1  A   X '  aIf


JS
ILk   -.
L Itp  ')  n h  i




ARTFS~,:\a  Ci'L'IVTIAI~ k~j
qlRSITAvS~
R15-PRS~ENIN5ULAM. E~_
Ea                     E:.T r



i5
3
\ ><0


I
-1












I




IN THE MATTER OF THE HEARING
IN RELATION TO
"THE GREATER NEW YORK,"
HELD BEFORE THE
Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on the
Affairs of Cities.


I               I
/     /  ',.1    I   '


-7-.        -


*;     I " 5 I


TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE FEBRUARY 25, 1896.
WYNKOOP HALLENBECK CRAWFORD CO.,
STATE PRINTERS,
ALBANY AND NEW YORK.
1896.


i








STATE OF NEW YORK.
No. 44.
IN SENATE,
FEBRUARY 25, 1896.
MATTER OF THE HEARING
IN RELATION TO
"THE    GREATER     NEW   YORK," HELD       BEFORE    THE
SUB-COMMIITTEE      OF  THE JOINT     COMMITTEE      ON
THE AFFAIRS OF CITIES.
The subcommittee appointed by the joint committee on the
affairs of cities of Senate and Assembly by virtue of concurrent
resolution, as follows:
WHEREAS, Under and by virtue of chapter 311 of the Laws of
1890, a commission was created, known as the "Municipal Consolidation Commission," to inquire into the expediency of consolidating into one municipality the various municipal corporations and parts of municipal corporations contiguous to the port
of New York, said commission, after inquiry and examination,
did, by memorial to the Governor and the Legislature of the State,
report in favor of consolidation; and,
WHEREAS, Pursuant to such report an act was thereupon
passed, being chapter 64 of the Laws of 1894, entitled " An act providing for the submission of the question of consolidation of the
city of New York with certain territory under a single municipal
administration to the vote of the people." Such question of con



4


[S ENATE,


solidation was submitted to the vote of the fully qualified electors
of the territory embraced within the limits of the proposed
greater city, and a majority in each locality voted in favor of
consolidation, the aggregate of such majority being 44,464; and,
WHEREAS, A bill was thereupon introduced in the Legislature
of 1894 designed to carry into effect said popular vote by providing for a commission to prepare a charter and laws for the
government as one municipality of the territory embraced within
the limits of the proposed greater city, but said bill failed of
passage; and,
WHEREAS, The said nmunicipal consolidation commission, by
reason of the premises, being unable to present to this Legislature
any adequate kind of government for said proposed greater city
in form to enable this Legislature intelligently to consider and
determine the important question involved; and,
WHEREAS, A just and considerate treatment of the questions
connected with and arising from the creation of the greater
city, and the consolidation of the various local governments into
one municipality, is of vital consequence to the people, not alone
of the territories immediately affected, but of the whole State,
and concerns so deeply the moral and material interests, the wellbeing, security and convenience of more than three millions, and
the principles of government and administration to be applied,
require deliberation and care commensurate with the complexity
and magnitude of the undertaking, and should suggest a practical
solution of many of the problems of municipal government and
administration, and afford relief from evils now existing, and a
full, fair and deliberate consideration of the whole subject is
deemed adyisable and expedient; therefore,
Resolved (if the Assembly concur), That the committee on the
affairs of cities of the Senate and the committee on the affairs of
cities of the Assembly be and they are hereby appointed a joint
committee of this Legislature, and are authorized and empowered fully and diligently to investigate and inquire into all and
singular the matters set forth and related to the questions hereinbefore mentioned, with full power and authority to prosecute




No. 44.]


their inquiries in any and all directions in their judgment necessary and expedient to enable them to obtain and report the
information required by these resolutions;
Resolved, further, and for the purposes aforesaid, That said
committee may employ a stenographer, and one or more counsel,
and such other assistants as may be necessary, and may send
for persons, books, records and papers, call and subpoena witnesses and administer oaths;
Resolved, further, That said committee be authorized and
empowered to appoint a subcommittee, consisting of four Senators and five Members of Assembly, which subcommittee (when
appointed) shall have the same power and authority hereunder
in all respects as are possessed by said joint committee, and
whose duty it shall be to proceed with the inquiry and investigation into the matters aforesaid with all reasonable diligence;
and to that end, full power and authority are hereby conferred
upon such subcommittee (when appointed) to perform and exercise all and singular the functions and duties of said joint committee; to send for persons, books, records and papers; call or
subpoena witnesses and administer oaths, with the same force
and effect to all intents and purposes as though done by said
joint committee and for the convenience of the public, and, in
order to secure as full and complete an inquiry as may be practicable, to hold sessions in the city of New York, Brooklyn and
Albany;
Resolved, further, and for the purposes aforesaid, That satid
joint committee and said subcommittee thereof (when appointed)
be and they hereby are authorized and empowered to; call to
their aid and assistance in an advisory capacity the president
and associate members of the municipal consolidation commission hereinbefore referred to, and also the Attorney-General of
the State and the corporation counsel of the cities of New York,
Brooklyn and Long Island City to aid and facilitate the acquisition of the information required by these resolutions and the
report of said committee;
Resolved, further, That said committee shall make a preliminary




6


[SENATE,


report as soon as practicable and not later than the 1st day of
March, 1896, to the end that proper legislation may be enacted
in the premises.
Hereby make the following report of the proceedings had before
it and the conclusions reached thereon:
In conformity with the permission expressed in said resolutions, it was decided to hold public meetings in the cities of New
York, Brooklyn and Albany, in order to give the citizens abundant opportunity to make their views and opinions known to the
Legislature through the medium of this committee.
In order that the situation may be fully understood, it will be
useful to call attention to the history of the movement, which culminated in the consolidation legislation, which is the subject-matter of inquiry. It is conceded that for almost half a century a
well defined movement toward the unification of the populations
at the mouth of the Hudson into one municipality had been in
operation. This movement existed at the time of the creation of
the city of Brooklyn.
Even then large bodies of people residing on both sides of the
river appreciated the logic of the situation, and realized the importance from every point of view, material, moral and govern-.
mental, of union between those enjoying closely related privileges,
in order that one should not compete with the other, but rather act
together, in working out their manifest destiny. At that early
day opposition was made to. a divided municipal existence and a
segregation of commercial advantages. The movement then
initiated waned at times, and at others pressed( itself into the fore
front, until in 1890 its culmination was reached by the appointment of a commission known as the " Consolidation Inquiry Commission " pursuant to chapter 311 of the Laws of 1890.
This commission was the creature of the Legislature of this
State, the result of many years of agitation of tlie consolidation
question, and was the first step taken by the Legislature, looking
to the erection of the greater municipality. Reference to that act
indicates the purpose of the LIegislature as then exprelssed distinctly in favor of the general l)rincil)le of consolidation, leaving




No. 44.]


7


it to the commission, provided under that act to dilimit the boundaries of the proposed greater city, and suggest legislation for the
attainment of the proposed result. From the time of the passage
of that act until the passage of the so-called referendum of 1894,
(chapter 64, of the Laws of 1894) municipal consolidation became
one of the burning questions of the hour. The commission during
that period were pursuing its inquiry, the public prints were discussing the questions involved, and through their medium the
people were kept informed of the progress of events. It was at
this time, in the fall of 1893, and the early spring of 1894, that concerted action against consolidation assumed palpable form, and
in order that, upon a subject of such stupenduous magnitude, due
consideration should be had of the sentiments of each one of the
localities affected and that violence should be done to the sentiments of none, the commission proposed a reference of the subject
to popular vote, and memoralized the Legislature accordingly.
This resulted in the passage of chapter 64 of the Laws of 1894,
providing for a popular vote on the question of consolidation, at
the next ensuing November election. It is proper to remark here,
that organized opposition to consolidation had by this time assumed so aggressive a shape, that even this act referring the matter to a vote of the people was strenuously resisted, especially in
the Senate, where an abortive attempt was made to create hostility to the bill, by the insertion of an amendment providing for
immediate, equal, and uniform taxation and valuation for the purposes of taxation.
This recital is important in the subsequent consideration of the
effect to be given to the vote of 1894, because it is conceded that
the question of equal taxation is one lying so close to the hearts
of the people of Brooklyn, that even the most pronounced opponents of consolidation admit the existence of an overwhelming
sentiment in favor of municipal unification, provided equal taxation is unqualifiedly guaranteed. And the attitude of the Legislature in refusing to embody an equal taxation provision in the
referendum bill of 1894. was turned to good account by the anticonsolidationists8 as indicating legislative hostility to equal taxa



8


[SENATE,


tion, but even this did not deter the people of Brooklyn from
rolling up a majority in favor of consolidation, pure and simple.
It points, moreover, the conclusion that consolidation was an
exceedingly live issue before the people, and that Broolklyn and
her representatives in the Legislature were fully aroused to the
importance of the questions involved.
It was under the mandate of this act of 1894 that the people
of the various localities cast the referendum vote, which so far as
relates to Brooklyn, has been so persistently criticised and the
binding effect of which has been so ably repudiated by some, and
as ably championed by others of the most eloquent and representative citizens of Brooklyn.
We come, therefore, to the consideration of that vote and what
it signifies to this Legislature.
The proposition is presented by three bills now in committee,
embodying three different views of the subject:
First. The bill prepared by the consolidation inquiry commission, which gives effect to the popular vote of 1894 by ordaining
consolidation to take effect on the first day of January, 1898, provides for the continuance of all existing local governments until
changed by future legislative action, and for an appropriation to
enable the commission to prepare and submit to the Legislature
necessary legislation with the specific direction to prepare a plan
for the attainment of equal taxation and valuation.
Second. The resubmission bill, which substantially provides
for a new vote on the question of consolidation.
Third. The referendum bill, which substantially provides for an
epitome of the proposed charter of the greater city, to be prepared and submitted to popular vote, and makes its adoption a
prerequisite to consolidation.
The result of the investigation indicates that those of the people
of Brooklyn who manifest a public interest in this question are
not divided merely into consolidationists and anti-consolidationists; but rather into three groups, of which the consolidationists,
and the anti-consolidationists are the two extremes; while those
who stand for a referendum of the proposed charter occupy a




No. 44.]


9


middle position.  The great majority of the latter seem to desire
consolidation sincerely, but for one reason or another, wish to be
informed of the terms and conditions upon which consolidation
shall take place, before consenting to the final step.  This classification is important.
It appears that the resubmissionists insist upon another opportunity to vote, in order to defeat consolidation, while the referendists desire to secure another vote, not for the purpose of
defeating consolidation, but of securing those terms and conditions which they deem important; and that for all purposes of the
main inquiry consolidationists and referendists may be grouped
together opposed only by the resubmissionists, pure and simple.
If this is conceded, and it is difficult to see how this proposition may be successfully disputed, then the opposition to consolidation in the city of Brooklyn is confined to comparatively few,
who, for a variety of reasons, personal and sentimental, prefer the
maintenance of existing conditions.
It would be strange indeed, if any change however beneficial.
should meet with no opposition.
Conservatism is a predominant characteristic of some, and
others from time immemorial have opposed every advance along
the lines of progress.
The situation here considered is no exception to the rule.
Opposition was encountered to the building of the Brooklyn
bridge, which has added so enormously to the population of
Brooklyn and has so prodiguously increased her private and
public wealth.
The water supply was introduced only as the result of most
determined and public spirited effort, while her public park system, which was successfully carried through by the efforts of the
vice-president of the Consolidation Inquiry Commission, Hon. J.
S. T. Stranahan, met with most persistent and embittered opposition.  The elevated railroad and trolley system, the extension
of boundary lines, all these incidents in Brooklyn's march to the
front, point as many mile stones in the contest of progress against
[Senate, No. 44.]      2






10


[SENATE,


that conservatism, which, while well meaning and disinterested,
is reactionary and retarding.
It is claimed that very many of those who desire resubmission
were found in the front rank of the battle against the improvements just enumerated; and such statement publicly made has
not been denied.
While the terms of the concurrent resolution did not directly
empower the committee to consider any question connected with
the popular vote of 1894, it was unanimously decided in consideration of the magnitude of the question presented, to permit full
scope of inquiry and debate. allowing the widest latitude in the
treatment of the entire subject; and in order to completely cover
any and all objections that had been urged, the opponents of consolidation were permitted to, question the result of the popular
vote of 1894, and show any reason why it might be ignored by
this Legislature.
The resubmissionists relied upon the following propositions:
First. That the question of consolidation in 1894 was not understood by the people. That it was lost in the consideration of many
other questions then before the people.
Second. That the vote of 1894 was based upon alleged misrepresentation as to effect, and as to the conditions under which
it was given.
Third. That the majority in favor of consolidation in 1894, was
too insignificant to be deemed binding or authoritative.
Fourth. That the vote of 1894 was not determinative of any
question, but was at best a mere expression of the then prevailing
opinion and that its force was spent with the failure of the Legislature of 1895 to act upon it.
Fifth. That the sentiment of Brooklyn has underg:one a radical
change, and was now opposed to consolidation.
Sixth. That municipal government was a failure on the whole,
that consolidation would lead to larger perplexities, and that
until the problems of municipal government had been solved,
larger concentrations of populations should be avoided.
Seventh. That if resubmission could not be secured in any




No. 44.]


11


event, a referendum of the terms and conditions should be first
had.
Enough has been said in the recital of the history of the
greater New York movement to indicate that the position
assumed by the resubmissionists is untenable; and the nearer we
approach the day when the vote was actually cast, the more
clearly does this become apparent. The failure of the Legislature
in the spring of 1894 to insert the equal taxation clause into the
bill providing for referendum, at the following election thoroughly
disheartened consolidationists. Those opposed to consolidation
insisted that this was declaratory of legislative opposition to equal
taxation. Many of the most pronounced advocates of consolidation became either neutral or openly hostile, while with one exception every newspaper in the city of Brooklyn opposed consolidation.
The most important local organ of public opinion contained
strong assaults upon the proposition, both by word and picture,
contending for many days before election that it was the burning
question of the hour upon the lip of every citizen, everywhere
throughout the city. Enough will be found spread upon the
record to indicate beyond peradventure the accuracy of the statement of those who appeared before the committee, and insisted
that of all questions that of consolidation occupied the most prominent position in the Brooklyn mind, that for years before it had
been agitated, and for weeks before the November election it was
the one all important, and much discussed public subject. And
that consolidation was successful in spite of the opposition of a
united press, in spite of the untoward conditions under which it
was presented, in spite of the ammunition furnished its opponents
by reason of legislative refusal to insert an equal taxation clause,
and in spite of the aggressive opposition of those, either sentimentally or materially interested in its defeat, is a remarkable evidence of the independence of the citizen, which has no parallel in
the history of the State.
A consideration of the vote cast emphasizes this conclusion. At
the same election the revised constitution, the legislative appor





12


[SENATE,


tionment provision, the canal appropriations, and mutnicipal cotlsolidation were all considered by separate ballot.
The vote stood as follows:
Question.                       For.    Against.   Total.
Consolidation....................  4,744  64,467  129,211
New Constitution................ 58,961  48,201   107.162f
Apportionment.................. 54,53) 54,237     108,770
Canal amendment............... (6),065  46.703   112.768
It thus appears that so deep was the interest of the people of
Brooklyn in the question of consolidation that, notwithstanding
the circumstances stated, 22,049 more votes were polled upon that
question than upon the revised Constitution, the supreme organic
law of the State, and 20,441 more tlian on the legislative apportionment, which was so vehemently attacked in every part of the
state. It is doubtful whether a statement of circumstances may
be conceived of more strongly corroborative of the unusually binding character of that vote of 1894. May it be claimed that the
constitutional revision and apportionment were not sufficiently
understood or considered by the people; or that the apportionment provision should be resubmitted to the people of Brooklyn,
because forsooth it was approved by 296 majority, only.
If lack of public interest may be argued from the popular vote
on the organic law of the State, it must be an argument against
the whole theory of popular suffrage, hence equally against resubmission, but if, as must be admitted, a popular vote upon the
organic law radically revised should serve as a proper measure
of comparision then the vote upon consolidation in the city of
Brooklyn demonstrated beyond cavil the overshadowing interest
attached to that question by the people of that city.
It was argued on the part of the resubmissionists as evidencing
lack of interest, that only 129,211, of a total of about 200.0()00
electors, voted upon the question of consolidation; but we point
to the fact that 22,000 less voted on the constitutional revision,
about 20)),000) less on legislative apportionment and 16,443 less
on the canal appropriation. Again, in what column are the 70.000
who did not vote to be placed. Certainly under the theory of our




No. 44.]


10


institutions, they should go into the column of those who
were either in favor of the proposition or at least not opposed to it.
On the Second Point.
The committee is unable to find any warrant or authority for
the proposition "that the vote of 1894 was based upon alleged
misrepresentation as to its effect and as to the conditions under
which it was given." The argument made that the people were
led to believe that the vote was not a finality but simply an
expression of opinion is disingenious, and yet an accurate exposition of the true principle governing the referendum.
It was not a finality. It simply was an expression of opinion
upon a subject with reference to which the citizens of Brooklyn
could only express an opinion, which would in no sense be final.
The ultimate decision must, of constitutional necessity, rest
with the Legislature. The literature introduced to substantiate
the claim of misrepresentation contains what we believe to be
a candid statement of the principle underlying popular representative government, that with reference to all questions of legislation the people have delegated their powers to their chosen representatives, and that a popular vote upon a matter which is
within the scope of legislative prerogative can not have any force
except as it may be held to be a declaration of public opinion and
a command to the Legislature. It was remarkable that some
of the distinguished speakers appearing before the committee
insisted that they had just reached the conclusion that the Legislature possessed the inherent power to decree consolidation, without a popular vote, and yet it must be self-evident that the popular vote ordered in 1894 was a concession made by the Legislature to those who opposed consolidation, and not because of any
inherent right of suffrage upon that question. The vote itself
was not a finality, because it determined nothing, and could
determine nothing specially committed by the Constitution to
legislative action; and whatever might be argued as to the power
of the Legislature to take action in derogation of any of the
ancient rights and privileges of the municipality of New York


p
L



14


[SENATE,


conferred by grants and charters antedating the erection of the
State government, there is certainly no limitation upon the power
of the Legislature with reference to the municipalities created
by act of the Legislature, except as imposed by the organic law
of the State. On the other hand, so far as the Constitution
permitted, the result of the referendum of 1894 was as much a
determination of the subject as the people themselves, under the
limitations which they themselves have imposed, could make.
In the absence of a claim of fraud, dishonest ballot or an unfair
count, and none of these are even indirectly charged, it was
a determination of the sentiment of Brooklyn, and a final conclusion of the question presented by the act of referendum, so
far as legally any determination or conclusion might be made.
It was not final only because it could not be final; it required
ex-necessitate rei subsequent legislative action to give it the
sanction of law. The statutory declaration of consolidation, and
the terms and conditions, i. e., the bills or charter embodying
them, rest within the exclusive province of the Legislature, and
the finality referred to remained in abeyance until legislative
action upon the subject.
On the Third Point.
The third contention presents a proposition novel in American
political economy.  To depart now from that axiom of our
political faith, which prescribes that a majority, no matter how
small shall be as conclusive as one no matter how large, would
be a dangerous and unprofitable experiment. It goes to the
very essence of majority rule and popular institutions, and if
here conceded would be in contradiction of all known precedents.
It was urged that resubmission of certain constitutional
amendments had been had, but it is claimed with convincing
force that this procedure occurred only where a proposition had
been negatived, and in no instance where a majority had declared
in favor of it. To resubmit a question once determined would be
to open the door to a series of resubmissions, without prospect
of any ultimately binding decision. In the absence of fraud, or




No. 44.]                   15
other inherent infirmity in the ballot, such a precedent does not
receive the sanction of reason; such a precedent once established would be urged in favor of another resubmission, if upon
a new vote consolidation was defeated by a slender majority,
and so on ad infinitum.
We who hold our offices by the will of a majority of the people,
however small, can not consistently advocate any other proposition than that a majority of one, honestly cast and fairly
counted, is, for all purposes, a final determination, and one as
binding and potential as a majority of thousands and tens of
thousands.
The majority in favor of the legislative apportionment was
but a few votes larger on a much smaller aggregate of ballots
cast, and yet nobody would dream of resubmitting that question
again to the people of Brooklyn in order to ascertain whether or
not that majority represented the true sentiment of the people.
The considerations urged above apply in this connection with
great force and should be considered conclusive.
On the Fourth Point.
"That the vote of 1894 was not determinative, but was at best
a mere expression of the then prevailing opinion, which spent its
force with the Legislature of 1895."
The first part of this proposition has been already considered.
The argument that the mandate of that vote spent its force with
the Legislature of 1895 can not be seriously entertained; it might
be otherwise, if the Legislature of 1895 had affirmatively disapproved the sanction of the vote of 1894.
The Assembly of 1895 passed a bill giving effect to the vote of
1894; and that the opposition of the anti-consolidationists carried from the polls into the Legislature was successful in preventing the bill from receiving a constitutional majority is rather an
argument against the proposition now urged, than in favor of
it. Assuming as we do, that the vote of 1894 was a final determination of the question submitted to the people then as could
be constitutionally made, it is clear that a successful effort to




16


[SENATE,


prevent or obstruct the Legislature from giving due effect to the
popular vote was nothing more or less than an attempt to defeat
the will of the people as expressed at the polls. That which
remained open for discussion, for agitation and opposition, or
advocacy was not the main proposition which had been decided,
subject to legislative sanction, but the terms and conditions
which the consolidated communities should carry on the work
of loical government; upon all such questions, and their method
of treatment the citizens were not concluded by the voice of the
people; these were left expressly open for future consideration
and decision. The opposition, however, in the Legislature of
1895 concentrated its- efforts to negative legislation that had
been affirmatively commanded by the people of the various localities, including Brooklyn; the fact that the insistence and ability
of the opposition prevented the Senate of 1895 from carrying
into effect the popular voice, furnishing no logical reason why the
Legislature of the next year should not deem itself bound to execute the mandate of 1894. The force of a public judgment is
not spent until the judgment itself has been reversed by like authority and until such time is just as obligatory upon this Legislature as upon the preceding one.
On the Firth Point.
"That the sentiment of Brooklyn had undergone a radical
change, which should be considered by the Legislature."
Assuming that we were autnorized to consider a plea of this
kind, the character of which is in conflict with many of the propositions hereinbefore laid down, it would present itself largely
as a question of fact to be determined as all such questions are by
a preponderance of evidence. W'e have not taken testimony in
the sense of the examination of witnesses under oath, but we have
listened to all the statements and arguments made pro and con,
and have reached the conclusion that if any change in sentiment
has occurred it is one more favorable to consolidation; and some
of the speakers who appeared before the committee to urge consolidation admitted that they had vigorously opposed it in 1894,




No. 44.]


17


by speech and work at the polls, while a very large majority of
the great institutions of Brooklyn, the leaders in those great
enterprises that go far toward making up the prosperity and
grandeur of that city, including the banks, railroad and trust
companies, and mercantile establishments by representation and
petition placed themselves on record as in favor of municipal
unification. A very large majority of these agreed that consolidation was not only desirable from every point of view, but absolutely imperative from many view points, and concurred in the
conclusion that a resubmission would find not less than from
seventy to eighty per cent. of the people of Brooklyn voting in
favor of municipal union. The committee spared neither time
nor effort to possess itself of all information attainable on this
question, and did not adjourn its hearings in Brooklyn until both
sides agreed that the investigation had been completed. It was
sought to convey the impression that the advocates of consolidation were largely estate owners or speculators, who saw in
municipal union the promise of an increase in the value of real
estate, but this suggestion was not carried out by the arguments.
Those advocating consolidation were not confined to the ranks
of real estate speculators, but were largely of the character above
alluded to, whose arguments, as spread upon the record, demonstrated the faith that was in them sustained by the most cogent
reasons from every standpoint of domestic and political economy. In any event the burden of proof was upon those who
questioned the vote of 1894 to show what a change of heart had
taken place. This they fell far short of accomplishing. There
is, however, another and potent reason why, in view of the situation as found by the committee, resubmission should not be recommended.
It was conceded by all that the vote of 1894, was a purely nonpolitical vote - an ideal vote with reference to a question of municipal unification. It was admitted that neither party took stand
upon the question, and that political affiliation did not color the
sentiment of the voter, or determine his ballot. It became plain
[Senate, No. 44.]     3




18


[SENATE,


during the progress of the hearing that in this regard the situation had undergone a radical change.
Questions of political exigency have intruded themselves. It
follows that upon resubmission, this great question of municipal unification might not be determined, as it was in 1894, free
from all party and partisan consideration, but would be made the
football of party strife, or factional contention inflamed by prejudices engendered and stimulated by those who avail of these
as the last straws to defeat this great and matchless project.
The true merits have by many been lost sight of in the conjecture as to what will be the political result of union. Party and
factional passions, which have no place in the consideration of
such a subject have been appealed to in order to obscure the one
all-important issue, that of the well being and prosperity of the
people as a whole, without regard to the advantage of any strictly
political or partisan interest. Fears have been sedulously fostered as to the impending domination of this or the other party
organization. Opposition has been stimulated by appeals to prejudice founded upon such catch words as the " destruction " of
Brooklyn, the " effacement " of the city, the " extinction " of her
charter, until it would be strange indeed for the average citizen
to believe that consolidation meant anything more or less than
impending disaster of some occult character, including the total
denial of self-government. It is strange and at the same time
significant that with every newspaper, but one, raising this ghost
of coming calamity, and flaunting it daily in the eyes of Brooklyn's
citizenship with an organized opposition, superb in its efficiency,
using every effort to change public sentiment naturally susceptible to such arguments, the citizenship of Brooklyn, nevertheless
firmly adheres to its faith in consolidation.
It seems obvious that were consolidation not an abiding consciousness on the part of a majority of the people of Brooklyn, such
aggressive opposition as it has encountered would have completely
annihilated any movement, less deep seated.
It is urged by the consolidationists, and with much force, that
a resubmission would be tantamount to a declaration that no




No. 44.]


19


matter what the decision may be it would have no binding force,
and would discourage all efforts for municipal union, and serve
only as an encouragement to the opponents of the greater city.
To sum this branch 'of the subject up it seems to us that upon the
showing made, the sentiment of Brooklyn has undergone no
change, except in favor of consolidation.  That resubmission
would cause the question now to be considered, on political lines
and not on its merits, but clouded by fears and misgivings which
we believe have no foundation in fact, but which have been carefully fostered for interested purposes.
On the Sixth Point.
This would involve the admission that municipal government
is a complete failure. If the conclusions of the committee hereinbefore made are justifiable, it is unnecessary to consider this objection in detail. It is no compliment either to the ability of the
representatives of the people, or to the sagacity and capacity of
the people residing within the limits of the greater city, to suggest that they will be unable to govern themselves according to
their wishes. When the city of New York comprises a half million people it was a mooted question whether a city of its present
size and population could be well governed. A few years ago
comparatively, Brooklyn was in the same category. The union
of the various localities presents no stronger argument against
the probability of good government, than does their separate and.independent existence. The march of progress is in the direction
of concentration on every hand. The larger demands of civilized
existence require increased economies, which may be attained
only by concentration. The voice of the representatives of the various localities will have a very potent influence in moulding the
rules of municipal government and life in any bill or charter to
be hereafter enacted.
The argument used before the committee that the demand of
some and a majority of Brooklyn's representatives for resubmission or referendum being overslaughed now, implies like treataent hereafter has no just application, because the Legislature




20


[SENATE,


here is concerned with a direct mandate from the people upon
this special subject superior to any authority which is possessed
by any representative in the Legislature. If, as is claimed by
some of the speakers, Brooklyn's charter is the best that has ever
been framed, there is no valid reason why the Legislature should
not adapt it to the requirements of government of the greater city.
It may, however, not have occurred to those making that particular statement, that for years past the time of the Legislature has
been very largely engrossed in considering amendments to that
same charter, which, like that of every other city of the State, is
a mere series of bills consolidated or independent, prescribing the
rules and methods of government procedure and machinery.
The Final Point.
The final point of the resubmissionists is in line with that made
by the referendists, but presumably for the diametrically opposite
purpose.  We have reached the conclusion that resubmission is
sought with the hope thereby to defeat consolidation and obviously unless for such a purpose it would be worse than useless and
unnecessary.  It is equally our conclusion that referendum as
demanded by resubmissionists will defeat consolidation.  We
consider a referendum of the terms and conditions of a municipal
charter as more objectionable than a resubmission of the main
proposition.
The bill introduced for a referendum provides for a general
statement or synopsis of the proposed charter, and for a vote of
the people upon it.  It is a serious question whether such a bill
would be constitutional, and certainly it would have no more
binding effect in any event than has the vote of 1894. It seems
the very climax of absurdity to provide for a referendum of the
charter before giving effect to the vote of 1894, thereby indirectly
discrediting the authority which is again appealed to, either upon
the same proposition or one closely related thereto.
We are convinced that those who desire a referendum apart
from resubmission, are earnestly in favor of consolidation, but




No. 44.]


21


we are equally convinced that the method proposed would be
more perilous to consolidation than would resubmission.
In the first place, it must be assumed that every resubmissionist desirous of defeating consolidation would vote against any
charter or laws, or synopsis of laws, that might be framed by
human ingenuity. Then, again, inasmuch as every scheme of
local or general government embodies and is largely composed
of a system of rules which prescribe such limitations upon personal liberty as experience has demonstrated to be necessary,
affecting the citizen in his daily vocation and in his relation to his
fellow citizen, and the municipality at large, from the street
vender up to the man of wealth, it follows that in a vote upon
a charter personal considerations, opposition to personal limitations, hostility to encroachments upon business and traffic privileges would be entertained in the determination of the great
question at issue.
Comparatively few comprehend the limitations and disabilities
which the law, whether of local or general government, imposes
upon them, and any system of laws outlined crudely or otherwise, which fairly treats the questions referred to, would be
rejected by a vote of the people, if submitted to them.
This principle has undergone experiment in the framing and
submission of the organic law resulting in the exclusion of any
subject which may properly be left to legislative action.
The main proposition, that of consolidation, would hang in the
balance indirectly in a referendum of the charter, and yet it would
be lost sight of in considering the special and peculiar provisions
of the charter itself, which because of its necessary limitations
and disabilities would probably fail of adoption, a result from
which would be inferred the defeat of consolidation itself.
Admitting all that might be said in favor of the present charter
of Brooklyn, it might be well to query whether if submitted to a
popular vote it would be approved by the people.  When we consider the difficulties which hedge in the consideration of this
great question, the gradual steps that are necessary in order to
secure its full and perfect development, the care and deliberation




22


[SENATE,


which should mark every step in the progress towards a complete
result, the enemies that would seize upon every vantage point
to incite those upon whom at present limitations and disabilities
exist, and are necessary in any well regulated and progressive
community, to rise in revolt against conditions, which surround
them now, but of which they know little and care less, the failure of a referendum is a self-evident proposition. The true purpose of the referendists woluld be defeated and the plans of those
who would prevent consolidation would succeed.
We have here considered and answered the main objections
made to the declaration of consolidation.  We have not
attempted to discuss questions of necessity, or of advantage, or
that concern the people of the state, as well as the people of the
localities immediately interested.
It is very clear to us that the situation of the city of Brooklyn
imperatively demands municipal unification.  Inasmuch as under
the terms of the present bill such union or consolidation shall not
take effect until the first day of January, 1898, it is not necessary
to consider in this preliminary report any plan or system to be
recommended for the government of the greater city.  The claim
upon which so much stress has been laid of extinction, destruction, or annihilation of Brooklyn's identity and government is
premature and unsupported by any fact.  We believe it to be
without the slightest foundation.  We are confident that the
Legislature will securely guard the interests of the respective
localities.  A system measurably preserving local identity and
giving full effect to the principle of home rule as applied to the
various localities retaining for Brooklyn both her identity and
local influence as a district of the greater city, doing violence
neither to her traditions nor to the sentiments of her people, can
not be difficult of attainment.
It seems to your committee that the interests of Brooklyn
are served by consolidation to a greater degree even than are
the interests of that city, which will give name and prestige to
the greater metropolis. Brooklyn occupies to that part of the
city of New York which lies south of Fourteenth street relatively




No. 44.]


02


the same position as the remainder of the city of New York lying
to the north of Fourteenth street. Both portions contribute their
manhood, intelligence and thrift to building up the enormous
taxable values which are to be found south of Fourteenth street
on Manhattan Island. To the east and north are the homes
of those who create the prodigious wealth located in the business
part of the city. Both sections have the same right to share in
the prosperity they have jointly created. As it is Brooklyn is
isolated and acting alone without means to procure that interchange of persons and property, which is necessary to her ideal
development. Even the water front is not her own, and the commerce of the world under the restrictions imposed seek the shores
of the State of New Jersey, because of the absence of necessary
facilities that unity of action and possession would bring. The
financial condition of Brooklyn is such as to warrant the conclusion that the work of development must soon be brought to a
close.
Her debt limit has been reached, her present contractural
engagements are in excess of the limit of constitutional bond
issue, her people are. groaning under a burden of oppressive taxation, which falls with equal severity on both the owner and the
occupier. Competition between the distinct municipalities is
turning the tide of home-seekers, who do business in the city of
New York, towards the New Jersey shore, and the only remedy
seems to be consolidation.
It was at first our intention to give hearings on these questions,
in the city of New York, equal in number and duration to those
allowed to the city of Brooklyn. During the progress of the
investigation, however, no demand for a hearing manifested itself,
and it was only after public announcement that the hearings
would be declared closed when a demand was made for a hearing
in the metropolis.
This was no sooner made than conceded, and upon the investigation held there no expressly anti-consolidation sentiment disclosed itself. Some citizens, members of the West Side Taxpayers' Association, filed protests and made arguments on the




24


[SENATE,


subject of equal and uniform taxation and valuation, maintaining
that each locality should bear its own expense, at least so far as
concerned local improvements. All appeared in favor of consolidation in the abstract. Some, however, objected to that part
of the phraseology of the bill referring to equal taxation. Citizens representing labor and trades unions and other interests appeared and argued in favor of the measure and we discovered
absolutely no sentiment against consolidation in the city of New
York. We cannot understand on what principle New York could
suffer even temporarily from consolidation.
The question of taxation is one to be carefully considered in its
relation to each locality and to the whole greater municipality.
Even those who lay particular stress upon the question of uniform
taxation did not contend that the burden upon the greater city, as
a whole, or the city of New York as an integral portion of that
greater city, would be oppressive or unduly increased.
The contention was made that upon a plan of equal taxation
New York city would be constrained to bear the whole burden
of equalization, that if done at once and now a considerable
amount of tax would be added to the city budget.  But they fail
to take into consideration the stimulus and impetus given to
progress in each of the annexed localities, they fail to consider the
added wealth of the greater city, its larger facilities, its greater
commercial energies, its higher developments, its increased opportunities, and the resulting improvement of all interests. They
fail to take into account the value of undisputed commercial
supremacy, and the concentration of larger business opportunities, and greater financial resources within the boundaries of the
greater city, all of which will co-operate to adjust taxation so as to
weigh less heavily on the individual citizen. They fail finally to
estimate the reduction of expenditures which always proceeds
from concentration and the numerous results that will flow from
a unity of action between local sovereignties now competing
against each other. Once union is perfected the people of that
greater city may be relied upon to work out their manifest destiny
with a due regard to the rights of the individual.




