Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T22:15:44.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

County and Township Government in 1941*

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

With national defense problems paramount in the public mind, it is not surprising that developments in rural local government during 1941 revealed, more than in normal times, the imprint of national and world conditions. State legislatures, though their sessions preceded Pearl Harbor, devoted much attention to defense problems and assigned to local governmental units an important rôle in defense organization and activities. Various steps were taken to foster coöperation in the defense effort by government at all levels; and, in view of the necessity for large national expenditures for defense purposes, additional emphasis was placed upon the need for local economy. Concurrent with the various defense-related developments was a continuation of normal peace-time efforts to improve the organization and operation of rural local government. As in former years, the events of 1941 will be summarized under the following headings: (1) areas; (2) organization and personnel; (3) functions; (4) finance; (5) optional charters and home rule; and (6) intergovernmental relations.

Type
Rural Local Government
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , December 1942 , pp. 1109 - 1127
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1942

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 See this Review, Vol. 31, pp. 884–913; Vol. 32, pp. 936–956; Vol. 33, pp. 1058–1072; Vol. 34, pp. 1145–1166; Vol. 35, pp. 1106–1119.

2 Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials of Arizona, 1941, ch. 43; Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1941, p. 812; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1941, ch. 134.

3 Data supplied by Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. See infra, “Federal-Local Relations.”

4 Laws of Colorado, 1941, ch. 130; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1941, p. 2435; Kansas Session Laws, 1941, chs. 7, 399; Laws of Missouri, 1941, pp. 505, 557; Oregon Laws, 1941, ch. 327; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1941, p. 568; Session Laws of Washington, 1941, chs. 65, 98, 210.

5 Notwithstanding the continued creation of new governmental units, the last decade has witnessed a net reduction in the total number of local units, particularly in rural areas. The most substantial decreases, principally through consolidation and dissolution, have been in school districts, towns and townships, and special districts. See Anderson, William, The Units of Government in the United States (Public Administration Service, Chicago, 1942 ed.).Google Scholar

6 White, Max R., “Town and City Consolidation in Connecticut,” in this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 492–502 (June, 1942).Google Scholar

7 Morris, Gail M., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 304–305 (May, 1941).Google Scholar

8 For example, Statutes of California, 1941, ch. 561; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1941, p. 45; Laws of Illinois, 1941, Vol. I, p. 1264; Kansas Session Laws, 1941, ch. 347; Laws of New York, 1941, chs. 22, 210; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1941, p. 203. See infra, “New Functions.”

9 In some instances the work of several county councils within a particular area is coördinated through a regional council. See, for example, May, Samuel C. and Ward, Robert E., “Metropolitan Civilian Defense in the San Francisco Bay Region,” Western City, Vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 18–19 (May, 1942).Google Scholar

10 Acts of Arkansas, 1941, no. 342.

11 Private Acts of Tennessee, 1941, chs. 6 (Hamilton), 50 (Madison), 91 (Warren), 363 (Bledsoe), 393 (Henderson), 509 (Lewis). Justices of the peace in these counties, although divested of jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases, retain their authority to serve as members of the quarterly court (county board) and to perform marriages.

12 Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1941, chs. 78, 91, 100, 164, 329, 361; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1941, pp. 91, 101.

13 Laws of Delaware, 1941, chs. 125, 126. A similar department, under a larger board, had been provided for New Castle county two years earlier. Ibid., 1939, ch. 115.

14 See this Review, Vol. 34, pp. 1149–1150; Vol. 35, pp. 1107–1108.

15 Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 604, 658 (Oct., Nov., 1941)Google Scholar; Vol. 31, pp. 47–48 (Jan., 1942).

16 Burke v. Kern, 287 N.Y. 203, 38 N.E. (2d) 500 (1941).

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

18 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1941, pp. 726, 754, 978; Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1941, chs. 111, 157, 233.

19 Laws of Indiana, 1941, pp. 972, 973. The other principal county officers in Indiana (auditor, recorder, and circuit clerk) are already provided with constitutional four-year terms.

20 Laws of Missouri, 1941, pp. 325, 326; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1941, ch. 116.

21 Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1941, chs. 13, 116, 117, 165, 399. See this Review, Vol. 34, p. 1150.

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

23 See this Review, Vol. 31, pp. 890, 907; Vol. 34, p. 1150; Vol. 35, p. 1108.

24 Session Laws of Nebraska, 1941, ch. 46.

25 Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1941, p. 54; Private Acts of Tennessee, 1941, ch. 156; Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 174–177 (Mar., 1941)Google Scholar; James K. Coleman, note in ibid., pp. 371–372 (June, 1941). The South Carolina statute providing for gubernatorial appointment of the Darlington manager was passed after an earlier act of the same year, which vested the power of selecting the manager directly in the hands of the county legislative delegation, was invalidated by the circuit court as violating the principle of separation of powers.

