Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T07:28:59.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

County and Township Government in 1939*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Extract

Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in the problems of local government in rural areas. Increasing demands upon the taxpayer for the support of government and its services have emphasized the need for modernization of our local political institutions. Although advances in this direction are inevitably slow, each year brings some progressive steps, the cumulative effect of which, over a number of years, should be considerable. In 1939, with most state legislatures in session, numerous statutes were enacted which had as their purpose the readjustment of governmental areas or functions, the improvement of local-government organization or finance, or the promotion of coöperation among various governmental units. At the same time, there were instances in which local units themselves sought, under existing authority, to undertake the performance of new services or to provide their inhabitants with governmental forms or procedures better suited to present-day needs. As in previous years, the developments of 1939 will be summarized under the following headings: (1) areas; (2) organization and personnel; (3) functions; (4) finance; (5) optional charters; and (6) intergovernmental relations.

Type
Rural Local Government
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1940

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.

2 Public Acts of Tennessee, 1939, chs. 224, 225, 226; Greene, Lee S., “County Consolidation Encouraged in Tennessee,” Public Management, Vol. 21, pp. 213214 (July, 1939)Google Scholar; Prescott, Frank W., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 312314 (Apr., 1939)Google Scholar; Lyndon E. Abbott, note in ibid., p. 391 (May, 1939); M. H. Satterfield, “Tennessee Counties Stand Pat,” ibid., Vol. 29, pp. 26–29 (Jan., 1940).

3 See Askew, J. Thomas, “Georgia Counties Overshadowed by State Centralization,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 271274 (Apr., 1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cullen B. Gosnell, “Georgia Counties Face Financial Dilemma,” ibid., pp. 355–357 (May, 1939).

4 Acts of Arkansas, 1939, no. 379; Laws of Indiana, 1939, ch. 150.

5 Wernimont, Kenneth, “State Rural Land Use Legislation in 1939,” Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 110116 (Feb., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See this Review, Vol. 32, p. 937. The states enacting new laws in 1939 were Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

6 Harlow's Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1939, p. 424.

7 Statutes of California, 1939, ch. 1025.

8 If the petition is signed by more than 50 per cent of the voters of the county, no election is held, but further action upon the petition is by judicial proceedings in the district court.

9 Laws of North Dakota, 1939, ch. 122; Wernimont, Kenneth, “County Disorganization for North Dakota,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 769772 (Nov., 1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; letter to the writer from J. F. Tester, auditor of Billings county, Medora, North Dakota, Oct. 2, 1940.

10 Laws of Missouri, 1939, p. 885.

12 Laws of Indiana, 1939, ch. 164.

13 Private Acts of Tennessee, chs. 54, 195, 390, 424. See Wager, Paul W., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, p. 475 (June, 1939).Google Scholar

13 General Laws of Idaho, 1939, ch. 235; Public Acts of Michigan, 1939, no. 275; Harlow's Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1939, p. 160; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1939, p. 188; Scoville, H. F., “Thrift via County Consolidation,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 708711 (Oct., 1939).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Lates of Missouri, 1939, p. 674; H. F. Scoville, loc. cit.; Wager, Paul W., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 475, 667, 806 (June, Sept., Nov., 1939).Google Scholar

15 General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1939, p. 1665; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1939, ch. 134; Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1939, chs. 259, 263, 266, 386, 429, 451; Harlow's Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1939, p. 16.

16 See infra, “Optional Charters.”

17 Session Laws of Nebraska, 1939, ch. 25. See this Review, Vol. 31, pp. 890, 907.

18 Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1939, chs. 187, 342, 488.

19 Scoville, H. F., “Thrift via County Consolidation,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 708711 (Oct., 1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John McDiarmid, “Streamlined County Government—Los Angeles Style,” ibid., pp. 757–763 (Nov., 1939); Paul W. Wager, notes in ibid., pp. 551, 876–877 (July, Dec., 1939). See this Review, Vol. 33, p. 1060.

20 Wager, Paul W., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, p. 474 (June, 1939)Google Scholar; H. M. Olmsted, note in ibid., Vol. 29, p. 58 (Jan., 1940).

21 Wager, Paul W., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 314, 474, 475, 877 (April, June, Dec., 1939).Google Scholar

22 Public Laws of Maine, 1939, ch. 130; Private and Special Laws of Maine, 1939, chs. 3, 46, 61, 62, 72; Orren Hormell, C., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 547548 (July, 1939)Google Scholar; Howard P. Jones, note in ibid., p. 268 (Apr., 1939); H. M. Olmsted, notes in ibid., pp. 386, 466 (May, June, 1939); Iglauer, John, “Council-Manager Government,” Municipal Year Book, 1940, pp. 242247Google Scholar; City Manager's News Letter (International City Manager's Association, Chicago), May 1, 1939, Feb. 1, 1940.

