POWERS AND INFLUENCE OF THE MUNICIPAL EXECUTIVE.
Growth of the Mayor's Powers.— In the government of the borough during colonial times the executive and legislative functions were not separate. The council was the sole governing body and the presiding officer was called mayor. He was merely a member of the council, possessed no powers other than those of a presiding officer, could not veto en actments of the council and could make no ap pointments to office, though in a few boroughs he did have some minor responsibilities, such as regulating taverns, supervising markets, holding coroners' inquests and hearing petty contesta tions at law. After the Revolution and with the advent of the Federal Government, the mayor's powers were increased gradually but materially, owing to the influence of the separa tion of powers which was put in vogue in the National and State governments. For the first time in the history of American cities, Balti more in 1796 empowered the mayor to veto resolutions of the city council, though vetoed measures might be repassed by a three-fourths vote; the mayor's powers of appointment to city offices were also much enlarged. In 1822 Boston authorized the mayor to appoint whom be chose, subject to aldermanic approbation. But not until the middle of the 19th century did the municipal executive make much headway. The government of cities by council had de veloped inefficiency, waste, extravagance and considerable corruption, whereupon the State governments intervened, transferring various functions from the councils to State-appointed and controlled boards, as, for example, in 1860 the Baltimore police department was placed under the control of a State board; in 1866 the Chicago police suffered the same interven tion; and in 1865 the New York legislature assumed control police, fire protection, pub lic health and licensing in New York city. Subsequently the legislatures restored a large measure of local control, but instead of rein stating the city council in power, they placed control in separate executive boards, the mem bers of which were appointed by the mayor or elected by the people. Hence the power of appointment substantially increased the powers of the mayor's office and in time even the con firmation of the mayor's appointees by the al dermen was eliminated from city charters, as was the case in Brooklyn in 1882. Many other
cities followed Brooklyn's lead and though a large number still retain the it is gradually being abandoned. It should be re membered, however, that in no two cities of the United States are the mayor's powers alike, and in describing the position and powers of the American mayor even the most important statements must be made with large reserva tions; in New York and Boston the authority of the municipal councils is insignificant when compared with the powers of the mayors, whereas in Philadelphia and Chicago the reverse is true, the councils still maintaining a strong grip on local governmental affairs.
The Mayor's Influence upon Legislation. — Theoretically the mayor's office is adminis trative and has no legislative power but often the mayor exerts a strong influence upon local legislation. In some cities, like Chicago, he presides over the sessions of the city council but in most cities he not only is deprived of this privilege but may communicate with that body only through a written message. Like the President and the State governor, the mayor may and often does suggest new legislation for the consideration of the council and to a cer tain degree the deference shown to his sugges tions depends upon his personal character and political influence. Like the President, how ever, the mayor has an effective weapon in the veto power (but not the privilege of the °pock et veto"), since under most city charters he must pass upon every ordinance or resolution of the council, and in many cases mayors have used this privilege without scruple to enforce aldermanic submission. A prescribed majority must be obtained to override the mayor's veto whether the council consists of one or of two chambers, but though the usual practice is a two-thirds vote, the requirement is more rigid in some cities, being three-fifths in Philadelphia, three-fourths in Baltimore and seven-ninths in San Francisco.