Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/365

THE MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OF PHILADELPHIA 349 careful consideration of the interests of the city, not only for the present, but for coming generations, and had always in mind the fundamental principles for which the league stood.

Moreover, the league carefully considered and scrutinized all legislation having to do with municipal questions. In 1897, for instance, it led the movement for the veto of the notorious Becker bills of that year, which, had they become laws, would have accomplished then what has since been authorized, but not fulfilled by the notorious ripper bills of the present year. The Becker bills were intended to transfer the effectual government of the city to one-third of the members of the Select Council plus one, as their object was to compel the mayor to submit all his appointments to the Select Council for approval, a two-thirds vote being necessary for confirmation. The Becker bills, together with the ripper bills of 1897, were as notorious in their way as were the ripper bills of 1905. Fortunately, the league was able so to arouse public sentiment, and so to secure the co-operation of the governor, as to prevent their enactment into laws.

At every session of the Legislature during the league's existence it kept in touch with the more important measures affecting Philadelphia. While it was not able, because of its lack of financial resources, to maintain so complete a representation at the state capitol as the City Club maintains at Albany, nevertheless it was helpful and influential in calling the attention of the people of Philadelphia to those measures which required their support on the one side, or which called for their opposition on the other. It did not confine its efforts to opposing bad legislation, but constantly sought to put its ideas concerning municipal government into concrete form. We have already seen what it was able to accomplish in the passage of the personal-registration amendment. In 1897 ft introduced a series of seven bills intended to extend the principles of the Bullitt Bill and remedy the defects of that instrument. These bills, viewed from the broad standpoint of the development of municipal institutions, represented something of far deeper interest and importance than a disconnected series of amendments to our existing system. While containing great diversity in subject-matter and contents, there was nevertheless