23 See this Review, Vol. 32, p. 943 (Oct., 1938).

24 Cooper, Weldon, Municipal Government and Administration in Alabama (University, Alabama, 1940), pp. 134136.Google Scholar The law of 1935 establishing the Jefferson county personnel board was amended to place the municipalities of Fairfield, Homewood, and Tarrant City under the board's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the cities of Birmingham and Bessemer had been conferred upon the board by the original act.

25 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1939, p. 36; Public-Local Laws of North Carolina, 1939, ch. 578; letter to the writer from John B. Wilson, secretary of state of Georgia, Atlanta, Sept. 28, 1940.

26 Statutes of California, 1939, ch. 982; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1939, ch. 263; MacMillin, Frederick N., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 130131 (Feb., 1940).Google Scholar

27 Ohrt, Frederick, note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 467468 (June, 1939).Google Scholar

28 Statutes of California, 1939, ch. 954; Laws of Illinois, 1939, p. 355; Public Laws of North Carolina, 1939, ch. 390; note in Public Management, Vol. 21, p. 250 (Aug., 1939). The Illinois law does not apply to Cook county, which is already provided with a retirement system.

29 Statutes of California, 1939, ch. 174; Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1939, pp. 39, 278; Oregon Laws, 1939, chs. 290, 337; letter to the writer from John B. Wilson, secretary of state of Georgia, Atlanta, Sept. 28, 1940. Cf. note 25 above.

30 Session Laws of Washington, 1939, ch. 23; Straus, Nathan, “Half Million Families to be Housed in New Public Projects,” State Government, Vol. 13, pp. 5962, 72 (Apr., 1940).Google Scholar

31 Annual Report of the United States Housing Authority, 1939, pp. 36–37; Nathan Straus, loc. cit.

32 Note in Public Management, Vol. 21, p. 345 (Nov., 1939).

33 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1939, p. 20; Laws of New Mexico, 1939, ch. 75; Session Laws of Washington, 1939, ch. 93.

34 Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials of Arizona, 1939, ch. 78; Statutes of California, 1939, chs. 497, 558; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1939, pp. 489, 1442.

35 Harlow's Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1939, pp. 177, 190; Oregon Laws, 1939, ch. 232; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1939, p. 101; Laws of South Dakota, 1939, ch. 25.

36 General Laws of Idaho, 1939, ch. 112; Acts and Joint Resolutions of Iowa, 1939, ch. 72; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1939, ch. 63; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1939, ch. 49; Kenneth Wernimont, “State Rural Land Use Legislation in 1939,” loc. cit.

37 Acts of Massachusetts, 1939, chs. 105, 106, 107.

38 Laws of Colorado, 1939, ch. 92.

39 Data supplied by Mr. Walter H. Blucher, executive director, American Society of Planning Officials.

40 Session Laws of Minnesota, 1939, ch. 340; Musbach, William F. and Williams, Melville C., “Rural Zoning in Minnesota,” Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 105109 (Feb., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1939, pp. 245, 403, 520, 542, 669, 700; Kenneth Wernimont, “State Rural Land Use Legislation in 1939,” loc. cit. Among the counties affected were those of Bibb, Camden, Clayton, McIntosh, and Paulding.

42 Private Acts of Tennessee, 1939, chs. 460, 473; Abbott, Lyndon E., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 316317 (Apr., 1939).Google Scholar

43 General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1939, p. 1230; Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1939, p. 584; Kansas Session Laws, 1939, chs. 164, 165; Laws of Missouri, 1939, p. 662.

44 Kenneth Wernimont, “State Rural Land Use Legislation in 1939,” loc. cit.

45 Public Laws of Maine, 1939, ch. 127; Hormell, Orren C., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, p. 550 (July, 1939).Google Scholar

46 Blueher, Walter H. and Oppermann, Paul, “Planning and Zoning Developments in 1939,” Municipal Year Book, 1940, pp. 261266Google Scholar; Wager, Paul W., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, p. 876 (Dec., 1939)Google Scholar; Elwyn A. Mauck, note in ibid., Vol. 29, p. 131 (Feb., 1940); Waukegan (Illinois) News-Sun, April 26, 1939.

47 Acts of Arkansas, 1939, no. 379. See supra, “Territorial Consolidation.”

48 Wisconsin Session Laws, 1939, ch. 420. The same statute also authorized county boards to request the transfer to the county highway system of state roads carrying traffic of less than designated density.

