HOADLY, GRISWOLD, CUNNINGHAM.

It seems to me that these words in our Cleveland shall ur Cleveland shall each constitute a separate present Constitution have had no possible effect class.' whatever. The General Assembly has always granted the power to all these corporations to levy all the taxes the member from the county where these corporations are situated has asked for. The power never has been restricted at all whenever power has been asked for. Then what is the use of retaining those words when they are of no validity? I will not make the motion to strike them out unless it shall be demonstrated that they have no validity. If any member of the Committee can inform us what effect they have in the Constitution, I population-that is, that that shall be the rule should be glad to hear it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Isympathize with the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. GRISWOLD] in his proposition, and in his local pride, and I move to amend his amendment by adding after the word Cleveland "the city of Lima." Mr. GRISWOLD. I would ask the gentleman if it is on account of its Mr. GRISWOLD. I offer the following new departure"? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will answer that it amendment: Insert in line three, after the is because of the necessities of its situation, and word "six," "but the cities of Cincinnati and its growing importance as a railroad town.

HOADLY, POWELL, HERRON, POND, WEST.

Mr. HOADLY. I would like to ask the delegate from Allen, [Mr. CUNNINGHAM], if he will allow me, whether it is not also on account of the isolated character of the Allen county move-it by class, and give sufficient margin to any act ment?

PHELLIS, CHAPIN, WEAVER, KERR, PAGE, ETC.

THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY.

The Convention re-assembled pursuant to ad- Barrick, and sixty-seven other citizens of Lickjournment. ing county, against the use of public funds in the construction of railroads or any similar improvements.

Which was referred to the Committee on Pub-quired to report to this Convention, at the earliest moment, lic Debt and Public Works.

}

JULY 9, 1873.]

HOADLY, TOWNSEND, GRISWOLD, ETC.

Resolved, That the Committee on Reporting and Publication be directed to procure and have distributed a sufficient number of the Debates to supply each member with the ten copies to which he is entitled. Also, that the printer at Cleveland be requested to fold neatly the sheets of Debates sent to the members of the Convention.

Mr. VORIS moved to re-consider the vote whereby said Resolution No. 81 was adopted. Which was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. VORIS,

Said Resolution was referred to the Committee on Reporting and Publication.

Mr. HOADLY asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence for Mr. HUNT, from yesterday.

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

On motion of Mr. HOADLY, The Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the orders of the day. Mr. POND in the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee rose on yesterday, it had under consideration Proposition 182. A motion was made by the gentleman from Seneca [Mr. O'CONNOR], I think, to strike out all after the caption. My impression is, however, that that was withdrawn. Mr. MUELLER. That motion was withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, a motion was made by the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. GRISWOLD], to insert in line three, after the word "six," the following words: "and the cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland shall each constitute a separate class." And the gentleman from Allen moved to amend, by adding after the word "Cleveland" the word "Lima."

yesterday, [Mr. HOADLY], was conclusive, it seems to me, upon the necessity of having special legislation for particular cities, as, also, the fact that he set forth: that the Convention of 1851 undertook to pass a general law with reference to cities, and that the very first Legislature that assembled, went to work to get around, as he says, the Constitution, by providing legislation for particular cities. They did this because the legislation was necessary for these cities. Now, I well apprehend the difficulty that the gentleman mentions, that there is this sort of omnibus legislation, and, perhaps, improper and corrupt legislation, growing out of this; but it is not because you allow special legislation in reference to particular cities, but because you do not limit the power in reference to the subjects of legislation. If we provided that no power should be granted to cities to do anything but that which is proper in municipal legislation; that is, if they were prohibited from establishing a machine shop if they happened not to have four thousand three hundred and sixty-one of a population, or as the instances which the gentleman read from the statute. Now, that is shown conclusively, it seems to me, in his statement, that the situation of Cincinnati is such that it necessarily requires particular legislation which no other city does require. The same is equally true with Cleveland, now. One of the most important public works of that city is a tunnel, extending into the lake, for the purpose of obtaining water, upon which we have had to have legislation. Now, shall we have a class legislation that shall legislate in regard to tunnels for cities that do not border upon the lake? We are put just in that condition when you say by your Constitutional enactments, that you shall have no special legislation for cities. The very development and growth of these cities require that they should have special legislation; and, as I say, all those statutes which the gentleman has referred to, and the great number that he did not read, show that the necessity of these cities reMr. TOWNSEND. I regret very much, in- quire legislation. Now, undertaking to prevent deed, to have to oppose an amendment offered that, will prevent the growth and development by my colleague. I think, to designate these of these cities; so it seems to me that the remedy cities by name in the Constitution, is not the proposed is not the right one. Prohibit these best plan. I think it would be better to refer and all cities from legislating upon all those it to the Legislature to designate Cincinnati, subjects that are not proper subjects, that are Cleveland, or any other place. It will be borne not appropriate to city government, then you in mind that the amendment does not designate remedy the evil. But when you undertake to the six classes, but says the Legislature may say that Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, and classify them in six classes. I think that the Columbus shall be one class, and other cities of Legislature is the proper body to designate like population another class, you come to prethose classes, and to classify the cities. I have cisely the same difficulty that you experience at no doubt that, in their wisdom, they will make present. As I understand the case, particularly one class for Cincinnati and one for Cleveland, in the establishment of our water works, and and perhaps some other cities, and two others the necessity of tunneling the lake for the purwhich will call for cities with a population of pose of obtaining water for our city, is one of from twenty-five thousand to fifty thousand in- those things we absolutely need, and upon habitants, and from six thousand, perhaps, to which we have had legislation, and upon twenty-five thousand. They will examine the which we no doubt shall need legislation in the subject, and consult the people in the different future; I only refer to this as one item of legislocalities, and arrange it to suit and accommo-lation of this character. Now, to say we shall date all; and I think it is not wise for us to name any particular cities.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. After sleeping upon that, I thought it would be wise, perhaps, to withdraw it, and will do so by leave of the Convention.