26 Kline, Howard M., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 303–304 (May, 1941)Google Scholar; Elwyn A. Mauck, notes in ibid., pp. 304, 658 (May, Nov., 1941); H. M. Olmsted, note in ibid., p. 716 (Dec., 1941).

27 City Managers' News Letter (International City Managers' Association, Chicago), Jan. 1, 1942; Olmsted, H. M., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 221–222, 289, 436 (Apr., May, July, 1941).Google Scholar

28 Laws of New York, 1941, ch. 885; Yarmon, Morton, “New York State Extends Merit System,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 253–257, 274 (May, 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Mitchell, James M., “Personnel Developments in 1941,” Municipal Year Book, 1942, pp. 219–223.Google Scholar

30 Public Acts of Michigan, 1941, no. 370; Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, chs. 423, 513. The respective county boards of all three counties have provided for sub mission of the question at the general election in November, 1942.

31 Laws of Illinois, 1941, Vol. I, p. 493; Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, ch. 476; Public Laws of North Carolina, 1941, ch. 270; Oregon Laws, 1941, ch. 138.

32 Laws of New Mexico, 1941, ch. 97.

33 Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, ch. 385. Orders of the sheriff for suspension or dismissal are subject to review by the district court.

34 Laws of North Dakota, 1941, ch. 303; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1941, nos. 45, 136, 296, 313.

35 General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1941, p. 67; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1941, ch. 153; Public Laws of North Carolina, 1941, ch. 78; Acts of West Virginia, 1941, ch. 49.

36 Second Annual Report of the Federal Works Agency (1941), pp. 165–166.

37 Session Laws of Washington, 1941, ch. 69.

38 Second Annual Report of the Federal Works Agency (1941), pp. 164–166. See infra, “Federal-Local Relations.”

39 General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1941, p. 77; Public Laws of North Carolina, 1941, ch. 63; Session Laws of Washington, 1941, ch. 54; Acts of West Virginia, 1941, ch. 50. The acts provide that no projects may be initiated there under later than December 31, 1943.

40 54 Stat. at L. 1125.

41 A 1942 amendment broadened this coverage to include commissioned officers of the lower ranks. Public No. 409, 77th Congress.

42 Laws of Illinois, 1941, Vol. I, p. 463; Kansas Session Laws, 1941, ch. 6; Laws of New Mexico, 1941, ch. 101; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1941, ch. 35.

43 Hiscock, Ira V., “Public Health Developments in 1941,” Municipal Year Book, 1942, pp. 391–393.Google Scholar

44 Acts of Arkansas, 1941, no. 291; Laws of Delaware, 1941, ch. 98; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1941, p. 2386; Laws of Missouri, 1941, p. 480; Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1941, ch. 392; Oregon Laws, 1941, ch. 38.

45 Laws of Colorado, 1941, ch. 3; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1941, p. 2380; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1941, ch. 48; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1941, ch. 106; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1941, p. 703.

46 Wisconsin Session Laws, 1941, ch. 5; Mangan, Robert M., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 656–657 (Nov., 1941).Google Scholar

47 General Laws of Idaho, 1941, ch. 11.

48 Massachusetts provided that towns may, in town meeting, adopt airport approach regulations subject to approval by the state aëronautics commission. Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, 1941 Supp., ch. 90, secs. 40A–40I.

49 Laws of Illinois, 1941, Vol. I, p. 261; Laws of New Mexico, 1941, ch. 171; Public Laws of North Carolina, 1941, ch. 250; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1941, ch. 86; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1941, ch. 195; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1941, ch. 110. Wisconsin requires that zoning regulations be approved by the town boards of towns in which affected lands are situated, as well as by the county board.

50 Texts of the model acts may be found in Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 12, pp. 176–188 (Apr., 1941).

51 Special Acts of Florida, 1941, pp. 901, 999, 1108; Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, ch. 210; Laws of Missouri, 1941, pp. 465, 481; Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1941, p. 673; Oregon Laws, 1941, ch, 360.

52 See supra, “New Offices.”

53 Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1941, ch. 390; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1941, ch. 21; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1941, p. 905.

54 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1941, p. 50; Private A ctsof Tennessee, 1941, ch. 156.

55 Statutes of California, 1941, ch. 265; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1941, p. 2316; General Laws of Idaho, 1941, ch. 103; Laws of Illinois, 1941, Vol. I, p. 254; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1941, ch. 54; Oregon Laws, 1941, ch. 189; Session Laws of Washington, 1941, ch. 21.

56 Statutes of California, 1941, ch. 1117; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1941, p. 67; Kansas Session Laws, 1941, ch. 319; Public Acts of Michigan, 1941, no. 47 (see also ibid., no. 107); Public Laws of North Carolina, 1941, ch. 78; Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1941, p. 673; Acts of West Virginia, 1941, ch. 49.

