted their ordinances in 1935, see Hendrickson, op. cit., p. 25. The recent adoption of an ordinance by Taylor county brings the total number of zoned rural counties to 24. (Letter to the writer from Professor W. A. Rowlands, University of Wisconsin, Aug. 3, 1937). Milwaukee county has an urban zoning ordinance.

48 Each of the six New England states has a law authorizing town zoning, while a few other states authorize zoning by some or all townships. See Hendrickson, op. cit., p. 26.

49 Commissioners of Glynn County v. Cate, 183 Ga. 111, 187 S.E. 636 (1936); Blucher, Walter H., “Planning and Zoning,” Municipal Year Book, 1937, pp. 47–52Google Scholar; Hendrickson, op. cit., p. 24. A proposed amendment which would have permitted certain counties, including Glynn, to enact zoning ordinances, was defeated by the voters of the state in 1930. Henrickson, op. cit., p. 23.

50 Laws of Delaware, 1935, ch. 107; Public Acts of Michigan, 1935. no. 44; Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1935 (reg. sess.), pp. 132, 571Google Scholar; Van Wagoner, Murray D., “Township Roads,” Engineering News-Record, Vol. CXVII, pp. 649–652 (Nov. 5, 1936)Google Scholar.

51 Cf. Peirce, John M., “Mergers in Government,” Tax Digest, Vol. XIV, pp. 192–193, 207 (June, 1936)Google Scholar.

52 Statutes of California, 1935, ch. 735; Laws of New York, 1935, p. 1909Google Scholar; Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1935 (reg. sess.), p. 102Google Scholar.

53 Laws of Colorado, 1936 (2nd spec. sess.), ch. 5; Laws of Illinois, 1935–1936 (1st spec. sess.), p. 70Google Scholar; Laws of Indiana, 1936, ch. 3; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1935, ch. 64.

54 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1935, p. 467Google Scholar; Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 217; Laws of New Mexico, 1935, ch. 131; Public Laws and Resolutions of North Carolina, 1935, ch. 142; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, no. 287; Session Laws of Washington, 1935, ch. 86.

55 Statutes of California, 1935, ch. 273; Laws of Colorado, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 222; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1935 (reg. sess.), no. 92; Greene, Lee S., “Milwaukee City Parks to be Transferred to County,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXV, p. 374 (June, 1936)Google Scholar; Weir, L. H., “Parks and Recreation,” Municipal Year Book, 1937, pp. 64–69Google Scholar.

56 Stewart, Frank M., “City-County Contractual Relationships,” Public Management, Vol. XIX, pp. 14–17 (Jan., 1937)Google Scholar.

57 General Acts of Alabama, 1935, nos. 300, 379; Laws of Colorado, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 158; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1935, p. 165Google Scholar; Laws of Indiana, 1935, chs. 150, 173; Statutes of Nevada, 1935, ch. 44; Laws of New Hampshire, 1935, ch. 9; Acts of New Jersey, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 211; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, nos. 384, 386, 419; Private Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, chs. 483, 759, 797; State v. Thatcher, 94 S.W. (2d) 1053 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1936); Buck, A. E., “Municipal Budgeting,” Municipal Year Book, 1937, pp. 21–25Google Scholar. See also infra, “State-Local Relations.” The New Jersey statute, although constituting a step in the direction of orderly financial planning, will apparently require supplementary legislation if the purpose of the law is to be realized. See Shipman, George A. and Saum, Harold J., Changes Made by the Local Budget Act of 1936 (Princeton Local Government Survey, Nov. 23, 1936), p. 16Google Scholar.

58 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, no. 26; General Laws of Idaho, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 80; Kansas Session Laws, 1935, ch. 275. In Oregon, a law of 1929 requiring the secretary of state to prescribe a uniform system of accounting for counties and other local government units was supplanted in 1935 by a statute directing that officer to prescribe systems of accounting and make periodic audits for such of the local units as elect to make use of that service. Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 405.

59 Statutes of California, 1935, chs. 330, 362; Laws of Delaware, 1935, ch. 12; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1935, p. 193Google Scholar; Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 427; Session Laws of Washington, 1935, ch. 111.

60 General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1935, p. 980Google Scholar; Acts of Kentucky, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 5; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1935, ch. 556. See infra, “State-Local Relations.”

