No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
In times of national or international stress, public attention tends to become focused upon spectacular events transpiring in the nation's capital or chief cities, with little interest displayed in the more prosaic affairs of rural local government. As a consequence, normal progress in rural institutions and activities is likely to be retarded. During 1940, with but few state legislatures in session and popular interest diverted to other fields, little that was distinctly novel occurred in the field of American county and township government. The rural units seemed, in a sense, to be marking time while the national government, and, to a lesser degree, states and cities, concentrated upon various phases of the national defense program. Yet certain developments took place during the year which, if not extraordinary, were nevertheless significant. As in former years, events will be summarized under the following headings: (1) areas; (2) organization and personnel; (3) functions; (4) finance; (5) optional charters; and (6) intergovernmental relations.
1 See this Review, Vol. 31, pp. 884–913; Vol. 32, pp. 936–956; Vol. 33, pp. 1058–1072; Vol. 34, pp. 1145–1166.
2 Acts of Virginia, 1940, ch. 395; note in Public Management, Vol. 22, p. 58 (Feb., 1940); Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 130, 334, 756 (Feb., May, Nov., 1940).Google Scholar
3 Letter to the writer from Malcolm McEachin, secretary of state of Nevada, Carson City, Sept. 29, 1941. The proposed amendment was given first legislative approval in 1937 and second such approval in 1939.
4 Acts of Kentucky, 1940, ch. 8; Laws of New York, 1940, ch. 727; Wernimont, Kenneth, “State Rural Land-Use Legislation in 1940,” Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, Vol. 17, pp. 103–108 (Feb., 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Data supplied by Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. See infra, “Federal-Local Relations.”
6 Acts of Kentucky, 1940, chs. 23, 132, 135; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1940, pp. 1715, 1777, 1801, 1850, 1912, 2315; Acts of Virginia, 1940, chs. 2, 225, 348.
7 Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 426, 756 (June, Nov., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See this Review, Vol. 34, pp. 1149–1150.
8 Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 132 (Feb., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar An act providing for consolidation of these offices was passed in 1934, but was subsequently repealed before becoming effective.
9 Letter to the writer from William S. O'Brien, secretary of state of West Virginia, Charleston, July 28, 1941.
10 Acts of Virginia, 1940, ch. 396; Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 209, 498–499 (Mar., July, 1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Vol. 30, p. 54 (Jan., 1941); Marguerite J. Fisher, note in ibid., Vol. 29, p. 819 (Dec, 1940). See infra, “Optional Charters.”
11 Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 755 (Nov., 1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; W. L. Pierpont, note in ibid., Vol. 30, pp. 52–53 (Jan., 1941). See this Review, Vol. 34, p. 1150.
12 Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 268, 427 499–500, 622, 818 (Apr., June, July, Sept., Dec., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Note in Public Management, Vol. 22, pp. 116–117 (Apr., 1940); Iglauer, John, “Council-Manager Government,” Municipal Year Book, 1941, pp. 248–252Google Scholar; Olmsted, H. M., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 709 (Nov., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Grove, C. A., “Township Manager Plan of Government,” American City, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 87, 89 (Apr., 1941).Google Scholar
15 Mitchell, James M., “Personnel Developments in 1940,” Municipal Year Book, 1941, pp. 111–115Google Scholar; Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 818 (Dec., 1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Vol. 30, p. 119 (Feb., 1941); H. M. Olmsted, note in ibid., Vol. 30, p. 108 (Feb., 1941).
16 Acts of Louisiana, 1940 (reg. sess.), nos. 9, 63.
17 Note in Public Management, Vol. 22, p. 152 (May, 1940); Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 756 (Nov., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 See infra, “Functional Consolidation.”
19 Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 427 (June, 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Civil service systems may still be established in Wisconsin counties by action of the respective county boards.
20 54 Stat. at L. 767.
21 Acts of Kentucky, 1940, ch. 23; Acts of Louisiana, 1940 (reg. sess.), no. 208; First Annual Report of the Federal Works Agency (1940), pp. 341–344. See infra, “Federal-Local Eelations.”
22 Illinois Revised Statutes, 1941, ch. 93, secs. 157–161; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1940, pp. 1715, 1766, 1912, 2315; Acts of Virginia, 1940, chs. 2, 23, 141, 270, 348.
