The Oregon budget formerly prepared by the secretary of state is now given to the state board of control composed of the governor as chairman, the secretary of state and the treasurer. The actual work of compilation remains with the secretary of state but the recommendations on items are made by majority vote of the board. It is only an advisory document when printed. Among the minor changes in the various states, that of North Carolina is most interesting and unusual. It gives to the minority party a representative on the budget board. The board now consists of the governor, the chairman of the legislative finance committees and a member of the minority party, a legislator, appointed by the governor. Minutes of the South Dakota budget board until now have been open to public inspection at all times. By a 1921 law they need not be made accessible until after the budget has been transmitted to the legislature. The same law provides for meetings of the board before special sessions of the legislature and at the governor's call. Montana's amendment gives more power to the compiling board, permitting it to include its recommendations in its budget instead of being a mere compilation of requests as before. Local Budgets. Both county and city finances have received some attention. A system of commission manager government for Wyoming cities of over 1000 population has been established, including an itemized budget compiled in the department of finance for guidance of the commission in its appropriations. Publication of the commission's appropriation bill with a parallel comparison with the preliminary estimates gives the necessary publicity. Kansas requires boards of education in cities over 95,000 to prepare an itemized budget before making tax levies and requires expenditures to be as defined in the budget. Oregon has passed a comprehensive local budget law requiring the preparation of a budget by all municipal corporations, meaning all public corporations having power to levy taxes. The itemized budgets contain the estimated revenue as well as the estimated expenditures, and form the basis of the tax levy. The preparation of the budget is done by budget committees, the same size as the local levying boards, composed of citizens not employed by any municipal corporation. Publicity is provided and public hearings are permitted. Nevada, already requiring budgets from cities and most of the taxlevying bodies within the state, has added county high school and educational districts to the number. In addition to Oregon which includes counties in its local budget law, New Mexico, Montana and Arizona have strengthened their county finances by requiring budgets. County commissioners of New Mexico are required to submit budgets to the state tax commission which is authorized to investigate and revise all items. When finally approved, the budget is returned to the county commissioners and is binding on them in all instances. County commissioners are also compelled to make preliminary estimates for the expenditures of road and bridge funds to assure a fair distribution in all parts of the county. County officers of Montana are required to submit their estimates of expenditures, and at an advertised time the board of county commissioners revise and approve the estimates, giving opportunity for hearing to all interested people. Expenditures are limited by this budget, as finally approved. Legislative Reference Section, RUTH MONTGOMERY. NOTES ON MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS EDITED BY F. W. COKER Ohio State University The New York City Election. Four years ago on January 1, John F. Hylan became mayor of New York City, having overwhelmingly defeated Mayor John Purroy Mitchel, candidate for reëlection on the fusion ticket. Mayor Mitchel was known throughout the country as the man who had given New York an honest and efficient administration; he received during his campaign the cordial support of the great newspapers with the exception of those under Mr. Hearst's control; hence it was but natural that the people of the country in general, and editors of newspapers and magazines in particular, should shake their heads dubiously when the voters of our largest city decisively rejected Mitchel in favor of Hylan, protégé of Hearst and candidate of Tammany Hall. Was it possible to retain faith in popular government in the face of a result such as this? Naturally, Mr. Hylan's administration was closely watched by many voters of the city who expected to find not only inefficiency but also gross corruption. The newspapers remained generally hostile to the mayor. When he was not ridiculed and pictured as a bungler he was accused of sinister purposes. His appointments were often condemned. It was said that he appointed Tammany politicians and personal friends to office. Of course in doing so he was merely following a well-established American custom. New York, like many other cities, has had considerable difficulty in its dealings with public utility corporations. When the war came prices rose enormously. Transportation companies, formerly paying large dividends, now confronted with rising costs, made demands for increased fares. The mayor and his colleagues rejected all such proposals. They were blamed for failure to work out definite plans for the solution of the transportation problem and were frequently called obstructionists. The fact remains, however, that