57 Acts of Arkansas, 1941, no. 291; Statutes of California, 1941, ch. 1077; Laws of Colorado, 1941, ch. 3; Acts and Joint Resolutions of Iowa, 1941, ch. 151; Laws of New York, 1941, ch. 741; Legislative Acts and Joint Resolutions of Ohio, 1941, p. 354.

58 For example, Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1941, ch. 1 (recreation system by New Hanover county and the city of Wilmington), 230 (tax collection by Forsyth county and city of Winston-Salem), 262 (police radio and identification bureau by Buncombe county and city of Asheville).

59 Public Acts of Michigan, 1941, no. 370; Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, ch. 513; Laws of New York, 1941, ch. 885. See supra, “Personnel Administration.”

60 Laws of Pennsylvania, 1941, no. 224.

61 Laws of New York, 1941, ch. 601; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1941, ch. 221.

62 Session Laws of Minnesota, 1941, ch. 118; Laws of New York, 1941, ch. 917; Private Acts of Tennessee, 1941, chs. 124 (Chester), 272 (Dyer), 375 (Overton), 377 (Jackson), 441 (Hancock).

63 Laws of North Dakota, 1941, chs. 131, 132; Private Acts of Tennessee, 1941, ch. 156. See supra, “County and Town Executives”; infra, “Optional Charters and Home Rule.”

64 Pierpoint, W. L., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 52–53 (Jan., 1941).Google Scholar

65 Laws of North Dakota, 1941, ch. 126; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1941, nos. 17, 18; Session Laws of Washington, 1941, ch. 176.

66 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1941, p. 408; Laws of Indiana, 1941, ch. 23; Laws of North Dakota, 1941, chs. 131, 132; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1941, p. 54; Private Acts of Tennessee, 1941, chs. 273, 373, 518.

67 Laws of North Dakota, 1941, chs. 130, 131, 132. Further discussion of the statutory provisions may be found in Engelbert, Ernest, “A Decade of County Government Reorganization in North Dakota,” in this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 508–515.Google Scholar See also Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 301–303 (May, 1941)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; supra, “Office Consolidation.”

68 Laws of New York, 1941, ch. 190; G. H. H., Jr., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 372–373 (June, 1941).Google Scholar See this Review, Vol. 32, p. 952; Vol. 33, pp. 1068–1069.

69 Another New York optional county government statute—the Fearon-Parsons law—was similarly amended in 1940. See this Review, Vol. 35, p. 1114.

70 Session Laws of Nebraska, 1941, ch. 46. See supra, “County and Town Executives.”

71 See this Review, Vol. 34, p. 1162.

72 Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 30, pp. 177, 658 (Mar., Nov., 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See this Review, Vol. 31, p. 907; Vol. 34, pp. 1162–1163.

73 Marion, John H., “State Supervision in New Jersey over Municipalities in Unsound Financial Condition,” in this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 502–508 (June, 1942).Google Scholar As to general powers of the local government board, see this Review, Vol. 33, pp. 1065–1066; Vol. 35, p. 1117.

74 Buck, A. E., “Municipal Budgeting,” Municipal Year Book, 1942, pp. 271–274.Google Scholar

75 See supra, “New Offices,” “New Functions.”

76 Laws of New York, 1941, ch. 885. See supra, “Personnel Administration.”

77 Public Acts of Tennessee, 1941, ch. 106; Session Laws of Washington, 1941, ch. 204.

78 Acts, Memorials, and Resolutions of Arizona, 1941, ch. 5; General Laws of Idaho, 1941, ch. 103; Laws of Indiana, 1941, ch. 21; Acts and Joint Resolutions of Iowa, 1941, ch. 194; Kansas Session Laws, 1941, ch. 16; Laws of Missouri, 1941, p. 493; Harlow's Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1941, p. 60; Oregon Laws, 1941, ch. 189; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1941, p. 196; Session Laws of Washington, 1941, chs. 21, 227.

79 See Owsley, Roy H., “Federal-City Relations in 1941,” Municipal Year Book, 1942, pp. 204–216.Google Scholar

80 See supra, “New Offices.”

81 Second Annual Report of the Federal Works Agency (1941), pp. 164–166, 394–395.

82 Ibid., p. 166. See supra, “New Functions.”

83 Laws of Colorado, 1941, ch. 3; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1941, ch. 48; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1941, p. 703. See supra, “New Functions.”

84 Data supplied by Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. See supra, “Areas.”

85 Kansas Session Laws, 1941, ch. 202; Public Acts of Michigan, 1941, no. 318; Laws of Missouri, 1941, p. 490; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1941, p. 447.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.