Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
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
During the first war year, it was to be expected that popular interest in rural local government would be subordinated, in large measure, to problems more directly connected with the national war effort. Nevertheless, vigorous prosecution of the war program has required coöperation on the part of government at all levels; and the impact of that program has been felt in various ways, both directly and indirectly, by local governmental units. Indeed, in surveying county and township government in 1942 one is inevitably impressed by the extent to which developments of the year were either the product of, or at least intensified by, wartime conditions. As in previous reviews, events will be summarized under the following headings: (1) areas; (2) organization and personnel; (3) functions; (4) finance; (5) home rule and 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; Vol. 35, pp. 1106–1119; Vol. 36, pp. 1109–1127.
2 Laws of New York, 1942, ch. 572; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1942, p. 1645. See infra, “State-Local Relations.”
3 Acts of Louisiana, 1942 (reg. sess.), nos. 194, 360; Public Acts of Michigan, 1942 (1st extra sess.), no. 2; Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1942, pp. 475, 480. The Louisiana amendment was approved by the voters in the 1942 general election.
4 Data supplied by Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. See infra, “Federal-Local Relations.”
5 Soil conservation districts are financed in part by farmer contributions (frequently in the form of labor, materials, or equipment) and in part by state and federal grants.
6 Acts of Kentucky, 1942, ch. 48.
7 Alexander, Frederic L., “Consolidation of County Offices,” The Tax Digest, Vol. 20, pp. 305–306, 315 (Sept., 1942).Google Scholar The counties concerned were Del Norte, Glenn, Kern, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra.
8 Laws of Mississippi, 1942, ch. 206; Acts of Virginia, 1942, ch. 386.
9 Letter to the writer from Sam W. Mitchell, secretary of state of Montana, Helena, Dec. 28, 1942.
10 Mauck, Elwyn A., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 31, pp. 288, 365 (May, June, 1942).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Frederic L. Alexander, loc. cit. See supra “Areas.”
12 Acts of Virginia, 1942, ch. 285.
13 See this Review, Vol. 36, p. 1111.
14 Municipal Reference Library Notes (New York Public Library), Vol. 29, pp. 33–34 (Sept., 1943); Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 32, pp. 459–460 (Sept., 1943).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 31, pp. 460–461 (Sept., 1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wager, Paul W., “County Government,” Municipal Year Book, 1943, pp. 314–318.Google Scholar The other manager counties are Albemarle, Arlington, and Henrico in Virginia, Sacramento in California, Durham in North Carolina, and Monroe in New York. See the manager directory in Municipal Year Book, 1943, pp. 536–546.
16 Nolting, Orin F., “Council-Manager Government” Municipal Year Book, 1943, pp. 319–322.Google Scholar
17 Letter to the writer from Frank Marsh, secretary of state of Nebraska, Lincoln, Dec. 28, 1942. See this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 1112–1113.
18 See this Review, Vol. 36, p. 1114.
19 Paul W. Wager, loc. cit. The remaining seven of the state's 62 counties continue to operate under civil service systems established prior to 1941. Of these, the five counties within New York City are served by the state civil service commission. Nassau county has a local commission, and Westchester county a personnel officer.
20 Letters to the writer from St. Louis county civil service commission (Duluth, Jan. 11, 1943); Eugene A. Moniek, county auditor of Ramsey county (St. Paul, Dec. 30, 1942); Caspar J. Lingeman, county clerk of Wayne county (Detroit, Dec. 29, 1942). See this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 1114–1115.
21 Mitchell, James M., “Personnel Developments in 1942,” Municipal Year Book, 1943, pp. 195–198.Google Scholar
22 Acts of Kentucky, 1942, ch. 43. See infra, “Functional Consolidation,” “Finance.”
23 Paul W. Wager, loc. cit.
24 Acts of Kentucky, 1942, ch. 22; Public Acts of Michigan, 1942 (2nd extra sess.), no. 15. Under the Michigan law, the cost of the service is to be borne in part by the townships concerned.
25 Acts of Kentucky, 1942, ch. 18; Acts of Louisiana, 1942 (reg. sess.), no. 27.
26 Laws of Mississippi, 1942, chs. 194, 195, 212, 219. See infra, “Functional Consolidation.”
27 Paul W. Wager, loc. cit.; Blucher, Walter H., “Planning and Zoning Developments in 1942,” Municipal Year Book, 1943, pp. 334–338.Google Scholar
28 Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1942, p. 1631.
29 Acts of Louisiana, 1942 (reg. sess.), no. 246.
30 Letter to the writer from John B. Wilson, secretary of state of Georgia, Atlanta, Dec. 29, 1942. See this Review, Vol. 36, p. 1120. The ratifying election was held in June, 1941.
31 Public Acts of Michigan, 1942 (1st extra sess.), no. 7; ibid. (2nd extra sess.), no. 15; Laws of Mississippi, 1942, chs. 216, 219, 233. See supra, “New Functions.”
32 Acts of Kentucky, 1942, ch. 41.
33 Horning, Benjamin G., “Health Developments in 1942,” Municipal Year Book, 1943, pp. 351–355.Google Scholar
34 See supra, “Personnel Administration”; infra, “Finance.”
35 Acts of Kentucky, 1942, ch. 43; Acts of Louisiana, 1942 (reg. sess.), no. 246; Laws of New York, 1942, ch. 868. See supra, “Functional Consolidation.”
36 Nicholson, Joseph W., “Municipal Purchasing,” Municipal Year Book, 1943, pp. 251–253.Google Scholar
37 Letter to the writer from Belle Reeves, secretary of state of Washington, Olympia, Dec. 28, 1942. See this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 1122–1123.
38 Acts of Louisiana, 1942 (reg. sess.), no. 208; Acts of Massachusetts, 1942 (spec. sess.), ch. 4.
39 A manager charter for Baltimore county was framed under authority of the amendment, but was defeated at the polls in 1920.
40 See Werner, Stella B., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 32, pp. 207–210 (Apr., 1943)Google Scholar; Elwyn A. Mauck, note in ibid., pp. 402–403 (July, 1943).
41 Detroit News, Nov. 3, 1942, p. 1; ibid., Nov. 5, 1942, p. 1; Bromage, Arthur W., “Home Rule for Wayne County?,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 31, pp. 386–389 (July, 1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arthur W. Bromage, note in ibid., p. 636 (Dec., 1942). Notwithstanding the defeat of this amendment, a merit system was inaugurated in the county under the terms of a permissive statute. See supra, “Personnel Administration.”
42 See supra, “County and Town Executives.”
43 See supra, “Areas.”
44 See supra, “Finance.”
45 Acts of Louisiana, 1942 (reg. sess.), nos. 11, 27; Acts of Massachusetts, 1942 (spec. sess.), ch. 4; Public Acts of Michigan, 1942 (1st spec. sess.), no. 12; Laws of Mississippi, 1942, ch. 194; Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1942, p. 195.
46 See Bromage, Arthur W., “Federal-State-Local Relations,” this Review, Vol. 37, pp. 35–48 (Feb., 1943).Google Scholar
47 Data supplied by Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. See supra, “Areas.”
48 Cf. United States Government Manual, Fall, 1942, p. 293.
49 See Edelmann, Alexander T., “The T.V.A. and Inter-Governmental Relations,” this Review, Vol. 37, pp. 455–469 (June, 1943).Google Scholar
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.