No. 44.]


In conclusion we will consider the objections of a legal character that have been urged upon the attention of the committee.
It might be inferred from the introductory and conservative
nature of the consolidation bill, that only a few objections could
be made and that these, if tenable, would substantially render
consolidation on any lines of action impracticable, because it is
inconceivable how any legislation could be suggested presenting
fewer vulnerable points, because making so little change in existing conditions. Most, if not all of the objections urged, may
fairly be attributed to a misconstruction of the bill. However
timlely they nmay be at later stages and in regard to other measures they certainly are prelature here if urged against the
present bill. It was contended last year before the Legislature
that this same measure was unconstitutional because no provision wsas made for the election of a board of supervisors in the
county of New York, whose revival it was claimed became necessary under the provisions of article 3, section 26 of the Revised
Constitution. Apparently now this contention of unconstitutionality has been wholly abandoned and inconvenience and undesirability are the objective phrases that have been substituted
in the place of unconstitutionality. The possibility of the resurrection of the board of supervisors in the counties of New York
and Kings is held up as t" an awful warning" and an unanswerable barrier to the creation of the greater metropolis. If this
objection were valid it would obviously be an insuperable bar to
any legislation whatever until the Constitution could be amended.
It is a sufficient answer, however, to say, first, that if necessary
there is ample time prior to 1898 to provide for the contingency
referred to; second, that if the duty to revive a board of supervisors thereafter should be cast upon the Legislature by the enactment of the Consolidation bill, even the failure to perform that
duty would not leave the communities of New York and Kings
despoiled of an instrument essential to the execution of the governmental power now vested in their common councils as boards
of supervisors. These powers will be presumed to exist where
[Senate, No. 44.]      4




26


[SENATE,


now lodged and to continue for all essential public purposes,
until some new agency has been expressly substituted.
Then it was objected that the bill, if passed, would permit
not only the greater city but each of the counties embraced within
it to contract indebtedness up to the constitutional limit.
It seems to us that this can constitute no valid objection. If,
for the sake of argument, we assume the proposition to be true,
there is adequate power in the LTegislature, by proper limitation,
to forestall any such predicted abuse.
Another objection has been founded upon the constitutional
necessity for the continuance of the county officers as prescribed
in article 10, section 1, of the ievised Constitution. The point
of any such objection is not easily intelligible, when directed
against this bill. It would seem answer sufficient that the mere
fact of declared consolidation does not render it imperative that
the present condition of affairs, so far as it relates to such officers,
shall at all be disturbed. The bill expressly provides for the
maintenance of existing conditions absolutely undisturbed until
further legislation. What inconvenience can possibly result from
the obliteration of invisible city boundaries? There may be
details of treatment and adjustment that remain to be considered; but these are only such as may be completely covered
by legislative action. These comprise the least of even plausible
legal objections to the bill.
All thesequestions may be fully considered and determined when
methods and systems are devised. It is enough for this purpose
to report that in our judgment they present no barrier to consolidation and apply not to the naked question of consolidation,
but to future legislation which will be necessary in order to fully
accomplish the complete unification of the distinct localities.
There is one objection, however. to the consolidation bill proposed by the inquiry commission which, in our judgment, merits
serious consideration.  Those in the city of Ilrooklyn who
appeared in opposition to the bill clailned that the commission,
as at present constituted, wnas not appointed for any other purposes than those enunierated in the act of their origin, chapter




No. 44.]


27


311 of the Laws of 1890; and that in their selection, peculiar
fitness and ability to frame laws which shall govern the affairs of
the greater metropolis, with all its complex interests, were not
necessarily considered by the appointing power.
It was claimed, moreover, that the various localities were
unequally represented with reference to both population and
influence, and that a new commission, especially selected to
adequately perform the difficult and delicate mission should be
provided. We believe that there is much force in this. position,
and that a new commission, appointed with special reference to
the work, should be created, selected with a due regard to the
interests of the respective localities.
We have treated the objections raised by citizens of Brooklyn
in detail, and confine this report largely to their consideration,
for the reason that none of the other districts proposed to be consolidated have raised their voice in protest against the execution
of the mandate of 1894. It is true that one appeal was made by
a citizen of Richmond county, to exclude that territory from the
proposed consolidation, and that the corporation counsel of the
city of New York suggested the advisability of pursuing that
course. On the other hand, there appears to be an overwhelming
preponderance of sentiment in favor of consolidation, and it is
not deemed advisable to pay heed to this solitary demand.
All the districts combined cast a majority vote in favor of consolidation of 44,464; one which we believe reflects the sentiment
of the people and emphasizes the duty of the Legislature to carry
the proposition to its legitimate conclusion.
We, therefore, recommend, the passage of the consolidation
bill so amended, first, as to provide for the appointment by the
Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, of a
new commission, consisting of fifteen members, of which the
present president of the inquiry commission and the mayors
of the cities of New York, Brooklyn and Long Island City, the
State Engineer and Surveyor and the Attorney-General shall,
ex-officio, be members.




28            [SENATE, NO. 44.]
Finally, in making this preliminary report, the committee
attach the testimony, exhibits and other documentary evidence
upon which this report is based.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
CLARENCE LEXOW,
CHARLES B. PAGE,
GEORGE C. AUSTIN,
JAMES M. E. O'GRADY,
EDWIN M. WELLS,
JAMES KEENHOLTS.
I favor not only the " consolidation " herein recommended, but
the consolidation decreed by popular vote in its entirety.
THOS. F. GRADY.




HEARINGS
HAD IN RELATION TO
AN ACT CONSOLIDATING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF
THE TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
NEW YORK, THE COUNTIES OF KINGS AND RICHMOND,
THE TOWNS OF NEWTOWN, FLUSHING AND JAMAICA,
AND PART OF THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, IN THE
COUNTY OF QUEENS.
Resolution appointing Senate and Assembly Committees on
Cities a joint committee to confer upon the question of the proposed Greater New York:
WHEREAS, Under and by virtue of chapter 311 of the Laws of
1890, a commission was created known as the " Municipal Consolidation Commission," to inquire into the expediency of consolidating into one municipality, the various municipal corporations,
and parts of municipal corporations, contiguous to the Port
of New York, said commission after inquiry and examination did,
by memorial to the Governor and Legislature of the State, report
in favor of consolidation; and,
WHEREAS, Pursuant to such report an act was thereupon passed,
being chapter 64 of the Laws of 1894, entitled " An act providing
for the submission of the question of consolidation of the city of
New York with certain territory under a single municipal administration to the vote of the people; " such question of consolidation
was submitted to a vote of the duly qualified electors of the territory embraced within the limits of the proposed greater city, and
a majority in each locality voted in favor of consolidation; the
aggregate of such majorities being 44,464; and,
WHEREAS, A bill was thereupon introduced in the Legislature
of 1895, designed to carry into effect said popular vote, by provid



30


[SENATE,


ing for a commission to prepare a charter and laws for the government as one municipality of the territories embraced within the
limits of the proposed greater city, but said bill failed of passage;
and,
WHEREAS, The said municipal consolidation commission has, by
reason of the premises been unable to present to this Legislature
any adequate kind of government for said proposed greater city in
form to enable this Legislature intelligently to consider and determine the important question involved; and,
WHEREAS, A just and considerate treatment of the questions
connected with and arising from the creation of the greater city,
and the consolidation of the various local governments into one
municipality, is of vital consequence to the people, not alone to the
territories immediately affected but to the whole State, and concerns so deeply the moral and material interests, the well being,
security and convenience of more than three millions, and the principles of government and administration to be applied require
deliberation and care commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the undertaking, and should suggest a practical solution
of many of the problems of municipal government and administration, and afford relief for evils now existing, and a full, fair and
deliberate consideration of the whole subject is deemed advisable
and expedient; therefore,
Resolved, (If the Assemrbly concur). That thecomnmitteeontheaffairs of cities of the Senate, and the committee on affairs of cities
of the Assembly, be and they are hereby appointed a joint committee of this Legislature, and are authorized and empowered fully
and diligently to investigate and inquire into all and singular the
matter set forth and relating to the questions hereinbefore mentioned, with full power and authority to prosecute their inquiries
in any and all directions in their judgment necessary and expedient
to enable them to obtain and report the information required by
these resolutions;
Resolved, Further, and for the purpose aforesaid, that said committee may employ a stenographer and one or more counsel, and
such other assistants as may be necessary, and may send for persons, books, records and papers, call and subpoena witnesses and
administer oaths.
Resolved, Further, that said committee be authorized and empowered to appoint a sub-committee consisting of four Senators
and five Members of Assembly, which sub-committee( (when appointed) shall have the same power and authority l1(reulnder in all




No. 44.]


31


respects as are possessed by said joint committee, and whose duty
it shall be to proceed with the inquiry and investigation into the
matter aforesaid, with all reasonable diligence; and to that end,
full power and authority are hereby conferred on such sub-committee when appointed, to perform and exercise all and singular,
the functions and duties of said joint committee, to send for persons, books, records and papers, call or subpoena witnesses, and
administer oaths, with the same force and effect to all intents and
purposes as though done by said joint committee, and for the convenience of the public, and in order to secure as full and complete
inquiry as may be practicable, to hold sessions in the cities of New
York, Brooklyn and Albany.
Resolved, Further, and for the purpose aforesaid, that said joint
committee and said sub-committee thereof, when appointed, be and
they hereby are authorized and empowered to call to their aid and
assistance, in an advisory capacity, the President and Associate
Members of the Municipal Consolidated Commission, hereinbefore
referred to, and also the Attorney-General of the State, and the
corporation counsel of the cities of New York, Brooklyn and Long
Island City, to aid and facilitate the acquisition of the information
required by these resolutions and the report of said committee.
Resolved, Further, that said committee shall make a preliminary
report as soon as practicable, and not later than the first day of
March, 1896, to the end that proper legislation may be enacted in
the premises.
Pursuant to the above resolution, the Senate and Assembly joint
committee appointed the following sub-committee:
SENATE.- Messrs. Lexow, Brush, Page and Grady.
ASSEMBLY. —Messrs. O'Grady, Austin, Wells, Keenholts and
McKeon.
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER, BROOKLYN, N. Y.,
January 17, 1896, AT 11 A. M.
MR. LEXOW:
The committee on inquiry for consolidation will now begin
its session. We have determined to follow the usual legislative




32


[SENATE,


course and give those opposed to the bill of consolidation the
first opportunity to be heard in opposition to the bill. In order
to serve the convenience of everybody we will divide the sessions
of to-day and to-morrow into two parts, the morning session to
those in opposition to the bill. I will say, incidentally, that the
opposition to the bill will raise all the questions of referendum
resubmission, as well as that of simple consolidation. The afternoon hearing will be devoted to those in favor of the bill, and
the same course will be followed to-morrow. I would suggest,
however, that inasmuch as those who are to speak in favor of
the bill will be expected to answer those who speak in opposition
to the bill, that at least some of the champions of consolidation
listen to the arguments of those who are opposed to it. Mr. Redfield, do you represent the organized movement against it?
MR. REDFIELD:
I did not come here to-day, Mr. Chairman, as an official representative, but I am willing to speak for the organized opposition
if you desire.
MR. LEXOW:
While it is not the desire of the committee to change any of
the plans of those who favor or oppose consolidation, they must
choose their champions and we will give them abundant opportunity to be heard. Each man who rises now will speak against
the bill and against consolidation.
MR. DYKMAN:
Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, but are you referring to a bill and
opposition to that bill? We do not quite understand what bill
is referred to?
MR. LExow:
The bill which gave rise to this resolution. The bill providing
for consolidation, either immediately or to take effect January 1,
1898,




No. 44.]


33


MR. DYKMAN:
Do you refer to the bill of Mr. Green, of New York, and his
associates, introduced by yourself?
MR. LEXOW:
Yes. In order to be absolutely fair we will admit at this stage
the arguments of those in favor of resubmission and referendum
as well as simply arguments against the bill.
MR. DYKMAN:
Is this to be the last session in which opposition to the bill
may be heard?
MR. LEXOW:
To-morrow's session will be the same as to-day; in the morning
those opposing may speak; in the afternoon, those in favor will
be heard.
MR. DYKMAN:
How long will the morning session continue? We are quite
unprepared for this announcement, and would like to know just
how much time we will have to-morrow.
MR. LEXOW:
Assuming that we sit two hours now in hearing arguments
against consolidation we will sit two hours this afternoon hearing arguments in favor of consolidation. To-morrow the same
course will be pursued. It may be just as well to state here that
in addition to those who present an organized front against consolidation we are prepared to hear the people as well. I mean
those who belong to neither one nor the other organization for or
against consolidation.
MR. REDFIELD:
May I ask that some limit be put on the time that each speaker
may occupy?
MR. LEXOW:
We are prepared to give this important question all the time
that it requires. (Applause.) The audience will please not
[Senate, No. 44.]     5




34


[SENATE,


applaud. No amount of applause is going to change our opinions
or make any difference in our legislative course.
ROBERT D. BENEDICT:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I had not
expected to be called upon to begin this matter. I can give, however, some views which are very clear in my mind in opposition
to the bill which proposes a consolidation and in favor of the
proposition of resubmission of the question to the popular vote
of the people of the city of Brooklyn. I am opposed to the consolidation of the two cities of New York and Brooklyn for many
reasons.
First. It is impossible under the present Constitution of the
State of New York to abolish county lines. Hence the county
lines of Kings and of New York must remain preserved, and if
those cities are to be consolidated they will form the anomalous
creation of a city different parts of which lie in different counties.
MR. LEXOW:
In order that the committee may be able to hear the words of
Mr. Benedict. will not tho audience remain quiet?
MR. BENEDICT:
That being the condition, Mr. Chairman, of the situation, it
follows as a necessary result from the Constitution, which provides that there shall be a board of supervisors in every county of
the State, that the result of consolidation would be to re-establish
the board of supervisors of Kings county, which has just been
abolished and to re-establish a board of supervisors in New York
county, which was abolished some years back. And the result
would be necessarily that all the financial concerns of the two
counties, which, by the laws of the State, are under the control
of the supervisors of the two counties must necessarily be committed to the board of supervisors in the two counties mentioned.
That condition of things is, in my opinion, dangerous to good
government, to economical government; it has proved to be such
in the past, and the results of that situation in the past have
been such thit the desirability of abolishing the power of the board




No. 44.]


35


of supervisors in the two cities has been, I think I may say, considered by everybody for two years. I do not know whether the
committee desire me to state the legal grounds on which I make
the statement that the boards of supervisors in the two counties
shall be re-established, and, therefore, I do not propose to go into
that matter unless requested to do so.
MR. GRADY:
Do you mean, Mr. Benedict, that under the Constitution there
will be a necessity in New York for any other body than the
board of aldermen which exercises the powers of a board of supervisors?
MR. BENEDICT:
Certainly, the words of the Constitution are distinct that there
shall be in every county of the State a board of supervisors.
MR. GRADY:
I understand that. But that provision of the Constitution is
covered by the fact that the board of aldermen in New York have
a certain power as supervisors which would make such an additional body unnecessary. Is that not so?
MR. BENEDICT:
There would be that necessity.
MR. LEXow:
Why?
MR. BENEDICT:
Because the Constitution provides that where there is a city
whose limits are of more than one county there shall be a board of
supervisors made to govern the question of the finances of said
counties.
MR. GRADY:
I desire to know whether your contention is that a board of
supervisors distinct from a board of aldermen would be necessary?




36


[SENATE,


MRI. BENEDICT:
There are other matters connected with this question. The Constitution provides for a board of supervisors for every county
and also provides that the Legislature may confer upon those
boards of supervisors, be general law that provision will govern
the case in my opinion.
MR. LExow:
Have you changed your opinion that this bill would be unconstitutional because of that fact?
MR. BENEDICT:
I have never said that the bill would be unconstitutional. I
have always said that a city of that kind could be made under the
Constitution. But I have also said I did not believe that anybody
who understood that that was a necessary result of an attempt
to make a city under the Constitution would be in favor of the
establishment of such a city.
Another provision of the Constitution exists and that is the
provision that relates to the limitation of debt. The Constitution
provides that the limit of the debt-creating power of a city shall
be ten per cent. on the assessed valuation of the real estate. It
also provides that the limitation of any county to make a debt
shall be the same, but it also provides where the limits of a city
and county are the same the limits of the county to make a debt
shall cease. It necessarily follows, therefore, that if the limits
of a city and county are not the same, that both the city and,
county can create a debt to the extent of ten per cent. of the
assessed value of the real estate of the city on the one hand and a
county on the other hand; and it would therefore follow that if
the city so undertaken to be set up which was composed of the
county of New York and the county of Kings, the county of Kings
could create a debt upon the county of Kings and the county of
New York which would be equal to the ten per cent. of the
property and the real estate of the county, and the cities could do
likewise; hence, the I)eculliar result of a consolidation of the
two cities would be to ldouble the debt-contracltig p)oxwe of each.




No. 44.]


37


That, as it seems to me, is a result which good citizens in neither
city could desire; the limitation of the debt-creating power of the
city and county was put in the Constitution of the State for wise
purposes. It was accepted by the people who considered it wise,
and the plan wliich would result in defeating the provision of the
Constitution would, in my opinion, be not only unwise, but would
be subject to severe criticism.
Again. there is another provision of the Constitution which
points out a great danger to the people which would be produced by
consolidation. The Constitution has provided that any legislation
which related to a city shall be referred to the mayor of that city
for approval, and he shall have particular and qualified veto
power.  As it is now, matters of legislation which relate to
Brooklyn must be submitted to the mayor for his approval, and
the same applies to New York.  This bill which proposes, as I
understand it, to establish one city, which, if I recollect rightly,
under the law is to be created on the 1st of January, 1898, and
the bill also provides for the appointment of a commission which
is to frame, not a charter for the new city- not a word concerning a charter as I remember it - but to frame bills whereby the
new territory which is to be made one city is to be governed.  In
my opinion, if that bill would become a law, the extent of the city
of Brooklyn and the city of New York, as now constituted, would
cease on January 1, 1898.  Therefore, a bill relating to the
government of any part. of that city would not longer have to be
submitted to the mayor of Brooklyn.  I do not know who would
be mayor of that city under that bill.  As I recollect it, there
is no provision in the bill for an election of a mayor to whom the
rights of the citizen shall be intrusted and to whom he may
look for protection.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you not believe that this can be cared for by future legislation. That a mayor could be elected for the greater city in 1897?
MR. BENEDICT:
Yes, but to whom would that bill be submitted if it is to be
fulfilled before any such election? Who would be the mayor of




38


[SENATE,


that city until there had been an election, and therefore, it seems
to me that those who favor it are in this dilemma, namely: That
they must say that either the question of the mayor of this greater
city which is to be formed is a matter outside of the Constitution
and not to be submitted to any mayor or else there is no mayor
to submit the question to.
MR. LEXOW:
Why not submit it to both?
MR. BENEDICT:
There is no provision in the Constitution.  It would have to
be before a constitutional submission.  There is no clause in the
bill to cover this question.
MR. LEXOW:
Why does it not come under the constitutional provision?
MR. BENEDICT:
Because the Constitution, as I recollect the words, requires
that legislation relating to the city has to be submitted to the
mayor of that city.  You can not have a mayor of Brooklyn if
you wipe out the corporate existence of Brooklyn.
MR. LEXOW:
Yes, but this bill makes the date of such consolidation January
1, 1898.
MR. BENEDICT:
It may be provided before that time that any bills relating to
Brooklyn, as long as the existence of the corporate city continues,
shall be submitted to the mayor of Brooklyn.  But the point in
this case is that all bills that have got to be prepared for
this whole government must be prepared and proposed before
January 1, 1898, or else there is no provision, no mayor, to whom
those bills could be submitted under the Constitution.




No. 44.]


39


MR. LEXOW:
I desire to ask you if all the legislation which referred to Brooklyn and New York could not be submitted to the two cities of
New York and Brooklyn.
MR. BENEDICT:
As long as the cities were in existence, all right.  But after
the 1st of January any bill that was passed would not be submitted to the mayor of Brooklyn or of New York, and I know of no
reason myself why bills passed in 1897, should be required to be
submitted to the mayor of Brooklyn for his approval and another
bill should not be required to be submitted to such officers, simply
because passed in 1898.
MR. LExOW:
Why could not there be a mayor of the greater city? So that
until the 1st of January, 1898, there would be a mayor of each city,
and after the bill could be presented to the mayor of the greater
city.
MR. BENEDICT:
I am aware of that but so far as the matter relates to Brooklyn
it ought to be submitted to the mayor of Brooklyn, and, therefore,
unless you can be certain that all your bills shall be passed and
your whole system and scheme be put in full working order by the
1st of January, you are acting against the principles and purposes
of the constitutional provisions. I wish to say, and I am backed
by the best authority of the State, that it will be a matter of
more than ten years before the various legislative works which
will be necessary to put in full operation to create a new city like
this can be put in full operation.
MR. LEXOW:
Don't you think the less government you have the better?
MR. BENEDICT:
That brings me to another point which I desire to make. I
think that, as far as I have been able to see, the great problem




40


[SENATE,


in our American republic is the government of the great cities.
There are the difficulties which we are to meet. There are the
great dangers which we are to taste. In my opinion those dangers
have recently become very much greater. Those difficulties have
increased to a very much greater extent than our ability to meet
them.   In my opinion, it would seem wiser for us to learn more
about the government of these great cities and be better able to
govern a city of a million or a million and a half before we try
the dangerous experiment of creating a city of over three millions
of people, not by growth, but by one stroke. (Applause.)
MR. LEXOW:
I request that if there be any further applause the sergeant-atarms remove the offenders.
Mn. BENEDICT:
I think that such a thing would be a monstrous mistake. It
would therefore seem unwise to me, gentlemen, for us to bring
upon ourselves the difficulties which are inherent in the government of a city of over three million people. If we are in the
course of years to meet the difficulties arising from the government of a city which by gradual growth increases to the extent
of such a population, it may very well be assumed that our
ability to assume such responsibility and to face the dangers
and difficulties of such a situation will have increased, and the
exigencies of the case will be met by greater experience. But I
think it unwise to crowd all those dangers into one and force
it upon the people of these two cities. We appreciate well the
difficulty of governing cities of the present size. Setting aside
New York, I am not speaking about that, we appreciate the difficulty of governing a city the size of Brooklyn. We say that it
would not be wise to substitute for the two governments of these
two cities a government of one city by all the people of the
territory. This territory which is now embraced in Brooklyn
is large enough to have men within it of all classes, to have
their interests all represented by their own officers and looked
after by them. We think that they are assured of much better




No. 44.]


41


government under the present conditions than under the vastly
enlarged territory. We do not deem it wise to add a city of
double the amount to our present difficulties; we also say, Mr.
Chairman. that the experience of the world and of civilization
is against bringing so many people under one government, and
we point to Boston, where there is Cambridge, Brookline, and
they are not consolidated.
MR. LExow:
Are they not now taking steps toward consolidation?
MR. BENEDICT:
I do not know that they are, but we will pass that, as it is a
subject that requires much information. I say that the civilization of the world and of wise-thinking men of the world are
against the tendency of bringing too many people under one
government. But there is another question that I wish to discuss. That, 3Mr. Chairman, is in reference to the bill which has
been proposed in favor of resubmission; to answer the suggestion
that the question has been once submitted to the popular vote
and therefore should not be sent again. I wish to say, Mr.
Chairman, that any man who is fair and who raises that objection to a resubmission of the question to a vote of the people is
ignorant of the law under which that vote was taken, or he is
ignorant of the difference between opinion and determination.
Election under our form of government is a determination. We
ask the people, " Whom are you determined shall be mayor of
Brooklyn?? Not " Who do you think ought to be mayor? " The
vote of the people to elect is not an expression of opinion, it is
an expression of determination. The vote on this question was
merely a request for an opinion.
MR. LEXOW:
You don't claim anything else than that this was an expression of opinion? There is no way under our laws for the people
themselves to determine this question in the form of a determina[Senate, No. 44.]   6




42


[SENATE,


tion, because it is a matter of legislative action and not of the
popular vote.
MR. BENEDICT:
All that I am claiming is that is was not a determination, and
those who say that any resubmission of this question is taking a
second vote on the question do not understand it.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you mean to dispute that it is any less a determination
than it could have been under the law. It could not be an
absolute determination for the reason that legislative action is
necessary to procure a determination. The law did not in any
way permit a determination. It simply permitted an expression
of opinion. It was so stated in the bill.
MR. BENEDICT:
The people expressed an opinion in reference to that. What
opinion did they express? Supposing there was a committee, we
will say of thirteen, who were to express their opinion upon a
certain subject, and five of that committee voted aye and four
voted no, and four did not vote at all, would you say that the
expression made by the five represented the sentiment of the
whole thirteen? No. All you can say is, that there was a
divided opinion, and no statement can be made that this represents the expression of the whole thirteen. Now that, Mr. Chairman, is substantially the situation of a popular vote. There was
just about a third voted for aye, a third voted for no.. and a
third did not vote at all. It did not decide what was then the
opinion of the people of Brooklyn. And it comes very far from
deciding or expressing the opinion of the people to-day. There
has been no expression of anything, save an opinion, and that
does not constitute a vote. I know, and I speak what I know, that
during the fall campaign which resulted in the vote of indecisive
expression of opinion the question of consolidation was not discussed by the city. Neither party desired to discuss it, and everyone who wished to find out anything about it had to get what




No. 44.]


43


information he could by his own efforts. The matter, so far as
an expression of opinion was concerned, was given without popular discussion and without popular information, and it was largely
due to that that there was so many people who did not vote one
way or the other. I can't believe, Mr. Chairman, that if the
question had been understood that there would have been onetenth of the voters who would have refrained from voting. If
the Legislature will submit that question again, not as an expression of opinion but as a determination, in my opinion, there would
not be a man in Brooklyn who would fail to vote.
MR. LEXOV:
You don't mean to argue that the Legislature should delegate
its legislation to the convictions of the people?
MR. BENEDICT:
I don't know whether, under the Constitution, it could be provided that a law should go into effect on a popular vote or not.
I know that the Constitution itself goes into effect on a popular
vote, and I know no reason why, if the Constitution, which is
over all laws, can go into effect on such a vote, another law
should not be passed upon in the same manner.
MR. GRADY:
It has been accepted in the Legislature that they can't pass a
statute which will become operative only in event of an affirmative vote of the citizens, and it was because of the character of the
vote taken in 1894 that it has been regarded of as solemn or
decisive character as could well be taken.
MR. BENEDICT:
I say I have not examined the provisions of the new Constitution or of the old one either. If that is so, if there is no probability of submitting the question to a popular vote as to a determination, then, of course, all you can have is an expression of
opinion. But it ought to be clearly understood, as it was not
at that time, that an expression was all that could be had. The
circumstances have so largely changed that there is a very wide



44


[SENATE,


spread feeling that the question was not properly submitted,
was not so submitted as to make that vote the expression of the
calm, judicial voice of the people, and it ought, therefore, to be
submitted again. I pledge myself for one, that if the people of
Brooklyn are given an opportunity to vote, and after a fair discussion shall then vote and say that in their opinion Brooklyn
ought to be wiped out of existence and consolidated with New
York, J am done on that subject.
MR. LEXOW:
We have heard Senator Grady's statement that the Legislature
can not delegate its legislative power. All we can do is to
resubmit this question for another expression of opinion, and
then in three or four months, if there is another change of feeling,
submit it again.
MR. BENEDICT:
If that is thle law and if it can't be submitted to the popular
vote. then. of course, there is nothing left but to submit to the
*expression of popular opinion. I say, however, that if the circumstances have changed there is no reason why another expression of opinion should not be offered them. I say, without hesitation, that the circumstances and the feeling, the knowledge of
the facts and the knowledge of the principles involved have so
changed as to make it reasonable for us to ask that that question shall be submitted to the people of Brooklyn again, and to
say that our reasonable request shall be refused because hereafter some men shall make an unreasonable request is entirely
illogical. If it is submitted again, and if circumstances change
so as to make it reasonable to submit it again, why not? I say
the question ought to be resubmitted for three reasons: First,
it was a completely indecisive vote and expressed nothing;
second, it was a vote taken without full and fair discussion,
without knowledge and information, and that so important a
matter as the civic existence of the city of Brooklyn should
never be allowed to be wiped out out, except with the full con



No. 44.]


4o5


sent of the people expressed on full information and full knowledge.
A. T. WHITE:
Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of both houses of the Legislature:
I do not come to you as commissioner of the city works, but as a
private citizen, born in Brooklyn, having lived all my life here,.
but likewise all my life a merchant in New York, and still nominally a merchant there, although giving my actual time here. I
am very decided in my opinions as to the interest of both cities
in these questions. Let me first of all point out that, while at
Albany the issue of consolidation appears to be paramount, in
Brooklyn it is the issue of resubmission that is most discussed.
The people here recognize that in the registered vote of 1894, a
little over one-third of the voters voted for consolidation. A
couple of hundred less were against and almost an equal number
did not vote at all. That, in itself, was an evidence that the
question was not understood and that the vote was not as full
nor as reliable as it should have been. I am frank to say that I
voted no, because I wished to speak for others who voted the
other way. It is a matter perfectly well known in Brooklyn and
perhaps, to some extent known in Albany as the Senator from
Brooklyn has witnessed thereto, that numerous voters who voted
for consolidation in 1894 either have changed their views in the
meantime, or without having changed their views, regard that
vote as inconclusive and desire that the whole question shall be resubmitted to the people. Beside the Senator, there is ex-Mayor
Schieren; there is a gentleman whom I met at the foot of the
stairs, Alderman Leich, the representative of the twenty-third
ward, which cast the largest vote in favor of consolidation in this
(ity, are now ardently in favor of resubmission and, 1 believe,
would vote against consolidation. Let me say, also, inasmuch
as real estate interests are to be represented here, that I am a
considerable taxpayer myself, that I represent other taxpayers
here, near to me in interests and in blood, and as taxpayers we are
opposed to consolidation and in favor of resubmission. On that




46


[SENATE,


subject it is, perhaps, not improper if T should say a word of the
resources of Brooklyn as I have found them after two years in
the office of the department of city works. I confess that when
I took that office in the financial condition in which the city was
placed, I had my doubts whether Brooklyn could make the improvements necessary in a long term of years. It is right and
proper for me to say that with reasonable care all reasonable
and neces.sary improvements will be made in proper and reasonable time, much more quickly than if the city of Brooklyn were
joined to the larger city of New York. Two years ago I had
my doubts whether we could inaugurate in a reasonable time
the improvements which have already been completed. We have
completed the Wallabout NMarket for $1,200,000, have wiped off
several hundred thousand dollars of arrears, besides three million
of indebtedness to the governmrent. We have paved more streets
in a year than are to be found in New York, below the Harlem;
we have built more school-houses than the city of Brooklyn ever
saw before. In one year we have added 11,000 sittings. The
amount already appropriated and available for 1896, will secure
a still greater increase. In every respect we are far ahead of New
York. In the park department we are far ahead of New York
city. I have come to the conclusion, which I am perfectly frank
to state as a citizen and as a taxpayer, the necessary improvements on this side of the river will progress more lively if we
remain independent than if we were joined. I said that the
people of Brooklyn did not feel that the verdict of 1894 was either
a fair or a final verdict. I know, personally, a number of men
and know of many others out of my immediate acquaintances
whose opinions I know on this subject, but who feel that they
voted under a misapprehension and have changed their minds.
On that point, let me say that some conclusion should be submitted
to them. The people of Brooklyn do not desire that this question
should be left open from year to year. They are ready to take
the chance to vote for it at a special election or at the presidential
election. Enough interest has been excited during the last year
and the issues have become perfectly understood. Without excep



No. 44.]


47


tion they are quite ready that it should be put to its ultimate conclusion if it be the desire of the Legislature at a popular election
in November or in which way the Legislature may decide. Now
this question, as I stated in my speech at the Academy of Music
meeting, was involved in the choice of several members of the
Legislature in the last election. If it was not understood in 1894,
it wTas thoroughly understood in the fall of 1895. In every election district the issue was discussed, and among the legislators
at Albany there is not a single advocate of the consolidation bill
without resubmission to the people.
MR. LEXOW:
You desire resubmission for the purpose of defeating consolidation?
MR. WHITE:
No, sir; but because more than two-thirds of the people of
Brooklyn desire it.  I voted against it before and should again.
MR. LExOW:
Do you mean to say that the desire of resubmission is not a desire
to defeat, but simply a sentimental desire.
MR. WHITE:
Not only do the people who previously voted against consolidation desire to record their votes in the same way again at an election when a full vote could be had, but in addition to that, at least
one-third of those who voted for consolidation in 1894, desire that
the question be resubmitted in order that there may be no doubt
that the will of the majority of the people has been expressed.
Some ask for it because they have changed their minds and some
want it simply because they wish to see fair play.
MR. LEXow:
It comes right down to the proposition that you and those who
have changed their minds desire resubmission for the purpose of
defeating consolidation.




48


[SENATE,


MR. WHITE:
If I had changed my mind, I should, certainly.
A VoICE:
Is it not the fact that the people of Brooklyn want this resubmission in order that the Legislature should know the opinion of
the people of Brooklyn?
MR. WHITE:
That is a fact.
MR. LEXOw:
When you entered upon your office you had concluded that
Brooklyn could not carry on her own improvements, that is the
statement you made.
MR. WHITE:
I said I was in doubt as to whether Brooklyn could carry on it.
own improvements.
MR. LExow:
Had you not expressed yourself as being of that opinion?
MR. WHITE:
No, sir; I never held an opinion that was conclusive.  I voted
against consolidation in 189-. I desire resubmission because I
believe that more than two-thirds of the voters desire it.  I
voted against consolidation before and I shall vote against consolidation again, if I had an opportunity to vote to-day.  No man
closes his ears to argument.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you mean to be understood that the desire for resubmission
is not a desire for defeat, but simply the desire to express an
opinion without having in any way a desire to defeat the proposition. Is that not the sentiment of the people of the city of Brooklyn, as you would have us understand it?
MR. WHITE:
The sentiment, as I endeavored to construe it, is this: That
nearly- all thie pe~ople who previously voted against consolidation




No. 44.]


