Government

For the first few years of its existence the little settlement called the terminus was governed by no law other than the common law of the State, and only a rough frontier order prevailed among the pioneer settlers and railroad builders. A local government was established on December 23, 1843, when by legislative enactment the settlement was incorporated as the town of Marthasville and five commissioners were appointed to administer civic affairs. The charter conferred full corporate jurisdiction on the commission, which was to be elected annually by the qualified voters, but this body proved ineffectual because responsibility was divided and no means were provided for enforcing ordinances. The duties of peace officer probably were shifted from one commissioner to another as convenience dictated, for there is no mention of a marshal at this time. The commissioners were reminded emphatically from time to time by the few property owners of the settlement that they did not want any additional taxes imposed.

In 1847 the city of Atlanta was incorporated under a document which, although called an incorporating act amendatory to that of 1843, was in effect a new charter. This act changed the very character of the town's government from a commission form to a mayor and council type. From its inception until 1874, when a revised charter was adopted, the act of 1847 was greatly altered by the addition of 29 amendments, but the changes made did not alter the basic form of government under which Atlanta now operates—that of mayor and council.

The mayor and council were given authority to pass ordinances within constitutional limitations, levy and collect taxes, and impose fines for violation of ordinances. They were also empowered to elect a clerk, treasurer, marshal, and tax collector, and fix their duties and bonds. The salaries were small—only $20 annually for each of the six councilmen and $200 for the mayor. The mayor was given no strictly exclusive powers except the appointment of standing committees, which had no administrative authority and could only present recommendations to council. The mayor had the deciding vote in the event of a tie at council meetings but no veto power. All the specific duties assigned to him could be performed by a councilman or group of councilmen in his absence.

Early judiciary functions were simple. As there was no charter provision for the trial of State offenses committed within the city, the mayor and council in their individual capacities were made ministerial officers of the State in so far as they were empowered to issue warrants against criminal offenders and imprison them in the town, jail until they could be tried in a State court. The only city tribunal was the mayor's court, which had jurisdiction over civic matters only. In 1856 a city court was established but it was abolished the following year, and the mayor's court continued to function until 1871, when a recorder's court was established to handle violations of city ordinances and a city court was set up with jurisdiction over civil and misdemeanor cases.

The charter of 1847 recognized the need for a stricter enforcement of law and specifically provided that "The marshal shall have full power and authority to call to his aid any and all of the white male citizens of said city capable of bearing arms. Three years later this provision had to be invoked to quell a riot by a lawless gang that had threatened the peace of the community for several years. In 1852 a supplementary peace force, known as the patrol, was organized. The city was divided into three districts, and in each of these a patrol captain and three patrolmen appointed by the mayor and council operated in 30-day shifts, apparently without remuneration. In 1853 a night force consisting of a chief and two assistants was installed and equipped with "dark lantern and rabble," the rabble apparently being a kind of riot stick. Added to their other duties was that of a fire watchman, and they were instructed to give the alarm when a fire broke out by rushing to the nearest engine house and ringing the bell. Temporary additions to the force were made from time to time, but crime control in these early days depended largely upon the leading citizens who were deputized by the marshal when an emergency arose. In 1858 the police force was removed from the general supervision of the mayor and council and put under the direct administration of a police committee of council, a step that was to lead finally to the organization of a distinct police department.

A volunteer fire company was organized in 1854, and later other companies were incorporated, but they worked independently until 1860. At that time representatives of the various companies met and elected a chief and two assistants to co-ordinate and direct the work of the several companies. During the War between the States the fire companies not only protected the city from the ravages of fire but also served as home militia companies, known as the fire brigade. So efficiently did the volunteer companies serve the city that it was not until 1882 that the charter was amended to provide for a paid fire department under the supervision of a board of firemasters.

Executive powers were broadened as the prosperous 1850's brought a firmer sense of financial security. An unwise provision of 1860 permitted the mayor and council to subscribe stock in private corporations at their discretion, and, confident of railroad development as a means of creating wealth, the city government subscribed $600,000 to the capital stock of two railroads seeking to enter the city. At the same time most of a $47,000 bond was outstanding. Then the orderly process of civic development was disrupted by war. When Atlanta was placed under martial law in 1862, the mayor was appointed civil governor of the city and the police force was organized into a military company. Heavy expenditures for defense and a greatly reduced tax income had already undermined the city's credit before the defeat of the Confederate States brought complete collapse to the treasury. The city was forced to borrow money where it could and, in desperation, even issued two-year scrip and bonds in order to meet current expenses, notwithstanding the highest tax rate (2 per cent) in Atlanta's history.

