upon which a strong and effective public opinion and public authority may be raised. Mexico has never enjoyed that blessing.
Local government, as a result, lacked reality and seriousness; it was not a vital part of the life of the community. Democracy was dead at the root. Town feeling became sentimental not fundamental. The most evident and often the most important work done by the local government was the furnishing of entertainments, such as band concerts and the maintenance of a municipal theater. Financial difficulties brought it about that the water supplies of the larger towns, with the exception of that of the capital, as a rule, were put in by the state governments which kept a control over the rental charges so as to be able to pay for the expenditure. In some cases the apathy of the local population toward their own interests forced the adoption of control by the larger units if certain services were to be performed in more than a farcical manner. In Jalisco, for example, the state government found itself under the necessity of administering the schools and poor relief because the local government was too weak to do so.[1] The states of
- ↑ A good criticism of Mexican local government is found in L. S. Rowe, "Notes on Municipal Government," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 21, p. 532, December, 1903. See also C. W. Dabney, "A Star of Hope for Mexico," New York, Latin American News Association (pamphlet). The reasons for the decay of the municipal government system introduced by the Spaniards and of the local government that the Indian communities had developed are outlined in T. Esquivel Obregón, Influencia de España y los Estados Unidos sobre Mexico, Madrid 1918, pp. 213-226.