49


desire to record their votes in the same way again at an election
when a full vote on the question might be had instead of partial
vote.  I also believe that one-half of the gentlemen who voted for
consolidation in 1894 desire that the question shall be resubmitted
in order that there may be an issue, and that the will of the majority of the people shall be expressed.  Some of them ask for resubmission because they have changed their minds.  But from my
acquaintance with those who voted I should say that fully one-half
of -them are for resubmission to-day.
MR. BRUSH:
Is it not, from your observation, the fact that the sentiment on
this matter has very largely changed within the last year?
MR. WHITE:
I think so, decidedly; I think that the gentlemen whose names
I have already mentioned, ex-Mayor Schieren and Alderman Leich
and a number of others whose names I might mention, are living
testimony of these facts.
GEORGE C. REYNOLDS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am here upon
only a very few moments' notice.  I had not expected to be able
to come before the committee to-day, but I am very glad of the
opportunity to express my views upon one single point and it is a
point which has been discussed to a considerable extent and which
evidently has a very important bearing upon the whole subject.
I do not propose to discuss the advisability or desirability of consolidation as an abstract question upon its merits.  I would be
glad of the opportunity to do so if I had the opportunity.  I have
the most decided and absolute opinion in regard to it, but what I
want to say bears upon the question of resubmission to the people
of Brooklyn for final determination.  I ought to take it for
granted that the committee assume that the people of Brooklyn
have the right to express an opinion as to whether their municipality would be extinguished or not.  It would be contrary to
our American ideas to take away the charter of the city of Brook[Senate, No. 44.]   7




50


[SENATE,


lyn without the well considered approval of its citizens.  Charters
of corporations are sometimes forfeited by law, by the law officers
of the State when they have so grossly violated their charters
that they are not considered worthy to hold them  In such cases
theAttorney-General of the State may institute proceedings forthe
purpose of taking away the charter. I do not apprehend that the
members of this committee desire to assume the office of AttorneyGeneral and use their influence against the city of Brooklyn
for the purpose of forfeiting its charter on the ground of misconduct, although sometimes we have made mistakes in our
elections, but that should not deprive us of the right of existence. Now, the point which the committee seem to have in
mind - some members of it - that this consent of the city of
Brooklyn has been secured. If not, the questions that have been
put have no meaning. I take it that the members of the committee bow to the universally accepted opinion that t-le city of
Brooklyn has a right to be heard on the subject as to lw lether
she shall be deprived of her charter or not. It is assumed that
this opinion has been expressed. I say that it never was. I
want to stop here to discuss whether hle result of that vote was
an expression of opinion, whether it is to be regarded and treated
afterwards in its results as a mere opinion with binding force.
It is said that the opinion has been expressed and that the
chlarter can be taken away. 1 have no doubt that the vote of
1894 was mlerely an expression of opinion. I don't care what
for-ce or vliat degree of force you attribute to that vote, my
point is that that vote has no force beyond the Legislature of
1894. It was for them to say that that expression of opinion
was of sufficient force to pass an act consolidating these two
cities. I say plainly, when your Legislature declined to do it oi'
failed to do it, the vote had spent its force and ld1 nlo oilter
force whatever. If the vote taken that year caln tbe (',llsidelred
by this Legislature the same thing may be coIntil!edd f'or half
a century. It is easy to put an extreme case to slow thell all(,eed
absurdity of any particular position. It may be easy to say tlhat
you will have a resubmission, and it seems to nime tl'iat is the




No. 44.]


wise thing to do, for why sllould a vote taken ten years ago be
binding now? You must give a reasonable, practicable operation in a measure, and the question imust be determined upon
c:oimmon sense principles. I may try to argue before this committee that when a vote was taken for the purpose of determining a question that the Legislature would have the right to
throw it a;ide and leave it entirely open for any subsequent
eogislature. lThe question is, what do the people of Brooklyn
want to-day? IBut as I just said, 1894 was not an expression of
the general sentiment of Brooklyn. I said that only one-third
of the people were in favor of consolidation. I confess I voted
against it on instinct; to-day I would vote against it on wellmatured judgment. Shall we be responsible for the vote of
1894? It would be as sensible to hang a man now because he
had determined in 1894 to commit suicide, when, as a matter of
fact, only one-third of him resolved to commit suicide. That
shouldn't send Brooklyn to the electric chair. The joint committee should be very careful how it recommends the union of
New York and Brooklyn. Is there any harm in a community
like this to let the people have a chance for their life? You can
have the vote at a special election in the spring. This is not a
party question. It is a question of existence. To say that you
will take up that raveled thread and blot us out is not right
or just, and the people will, if extinguished by the exercise of
arbitrary power, appeal for another hearing to the authorities.
As I took occasion to say the other night, my own judgment
would be that we should have the charter submitted to us; that
we ought to have a chance to know under what conditions we
are to be taken into another city when we lose our own existence. We should have the right to say whether we would commit ourselves to any commission for the purpose of claiming a
charter. I am willing to admit that I am in favor of resubmission for the purpose of voting again. I want an opportunity to
vote, because I believe that the people of the city of Brooklyn
to-day, a large majority of them, are opposed to consolidation.
It is right that the question should be resubmitted. Is there




52


[SENATE,


any harm in granting to anybody that wants the right to vote
that concession, in accordance with the rights, the wishes, the
sentiment, the judgment of the community? If they vote in
favor of it the Legislature will enact it; undoubtedly the only
question is, whether you will give them a chance or not. You
can have the election as quickly as you please. Let the people
be called upon to vote upon it. In denying them this privilege
you would be trampling upon the commonest rights conceded in
a republican form of government like this, to say that after
such a vote as that of 1894, after such a length of time, and after
the Legislature has passed upon the question, to go back to
that vote and blot us out. The sentiment of the people is so
strong upon this subject that they shall look upon any action of
the kind as a very great wrong. That the city of Brooklyn has
been extinguished, which is entirely inconsistent with the principles of free government. I have nothing further to say.
MR. GRADY:
Do you seek to settle the question by a popular vote?
MR. REYNOLDS:
I understand that the committee take the ground that no such
vote can have legal and binding force. My preference is that if
we are to have annexation I would like to know under what
condition it is to be done.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you mean to be understood in your argument as expressing
the opinion that the people of the city of Brooklyn are opposed
to consolidation upon any basis?.
MR. REYNOLDS:
Yes, sir; that is my well-settled opinion to-day.
W. R. WALKLEY:
Mr. Chairman and (CGentlemen of the Committee: I am in Brooklyn this morning for the first time in a year and I have not heard
all the arglnments pro and con in regard to this question of consolidation. IBut I understand your committee are here with the deter



No. 44.]


53


nrination to hear an expression of the people on the bill that
proposes to unite these two cities without the city of Brooklyn
having anything to say about it. You are to force a consolidation
of these two cities and the destruction of the city of Brooklyn as
a city because two years ago some vote was taken which indicated
an expression of opinion in favor of consolidation. Now, I want
to say for myself that I think I voted upon that question, but it was
not an issue, it was not a defined issue in that campaign and,
though I ought to be ashamed of myself to say it, I could not state
to-day whether I voted for or against it. It was not a defined
issue. To-day, I have an opinion because Brooklyn is in the dawn
of a new era of prosperity- it has interests vital to itself, as a
city; it has been laying miles and miles of streets; it is to-day one
of the best governed municipalities in the country. We have our
own interests and I believe I voice the expression of the people
when I say that three-quarters are against consolidation. They
believe in Brooklyn as a city of their own. They believe in
Brooklyn as a city distinct by itself. There has been much said
about the question of taxation, and now the terms of this consolidation are not understood by the citizens of Brooklyn. As Judge
Reynolds just said, if we are to be united are we not to know
under what conditions?  Have we no voice in the matter; does
the honorable Legislature propose to take the city of over a million
inhabitants and annex it to New York without giving the people
a chance to vote upon that question, without giving them full
opportunity for discussion? Let the voice of the people signify
their desires. Are not the people of Brooklyn entitled to say
whether they will unite in this greater municipality or not? It
is certainly not allowed to do it as it now exists. It is not the
desire of the Republican Legislature to destroy the city of Brooklyn without the consent of the voters. I only plead, gentlemen,
that the citizens here may have a chance to vote and say whether
they are willing to consolidate with New York or not. Let the
people express themselves by a vote on this question. After the
issue is presented and a discussion had I think the people will
be willing to vote readily and quickly. I do not care how soon it




54:


[SENATE,


comes, but they are certainly entitled to consider the question
and to express their opinion - whether that (expression be an
opinion or a determination.
FRED. WVV. HTINRICHS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of thle Coimmittee: I did not expect
to speak here, but after two years' experience I heave something
to say on this question. I remember that you, Mr. Chairman,
sat with me in the school room in Brooklyn, when you laid the
foundation for that career which has been of so much honor to
you. I remember that we used to read books of fiction together
in those old days when your early career was started in Brooklyn
schools. One, " The Trapper's Secret " or " Bloody GulCh."  Had
we expressed then an opinion on the question of the literature
that should be given to the young for their information we would
have voted for Beadle's "DI)ime Novel "('laughter). We would not,
now, indorse that class of literature, of which, I believe, you had
a circulating library. (G'reat laughter, in which Senator Lexow
joined.)  I believe there is no question that B rooklyn people do
not wish consolidation. They, hiave learned better  they have
passed through the juvenile period of eduluea-tioi.n
Now, I would speak of consolidation generally. 1 occupy the
office of collectlor of arrears of taxes and w~e found, after consolidation of country towns and the city, thcat three officers are selling
the same property -- tihe county treasurer, thre State Treasurer,
and I, myself - want to sill it for, a\rre1!:l1'~ars of ttaiXes. -Now one
sale wipes out all. I lie othliers. WVeien it comes to this proposed
imperial combinatfion mat~flters wvill still be more confused. There
was no couroidai ion eveIr prop~osed like it. You can not effect
it ill one, tw-o oi thircee year.  You  wt(Mi a, conIIniD5iOm  with
knowledge of law, ai commission that wvil sit for several years
and will be well paid. The present conuiissioii have not the
experience. it: is not pai(J and can not- d(votle the time and attention the, gr-ca t subjj-ctb nee]s. Evemn Ma-yor Schieren, who has
studied the question, sawN- t his point. MNTr. J. S. rp. StrJ3PanliamIn of
Brooklyn, who is just approachbing thte enl of his careeIr, is a uiiem



No. 44.]


55


ber of this commission. Just so with Mr. (Green. who is also on
the commission. Both have been very useful men, but it needs
younger men. I ask you to pause before recommending legislation. Study taxes. You couldn't reach a knowledge of this particular subject in six months. Lack of information and complexities might cause a loss of millions of dollars to New York and
Brooklyn. The present bill must be repudiated.
IMR. LEXOW:
The bill leaves out all these questions. It provides only for a
sentimental union of the two municipalities.
MR. IHINxRICHS:
I am glad ofr the interruption.  If sentimentalism is to rule,
then let the people of -1Brooklyn vote.  It is as sure as that the sun
will rise to-morrow'l   that the people will vote against consolidation.
We honor New Yor1k but we love Brooklyn.  There is more artifiCialih;i<:xto'so the river.  There is more extravagance, there
is more,f i:l e glitter, there is more of so-called society.  We have
grown upl in an atmosphere entirely separate and apart from that
sort of thinng.  We believe in the old traditions of home, of wife
and c;'ti(trren. Our clubs are distinguishable from the clubs across
the riv. r.
MIR. LEXow:
HT\ow will -he declaration of legal union of the municipalities
affect any of those questions?
AIt. HINXRICHS:
It is like two lovers who have concluded to marry, but who have
concluded, after knowing each other's faults and virtues that they
had better live apart.
JESSE JOHNSON:
Mr. Chairmlan and gentlemen of the committee: Though I had
hoped 1o say something sometime on this subject, I came here this
morning to sympathize.  I want to say to you, gentlemen of the
committee, that I for one, and I believe every man here receives
as a friendly tender, as a considerate. act, this coming of your




56


[SENATIE,


committee to listen to us and we hope to meet in that spirit of fair
and temperate statement and argument which befits such a commission as you bear.  There has been no larger question, no
greater political problem, submitted in this union since the constitutional amendments, growing out of the civil war, than this
problem of merging the two largest cities of the State, two of the
largest cities in the United States, and making it, with one or two
exceptions, the largest now or that will ever be known in the
history of the world.  There is no precedent for it.  Great cities
of the world have been governed by imperialism, but not by popular suffrage as in America.  To merge into a great proposed city
two such cities as New York and Brooklyn, demands careful, considerate attention.  Such a gigantic system is a problem and an
experiment worth demanding the fullest, the most careful, the
highest consideration. I will say a word which I believe no one
here will deny:  We love Brooklyn.  Men have ridden to their
death for the guidon of their regiment.  We bear Brooklyn as
our guidon; if Brooklyn is blotted out against the will of the
people - I am going to make a strong statement - it will be one
of the political crimes, or blunders which amounts to a crime, in
this generation.  If it is believed that it was not a fair union, then
the blunder will be almost as great.  Brooklyn must know and
feel that it is a heartfelt union.  If it will be a union with and by
juggling, it will not be heartfelt.
MR. LExow:
On what basis do you make that statement?
MR. JOHNSON:
Because the vote taken in 1894 was not considered a finality.
It was understood that it would not be final.  What I say is this:
That is was so submitted that it was not understood to be a
finality, and it was presented in words that have at least left that
impression.  The vote shows that it was not understood.
MR. LEXOW:
Why do you say that the vote shows that?




No. 44.]


57


Mi1. JOHNSON:
Because over one-third of the votes were against consolidation.
MR. LExOW:
You admit that the organic law of the State is probably the most
important thing that the voter can possibly vote upon or that can
be submitted to him.  Is it not a fact that 20,000 more or thereabouts in the city of Brooklyn voted upon the question of consolidation than voted upon the question of the constitutional amendments then submitted, or rather the whole revised Constitution.
MR. JOHNSON.
It has so been stated and I doubt it not.  That was submitted
with the knowledge that it would be a finality; I think it diverted
the attention of the people and made them believe that it did not
have the efficacy which is now claimed for it.  That is my thought,
that is my sentiment as to the question of that vote. But I am
not here to argue it. That vote is two years old. In thirty days
you can find out what this city wants, and there is no appeal from
that - yes, in fifteen days if necessary.
I say to you that a law blotting out Brooklyn would be felt as
being an unfriendly act. I do not propose to say anything about
the merits of consolidation. I will say, however, that bringing
Staten Island into the city I can see no reason for that. It is
larger than the city of Brooklyn and New York before the recent
addition, and has but 51,(00( population and is over five miles
from the city. Why consolidate that? I want to see first the
consolidation of bridges, that shall carry our cars right into the
heart of New York, as was provided by the Legislature for the
eastern district last year. Last year the Legislature gave us a
bill to build such a bridge connecting the eastern district. One
bridge here will consolidate Brooklyn more than any paper record.
I believe paper records can no more effect consolidation than we
can make paper money with gold.
MAR. LEXOW:
Why not legal consolidation:;s well as physical consolidation.
[Senate, No. 44..],




5S


[SENATE,


31M1. JOHNSON:
For the same reason that we~ desire communlicai-ion between
Albalny and New York. For the sae e reason that we desire (uick
rapid transit between all the great cities. We believe that government is not necessarily connected wvith traffic or transit. We
believe that government is a matter of the wishes, the heart, the
sentiment, the patriotic feeling of the people and we do not believe
that these sentiments will be nourished by any consolidation
which is brought about. But, gentlemen of the coImmission, I
desire to pass to another branch of the subject, a branch of the
subject as to which I feel very deeply, and that is this bill which
is presented by the commission.
I do not regard it as a bil of consolidation, but a bill of effacement, a bill effacing B;rooklyn1 in ord(er, as the bill itself says,
to pave the way for other bills that shall build up a new municipality. I am sure this committee lias thouglht much  oth upon
the bill iresented by the comnmlission and upon the bili presented
by Senator Brush. I ask wh-lat will be the condition of Brooklyn
if that bill passes?  What will be its condition when the first
section takes effect? Will this be a city or will it not? You will
then simply have enacted that it shall be consolidated with New
York. Is it consolidated?  Is there one or two corporations?
Does the city hall, in which we sit, remain the property of the
city of Brooklyn? Is Brooklyn a coorporation of the nmunicipal
government or is it not?  I do not know how those that drew the
bill consider it. If lrooklyn is not a municipal corporzation what
then is it?
AIR. GrPADkY:
Do you mean before or after consolidation takes elf lec;t?
MR. JOHNSON:
I mean after two years. You have said that Bro)oklyn is consolidated witli te coorioration known as 1 1(e mayor, a lder1en and
commonalty of New York. lBlut for the Ipurpose of local gov(ernment all her officers and all her elections slall plro(eeed as now.
If we are a part of New York, if Brooklyn is wiled out as a cor



No. 44.]


59


poration we are a mere borough, with a local government administered temporarily and during the will of the Legislature. The
dignity, the name, the constitutional safeguard to protect this
city will be no more. We are not a city. We are to be something
which is unknown in the history of the world and unknown to the
constitution, a mere temporary makeshift until it shall be provided where we shall go and what we shall do by the Legislature.
If, on the other hand, we are not consolidated, if the city of Brooklyn remains with its corporate rights, its corporate existence, its
corporate functions- whatever you do, don't do this, don't take
away its name. Don't pass an act which the city doesn't want,
an act that will leave it without its name and without its history, but leaves all the prodigious responsibilities with its representatives.
Buit it seems to me that it will not and can not claim that this
act of consolidation is intended to be an act of consolidation in
name only, that it is only consolidation in name; if it is then you
take away our name and our rallying point while we have the responsibility. You have told us that we have the responsibility and
yet are liable to come into the other city. You have left no rallying point from which to effect its consolidation, then, I say, you
have taken away all the constitutional safeguards that protect us.
Every one. You have taken away the provision that we shall
elect and appoint our own officers, you have taken away the provision under which we elect our mayor, you simply make us a temporary commilnission, disgraced, discrowned - responsibilities that
might alppall (ihe most daring. I submit. gentlemen of the committee, I am criticisingir that provision of the bill, but nothing that I
may say is inltended in criticism of the responsible offices of that
coniilssion, after their six years, but what have they done? They
Lhav-c prepared a bill fixing the territorial boundaries of the proposed greater city, and providing for an appropriation of $25,000
to defray the expense of the commission to prepare laws, bills -
which when euacted into laws will govern this municipality. In
the bill of last year tllhey asked to be directed to prepare a charter.
This year they have left that out. They do not propose to prepare




60


[SENATE,


a charter. They not only failed to propose it, but their failure
is marked, in that they have omitted the proposition that was in
last year's bill, that there should be a charter. They have simply
asked that they be authorized to prepare bills.
MR. LEXOW:
Is it true that there is no such thing as a charter known to the
law- that whatever a city operates under must be a bill, or an
act of the Legislature?
MR. JOHNSON:
I am very glad that you presented that question. While a definition from a lawyer's standpoint is true, this is true: That every
city in the State, I think, has an act which embraces a system of
laws under which it is governed, and which is called and recognized
as its charter.
MR. LExow:
Were you not one of the distinguished leaders in the Constitutional Convention who placed his feet upon the charters and demanded that uniform laws should be enacted for the government
of the cities, and that cities of the first, second and third class
should not have charters as heretofore, but be governed by uniform charters, established by the Legislature.
AIR. JOHNSON:
I am very glad that the very minor work that I did in the Constitutional Convention has been called to my attention. I was
opposed from first to last to the proposition that there could or
might be unity of charters in this State. I had the pleasure of an
interview with Judge Earl, who is at the head of the uniform charter commission, and I told him that it was as impossible to make
the charters of the cities uniform as it is impossible to make the
trees grow uniform; but what I did say was that the great principle of home rule for cities should be embodied in the supreme law.
I also said that if the Legislature undertook to legislate as to matters that were purely local, that affected the sovereignty and the
dignity of the city, that it should not be done without placing upon




No. 44.]


61


the bill a record that it had been done at or against the wish of the
city. My thought was this, that in general legislation for cities,
the cities should have nothing to say; that in matters pertaining to
special legislation, the cities should be heard, and what they said
as to it should be recorded and given prominence, as a stimulus
to prosperity and city patriotism. What we must have in this
State is this brief mandate. " That as we make our bed we shall
lie on it; " that if we build for the good it will remain and not be
taken away, that if we build for the bad we must take the responsibility. Let me say to you, and I never meditated anything longer
in my life: The cities have grown so large that you can not have
good government in the State if you do not have it in the cities.
It is different than it was thirty years ago, when a third of the
population was in the cities; now, seventy-one per cent. is in the
cities. Q
A charter has a recognized meaning. It is a body of law uniting territory of a municipality in the form of government. It
was used in that sense in the bill of last year. It is omitted this
year. If this city is put under the government of a commission
it will be a great wrong. I want to say that if it is done, I
believe the greatest blow possible will be struck at the independent and patriotic feeling of this city. It takes away all there is
of aspiration for better politics. It takes all there is away of
thoughtful care for good government. If the people are told that
they are to be disfranchised of their governmental power, that
they are to be made different from other municipalities, made different in being plunged in with this city of New York-the government of which some of us do not love - I believe that it will be
something that will break down the municipal spirit here and
will be an injury of great magnitude. These cities must live in
and by themselves and for themselves. And if the principle of
government by commission is imperfect and corrupt it will grow
and germinate for many years. I want to say to this commission
that it was a patriotic uprising of the people that changed the
politics of Brooklyn. The people did not like the way things
were being run - perhaps they were unreasonable. They wanted




62


[SENATE,


home rule. And it wNas because a mlinority vparty came forward
and planted itself upon the principle of abolishing those corrupt
influences, and, under the leadership of Mayor Scheiren, demanded
immediate responsibility, that the minority party came oul from
behind the clouds. That is the very alphabet of politics in Brooklyn. I have acted on this principle for ten or twenty years, and
I hope the party to which I belong will act on it, that that party
will not wipe out our existence and that that party will leave to
us the principle of home rule, which some of us helped plant in
the Constitution. That is the sentiment of to-day; I speak as a
citizen of Brooklyn. I speak as a man that loves Brooklyn, and
what has been done in Brooklyn. I ask as a citizen, as a member of the party to which some of you belong, that you will not
take away our charter rights and give tllhe  to a commission
which may be appointed under this bill.
MR. LExOW:
The sessions of to-morrow will be held in Part IV of the Supreme
Court, room 23, in the court-house. We will now take a recess
for one hour. The afternoon session will be given to those who
will'speak in favor of the bill.
AFTERNOON     SESSION.
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER,
BROOKLYN, N. Y., Janlary 17, 2.80 i. I.
A. ABRAHAM:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the (COlmllittee: I have been
requested by the merchants of the city of Brooklyn to present to
you their views on this question of consolidation. I (lo so with
the conviction that almost the entire me(rcantile community of
this city favors consolidation with New York, lrovided the unification takes place on a basis of equal taxation. The names appended to this petition were hurriedly procuredl. and thle can



No. 4-1.]


63


va\sst, infollrmed me that amnongL the mnerchants the limited time
at hiis counlnand permitted hin to visit, comparatively speaking,
only a few objected to sign the petition. The names on this list
rcl)resent the largest concerns in this city, with many millions of
dollars invested in capital and property and employing many thousands of people in their various vocations, and are, therefore, well
qualified to judge, from a practical business standpoint, what are
the best interests of the city. Brooklyn is near its debt limit,
her taxable resources are about exhausted, real estate being
in many instances assessed at higher figures than the actual
value, and, nothwithstanding the high rate of taxation, the revenue derived is insufficient for actual requirements and improvements necessary to a city covering so much territory as
does; Brookly]-. Wllile New York is annually adding to its boundless res'1rces, Brooklyn is practically stagnated. The comparative small amount added the past few years to the assessed
valuation of real estate, is onwing principally to increases on
existing property, thus adding to our burdens now almost unbearable, while New York city, notwithstanding the depression in
business, will, I am informed, add this year alone more than
4 ighty millions of dollars which represent but fifty per cent. of the
value of the new buildings a-nd improvements erected in New
York. The opposition to this movement seems to be confined to
a coterie of sentimentalists w\hol, aside from social reasons. have
not advanced a single, solid reason wherein it will be detrimental
to Brooklyn, provided consolidation takes place on a basis of
equality so far as taxation is concerned. While I have the greatest admiration for our local press, I believe their fear that amalgamuation with New York will affect them injuriously, is groundless. If they exercise the same enterprising spirit after the cities
are made one, their influence will not be confined as it is at
lpresent, to 1Brooklyn alone, but will expand and they can enter
lie field for supremacy on their merits and can cope successfully
with the great metropolitan papers in New York. It is a base
libel on the intelligence of the voters to assumle that those who
voed for consolidation, (lid not understand its import. The ques



64


[SENATE,


tion had been agitated for a long period prior to the election, and
it is a monumental and impertinent assumption on the l)ir't if
the opposition to claim that those who did not vote for or against
consolidation, were against the union. Is it not reasonable to
suppose that those who oppose consolidation would have voted
against the scheme? I believe that it is the wish of our citizens
that the legislature should speedily ratify the action of the people
as expressed by the majority vote then cast by the various districts
affected. The people have no misgivings but that the Legislature
will enact a just and consistent charter equitable to every district
in the union. We have confidence in our representatives and our
Brooklyn legislators will have the co-operation of all fair-minded
confreres throughout the State, and if not, I claim that 1Brooklyn
holds the balance of power and now that the municipal elections
are divorced form national elections, party lines will be abolished
and on home matters, the Democrat and Republican who may differ
in national politics, will unite and exact such pledges from either
party and the respective candidates which can not and will not be
ignored; so Brooklyn with its 1,100,000 people need not fear the
result. Confidence and faith should go together.
I have given the question of consolidation considetrable t-houglht
and in my opinion, should it take pla<ce, B1rooklyn will enter
into an era of prosperity which will eclipse and sink into insignificance any past experience in her history. It is true we have
grown to be a large city, so far as size and population, but bigness is not always greatness. Brooklyn can be likened very
much to a merchant who has a large store with an insufficient
capital to run his business. The size of the plant requires a largc
force of clerks and to be equipped with a stock commensurate
with its proportions; but, alas! the capital is inadequate and to
avoid bankruptcy, the merchant wisely takes in a rich partner.
This is analogous to Brooklyn's condition. We have as many
miles of streets toi police ianld 'le1a1; we have all the incidental
expenses of a larige city, ullt our tltxal)le resources are not sufficient for the necessary rcquire tl(nts, and this condition is
likely to continue in t-the slame ral io iuntil anniexaftion taxes place.




No. 44.]


65


Brooklyn, in turn, will give New York a city naturally endowed,
and not exceded by any other in the land, with a boundless territory for a large population, washed by the waves of the ocean
and its numnerous bays thus insuring healthfulness and salubrious
air. New York can only grow vertically and the natural expansion is in our direction, which has made Brooklyn particularly
attractive with its near proximity to the ocean beaches and its
limitless capacity of growth in every direction and yet be within
easy and quick accessibility to the business district of the enlarged metropolis. This gives this side of the river the natural
advantage over the upper part of New York.
Real estate in Brooklyn, should the union be affected, will never
be as valuable as in New York. New York, owing to its narrow
conformation, is now congested, while over here there is practically no limit to a healthy expansion. Rents will always be
comparatively low on Long Island, and houses will be built so
long as the demand makes the investment a profitable venture
and competition will keep down the rental of houses as it does in
merchandise or any other commodity. Aside from all material
interest, we are in reality a part of New York, why not be with
it? New York and Brooklyn are one city in all that is essential
to unity, they ought to be one city in form as well as in fact; a
great metropolis with but a single opinion, a single, common
prosperity. The artificial and arbitrary division of the city into
a number of separate municipalities is hurtful in many ways. It
deprives the metropolis of its proper rank among the great cities
of the world. It is wasteful of public revenues. It tends to high
taxes and worse service; it embarrasses efforts for improvement.
It confuses council and it breeds indifference and antagonism,
where combination of effort is most necessary for the public
welfare.
W\hat a picture for the imagination to dwell upon is this mighty
coming unified metropolis.  Its vast army of workmen, its
mighty accumulation of capital, its public works surpassing
all known wonders of man's ingenuity; its numerous bridges
[Senate, No. 44.]   9




66


66              ~~~~[SENATE,


sure to follow: its c-hain of lpark~s rivalling in beaaktv the most
famou of the wiorld; its humn and roa —r of eceaseless traiffic;
its broad domain p-acked with homes limited on one side
only by the broad Atlantic. And its churches and great schools;
its palaces of trade and huge dives of industry. This will be a
sight to quicken, the blood and make us proud citizens of the
second city of the world.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 15, 1896.
To His Excellency, the Governor, and the Legislature of the State of
A, eto York:
The undersigned, merchants of the city of Brooklyn, respectfully urge the passage of a bill consolidating Brooklyn city with
New York city, providing, among other things, for attaining an,equal and uniform irate of taxation and uniform vahi.-Itions for
the purpose of taxation:
A. D. Matthews & Sons.
H1-enryv Offermiall.
Abraham & Straus.
The Liebman Company.
Samuel Koch & Soils.
Sl-,ater & Co.
Hlarding Manufacturing, Cumpany.
L. Manlne & Co.
B~rookh-n Furniture Company.
Anderson & Co.
Net n;;  C. 57.3- Fulton si reet.
Jamcsi Morton,.581- Fulton st-reet.
Tflw1 Singer- MLanufacturing C omp-,any, Winch, A4gent.
W1. H-. ilooper, Jr.,.593 Fiilton street.
John Wood, 609 Fulton street.
Alfred F. Wise, Flatbush avenue and Fulton street.
T'heodYore T. Ovingt on, Pl] ibsavcnue ai-d FGlton street.
llar(I(onberghI & Co., Flatbush av-enue and Fulten street.
John C. Gre-_nnell & Co., 19-21. F latbush avenue.
Pet. schmitz, 1-11 Flatbush avenue.




Neo. 44.]                        6


67


Charrot & Henry, 58 Flatbush avenue.
l_)alvton & Mlontgomiery7, 69-73 Flatbush a-venue.
'Jamles Lev-ine, 74 Flatbush avenue.
Luther II. Potter & Bro., 97 Flatbu~sh a-venue.
Richiard Knox, 152 and 1.54 Flatbush avenue.
Johin Herrniann, firm of Herrmanan & Grace, Flatbushi anid Fifth
Win. IT. Bennett, 448 Dean street, corner Flatbush avenue.
Cameron & Co., 203 Flatbush avenue.
Camieron, 209 Flatbush avenue.
IPhi-Iip F. Cassidy, 471 Dean street.
Thos. E. Langyton 196' Flabs   vne
Edward Brill, 253 Flatbush avenue.
Horatio S. Stewart, 261 Flatbush avenue.
Henryv Batterman, 747-749 Broadway.
S. B. Kraus, 657 Broadway.
Bo-vuton & Co., 658 and 660 Broadway.
Williami Batermtan.
Phili1p Bitter, 674 Broadway.
Murzeshein-er Bros., 676 Broadway.
A.Westheim, 687 Broadwav.
Gee. P-. Schneider, 689 Broadway.
Joell Schaithers, 709-711 Broadway
Blasius Ahl1geier, 714.B1roadway.
B. Ollricht, 730 Broadway.
John Mayer, 734 Broadway.
Stultz & Bauer, 738 Broadway.
James Hlealy, Broadway and Flushing avenue.
Chiarles Lyon, 769 Broadway.
Al. Blarkas, 779 Broadway.
J. H. Deskaui, 783 Broadway.
M. Descau, 797 Broadway.
Wolf Bros., 8131 Broadway.
Johin A. Schwarz & Brother, 8.34 and 840 Broadway.
Bernhiard Mlonneuse, 893 Broadway.
William Gohiringer., 895 Broadway.




68


68              [~~~~SENATE,


Fred. H1. Levy, 92.9 Broadway.
Black & Fische, Broadway, corner Myrtle avenue.,John H1. Thielman, 890 Broadway.
MTiller- &- Son, 878 Broadway.
Joseph O'Brien & Co., 151 to 1059 Atlantic avenue.
Standa-rd Shoe Company, 1289 Atlantic av-enue.
V: —ooklyn Clothing Company, 141 and 143 Atlantic avenue.
L. X~ne& Co.
W. 11. Mlumford.
Nell & Scott.
Chiarles M-N. Glage, of Gage & Toller.
M-oses G],enuno, 870 Pulton street.
John Fu,-guson, 362 Fulton street.
WlInl. 1H. Patton, 575 Baltic street.
Johin H. Peters, 360 Fulton street.
Ei~astus Gulick & Co., 350 Fulton street.
Julius MIiller, 414 Fulton street.
C'. C. Adams & Co.
Thomas Ke(elev.
P. George W. Hall.
Hvdemian & Co.
A.. Nkannta.
Ch1farles K. Ash.
Her-man A. Rothschild, manager for J. Rothschild, 4.50 Fulton
street-.
Wmn. H. Voorhees, secretary Bolton Drug Company.
Cousins & U rner.
WV. Schrieder, manager for the Fulton Cloak and Suit Company, 520 Fulton street.
ML E. Keogh, 522 Fulton street.
E. J. Ergens, manager for J. M. Chauntskis, 486 Fulton street..
Johnston Bros., Nevins street and Flatbush avenue.
William Irvine, 814 Carroll street.




No. 44.]