while in many cities car fares were increased and in some doubled, in New York the fare is still five cents. The great majority of the people believe that the mayor's stand is responsible for this. In the 1920 election Harding carried New York by a majority of more than 1,000,000. He even carried New York City by a majority of 439,000. Naturally Republicans were enthusiastic. It was confidently asserted that the time had come for a straight Republican ticket in the 1921 mayoralty election. The fact that Governor Miller's plurality over Alfred E. Smith was less than 75,000 in the state, and that Smith had carried the city by more than 320,000, was for the time being overlooked. Before long, however, it was realized that the chances of defeating Hylan depended upon a sincere coalition of Republicans and independent Democrats. The 1921 legislature, overwhelmingly Republican and extraordinarily submissive to Governor Miller's leadership, made the reëlection of Mayor Hylan a practical certainty. Two measures especially strengthened the position of the mayor. The public service commissions were reorganized and a state-appointed transit commission with complete authority over the subject of transit in New York City was established. Secondly, provision was made for a legislative committee to investigate the conduct of the Hylan administration. The transit law was attacked by the city administration and by local Republican leaders because it practically deprived the city of all control over its transportation system and because it was believed to pave the way for an increase in fare. The transit commission at once began a thorough investigation of its problem and on September 30 issued a preliminary report recommending a plan for municipal ownership of all railway lines in the city, payment for the property to be made on the basis of an honest valuation irrespective of the present capitalization and book values. Fares were to be based on the actual cost of operation, and there was to be no increase unless operation under the new conditions should demonstrate its necessity. Upon the full establishment of the plan, the transit commission was to be abolished. These proposals of the commission were at once attacked by the city administration though they were quite generally approved by the press. The comptroller saw in the plan only one good provision-that for the abolition of the transit commission, which he thought, however, should be put into effect at once. The mayor's commissioner of accounts detected a scheme for unloading on the city worthless lines and for an eventual eight or ten cent fare. It was also claimed that the issuance of the report a few weeks before the election was designed to fool the people into the belief that the commission was in favor of the five cent fare and thus to weaken the mayor's chief campaign issue. The legislative investigating committee, headed by Senator Meyer, did not succeed in convincing the public that the Hylan administration was very corrupt and inefficient. On the contrary it did convince the people that its chief purpose was to produce campaign material and to "get Hylan" at any cost. Although the committee's examination of city officials brought to light some things which did not tend to increase public confidence in the management of certain city departments, yet its methods were so apparantly partisan that the investigation proved a boomerang and undoubtedly strengthened the mayor with the voters. The municipal primary elections were held on September 13. In the Democratic primary Mayor Hylan and Comptroller Craig were renominated without opposition. Murray Hulburt, commissioner of docks, was nominated without opposition as president of the board of aldermen. The only serious contest was that for the position as president of the borough of Manhattan. The central Tammany organization was successful, though its majority was small. After numerous conferences during the summer months Henry H. Curran, president of the borough of Manhattan, was endorsed for mayor by the Republicans and various independent groups desirous of fusion against Tammany. Senator Charles C. Lockwood and Vincent Gilroy, an independent Democrat, were endorsed for comptroller and president of the board of aldermen. These three candidates won in the Republican primaries by handsome pluralities. The vote in the mayoralty contest stood as follows: Curran, 103,174; LaGuardia, president of the board of aldermen, 37,880; Haskell, anti-prohibition candidate, 29,468; Bennett, ex-senator, 4742. Lockwood and Gilroy received pluralities even larger than Curran's. From the very beginning of the campaign it was clear that the odds were in favor of Hylan. He was loyally supported by Tammany Hall. This insured the advantage of perfect organization. The mayor and his supporters made much of their stand against corporation influence, always a popular position. Governor Miller and the transit commission were pictured as tools of sinister interests seeking to impose on the people of the city millions through increased fares; and Mr. Curran, despite his vigorous denials, was made to appear the agent of the governor seeking to deprive the city of its last vestige of control over an important public utility. The Meyer committee, called the "Mire committee" by the Mayor's friends, was accused of persecuting the administration for partisan purposes. The Hearst papers exerted a |