By 1869, through the efforts of a wise finance committee, who assumed personal responsibility for losses, the city had partly recovered, but the rapid growth in population following the war made the need for improvements and the expansion of services urgent. This meant an increase from year to year in the bonded indebtedness and floating debt until they exceeded the limit imposed by State law. During the panic of 1873-75 the balance in the treasury was insufficient to meet the interest due on the city's debts, and more loans had to be negotiated. When the unsound character of such financing caused interest rates to reach a peak of 18 per cent on small loans, civic leaders were finally stirred to action, which resulted in the adoption of a new charter.

The charter of 1874 embodied a much stronger definition of powers, although it preserved the fundamental structure of the city government. Probably the most important change was the reorganization of council itself into a bicameral body; in addition to the two councilmen elected from each of the city wards, three aldermen were elected from the city at large. The term of aldermanic service was fixed at three years, only one alderman being elected each year. The alderman serving his last year acted as mayor pro tem and as presiding officer of the general council. The bicameral council was created principally to safeguard the treasury by having the two bodies act as a check upon one another when voting upon ordinances concerning municipal finance. In all questions of increased indebtedness for the city or the expenditure of revenue, the two bodies acted separately; on all other resolutions or ordinances they acted together.

The new charter made the mayor a real factor in city government by conferring on him the right of veto and revision. For the first time he was made responsible not only for the execution of all city laws but charged with the duty of revising such ordinances as authorized expenditure beyond a certain fixed amount and of auditing all accounts against the city before payment was made. In this prerogative the mayor's office became distinctly administrative, and the tendency in all subsequent legislation has been to broaden his responsibilities.

By 1874 the population of Atlanta had grown to approximately 35jOOO, and consequently the administration of the city's affairs was becoming increasingly complicated. The charter further recognized the need for diffusing the executive power by establishing two distinct boards, a board of water commissioners and a board of commissioners of police, and vesting them with the supervisory powers later given to all city departments. This distribution of work through boards or departments did not decentralize responsibility, however, for the mayor and council retained disciplinary control over all departmental personnel through the power of dismissal for cause, whether the officers were elected by the people or appointed by the mayor and council.

The charter of 1874 also imposed strict legal limitations on the expenditure of municipal funds and on incurring indebtedness. It prohibited the mayor and council from issuing bonds in any amount without first submitting the issue to a vote of the people, restricted all expenditures to the annual income, and permitted borrowing only to meet payments due on the floating debt. By careful management and a slight increase in the tax rate the city government was able to supply the funds needed for current expenses and at the same time reduce the floating debt. By 1877, the year that the new State constitution limited bond issues by municipalities to 7 per cent of their taxable property, the city's credit had been restored and the interest rate on loans had dropped to 7 per cent. Further efforts to assure the city's financial stability resulted in an amendment in 1879 to provide a sinking fund adequate to meet the interest on outstanding bonds and floating indebtedness. So far had public sentiment swung in the direction of retrenchment that in 1884 the charter was again amended to prohibit the mayor and council from contracting any loans whatsoever, but the impracticability of this measure was soon apparent, and the amendment was repealed in 1887. While executive borrowing power was still limited by legal controls, it was made flexible enough to be adjusted to current tax values and civic emergencies. Two years laterthe office of comptroller was created to act as the city accounting department.

The Board of Commissioners of Police created by the new charter was composed of five men, none of whom was a member of council. Unlike the old police committee, which was supervisory, this body was vested with full administrative power to direct and control the police department. All appointments to the force, including the chief of police, and all suspensions and removals were in its hands, and its decisions were final. Also conferred on the board was the power to summon witnesses and records and to punish for refusal to testify or produce records.

This system proved satisfactory, and under it many improvements were inaugurated despite the handicap of inadequate finances. Patrol wagons were introduced in 1886 and telephone service was installed in 1891. A strong effort to sever the department from politics was made in 1905 when the fixed term of police employment was abolished and a tenure system established. A pension system was adopted in 1910.