Leave was granted.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is, then, on the amendment of the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. GRISWOLD] to insert "and the cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland shall each constitute a separate class."

Mr. GRISWOLD. I don't see any reason why we should not do directly that which the gentleman admits we are doing indirectly. Now, the argument of the gentleman from Hamilton,

be included in a class of cities which are to have this legislation where no such legislation is needed, seems to me unwise. What sort of legislation would this be upon our statute books? You will have legislation for cities for tunneling the lake not within one hundred

GRISWOLD, HOADLY, WEST.

miles of the lake. You had better leave it as now, saying that cities of a hundred thousand in population, &c., should have certain privileges. I would rather have it so than to embrace it in any such class. It goes against the argument of the whole thing when you say we shall onlyhave these six classes--and it does not go that far: it says the Legislature may make six classes. Now, I say the facts exhibited show that we do require such legislation, that it is absolutely necessary to the growth and development of these cities and the health of the people, that we shall have special acts of the Legislature. And how are you going to get at it unless you allow the Legislature the power to legislate for these particular cities. It seems to me, when you say there shall be so many classes, you admit that a certain city must be of a particular class. Why is it necessary to cover it up in this sort of a way? Why not express it plainly as the facts require? I would go as far as the farthest, to prevent these cities levying any tax and voting money by city councils for anything that is not a proper subject of municipal governments. And when there is put that limit upon them, upon these other subjects, we ought to have full limit for any legislation that our different interests demand. I understand well, and know the objections that may arise, that there may grow out of this corrupt legislation; but the evil, it seems to me, could be cut off by limiting the power of these cities simply to municipal government, and when you do that, then you should leave to them the largest liberty.

Mr. HOADLY. I desire to say, simply, with reference to the suggestion of my friend, that there should be restrictions on the power of municipal corporations. I will agree with my friend, and I hope the majority of this Convention will agree with us, that there ought to be no power granted to any municipal corporation to incur any expense, or do any act which is not within the domain of reasonable municipal government. I do not believe, for one, in converting municipal corporations into private corporations by a vote of the majority of the people, against the will of the minority. I believe that municipal corporations are organized for municipal purposes, and not for purposes which are extrinsic to the government of corporations, as municipal corporations; and yet within the sphere of municipal purposes there is much to be done which is in its nature, as our courts have held, of a private character, or of a quasi-private character. The building of a sewer, the making of a street, the establishment of a public park, and the adjustment of the grades of a city, are matters which, in their character and essential nature, border closely and nearly on the domain of private enterprise; and as to many of these subjects, private enterprise is often found to do the work as well, if not better, even, within the boundaries of municipal corporations, than the municipality

itself.

[WEDNESDAY,

made and graded, and the sewers have been constructed by the individual owners rather than trust the municipality with the power, because the individual owners, before selling the lots, have found that they could do the work cheaper and better than the municipality could if they dedicated the streets first and left the work to it. So that, as there is a twilight region, if I may use the expression, a space between darkness and day, so there is a province which you cannot clearly say that the proper office of a municipal corporation covers, and that the proper office of private enterprise, or of a private corporation does not cover; and while I agree with my friend that that which is not within the sphere of municipal government ought not ever to be permitted, there is this undefined and uncertain limit beyond which you cannot certainly say that the power of a municipality ought or ought not to extend. Now, Mr Chairman, the city of Cleveland and the city of Cincinnati, are, to-day, objects of interest. We know what they are. We know, perhaps, what powers they ought to have; but we cannot tell what changes within a quarter of a century may occur to either of these cities. The city of Cincinnati is unfortunately so situated that 40,000 of her people are residents of another State, citizens of two-yes, of five other municipalities, within the State of Kentucky. At least 40,000, probably nearer 50,000 people, who do business in Cincinnati and are supported by the manufactures and commerce of that city, are residents of the cities of Covington and Newport, and the villages of Dayton, Bellevue, and Ludlow, that is, on the southern side of the Ohio river. The city of Cincinnati, we see, has these peculiarities, and the other topographical peculiarities to which I alluded yesterday; but we know that in the progress of twenty-five years the hills will be levelled, and the valleys will be filled, and the topographical features of that city will be essentially and greatly changed within that time. So with regard to the city of Cleveland, which is probably more rapidly advancing in population and real growth than any city within the State to-day. Cincinnati and Cleveland, within the sphere of proper municipal organization, require different systems of legislation, or perhaps, without saying that they require different system of legislation, they are accustomed to different methods of municipal government, and those methods have been prescribed for them by classing them by themselves. But who shall say that the time will not soon come when the circumstances of those two cities will be so nearly alike, when the population, at least, within the State of Ohio, of those two cities will be so nearly alike, that both of them can properly and justly be governed by the same charter and the same general law of administration and organization? And I for one am free to say that, with the experience I have had in years past as an officer of the city of Cincinnati, and as a citi

Mr. WEST. Work individual in its charac-zen and tax-payer for twenty-five years of that

ter.

Mr. HOADLY. Yes, individual in its character, as my friend from Logan, [Mr.WEST], very well suggests. There are subdivisions in all our cities in which the streets have been

city-I am free to say, when the day comes that Cleveland and Cincinnati can be embraced within the same class with those of Toledo, Youngstown, Sandusky, Dayton, and Columbus, when the day comes that they can all be governed