JUST WHAT IS A COUNTY?
Before our forefathers had “brought forth upon this continent a new
nation,” there was no universal standard relationship in the colonies
between the local and the general colonial or state governments. In
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, the towns had begun as
separate units; then they federated and gradually developed an organic
unity; that is, the localities produced the general government. In the
South, on the other hand, the local governments had more the semblance
of creatures of the general government designed to meet the expansion
of the earliest settlements into wide and therefore less wieldy units
for administration.
By the time of the constitution of 1789, it became possible to
standardize the division of labor of governing the continent. In
the center of the scheme were placed the states, which reserved to
themselves all the governmental power there was, except what the
constitution specifically conferred upon the federal government.
Henceforth, whatever may have been its historical origin or its
ancient traditions, every local division of government was to content
itself with such functions as were to be portioned out to it by
superior state authority. It was to have no “inherent” powers. It was
to act simply as an agency of the state, which had power at will to
enlarge or diminish the local sphere of activity or wipe it off the map
entirely.
Now the duties which state governments assumed in the early years
of the republic were as simple as necessity would allow. This was
preeminently the day of “as little government as possible.” The people
of the states covenanted with themselves, as it were, to stand guard
over life, liberty and property. It was a broad enough program, but it
was the custom in those days to interpret it narrowly--no humanitarian
activities beyond the crude attempts to deal with the more obvious
phases of poverty; no measure of correction in the modern sense; no
“public works.” As an incident in meeting these obligations, the
constitutional convention and the state legislatures met and laid
down statutes or codes of conduct affecting these elementary needs
of a civilized people. They defined the various crimes (or adopted
the definitions of the English common law); they legalized a civil
procedure. It was definitely settled that the voice of the whole people
should control in determining _what_ the state should do for its
citizens.
Then came the question of getting the means for applying these
abstract principles to daily life, of bringing to every man’s own
door the means for enforcing his rights. Had the American people
proceeded from this point along logical lines they would have cut the
administrative machinery to fit their state-wide policies. But it was
not so ordered. The officers of the _state_ had determined upon
the policies; the officers of the _localities_ were to execute the
policies. The period of the American Revolution, with its deep-seated
distrust of kingly power, was the beginning of an era of decentralized
administration which gained rather than diminished in force for as
much as two generations. For the purpose, the existing counties served
as instruments ready to hand and their status now became fixed as the
local agencies of the state government. New counties were formed from
time to time as needs arose. In each of these counties was a loose, but
more or less complete organization, which it will now be fitting to
describe.
More important perhaps than any other enforcing agent of the county, in
these still primitive days, was the sheriff, who sooner or later became
a fixture in every American colony. This most ancient officer of the
county had been perpetuated through the centuries from Saxon and Norman
times. He had inherited nearly all of the powers and prerogatives
of his historical prototype as they obtained in England during the
seventeenth century. He did not preside over a court in the county,
but he could make arrests for violation of the law, with or without a
warrant. If his task was too much for one man, he could summon to his
aid a _posse comitatus_ of private citizens. And inasmuch as he
was obliged not only to apprehend, but to hold his prisoner for trial,
it very naturally fell to him to take care of the lock-up or jail.
There had been established, beginning with Connecticut, in 1666, a
system of local courts, whose jurisdiction in most states came to
be co-extensive with the county. Around this institution centered
the official life of the county, so much so that the county capitol
is universally known as the “court house.” The sheriff from its
beginnings acted as the high servant of this court, in the disposition
of prisoners, the execution of judgments, the service of warrants of
arrest and in similar duties.
To the account of Connecticut is also to be credited the most unique,
and in many ways most important county officer of modern times. In
the development of its criminal law, England had never worked out
a system of local prosecuting officers. The colonies in the early
days had assigned the duty of representing the state’s interest to
the magistrates. But in 1704 there was authorized for each county
in Connecticut an attorney “to prosecute all criminal offenders ...
and suppress vice and immorality.” From this beginning came the
distinctively American officer who is variously known as district
attorney, prosecutor of the pleas, solicitor, or state’s attorney.
Since the business of the county court (which formerly included
administrative as well as judicial matters) was too important not to
be recorded, there was established a clerk of court whose duties are
summarized in his title. In more recent times, however, the functions
of this officer have been both expanded and limited, according to
the amount of the transactions in the county. So that, in the larger
counties each court, or sometimes a group of courts, have a clerk
whose duties are solely concerned with judicial matters, while in less
important counties the “county clerk” finds it easily possible to serve
in no less than a dozen different capacities. It is the county clerk
who ordinarily issues marriage licenses and receives for filing, real
estate deeds, mortgages and a variety of other papers.
And then, without apparent good reason, the colonists had brought
over from England the coroner. In the days of Alfred the Great this
officer had had an honorable and useful place in the realm. As a sort
of understudy of the sheriff, he took the latter’s place when he was
disabled. Meanwhile he was the King’s local representative, charged
with the duty of laying hands on everything that seemed to be without
an owner and taking possession of it in the name of the King. But
through the lapse of time, the “Crowner” had lost both dignity and
duties until there was little left except for him to take charge of
the bodies of those who had died by violence or in a suspicious manner,
seek the cause of death and locate, if possible, the person responsible
for the circumstance.
So much for the organization to administer local justice, which is the
irreducible minimum of county government. In early colonial times (and
even yet in certain states), the judges and other judicial officers had
performed important duties outside this limited field of administering
justice. But in time the processes involved in the payment of salaries
and the up-keep of a county building, created in sizable counties a
“business” problem of no mean proportions. Since in most states these
costs have been charged against the county, it has been necessary to
install appropriate machinery of fiscal administration. In every county
a board of directors, variously selected and denominated, has taken
over the management of material things. With the help of a variety of
minor administrative officers like the assessors, the treasurer and
other fiscal officers, it raises and appropriates money; it audits
claims against the county; it borrows money.
Around this judicial and administrative nucleus was built the universal
American county. In the rural sections it expanded to meet the lack of
any other local government. As an incident to the theory that the state
is responsible for at least a minimum of protection of human life, the
state government had taken upon itself the care of indigents. This duty
it usually turned over directly to the county. The county authorities
have also had control (often exclusively so) of rural roads and bridges.
In the performance of these various functions the American people seem
to have thought it quite unnecessary for the county to be supplied
with the proper apparatus for doing its own policy making. Or, to look
at the matter from the other side, they deemed it quite appropriate
that the policy-making part of the state government, which is the
legislature, should not control the hands and feet, which in matters of
local concern consist of the county officials. Elaborate general laws
were enacted to prescribe in minute detail the daily round of routine
of each officer. Why should he or why should the people think? It was
not the purpose of the state that they should. And without thinking,
there could be no differences of opinion; without differences of
opinion, no “issues”; without issues, no real politics.