69


MR. BAILEY:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I should like
briefly to call to your attention why the material interests of Brooklyn demand consolidation, and to beseech you to advise the granting of the relief necessary, which can come only with assistance
from the boundless wealth of the city across the river.
In 1883, the present Brooklyn bridge was opened to the public.
The assessed value of Brooklyn at that time was $299,000,000, a
gain in ten years previous of $65,800,000. In 1895, the assessed
value of Brooklyn was $566,000,000, again since the opening of the
bridge of $267,000,000, an average gain for the thirteen years since
1883, of over $20,000,000, per year, while previous to 1883, the
annual gain was only six and three quarter millions. This immense
yearly increase is now at an end. The gain of 1895 over 1894 was
$14,500,000. Of this $6,500,000 came by the addition of the new
wards. From this source there will be no such immense gain in
1896. In 1895, the assessments in four wards were decreased over
$1,000,(00, and should have been decreased $2,000,000, and as the
Brooklyn "Eagle " most justly says, " the increase of the assessed
value in Brooklyn during 1895, below 1894, is $2,785,709, less than
the aggregate increase due to known causes, such as new buildings,
the increase in value of real estate in new wards, the increased
assessment on personal property and increase in mileage assessment on the railroad." From these sources there should have been
an aggregate increase of $17,303,000, but was in reality less than
that by $2,785,709. This loss in 1895 in comparison with 1894, is
due to the inadequacy of the present bridge accommodations.
Brooklyn nmst justly attributes its $~0,000,000 annual increased
enlargement in wealth from 1883 to 1894, directly to the improved
facilities of access to New York, caused by the construction of the
present bridge, and the vitality and future growth of the city are
entirely dependent upon increased rapid transit facilities between
the two cities. Our present bridge is, now taxed to its utmost, and
more bridges should be built at once. New bridges require large
expenditures of money and immense issue of bonds must be forthcoming to provide the funds.




70


[SENATE,


The most ardent or the most visionary member of the so-called
League of Loyal Citizens, can not by any possibility demonstrate
how Brooklyn is to pay her share of the cost of the construction
of two more bridges within the next decade.
The assessed value of Brooklyn is now eighty per cent. of the real
value, and you can buy to-day hundreds of pieces of property at less
than their assessment. The gain in aggregate assessment in the
city in 1896 over 1.895, can not be over $6,000,000, and the increase
of the bond issuing capacity will therefore, not increase over
$6,000,000. Six hundred thousand dollars per year for ten years
will be $6,000,000, which is less than one-half the cost of the present bridge. To be sure the city can now issue $3,000,000 of bonds,
but after paying balances due on existing contracts, and providing for but very few of the extra expenditures yearly necessary,
the $3,000,000, will certainly be absorbed in two years.
How Brooklyn can devote all of its future resources to the construction of bridges, is certainly not apparent. Ten million dollars,
if not more, must be spent immediately after the close of the century for the enlargement of Brooklyn's water supply. Bonds can
be issued for enlargement of water facilities, to be sure, but after
the debt limit has once been passed, money for bridges will no
longer be available. The congestion on Fulton street must be relieved. That will cost $2,000,000. New sewers and water mains
must be laid during the next decade, at a cost of not less than
$5,000,000. Can you, gentlemen of the committee, see how Brooklyn can do all of this without help?
If Brooklyn does not have another bridge to New York in five
years, instead of an annual gain of.$6,000,000, it will lose $10,000,000 in assessed value each year for the next ten years.
If you gainsay what the bridge means to Brooklyn, and why
its growth has now stopped, cross the bridge from Brooklyn to
New York between 7.30( and 9 A. M. on any week day, and ask
yourself if you would live in a city where twice a day your life
would be endangered in order to reach your business in the
morning and home at night.
Annexation would mean not only the speedly completion of




No. 44.]


71


the bridge now under contemplation, but also additional bridges
at once started and speedily finished. Then Brooklyn would
contiue to grow as it did from 1883 to 1895. Its immense growth
in population and increased taxable value, mostly at the expense
of New Jersey, would soon turn present Brooklyn into the most
prosperous wards of the Greater New York.
New York is generous to her newly annexed territiories, so
generous that the most earnest opponents of consolidation are
to be found in the remaining portions of Westchester county.
The twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards of New York city,
that portion beyond the Harlem river, the nearest part of which
is further fromn- the City Hall, New York, than Coney Island, have
increased in assessed value since 1883, $23,937,703, and is now
assessed at about thirty per cent. of its actual value. Does that
look like bad treatment? New York certainly would take even
better care of that part of its territory so much nearer the seat
of government as Brooklyn would be, if annexed.
That Brooklyn's position and its lack of resources for proper
development, is thoroughly understood by financiers, as I have
endeavored to state, is well reflected by the market price of its
bonds, which is below the market price of New York city bonds
bearing the same rate of interest, and by the difference in the rate
of interest which must be paid by the home owner in Brooklyn to
his mortgagee.
The average rate of interest on bonds and mortgages in Brooklyn
is over five per cent. The average rate of interest on mortgages
in New York is four and one-half per cent. Brooklyn owes on
bond and mortgage not less than $300,000,000, and this difference
in the rate of interest means an annual loss of at least $1,500,000,
which is all paid by the struggling owners of small homes and the
small merchants on the business streets in this city. The following institutions, with headquarters in New York, all large lenders
of moneys on bond and mortgage, will lend, practically, no money
in Brooklyn: Thle Equitable Life Insurance Company, the Germania Life Insurance Company, the Manhattan Life Insurance
Company, the Washington Life Insurance Company, the United




72


[SENATB,


States Life Insurance Company, to say nothing of the large trust
funds and endowment moneys, custodians of which absolutely
refuse to lend one dollar on Brooklyn property. These large
insurance companies alone have outstanding on bond and mortgage at the present time $56,985,000.
The following savings banks in New York city exclude Brooklyn as a place of investment on bond and mortgage: The bank for
savings known as the Bleecker Street Bank, the Bowery Savings
Bank, the Citizens' Savings Bank, the Drydock Savings Bank,
the Franklin Savings Bank, the German Savings Bank, the Greenwich Savings Bank, the Institution for the Savings of Merchants'
Clerks, the Irving Savings Institution, the Manhattan Savings
Institution, the New York Savings Bank, the North River Savings Bank. These institutions have outstanding on bond and
mortgage $103,879,804.70. Even two Brooklyn institutions hold
upwards of $2,000,000 on bond and mortgage in the city of New
York at four per cent., where they have not loaned one dollar at
that rate in Brooklyn.
These New York savings banks and kindred institutions loaned
during the last year in New York city $8,000,000 at four per cent.
During the same year, one loan was made in Brooklyn at that
rate, and that was for $100,000, and was made by an institution
outside of New York and Brooklyn.
Consolidation increase at once the supply of money available
for bond and mortgage in Brooklyn. With increased supply, the
rate must of necessity decrease. Let me appeal to you, gentlemen, to report to the honorable Legislature of the State that this
measure is demanded to protect the homes of the struggling
house-owner in Brooklyn. It is for his fireside that sentiment
should be shown, not that sentiment which would stifle this measure because the light of many now prominent by comparison
would be hid under the bushel of Greater New York (a)nd I can
not blame them in their opposition, for self-preservation is a law
of nature); but that sentiment which will say to the owner of a
home, The peop)le] of yvor city have voted for consolidation. You
should have it, and all it brings.  Reducold taxation, reduced




No. 44.]


73


rates of interest on your borrowed money, better streets, better
transit, enlarged police force, enlarged fire department, and above
all, more bridges, and a certainty of money enough to bring water
even from Lake Superior, if necessary. What does your sentiment tell you to-day? If you fail in your duty, it means ruin to
many a home.
To you, as citizens of the State of New York, I now appeal.
Think for a moment how many trains daily carry commuters to
their homes in New Jersey from their business in New York city.
Think how many those commuters represent. Not less than
250.000 souls. If Brooklyn could have had the facilities which it
should have had over the East river, 100,000 of these people, houseowners, and the best citizens, would now be residents of Brooklyn. I ask you, gentlemen of the committee, to apply the great
Republican principle of protection, and stop this growth of the
towns in New Jersey.
The citizens of New York State, from the general tax levy,
could afford to build bridges over the East river, to conserve its
resources, and stop the growth of New Jersey at the expense of
Brooklyn.
Givet to the people of the Empire State the largest city on the
continent. and save the future of Brooklyn from its real enemies,
who. under the guise of patriotism, are the real Tories of the contest. There is no doubt, gentlemen, how Brooklyn would vote
were she to vote again. The taxpayer would come and vote for
less taxes, for lower assessment, and lower rates of interest. But
would New- York?  I am fearful she would not again offer us the
benefits of her wealth if it were once declined.
In conclusion, let me ask you, gentlemen, if every one of your
opponents at the last election does not now think that there was
not a fair election. I will wager that each one would talk for
hours if opportunity offered, to show that he and not you were
elected. Is there any doubt in your mind who was elected?  I
think not. So it is with the vote on consolidation. The next
vote, if it should be in favor of consolidation, would likewise be
[Selnalte, No. 44.1   1"




74


[SENArTE,


unfair in the minds of nearly every member of the Loyal Legion,
because they would not win. May you not be numbered among
those who are false to the will of the people, as expressed by the
ballot, solemnly and deliberately, after two years of discussion,
for remember that it was by that power that you have been
exalted to the high offices you now hold.
MR. LExow:
Do you think that the declaration of union would be sufficient
to raise this embargo upon Brooklyn property?
MR. BAILEY:
The loaning of money on bonds and mortgages is one of tne
large lines of business engaged in by the corporation with which I
am connected, and I think it would, to a great extent.
MR. LExow:
You find great trouble in inducing money to come to Btooklyn?
MR. BAILEY:
When it comes it is because the banks guarantee the payment
of the interest; that is why we have been able to bring New York
money to Brooklyn. I know of two Brooklyn institutions that
have upwards of $2,000,000. but they will not loan one dollar of it
in Brooklyn at New York rates. New York savings banl.ks and
kindred institutions during the last year in New York city loaned
$8,000,000 at four per cent.; during the same year but one loan
was made in Brooklyn, and that was made by an institution up
in the country that didn't know any better.
MR. GRADY:
Brooklyn has reached the end of its purse, and you expect New
York to take whatever steps may be necessary to continue it in a
progressive way. How would that affect New York?
MR. BAILEY:
She has expressed her willingness and I am afraid New York
will vote against it if she had another opportunity.




No. 44.]


75


MiR. Bi:USH:
I-low, in your judgment, would consolidation affect rents in the
city of Brooklyn?
MA. BAILEY:
The rent question is governed by the laws of supply and demand
as every other production is.
MR. LEXOW:
Would consolidation necessarily increase the value of real
estate in Brooklyn, or would it be more likely to make the value
stable?
MIR. BAILEY:
It would make the value stable. I do not believe, as the consolidationists seem to think, that annexation would make any
marvellous increase in the value of real estate in Brooklyn. But
I do believe that when a man's house was sold under foreclosure,
there would be somebody there to buy it. There is no sustaining
public here to buy up property because they are fearful of the
financial future of the city.
M!. BRIUSH:
Do you believe that the mere act of the declaration of union
would lead to an increase of the rental in Brooklyn?
MR. BAILEY:
I am tempted to answer by saying that I believe that rents are
governed entirely by supply and demand.
MIR. BRnus:
Would it make any difference, in your judgment?
Mi. BAILEY:
It would not.
MR. LExow:
It seems to me that the logical result of your argument is that
consolidation would bring a large part of the population in certain
parts of New York over to this side of the river?




76


[SENATE,


MR. BAILEY:
That is my belief based upon the experience of the people with
whom I have done business. In the condition in which the Brooklyn bridge now is, it is absolutely impossible to take care of the
people.
iMR. BRUSH:
Is it not you contention that consolidation would increase the
value of real estate?
MI:. BAILEY:
Yes. sir.
3MR. BRUSH:
-lw carn you expect the value of real estate to increase without
the rents increasing?
M3I. BAILEY:
The taxes are reduced without an increase of rent.
l}DAVID A,. BOODY:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can not
doubt. gentlemen, that your minds are already filled with the arguments -that have already been presented, bearing upon this very
important question. I can not presume to detain you long with
any remarks that I may make, particularly as I am unfortunate
in not having had the privilege of listening to the arguments that
have been made on the other side. And not having had the privilege eithlr of listening to the remarks which have been made in
favor (,t consoolidation, I may very easily drift into the way of
repeating what has already been said. I am not surprised, gentlemen. and I presume that you are not. surprised, in finding here
a diversity of opinion, in finding what you may call strong opposition to thle. proposition which is before you. I have never known
- and I believe that you will agree with me that you have never
known of any nmove)mnt for a great purpose, for a larger effort,
for a higher experience, that has not met with opposition. It
seems to be a condition of life, individual and national. AVe




No. 44.]


77


have many of us heard of the story of the opposition which was
presented to the furnishing of this city with a water plant. There
was opposition when one of Brooklyn's first citizens declared the
necessity of providing public parks. We all renember the opposition which we met and the indignation which was aroused against
the efforts which he then made. The same wisdom which guided
him then, the same sense of civic pride and civic duty which
influenced him then has guided him in the efforts which he has
made to bring about the consolidation of these two communities
and if he were a younger man and could to-day devote the efforts
to this question to this purpose which he devoted years ago in
providing the citizens of Brooklyn with beautiful Prospect park,
the time would come when he would be successful in his efforts for
the Greater New York.  I regret that time is upon him and that
his work is done. But the efforts which he has made in the past
should make a strong apIeal to all the citizens of Broooklyn.
Nowv. gcntlemen, this is not a sentimental question which you
are to consider. It is not a theolry which confronts us. it is a
condition. It is a condition of vital importance. Why, gentlemen, we are tired of living thus divided, unnatural, unproductive
life which these two cities are living to-day. One gentleman who
recently spoke upon this question declared that the bride who
is to be united should be a willing bride. I say to you, gentlemen,
that we are - those two communities -living to-day together in
all the important relations of love which ought to be consumated
by honorable wedlock. What are the conditions which confront
us to-day? They are simply business conditions. They are conditions which we must meet one way or the other. We are a city
of over a million of people. The longer we live under the present
system the worse will be our condition and the greater will be
our burden.  What are these peculiar conditions?  They are
these: AWe live by the side of a greater city and we must have the
institutions of a greater city. We must have those institutions
within our own borders or we must unite with the people on the
other side of the river and have them and'enjoy them together.
And I take it, gentlemen, that in this union we propose, we seek




78


[SENATE,


only our own rights, we seek only that which we have produced.
We seek the wealth which our own efforts have helped to create.
It is not a new proposition. It is not an unnatural proposition in
any way. Day after day and year after year hundreds and
thousands of the'citizens of Brooklyn cross the river and in doing
so attend to busi-ness swhich calls tlen there. In att-ending to that
business they build up the wealth and the greatness and the honor
of that city, and we simply want that which we create and nothing
more. Let me repeat again that the city of Brooklyn must do
one of two things, we must have all the institutions of a great
city; we must have a custom-house, a clearing-house, a chamber
of commerce, we must have a stock exchange, a cotton exchange,
a produce exchange and a metal exchange. We must have all the
institutions which belong to a great city, or else we must unite
with the city that has thenm. Remember that we sustain them,
and we make them and create them. Who to-day is the president
of the chamber of commerce?  Our own-honored citizen, Alexander Orr. Who is president of the stock exchange? Another of
our citizens, within a stone's throw of where we are sitting. Who
are the presidents of the banks and leaders in commercial enterprise - who has built her up? The citizens of Brooklyn. Whatever she represents to-day has come into existence through our
and their efforts. Let our brains and our hearts be united. Let
our homes and our occupations be united. Let it not be
said that the only    division  between  these  communities
is simply a stream of water running between them. The older
cities of the world in times past have not allowed such impediments to stand in their way. It is true of the Thames river and
the same may be said of the Seine. I say first that it is not entirely
present conditions that confront Brooklyn, it is the future conditions that will confront us. It has been insisted and repeated
that we are suffering because the taxes are excessive and why?
It is not because our resources are wasted. It is not because any
administration has been bad, but it is plainly and simply, because
we have not -the taxable property, the taxable property which
brings the great institutions. It does not come from the dwellings




No. 44.]


79


of the people, it comes from the great institutions of business.
It conies from those business places that concerns the great marts
of trade. You cannot get it here in Brooklyn. You go on and year
after ye(:,ar your burdens increase and the difficulties which I have
referred to will grow larger, to-morrow you will be poorer than
you are to-day. Then I say let us unite the products of our
work. Let us unite i.n realily under a form of government which
will give us justice, which will simply return that which we have
create(d and what will be the result?  It will result in the extension o- transportation facilities in order to make it comfortable
for those who pass between the two great cities to, transact their
business and return to their homes. The consolidation of these
two cities would modify or largely decrease or remove that question of over-crowded thoroughfares which carry us to the other
side of the river. One quarter of the sum which they propose to
spend in tunneling Broadway, into. putting into operation an
u       unerground railway, would place three bridges across this river
and then you will have practical and beneficial consolidation and
these com:irmunities will feel that they are one, that their interests
are united and the people will be filled with strength and hope
and courage and the union would be such that you will see these
bridges in the course of construction sooner than your imagination can conceive of. What may not these two communities
united, produce? W'hat hardships may they not produce living,
divided as they are to-day?  I wish instead of coming here and
listening to these speeches that you could stand upon some
p)inlacle from morning until night and observe the crowd that
struggles backward and forward, then you would realize whereyou
intelestl-s mningle to day. You would see that there is no place
where yotu could draw a dividing line. Give us consolidation,
and N( w Yorkl city instead of spending millions for tunnels will
be able,( to find homes for all her inhabitants. Remember that
Ne\w Yorki city wants men and needs them every day, and these
llen wanIIt honmes on this side of the river which they can reach
asily.
I am sure that if I could go on I should weary you, but I am




80


[SENATE,


as sure as I am sure of any other thing in life that no greater
question has ever confronted you since you have been clothed
with official authority. You are considering a question which
not only interests the citizens of Brooklyn, the citizens of New
York; you are considering a question which interests this whole
country. I hope that you will aid in bringing into existence a
city which shall have as a competitor only one city in the known
world, and that you will be instrumental in bringing into the
condition of cityhood two communities united, which, within the
life of many who stand here to-day will be the empire city of the
world; and then, gentlemen of the committee, as you look forward
to the results of your labors not only in removing the difficulties
from which we suffer to-day, not only as to the advantages which
will come to our sister on the other side of the river, but when
you think of that proud city, that grand city of the future which
will result from this consolidation you will feel that you have
been instrumental in creating the grandest metropolis that the
world has ever known, whose power, whose greatness, whose
institutions, whose glory, shall outstrip the imagination of to-day.
MR. LEXOW:
Whalt do you consider the sentiment of Brooklyn in regard to
the question of consolidation?
MR. BOODY:
I have always believed, and I believe to-day, that the people
are in favor of that which is best and right. I believe they are
in favor of consolidation.
RUFUS L. SCOTT:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: In the very
brief remarks that I shall make I shall confine myself principally
to the vote of 1894 and the public sentiment of Brooklyn, as I
understand it, on this question. You would think to hear what
was said this morning that the question was sprung up in Brooklyn without notice and without argument. The contrary is the
fact. There was never a question in Brooklyn or anywhere else
discussed, more understood by the people of any place, than was




No. 44.]


81l


this qul:-stion.  The new-Nspapers weire full of the question for
months before the election tool place. The people were discussing it everywhere. Lawyers, merchants, ministers, all hands.
The press of the city of Brooklyn, consisting of five daily newspapers -and I may say that they are as ably conducted newspapers as there are in the United States - they were against consolidation. They all used their utmost efforts to defeat consolidation. There was not a single newspaper in Brooklyn that took
the side of consolidation. In addition to that, the leader of the
Democracy was against it; men in office were against it. The
common people alone were for it; they worked for it; they met
the question, and with all these difficulties in the way the question was carried. It was the most remarkable victory that ever
was accomplished in any locality under such diverse circumstances. To show you how fully this matter was considered I
must refer to one of the leading newspapers of Brooklyn 
MR. LEXOW:
Is the statement correct that every newspaper was against it
at the time?
MR. SCOTT:
Yes, sir; every newspaper was against it at the time. And not
only that, but the Anti-Consolidation League was not satisfied
with the newspapers working in their behalf, but organized
another newspaper, but it had a short life and soon passed out
of existence. I take the Eagle of October 30, 1894. Vhen I
confine myself to the Eagle I wish to be understood as not dispa raging any other paper, as that paper is the recognized organ
of the anti-consolidation movement. The Consolidation League,
of which I am a member, had the audacity to issue a card, and
in that card they undertook to show some of the advantages of
consolidation. The Brooklyn Eagle took up that card as follows:
"Twelve reasons that are twelve frauds." That is the language
they used; that shows certainly that there was some interest
taken in that question; you may judge by this forcible language
that the Eagle is not a common paper; it is one of the ablest papers
[Senate, No. 44.]   11




82


[SENATE,


in the country. Its editorials are like those of the late Horace
Greeley. It makes every word tell. "Twelve reasons that are
twelve frauds;" that is the way they undertook to defeat consolidation. The people of Brooklyn did not understand it that way
and they voted in favor of consolidation. It is pretty easy to
make arguments in cold type; it is a very hard thing to meet
pictures. On November 4th, two or three days before election,
we have the Brooklyn Eagle in a picture. It is called the " Beauties of consolidation."
MR. LEXOw:
Do I understand that the Eagle stated that consolidation or no
consolidation was the burning question of the hour-that that
question was being discussed on the public streets every day by
everybody?
MR. SCOTT:
Yes, sir; I said that. I will read it to you as it is here.
[Reads from the Brooklyn Eagle of November 4, 1894, as
follows:]
(Brooklyn Eagle, November 4, 1894.)
Consolidation or no consolidation? That is the question which
the Rambler hears asked on every side. The artist to-day answers
it in the negative by showing what would be the consequences of
adopting it. That lovely woman, Miss Brooklyn, her beautiful face
within her shapely hands, her regal form suffused with grief and
wrung with emotion, is "like Niobe, all tears." She is sitting on
the statue of James S. T. Stranahan, our First Citizen, which has
been rudely thrown from its pedestal into the dirt, while where it
stood before will be seen a lifelike effigy of Tweed, the freebooter,
the malefactor, the convict, and the boss, to whose pious memory
the Tammany braves drink unto this day, and whom they regard
as their patron saint and lasting model. In a lower part of the
picture the statue of Henry Ward Beecher, some of whose creed
was in every church, and all of it in none, the man who helped free
America and the slave, the lover of Brooklyn because the lover
of humanity, has been thrown in the mire with the companion




No. 44.]


83


figures that atteste ththe largeness and the liberality of his soul in
the mire with him. In his place and in theirs will be seen the
typical representation of the Tammany Indian of whom the feet
are fondly licked by the carniverous chops of the typical Tammany
Tiger.
More havoc has been wrought around Prospect Park than the
demolition of the monument of our First Citizen. The statue of
the great Lincoln, erected by the pennies of the people, has been
cast from its place. The statue of Mayor Gilroy, the latest, but not
the last evolution of Tammanyism and political turpitude, is
erected where stood that of the martyr of liberty. A representative
Tammany policeman is mercilessly clubbing an inoffensive and
vainly protesting citizen of Brooklyn, for the nameless crimeof being
a Brooklynite. The bust of Charles A. Schieren, which admiring
citizens of the second and last reform mayor of the city of Brooklyn
that was, had erected in the park, has been thrown into the mud,
and its upturned, immobile face pathetically suggests the argunent which the artist would enforce. Surrounding Tweed is a
statue of Peter B. Sweeney, the brains of the old Tammany combine, who is still in the flesh, and whose interest in public affairs is
not only real, but apparent. There are other evidences of the fruits
of consolidation brought out with skill and point by the cartoonist's pencil. They speak for themselves to the brains and the
hearts of all who have loved Brooklyn, who love her still, and who
would keep Brooklyn as she is, the City of Churches, and of homes
as distinct from New York, the City of Tammany and of criminal
government, as if an ocean instead of a river rolled between them.
The Rambler does not consider our First Citizen either consistent or grateful in his leadership of the movement for the effacement
of Brooklyn. Brooklyn has greatly honored him. She has placed
his statue in her noblest park. She has done so in his lifetime.
She has set him not only in enduring bronze, but in more enduring
song and story. The city thought that its honors to him were a
recognition of his labors for Brooklyn. The idea was not enteramined that these labors, large, luminous and lasting as they are,
were put forth out of any other love than the love of Brooklyn,




84


[SENATE,.


whichi in turn comnlanded 1Brooklvyn's love for him. Alas! It
now seems as if they were put forth for some shadowy, immense
and inchoate municipality of the future, the Greater New York,
if you please, whereof Brooklyn is to be a political appendicitis
or a social wart, or an unregarded pustule, or a geographical button. The Rambler is satisfied that our First Citizen should repent
ere it is too late. Other men might be able to justify their support of this consolidation movement, but for James S. T. Stranahan
to advocate and to lead in the movement to wipe out Brooklyn
seems as wrong as it w-ould b)e to suggest Washington a aa tory or
Jefferson as n colrtiier or (Grant as a rebel, or Lincoln as a slaveholder, or Dr. Parkhurst as a sachem of Tammany Hall, or John
W. Goff as a dive-keeper, or John Y. McKane as a reformer.
This picture should be neutralized. What it suggests should
not be brought about. The Rambler has but one vote, but he
intends to cast that next Tuesday against consolidation with New
York, he intends to get all those he can influence to vote the
same way. Brooklyn must be preserved. Mr. Stranahan must
be saved. The fame and the name of the statue of Henry Ward
Beecher must not be swallowed up by Tammany Hall. The baby
carriages, which are the ornament, the argument and the increment of the city of homes which keeps them well and periodically
filled, must not be attacked by the ferocious beast of Fourteenth
street. Better the goat of Gowanus than the tiger of Tammany.
Vote consolidation down. Save Brooklyn. Keep rents low by
keeping Brooklyn to herself. Continue home government here
and do not invite the blackmail, the bloodmail, the bulldozing
and the highlway robbery of New York into our life. Make
impossible the substitution of Tweed for Stranahan, of Gilroy for
Lincoln, or of any smnirched sfachem for Henry Ward Beecher,
in this beautiful city by the sea.
(Brooklyn Eagle, NToenmber 5. 189..)
The way to deal with consolidation is to vote it down. Not
to vote at all on ttle nmatter will be lhalf a vote for it. The




No. 44.]


85


expression will be made up from the votes cast on the subject,
whether for or against, not from the votes cast either way.
Each voter will get two ballots relating to the matter. Inside
of one will be "Against Consolidation." Inside the other will be
For Consolidation." The friends of Brooklyn should vote the
one which has the word " against " inside of it. The reasons for
this are Jplain. If you want to see them, look at the cartoon in
to-(day's Eagle. That tells the story to the eye and the eye should
tell it to the soul of every true Brooklynite.
The reasons against consolidation now are absolute. The government of this city is getting better. The government of New
York is the worst in the world. In Brooklyn reform is on top in
the City Hall. In New York reform is in the mud and Tammany
Hall controls every part of the government. A generation ago
and more Tammany Hall was a temple of principle and of honor.
It is now a den of thieves. The high places of New York are
in possession of those thieves. All the powers of New York government are theirs. Brooklyn is clean, pure and progressive.
New- York is foul and in the mire. The moral reasons for opposing
consolidation now are exactly the same as those which should
lead a self-respecting man or woman to avoid vile associations.
The material reasons are not few. Our debt is less than
$50,000,000. The debt of New York is many millions more than
a hundred. Government here costs per person less than half it
costs in New York. Our people here know their officials and can
call them to account. Brooklyn would be of no account governed
from the City Hall of New York or from the Tammany den of
scoundrelism on Fourteenth street. The officials over there would
laugh at our wants. They would jeer us down when we demanded,our rights. They would regard Brooklyn as a fresh field to loot
and ravage. There would be fine pickings over here for the
New York spoilsmen. That city has twice as many votes as
Brooklyn and against Brooklyn it could work its wickedest will
with ease.
Brooklyn is a. city of homes. New York is a city of palaces and
tenements. The very rich and the very poor make up its eharac



86


[SENATE,


teristic population. The very rich are robbed with their own
consent by its political thieves. The very poor are oppressed by
those political thieves. The men in middling circumstances in
New York have no more chance for comfort and for betterment
in existing political conditions over there than a cat without claws
has in Hades.
The consolidationists tell us that valuations in Brooklyn would
go up. They might, and they might not. If they did rents would
go up and Brooklyn people, especially the poor and moderately
well-to-do, are not anxious that rents should go up. Imagine a
tenant going to a landlord, hat in hand and humbly saying: "Dear
sir, please increase my rent; I will be very' much obliged to you
if you will." Such a man would have to be taken care of by his
friends, yet if Brooklyn votes for consolidation it is a vote to
put up rents, and every rentpayer should, therefore, be sure to
vote against the proposition.
Now, whv is this consolidation matter pressed? There are a
few large property-holders with big water privileges who would
like to increase their value and decrease the tax which they have
to pay for them. New York, under an old charter, has jurisdiction to the Brooklyn water line. If Brooklyn became New York,
then the sums due under that old charter could either be compounded, reduced or removed. That accounts, perhaps, for the
popularity of consolidation along the Atlantic docks. More on
this head need not be said.
Then there are a lot of socially ambitious people who; live in
Brooklyn, but are ashamed to say so. They would like to be called
New Yorkers. They apologize for being Brooklynites. They
have property in some cases earned, in other cases inherited, and
in still others neither earned nor inherited, and thu- would like
to subscribe themselves as New Yorkers arnd to be regarded as
New Yorkers here and elsewhere. There is nothing in that feeling but vanity, and it's a miserably small vanity.
Then there are our always esteemed friends, the real estate
boomers, who buy what they do not own and sell what does not
belong to them, and who make a thrifty living by the deft manipu



No. 44.]


87


lation of that gaseous exudation called commissions. If they
could run Brooklyn houses up to a New York valuation, then
they could demand New York rentals for them, and their commissions would correspondingly swell, at least they think so, and life
is so much of a boom and so little of an actuality to them that
they would rather vibrate in a bubble than live in solid comfort
in a castle.
They say that the Eagle is against consolidation " because this
paper has the corporation printing." A fig for corporation printing! The Eagle would be better off without it. The law puts it
into this paper, and this paper obeys the law. If we were rid of
it, commercial advertisements twice its value would take its
place. This paper is money out for opposing consolidation and
until consolidation may occur. But it is principle in and conviction in through opposing it, and the good Lord has been kind
enough to the Eagle to enable it to put right above revenue and
to oppose wrong, not for revenue only, but to oppose it as a duty
and a delight. There may be papers that would go off and die if
they lost the corporation printing. If so, they are not live enough
now to take into consideration. The insult, however, of raising
this corporation printing issue against the Eagle's views on this
subject is in one sense as large and in another sense as contemptible as if A. L. Low's patriotic opposition to consolidation
was ascribed to sordid instead of to noble motives. This paper
is not buying or selling anybody, but it could buy up and sell out
the creatures that thus seek to insult it, and if they have learned
from these words what we think about them, they have been
brought into association with something that ought to do them
good.
Consolidation, if it made the rich richer, would certainly here
make the poor poorer. The rich are rich enough now. The poor
are too poor now. The middle classes have in Brooklyn an ideal
home. They should preserve it from Tammany and from Tammanyism. The New York Times says that " The Eagle is opposing the relief and expansion of New York." Not at all. Bless
your dear heart, come over and grow up with our country wards,




88


[SENATE,


if Park Row is too straight for you. Tell your tenement-folk to
come over here and settle in our outlying districts. There they
can have real homes. Tell your half-rich and would-be richer
folk to drop the tenements which they call flats, or the fiats which
they call apartments, and come over here and get a house with a
yard to it big enough for the children and the dog. The children
could root around and enjoy themselves, scratch their faces, eat
candy and be happy, while the dog would be able to wag his tail
from side to side instead of up and down, lest he knock the brica-brac off the tables. Let all New York come over here. The
ferri.es are open. Walking on the bridge is good. We have a
better transit system, in air and on the ground, than New York
has. Let them all come over here and be welcomed, if only to
save our esteemed contemporary from being so silly.
If ever the time for consolidation comes, now is not the time.
When N'Iew York has cleaned house and put on better clothes,
driven its thieves away and started on a career of honesty, come
over here and we'll talk about it. Meanwhile, as consolidation
could be legislated without a vote, so no vote whatever for it will
be effective for legislation in its behalf. But the atlack on the
integrity of Brooklyn should receive a smash right between the
eyes, and the Eagle hopes the splendid home-keeping, rent-paying
and home-loving people of Brooklyn will administer the smash
next Tuesday.
(Brooklyn Eagle, TNotvember 1 1, 189.9.)
If a small majority of those voting on the subject in Brooklyn
have favored consolidation, the formulation of a bill for consideration by the Legislature will be in order. The Legislature should
give to the terms of any such measure the most careful consideration. They should be terms w.llich will not disadvantage Brooklyn, but which will be to Brooklyn's fair and just advantage as
much as possible.
Those who have not favored consolidation shlould labor with
those who have favored it, to see that such a bill is made what it




No. 44.]


S9


ought to be. If the bill is objectionable it should be beaten and
it will be beaten, until it is made substantially unobjectionable.
It can not be made perfect and no one should carpingly insist on
such an impossible proposition. But it can be made just, or, if it
canl not, it can be defeated and the proposition can be deferred
until tinme itself relieves the disparities under which Broo!lyn, in
the Eagle's opinion, is placed at present with regard to consolidation at all.
The Legislature had all the power last year that the Legislature will have this year to enact anytling on this subject. The
Legislature recently elected, however, may have a warrant to act
upon the matter which previous Legislatures did not possess.
The number, value, complexity and magnitude of the interests
involved require their most careful study. The project is entitled to the best thought alike of those who opposed it and of
those who supported it. We do not think there is any need for
haste, and we shall be surprised if the coming Legislature does not
find too many purely partisan or political duties laid upon it to
complete or even to make much progress in the attention which
should be, given to this subject in the ensuing session.
(Mr. Sucott exhibits cartoon from the Brooklyn Eagle, representing a tiger.)
MR. GRADY:
The tiger has been perfectly harmless since that election.
MR. SCOTT:
If we had known that before the vote on consolidation, we would
have carried it in Blrooklyn by about 50,000. According to the
statements of some of the speakers you would think that there
was no vote at all. The fact is that the vote on consolidation was
22,049 more than on the general constitutional provisions22,049 more. It was 16,446 more than the total vote on the canal
amendment, which received the largest vote of any of the constitutional provisions. It had the enormous comparative vote of
77 per cent. of the total number of votes polled, a fact which never
[Seinate, No. 44.]  12




90


[SENATE,


occurred before in the adoption of any similar measure in any
election in the state of New York. If you will look back to the
various constitutional amendments when a vote on the Constitution was taken you will see that it never reached 77 per cent. of
the total vote. The nearest vote, I believe, was in the constitutional amendment of 1884, that came after a series of troublesit was on the question of the power of limiting municipal indebtedness. It is the most valuable amendment that was ever attached
to any constitution, in my judgment. It saved many of the cities
from bankruptcy. At that time some of the cities had run up
to 24 per cent. of the assessed valuation. The vole taken
at that time- when excitement was running high., w;.,nly 4(6
per cent of the total vote cast. The vote on all the other constitutional amendments have fallen below that. I repeat what I said
in the beginning, that it was the most remarkable victory, after the
most thorough canvass, that was ever had under any similari question under the most adverse circumstances. When thl(e vote was
taken the will of the people on that matter was stated.,)f course
we never had any discussion over what a vote rneanl. We all
thought it meant an expression of opinion. That was all the people could do on a question of that kind. The Legislature did not
surrender its powers. It simply asked the people to express their
wishes, to give their opinion. We thought it was very well understood, we simply thought it was an expression of opinion. We
thought, however, as an expression of opinion that it was final,
and that the next work would be for the Legislature to frame an
act and carry out the will of the people. When the people expressed their views have them enacted into law.
I make this second proposition, Mr. Chairman and (G,-,ntL inlan of
the Committee, it is this: There is absolutely no consider:;bli, sentiment in Brooklyn against consolidation. Men may deceive themselves, and Loyal Leaguers may think that the sounding of a
trumpet both far and wide, but it remains simply right around its
own locality - the first ward of Brooklyn. Some few of those who
voted against consolidation got up a petition against it and wanted
to make another fight, and they did so. They hunted all over
Brooklyn and found seventy men who signed a petition calling for




No. 44.]


