Legacies: A History Journal for Dallas and North Central Texas, Volume 12, Number 2, Fall, 2000 Page: 14
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Legacies: a History Journal for Dallas and North Central Texas and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Dallas Historical Society.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
proposed changes, the editorial stated that the
revised charter would curtail the power of the
council and expand the role of the mayor. While
these changes pleased The News, the loss of home
rule inherent in the appointive commission
seemed very radical. The editors worried about
the definition of the new board of commissioners.
If they became defined as state officials,
the loss of control loomed more significantly
than if they served as city officials. However, in
the minds of many businessmen advocating the
changes, the new efficiency eclipsed the concern
over state interference.15
I n 1899, resistance to the charter changes
appeared in the council meetings and in the
community. Alderman Leo Wolfson introduced
a resolution stating that the vast majority of
"citizens and property tax payers" opposed the
radical amendments. The resolution asked the
Texas Legislature to defeat all the changes. Other
aldermen bitterly denounced the charges that the
city council of Dallas was corrupt. Public meetings
of those alarmed by the new charter also took
place. In particular, the working-class meetings
attracted a cross section of Dallas citizens. In fact,
the gatherings proved so diverse that some felt
driven to explain in The Dallas Morning News that
the presence of African-American men at the
meetings did not reflect poorly on the orderliness
and reasonableness of the meeting or the protests.
The battle against the charter revisions continued
as the Texas Legislature deliberated the new
charter. The fighting became especially fierce in
the Texas Senate when the charter revisions came
before it. Charter advocates fretted that no compromise
seemed possible in the bitter fight.16
Despite their concern, the bill finally passed
the Texas Legislature on April 25, I899 and went
into effect on August 26. As finally passed, a
board composed of two commissioners appointed
by the governor and chaired by the mayor wielded
authority over all public improvements costing
more than $500, let contracts of all franchises, and
approved any improvements or franchises beforethe council could take any action at all. Aldermen
continued to be elected at ward level, but four new
aldermanic districts were added, with these representatives
elected at-large. The board of commissioners
met once every two weeks, separately from
the council, to make its decisions. The mayor presented
its findings to the council.17
Friction between the council and the new
commission developed quickly. In addition,
relations between the council and the mayor
deteriorated dramatically. Dallas's appointive
commission and the new aldermen also drove
deep divisions in the city council, causing more
animosity instead of the efficiency and consensus
hoped for. Debates even over minor expenditures
often degenerated into petty squabbles. In 1903, a
long-running dispute broke out between the
council and the commission over the purchase of
a new fire hose. Beginning in January, the bickering
over the purchase continued into April,
with both sides attempting to control the purchase
price and quality of the hose. The issue
became an opportunity for the council to exercise
what little muscle it possessed in relation to the
commission by refusing to accept bids for the
hose and constantly issuing objections to the bids
the commission wanted to accept.18
Commission oversight of the police and fire
departments also exacerbated relations between
the council and officials when council members
found they could not control or prevent perceived
abuses within these departments. In 1906 Walker
Edwards, alderman from the Second Ward,
reported that Chief of Police Benjamin Brandenburg
and Police Commissioner H. O. Samuell
had established a reservation for prostitutes in his
ward. This reservation had appeared without
consultation with the council or any neighborhood
leaders. Edwards declared that the presence
of such a reservation for "these dregs of society"
would drive down property values in the
working-class neighborhoods of his constituents.
He demanded to know where the Chief of Police
gained the authority to destroy the property
rights of citizens without consulting their representative.19I4
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Dallas Historical Society. Legacies: A History Journal for Dallas and North Central Texas, Volume 12, Number 2, Fall, 2000, periodical, 2000; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth35101/m1/16/: accessed May 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Dallas Historical Society.