not in any case wholly, concerned with the execution of state laws, while others are created simply as parts of the ordinary municipal organization for local purposes. On the other hand, the wisdom of establishing departments like that of the Police and Finance Commission as independent organizations of the state has given rise to much controversy.

The complaint, however, has not been directed solely against such extensive usurpation of municipal authority, but also against efforts to control the departments of the city government, and, above all, against attempts to regulate municipal expenditures and tax limits. If it cannot be said that Boston has been deprived of municipal autonomy in having charters imposed upon it, since they have always been subject to the acceptance of the voters, the situation is quite different when the more intimate details of conducting city affairs, particularly finance, are concerned.

A glance at the special acts affecting the city of Boston and the towns or cities annexed to it shows beyond doubt that the Commonwealth has legislated in regard to matters that could easily have been entrusted to local control without infringing upon its sovereignty, for they have been affairs that could have been dealt with by the city under ordinary charter powers. But it must be admitted that a very large portion of the legislative acts have been beyond municipal control because they involve interests either affecting the Commonwealth itself or territories lying outside the limits of Boston.

Perhaps the one feature of state legislation affecting the city of Boston most disadvantageously has been the meddling with its financial concerns. As Mayor Matthews puts it in his valedictory address: "The treasury of the city of Boston is regarded in many parts of the State as a fund to be drawn upon by compulsory legislation for the benefit of the smaller towns; and many of the representatives from this city make it their habitual concern to introduce and advocate bills for the transfer of portions of the city's money for the benefit of special interests and classes. The result is that during the annual sessions of the Legislature a

large part of the work of governing this city must be transacted at the State House in the advocacy of needed reforms, and in defence of the city treasury against agrarian and class legislation."

It may be noted, by the way, that the special acts relating to the city of Boston which have been passed by the General Court from 1822 to 1908 (taking no account of later years during which the acts have been published separately) cover more than thirteen hundred pages, in two bound volumes, and include almost every topic that can be mentioned under the head of municipal administration. The most recent tendency seems to be toward a keener desire on the part of the General Court to prescribe ways and means of conducting Boston's city administration.

MAYORS OF BOSTON FROM 1822 TO 1922.

JOHN PHILLIPS.

Born in Boston, November 26, 1770; died May 29, 1823; served during 1822.

A service of twenty-five years in the General Court, during ten of which he was president of the Senate, well qualified John Phillips for the new office of Mayor of Boston. He had also served for many years as town advocate and public prosecutor. He has been described as a man "of a rather pliable disposition, but of strict integrity and general good judgment.' Conservative tendencies led him to preserve as

much of the ancient régime as possible; and it was well, for it made the transition to a city government so much easier. His activities were mainly confined to the organization of the administrative machinery created by the first city charter. Men who had been instrumental in securing it, and expected radical changes at once, showed some dissatisfaction with the administration of Mayor Phillips, but his conservative course was an asset rather than a hindrance in laying the proper foundations for a city government.

It is of interest to observe that at the very first election of a mayor political feeling ran high. Josiah Quincy was an avowed candidate for the office, likewise Harrison Gray Otis. Both finally withdrew their names after an acrimonious campaign full of charges. and counter-charges, and left the field open for John Phillips. The latter's delicate health made him refuse a second term, the mayors at that time being chosen annually.