49 Note in Public Management, Vol. 22, p. 56 (Feb., 1940); Mauck, Elwyn A., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 209210 (Mar., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 Laws of Illinois, 1939, p. 483; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1939, ch. 132; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1939, chs. 222, 223; Acts of West Virginia, 1939, ch. 79; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1939, ch. 210. For a discussion of constitutional aspects of functional consolidation, see Combs, William H., “City-County Separation and Consolidation in Tennessee,” Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 16, pp. 217228 (Feb., 1940).Google Scholar

51 Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials of Arizona, 1939, ch. 78; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1939, p. 1442; Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1939, p. 261; Public Acts of Michigan, 1939, no. 147; Statutes of Nevada, 1939, ch. 57; Public-Local and Private Laws of North Carolina, 1939, ch. 168; Harlow's Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1939, p. 117; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1939, p. 652; Brown, I. W., “City-County Medical Service Combined,” Michigan Municipal Review, Vol. 13, pp. 7, 11 (Jan., 1940).Google Scholar

52 Various measures of state control over local finance are discussed infra, “State-Local Relations.”

53 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1939, p. 272; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1939, ch. 24; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1939, p. 144; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1939, ch. 87; note in Public Management, Vol. 21, p. 250 (Aug., 1939).

54 Oregon Laws, 1939, ch. 273.

55 Cf. Snider, Clyde F., The Problem of Local Fiscal Control (Publication No. 29, Research Department, Illinois Legislative Council, Springfield, Aug., 1940), pp. 1724.Google Scholar

56 Acts of Arkansas, 1939, no. 119; Statutes of California, 1939, p. 3237; Laws of Colorado, 1939, ch. 116; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1939, p. 1663; Kansas Session Laws, 1939, ch. 329; Public Laws of North Carolina, 1939, ch. 158; Public Acts of Tennessee, 1939, ch. 49; Wisconsin Session Laws, 1939, ch. 42. See Smith, Wade S., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, p. 555 (July, 1939)Google Scholar; Paul W. Wager, note in ibid., p. 668 (Sept., 1939).

57 Kansas Session Laws, 1939, ch. 326; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1939, ch. 98; Laws of North Dakota, 1939, ch. 236; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1939, ch. 98.

58 Lates of North Dakota, 1939, ch. 237; Laws of South Dakota, 1939, ch. 25; Wager, Paul W., “County Government,” Municipal Year Book, 1940, pp. 236242.Google Scholar See supra, “New Functions.”

59 Oregon Laws, 1939, ch. 140.

60 County Debt Commission v. Morgan County, 279 Ky. 482, 130 S. W. (2d) 782 (1939). See this Review, Vol. 33, pp. 1066–1067 (Dec., 1939).

61 Acts of Arkansas, 1939, no. 69; General Laws of Idaho, 1939, ch. 110; Public Acts of Michigan, 1939, no. 72; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1939, p. 70.

62 Laws of North Dakota, 1939, ch. 112; letter to the writer from G. A. Gilbertson, deputy secretary of state of North Dakota, Bismarck, Sept. 25, 1940. The amendment was ratified at the primary election of June, 1940. See supra, “County and Town Executives.”

63 Wisconsin Session Laws, 1939, p. 1044. See MacMillin, Frederick N., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 130131 (Feb., 1940).Google Scholar

64 Supra, “County and Town Executives.”

65 Wager, Paul W., notes in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 390391, 552 (May, July, 1939)Google Scholar.

66 Note in Public Management, Vol. 22, p. 26 (Jan., 1940).

67 Public Laws of Maine, 1937, ch. 233; Waterville Realty Corporation v. City of Eastport, 8 Atl. (2d) 898 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1939); Chatters, Carl H. and Woolpert, Elton D., “Trends in Municipal Debt,” Municipal Year Book, 1940, pp. 178193.Google Scholar

68 Acts of New Jersey, 1939, ch. 364; letter to the writer from Walter R. Darby, New Jersey Commissioner of Local Government, Trenton, Sept. 26, 1940. See this Review, Vol. 33, p. 1066.

69 Laws of New Hampshire, 1939, ch. 91; Story, Stephen B., note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 389390 (May, 1939).Google Scholar See also Laws of New Hampshire, 1939, chs. 175, 226.

70 Note in Public Management, Vol. 21, p. 250 (Aug., 1939). See supra, “Budgeting and Accounting.”

71 Cooper, Weldon, note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 28, pp. 476477 (June, 1939).Google Scholar

72 Statutes of California, 1939, ch. 735; General Laws of Idaho, 1939, chs. 16, 235; Session Laws of Nebraska, 1939, chs. 24, 28; Oregon Laws, 1939, ch. 23; General and Special Laws of Texas, 1939, p. 461.

73 Statutes of Nevada, 1939, ch. 148; Kenneth Wernimont, “State Rural Land Use Legislation in 1939,” loc. cit.

74 Harlow's Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1939, p. 84.

75 Annual Report of the United States Housing Authority, 1939, pp. 32–35. Loan contracts had also been made with the city-county authorities of San Francisco and Denver.

76 Acts of Arkansas, 1939, no. 361; General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1939, p. 1670; Laws, Resolutions, and Memorials of Montana, 1939, ch. 59; Laws of New York, 1939, ch. 823; Harlow's Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1939, p. 405; Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1939, p. 529; Kenneth Wernimont, “State Rural Land Use Legislation in 1939,” loc. cit.

77 Mauck, Elwyn, note in National Municipal Review, Vol. 29, pp. 6263 (Jan., 1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.