23 Erdmann, Arthur G., “The Rural Zoning Ordinance of Cook County,” Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 438–442, 440 (Nov., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 J. M. Albers, “Progress in County Zoning: Marathon County, Wisconsin,” ibid., pp. 393–402. By the terms of the Wisconsin enabling act, a county zoning ordinance is effective only in those towns which approve the ordinance by action of their respective town boards.
25 Nicholson, Joseph W., County Purchasing (Nat. Assoc. of Purchasing Agents, New York, 1940), ch. 2Google Scholar; Beckett, Paul, “Public Purchasing Methods in Los Angeles County and City,” The Tax Digest, Vol. 19, pp. 196–197, 211–214 (June, 1941).Google Scholar
26 Stewart, Frank M. and Ketcham, Ronald M., “Intergovernmental Contracts in California,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 1, pp. 242–248 (Spring, 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Data supplied by Harry F. Kelly, secretary of state of Michigan. See this Review, Vol. 34, pp. 1158–1159.
28 Acts of Virginia, 1940, ch. 141.
29 Acts of Kentucky, 1940, chs. 23, 57; Acts of Louisiana, 1940 (reg. sess.), no. 208; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1940, p. 1687; Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, p. 120 (Feb., 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Smith, Wade S., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 627 (Sept., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. note in Public Management, Vol. 22, p. 344 (Nov., 1940).
31 See Cooper, Weldon, note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 333 (May, 1940)Google Scholar; infra, “State-Local Relations.”
32 Joseph W. Nicholson, op. cit., ch. 2. See supra, “Functional Consolidation.”
33 Acts of Kentucky, 1940, ch. 44. The Kentucky courts had already placed the stamp of judicial approval upon use by counties of the “lease with option to purchase.” See this Review, Vol. 32, p. 950. The 1940 statute expired by limitation on January 1, 1941.
34 54 Stat. at L. 667. See infra, “Federal-Local Relations.”
35 Laws of New York, 1940, ch. 638. See this Review, Vol. 31, p. 908; Vol. 33, pp. 1068–1069.
36 See this Review, Vol. 32, p. 952.
37 Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 499, 621–622 (July, Sept., 1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marguerite J. Fisher, note in ibid., p. 819 (Dec., 1940). See supra, “County and Town Executives.”
38 Acts of Virginia, 1940, ch. 396. See supra, “County and Town Executives.”
39 Forbes, Russell, Centralized Purchasing; A Sentry at the Tax Exit Gate (Nat. Assoc. of Purchasing Agents, New York, rev. ed., 1941), p. 15Google Scholar; Cooper, Weldon, note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, p. 333 (May, 1940).Google Scholar See supra, “Finance.”
40 Ads and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1940, p. 1873; Acts of Virginia, 1940, ch. 41; letter to the writer from A. E. Lewis, chief clerk of property division, State Bureau of Taxation, Augusta, Maine, Aug. 5, 1941.
41 See this Review, Vol. 34, p. 1164.
42 Data supplied by Edward B. Crosland, chief of division of local finance, State Department of Finance, Montgomery, Alabama.
43 The state commissioner of revenue is ex officio state local finance officer.
44 See this Review, Vol. 33, pp. 1066–1067, 1070.
45 First Report of the Kentucky State Local Finance Officer … for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1940.
46 Ibid.
47 See this Review, Vol. 33, p. 1066.
48 Acts of New Jersey, 1939, ch. 385.
49 Data supplied by New Jersey Department of Local Government. See also this Review, Vol. 34, p. 1163; Second Annual Report of the New Jersey Local Government Board, December, 1940.
50 Acts of Louisiana, 1940 (reg. secs.), no. 75; Laws of Mississippi, 1940, chs. 252' 258, 267; Acts of Virginia, 1940, chs. 23, 270.
51 Data supplied by Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. See supra, “Areas.”
52 First Annual Report of the Federal Works Agency (1940), pp. 348–352. See supra, “New Functions.”
53 54 Stat. at L. 626.
54 Durisch, Lawrence L., “Local Government and the T.V.A. Program,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 1, pp. 326–334 (Summer, 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid., p. 331.
57 Cf. Wager, Paul W., “aCounty Government,” Municipal Year Book, 1941, pp. 243–248.Google Scholar
58 54 Stat. at L. 667. See this Review, Vol. 32, pp. 950–951.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.