91


a public meeting. They are all very respectable, excellent gentlemen. I believe they call themselves " The Ancient and Honorable
Aristocracy of Brooklyn,"- they called a public meeting. That
meeting was held on November 21, 1895. How many do you think
was there? The New York World has by actual count, 124 people.
The Brooklyn Eagle says " probably about 200." After the most
earnest and vigilant efforts these seventy men could not bring but
200 to that meeting.
I was requested to limit myself to this question or to the question of the vote, but I realize there are many here that want to talk.
A VOICE:
Go on.
MR. SCOTT:
I desire to talk about resubmission. If there is any difference
between a resubmission of a question of opinion and a resubmission of a question of candidate, I don't know what it is. Of course
the one executes itself; the other is to be executed afterward. The
bill serves the purpose. The one is carried just as much as the. other.
There would be just as much reason in resubmission of a vote
given a candidate for office as there would be in a resubmission
of a question of opinion. I can not see the difference. I know my
Tammany friends would like very much to have a resubmission on
some of the constitutional amendments, especially the apportionment one. I did not vote for the apportionment myself, but I thank
the Republican party for giving it to us. On the question of the
apportionment I think Tammany would take another vote if we
would give it to them.
MR. GRADY:
That was only an incidental question.
MR. SCOTT:
I believe that the constitutional amendment was carried in
Brooklyn by 196 votes. That is ten or eleven votes more in plurality than the consolidation received. The total was far less, but
the majority was that.




92


[SENATE,


There is some strange logic in the action of those Loyal Leaguers.
The chairman of the committee at the meeting the other night was
ex-Mayor Schieren, and I want to say that he made an excellent
mayor - he always indicated that he was in favor of consolidation,
but since he got into office he has been at work endeavoring to
defeat consolidation, and did defeat the bill last year. There is a
strange logic about his action. He did a very good thing in forcing
in all the towns of Kings county, he did not ask them whether they
voted or not; he said they must coile in without any vote at all.
His influence in the Legislature brought them into Brooklyn, and
they are here to-day. I do not see the consistency of these gentlemen coming here and asking for resubmission, and at the same time
forcing these country towns without any submission at all. As the
chairman of your committee very appropriately asked one of the
gentlemen speaking on this question of resubmission, we might
go on and on voting, and never stop. There must be a limit to it.
Not submit another and then ask for another submission. There
would be a good reason, according to their logic, to have another
vote, and then go on indefinitely. Judge Reyonlds did make one
very good point that I had not thought of before. He said there
has been a lapse of time; the bill should have been l)assed last
winter. If our representatives from the Legislature had carried
out the wishes of the people we would have had consolidation. I
don't think that Judge Reynolds would impose the same logic in a
suit before him - because he is one of the fairest of our judges. I
have occupied more time than I ought to, a little more than I had
license to.
MR. BRUSH:
I undelrslitnd ArI. Scott to say tlat he does not think there is
any sentiment against consolidation?
MR. SCOTT:
Yes, sir.
MR. BRUSH:
Is it not a fact that during the last canvass for mayor in this city




No. o1.]


93


one of the Democratic candidates was an avowed consolidationist,.
and the Republican candidate was an avowed resubmissionist?
MR. SCOTT:
It is a fact that one of the candidates was an avowed consolidationist, and it is a fact that the other wasass mum as anl oyster.
He said it was bound to come and the people rested on that. It
i; also a fact that two of the candidates for mayor in the last
election voted for consolidation in 1894.
MR. BRUSH:
I think you will find in the letter of acceptance of Mayor Wurster that he did state that he was in favor of resubmission of a
vote to the people. He did say that he was in favor of resubmission.
MR. LEXOW:
What was the position of Mr. Shepherd with reference to consolidation?
MR. SCOTT:
If anybody can find out, I can not. All I can say is, that he
voted for consolidation, as he says himself. There is no considerable sentiment against consolidation; there is not a society
in Brooklyn who dare to call a meeting against consolidation.
They know that they could not carry it at all. In the preliminary
meeting of a few days ago a gentleman, in discussing the question,
said, " Gentlemen, don't ask for resubmission; if you do it will be
carried overwhelmingly against a referendum in the charter."
It was Mr. George Foster Peabody, so they undertook by referendum to deceive the people; they tried to make them believe that
you gentlemen from Albany, you politicians, are going to impose
Iuon them something that is not right, and they undertook to
dlceive the people and make them believe that they are only looking for a proper charter. We are looking for it in a direct way.
MR. GRADY:
You said tlhe common people were in favor of consolidation;
low( did you arrive at that.




94


[SENATE,


MR. SCOTT:
Because they were the men who took a strong position on the
subject. The people were left with the discussion on the subject
- anti-consolidationists and the newspapers on the other side.
The leading politicians kept mum, and the people were not led
by uanybody except their own good judgment, and the arguments
presented to them carried the question.
MR. BRUSH:
Are you aware, Mr. Scott, that the board of aldermen recently
passed a resolution in favor of the submission?
MR. SCOTT:
If the gentlemen had listened to my remarks he would have
understood that. I never knew of an officeholder who wanted to
vote himself out of office, and I never expect to find but a very few.
We do not care to take the views of the board of aldermen, the
people of Brooklyn know their own mind on the subject.
MR. BRUSH:
How do you account for the fact that every one of the members
of the Legislature are in favor of resubmission in some form?
MR. SCOTT:
The Legislature who went to Albany from this city to the Legislature of 1894 were almost unanimously pledged for consolidation,
and when they got up there they were almost unanimously against
it. If you will explain that I will explain the other.
MR. GRADY:
Do you mean the present legislators?
MR. SCOTT:
No, sir. The consolidation league sent them letters and they
had to answer, and the answers were published in the newspapers.
It was at the election following the adoption of the constitutional
amendment. I may mention Senator Reynolds' name; he signed his




No. 44.]


95


name to a petition and said that he would endeavor to pass the
consolidation bill. He was a leading spirit against it when it got
up there.
MR. GRADY:
I ask whether the press and the candidates for the Legislature
in 1895 took sides upon the question.
MR. BRUSH:
If you thing there is no change in sentiment in the city of Brooklyn why do you oppose a resubmission of the question?
MR. SCOTT:
In the first place, you assume that I think there is no change.
That is not true, there is a vast change in favor of consolidation.
I oppose a resubmission on the same principle that I would oppose
a resubmission of your election to the Legislature. It is against all
principles of government. It is against common sense. It is
revolutionary. It would destroy any government on the face of
the earth. If you take the position that a vote is not a vote, or not
an expression of the people, you have nothing left under God's
heavens but revolution.
MR. BRUSH:
The point is to get the sentiment of the people. Is it not a fact
that since a vote was taken that more than 50,000 more people have
become inhabitants of this city. If this vote is taken as final they
will have no voice in the matter whatever.
MR. SCOTT:
We can not legislate for all the people. We legislate for those
who are here.
MR. H. G. SCHUMANN:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am somewhat
interested in this question for the following reasons: First, we
voted upon this question and the citizens of Brooklyn have de



96


[SISENA'TE,


elared that they are in favor of consolidation. I believe that we
are not fair to our old friend Stranahan, who, when l1h heard that
the farmers were complaining because he had given us our beautiful park system, he said: " Gentlemen, I must beg the pardon of
those men for having made them rich." New York is in the position of Mr. Stranahan. You gentlemen from New York ought to
beg our pardon for trying to makie your city large and prosperous.
That is the standpoint that I take. I take the standpoint that New
Yorkers desire consolidation. If you resubmit this question you
can resubmit anything. I have never seen a poker player yet, who,
when he had a bad hand, would not ask for another deal. You ask
the citizens again if you dare so to do -because if you do, that
principle that Mr. Scott told you about, that principle of governmnent would be lost and we would suffer great injury. We are in
favor of consolidation to-day; and you will find that the main agitators own the buildings - those opposed to consolidation are the
owners of the buildings surrounding this spot. They believ-e that
if the City Hall should vanish they would lose millions. If you ask
my friends from the eastern district, you will find another question
there. You will find that there are hundreds and thousands of
rooms for rent. We have the accommodations and we want the
people in New York to come over here. We want the working
people to come over here and we will make them comfortable. We
want consolidation so that we can have bridges that will enable
the people to come over here. If we are consolidated we will surely
get a bridge. Again you will find that the politicans are against
consolidation. They fear that they will lose their prestige. Then,
there are the newspi\pe)rs. A few days ago I had a discussion with
Colonel I{oerer, the newspaper editor; he gets $16,000 a y-ear for
advertising. The Eagle gets, probably, twice that amount. There
are others in politics who fear the loss of patronage. The newspapers are afraid that they will lose a little patronage. We are not
afraid, we have made our living heretofore and we will make our
living after consolidation takes effect. We want to be one of the
largest families in the world. Again it has been said that in a few
years hence - probably eight or nine years - we must consolidate.
We will need an additional water supply. We will need consolidation upon that point. If you take another view of tle case there is




No. 44.]


97


hardly one of the western district families when they go to Europe
that register from Brooklyn, but I register from Brooklyn and I
am proud of my city. I have often seen those citizens register
Van Dusenberg." Senator Brush hlas asked a question whether
the Assemblyven and Senators were not asked to vote for resubmission when they were candidates. I have before me my old
friend, Senator Grady. I have been for many years president of the
Brewers' association, and in years gone by Nwould ask every Senator
and Assemblyman whether he was going to vote for liberal excise
laws. Every one of them said yes - yes, in such a way that everyone of them turned out against it. If this question were voted upon
to-day two-thirds of the people would vote in favor of consolidation. Mr. Peabody was quite correct, when he said " don't resubmit." We would wipe the floor with the anti-consolidationists.
That is all I want to say now. I thank you very much.
MR. BnusH:
Is it not a fact that a large proportion of the eastern district
voted against consolidation.
MR. SCHUMANN:
The question at that time had not won the hearts of the working
people, but to-day, in consequence of its adoption, the working
people are in favor of it. I took a vote the other day of fourteen
persons, and found twelve were in favor of annexation and two
against.
J. G. JENKINS:
Mr. Chairman and (-entlemen of the Committee: I do not
represent the banks of Brooklyn here before you, but I represent
iiiv own views and the views of my neighbors. It is true that the
banks have many sources of information, through different channels. In the banks and in the trust companies we have opportunities of knowing the pulse of the people on various subjects,
and in that way, perhaps, I represent the financial people in favor
of consolidation. In the eastern district, where I live, I have been
[Senate, No. 44.]    13




98


[SENATE,


somewhat prominent for forty years. I believe the sentiment in
that district is 75 per cent. in favor of consolidation. In this
city the means of assessing are limited, and the property is of
small valuation. We have no river docks to rent, no carriages to
license, no peanut venders to tax; we have nothing but real estate
and the tax falls so heavily upon it that we are mere collectors of
rents. That is the condition in which we seem to be now. If we
get a greater city we will build another bridge. We are now
within $3,000,000 limit of our bonded valuation, and a bridge
would cost $8,000,000 or $10,000,000. How is it to be built? That:
is the puzzle in our finances that we can not answer. If we were
annexed to New York, you gentlemen in New York would be kind
enough to build 75 per cent. of the bridge, leaving 25 per cent.
to Brooklyn. I present to you a proposition in relation to the
East river. The city of Brooklyn has no right or authority over
the East river. If a man commits a murder on the waters of the
East river, he must be tried in the city of New York. That is
queer, is it not? Every time you cross the bridge you have to
pay your fare. Every time you cross the ferry, you pay two cents.
You pay that into the treasury of the city of New York. What
would you do if we were joined to that city? A certain part of
this money would go towards paying your own taxes. The building of bridges across the East river would wipe us out unless we
get some help. The officials of the city of Brooklyn are not to
blame for our condition. They have been reasonably economical.
You simply hadn't the income from taxation. If you go through
the streets of the city of Brooklyn to-day you will find signs " For
Sale or To Rent." You must let your property go for the mortgages upon it, because we have certain taxes to meet and somebody must pay them. Nothing could be worse. The will of the
people was in favor of consolidation, and it should he carried out.
If the question of consolidation was resublmitted, I am sure there
would be a still greater majority in favor of consolidation. I
believe 75 per cent. of the people are in favor of consolidation.
I desire to present the following petition in favor of consolidation, signed by all of the banks in Brooklyn except three.




No. 44.]


99


A VOICE:
May I ask whether that document was signed by the stockholders of the various banks before the signatures of the bank
officers were attached?
MR. JENKINS:
I think the stockholders authorized it.
MR. LExow:
Do I understand you to say that from your knowledge of the
situation 75 per cent. of the voters are in favor of consolidation?
MR. JENKINS:
I speak for the eastern district. In the great population of that
district I think 75 per cent. of the voters are in favor of
consolidation.
MR. LEXOW:
What percentage of the Brooklyn financial institutions does
this petition comprise?
MR. JENKINS:
I should say all but two or three - the Nassau, the City and the
National.
MR. LEXOW:
Was your petition presented to those banks?
MR. JENKINS:
The petition was circulated.
MR. LExow:
Signature was refused?
MR. JENKINS:
The president of one of the banks said he was personally in
favor of consolidation, but that he would rather not sign, as he




100


[SENATE,


did not want to bring the bank into the matter at all. I believe
the other banks have signed a petition in opposition.
MR. BRUSH:
Are you certain that this petition was signed by all but three
or four of the banking institutions?
MR. JENKINS:
Yes, sir.
MR. LEXOW:
Is not the introductory of your petition taken from the bill
that was introduced?  A. It is taken from the bill now being
considered.
MR. BRUSH:
Don't the people in Brooklyn who are favoring consolidation
want a prior ascertainment of the terms of consolidation further
than this bill goes?
MR. JENKINS:
I could not answer that question. These things, like water,
will find their own level and adjust their own difficuilties.
MR. LExow:
If the consolidationists will tlake one more speaker for to-day,
then each side will have been represented by the same number of
speakers; and the same order will be followed to-morrow. Those
who appear to-morrow morning before this committee will be
expected to answer the arguments of those who spoke in favor of
consolidation this afternoon, and in the afternoon those wlho
favor consolidation will be expected to answer the arguments
made by the opposition in the forenoon. I desire to announce that
the session of to-morrow will be held in Part V of the Supreme
('ourIt, roo0m  2'2, in tle col' ut-li,1use.
'T'l, followring is a copy of the petition, presented by Mr.
Jenkins:




No. 44.]


101


BROOKLYN, N. Y. January 15, 1896.
To His Excellency, the Governor, and the Legislature of the State of
New York:
The undersigned bankers of the city of Brooklyn respectfully
urge the passage of a bill consolidating Brooklyn city with New
Yoik city, providing among other things, for attaining an equal
and uniform rate of taxation and uniform valuations for the purpose of taxation:
Felix Campbell, President People's Trust Company.
C. T. Christenoon, President Brooklyn Trust Company.
S. 13. Dutcher, President Hamilton Trust Company.
G. \V. lWhite, lPresident Mechanics' Bank.
M. I-. Hazzard, President Fulton Bank.
Julian D. Fairchild, President Kings County Trust Company.
1. M. Maloy, Vice-President Title Guarantee and Trust
Comlpany.
W. H. Palmer, Cashier Schermlerhorn Bank.
M. S. Sprague, President Sprague National Bank.
James T. Ashley, Cashier Union Bank of Brooklyn.
Howard M. Smith, Vice-President Bedford Bank.
John Loughran, President I. F. R. S. Bank.
J. G. Jenkins, First National Bank, Brooklyn.
Charles A. Sackett, North Side Bank, Brooklyn.
)itmas Jewell, President Twenty-sixth Ward Bank.
Jamies Gascoine, President People's Bank of Brooklyn.
John C. Kelley, President Eighth Ward Bank of Brooklyn.
N. A. Conklin, Hamilton Bank of Brooklyn.
MARSHALL S. DRIGGS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: In politics
I:rn a Democrat; in religion I am a believer in the survival of the
filtest. I have resided in the city of Brooklyn for forty-eight
years, and as an old Brooklynite I feel a patriotic interest in all
nmtters which concern ler social advancement. I believe great
good can come by uniting in one great municipality these two
great cities and making it the Empire City of the Nation. In the




102


[SENATE,


city of Williamsburgh we had a population of about 50,000, and
you could pass from one boundary to another in a few hours. It
had a mayor and an official family, a board of aldermen, devoted
to business and public duty; it became important to do something
to improve the condition of the city of Williamsburgh, and we
did so by getting the city out of debt. When the subject of consolidation was under discussion there were certain influential
gentlemen, loyal citizens of Williamsburgh, who were fearful
that taxation would not be properly adjusted; that they would
lose their identity. They feared that they were about to engage
in the painful process of absorption, but the union was effected,
the marriage was consummated, and it turned out a very important and a very prosperous one. Now we furnish you a mayor,
district attorney, a corporation counsel and a fire commissioner,
and a new bridge commissioner, and almost everybody who is
anybody in power and influence in the city of Brooklyn comes
from the splendid old city of Williamsburgh.
In conclusion, I pray that you and your committee may recommend such legislation as will raise this proud city out of the dust
and consolidate it with the magnificent city of New York, and
thus place it on the roll as the greatest city on the earth.
MR. GEORGE W. WINGATE:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I do not propose to make anything in the nature of a speech. I am not here for
that purpose. I am not here as a paid attorney. I am simply here
to represent myself. I have certain interests to represent, but in
representing myself and in representing my own personal interests
in certain things, I am satisfied that I represent a very large number of my associates in the city of Brooklyn. I come here as a convert, because, when the original question of annexation to New
York was brought up I was opposed to it. I have studied fully both
the arguments which have been made against it by the newspapers
and by those who have spoken for and against consolidation before
your committee. Many arguments have been considered here;
some of them have no merit at all; I was of the opinion - and I
retained that opinion for some considerable time that consolidation




No. 44.]


103


was not a wise thing for the city of Brooklyn. But after deliberation and reflection and after conversing with those who are interested in different branches of business and in my associations
with bank presidents and the official trust companies; association
with gentlemen who are connected with mercantile matters, and
conversations had with people who are the best authorities on real
estate, and my own observations and my own business relations,
heave convinced me that consolidation is not only a good thing but
an indispensable thing for the future prosperity of Brooklyn. Today, Mr. Chairman, as has been said, it is practically impossible to
get New York capitalists to loan one single cent of money on
Brooklyn property. To-day with the Brooklyn capitalists who loan
money in Brooklyn. it is practically impossible for you to foreclose
a mortgage and get anything like what the property is worth. I
have in my office. at the present time, property which has been
covered by a mortgage for twenty years, which was based upon
valuations made in good faith by the best real estate experts in the
city of New York. The money belongs to infants and I have been
withholding the property for eighteen months simply because the
infants are not able to protect themselves, and I do not want to
sacrifice the property for $15,000. If the city of New York and
Brooklyn are annexed under the bill - and mark you I am only
discussing the bill which is here before you - this bill which annexes upon equal taxation and upon equal valuation, nothing elseif Brooklyn is annexed under this bill we will prosper. My judgment is that the arguments which are made to-day against consolidation are simply based upon the theory that we are not to be
annexed upon equal taxation. I am confident that seventy-five
per cent. of the people who have any interest in the prosperity of
the city of Brooklyn are in favor of this bill.
MR. LEXOW:
You have read the bill.
MR. WINGATE:
Yes, sir.
Mn. LEXOW:
You have considered the items and the points that you made,
and the bill is satisfactory to you?




104


[SENATE,


MR. WINGATE:
Yes, sir. My judgment is that it is impossible io frame a bill
which when complete will be satisfactory to all the citizens, but
I think the idea contained in the bill is a sound one - to say first
that we will be annexed under a uniform system of taxation, and
then let the Legislature look after administration matters, such
as police and health, the cleaning of streets and the building of
sewers. In this way consolidation can be effected and decided
and put into operation in proper form. If you undertake to
make a general charter you will be sure to have antagonism.
MR. LEXOW:
Several of the candidates that were before the people last fall
stated in their platform, as I understand it, that consolidation was
inevitable, but that they were nevertheless in favor of resubmission, is that true?
MR. WINGATE:
Yes, sir; that is true.
MR. LEXOW:
If it is inevitable, why should there be resubmission?
MR. WINGATE:
A good reason for it is this, the anti-consolidationists have a compact and strong organization. They were prepared to deliver or
make votes for or against any candidate who might be in favor or
them. The consolidationsists were not organized, and held out no
threat. They would vote for a man even if he did say he was in
favor of resubmission; that is why they are in favor of consolidation, and having made that pledge they are willing to stand by it.
The idea of resubmission is a perfect farce. We have no referendum in this country like Switzerland. This idea that a bill of a
political nature must necessarily be submitted to the people is
absurd. This question was carefully considered by the people of
Brooklyn and the territory that voted upon it, and their wishes
ought to be enacted into law. The matter was thoroughly dis



No. 44.1


105


cussed and was carried. If that does not settle the question what
is the use of having any election.
I)R. BRUSH:
I would like to ask the speaker whether the original city of
Brooklyn gave the majority in favor of consolidation or whether it
was Gravesend and other towns that gave the majority in favor of
consolidation?
MR. WINGATE:
My impression is that Senator Brush is right. TiTlat it was the
votes of the county towns that made up the imajority in favor of
consolidation. I am simply speaking from recollec(tion.
MR. LEXOW:
I ask whether or not the city as it existed at the time of the bill
wsmi pass dd did not give a miajority in favor of consolidation.
MR. WINGATE:
It is a fact that it did give a majority of some 1,034; whatever
fact Senator lBrush states must be correct; that the majority of,0::4 was against consolidation. The county towns to-day are in
the city of Brooklyn and their vote is just as imlportant as that of
any other ward in the city of Brooklyn. I am heartily in favor
of consolidation.
COURT HOUSE, BIOOKLYN, January 18, 1896, 11 A. M.
Arguments in Favor of Consolidation.
MR. LExow:
Instead of holding two sessions to-day we will have one continuous session of four hours, two hours to each side. My attention has been called to -the fact that a communication which came
to the chairman of the committee yesterday was not made public.
I find a letter addressed to me as chairman of this committee
in print, in this morning's paper, signed by William C. Bryant.
I purposely withheld that letter both from publication and from
[Senate, No. 44.]     14




106


[SENATE,


mention becaZxuse it has exclusively to do wiith tlh political side
of this question and I take it tllhat tlec question of politics will not
enter into the consideration of 1a (uestion of this great importance - one that so deeply concerns the people; and that neither
Republican or Democratic policy would be counsideied. but that
the good of the people of the cities, alone, would eni-er into our
consideration of this question. It was for that rea-son that I
did not publish the letter.
The following is a copy of the letter above referred to:
January 17, 1896.
To Hon. Clarence E. Lexow and Gentlemen of the Committee:
I regret exceedingly that a most urgent business engagement
at the very hour at which you are to meet prevents my being
present at your hearing, but that my voice may not be entirely
unheard I take this method of presenting briefly my views on the
subject of consolidation of the cities of New York and Brooklyn.
I shall not waste your time b)y going over the arguments that
others who will be present can more efitectually lay before you,
but as a Republican, desirous of the continued success of my
party in city, state and national elections, I say to you that if
consolidation is brought about without referring the matter to
the citizens of Brooklyn, the party guilty of such legislation may
expect and will receive such a condemnation at the polls at the
next election as will seriously affect the chances of their candidate for the presidency carrying this State.
Kings county went against Folger by upward of 45,000 majority.
Governor Morton, or whoever is the standard bearer of the Republican party this year, will lose the county by over 50,000 if this
unwise legislation is brought about, which, added to New York
county's Democratic majority, will wipe out the Republican majorities in the other counties and give the State to the Democrats.
Very respectfully,
WILLIAM C. BRYANT.
W. C. REDFIELD:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: Understanding, unofficially, that the committee intend to hold sessions else



No. 44.]


107


where after to-day, we beg respectfully to announce that we have
present here this morning, desirous of addressing your committee,
twenty-one speakers, and we respectfully ask, before we proceed
for some definite knowledge as to whether further sessions will
be had, and if so, when and where.
MR. LEXOW:
We have had no consultation on that subject, and we are to
have no executive session of the committee until we reach Albany
again. Hence, it will be impossible now for us to determine
just when other hearings of the committee will be had. You
better present your two hours' discussion to-day; and then we
can consider in executive session how much longer, if at all, we
will consider this question in Brooklyn.
MR. REDFIELD:
It is upon the words "if at all" that I desire to place some
emphasis. I understood the chairman to say that there would
be no time limit and that everybody would have the fullest
opportunity to be heard. I claim, on behalf of the citizens who
favor resubmission, that everybody who desires to speak should
be given an opportunity, and I ask that for the other side also.
(Applause.)
MR. LEXOW:
The sergeant-at-arms will see that no further demonstrations
are heard in this room. They are not going to affect the judgment
of the committee. The sergeant-at-arms will see that this order
is obeyed.
MR. REDFIELD:
Are we to understand that the question as to whether we shall
all be allowed to speak is to be left undetermined?
MR. LExow:
Certainly. There is no objection to you all being allowed to
speak before this committee. I believe that the judgment of the
committee is to give the fullest and fairest hearing; you will




108


[SENATE,


understand, however, that there are limits upon endurance and
time; that we have our duties to perform at Albany, not only with
reference to this legislation, but also with reference to general
legislation. And this matter must be considered in connection
with those. We have given special prominence to this question
and propose to devote as much time as possible to it. I can
readily see that those opposed to the passage of the bill or any
legislation upon this question might readily marshal 10,000
speakers before this committee and absolutely prevent the determination of any question at this session of the Legislature. This
question must be determined one way or another, and I believe
that it is the judgment of the committee that the legal principles
applicable to expert testimony should be introduced here and
that each side should have as many speakers as the other, so that
absolute equality shall exist in that sense and after hearing the
arguments we will then endeavor to ascertain the true sentiment
of Brooklyn on the question.
MR. REDFIELD:
Relying upon the statement of the chairman. yesterday, that
full time would be given to everybody, I desire officially, to file
with this committee the names of the following gentlemen who
here appear before this committee and claim the right to be heard.
I will read the names and request that the official stenographer
take them down.
MR. LEXOW:
The chair announced as the decision of the committee, yesterday,
that each side should have two hours to-day. If, instead of taking the two hours of time to-day in discussing the merits of the
proposition before this committee you desire to waste the time of
this committee in putting upon record something that is not
going to appeal to our judgment you will have to take that time
from the time allowed to your side.
MR. REDFIELD:
Does the committee refuse to have the names inserted?




No. 44.]


109


MR. LEXOW:
You can do that after your two hours have expired.


MR. REDFIELD:
I hand the list of names
here.
John S. McKeon.
Dr. T. J. Backus.
Charles A. Moore.
Frederick E. Crane.
William C. Redfield.
Superintendent Maxwell.
Henry Hentz.
George W. Mead.


to the stenographer for insertion
Franklin Woodruff.
S. L. Woodhouse.
S. V. White.
Dr. Robert Boocock.
Judge D. G. Harriman.
W. J. Coombs.
A. G. McDonald.
C. C. Skilton.


MR. DYKMAN:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I have spoken
before the chairman and some members of the committee before.
The circumstances have changed, largely changed, since then.
That may be my excuse for speaking again. The organization
of which I am a member is as much opposed to the bill of this
year as it was to the bill of last year. If the limits of time
allow, I shall undertake to criticise some of the details of the
bill. I should like to ask the gentleman who drew the bill what
is to be the situation of the officers of the towns of Richmond
county under this legislation. Are the towns of Richmond county
to be consolidated and to go out of existence? And if they are,
as they would seem to be under this bill, merged in a greater New
York, what have you left of Richmond county? Many questions
of that kind have occurred to me, but they are of least importance
in comparison with the other questions to which I shall address
myself.
MR. LExOW:
You just made the statement that you were prepared to criticise
that bill. I noticed yesterday that none of the speakers criticised
that bill itself - none of the arguments were addressed to the
mierits of the bill.




110


[SENATE,


MR. DYKMAN:
It is far easier to point out the demerits of the bill, and I am
going to try and do it. We are opposed to the bill, because in
the first section we are made to make a leap into the future without knowing where we are going. We are made to take a leap in
the dark such as no community, certainly no city in this State,
ever took before in our history. It is enacted that we shall be
consolidated on the 1st day of January, 1898 - consolidated in
a way to be left to the discretion of a gentleman whom we all
honor, but who is at the point of death or nearing his end - to a
gentleman who deals in vacant lots in East New York, and to
some other gentlemen. No matter what comes from their brains,
no matter what may be their wisdom or unwisdom, no matter
whether they keep their promise as we hope they will, or break
their promise as we know they have, is it right to take this community of over a million inhabitants and consolidate it with the
city of New York without our knowing something about their
plans? Ought we not to know now what they have in their
brains? No one ever heard of such a proposition before. Why
should we not know what they intend to do. What is their excuse? The chairman says there is a sentiment. There is no
sentiment of that kind there.  These gentlemen love sentiment.
There is no sentiment in Mr. Chauncey or in the other gentlemen
who are pushing this measure of consolidation. They are dealing
in facts. They are not dealing in sentiment. We are opposed to
the first section of the bill because it deprives us of our existence,
but when you read the second and the fifth section there is no force
to extract from the first section. Those sections contain the sting
and venom that is in the bill. It provides that Mr. Green and
these gentlemen shall have office and money to carry on their
work. That is all there is in the bill. We ask you in the first
place, if it is your proposition to entrust our m~unicipality to Mr.
Green and Mr. Stranhan to wipe us out under the first section of
the bill. Why, sir, these gentlemen who drew this bill promised
us in a pamphlet which they issued on the eve of election- and
the League of Loyal Citizens has had it reprinted in order that no
one shall mistake the promises that were made on the eve of elec



No. 44.]


111


lion and what they said we have had put in red type - we have
red-lettered it that every one may read what we voted for. This
bill is not what we voted for. I read from Mr. Green's pamphlet,
'If every ballot in every city and town were cast in favor of
consolidation there would be no finalty about it. No consolidation would result until further action by the Legislature prescribed the terms and conditions. I say these gentlemen have
been false, false as ever men could be -in handing this bill to
us after making those promises. Your judgment may approve of
the bill and no one can criticise it. No one does criticise you, but
I am speaking for the interests of Brooklyn and her destiny. This
commission made a solemn promise and now make haste to break
that promise if ever man broke a promise in the world. This first
section of the bill does exactly what they promised should not be
done. 'Why should we trust them again. Shall we enact that in
1898 there shall be consolidation when! everybody admits that
all we know on the subject is that it is full of the most profound
questions, when we are confronted with difficulties greater than
ever man assumed to face. No problem like this ever before confronted a Legislature. Every man who has even thought over
the seriousness of the question is appalled by the magnitude of its
difficulties and will you enact the first section no matter what
the difficulties are? Must we accept what this commission gives
us? Is that good consolidation?  Did you ever in your experience know of even a little question being treated as this is? I
have known of bills enacted to take effect at some future time, but
those bills stated what was sought to be accomplished. When we
changed our whole system of procedure in 1846 or 1848 it was not
done in this way. There were great men, there were giants in
those days, but did the Legislature entrust to Mr. Field and his
associates the power to enact laws without the public knowing
anything about them? Does anybody pretend that the difficulties
which Mr. Field and his associates then met are to be compared
with the difficulties that now stare us in the face?
MR. LEXOW:
The Legislature will have to pass upon the work of the commis



112


[S EN A TIE,


sion and if it is not done properly the Legislature will take a hand
in it themselves.
MR. DYKMAN:
Speaking of section 2; there comes down to us in Brooklyn
remarks from Albany that we are unwilling to entrust our interests to the Legislature until we know what the Legislature is going
to do. This section of the bill says there shall be bills - many of
them, and among them a bill for equal taxation.
MR. LExow:
How are you going to legislate for any city except by bills?
MR. DYKMAN:
Of course we must legislate by bills, but we want to know what
the bills are to be. WVe may have a police bill passed by the
majority, and we may have an equal taxation bill rejected by the
majority. We have been fooled by these promises, and many of
my friends on this side, active and zealous citizens who love
Brooklyn speaking from their heart what they believe for the
advantage of Brooklyn, are fearful that you will give us a series
of bills this year which we will all be opposed to. I distrust this
commission and I distrust this bill. I believe ttiis bill ihas in it
infinite power for harm. We don't lknow whlat we are going to
get, no one but the Almighty can read human heats. \VWe finite
beings can not do it. We must judge this intended commllilssion
by what we know of them. I must judge what you men would
give us, not what is promised. Our fear is founded upon the
remarks that have come down to us from Albany. I say tlat that
charter, by a series of bills, is the worst possible, way of consolidating this community.
MR. LEXOW:
Is t l here:lnv (u11f rter that does not consist in a series of bills?
MR. DYKMAN:
Blrooklyn 11's (s11l1tti'f wa's el.lact  i I:I aIs a whole, and again in
1S88. New York's cl.arter was enacted as a whole.




No. 44.]


