City after city is adopting the new form of municipal government usually called the "Galveston Plan" or the "Commission Plan". One of Missouri's largest cities, St. Joseph, is among those which have decided to try the new plan. As most people know, this new form of government for cities differs considerably from the one commonly employed in this country. The form in vogue for the government of cities is based on the well-known principle of division of authority and duties into three branches, the legislative, the judicial, and the executive branch.

The judicial branch plays a comparatively subordinate role in municipal government since the tasks allotted to it are performed to a large extent by the ordinary courts. The branch exists, however, in the form of police courts, the function of which includes decisions where the special city ordinances have been broken.

The legislative branch is represented by the city council which in many cities is bicameral. The function of the legislative branch is to adopt laws concerning the various conditions in the city, and to appropriate money for the expenses of the city.

The executive branch is represented by the mayor, who puts the city ordinances or laws into effect and sees to it that they are obeyed.

Thus municipal government is built along the same lines as that of our states and our nation. It rests upon the same principles as those underlying democratic government anywhere, and which seem to operate successfully everywhere--except in the cities of the United States. In our cities, we are sorry to say, the government is usually wasteful, corrupt, or incapable, or all of these together. All the branches of the city government execute the tasks required of them in an unsatisfactory manner; but most of the complaints are lodged against the branch which should most nearly represent the voters--the City 3Council.

The very evident misgovernment of our cities has resulted in the adoption by one city after another of the Commission Plan. This plan originated in Galveston under very unusual circumstances, and thus is more or less the product of chance. It worked well in Galveston, however, and this fact has caused other cities to adopt it.

The Commission Plan represents a complete break with the principles of popular government and more nearly resembles old-time absolutism with the somewhat irrelevant difference that under the Plan the governmental powers are in the hands of five men instead of one. These five men possess both the legislative and the executive power while they are in office. The division of authority no longer exists as far as these two branches are concerned. Every one of the five members of the commission is both city council and mayor within his department.

It seems somewhat strange that such an arrangement as this should be adopted in a republic where the three-way division of power is sternly upheld, at least theoretically..... Yet the new style in government is not quite as unprecedented as one might suppose.

The legislative power in our country is not what it should be according to the theory of constitutional government; both the judicial and the executive branches have eaten their way into the domain of the legislative branch. We notice this in our cities, our states, and in our national government. The legislative power is being steadily weakened in this country, and as we have mentioned, in some of our cities it has collapsed completely. The Commission Plan, with initiative and referendum, completely abolishes representative government in the cities which have adopted the Plan.

Whether, in the long run, the new arrangement will work better than the old one is somewhat doubtful. At least, Skandinaven does not believe that the 5 advertised advantages of the Commission Plan really constitute progress. Skandinaven does not believe that our people desire or can get along with absolutism in city government.

By the way, the form of government is not the principal factor in our days; the voter is the ultimate factor in the question of good or bad government. If the voter is all right, the government may be good even though the form of government be imperfect. If the voter is unable or unwilling to do his duty, then reforms will be of but little avail.