The New York City Municipal Library, founded during the Progressive Era to provide policymakers with data and information on best practices in other jurisdictions, holds 388,957 volumes and 38,913 online publications. The collection of the City’s charters and analyses of those tomes are among the largest collections in the Library.

In recent times, New Yorkers have become accustomed to the appointment of charter revision commissions on an almost annual basis. According to a 1962 article in the Municipal Reference Library Notes by then-librarian Eugene Bockman, this is not unusual. Between 1898 and 1934 there were at least ten charter-revision commissions that examined and proposed a variety of changes in how the city operated.

This month’s edition of Library Notes included a brief bit about the reprint of the oldest charter in the Library which was issued by English Lieutenant Governor Dongan in 1686. No less an eminence than David T. Valentine, of the famed Valentine Manuals, annotated the volume which also contained the 1830 and 1849 charter amendments. In his “Notes and Illustrations” he offered a commentary on the 1657 charter granted by the Dutch government. “The most striking part of it was, the division of the inhabitants into “great and small citizens.” The former included the members of the government, and their descendants in the male line, ministers of the gospel, &C. The latter, all who “resided within the city during a year and six weeks, and kept their fire and lights.”

Valentine further noted that the Dongan charter was unusual because it was granted at the same time King James Second was reducing “all chartered rights and privileges throughout the king’s dominions. While Governor Dongan was granting liberal charters to New York and Albany, and a free constitution to the province, his master was waging war upon the New England charters.” Valentine attributed this to the integrity and moderation of Dongan and the King’s fondness for the colony of New York.

Perhaps the most famous City charter is that of 1897 (effective January 1, 1898) which created the greater City of New York by consolidating 40 former towns and cities into one municipality. Given the difficulty of defining the 300 square miles and innumerable local governments to be incorporated, the State Legislature used broad phrasing to “unite into one municipality under the corporate name of The City of New York, the various communities lying in and about New York harbor, including the city and county of New York, the city of Brooklyn and the county of Kings, the county of Richmond and part of the county of Queens, and to provide for the government thereof.”

The 1898 charter originated the office of Borough President, established a two-house legislative body and a strong office of the mayor. Amended to reduce mayoral powers in 1901, it remained largely intact until the 1930s. In addition to the shelves and shelves of City charters, the vertical files contain several folders dealing with charter revisions over the years.  A particularly interesting set of folders deal with charter revision in the 1930s. From all accounts, this may have been the most dramatic of all. There was a long lead time, investigations, murders, multiple commissions, shenanigans, litigation, and eventually seven competing charter proposals.

In 1931 the State Legislature established a joint committee to investigate corruption in the City’s magistrate courts. Headed by State Senator Samuel Hofstadter, the committee counsel was former judge Samuel Seabury who conducted the investigation into the courts, sheriffs and Tammany Hall. The investigation documented bribery schemes, the sale of judicial seats, a shakedown of women who were faced with paying off police officers, court officers and judges or being sentenced to jail for unfounded prostitution. A woman scheduled to provide testimony was murdered in the Bronx. And, Judge Crater, also scheduled to testify, disappeared, never to be heard from again.

Most famously, the Seabury investigation led to the resignation of popular Mayor James Walker in 1932. Using Seabury’s documentation, Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt conducted a hearing at which Mayor Walker blustered and dodged. Seeing how things were going, he resigned before the Governor removed him from office.

The two years of revelations sparked an interest in restructuring City government to improve accountability and reduce corruption. In late 1932, proposals were submitted to the State Legislature. The February 1933 issue of Library Notes reported there were seven complete proposals to reorganize government and another handful of singular proposals. Proposals came from former Governor Alfred E. Smith, Former Acting Mayor Joseph McKee, Judge Samuel Seabury, the Joint Legislative Committee, a minority proposal from that same committee, Mayor O’Brien and Queens Borough President George Harvey. Not included in the tally was a proposal from Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, which, the New York World Telegram reported, included the unique proposal to establish a free port on Staten Island for the importation of duty-free goods and “assigning” Staten Island to New Jersey if the free port was not authorized.

Advocates noted that the sweeping charter revisions would “clean up” city government. While that alluded to increased transparency and separation of duties, it also referred to the existing 2,297-page Charter. The 1897 Charter created a new governmental structure. It also retained all of the rules and requirements form the pre-existing governments. Weighing in at a hefty eleven pounds, there was a good deal of redundancy and obsolete requirements including a prohibition that hotels could not lodge farm animals such as pigs and goats. In 1933, the Merchant’s Association of New York described it as a most complicated document, the result of previous revisions, many piecemeal amendments and the incrustation of a generation of interpretations by the courts and corporation counsels.” They reported that there were approximately 100 departments, commissions and bureaus exclusive of the courts.

The City branch of the League of Women Voters put together a six-page chart, which sold for ten cents, listing the differences among the key proposals. One feature shared among several of the proposals was to remove from the Comptroller responsibilities for collecting taxes and handling other financial transactions and provide him with all auditing functions and review of fiscal policies. Tax collection would be undertaken by a Finance Department.

All proposals recommended reducing the number of governing boards—eliminating the Board of Estimate and creating either a bicameral or unicameral legislature of various sizes. Two proposals—Smith and Seabury—recommended that the borough presidency be eliminated and that representatives from the boroughs should be elected to serve in the council. Additionally, all supported reducing the size of the Board of Aldermen which consisted of 65 elected members and the borough presidents.

How to reconcile these competing ideas?  In 1934, the Legislature created a Charter Revision Commission consisting of 28 members headed by Al Smith and including Samuel Seabury and prominent socialist Norman Thomas. Things took a turn, however, when in early August six members including Seabury and Smith resigned from the commission, throwing charter change into chaos. Some argued that the commission’s work be put up for a vote. Others argued to disband the commission and start again.

In a message to the State Legislature, Governor Herbert Lehman recommended the latter course.  As reported by the New York Times, Lehman distanced himself from the commission, noted the lack of confidence New Yorkers now felt and cited his support for change. “I have fought for the reorganization of municipal government with in the City of New York. I have fought for the reorganization of county government within the city. I am convinced that the City of New York needs a form of government more up-to-date in structure, more businesslike, more efficient and more economical than that existing today.  I believe the citizens of the city are entitled to it. Public interest in charter revision is aroused.” Lehman recommended that the Legislature disband the commission and authorize Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia to appoint another.

That’s what happened. The Legislature terminated the Commission and authorized Mayor LaGuardia to appoint a new commission consisting of nine members. The Commission conducted public hearings, reviewed existing proposals and conducted additional research.

Their eventual proposals preserved the existing structure of government, retaining the Board of Estimate, reducing the size of the legislative body from 65 to 32 and renaming it the City Council, establishing a city planning commission and reducing duplicative agencies. The Commission also separated miscellaneous legal requirements from the Charter and set up a committee to put together the Administrative Code. In addition, the commission proposed a separate question to establish a system of proportional representation for electing councilmembers.

But, the saga was not over. A Brooklyn trucking contractor filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Commission. The initial ruling favored his view. The Court of Appeals, though, upheld the legality of the Commission and the vote was on!

Opposed by the county political machines, both charter questions were passed by the electorate in 1936.