113


MI. LEXOW:
When you speak as enacting as a whole was it not composed
of a series of bills?
MR. DYKMAN:
Yes; but the public knew something about it. How can we
judge from one little piece of a charter which you may present
next week, or the week after, or on March first? How can we
tell whether the interest of our city will be best served by the
bills which you may introduce. It may be that no matter how
much we might dislike a consolidated police district I think these
gentlemen would swallow it. But who in Brooklyn can say that
we will have equal taxation, because Senator Lexow introduces
and the majority passes a police bill? If these gentlemen mean
what they say why don't they write in this bill a section providing for equal taxation. Let the first bill be a measure of
equal taxation. Is there anybody bold enough to do that? Why
not, why don't we hear that the first thing that will be done will
he to give us a bill of equal taxation. I don't question for a
moment but that these gentlemen who are in favor of consolidation in Brooklyn are for equal taxation, but the point that I am
striving to make is that we have no assurance that we will be given
an equal tax rate. Why give us the police and other bills without
lirst enacting a bill for equal taxation?  We do not want the
police and other bills this year and then be left struggling for the
benefits of consolidation in the future. That seems to be the
purpose of this bill.
There has been introduced by Dr. Brush another bill and the
vital principle of that is resubmission. That bill provides for a
final determination of the question. I undertake to say, sir, and
I have had something to do with the preparation of this bill and
after consultation with very eminent lawyers, I am prepared to
say that under the decision of the Court of Appeals and under
the Constitution of the State of New York, we can make that question final so far as the vote of the people and the voice of the
people is a finalty, an absolute determination as to whether any
further steps shall be taken under that bill.
[Senate, No. 44.]    15




114


[SENATE,


MR. LBxOW:
That is all it can determine?
MR. DYKMAN:
Yes, sir.
MR. LEXOW:
It can not determine any legislative proposition.
MB. DYKMAN:
I mean to say that there may be put into this bill these words:
That if the people vote no, that bill has spent its force and no
further can it go. I mean to say that this proposition has been
upheld by the Court of Appeals. Why are you here? Why does
the committee come down to Brooklyn. I do not believe it is to
go through the form and procedure of giving somebody at this
end a chance to speak before his head comes off. I do not think
that it is a mere courtesy. I think that you are trying to find out
what Brooklyn sentiment is. It cannot be done here. It can not
be done in this room. It can not be found in the heat and passion
of debate. I recall the words of Garfield in a Republican convention when he warned the delegates of the Republican party
that not in the heat and strife of debate in that convention would
the questions at issue be settled, but in the quiet and still of a
November day, and then only could the question be settled.
We have asked that this question be settled. What stands
in the way of it? I say, sir, and I answered the question that you.put yesterday, "Why do you want resubmission; do you want to
consolidation? " For myself, I want resubmission to kill consolidation, and I believe resubmission will kill it. I believe the
vote will be adverse by a large majority, but if it shall not be
adverse why then we will all join Tammany Hall and try to bring
her future rulers up to the Brooklyn standpoint. I believe it
will kill consolidation. But if we are in the end to be governed
by New York we will try and raise her rulers to our Brooklyn
standard. The vote of 1894 is not an expression of the opinon
of Brooklyn to-day. I do not believe that we should be consoli



No. 44.]


115


dated in 1896 when we are not in favor of it. But you argue that we
are in favor of it to-day because we were in 1894. I understand
that to be your argument.
MR. LEXOW:
That is not the argument. The situation shifts the burden of
proof, and you will have to satisfy us beyond peradventure that
that sentiment has changed so that it may not be regarded as a
finality.                                               '
MR. DYKMAN:
I confess that I do not believe that any approval can be absolutely final except by the passage of this bill. You can have a
vote on that bill and ascertain the sentiment in two months, if you
are honestly desirous of settling the question. You can not ascertain it from the hundreds that come here out of mere curiosity,
but by the silent 1,000,000 people alone. They can settle this
question. Give us a chance to discuss the question in every fireside and in every home in Brooklyn, and then you will have a
determination that you can not get otherwise. If you refuse us
that, you are not, I submit, desirous of learning what Brooklyn
wants, and of getting a full expression of Brooklyn's opinion.
You can not get it otherwise. I can tell you that my friends
have changed. I can tell you that I prefer to take the vote of last
fall, which shows that almost without exception every member of
the Legislature from this city is against this bill. Is that not a,change in public sentiment? Why, in the year 1894 we did not
know what Mr. White, 'our commissioner of public works, could
accomplish. We did not know that there was in Brooklyn the
p)ower that has proved to be in Brooklyn, and that has changed
the mayor, who was in favor of consolidation. It has changed
-tle opinion of the commissioner. The new mayor which comes in
is against your bill. The new fire commissioner has written a letter that you said something about this morning. The old corporation counsel is against the bill. The new corporation counsel
is against the bill. All of the Assemblymen, all of the Senators,: l(, whole board of aldermen: and I ask you. also. to consider the




116


[SENATE,.


League of Loyal Citizens, and the work they have done, which
was started and almost wholly sustained by my friend Low, and
contrast those with the people who are against consolidation.
MR. LEXOW:
You do not dispute the general political proposition that a
small, compact, aggressive opposition will coerce many men into
assenting to at least some part of their platform, in order that
they may be in a position to defeat the main proposition at the
polls.
MR. DYKMAN:
But if you find every member of the Legislature, if you find
every member of Assembly and every member of the Senate, if
you find the mayor and his cabinet, if you find the leaders of public
thought in the city of Brooklyn against the bill, it might at least
be sufficient evidence that they want another chance to vote.
MR. LExOW:
Without reflecting upon them, is it not a fact that they have a
peculiar interest in preserving the city as it is,because they are
officeholders under the present government.
MR. DYKMAN:
Is Mayor Schieren an officeholder? Will not Mayor Wurster
be out of office before this bill takes effect?
MR. LEXOW:
l)id not ex-Mayor Schieren say that consolidation was
irevitable?
MR. DYKMAN:
I think he did.
MR. LEXOW:


If it is inevitable, why not have it now?




No. 44.]


117


MR. DYKMAN:
I do not think it is inevitable. I think if it were not for the
exigencies of the politics of to-day there would be no sentiment in
favor of consolidation. I do not yield to your proposition that
there is a large sentiment in favor of consolidation. As long as
there is such a dividing line as the East river between New York
and Brooklyn, consolidation is not inevitable.
MR. LExow:
How can you criticize the bill as being political, when the
author of it is a Democrat in the city of New York, Mr. Green, and
when the drafter of the bill is one of the Democratic police commissioners of the city of New York, how can you then question
that it has any political bearing?
MR. DYKMAN:
We do not know the intricacies of New York politics here. We
find strange alliances in New York city, and it is impossible for
us in Brooklyn to tell just what the politics of a man are when he
is drafting bills that provide offices.
MR. LExow:
But your criticism was that everybody might be legislated out
of office.
MR. DYKMAN:
I don't know the gentleman that drafted the bill.
MR. LEXOW:
Police Commissioner Parker, of New York, is the drafter of the
bill.
MR. DYKMAN:
I understand that Mr. Parker stays in office until the 1st of
January, 1898; he is not legislated out of office.
MR. LEXow:
You said that some remarks that had come to you from Albany
had caused you to take this position?




118


[SENATE,


MR. DYKMAN:
It may be that my friend Parker is abundantly provided for in
the measure that is in the chairman's brain.
MR. LEXOW:
What assurance have we that you will not be standing before
some legislative committee in 1897, making the same arguments
for resubmission that you are making to-day, if we finally conclude
to resubmit this question to the people?
MR. DYKMAN:
The answer must be found in the bill that I have something to
do in drafting, and if the verdict of the people should be in favor
of that bill, the League of Loyal Citizens - all of us -would
abide by the verdict. If the vote is aye, and the commission is
to be at once appointed by the Governor to draft a bill, all right.
We pledge ourselves as good citizens to help make a charter - the
best possible charter- if the vote of this locality shall favor
consolidation.
MR. LEXOW:
Is that not practicable under the provisions of the bill that
was voted upon in 1894?
MR. DYKMAN:
I hope the chairman will not subtract the time allotted to me,
the time he occupies; the chairman might use up the whole
time of the opposition.
MR. GRADY:
Whom do you represent when you say, " We pledge ourselves?"
MR. DYKMAN:
I speak for the League of Loyal Citizens. I have heard them
say that if the vote shall be in favor of consolidation that they
will pledge their best work to the framing of the charter to be
drawn. Our conditions since 1894 have changed. We have a




No. 44.]


119


new constitution. We have a new city boundary. We have
abolished the board of supervisors. We have a ten per cent.
limit of debt; we did not have that in 1894. We did not vote
under this condition of affairs in 1894; that changed condition,
it seems to me, sufficient to justify our demand that we be given
another opportunity to vote as Brooklyn is to-day.
MR. LEXOW:
Is it not the fact that the 10 per cent limitation is a trouble in
Brooklyn to-day - that you cannot make the necessary improvements and that there is no money with which to make improvements?
MR. DYKMAN:
You have heard Mr. White, the commissioner of public works.
I do not pretend to answer that question. I believe that Brooklyn can make all the necessary improvements.
A VOICE:
Do you represent the Brooklyn Eagle? I understand that the
gentleman is counsel for the Brooklyn Eagle.
MR. LEXOW:
I do not think that any personal allusions are in order.
MR. DYKMAN:
I have many clients in Brooklyn and I find among them an overwhelming majority opposed to consolidation.
JOSEPH R. CLARK:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am going
to speak as a politician this morning, and as an officeholder who
does not desire to be turned out of office as was spoken of yesterday. The gentleman making the remark is an ex-official himself,
and perhaps he is in favor of consolidation, because he expects
to be returned to office under the greater city. I want to call the
attention of the committee as a man who has been identified with




12(


[SENATE,


the city government as an officeholder to the fact that politicians
are natural cowards, in that they do not want to do anything that
the people are alarmed at in order that they may be retained in
their position. I do not, and I do not think the Greater New
Yorkwould have that effect as therewould stillbepoliticians. Two
years ago when this vote was taken what was the object of the politicians in this city? I said to all in my district to make sure and vote
everything so that we would get a new constitution, which would
make the State of New York Republican for some time to come,
it is because of that reason that so many voted in favor of consolidation two years ago; and it is for that reason that I speak
here this morning in favor of resubmission. At that time our
party was desirous of putting through everything and were anxious that no votes should go astray, and the Republicans in the
different districts were asked to vote everything. Since that time
what has been the result in the city of Brooklyn? A great many
people who voted at that time now feel that they would'be better
off than if they were joined to New York and Tammany Hall.
MR. LExow:
How do you account for the fact that 22,000 more votes were
cast for consolidation than on the constitutional amendment?
MR. CLARK:
Because there was a body of men that were organized and determined that this thing should be carried.
MnR. LExow:
Have you ever known in your experience as a politician - devoting your time to politics - that any proposition was ever before
carried by the people in opposition to united press against it.
MR. CLARK:
I think that this case is an exception to your question.
MR. LEXOW:
Is it not astonishing?




No. 44.]


121


MR. CLARK:
I don't think it is. Our district organizations simply said, go
on and vote all, and they all voted for consolidation.
MR. LExOW:
Your argument would be convincing if it were not for this difference of 22,0()0 votes between the constitutional amendments
and consolidation. Can you explain to us how-it is that with the
united opposition of the press of the city of Brooklyn against this
proposition that the people were able to get votes enough into the
ballot box to carry the proposition?
MR. CLARK:
If you will take the results of the election of that year and
study them carefully you will find that in the Republican wards
at that time they received the largest amount for consolidation.
Now, the situation, as I understand it, has changed. I am free to
say that there was a time when I had not made up my mind, even
after election. I never made any public expression of opinion
on the matter, but last fall when I saw the two great parties in
this city arrayed one against the other, and one candidate a pronounced consolidationist before the people as unreservedly in
favor of consolidation, and the other in favor of resubmission,
then I began to study the question. One of the candidates said
he was in favor of resubmission, if the people wanted it, and that
he would not oppose a bill of that kind if he was elected mayor.
Don't this show that there was a change of sentiment after the
vote of 189-1 was taken?  One candidate said, " Gentlemen, I am
for consolidation and vote for me on that issue." The other
candidate did not do that nor do I know of a single other candidate in the city of Brooklyn who took that position. Simply
because they knew that there was a great feeling among the
people in Brooklyn against consolidation and in favor of resubmitting this question and every one of them " ran to cover " and
said, " We are for resubmission." There are twenty-eight men
in the board of aldermen, sixteen Republicans and the balance
Demrocrats, and every one are in favor of resubmission. I claim,
[Senate, No. 44.]     16




122


[SENATE,


Mr. Chairman, coming as we do, direct from the people, that we
ought to know something as to the sentiment of the people in our
respective districts on this question, and knowing their desires
and their wishes, we take this position in favor of the bill, resubmitting this question to them. I think that that should have some
weight with this committee in determining this question. The
people should be given another opportunity to vote, and then you
can see if there is any change of opinion on this question. I believe that there is a very great change. I believe it would be a
great wrong for the Republican Senate to assume to pass a bill
which will annex the city of Brooklyn to the city of New York
without once more giving the people a chance to express themselves on this question.
MR. REDFIELD:
The following resolutions have just been handed to me, and I
desire their insertion in the record of your committee.
MR. REDFIELD:
A gentleman appeared here this morning intending to address
your committee, but illness preventing he requested me to present
to your committee the communication which I now read. I desire that it be made a part of your record:
At a regular meeting of the Brooklyn Republican Club, held
at its club-house No. 146 Pierpont street, Brooklyn. on January
16, 1896, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
Resolved, That it is the sense of this club that the best interests
of this city will be subserved by giving its citizens an opportunity
to fully discuss this great question of consolidation that it may
be intelligently voted upon, and that the question be again submitted to the people.
WM. L. GERRISH,
WM. H. WELIWOOD,                            President.
Recording Secretary.
Copy of resolution adopted at a meeting of the citizens of
Brooklyn, held in the Art building, January 7, 1896:
WHEREAS, Several bills have been and are being prepared for
introduction in the present session of the Legislature of New




N No. 44.]


123


York, the purposes of which are to seriously modify, abridge and
supplant the present charter of the city of Brooklyn and existing
laws affecting the public interests of the city; therefore,
Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that whatever
legislation is proposed, no law should be enacted which will deprive the people of Brooklyn of the right to determine by popular
vote whether they will accept or reject any charter or other
measure which shall be intended to replace the present charter,
or terminate in any way the corporate existence of the city of
Brooklyn.
Adopted by unanimous consent.
Among those present at the meeting were:
Ex-Mayor Charles A. Schieren, Chairman.
Ex-Mayor David A. Boody.   Rev. Dr. Richard S. Storrs.
Hon. John Winslow.         George Foster Peabody.
Henry K. Sheldon,          Elijah Kennedy.
Henry Hentz.               Hon. WV. J. Coombs.
Isaac H. Cary.             Janes D. Bell.
Prof. Franklin WV. Hooper.  Robert D. Benedict.
A. D. Wheelock.            S. L. Woodhouse.
Henry D. Atwater.          Henry W. Maxwell.
Henry Sanger Snow, Secretary.
80 PIERPONT STREET, BROOKLYN. N. Y.,
January 18, 1896.
HON. GEO. WV. BRusH, M. D.:
My Dear Sir.- I thank you for your kind suggestion that I present my views on the urgent question of resubmission to the Legislative committee now in session in this city. I have earnestly desired to do so to-day, but a serious and threatening cold confines me
to my house, and forbids me to meet the committee. I can not forbear, however, to call your attention and that of the committee,
to one fact pertinent to your inquiry, which seems of quite controlling importance.
The people of Brooklyn, whom I meet, and I meet them familiarly
and widely, do not accept the opportunity which they had in 1894,
of expressing their opinion and feeling in regard to consolidation




124


[S ENATE,


with New York as having had a fair opportunity, no general discussion having preceded it. Even the gravity of the question being
at that time but vaguely apprehended. Whether they are right or
wrong in the feeling need not now be debated. With my kno)wledge
of the confusing circumstances attending the expression at the
ballot-boxes at that time, I think that they are right. That a large
majority of them are agreed in the feeling, I have no doubt whatever. Many of those who favor consolidation openly declare or
freely concede it.
It is this goeneral and very strong feeling which your committee
will decisively antagonize if you fail to recommend a resubmission
of the preliminary question to a popular vote in this city, before
further legislative action is taken. How the majority may turn
on that vote, " for consolidation" or " against consolidation," I
have no other means of judging than are open to all. I have never,
myself,. been finally committed against consolidation, though expressing my preference agaiist it fourteen months ago, because,
feeling the need of further information and the generally lax
maxim. quieta non -. But at the same time that I appreciate
some argul,-ments for it, perhaps more fully than they, I sympathise
earnestly, even intensely, with the vast number of our citizens - I
am sure the great majority of our voting citizens - who insist that
our city rights shall not be taken from us without our previous deliberate consent. The Legislature may do many things which we
shall regret. but not passionately resent, but if it strikes our city
pride full in the face by treating us as a community not capable of
maturing our thoughts, or intelligently expressing them on a question which involves the life of the city, it seems to me as certain as
are the processes of nature, that a detonation force will here be
evolved, before which parties will be shattered and political plans
be overwhelmed to an extent not probably fully expected. We,
who have lived in Brooklyn for half a century, who have seen it
growing in that period four times as fast as New York, with a more
homogeneous population, who have done whatever we could to
make it noble and beautiful, and to set it forth before other cities
of the land as an example of wise and wholesome life and government, can hardly be expected to contemplate with equanimity any




No. 44.]


125


action at Albany, which shall propose to strike it from the list of
American cities, without its own previous decisive assent. Thanking you again for your courtesy, I am
Very truly and respectfully yours.
(Signed)                        RICHARD S. STORRS.
REV. DR. CUYLER:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Mv remarks will
be very brief. I understand that the issue now is clearly joined
between a proposal for resubmission and a proposal to proceed to
active and aggressive steps for the consolidation of the two cities.
As you know, nearly two years ago, we, the people of Brooklyn,
were allowed to express an opinon. Sixty-four thousand of our
voters expressed a preference for consolidation.  Sixty-four
thousand expressed an opinion in opposition to consolidation.
Therefore, for all the moral purposes for ascertaining public
sentiment, it was practically a tie, a drawn battle. To-day there
are 200,000 legal voters in the city of Brooklyn, 200,000 citizens
demanding the right to be heard on this question, and it is a pieoe
of sublime audacity to claim that the opinion of 64,000 people
expressed nearly two years ago is a binding mandate upon
200,000 before the Legislature of the State of New York. This
simple, solid fact, sir, is a good argument for fair dealing and
justice and the right of resubmission. The more you look at the
other proposition, the proposition that I think means to enforce
consolidation without the privilege of being heard, the more
practicable the difficulties become and the more rapidly they
accumulate. Why, gentlemen, it can not be impressed upon you
too strongly that to-day Brooklyn is a homogeneous city, happy
and contented, thank God. At the other end of the bridge is a
city largely agitated with serious questions of local government,
and that agitation is not likely to end soon. An attempt to combine these two cities would only produce a heterogeneous and
discordant mixture. What can a man that lives in Flatbush or
}amaica know about the interests of the people about the Har1tm? What municipal relation is there between the residents of




126


[SENATE,


Staten Island and the residents of Green Point? The more you
increase the dimensions of a great city the more you decrease
the probability for wise, thorough and honest municipal government. Every city must have a head. You know        that it
taxes all the time and all the mental powers of one of our best
citizens to be mayor of Brooklyn. There is a still heavier strain
on the mayor of New York city. What must be the physical
strength and mental equipment of the man who asumes the colossal task of governing a colossal city thirty-one miles in length and
twenty miles wide with three or four millions of people soon to
become five millions. This would be a great risk and a very
doubtful experiment.  If in fairness consolidation is to be
lerpetrated endless confusion will arise, I suppose that the new
consolidated, confabulated, concatenated, conglomeration will be
called New York. But for all purposes of distinction this side of
the river will be called Brooklyn, and we shall have the hollow
memory of a name instead of the precious right of self-government. And more than that many of the streets and avenues of
the two cities are of the same name and after consolidation comes
the confusion will be great, but we will never give up our grand
old historic name of Fulton, of Washington, of Madison, Lincoln,
and Jefferson. Finally, after the vast array of arguments that
were presented yesterday, I solemnly assert that the strongest
argument of all is the argument founded on the loyal love of the
people of Brooklyn, the love of their firesides and their homes, the
buried ashes of their fathers and the peace of their children. You
may call it sentiment. I would have you know that the world is
ruled by sentiment, your mother's love is sentiment, noble sentiments make noble works. Behind me stands the great army of
Brooklynites that are speaking through humble lips this morning,
with heart cords bound fast to this beauiful and beloved city,
protesting against any rash and reckless proposal to assassinate
Broollyn. To protest against the destruction of our organic and
civic life-a destruction which would bebefore Heaven a monstrous
crime of civic assassination. Therefore, gentlemen, I have in a
few words given a few of the arguments against the monstrous
crime. (lnd, sir. woe be to the political leader of anly ).rty tl:i:i!las
our blood upon his hands.




No. 44.]


127


MR. REDFIELD:
It was asserted here yesterday that the opposition to consolidation comes from around the Heighths. I call your attention to
the fact that no speaker who addressed the committee this morning comes from that district, and that very few of the speakers
that addressed you yesterday were from that district.
WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: It is not my
purpose to go into any lengthy argument on the pros and cons
of the bill before you. If I am correctly informed, there were
three gentlemen here yesterday, claiming to represent the sentiment of the eastern district of the city of Brooklyn. It may not
be out of the way for me to say that, if I have been correctly
informed, that neither of the three gentlemen live in the eastern
district. I think I may say with propriety and without egotism
that I may come here as a representative of that section of the
city, on the theory that a burnt child fears the fire. I may say to
you, so far as my knowledge goes, that the sentiment of that district is decidedly against consolidation. On my way to the office
this morning, for the purpose of getting the sentiment on this
question, I took occasion to speak to every man with whom I
had even a passing acquaintance. I must say that before speaking to them, I never heard any expression of opinion from them in
regard to their position on this matter. Altogether, I spoke to
ten persons. The result was as follows: Of the ten, eight were
against consolidation, the other two were for it, each as positive
on one side as the other. Without any desire to drag politics
into the question at all, I may say that the two who favored consolidation were Democrats.
MR. BRUSH:
You live in the eastern district, and you know something of
the sentiment of that district?
MR. BRYANT:
Yes, sir.




128


[SENATE,


MR. BRUSH:
Was the statement that was made yesterday by some of the
gentlemen present, that 75 per cent. of the people in the eastern
district were in favor of consolidation, a correct statement?
MR. BRYANT:
If they had placed the question the other way, I should say
they were correct. I think that fully 75 per cent. of the people
in the eastern district are against consolidation.
MR. REDFIELD:
It was stated in your presence yesterday that the voters of the
eastern district were 75 per cent. in favor of consolidation. The
wards composing the eastern district cast 10,500 votes in favor
of consolidation. I offer, Mr. Chairman, to produce to this committee the original signatures of 16,000 citizens of the eastern
district wards who are in favor of resubmission; and I offer to
produce with them, before this committee, the registration rolls
of 1895 for the purpose of comparison.
MR. LEXOw:
You can put in evidence any papers you desire.
MR. BRUSH:
I authorize you to turn over to this committee the enrolled signatures of the wards composing the old city of Williamsburgh.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you mean those that were presented to the Senate?
MR. BRUSH:
Yes, sir. They are now in the possession of the Senate.
MR. REDFIELD:
I desire to say, concerning this, that it contains 6,000 more
voters in Wrilliamsburgh than favored consolidation in 1894. It
is made up by wards and election districts. and it will be easy




o. 44."]


129


for you to have a comparison made with the registration-rolls
whiich we have filed, and we would respectfully request that such,comparison be made.
GEORGE H. ROBERTS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: As the newlyelected chairman of the county organization of the Republican
party of Kings county, I wish to bear the testimony that it is my
humble opinion that at least 9( per cent. of that committee are
against consolidation.  Personally, I am one of those who
opposed consolidation from the start. I voted against it. I
plead now for resubmission. The city proper did not vote for
consolidation. The bare 277 majority that you had in the county
w-as obtained from a section of our city that had recently been
annexed. There was 192,000 registered. Over 73,000 did not
vote on the question at all. Now, Mr. Chairman, I simply come
liere to bear my personal witness. I know of a district of 160
Relpublicans. and thirty Democrats, and there are not five consolidationists in that district. I am in favor of cheap homes for
Brooklyn, as strange as that assertion may be to you. In my
observation of the gentlemen who are in favor of consolidation, a
vast majority will take a narrow and selfish view of looking to
enhance the value of property, because many of them have told
Ilm. " If you were abroad and registered from Brooklyn, the people
over there would think you came from a wilderness." Such an
9rum- ment has very little effect upon me.
MR. LExow:
Do you mean to claim that the mere fact of consolidation would
enhance value?
MR. ROBERTS:
They claim that. They claim that it will make the value of real
estate more stable. In other words that a piece of property, the
estimated value of which is $20,000 to-day will bring that price
where it now goes begging. I am in the flour business in the city
of New York, and I have made some observations of real estate
[Senate, No. 44.]    17




130


[SENATE,


transactions in both cities. There are sections in New York city
where property is unsalable to-day, ais in East New York, where
it is the most depressed of any portion of the city. I believe that
from all my heart; and I believe another assertion; that $10,000
judicially invested in the city of Brooklyn will yield as big an
interest as the same amount of money in the city of New York. The
consolidationists say that property that is now worth $10,()00
will be worth $20,)000) if we consolidate ourselves with New York. I
do not believe that. There is nothing in the world that will enhance property unless there is a supply and demand. There las
been a supply and demand for property both in New York and in
Brooklyn in the past. But to-day there is no demand in either city.
There is not in the United States, on account of the poliical complexion of our government. We have a city of homes. We have
a beautiful city here and we want to retain its political automony.
It has been said that there are no politics in this question, but it
has its political side. It is the opinion of hundreds of Republicans
that are taking an active interest, as every Christian man should,
in the welfare of his government, that if we are annexed to the
city of New York that Tammany Hall influence in New York will
so influence the city of Brooklyn that instead of it being a city
about equally divided, it will become 25,000 to 50,000 Democratic.
MR. LExow:
How do you account for the fact that every Democratic representative in the Legislature from the city of Brooklyn is an anticonsolidationist?
MR. ROBERTS:
I will answer that the regular Democratic standard bearer at
the last election pronounced himself a consolidationist, and on
that one issue he got his vote, and my Democratic friends know
it is true.
MR. LEXOW:
We have thus far conducted this investigation without bringing politics into prominence, and I think the consolidation qnics



Xo. 44.]


131


tion should be decided without reference to politics. It a question
of a greater city. It is not a question of the supremacy of any
political organization. I hope that the Republican party is strong
enough and able enough to rise to any crisis that might be directed
against it because it had done its duty to the people.
MR. ROBERTS:
As an American citizen and a citizen of the city of Brooklyn,
as a pronounced Republican of the radical type, I come here to
you, sir, to say that higher in the interests of the Republican party
is the interest of the city of -Brooklyn to my heart to-day. All we
ask of you, gentlemen of the Legislature, is to resubmit this question to the intelligence of the people in order that they may vote
on it understandingly. In my district the issue was not understood. We are in a tremendous political strife. AVe had been in
the minority. The issue was not fairly before the people. You
can readily understand that. Let me give you a parallel. In a
very few of our political meetings during the last campaign was
the question of the deepening and widening of the Erie canal and
the spending of $9,000,000 discussed at all. It was hardly mentioned; our average voter gave it very little attention; it was a
very rare thing that the question came up before them for debate,
and yet it was one of the most important issues at stake at the
last election. Under this Greater New York I can not see that our
taxes will be reduced or that the expense of living will be reduced
and our property will not materially advance. The moral influence of the Greater New York will be depressing. We have provided, up to the present time, for all that have come here for the
simple reason that we have cheap homes. A man with a small
income can buy a little home here, we give him school and
churches, clean streets, and we have been able to the present time
to clean our own house, politically.
MR. REDFIELD:
I beg to answer that question relating to real estate. I hold
in my hand a pamphlet containing the names of the entire consolidation commission, issued by that body. I call your attention




132


[SENATE,


to page 27, " Greater New York," " Reasons Why." Signed by
Edward C. Green, and bearing the imprint of the consolidation
commission.
MR. LExOW:
You do not object to a boom in Brooklyn real estate?
MR. REDFIELD:
No, sir. Some of them claim that it will increase property, and
others claim that it will make it more stable.
MR. LExoW:
The one is inconsistent with the other. If a piece of property
sells under a forced sale to-day for $10,000, when it is worth $20,000,
and if consolidation has the effect of keeping it at $20,000, it is
practically for all business purposes an increase in the value of the
property. It makes it more valuable for loaning and other purposes. Is not that true?
MR. REDFIELD:
I think it may be.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you agree with the statement made by Mr. Roberts, that at
the last election, the question of consolidation made up the votes
given to the candidate who was defeated?
MR. REDFIELD:
I am greatly indebted to you for asking that question. I read
an advertisement from the Brooklyn Eagle, November 7, 1895,
signed by the Consolidation League of Brooklyn: " The only way
to express an opinion on the question of consolidation is to vote
for Edward M. Grout for mna.yor. In the aggregate total he was in
the minority of 12,000.
My1. Laxo w:
ite{ was in the minority of 2,000?




No. 44.]


133


MR. REDFIELD:
No, sir; not in the total vote for mayor.
MR. LEXOW:
The successful candidate received only 2,000 more votes.
MR. REDFIELD:
There were three candidates for mayor; Republican, Independent Democrat and Regular Democrat. The Republican and Independent Democrat both favored openly over their signatures a resubmission of the matter to the people before final determination.
Those two men had together united as they were on that question,
a majority in the total of 12,000 over the man who was openly supported by the consolidation league. Mr. Wurster, the Republican
candidate was elected a member of the executive committee at the
league meeting, and he is a loyal friend of Brooklyn. He is in
favor of resubmission, and so declared himself. I call attention to
the fact that of the eleven men from Brooklyn who stood by us in
Albany last year six were nominated to the Senate and two went
back to the Assembly, five men who favored it, four of them stayed
at home.
MR. LExow:
Is it not a fact that prior to the election guarantees were demanded by the Loyal League?
MR. REDFIELD:
I will read you the letter that we sent out: The League of Loyal
Citizens desired if possible that the question of consolidation
should not enter political conflicts. We never did enter the mayoralty conflict. The people of Brooklyn defeated consolidation without our help.
MR. LEXOW:
Is it not a fact, a remarkable fact, that if the issue was met on one
side, that the sentiment in Brooklyn does not seem to be so unanimously against consolidation as you would have it appear yesterday? It was claimed yesterday on one side that seventy-five per




134


[SENATE,


cent. were in favor of consolidation; on the other it was claimed
that the percentage was on the other side. Now, if you admit that
consolidation entered into the vote cast for the Democratic candidate for mayor, it certainly does not show that seventy-five per
cent. of the people are opposed to consolidation.
MR. REDFIELD:
It shows that on a question met by that candidate and enforced
by the entire power of the Consolidation League, that in a vote
where 45,000 of our citizens did not register, there was a majority
against consolidation of 12,000 and over. I will furnish the committee a copy of the letter sent out by the League of Loyal Citizens.
MR. LEXOW:
Your ranks are divided into a number of factions, are they not?
MR. REDFIELD:
No, sir.
MR. LEXOW:
Some are in favor of resubmission; others are in favor of a referendum.
MR. REDFIELD:
I do not know about that; in speaking of the Loyal League, I
speak of the anti-consolidation sentiment.
MR. LEXOW:
Is it not true that the league consists of two factions that are
about as strongly divided between each other as are the consolidationists from the anti-consolidationists.
MR. REDFIELD:
I know of no faction that favors referendum as opposed to resubmission.
MR. LEXOW:
You don't mean to suggest that there are no people in the city of
Brooklyn who take that position?




No. 44.]


13;5


MR. REDFIELD:
Some favor referendum because they say they can not get a resubmission.
FOSTER L. BACKUS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Coinmmittee: I do not appear here as a consolidationist or an anti-consolidationist. I do
not appear here as a politician. It was stated yesterday that the
poor men of Brooklyn favor consolidation. The man who made
that statement is rich enough to say that " I am the thirteenth
child of the forefather in one of those families that could buy the
rwhole of our estates." If I stand for anything in the city of
Brooklyn, I stand as the representative of the poor men, the workingmen, the common men, some of them who own their own homes,
humble homes they may be, but they are their own homes. They
are the ones who, with their wages, pay the expenses of the city;
the rich do not have to pay the expenses of the governments of
our cities. It may be said that there should be no politics in this
question. Every one of your committee is a politician. I think
that every one of your committee is an exception, in my sense, of
the term of being a politician. It may be possible that in the
Legislature there are men who are politicians in the lower sense.
But I confidently believe that when men are selected from any
district they are selected as the higher type of citizens. I am not
a politician myself though I hold a public office. It has been said
of the men who are in favor of consolidation, the anti-consolidationists or the resubmissionists that they are in this for the purpose
of political gain. I differ from a lawyer who is a consolidationist
when he made a statement at a dinner the other night that when
we had consolidation that the present district attorney of Kings
county should be district attorney of the whole city. I ask
Senator Wray, who was at that dinner, how it was that a lawyer
could so far forget the Constitution as to make such a statement
as that, and he said it only illustrated how some of the consolidationists are so eager for consolidation that they forget all rules
of law and all principles of jurisprudence. It would not make any
difference to me, so far as the officet is concerned, except the Legis



136


[SENATE,


lature should decide that if I favor a resubmission or anything
else that they would not pass the bill to extend my term of office
to four years. I do not care whether the Legislature fixes it at
four years or two years. I want to call your attention to one or
two propositions -and if we discuss the question at all, if there
is any politics in it, we might as well talk politics; if there is any
politics in it, let us discuss politics. Brooklyn is listening to the
discussion; the city of New York is listening to it, why should we
not discuss its political side? You have started on the theory
that it is a business proposition; that is undoubtedly true, but
there are two great political parties, the Democratic party upon
principle and the Republican party upon principle, and in both
of these cities are political rings, cancers that are eating into the
body politic of these two cities. I do not say that for the purpose
of attacking either party; but if you show me a great city where
either party has control of its departments, and I will show you
a history of selfish men united for the purpose of making money.
And the danger is, therefore, that the young men in any great
city where either party has a sufficiently safe majority, those
young men flock to that party. What is the use of a young lawyer
in a city where all the officials are Democrats' seeking to establish
a business and standing in a minority party?
MR. LEXOW:
They have done it, just the same.
MR. BACKUS:
I will tell you why they have done it. They have done it
wherever there is a gleam of hope that good citizenship shall
finally be recognized. They have done it in some of our great cities
when the body politic have become so rotten that those in power
were indicted and dethroned. Once in a while there would be a
spasm so great that the young men, the old men, the fathers and
the mothers will rise up and dethrone those who are corrupt. It
would be a good thing for the Democracy in the city of Ne w York
if once in a while the people would strike a blow that would
stagger them, if the surgeon would cut ouit 1 lie c(ancer. In the




No. 44.]