61 See General Laws of Alabama, 1935, nos. 448, 496; Statutes of California, 1935, chs. 633, 703; Laws of Illinois, 1935 (reg. sess.), p. 256Google Scholar; Laws of Indiana, 1936, ch. 3; Acts of Louisiana, 1936, nos. 33, 53, 57; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1935, ch. 170; Laws of New Hampshire, 1935, ch. 127; Acts of New Jersey, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 31; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1935, ch. 101.

62 Laws of Colorado, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 123; Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 120; Acts and Resolves of Vermont, 1935 (reg. sess.), no 220. See infra, “Federal-Local Relations.”

63 Laws of Maryland, 1935, ch. 387; Public Acts of Michigan, 1935, no. 57; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1935 (spec. sess.), ch. 15.

64 General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1935, pp. 1305, 1311Google Scholar; Session Laws of Minnesota, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 386.

65 Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 117; Acts and Joint Resolutions of Iowa, 1935, ch. 69; Laws of New York, 1935, p. 1917Google Scholar; Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 571.

66 Acts of New Jersey, 1936 (reg sess.), ch. 211; Public Laws and Resolutions of North Carolina, 1935, ch. 248; Acts of Virginia, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 372; Benson, George C. S., “State Constitutional Development in 1936,” in this Review, Vol. XXXI, pp. 280–285 (Apr., 1937)Google Scholar; George A. Shipman and Harold J. Saum, op. cit., pp. 7–11. Also of significance in its relation to the problem of local indebtedness is the decision of the United States Supreme Court (Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U. S. 513) declaring unconstitutional the Municipal Debt Readjustment Act passed by Congress in 1934. The operation of this act within any state was made contingent upon state consent, and during 1935 numerous state legislatures enacted legislation authorizing their local subdivisions to avail themselves of the provisions of the law. Although relatively few applications were made under the act for the readjustment of local indebtedness, it is probable that the mere existence of the act was influential in other instances in securing the consent of minority creditors to composition agreements. Cf. Legal Notes on Local Government, Vol. II, p. 10 (July, 1936)Google Scholar.

67 Local and Special Acts of Alabama, 1936, nos. 1, 45, 149; Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1935, pp. 580, 630Google Scholar; Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 145; Private and Special Laws of Maine, 1935, chs. 12, 48, 52, 58; Laws of New York, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 677; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1936, nos. 745, 921; Private Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, chs. 599, 780; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1935, ch. 150. At least two Tennessee counties saw the repeal of existing statutes providing for purchasing agencies therein. Private Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), Vol. IGoogle Scholar, ch. 129; ibid., Vol. II, ch. 606.

68 Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1935 (reg. sess.), nos. 17, 20, 62, 188, 255; ibid., 1936, nos. 655, 680.

69 General and Special Laws of Texas, 1935 (reg. sess.), Vol. II, p. 1235Google Scholar; ibid. (2nd spec. sess.), ch. 465; Burdine, J. Alton, “Abolition of Fee System,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXV, pp. 242–243 (Apr., 1936)Google Scholar. By specific exception in the amendment, county surveyors, public weighers, and notaries public continue on a fee basis.

70 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, no. 549; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, p. 1365Google Scholar; Benson, George C. S., “State Constitutional Development in 1935,” in this Review, Vol. XXX, pp. 275–279 (Apr., 1936)Google Scholar. The Alabama amendment also authorizes consolidation of the enumerated offices.

71 Edwards, Charles W., “Consolidation of Offices Defeated,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXVI, pp. 145–146 (Mar., 1937)Google Scholar.

72 Private Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (reg. sess.), Vol. IGoogle Scholar, chs. 213, 410; State v. Murrell, 169 Tenn. 688, 90 S.W. (2d) 945 (1936); Gouge v. McInturff, 169 Tenn. 678, 90 S.W. (2d) 753 (1936); Gouge v. McInturff, 170 Tenn. 72, 92 S.W. (2d) 198 (1936).

73 State v. Krause, 130 Ohio St. 455, 200 N.E. 512 (1936); Atkinson, R. C., “County Charter Elections in Ohio,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXIV, pp. 702–703 (Dec., 1935)Google Scholar; P. W. Wager, note in ibid., Vol. XXV, p. 743 (Dec., 1936). For a comprehensive discussion of the court decision, see Shoup, Earl L., “Judicial Abrogation of County Home Rule in Ohio,” in this Review, Vol. XXX, pp. 540–546 (June, 1936)Google Scholar.

