Unless federation and political representation are developed in metropolitan areas, compartmentalization of local government and fragmentation of public administration will continue. The unmistakable characteristics of American metropolitan areas make them easy to spot: dense populations, urban in nature; industrial and commercial resources; one or more central cities producing the mononucleated or polynucleated pattern; economic and social interconnections maintained by a daily inflow and outflow of traffic. The web of economic and social structure is, however, by no means equalled by political interconnections. The governmental services required by the people living in the area are either unresolved in their metropolitan aspects or are administered by authorities which are often autonomous and remote from coordinated control. Area-wide government to establish policy for the metropolitan population in its unanimity of need and interest is lacking. No political power is in existence to administer the metropolitan aspects of functions. Metropolitan government as such does not exist; it is a concept and possibly a tentative approach. So far, it is no more than that. Still less in esse is metropolitan self-government.

“So you want to be a politician,” my friend said, with a slight lift to the eyebrows. Others wanted to know what the goal was. Running for alderman in ward politics and a partisan campaign must be a training ground for some coveted objective in the state legislature or Congress. You don't just want to be an alderman, some queried. “Starting pretty low down,” was another leading remark. All these and many more comments intrigued me, for they spelled out something or other about the prestige of local government in a day of Big Government at the federal level, or any level other than a municipality of 40,000 population. My answer to all this was that, after twenty years of residence in one community, a professor of municipal government could hardly avoid grubbing around in politics at the level of local self-government. I hoped to become an alderman—period.

I soon learned to parry the pleasant “hazing” remarks made to all prospective ward “politicians.” “Kissed any babies today, Alderman?” “Where are the cigars?” “How's ward-heeling today?” “I'll vote for you, if—.” “How is door-bell ringing?” Most of these remarks prompted the unspoken remark: “When you say those words, sir, smile.” You will notice that I said unspoken.

On September 23,19…, in Roscommon county in the Southern Peninsula of Michigan, the county clerk called the local officials together at the court house. Of the county administrators, the sheriff, treasurer, prosecuting attorney, circuit court judge, register of deeds, health and welfare administrators, and highway engineer were present. Many of the township supervisors had managed somehow to reach the court house in spite of the streams of refugees pouring northward from the destroyed industrial cities of southern Michigan. Already the county was bursting with new and unforeseen problems of public administration. The traffic jam on U. S. highway 27 from Lansing northward was something beyond the memory of the oldest living inhabitant. Near Houghton Lake, this traffic was jammed by another stream which had followed U. S. 23 northward from Saginaw and Bay City, turning inland at Standish by way of state highways 76 and 55 to connect with U.S. 27. The flight of stampeding and determined refugees was flowing like a river through the county seat of Roscommon and ever northward toward Cheboygan and Mackinaw City at the tip of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.

“This meeting was called,” said the clerk, “to discuss how we can handle this emergency. One of the state police officers who has been on reconnaissance with a deputy sheriff will tell us what we are up against in this area. For 36 hours our telephone and telegraphic communications with Washington and Lansing have been out. We are on our own and must make the best of a terrible emergency.”

Like all other aspects of public administration, intergovernmental relations are undergoing constant readjustment to the times and conditions. War so alters conditions in public affairs that federal-state-local realignments are taking place from month to month. Never before have so many administrative operations at the local level been guided by so many directives out of Washington. Coöperative government by federal-state-local authorities has become a by-word in the prodigious effort to administer civilian defense, rationing, and other war-time programs. The first year of war brought new forces into the field of administration, but developments have followed an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary pattern. Intergovernmental administration, while it is a part of all levels of government, is turning into something quite distinct from them all.

The states have coöperated in passing war-time legislation; in ironing out transportation problems created by diverse state regulations; in controlling aliens and relocating Japanese-Americans; in foregoing construction of new public works; in building public works in war-affected communities where in-migration has resulted from concentrations of war industries and military personnel. New programs affecting the lives of all Americans, such as civilian defense, price control, and rationing, are making demands upon localities and states for intergovernmental action. In the absence of any complete overhauling of the federal-state-local tax systems, the Bureau of the Budget has written a new chapter in the intergovernmental field by giving a set of directives for state and local governments to follow or to ignore at their own risk.

