Election Commissioners consisting of four members, are all appointed by the mayor for terms of two and four years respectively.

The charter, furthermore, contains important civil service provisions, applying to the main departments of the city government. A board of three civil service commissioners is provided for, to be appointed by the mayor for a term of three years. On the sixteenth of April, 1895, this charter is to be submitted to the people at a special election. If adopted by them, it must be submitted to the legislature, which has the right to accept or reject it in toto. If ratified by the legislature, it then becomes the organic law of the city, superseding its present charter and any special laws inconsistent with its provisions.

FOREIGN CITIES.

Berlin. A recent report of the "Fire Insurance Institute" shows the increasing importance and usefulness of one of the oldest municipal institutions of Berlin. At the close of the last century the city organized what amounts to a mutual fire insurance association of property owners. Insurance against fire in this association was made obligatory upon every property owner, and the premium was made dependent upon the losses incurred during the year. In this way every property owner became interested in the fire-proof construction of every building within the city, which accounts to a very great extent for the strict enforcement of building regulations. The report shows that during the last year the buildings within the city were insured for over $800,000,000, and that the loss by fire amounted to a little over $150,000, or nine cents per capita of the population. When this is compared with the loss in other cities, the amount is insignificant. Thus, in New York the loss from fire in 1891 was $3.86 per capita; in Chicago, $2.44; in Philadelphia, $2.34, and in Paris, 45c.

London. The report of the Royal Commission on the "Unification of London,”* appointed in March, 1893, contains a very complete exposition of the peculiar administrative and financial conditions under which the great English metropolis has been living. The Commission, which was composed of the Hon. Leonard H. Courtney; Sir Thomas Henry Farrer; Mr. Robert D. Holt, Mayor of the City of Liverpool; Henry H. Crawford, Esq., Solicitor to the Corporation of the city of London; and Edward O. Smith, Esq., Town Clerk of the city of Birmingham, examined experts and parties interested at stated intervals from the ninth of June, 1893, until the eighth of June, 1894.

*The report is printed by Eyre & Spottiswoode, Fleet street, London. Vol. I, Minutes of Evidence, price, 5s. Vol. II, Special Reports, price, 5s. 7d. Vol. III, Report of the Commissioners, price, 1s. 3d.

The first volume of the report (620 quarto pages) contains the testimony of these witnesses. The second volume, which, for purposes of ascertaining the present condition of local government in Metropolitan London, is by far the most valuable, contains some twenty special reports upon such questions as the relation of the city of London to the surrounding vestries; the powers and duties of the various local authorities throughout the county; the position of the London County Council; the financial condition of the Corporation of the city of London; statistics concerning the local areas into which London is divided for various governmental and electoral purposes, etc. These reports tend to show the chaotic condition of administrative jurisdiction in the county of London.

་་

The old city with its single square mile of area and a continually diminishing population (in 1891; 37,000) still retains many of the privileges of the medieval corporation. It is true the "Metropolis Management Act" of 1885 gave to the enormous population of the present county of London a kind of central authority with jurisdiction extending over the entire area, but its powers were so restricted and traversed at every turn by the powers of the local vestry boards that a systematic and harmonious development of municipal institutions remained practically impossible. During the period between this act and the Local Government Act of 1888, the powers of this Metropolitan Board of Works" were gradually increased; the "City," however, retaining the greater part of its former powers and privileges. The establishment of a representative County Council, which in 1888 succeeded to the old Metropolitan Board of Works, marked an important step toward giving to the county of London a strong central organization capable of co-ordinating the more important problems of local policy. The city was expressly exempted from the most important provisions; a state of affairs which in the lapse of time must necessarily become untenable. Immediately after the establishment of the County Council the efforts to bring the "City" within the ordinary jurisdiction of a central municipal authority were resumed with renewed vigor. The result was the appointment of a Royal Commission, and the present report. In the third volume the commissioners make their recommendations, to which is appended a, report of a special committee of the Court of Common Council of the city, dissenting from the views of the Commission.

The Commission recommends that the government of the county of London be entrusted to a central representative authority; and that the present city should become merged into the county; the entire district being incorporated under the name of the "Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London." The present local bodies or vestries

are to be reorganized and given a certain measure of independence as regards purely local matters, and governed through a mayor and elective council. The central authority is to consist of a Council of 122 councillors and twenty aldermen presided over by a Lord Mayor, who is to succeed to all the actual and traditional privileges of the Lord-Mayor of the "City." The property of the present city is to be vested in the new corporation, and the administration of the city police to be transferred to the Home Office until the question of the management of the police system of the county is definitely settled.