74 State v. Tusa, 130 Neb. 528, 265 N.W. 524 (1936).

75 Aikin, Charles, “Three Counties Reject Home Rule Charters,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXIV, pp. 537–539 (Oct., 1935)Google Scholar.

76 Public Acts of Michigan, 1935, p. 469Google Scholar; Lovett, W. P., “County Amendment Defeated,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXV, p. 742 (Dec., 1936)Google Scholar.

77 Laws of New York, 1935, ch. 948. See supra, “County and Town Executives.”

78 Laws of New York, 1935, p. 1909Google Scholar. The amendment was given its first legislative approval in a special session of 1934.

79 Laws of New York, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 828.

80 Laws of New York, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 879. Another charter, referred to the voters of Nassau county by the legislative session of 1935, had been rejected in the 1935 election. See Laws of New York, 1935, ch. 938; Olena, Alfred Douglas, “A Home Rule Charter for Nassau County, New York,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXVI, pp. 82–87 (Feb., 1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Reed, Thomas H., “Nassau County Adopts a New Charter,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXV, p. 741 (Dec., 1936)Google Scholar. See also Editorial Comment, ibid., Vol. XXV, p. 312 (June, 1936).

82 Burke v. Krug, 291 N.Y.S. 897 (1936); Matter of Burke v. Krug, 272 N.Y. 575, 4 N.E. (2d) 744 (1936).

83 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, nos. 26, 218, 300; Statutes of California, 1935, ch. 82; Laws of Colorado, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 158; General Laws of Idaho, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 80; Kansas Session Laws, 1935, ch. 275; Laws of Maryland, 1935, ch. 355; Laws of New Hampshire, 1935, ch. 9; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, nos. 384, 386, 419. In Pennsylvania, state associations of local officers participate in the preparation of forms for use by the local units. See supra, “Organization of Local Officials.”

84 See footnote 7.

85 Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 150; Acts of Louisiana, 1935 (2nd spec. sess.), no. 6; ibid., 1935 (4th spec. sess.), no. 24; ibid., 1936, no. 222; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1935, ch. 453.

86 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, no. 265; Acts of Louisiana, 1935 (2nd spec. sess.), no. 25; ibid. (3rd spec. sess.), nos. 10, 21; Laws of New Mexico, 1935, ch. 131. Jefferson is the only Alabama county having a population of more than 150,000.

87 Acts of Arkansas, 1935, p. 54Google Scholar; Laws of Colorado, 1936 (2nd spec. sess.), ch. 5; Acts of Louisiana, 1936, no. 14; Laws of Maryland, 1935, ch. 586; Laws of North Dakota, 1935, ch. 123; Oregon Laws, 1935 (spec. sess.), ch. 55; Laws of South Dakota, 1935, ch. 98; Laws of Utah, 1935, ch. 69; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1935, ch. 64.

88 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, no. 295; Public Laws and Resolutions of North Carolina, 1935, ch. 142; Acts of Virginia, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 223. See supra, “Revenue and Taxation.”

89 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, no. 276; Session Laws of Minnesota, 1935 (reg. sess.), chs. 195, 197; Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1935, p. 343Google Scholar; Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 259; supra, “Planning and Zoning.”

90 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1935, ch. 404; Session Laws of Minnesota, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 125; Laws of New Hampshire, 1935, ch. 113; Laws of South Dakota, 1935, ch. 161; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1935 (spec. sess.), ch. 11; Session Laws of Washington, 1935, ch. 107.

91 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, no. 155; General Laws of Idaho, 1935 (1st spec. sess.), ch. 52; Laws of Mississippi, 1936 (reg. sess.), ch. 188; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1935, chs. 139, 150; Public Laws and Resolutions of North Carolina, 1935, ch. 408; Session Laws of Washington, 1935, ch. 160.

92 Oregon Laws, 1935 (reg. sess.), ch. 30; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1935, no. 47.

93 McKinley, Charles, “Oregon Permits County Consolidation,” National Municipal Review, Vol. XXIV, p. 352 (June, 1935)Google Scholar.

94 The Future of the Great Plains (Report of the Great Plains Committee), House Doc. 144, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (Feb. 10, 1937), pp. 78–79.

95 48 Stat. at. L. 1269. See supra, “Revenue and Taxation.”

96 For some constitutional aspects of the problem involved in such purchases, see D.S.M., , “State Taxation of Federal ‘Proprietary’ Instrumentalities,” Temple Law Quarterly, Vol. XI, pp. 383–395 (Apr., 1937)Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.