{"id":10085,"date":"2016-04-10T19:06:38","date_gmt":"2016-04-10T23:06:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/phillyhistory.wpengine.com\/?p=10085"},"modified":"2016-04-10T19:12:06","modified_gmt":"2016-04-10T23:12:06","slug":"retreating-from-the-ranks-of-acquiescence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/2016\/04\/retreating-from-the-ranks-of-acquiescence\/","title":{"rendered":"Retreating from “the Ranks of Acquiescence”"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"New<\/a>
City’s New Government Shown in Diagram, February 9, 1920. Wenzel J. Hess, photographer. (PhillyHistory)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cSpasms of reform\u201d had \u201caccomplished very little \u2026 but the spark of ambitions would not be quenched,\u201d claimed William Bennett Munro<\/a>. Finally, with a new City Charter in hand, Philadelphia had tools to make \u201cheroic efforts\u201d and live down its rightfully earned “corrupt and contented<\/a>\u201d reputation. With the help of this so-called \u201cepoch-marking piece of legislation\u201d adopted late in 1919, Philadelphia was “well on the way to become one of the best-governed cities in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed?<\/p>\n

“Philadelphia Stirreth<\/a>,” as one snarky reformer put it. But first\u00a0things had to hit rock bottom.<\/p>\n

In 1907, after Philadelphians engaged in Harrisburg\u2019s Capitol building scandal dragged faith in government lower than was ever thought possible, novelist Owen Wister, who generally made a career escaping politics, cut loose. In \u201cThe Keystone Crime: Pennsylvania Graft-Cankered Capitol<\/a>,\u201d Wister blamed the Commonwealth, but pointed the finger back at the corrupt cultures of the Quaker City.<\/p>\n

\u201dThe government of Pennsylvania has been since the Civil War a monopoly, an enormous trust almost without competition\u2014like Standard Oil, but greatly inferior, because Standard Oil gives good oil, while the Pennsylvania machine gives bad government. It shield and fosters child labor; we have seen how it steals; it had given Philadelphia sewage to drink, smoke to breathe, extravagant gas, a vile street car system, and a police well-nigh contemptible. . . Well-to-do, at ease with no wish but to be left undisturbed, the traditional Philadelphians shrinks from revolt. \u2026he may rouse for a while, but it is grudgingly in his heart of hearts\u2026to…retreat back into the ranks of acquiescence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even so, Wister did sense a whiff of possibility for change. Philadelphia\u2019s \u201cspark of liberty is not quite trampled out,\u201d he wrote and held out hope that the city “may some day cease to be the dirtiest smear on the map of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, everyone was asking the same question: \u201cWhat is the matter with Philadelphia?<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Everything<\/em>, according to reformer John B. Roberts. \u201cThe cause of Philadelphia\u2019s ills is the success of its political rulers in collecting bribes, carrying elections, and controlling the occupants of legislative, executive and judicial positions. The public knows that bribes are accepted by the political captains who rule over us. It knows that elections are carried by stuffed ballot boxes, bogus voters coming from policemen\u2019s houses, repeaters travelling from one voting booth to another, and the subservience of judges. It sees that members of Council and of the Legislature, the Mayor, the City Treasurer, the Collector of Taxes, the Recorder, the Register of Wills, the District Attorney, the Judges and other officials are nominated and elected by these same active political leaders.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat more is needed, asked Roberts, \u201cto prove that the corrupt and expensive government of this town is due to the men who control affairs in City Hall?\u201d He believed \u201cthe blame for our shameful civic condition is due less to the boss, who sells franchises and special privileges, than to the Boards of Directors who buy them. \u2026 Let us “seek out, exhibit, prosecute, and put in jail the bribe givers; and it will not be long before we shall have representative councilmen and honest political leaders.\u201d<\/p>\n

That would take a deep-set commitment to reform. And it would take a new City Charter, which institutionalized many long-needed changes.<\/p>\n

The charter of 1919 \u201cgave the city a trimmer and more representative one-house City Council of twenty-one members,\u201d writes Lloyd M. Abernethy<\/a>. Abolished were the two cumbersome Select and Common Councils, a whopping 145 members in all\u2014the largest municipal body of its kind. For the first time ever, council members would be salaried as they served their four year terms. Most importantly, no councilperson could hold another political office.<\/p>\n

The charter did more: It required the city \u201cto do its own street cleaning, paving and repairing, as well as garbage and refuse collecting,\u201d a \u201cdirect attempt to eliminate the political manipulation of public service contracts\u2026\u201d Civil Service would (theoretically) blunt patronage. Police and firefighters were forbidden to engage in political activity or even to make political contributions. The charter of 1919 \u201coffered the possibilities of eliminating some of the worst features of municipal government as practiced in the past.\u201d<\/p>\n

But would it be anything<\/em> like “epoch-marking” legislation?<\/p>\n

That depended on how serious Philadelphians actually were about stirring from their sleep and returning from \u201cthe ranks of acquiescence.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cSpasms of reform\u201d had \u201caccomplished very little \u2026 but the spark of ambitions would not be quenched,\u201d claimed William Bennett Munro. Finally, with a new City Charter in hand, Philadelphia had tools to make \u201cheroic efforts\u201d and live down its rightfully earned “corrupt and contented\u201d reputation. With the help of this so-called \u201cepoch-marking piece of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10085","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10085","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10085"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10085\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10085"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10085"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.phillyhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10085"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}