137


city of Brooklyn the people watch the politicians closely, and the
people are in close contact with our mayor. Mayor Schieren will
tell you that his relations to all the citizens has been very intimate,
a sort of family relation. In this city the people can reach our
mayor -the rich and poor alike. When the politicians here become corrupt and greedy the Democrats and Republicans unite
against that ring and we change the administration. Wec stand
to-day in this position. The Democrats and Republicans alike,
are petitioning you to resubmit this question. I believe that these
citizens of Brooklyn desire another opportunity to vote upon the
subject of consolidation. My observation in the city of Brooklyn
leads me to believe that it will be a great misfortune If to-day the
Legislature should decide to draw the lines and deny the people
the right to again vote upon this question.
MR. LEXOW:
I have been told that our political throats will be cut if we
declare consolidation, and then again if we do not declare it.
MR. BACKUS:
What do those who are opposed to consolidation ask? That
you shall kill consolidation? No. What they do ask is that you
shall give those who are opposed to consolidation an opportunity
to show their strength. The consolidationists say, that we, having
been allowed to vote once, should not be allowed to vote again.
I think it is a good thing that this representative body has come to
Brooklyn to feel the pulse of the people. If the Legislature shall
agree to resubmit this question to a vote of the people, and they
vote upon it, whatever the result may be, the people will abide by
it. Nobody will cut your throats. I am glad that that question
has come up, because I believe that when a voter has once had an
opportunity to vote and is given notice that is to have another
chance, and that it will be his last chance, I believe that he should
be bound by it. There is no constitutional provision that will
prevent the people voting again upon this question. I do not think
that the voters of the city of Brooklyn will blame either party if
the question is resubmitted.
[Senate, No. 44.]     1 




138


[SENATE,


I do not believ-e in the real estate boom business. W\hat I would
like to see is a steady growth in the outlying wards of the city. I
think it would be a most unfortunate thing to have a boom in real
estate, for who would be benefited? The real estate speculators.
I believe in steady growth in the city of Brooklyn. Real estate
in the city of Brooklyn is stable enough under normal conditions. One of the things that makes uncertainty is this constant
fret to take from the voters of the city of Brooklyn the question
whether Brooklyn shall remain as it is. I say to' you that it
must be for the best interests of all the people if there were a
steady growth instead of a boom. Confidence will make real
estate values steady. Booms result in large profits to real estate
speculators.
MR. LExow:
Is it not a fact that every great improvement in the city had
met with like opposition?  The elevated railroads, the Brooklyn
bridge. the parks - have they not met with this same opposition?
MR. BACKUS:
I do not know that I am willing to make any statements about
facts that I do not know. I know that the people were opposed
to elevated railroads in front of their houses. There were many
influences that opposed the elevated railroad system; there were
many who opposed it for selfish reasons. I do not see what that
has to do( with the question. Look at the history of the great
cities that have been combined, and you will see that they desire to
return to home government, that they want to resume the responsibility of self-government. There are certain departments right
here in the city of Brooklyn that can best be managed right here on
this side of the river. This great change could not be made without giving the people an opportunity to pass final judgment
upon this important subject. Give us a chance to discuss the
question. I do not claim that when I voted on tllis question, that
I was prepared to cast my vote intelligently. All that wv were
called upon to do was to express such an opinion as weo had, with
the notice that it was not to be final. I would like an opportunity




No. 44.]


1I39


to talk with my neighbors about it. I know many people who
have changed their minds upon the subject. I do not know that
it is important whether they have changed their mind one way or
the other. If the consolidationists are afraid that the result
will be defeat, I do not blame them for opposing a resubmission.
But what harm can come to pass, what good reason is there foir
not letting the voters of the city of Brooklyn pass their judgment upon this important subject?
MR. BRUSH:
In view of what you have said about the vote on this question
at the general election, would you not think it better to have a
special election to express an opinion on the subject?
MR. BACKUS:
It seems to me that the people should not be confused by
political considerations. I think the question should be voted
upon separately. I do not think it was fair to say that Mr. Grout
was defeated because he was a consolidationist for there is a
strange thing about politics in this city as elsewhere. You can
not draw lines that will get Democrats to vote the Republican
ticket, and you can not draw lines that will get Republicans to
vote the Democratic ticket, no matter what you mix in with it. I
do not think it would be quite right to say that he was defeated
because lie was a consolidationist.
MR. LExow:
You do not believe in nonpartisan municipal government?
MR. BACKUS:
I believe in honest municipal government. I believe there are
honest Democrats and honest Republicans. We went to the people on straight political lines. There were Democrats and Republicans running on straight lines. I believe in honest government.
It would be a blessed thing for all the cities of the country if State
and National politics could be separated from municipal politics.




140


[SENATE,


MR. LExow:
Then you mean tio draw the inference from the last election that
Brooklyn is a Democratic city by upwards of 6,000 majority?
MR. BaCKUS:
I mean to say this; that the results of the last election show this:
and I believe it from the bottom of my heart, that among the mass
of voters there is a large number of intelligent men that will vote
for a certain man no matter what their interests are, that will vote
because their party organization is behind them. The city of
Brooklyn is neither a Republican nor a Democratic city. It is so
nearly balanced so that when either party gets intrenched and
thinks it can run the government independent of the voters of the
city of Brooklyn, it arises the next morning after election and finds
that the people of the city of Brooklyn have taken their interests
from its hand. The city of Brooklyn is Republican to-day, for certain reasons. I think it will remain. Republican for several years
if those in office give a fair, honest and nonpa rtisan administration
of the business affairs of the city, and it will be Democratic as soon
as the independent voters get the suspicion that they are under a
selfish and corrupt ring. Wait until next election and do not mix
consolidation up and divide our lines, and then we can tell whether
this city is Democratic or Republican.
MR. REDFIELD:
Before introducing our honored ex-mayor, Mr. Schieren, I desire to state that at the request of Assemblyman Forrester, representing the Thirteenth Assembly district of this city, I went to
Greenpoint a week ago to-night. That district gave quite'a large
majority for consolidation. They had a meeting and 10,000 circulars were circulated, and the meeting was advertised in the evening papers. The evening was inclement, the attendance was about
one hundred and fifty, as nearly as I could judge. Mr. Forrester
called upon that meeting to inquire if there was anybody there who
desired to speak for consolidation, or against resubmission. There
was nobody who showed a desire to speak. After a dozen gentlemen spoke for resubmission a resolution since placed in the hands




-No. 44.]


141


of the Legislature, was unanimously adopted in favor of resubmission. This was in Williamsburgh, where seventy-five per cent. of
the voters are said to be in favor of consolidation; and on the following Monday evening the Nassau Republican club passed this
same resolution.
MR. SCHIEREN:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I have the
honor to present to you as chairman of the meeting of the citizens
of Brooklyn, held in the city of Brooklyn on January 7, 1896, the
following resolution:
" WHEREAS, Several bills have been, and are being prepared for
introduction in the present session of the Legislature of New York,
the purposes of which are to be seriously modified, abridged and
supplant the present charter of the city of Brooklyn, and existing
laws affecting the public interest of the city; therefore,
" Resolved, That this is the sense of this meeting, that whatever
legislation is proposed, no law should be enacted which will deprive the people of Brooklyn of the right to determine by popular
vote whether they will accept or reject any charter or other measure which shall be intended to replace the present charter, or terminate in any way the corporate existence of the city of Brooklyn."
This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote.
Mr. Chairman, this clearly defined my opposition on this great
question. And certainly it is a grave question. It means the
effacement of the fourth largest city in this country. The effacement of it means the effacement of more than 1,000,000 people.
Ias there been up to to-day, any man who would submit an idea
for a charter for the Greater New York? Has ever such a thing
been outlined? I am a merchant of the city of New York, and have
been such for the past twenty-five or thirty years. I believed in
annexation all that time. And when the people of Brooklyn sent
me to be mayor of this great city, then I had a practical knowledge
of it; then I could look into the question in a practical way, and
then I found that it is one of the most serious things that can be
done. What are you going to replace? What charter are you
going to give us? The charter of this city, the city of Brooklyn,
is in demand all over the country. From all over the country de



142


1[SENATE,


mand for copies of that charter have been received, and we have
been compelled to print several hundred more copies to supply the
demand.
MR. LExow:
We could, if consolidated, pass as a charter that of the city
of Brooklyn.
MR. SCHIEREN:
The people of Brooklyn will consider that and will rejoice.
But, Mr. Chairman, one thing I will say to you - I will tell you
that that was an annexation, to annex to unite Brooklyn and
New York; it does not mean the annexing of 250 square miles
of cabbage fields; it does not mean that Brooklyn and New York
will be benefited by this great consolidation, because it will make
demands upon the resources of Brooklyn and New York. I am
a property holder in the city of New York. I have more real
estate and property in New York than I have in this city; therefore, I am just as much interested in the city of New York as I
am in the city of Brooklyn. (Applause and laughter.) And I
say to you, sirs, it is a very important question and one that should
be clearly looked into, that before any act is passed a charter
should be prepared for this immense city and should be submitted to the people by a popular vote.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you think any charter could be formulated that would be
satisfactory to all the people?
MR. SCHIEREN:
The Constitution of the United States (applause) is satisfactory
to all the people.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you believe any charter that would be formulated would
receive the assent of all the people?




No. 44.]


149.


MR. SCHIEREN:
There is no such a thing as unanimity, but such a thing can
be framed to which a majority of the people would consent. But
several districts should be represented and should have their
interests guarded. I believe in fair representation of all districts to be t-aken into consideration, but otherwise it is a serious
mistake. I am firmly convinced of it to-day, having had the
practical experience of governing the city of Brooklyn. You
have in question a city ot three million and a half. Our population is larger than other parts of the city, and are we to be in the
hands of these people who are in the minority? Is that justice?
I appeal to you and I appeal to you and all the people. Submit
to us tlhe question; submit to us the charter, and we will give
you then our voice whether we are in favor or not. (Applause.)
MR. LEXOV:
You stated that the Constitution of the United States was satisfactory to the people, but do you recollect how many years it
took before they would agree to this Constitution?
MR. SCHIEREN:
Mr. President, such a prominent speaker as Chauncey M. Depew
made an address on the subject of the greater New York. He
said that the great city, if it were formed, would be a great
honor, and it took almost a greater man to be mayor of that city
than to be President of the United States. In that he wished to
imply that it would be more difficult to govern such a large city
than simply to be President of the United States.  That is
Chauncey M. Depew's opinion.  I don't belong to any rank.
Whatever is in the mind of the Legislature I will take into consideration, whether it be resubmission or referendum.
MR. BRUSH:
You have been the mayor of Brooklyn and know something
about its financial ability?
MR. SCHIEREN:
I do; yes, sir.




144


[SENATE,


MR. BRUSH:
Can you state whether Brooklyn is practically bankrupt?
MR. SCHIEREN:
The last sale of the bonds sold at eight per cent. premium.
(Applause.)
MR. BRUSH:
Do you think from your observation of the affairs of Brooklyn
that she has had a good prospect of taking care of her financial
state in the future?
MR. SCHIEREN:
Brooklyn had to economize, because Brooklyn is larger than
New York. New York has 250 miles, while Brooklyn has 560
miles. Brooklyn is larger than New York.
MR. BRUSH:
What per cent. do these bonds carry that you say brought a
premium of eight per cent.-what annual per cent.?
MR. SCHIEREN:
Four per cent.; excuse me, three and one-half per cent.
MR. BRUSH:
Is it a fact that the estimated valuation has increased very
rapidly within the last ten and a half years?
MR. SCHIEREN:
It has.
MR. BRUSH:
That is since the building of the Brooklyn bridge?
MR. SCHIEREN:
Certainly.




No. 44.]


145


MR. BRUSH:
Brooklyn has increased $38,(00.000( in ten years?
Mn. SCHIEREN:
Yes, sir. Let me say to you in connection with this that the
conversation with Mayor Strong in respect to Williamsburgh,
the eastern district - I beg your pardon - Mr. Strong made this
assertion, that in New York city, after the completion of the
Brooklyn bridge, property below Chambers street had more than
doubled in valuation. That is the opinion of a man who ought
to know.
Mn. BRUSH:
fHow much increase in the present annual increase?
MR. BRUSH:
Is it $15,000,000?
MR. SCHIEREN:
I have not looked at the statistics enough to exactly state it.
MR. LExow:
Why is it you don't see the benefit of that valuation yourself
if Brooklyn adds so much to the benefit.
MR. SCHIEREN:
I am a New Yorker. My real estate is below Chambers street
(Laughter.)
MR. BRUSH:
Nothing can be taken from us in the future if we are increased
in valuation of property that give us over a million dollars increase of it in the tax levy?
MR. SCHIEREN:
When I took hold of the finances of the city, the people said.
"You can get no money," and there are hardly any surplus, but
[Senate, No. 44.]    19




146


[SENATE,


somehow we managed to do things and we left a surplus of $3,000,000, and had less than $1,000,000 to start with.
MR. LEXOW:
How did you do it?
MB. SCHIEREN:
I don't know. It came over night. (Laughter.)
MR. BRUSH:
Is it not largely due to good government?
MR. SCHIEREN:
You have just touched it. That is just where it is. (Applause.)
MR. LEXOW:
The greater city might be equally as well governed.
MR. SCHIEREN:
I dispute that. No one has ever attempted to outline a charter
for this vast territory, but permit me in a few words to outline to
you the enormity of it. Say that we will divide this enormous
territory into five departments:  The Manhattan department,
comprising New York up to the Harlem river; then another division, and call it Westchester department, extending from the Hudson river way up to the sound; then Long Island City, call it the
Flushing department, and in a way to illustrate it all, the
other from that point way down to Newtown creek; the next
department, the Brooklyn department, and then all that territory
south, and call it the Richmond department; call it five departments. Each department is larger than Manhattan; each department has a greater territory than Manhattan. What do you
think could be accomplished in the Flushing department? You
have got a vast territory to govern. How is a man to know who
sits in the mayor's chair whether a bill is justifiable in Flushing?
How is he to know what they need there? Do you think that
you can find a man who can listen to the complaints of those five




"No. 44.]


147


departments and live? (Great applause and laughter.) I would
rather sit in your chair, sir. If you must take in all this cabbage
field and that material it will cost a great deal of money, and I, as
a real estate owner of New York and Brooklyn, will predict this,
if they unite that large district, that the tax rate will be enormous.
MR. LEXOW:
We are not, under the terms of this bill, taking in any more
cabbage fields than you took in years ago.
MR. SCHIEREN:
We have got the experience. We don't want any more of it.
MR. LExow:
You would not separate this district now as a Brooklynite,
studying the interests of the city?
MR. SCHIEREN:
I think that the city of Brooklyn may in time benefit by that annexation, but before that she will have to spend an enormous
amount of money for things that are demanded for improvement
of that section.
MR. LEXOW: 
Were you not in favor of it??
MR. SCHIEREN:
I represented the interests of the people of Brooklyn and as
mayor of that city I used by best judgment to represent the interests of the people. (Applause.)
MR. LEXOW:
You consider that that interest was in the annexation of those
outlying districts at the time?
MR. SCGHIEREN:
it is a. v\ery long (question that you would have me answer,




148


[SENATE,


sir; because ve-, manyle interests enter into it. There was bad
local government in those town. and the people were burdened
down, and they cried to us, " Take us in." It was a call of salvation, to get right at it. I lived in one of the outlying districts myself in the summer. During 1881 or 1883 a friend of mine bought
a piece of property there. He has that property to-day and he
paid 10 per cent. of its valuation for taxes.
AFTERNO(ON SESSION.
SUPERIOR COURT, PART IV, ROOM 23,
January 18, 1896.
Speakers in Favor of Consolidation.
JOHN WINSLOW:
The gentlemen of the Loyal League have come here to,
present their views.  Why, just consider their name.  The
imputation is that every man who does not take their name is
a disloyal citizen. (Laughter.) The real truth is that the gentlemen of the Loyal League are loyal to their notions and the gentlemen who favor consolidation are loyal to their opinions, and so
we are loyal all around. The argumlent has been made that there
was no popular discussion before the vote was taken in 1894.
How a man who speaks the truth or ever expects to speak it and
says that, is past my comprehension.. r. Scott showed yesterday
where the press had fired away on the subject. But the press are
afraid their little nest will be disturbed. Judge Reynolds has had
the unfairness to say that the majority of 277 came from Gra.vesend. ITe ought to remember that when that vote was taken
Gravesend had been fumigated and that its chief was in Sing Sing.
There is no politics in such legislation as that. I happen to live
in the thirteenth ward and own a few lots there. (If anybody
wants to buy them he can have them.) We were jerked into
Brooklyn nolens volens. (Laughter.) Not a man of the people
demanded that a vote should be taken. AWe were just jerked'in
head over heels.




No. 44.]


149


I have heard a great deal about change of sentiment. The opposition might have been able to discover it; he had not. The responsibility for the entire matter was in the Legislature. There is
no such thing as referendum. All great questions of life and law
are cared for by the Legislature. It was a good-natured act on
the part of the. egcislature of 1894 to sound the people. There was
nie idea referred to by the ex-mayor, looking as solemn as possible,
that the floor was to be wiped with Brooklyn, that the city was to be
wiped out. T'le speaker had a friend much worked up on the subject of annihilation. He might be destroyed after death. He
finally announced himself as follows: " If I'm going to be annihilated, if he was, he wanted to go to —, there he wNould have something to say." (Laughter.) There was no doubt that in the charter
the people of Brooklyn would be provided for. There could be a
Brooklyn department for taxes, another for water-works. If he
had the framing of the charter, the aldermen might sit alternately
in Brooklyn and New York. The people need not be effaced. It
would be a good thing if the New York mayor should come to
Brooklyn. There was no doubt that Brooklyn is in trouble. The
vast taxable property is in New York, and New York should help
Brooklyn because it is rich and because Brooklyn had helped to
create the wealth. The ex-mayor, Mr. Schieren, and all Brooklynites having business interests in New York, are emasculated citizens. It leads to indifference. Thousands of citizens don't register
here; New York ought to help Brooklyn on the tax question. This
city has a right to participate in the affairs of the city of New York.
It might be that every alternate mayor should come from Brooklyn; one of the members of the Loyal League might be made mayor.
Arguments in Favor of Consolidation.
MR. MATTHEWS:
In behalf of the consolidationists, may I ask the same privilege
to be heard by any number of speakers that you might designate.
We will furnish any number that the committee might desire to
hear. It was stated that you were to have a recess, and for that
reason a number of our speakers are not here at this time.




150


[SENATE,


This petition was read by Mr. Matthews:
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 15, 1896.
To His Excellency, the Governor, and the Legislature of the State of
New York:
The undersigned, representing the railroad companies of the
city of Brooklyn respectfully urge the passage of a bill consolidating Brooklyn city with New York city, provided, among other
things, for attaining an equal and uniform rate of taxation and uniform valuations for the purpose of taxation.
The Kings County Elevated Railroad company.
The Brooklyn and Brighton Beach Railroad company, by James
Jourdan, president.
In case the provisions of the Cantor Railroad Act do not apply
to the territory of Brooklyn, the Nassau Railroad company, by P.
H. Flynn, president. (Laughter.)
The Brooklyn Elevated Railroad company, by Elisha Dyer, Jr.,
treasurer.
Van Brunt Street and Erie Railroad company, by Michael Murphy, president.
Coney Island and Brooklyn Railroad company, by W. Vanderhoef, treasurer.
MR. LEXOW:
That phraseology was in the bill?
MR. MATTHEWS:
Yes.
MEMBER OF LOYAL LEAGUE:
Were those names representative of the stockholders of the
railroad companies?
I understand that the names represent nine-tenths of the stockholders.
LOYAL LEAGUE:
Was any action taken by the stockholders?




No. 44.]


151


MR. MATTHEWS:
I don't know that.
MEMBER OF LOYAL LEAGUE:
Then I protest that this is a false representation here.
MR. GROUT:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: It was not
my wish to make any statement here to-day, because I have so
often discussed this question in the past before your committee;
but when I remember that you, Mr. Chairman, have sat on this
question many times; that this is the third time that you have listened to this argument; I think, perhaps, that the very fact of my
speaking may remind you that the question is not one of the
moment; that the question is not one suddenly developed, but that
it has been discussed for years and years; that it has been brought
to Albany and discussed there with the same opposition before
the Senate and Assembly committees. There is no new question
involved. I have listened to the arguments for the past two
days, many of which I but hear over again, and it seems to me that
the speakers, or many of them, misapprehend the situation of the
question before you. They misrepresent, or, at least, misunderstand the position of the committee in this question. The Legislature of the State of New York is the sole power to deal finally
with this question; the people of Brooklyn, the people of the State,
the people of New York city, have no power, except as through
their representatives in the Senate and Assembly, regarding this
case. Years ago the movement became active in Brooklyn for
a vote on this question of consolidation of the two cities, and it
was urged upon the Legislature by petition and by voice. For
two or three years that proposition was pressed upon the people
at Albany. In the third year it at last succeeded, and your members kindly acceded to the request and gave us the right to voice
our sentiment upon the subject by ballot. The act of 1894, which
touched upon the consolidation question, was vigorously opposed.
You provided for us a vote for the expression of opinion of the
voters. If anything was said during that time that that vote was




152


[SENATE,


simply an expression of opinion, certainly I did not know of it.
Yet it has been said here that the people had no chance to know
anything about what they were doing at the time. It has been
said here, that the vote was, in effect, not a vote. The charges
made by Mr. Dykman here this morning are untrue and unfair.
There was no false representation of the question. The people
knew just what they were voting for. By that expression of the
people were you asked to carry the consolidation into effect. The
Legislature has failed before to do its duty because of these same
people.  Then they say that because this question was voted
upon last year and you did not do your duty then and put consolidation through, that it shall not be done this year. A vote is a
vote whenever it is made or however long after it is made, and consolidation having been voted for should be put into effect whether
it is three or four years afterward or simply a month. They know
that the details of such a thing can not be done in a night. It will
take two or three, possibly three or four, years to effect consolidation. When anybody voted on that question he knew, if he had
the intelligence requisite for the enfranchisement of a citizen,
that that vote must stand as a guide to the people of the state of
New York for years to come. Stale?  No, no; it is not stale until
the object for which it was cast is accomplished. The question
has been submitted. Simply because a year has passed since the
answer in the affirmative has been given is no reason to say that
the decision of that vote shall not stand.
Now, what is the l)purpose of yo);ur inquiry? It must be limited
to two things. The vote that is taken is a vote that must stand.
If you find that this is the case that is the tiling for which you
have come here. If you are at all uncertain on that question,
you may turn to the question of consolidation itself.
This question was fully presented to the people before a vote
was taken..Judge GayTnor made a statement at a meeting at the
Academy to the effect that the taxation of Brooklyn was in proportion twice that of New York.
That, gentlemen, is the basis of the turn of sentiment in favor
of consolidation in this community. The tax of Brooklyn is just
twice that of New York. Meefings were held and letters were
written upon that subject. Yet they say this question has not




No. 44.]


153


been placed before tie people. Carloads of Brooklynites went to
Albany a year or so ago urging the Legislature to give us a vote
upon the question. They say this morning that the question has
become one of politics. There was not a politician who took a
stand upon it or wanted to make it a party issue. It has never
been heard until now that it is one for any political organization
or that any political organization wishes to make it a party issue.
It is not a. matter of politics, and never was. It is a matter of
purely municipal effect and welfare. Certainly your committee
do not wish to call it a party measure. They tell us the registration was 192,000 and speak of the small number who voted upon
consolidation and try to make us believe the people did not vote
upon it to any extent. There are thousands who register who do
not vote.
The people do not vote upon measures as they do upon men.
See the small majority that won the apportionment bill last time.
I was bitterly opposed to this measure as I considered it wrong.
It is impossible to get the people to vote upon a question of that
kind as they would for a candidate.
I do not believe that to-day you could get eighty per cent. of the
voters to vote aye or nay on a special measure and yet we had
seventy-seven per cent. who vote a year ago on consolidation.
There c(n not be any question raised upon the size of that vote,
except the size of the majority. Is there any American citizen
who wiil question that the vote was not decisive, simply because
it was settled by hundreds instead of thousands? Is there any
citizen of this great republic who will say that a majority of one
is not just as effective in a vote as a majority of a thousand? For
the election of a man one is enough and as good as one million.
There is no way to test this question of the vote for and against.
Do you propose to examine and compare the registration list with
all the petitions presented by the anti-consolidationists? You
certainly can not waste time in matters of this kind. They had
their vote that they clambered for. It was taken as an expression
of the people here. It went against them. Their pleading for
a resubmission is an act that can only be expressed as the greatest
baby act on record. They have been defeated and now they
FSennate, No. 44.1   2o




154


[SENATE,


ask you to let them try it again. They want you to let them have
the advantages of the possible mistakes that have been made since
this measure was voted upon. For that matter I would like a
resubmission of the vote of last fall. (Great laughter.) I would
like to have a chance to try conclusions with Mr. Wurster again
(applause and laughter); perhaps I might be successful.  (Applause.) But J am satisfied that I was beaten and do not ask for
another try. And their petitions -what do they amount to?
I do not know whether Mr. Redfield knows it or not, but one of the
men whom he placed upon the list of the citizens calling for the
meeting recently held at the Academy by the League of Loyal
Citizens, as they call themselves, is a consolidationist. He is a
consolidationist of the firmest kind. Now, if they can make a
mistake of that kind in a public list of men who call for a meeting
of that kind what possibility of mistakes there may lie in their
petitions representing the storekeepers, the clerks, the factory
hands and the mass of men that have placed upon their other
petitions for your consideration.
Mr. Redfield did not ask him who this man was; that probably
he knew by this time and the mistake had been rectified.
C. C. SKILTON:
Did this man express his objection to being placed upon that
list?
MR. GROUT:
He didn't give his consent. What is more, the New York
Tribune printed his picture among his anti-consolidation men.
He is going to speak for us, bye and bye, on our side. (Laughter.)
The question had been raised that taxation could not be made
equal between the two cities if consolidation was accomplished
because the conditions were different. The city of New York,
above Fourteenth street, is in the same relative position to the
city of New York below Fourteenth street as the city of Brooklyn
is to New York below that street. Not only was it physically
but financially, and as a business matter the same, because the
great wealth of New York city is below Fourteenth street and the




No. 44.]


155


great population above. It would be just as difficult to equalize
taxation above Fourteenth street with the property below as to
equalize it with the property of Brooklyn. And furthermore, it
would be unjust to call the great commercial part of New York,
below Fourteenth street the whole resource of taxation.
Half the voters of Brooklyn go to New York to attend to
business. That means that every foot of space occupied by these
Brooklyn men during the day of business is a foot of space for
which there would be less demand if those Brooklyn men were not
there. Taxable space would be less in such a case. Consequently
these men of Brooklyn have more than a little to do with the taxable property in New York. Tax rates are largely due to the
Brooklynites who are there. They give value to real estate in New
York because there are so many more people to go there. But
Brooklyn derives no benefit from this. Brooklyn gets no part
of the tax receipts from that. I do not speak of the institutions.
I speak of merely the employes of that institution. All that is
contributed to New York and Brooklyn gets no benefit from it.
And this is the reason why New York should be willing to have
Brooklyn to share equally in taxation. I have heard the bill critisised. The bill is a simple declaration that consolidation shall
take effect on the first day of January, 1898, and that meanwhile
there shall be provision taken to provide for the laws to govern
the city then. One provision of the bill is at least an advantage.
For years we went to the Legislature and strove to get a bill passed
that would provide for equal taxation, the great bugbear of the
question. Discouraged at last in this we came home and made
up our minds to go in for consolidation anyway. Now the anticonsolidationists use this as a great argument against us. They
quoted our own words on the subject. And that shows the great
victory which was gained even in the majority in favor of the
measure. The vote was for naked consolidation without any
terms or conditions. Yet it passed the people. Now, you gentlemen of the Legislature, have given us this bill to-day, the very
terms in which we wanted and plead for so long. You have
put in this bill the promise of equal taxation. If we had had that
to work with when that vote was cast we would have had a




156


[SENATE,


majority of tens of thousands. I have exceeded my time and must
close. (Applause.)
A. W. TENNEY:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: WVhen 1 heard
that this was the last sitting and that you had honored Brooklyn
with your presence to-day, 1 left the court room where I was
engaged and hurried here in order to go on record as in favor of
consolidation of these two great cities. I shall speak to you,
therefore. without any preparation except the thought that comes
to me now. I am an old consolidationist. I am a young man, but an
old consolidationist. (Laughter.) I have been a resident of Brooklyn for thirty years and for twenty-five of those years I have been a
red hot consolidationist of Brooklyn and New Yorkl. I believe the
interest of these two cities lies in their union and in no other way.
I believe it is in the interest of New York that this lovely city of
Brookiyn shall be wedded to the great metropolis of New York,
and 1 believe it is in the interest of Brooklyn tlhat the wealth of
her nearby neighbor shall be united with her. WlVhen the principal
merchants of this city, wihen the banks and great financial institutions. with but two or three exceptions, when the railroads and
most imp)ortacnt commercial interests of the city come before this
committee and state their wishes, it means exactly what this city
wants in this matter. We have here in Brooklyn an element that
is opposed to everything. They were born in the objective case.
(Laughter.j They would take exception to sunrise, if they thought
it would have any effect. (Laughter.) They objected to the introduction of water in this city and wanted to keep the old pump,
and they take objection to consolidation to-day. It was the same
way with gas. They wanted the old lamp and lantern. When
they started to introduce the horse railways there was an objection
then as sharp and bitter as there is to-day over consolidation.
Then the ministers arose in their pulpits and howled against the
cars running on Sunday as a desecration of the Sabbath. But
she ran just the same. (Laughter.) And now, those very identical ministers use those very same cars; and there was a storm
raised when the trolley was introduced. When that magnificent




No. 44.]


157


structure that spans the East river, the bridge, was erected. they
branded the originators of it as thieves, and those menl went to
their graves bearing that same objection - at least some of them
did. And yet the coming of that bridge has given us millions and
millions in valuation and wealth and hundreds of thousands in
population. Give us consolidation and we will have three bridges
where we have had one. We will have a tunnel under the East
river and we will run a line of cars from, Montauk Point to New
Orleans without a change.  (Applause.)  That is what consolidation means. This is not a figure of speech but a fact. Those
same people objected to the elevated railroads, when they were
first projected. Our court calendars are filled with cases of damages and every obstruction known to law and the ingenuity of
man. And yet who can estimate the value of these roads and the
good they have brought to this city? To-day, when we ask for
consolidation, they say:  No; let us look to the eighteenth century instead of the coming twentieth." They say that the vote
taken did not amount to anything; and that it was simply a wish.
Was it? I understand that was the argument made here to-day
and yesterday. Was it? Let us see. This is what the law says:
"Shall be submitted and taken as an expression of the voters as
the case may be in favor or against the consolidation of the cities
of New York and Brooklyn."  It was not a wish nor an opinion.
It was a desire of the voter whether there should be consolidation
lhere or not. Now, these gentlemen who are against us say the
people were not informed upon this question; that they did not
know anything about it. That is not much of a compliment to
Brooklyn and her people. I say that at that time the question:as a live issue here and debated on every hand. I believe in this
city. I live in it and have lived in it, and I kind of believe in it.
It is my home, and everything I have is here. Because I do believe
in it and am a friend of Brooklyn I want consolidation. The five
papers of this city published columns on this subject. Look at
tllis bundle of clippings.  (The speaker lifted up a large package
of clippings from Brooklyn papers.) These papers were discussing the case for weeks and months. They were all against consolidation - for a reason of their own. (Laughter.) It was a




158


[SENATE,


question of a nest-egg that they might lose. And I say now that
almost everyone of the people on the other side are afraid of
losing some little nest-egg of their own if the two cities are consolidated. I discussed the case on platforms all over the city. I
remember the meeting referred to by Mr. Grout, and I
spoke there with Mr. Gaynor. Perhaps it was because of
these speeches the people knew    nothing about the subject. (Laughter.)  I took it on platform   after platform.
There vwas not a question more alive in this city than
consolidation.  And the people voted on it.    If another
vote were taken to-day, eighty per cent. of the people, the voters
of this city, would go for consolidation. It is not true a change
of opinion has taken place against consolidation. But suppose
it has. Are elections to be a farce here?  Is not our whole
government based upon the fact that the majority must rule?
That idea found its birth in the cabin of the Mayflower and found
its fruitage at the battle of Appomatox. The Civil War decided
that majority shall rule, whether the majority is one or 1,000,000.
To submit that question back to the people would be un-American,
unconstitutional and absolutely revolutionary. It can not be
done. It would be establishing a precedent that you must not
submit to as the representatives of law and of the people.
Whether you favor it or not, whether you believe in consolidation or not, is not in the issue, and I say to you, gentlemen of
the committee, if I were one of you, if I were a member of the
Legislature- of this State, I would rot in my seat before I would
ever allow such an example to be set, for this question after once
passed upon to go back to the people to be passed upon again.
(Loud applause.) Better wipe out Brooklyn from the map of the
world than do any such thing as that. It is absurd. It is wrong.
It is un-American and revolutionary. It has been said or intimated that the election of Wurster and Grout rested upon this
queslion of consolidation or nonconsolidation. I say tlhat this
is not a fair. a true or a rightful statement. If I had thought
at that time that such was the case, although I am a Republican
right through, I would have voted for Grout. (Applause.)  1
believe overy right-thinking man would have done t11e same




No. 44.]