Wings over Europe and the Far East are being spread from what was until last year mere Midwestern field and stream—Willow Run, now the site of the world's largest and most revolutionary bomber plant. Air supremacy for the United Nations may rest upon Henry Ford's adaptation of assembly-line methods from autos to airplanes. B-24 bombers now being flown from the hangars at the bomber plant are casting their shadows over the countryside round about. But months ago, the first shadows of Willow Run lengthened over the neighboring cities and villages. Rural residents are finding themselves in the midst of a metropolitan maëlstrom. Orchards, vineyards, wood-lots, and truck gardens are giving way to highways, trailer camps, and federal housing facilities. Population growth and changing land-use are staring the local urban and rural governments in the face. Immediate need for roads, public health service, zoning, and housing are problems which cut across the paths of national, state, and local authorities.

Out of an Irish dilemma has come one of the most striking legislative experiments in modern government. After a short life from 1922 to 1936, the first Irish upper house proved so inept as to be abolished. Then came an interval of unicameralism, and now under the constitution of 1937 another senate has been brought into existence, differing radically from the old. In the early days of her independence, Ireland was confronted with the problem of precisely how to constitute an upper house, how to differentiate it from the lower house, and whom to represent in it. Now, after a vicissitudinous history, she has embarked upon a course of advanced ideas in parliamentary practice—upon a plan which attempts to secure vocational representation.

Why has it been difficult to fit a second chamber into the structure of the Irish state? In feudal society, class cleavage produced assemblies of more than one house. Since democratization of the social order, this basis of separation, has lost significance, but the tradition persists in the bicameralism of such countries as England.

The system of government set up under the Irish constitution of 1922 was of the parliamentary type. Provision was made for an Executive Council, some members of which were responsible to Dáil Eireann. The actual working executive was the president of the Executive Council. The old constitution also contemplated a group of expert ministers who should be heads of departments, but who should not share in the collective responsibility of the Executive Council to the Dáil. The appointment of such a group of “extern” ministers was not made mandatory. In the first Dáil, three extern ministers were appointed, and in the second Dáil a fourth was added. This constitutional arrangement, the inspiration for which was derived from the Swiss executive, did not last long. The extern ministers were, as a matter of fact, active politicians; they were not appointed on the basis of merit in heading the specific departments; in 1927, an amendment was adopted which practically abolished extern ministries; and the Free State has since proceeded on the general plan of a cabinet collectively responsible to the Dáil.

Under terms of the Treaty of 1921 between Great Britain and Ireland, it was agreed that: “Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Ireland and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State.” The status of the Irish Free State was further defined by this language: “Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out, the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, and the law, practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the representative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominion of Canada shall govern their relationship to the Irish Free State.” The Imperial Government gave this treaty the force of law by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act of March 31, 1922. To implement the treaty, Dáil Eireann, sitting as a constituent assembly, enacted a constitution for the Irish Free State in 1922. This constitution declared: “The Irish Free State (otherwise hereinafter called or sometimes called Saorstát Eireann) is a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.” It was given the force of law by the Imperial Government in the Irish Free State Constitution Act of December 5, 1922.

During the first five months of 1935, interest in local governmental problems in Michigan was centered in the regular session of the legislature. The 1935 session should be congratulated on letting some measures lie fallow in committee and on defeating others. Among these bills were several which would have played havoc with the operation of the general property tax in local units. They would have provided for the blanket cancellation of delinquent taxes and for broad exemptions from the property tax. It was the defeat of such proposals rather than any positive program that redounds to the credit of the legislature.

In response to public criticism of the operation of local government in Michigan, particularly in units other than cities and villages, the legislature, by Act 156 of the Public Acts of 1931, authorized the governor to appoint a commission of inquiry into county, township, and school district government. The commission was instructed to give special attention to changes that would reduce the cost of maintenance of such governmental units and increase their efficiency; and authority was given to examine the files and records of any county, township, or school district in the state. The commission's membership consisted of Clarence L. Ayres of Detroit (chairman), C. E. Bement of Lansing, Judge P. C. Gilbert of Traverse City, M. B. McPherson of Lowell, and A. E. Petermann of Calumet. A legislative appropriation of $5,000 was supplemented by financial assistance from the University of Michigan, Michigan State College, the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research, and the Spelman Fund of New York; and Dr. Lent D. Upson was chosen director of the survey. Committees utilized in the inquiry included those on (1) social and economic trends, (2) organization and cost of county and township government, (3) rural school government, (4) local government in the metropolitan area, (5) school government in the metropolitan area, (6) debt and taxation in local government, and (7) organization and administration of the following services: public welfare, public health, public works, and justice. The report of the commission went to Governor Wilber M. Brucker late in December, 1932, and the expert studies have been transmitted to the legislature during the current session. All will be available in a series to be known as Local Government in Michigan, and will be published as separate documents.