Revisions were made from time to time. In 1900 the mayor was made ex officio member of the police board, and in 1904 the chairman of the police committee of council was added, but the most extensive changes were made in 1913, when the name of the board was changed to the Board of Public Safety and the city fire department was also put under its direction. The chief of police was granted the privilege of nominating all his officers and men, subject to approval of the board, but this led to repeated charges of favoritism. Finally, in 1922, the Board of Public Safety was abolished, and authority was divided between the head of the department and the police committee of council.

The Criminal Court of Atlanta was created by the Georgia Legislature on September 6, 1891, and took over all the criminal work of the city court, leaving to the latter its civil jurisdiction. The judge was appointed by the governor until an amendment in 1898 made both the offices of judge and solicitor elective by the qualified voters. The territorial jurisdiction of this court was broadened in 1935, when it became the Criminal Court of Fulton County.

From 1874 until 1913 about 60 amendments were added to the charter of Atlanta. Although some of these amendments were discarded after they had served their purpose, enough were retained to make the charter such a patchwork that it was sometimes difficult to determine what the law actually was. In 1911 a new charter was proposed, providing for a commission type of government, but it was rejected by the voters as constituting too radical a change in the form of administration. The charter of 1913 really a sweeping revision of the old charter, made no striking departure from traditional form but introduced numerous specific changes.

There was some reaction from departmentalization in the amendment of 1922 which abolished the boards of police, health, waterworks, and parks and transferred their authority to the committees of general council corresponding to these boards. On the whole, this change was not an improvement, especially in regard to the police department. There was a noticeable retrogression in police service, a trend that continued until late in the 1930's when decided improvements were made through the determined efforts of the administration.

Atlanta still retains the sound financial policies adopted in 1874, although some changes in operation have been made. In 1933 a budget commission was established, which is composed of the mayor, comptroller, chairman of the finance committee, and two other members of the general council elected by that body. The city has no floating debt and its bonded indebtedness is 3.9 per cent of its assessed ad valorem tax values, slightly in excess of one-half of that allowed by the general law of the State, In 1940 the sinking fund amounted to $824,450.22, and the treasury carried a cash balance of $750,ooo. Twenty-year serial bonds sold in 1939 at 2 1/8 P^er cent interest, while $500,000 in short-term paper was secured at the very low interest rate of 1 per cent.

Several changes have been made in the courts in the Atlanta area during recent years. In 1935 the old city court that was established in 1871 was abolished and all its pending business transferred to the Superior Court of Fulton County. Effective on April 1, 1939, the two divisions of the municipal court were changed in name to the Civil Court of Fulton County and the Civil Court of DeKalb County.

Except for the early lamp-lighting days, Atlanta has never owned its lighting system, although it was a considerable stockholder in the first gas lighting company, which was organized in 1855. But, since the days of the street wells as a source of water supply, the city has retained complete ownership of the water system. The present system has a daily capacity of 40,000,000 gallons and a maximum capacity of 55,000,000 gallons, a supply sufficient to furnish a city much larger than Atlanta.

The laws governing the city are set forth in a code which includes the charter and a large number of ordinances, as well as many statutes. No compilation of the code has been made since 1924, but a supplement was published in 1936. Atlanta still derives its corporate powers from the charter of 1847, although the changes effected in 1874 and again in 1913 were so broad that the revised documents are referred to as new charters.

As the city expanded, new wards were added until the number reached 13 in 1929) with two councilmen and one alderman for each ward. In 1935, however, the number of wards was reduced by law to 6, and consequently only 12 councilmen and 6 aldermen now compose the general council. The mayor, who is elected for a term of 4 years, appoints from council the committees that supervise the business of the city government. This power of appointment and the veto constitute the mayor's main source of influence despite the fact that he is nominally the chief executive and a voting member of all committees. Consequently, the committee system gives Atlanta a highly decentralized type of government.

The Governments of Atlanta and Fulton County, prepared by T.H. Reed and published by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce in 1938 presents a complete survey of the city's government and makes recommendations for changes, particularly with reference to centralizing authority and combining the functions of many city and county departments. The reactions of the citizens to these recommendations are somewhat divided, and few major changes have yet been made as a result of the report.

Contents