nd that in some cities, the mayor is the
dominating factor in both legislation and administration. He is the
presiding officer of the council with the deciding vote, and, in
addition, is clothed with the veto power. On the other hand, there
are scores of instances where the council assumes administrative
functions. It names all appointments to office, and it creates and
controls all the departments of city government. Under such
circumstances the administrative department is subordinate to the
council, because its officers can be both appointed and removed by
that body and because it can carry on no work without the council's
authority. Thus there is an inevitable tendency to concentrate the
powers in one of the two branches, yet, at the same time, diffusing
responsibility between them. Such a condition only goes to show that
city government is gradually but surely working its way toward
concentration in one body. But the trouble lies in the fact that the
present system makes possible concentration of power, without a
corresponding concentration of responsibility. From such a condition
have grown two grave and inherent evils. First, it has entirely
eliminated the system of checks and balances, which is a fundamental
doctrine of the division of power. Secondly, it has utterly
destroyed all effective responsibility. It is apparent at once, that
when one branch of the government dominates, the checks and balances
between the departments are immediately lost, and facts bear out
what theory shows to be logically true. The system of checks and
balances failed absolutely in New York, where the mayor is supreme,
and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 per
cent of the total valuation of real estate. It has failed in St.
Louis, where the council dominated, and where "Boss Butler" paid
that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did
it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal
to 10 per cent of her real estate valuation; nor in San Francisco
under the disgraceful regime of Mayor Schmitz. So overwhelming is
the evidence on this point that it is needless to dwell further upon
it.

In the second place, this domination of one branch over the other
has resulted in a lack of responsibility and of co-ordination in
city affairs. These