The report clearly shows a desire on the part of the Commission to make the transition to a unified form of municipal government as gradual as possible in order to make the changes acceptable to those sections now enjoying special privileges.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

"Municipal Reform Movements in the United States." By WM. H. TOLMAN, Ph. D., Secretary of the City Vigilance League, New York City. With an introductory chapter by the Rev. Chas. H. Parkhurst, D.D. Pp. 219. Price, $1.00. New York: F. H. Revell Company, 1895. The volume of Mr. Tolman contains an account of the various movements for civic reform throughout the United States. It will be of special value to those contemplating the organization of societies for civic betterment, and contains many valuable hints concerning such work.

"Street Railway Investments: A Study in Values." By EDWARD E. HIGGINS. Pp. 102. New York: Street Railway Publishing Co., 1895. The volume by Mr. Higgins traces the growth of the passenger railway system in this country. The author has very wisely divided the subject so as to treat the various classes of cities separately. Thus, in seven chapters he deals with the surface railways in cities of a population of less than 15,000; of from 15,000 to 25,000; 25,000 to 35,000; 35,000 to 50,000; 50,000 to 100,000; 100,000 to 500,000, and finally of cities with a population of over 500,000. The statistical data which lack careful co-ordination, serve to show the important place occupied by this branch of public transportation service as a means of investment.

Magazine Articles.

In the Review of Reviews for April, Dr. Shaw gives an account of the activity of the more important reform associations throughout the United States. The common ends towards which they are all striving, such as, non-partisanship in local elections, freedom of the municipality from legislative interference, etc., are clearly shown.

In the Engineering Magazine for April, Mr. M. J. Francisco contributes an article on "The Municipal Ownership of Public

Corporations," which is a savage attack upon the extension of municipal functions beyond purely political action.

In the same number Mr. Allen R. Foote discusses the control of public-service corporations by municipalities.

Professor Frank J. Goodnow, of Columbia College, discusses the question of "Municipal Home Rule" in the Political Science Quarterly for March. The amendments to the Constitution of New York, with special reference to the provisions regarding special legislation are discussed. The author endeavors to show the utter inadequacy of the ordinary restrictions upon special legislation for cities. The only safe procedure seems to be the insertion of a definition of special legislation in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, there is danger that restrictions will be rendered of no effect through the liberal interpretation of the courts. The new Constitution of New York has done this through the insertion of a clause which specifically defines general and special city laws; the latter being those which relate to a certain city or to less than all the cities of a class.

SOCIOLOGICAL NOTES.

[The editor of this department is glad to receive notes on all topics of interest to sociologists and persons working along sociological lines in the broadest acceptation of the term. It is not the purpose of these columns to define the boundaries of sociology, but rather to group in one place for the convenience of members of the Academy all available bits of information on the subject that would otherwise be scattered throughout various departments of the ANNALS. The usefulness of this department will naturally depend largely on the measure of co-operation accorded the editor by other members of the Academy.

Among those who have already indicated their interest and willingness to contribute are such well-known workers along sociological lines as Professor F. H. Giddings (Columbia College), Professor W. F. Willcox (Cornell University), Dr. John Graham Brooks (Cambridge, Mass.), Dr. E. R. Gould (Johns Hopkins University), Mr. John Koren (Boston), Hon. Carroll D. Wright (Washington, D. C.), Professor E. Cheysson (Paris), Mr. Robert D. McGonnigle (Pittsburg, Pa.), President John H. Finley (Knox College), Prof. D. R. Dewey (Boston), Miss Emily Green Balch (Jamaica Plains, Mass.), Miss M. E. Richmond (Baltimore, Md.), and others. The Theory of Sociology.—The Law of Population. Three significant publications * attest a renewed interest in the study of Malthus and an attempt to restate the Malthusian law of population in a way that cannot fail to attract the attention of sociologists. In its original form the theory of Malthus, which regarded the growth of population as limited by the increase in the means of subsistence, was a purely economic problem, and as such received constant discussion and some modification at the hands of all leading economists. Professor Patten calls attention to Malthus' own statement of his law and to the confusion in his own thought which led Malthus himself to shift somewhat his basis of proof. This led, further, to several different statements of the law on the part of Malthus' successors. Professor Patten enumerates four statements of the law, all of which he finds defective, and claims that if the law is to be made of any use in political economy, "it must be restated in a manner more in harmony with the present tendencies of economic thought." He claims that "the opposition to be harmonized is not between population and the means of subsistence, but rather between population and productive power,"

* "Population and Capital." BY ARTHUR T. HADLEY. A paper read at the seventh annual meeting of the American Economic Association, Columbia College, Dec. 27, 1894. To appear shortly in a volume of papers which will make Nos. 5 and 6 of Vol. ix. of the Publications of the American Economic Association.

"The Law of Population Restated." By SIMON N. PATTEN. Political Science Quarterly. March, 1895.

"Versuch einer Bevolkerungslehre ausgehend von einer Kritik des Malthusschen Bevolkerungsprincips." By Dr. FRANK FETTER. Pp. vii-97. Jena, 1894.