159


thing. (Applause and cries of " That's right," which was suppressed by the chairman.) This statement is wrong and unfair,
because it has a tendency to mislead you, and should not have
been made. The issue was a sharp one, clearly and squarely
defined between these two parties. In this I am sure I would be
substantiated by every man present here to-day.  (Cries of
"That's so.") It is unkind and ungenerous to make any such
assertion as that, and especially unfair to my friend, Mr. Grout.
They say they do not believe in putting Brooklyn under Tammany.
I do not like Tammany. I do not believe in Tammiany. I do
not believe in its methods. I do not believe in anything connected with Tammany Hall. And yet I am in favor of consolidation. I do not believe in Tammany, but I am not afraid of
Tammany. (Applause.) That is why I am for consolidation, and:that is the way I put it. I believe in the people, and if the
people want Tammany Hall they can have it. If they do not
want it, they need not have it. I believe in the people and 1
am ready to trust the people. I say that when we undertake
to defeat such a magnificent measure as this merely because of
a political issue as Tammany Hall or not Tammany Hall, it is
unmanly and unworthy of your consideration for a moment in
such a case as this. I am willing to put Brooklyn in the hands
of the people. Allow these two cities, wedded as they are by
the coast of the sea, to be made one. Take in Flushing bay and
Jamaica bay, and dig a ship canal from Flushing bay on the
north to Jamaica bay on the south. Relieve the harbor of New
York of its surplus of commerce. Have your coal, your lumber,
flour, grain and all your products carried by this canal; relieve
New York harbor and then we will have what we are bound to
have -for I tell you that this consolidation is as inevitable as
the sun rises - and then we will have not only the grandest city
of the country, but have the wealth, trade, commerce, science,
literature, philanthropy and everything that tends to benefit manthe grandest city in the world.
MR. GRISWOOD:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am aware
that this hearing is drawing to a close. I came into the room but




160


[SENATE,


a few IUmolntlts ago, supposing that you were to have an intermission. I am aware that your committee and the audience must
be weary, and I shall not detain you but a moment. I have been
asked to comie here as a citizen, as a layman, as a business man,
to give my testimony in favor of consolidation, which I do very
cheerfully. After the able speeches to which you have listened
on both sides of this question, yesterday and to-day, there is
nothing new that I can add. I simply say that it must be gratifying to you, Mr. Chairman, who introduced this bill, and to the
citizens of this great city who are laboring to bring about a
favorite result, the consolidation -it must be a satisfaction, 1
say, for you to feel that if the results of this shall become a law
it would be beneficial to millions of people, not for an hour, for a
day, for a year, but for a hundred years.  The importance of this
bill I am impressed most profoundly with. I do not think we
can comprehend the results which are to follow from this movement. I believe that it is the most important bill that has ever
been introduced into the Legislature of the State of New York.
There are three or four features of the consolidation movement
which stand out clear and prominent above all others. The first,
as the New York Tribune asked the other day, "Do the people of
Brooklyn want it?"  You know what the people of Brooklyn
want; this is not a new question. A great many people did not
understand it, but out of a vote of 144,000, 129,000 voted for and
against this measure, showing that 14,000 did not really understand it, or did not care to vote, and therefore, did not vote at all
upon the question. The natural inference would be, judging
from past experience. tlat if this vote were taken to-day a large
majority, I believe that fully three-quarters of that vote would
be cast for consolidation. I judge this from what I hear talked
in blsin:ess, pilw)1es., on tales streets and in the clubs. Among the
gentiemnn whomn  I met who voted for that measure. I can call to
mind many instances where they have said if they were to vote today iupon that qluestion the(,, should again vote in favor of consolidation. One prlominent gentleman in this city who was in this
room a few momnents ago, told me that he voted for it and would
do it again. I know of one instance in the neighborhood where




No. 44.]


161


I reside, of live men that reside in one house and every one of those
gentlemen voted against consolidation and every one of those
gentlemen have told me that if they had a chance to vote to-day
they would vote in favor of consolidation.
MR. LExOW:
Do you understand that there has been a change of sentiment
in favor of consolidation?
S. M. GRISWOOD:
I do, most sincerely. I believe that there never was a moment,
when consolidation was gaining favor more rapidly. The people
are beginning to understand it.
The question of taxes must necessarily come in; the city of
Brooklyn has had a marvelous growth in the face of many disadvantages. The running expenses of this municipal government
and this great city, which are large, have been levied almost
entirely upon the real estate of this city. We have not the means
and the revenue that the city of New York has, and the consequence has been that the call upon the real estate of this city
has been tremendous, as I know by personal experience of twentyfive years. Take the tax assessment for New York, which is
tifty per (cent. larger than our tax levy, the rate was 191, against
our assessed value of seventy per cent. and a rate of 261. In
view of this, I do not believe there is a gentleman in the room
who will say that our tax rate will not be lowered and the
obstructions removed from our property by consolidation.
Third. The increase of population. It goes without saying that
it is easier for Brooklynites to go to New York than it is for New
Yorkers to come to Brooklyn. There are hundreds of citizens
who have lived in New York nearly all their life who have never
been to Brooklyn. There are thousands here who have never
been to New York over once or twice. If we are consolidated the
people will come over here to live, for this is the most beautiful
city on the continent; and when they come here and find that our
taxes are no higher than in New York, they will buy our property.
[Senate, No. 44.1     21




162


[SENATE,


When they see our beautiful location, thousands of the citizens of
New York will come over here and make Brooklyn their residence.
That is my earnest opinion and judgment in the matter.
Lastly, the civic pride, the idea that we are citizens 9f a great
city. We believe in union. In union there is strength. We are
taught that from our childhood. If we do not believe it, then let
us abolish our national government and let every authority go
on its own account. We believe in union. In Brooklyn, during
the last year, we took to our arms all the surrounding country.
the county towns. Now, let us go on and form a city that will
stand far ahead of even London, or Paris, or Berlin, or St. Petersburg. Let us form a city that will not have its parallel on the
face of the globe. Let it stand as a monument to the liberality,
the genius, and the intelligence of the people of the Greater New
York.
A VOICE:
If you are honest and believe what you say in reference to
the vote that would be cast in favor of consolidation, why will
you not give us a chance to vote on the question?
MR. GRISWOOD:
I am perfectly willing to answer all the questions that may be
asked. Personally, I would, because I firmly believe that over
three-quarters, yes, eighty per cent. of the voters of the city of
Brooklyn would march up and cast their votes in favor of consolidation.
MR. LEXOW:
You have heard the arguments that have been produced against
resubmission.
MR. GRISWOOD:
I believe that it would only result in delay and confusion,
trouble and expense, which all these things produce; it is all
unnecessary.




No. 44.]


16(3


MR. MATTHEWS:
I desire to present the names of the following gentlemen who
desire to speak in favor of consolidation:
S. B. Dutcher.              E. WV. Bliss.
J. L. Nostrand.             M. J. McGrath.
Nelson G. Carnan.           Joseph C. Hendrix.
William Harkness.           Nelson J. Gates.
A. H. Keiley.               A. H. Dailey.
J. V. Neserole.             M. Townsend.
H. S. Hurley.               Thomas C. Smith.
John J. Madison.            Stewart L. Matthews.
James D. Lynch.
MR. N. T. SPRAGUE:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am surprised
to be called at this time to speak on this subject. I came here
but a few moments ago from my place of business expecting to
leave in a few moments thereafter. I shall be brief in what I
have to say to you on the subject of consolidating the cities of
Brooklyn and New York. I shall express the opinion that I believe eight-tenths of the business men, the active successful business men of the city of Brooklyn, are in favor of consolidating
these two cities on equal terms. I think there is no doubt of it.
The idea of asking to have it referred again to the people is, in
my opinion, an absurdity. Those who are opposed to consolidation ask that it be resubmitted for the purpose of gaining more
time to see if they can not bring up something that will be prejudicial to the interests of the masses of the people of Brooklyn.
I, unfortunately, own a little property in New York, about $25,000
worth. The tax on that house is about $300 per year. I own one
in this city worth $20,000, the tax on which is $600 per year. As
far as I am individually concerned, I do not care about that. I
am speaking in the interest of the poor; for if my interests are better, his are proportionately; and we want to work for the benefit
of all and not against their interest. And if this committee, in
their judgment, shall find it to be against the interests of the




164


[SENATE,


people in the city of Brooklyn, the masses of the people, I should
hope that they would report against the bill. I think they would.
But if they find, in their judgment, that it is for the benefit of the
people, then let them make us the second largest city in the
world. I would like.to say more if I had time; but I am willing
to leave the interests of the people in the city of Brooklyn in the
hands of the committee that I see before me. I have confidence
in your judgment and good sense.
MR. LEXow:
You are satisfied that if there has been any change of sentiment
it is in favor of consolidation?
MR. SPRAGUE:
Among my friends in business, four-fifths of them speak more
heartily in favor of consolidation than they did a year ago. It
is growing upon them. They are not politicians, not selfish men,
but men working for the benefit of the masses. I believe that
nine out of ten of the active, stirring, solid men of the city are in
favor of the passage of this bill, that their neighbors, as well as
themselves, may be benefited thereby.
MR. BRUSH:
Do you not think that the people of the city of Brooklyn would
not prefer to have a vote upon a synopsis of a charter or any ternms
of consolidation?
MR. SPRAGUE:
I am largely interested in the real estate of the city; I am interested in business affairs; I have confidence, great confidence, perfect confidence, in the gentlemen that will be appointed to do this
work, provided they put us on equal terms with New York. The
longer you defer consolidaition the greater the difficulties will be.
MR. LExow:
Yo-1 would bll   willing to leave the question of terms to the commission tliat will ht) appointed?




No. 44.]


165


MR. SPRAGUE:
Yes, sir; if they work upon equal basis.
MR. GRADY:
When you speak of equal terms, do you mean that you should
have so many commissioners; or do you merely mean that taxation
after consolidation shall be equal?
MR. SPRAGUE:
Yes, sir; that should be in the bill.
MAR. LEXOW:
You have read the bill?
MR. SPRAGUE:
Yes, sir.
MR. LEXOW:
Is that bill satisfactory to you?
MR. SPRAGUE:
Yes, sir; as I understand it now.
J. M. SNOOKS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I have been
requested to come here this afternoon to present the case in the
name of the Builders' Exchange, or Mechanics and Traders'
Exchange, which represents the builders' interest throughout the
city. I hold in my hand a petition, which has been hastily got up
within the last three days; it contains the names of eighty-seven
members of the exchange, which is a little over two-thirds of the
membership; and we have no doubt that in a day or two more to
be able to complete the petition, which is addressed to the Governor, the Senate and the Assembly of the State, and it will then
contain sixteen or twenty additional names. In speaking with
reference to this, I desire to say, while it is true that through the
action of the Legislature in the fall of 1894, a vote was taken in




166


[SENATE,


this city to get at the opinion of the voters of this city, as to the
desirability of consolidating the cities of New York and Brooklyn
and effecting a Greater New York; in obedience to that law, a
vote was taken, and a majority of the voters voted in favor of
consolidation, but owing to diverse circumstances there was a
large number that did not vote. I heard yesterday the argument brought up that it was not an expression of opinion of the
people, because it was not a full vote. I ask you, Mr. Chairman,
if you ever knew of an election where you ever had a full vote?
Aside from this, I understand that the expression called for
represented a majority of those who did vote upon the subject,
while perhaps a large minority voted against it. Their claim is
that a large majority did not vote at all, and that, therefore, we
have no expression of opinion.  They simply showed by their
failure to vote or express an opinion that they were in doubt. We
are not opposed to the idea of another vote, nor are we afraid of
the result of that vote, but we are afraid of the result of resubmitting that vote on this principle: We believe that it is the
establishment of a dangerous precedent and vicious principle,
and on that ground we are opposed to a resubmission for the purpose of getting an opinion. WTe believe that the vote in that
respect should be final. We are not opposed to a referendum
when a law has been passed by the Legislature; there will be no
objection to that. But that is not the question in point. The
question in point seems to bring itself down to this: Your committee is here for the purpose of endeavoring to find out the real
sentiment of the people in regard to consolidation. The matter
is hedged up and clouded with dust by the idea that we must
have resubmission in order to find out what tie people want. 1
am willing to leave it to the intelligence of the committee as well
as the people, to their own conscience, as to whether that opinion
has not already been expressed, and expressed favorably. I
would like to say a few words in reference to another point in
favor of consolidation. I understand lthat there is a large portion of the city outside of the old high-water limits that is taxed
and the taxes paid into the city of New York. I want to know if
New York city has ever done anything for the improvement of




No. 44.]


167


Brooklyn with those taxes?  I believe that if we are consolidated
the construction of new bridges and tunnels would soon be at
hand.
The following petition was handed to the committee by Mr.
Snooks:
To His Excellency, the Governor, and to the Honorable Senators and
Members of the Assembly of the State of New York:
The undersigned, members of the Mechanics' and Traders'
Exchange of the city of Brooklyn, beg to present this memorial.
The project to consolidate the cities of New York and Brooklyn
under one municipal government on conditions equitable to both
communities, and with an equal adjustment of the burdens of taxation, meets with our hearty approval as a measure eminently
calculated to promote the real estate and building interests of
Brooklyn, and the general prosperity and prestige of the communities which it is proposed to unite.
George C. Crawford, 393 Flatbush avenue.
Robert L. Crawford, 393 Flatbush avenue.
W. G. Lee, 216 State street.
George W. Melvin, 414 Lafayette avenue.
J. F. Mickles, 340 Schermerhorn street.
Joseph H. Colyer, foot of Washington street.
P. O'Hara & Son, 225 Sixteenth street.
John W. Moran, 313 Jesse street.
Thomas Monahan, 633 Douglass street.
W. L. Glidden, 220 Pacific street.
George W. Anderson, 950a Greene avenue.
J. W. Johnson, Grand and Metropolitan avenue.
Joseph G. Miller, 280 Kasaush street.
W. E. Quay, 900 Green avenue.
John A. Hughes, administrator estate P. J. Hughes, Douglas
street and Gowanus canal.
Hughes & Gray, Douglas street and Gowanus canal.
Francis Conklin, 123 Sixth avenue.
P. F. O'Brien, Jr., 148 Lee avenue.




168


[SENATE,


Volney Rutan, 600 Quincey street.
Thomas B. Miniko, 418 Third avenue.
William D. Anderson, 952 Greene avenue.
I. P. Sutherland, 363 Fulton street.
James D. Hawkins, 608 Fifth avenue.
John Morton & Sons, Carroll street and Gowanus canal.
Thomas W. A. Castle, 54 Lott street.
E. F. Nicoll, 2216 Fulton street.
M. M. Canda, Third street and Gowanus canal.
T. G. Christmas, Myrtle avenue and Rutledge street.
John J. Curran & Bros., Third street, near Third avenue.
John C. Austin, 129 Reid avenue, Brooklyn.
Owen O'Keefe, 140 Eighteenth street, Brooklyn.
Abraham Rutan, 957 Putnam avenue.
B. C. Miller & Son, 955 Dean street.
Henry Feltmann, 753 Macon street.
Frank Mapes & Son, 63 Patchen avenue.
K. A. Murphy, 96 Linwood avenue.
John J. Hickey, 253 Eighth street.
Maurice F. Hickey, 413 Tenth street.
J. A. Forshew, 608 Hancock street.
John Golden, 787 Franklin avenue.
Frank D. Creamer, 673 St. Marks.
Peter Cleary, 385 Decatur street.
W. C. Williams, 565 Jefferson avenue.
James P. Stevenson, 591 Bergen street.
William J. Moran, 141 South Fifth street.
James Keenan, 948 Fulton street.
Richard Whalen, corner Fortieth street and Fifth avenue.
David McMullan, 363 Fulton street.
John M. Snook, 19 Fenimore street.
Thomas McCann, 853 Douglas street.
John Thatcher, 674 Tenth street.
E. Snedeker, 391 Green avenue.
Samuel W. Cornell, 121 Court street.
Henry Werner, 88 Schermerhorn street.
William H. Boyes, 370 Pearl street.




No. 44.1


169


M. Fitzsimimons, 81 -Ninth street.
Thomnas G. Carlin, 93 Garfield place.
Hall & B~radford, 363 Fulton street.
T. H. Water-ton, 401 Union street.
William M. Gobson, 939 Lafayette avenue.
Thomas Dobbin, 162 Ross street.
Charles A. Kiots, 147' Lee avenue.
Charles WV. Comnins, 45 Waverly avenue.
John Barnes,!243 Canlton avenue.
Jacob Schratweiser, 110, 1112 and 114 Navy street.
Ingolf Iverson', 784 Hlalsey street.
L. A. Lewis, for Kenyon & Newstadt, 528 Lewis street.
John C. Orr & Co., foot of Haven street.
M. R. Thompson, 11 Linden street.
WV. C. W. Child, M.,ilton and West streets.
John Demott & Sons, 270 Schermerhorn street.
Empick Bro~s., 134 Stockhiolmn street.
George W. Randall, 669 St. Marks avenue.
Mv. T. Reynolds, 1193 Ralph a-venue.
Jacob May, 909 Lafayette avenue.
John Pross, of J. Mv. Snook & Co., 745 Park avenue.
Herman Pross, of J. M. Snook & Co., 56 Floyd street.
George J. Pross, of J. Mv. Snook & Co.., 82 Stocton street.
Owen Nolan, 340 Union street.
A. E. Pelham, Twenty-sixth street, between Ninth and Tenth
avenue.
William F. Donovan. 486' Court street.
C. Cameron, 209 Van Buren street.
H. Grasman, 407 Jefferson avenue.
James XV". Pettinger, 47F Ilrevoort place.
F. G. and G. T. Van Riper, 11.0 Fourth street, Long Island City.
E. P. Waterbury, 240 Cooper street.
George H. Ray. 45-1 Jeff erson avenue.
Henry J. Brown, 389 Herkimier street.
Abraini H.' B1o~iow. 74 Herkimier street.
John, Kennedy & Son., 175 Front street.
XV. B. Martin, 24 Polhemus phice.
[Senate, No. 44.]




170


[SENATE,


Charles H. Ridgway, 716 Madison street.
Edward Freel, 435 Court square.
James D. Kenney, 399a Union street.
John Davis, 170 Court street.
George M. Miller, 507 Sixth avenue.
E. D. Newman, 15 Ashford street.
Edward Clark, 315 Fourth avenue.
Andrew P. Blist, 577 Caroll street.
Audley Clarke, 16 Fisk place.
W. & F. B. Conklin, De Graw street and Fourth avenue.
MR. LExow:
The committee will decide whether Brooklyn will be given any
further hearings.
A VOICE:
Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask the last speaker a question. Is
is not true that the Builders' Exchange, which this gentleman
represents, voted on Friday last, as a body, to postpone the
consideration of this question? Did they so vote?
MR. SNOOKS:
On Friday last, at a meeting of the Exchange, the subject was
brought up in a resolution, which I did not take the time to
read, but which is embodied in this petition. A motion was
made to postpone until the next meeting after the report of the
committee on the 8th of March. This resolution, I neglected to
state, was a petition of the individual members of the Exchange
and not of the Exchange as a body. The Exchange was not
fully represented at the time. There were a number of members
who voted in favor of postponing who afterwards said to me
that they did not know that they were voting to postpone, but
thought they were voting for the resolution. Hence. as individual
members, we thought it right to put it in the form of a petition
and present the actual facts of the case before the Governor and
the Legislature.




No. 44.]


171


COUNTY COURT HOUSE, BROOKLYN, N. Y.
January 24, 1896.
WILLIAM C. REDFIELD:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: On behalf
of the league which I represent we thank you heartily for this
further opportunity to be heard. In the list of banks that was
filed with you some days ago, it was stated that that represented
three-fourths of the banks of this city. Another gentleman on the
other side said it was all but three. The first speaker to-day will
be the president of the trust company that was not upon that
list, nor was it mentioned among the three that were not on it. I
desire to introduce Congressman William J. Coombs.
W. J. COOMBS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I understand
that it is not expected that I shall spend much time with my little
talk this morning. I was in the habit of being limited in time in
my speeches in Congress. I was once limited to a half a minute,
but to show the expansive powers of Congressional eloquence,
when that speech appeared in the Congressional Record, it covered
a whole page. I do not wish you to understand that I come here
distinctly as president of a trust company. I am, it is true, the
president of such an institution, but my company has taken no
action upon this matter, and I do not think it legitimate that they
should take such action. That is not the business for which a
trust company is formed. Even if my board of directors had
taken such action upon the matter, I should not think it legitimate, for the basis of authority in a bank or trust company is its
stockholders. And until the gentlemen who have represented
the banks here show that there has been a meeting of the stockholders of their respective banks and that they have deliberately
passed upon that question, I should think that they spoke without
authority, and I do not think it is for you to consider such testimony as coming from such institutions. I do not intend to
criticise the gentlemen who spoke. They may have thought they
were voicing the sentiment of their stockholders. They are sim



172


[SENATE,


ply the servants of the stockholders, and the stockholders embrace
the sentiment, the thermometer, or the test tube, that you 1must
consider.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you think that any reputable bank officer in this city or
in the city of New York would sign a paper of that kind unless he
considered he had the authority of the stockholders?
MR. COOMBS:
I would not care to express a sentiment upon that subject. I
do not believe that such an officer would willfully and with intent
do wrong. He might, unthinkingly, consider he was expressing
the voice of his bank. But every institution of that kind has from
300 to 400 stockholders, and I do not think they would take action
on the question.
MR. LEXOW:
I ask for information only, and wish to get down to facts. The
committee are asking you for information, as I said; they want
facts. I would like to know whether you, as a similar officer, do
not consider that these bank officials considered that they had
prima facie evidence, and whether it should not be accepted as
such?
MR. COOMBS:
They may have thought they had it, in their judgment.
MR. LEXOW:
Would you not assume that they were satisfied that their stockholders favored their signing such a paper?
MR. COOMBS:
No, I should not think so. Bank officers are in the habit of
sometimes acting unthinkingly. There are a certain number of
men in a bank, as in any other large institution, who give a tone
to the bank. They might be mistaken if they went down and got




No. 44.]


173


the opinion of their stockholders. I do not say that the gentlemen
intentionally misrepresented. I only make the suggestion that
if they have the opinion of their stockholders, that they file that
information with the committee. If these gentlemen represent
their banks when they speak they can make that statement. I only
suggest that they make the fact plain that they do represent
their banks. I do not come here to criticise the gentlemen themselves. Neither do I come here, Mr. Chairman, as a politician. I
do not think this is a question to be discussed politically, although
it has a political bearing, but I think the wisest politicians will
recognize this fact: Tlhat whatever may be the result of this movement, if it should result in consolidation, it will primarily be injurious to the party that introduced it. Any great change of that
kind is primarily injurious, no matter what the after effect may
be. I am a Democrat. I know of no action on the part of my party
that has looked towards opposing or favoring consolidation. If
such action has been taken it has not come to me. I simply speak
to-day, Mr. Chairman, as a citizen of Brooklyn, who has lived in
this community for over forty years, who has been the greater
part of his life in the vicinity of Brooklyn, and has always been
proud to call it his home, and who has never been ashamed,
wherever he has been, whether abroad or at home, to register
himself as from Brooklyn. I understand that some gentlemen
have felt a little ashamed to register themselves as citizens of
Brooklyn, but I have considered it a high honor to register myself
as a citizen of that city, that has, of all the cities of this land, been
foremost in every effort to improve municipal government. More
efforts at reform have been made here and more has been accomplished by the concentration we have been able to bring to bear to
effect reform in Brooklyn, than in any other city of the land. I have
been trying to find the reasons for this movement in my mind.
rThere must be reasons. The gentlemen who are proposing consolidation are men whose judgment I have confidenie in. I would
not, for a moment, base this question upon personality. It is a
question that should bd considered calmly, placidly, patriotically,
in the best interests of the future. I think that possibly the spirit
that is broad in the land of consolidation for business interests




174


[SENATE,


has finally touched the cities themselves. But the same reason
that has brought about the consolidation of business interests
does not apply here in any sense. Business interests are consolidated for the purpose of doing away with competition, in increasing profits. There is no competition in this case. New York has
helped Brooklyn and Brooklyn has helped New York.
MR. LEXOW:
Isn't it also to reduce the expenditures?
MR. COOMBS:
I do not think, Mr. Chairman, you would for a moment believe
that, simply the consolidation of these two cities would decrease
expenditure, except possibly, in the administration of the mayor's
office.
My judgment as a business man is this: A business of $1,000,000
increased to $2,000,000 does not decrease expenditure in proportion at all. The increased responsibilities require, on the contrary, men of a higher class of intelligence to look after the advantages of such a concern, and I am pretty sure that in this consolidation you would have no decrease of administrative expense.
Now, Chicago has led the way in this matter. But New York
is such a proud city that I am surprised that with its conservatism,
with its grand business interests, with its pride of locality as a
gateway to the scene of the continent, it should attempt to follow
in the footsteps of Chicago. Why, there is no safety in doing that.
We are not the same kind of people at all. If we follow Chicago,
she might go us one better and take in the whole State of
Illinois. What is there to prevent this enormous power in the
State Legislature - I was not aware of it until to-day, but do
not dispute it - what is to prevent this power from doing this
in the State of New York and changing our whole system of
government accordingly? It is a most unusual thing. In
Chicago they consolidated hamlets and villages that lay near by.
They did not have a city of a million inhabitants lying close beside
them with all its pursuits, its machinery, its institutions and debts
and everything else that constitutes a great city, with its homes




No. 44.]


175


and people. It is a very different problem, indeed. New York,
in attempting to absorb Brooklyn as a hamlet or a mere village
does this grand city an injustice. It is not the same case. It
seems to me it is a problem that ought to be entered upon with the
best sort of thought and circumstance. We have also an example
of consolidation in Boston. and a letter will be read to you by a
man high in authority in the city of Charlestown which'was consolidated with Boston. This move, I am assured, brought about
the result which I had imagined would be the result if Brooklyn
were to be consolidated with New York.
I do not want to repeat what will be said here by. others,
because I know your time is valuable; but, Mr. Chairman, if
there is any man in this world who ought to know that the problem of municipal government has not been solved, it is yourself.
For weeks you sat as chairman of a committee in New York and
had the opportunity to find out the effect of municipal government
there. You know, sir, that the problem of municipal government
is not solved on the other side of the East river. I' should call
upon you as a witness, sir, and ask you if, with the apparent
advance of New York city in everything that relates to greatness,
if you have not recognized along with the corruption and inability
to correct it. How much more would both be extended with this
vast territory embraced in the same limits and under the same
government?
MR. LExow:
I will answer that question, Mr. Coombs, if you will permit me.
I was very much gratified to find that ability you speak of when
Mayor Strong was elected to the administrative office by 53,000
majority.
MR. COOMBS:
That was merely a sporatic correction. No correction in that
light is a correction. Reform falls backward there.
MR. GRADY:
Mr. Coombs, all that was discovered in the investigation you
refer to was that certain illegitimate enterprises could be black



176


[SENATE,


mailed and were blackmailed and that that has been the case since
the world began, and will always be the case. There was not
a suggestion of corruption in the government of the city and there
can not be. Gamblers may be blackmailed, but -
MR. COOMBS:
It is very unfortunate then that officials canMR. GRADY:
It has always been the case since the world was built.
MR. COOMBS:
I should hate to think that such a thing can no-t be corrected.
I hope the time will come when the problem of municipal government will be solved. There is an unfortunate corruIption in this
world that always combines its forces and is alwa: ys at work while
reform and virtue sleep. Now we have been able to make the
experiment in this city because of this, that with great effort we
could get the people's attention undivided and concentrated for
a time upon certain things. When you can do this, then the reform comes. How would it be in a city twice or three times the
size with no local pride, all swallowed up in one big organization?
How impossible it would be for the citizens of sulch a city, with
such diverse interests, to combine and corl;ct any piolitical fault.
Now, you know this, Mr. Chairman, that the city proposed by consolidation, would be the largest city in the world.
MR. LEXOW:
Excepting one.
MR. COOMBS:
No, there would be no city in the world as large as that under
one government. London is a large city, but London is not under
one government. Locndon is a collection of governments, each section having crtl-ain rlights aldl livileges. It is a combination
which has been built up tllhr'ouh c('nltuies. This would be the
largest city in the world. It would( not solve, however, the problem of municipal government.




No. 44.]


177


MER. LEXOW:
Is not that problem solved? if it is not, then the confederation
of States and nations, or tilh confederation of any government,
any system or policy is not solved.
MR. CooUMBS:
In solving the confederation of States it clame about by degrees.
At first it was not a success. I wish to make one more point. In
a republic the problem of municipal government is much more
difficult than it is in a monarchy. In the latter there is more
direct power. Here, everything depends upon the expression and
will of the people, which veers in one direction, one day, and in
another the next day, whereas, in a monarchy there is one power
which can be exercised quickly.
MR. LEXOW:
W'hen you speak of the expression of the people, that is the
very iglory of our institutions. It is the only power and the citizen is the only monarch recognized in this country. The voice of
the people is the voice of God. There is hardly any objection to
consolidation in that statement.
MR. COOlMS:
The voice of the people is the voice of God. But the people
tiust have time to be instructed in the various experiments they
undertake, and I claim that this very experiment has been forced
upon the people without the time to properly investigate the
question. I will change my expression. They had no experience
in the formation of municipal government, which qualifies them
to go into this great combination with the city of New York.
AMR. LEXTsw:
You understand, Mr. Coombs, that the bill in question provides
merely for a consolidation after the first of January, 1898, leaving
l11 the local governments intact in exactly the same condition
as to-day, and, until further legislation outside of this bill is had,
there can be no actual consolidation except such as is contained
within the provisions of this measure.
[Senate, No. 44.]    23




178


[SENATE,


MR. COOMBS:
I understand that. But the moment that step is taken, whether
wise or not, the die is cast and it can not be retraced. We have
not investigated yet, sir, to see whether a government can be
made to practically and fairly govern these two cities.
MR. LEXOW:
You do not surely assume that if consolidation, as an experiment, proves a failure, that the same power that made it can not
unmake it?
MR. COOMBS:
The tangle can never be untangled. The financial tangle could
not be untangled. The tangle going in would be great, but the
tangle getting out would be greater. That step could not be retraced. You can not contemplate such a possibility.
MR. LEXOW:
I do not see how there could be any entanglement in this bill.
After the legislation had passed, there would be no entanglement.
MR. COOMIBS:
We suddenly find that the Legislature of this State is possessed of an enormous power which we did not suppose, up to the
time they were possessed of. I do not suppose there are many
citizens of Brooklyn who knew the Legislature was possessed
of that power by which a mandate could wipe out the incorporate
existence of Brooklyn and bury it in New York. I do not doubt
that power now. I did in the beginning. But I appeal to you,
gentlemen, influential members of the Legislature of this State
that if that power does exist, if it does not call upon you for the
exercise of the greatest deliberation, it throws upon you a responsibility which I hope will be appreciated. Brooklyn certainly
should have a chance to decide, deliberately, whether she wants
to go into this combination or not. You do not want to take her
and put a chain around her neck and fasten her to New York
against her will. You are not called upon by your duty to do




No. 44.]


179


that. There was an expression of opinion. That expression of
opinion was technically in favor of consolidation. The balance
of votes, two hundred odd, was in favor of consolidation, but you
cannot deny that there were certain statements made at the
time that this was no more than an expression of opinion. There
were lots of us who made up our minds on that subject who did
not vote at all. If we had known that that vote meant absolutely the consolidation of the cities of New York and Brooklyn
there would have been a much larger vote and a very deliberate
vote at that. The vote does not bind you to go ahead, gentlemen. It is still within your discretion, if you have any reasonable doubt that the citizens of Brooklyn have not deliberately
considered that question, to give them another opportunity to consider it. Nothing can be lost by giving them that opportunity,
and much can be gained. I do not believe that you, gentlemen
of the Legislature, and you gentlemen in favor of consolidation,
wish to take the citizens of Brooklyn napping. I do not believe
you want to be placed in a position where it can be said that a
sharp game was practiced upon the city of Brooklyn. Now, if
the citizens of Brooklyn are in favor of consolidation, and I do
not know but that they are - I am not, I say frankly, though I
may be bye and bye - if the citizens of Brooklyn are in favor of
consolidation and are given the opportunity to express their views
deliberately at the polls, then you would be absolutely justified
in exercising that extraordinary power concerning them.
MR. GRADY:
Some of us believe that we are placed in this position. That
if your statemlent is true that the vote was merely a local expression of opinion in New York and Brooklyn, and has no legal binding force upon the Legislature, and that it can not be accepted
as a finality, what reason have we to believe that a vote can be
taken which would be more of a finalty than the vote just had?
For instance, and I do not mean to ridicule the position by stating an extreme case, suppose the vote desired was given to you
and the result went contrary to the last, then what is to prevent
the consolidationist from saying it was a rainy day, and asking




180


[SENATE,


for another chance which would be fairer to theml? What would
lead us to believe that the case should not be sullbmitted even
again? i know that I take an extreme case, but it was merely
for example.
MR. COOMBS:
It is not a very probable one.
MR. GRADY:
I know that, but we must take everything into consideration.
MR. COOMBS:
The people will always uphold you in the right. They will
always uphold you in being fair. They will never uphold you in
being unfair. There is every suspicion that the citizens were
caught napping and if the legislature takes advantage of this,
Aou will not recover from it as long as you live.
MR. LEXOW:
In reference to that last statement of yours you say that we
must be fair. Now there were five distinct communities entered
inbto this vote upon the direct understanding of fatir play that
the five would be bound by the expression of popular judgment
at that time. Now one of these five distinct communities which
actually voted in favor of consolidation, comes forward to see if
we will permit another trial to he made of the vote to see if they
are still of the same mind. Will you answer the question as to
whether it would be fair to the other communities to give that
resubmission with the direct and express purpose of defeating
the first decision?
MR. COOMBS:
I do not say that the express purpose is to defeat it. I hope it
will.
MNI. LExow:
Well, what is the good, then of resubmission?




No. 44.]


181


MR. COOMBS:
This community did not deliberately vote with the knowledge
that they were voting for absolute consolidation. I did not know
at all that it was more than an informal expression of opinion.
Upon this question would be prepared a bill including; charter
upon which we would be permitted to vote. Now, I have only
one more thing to say. Imagine this great city to be formed and
the government instituted, you will agree with me that there
ImIst be a tremenldous condension of power in the government
head in so disjointed a communnity. In such a great corporation
of power, Brooklyn would be ignored. The power would go to
the greater community.
S. L. WOODHOUSE:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: In order
that I may keep within my time limit. and get out of the way of
the oratory behind me, and in compliment to the committee, I may
never have the chance to conmpliment them again, I shall read
what I have to say. I desire it shall be considered a compliment,
rather than an imposition.
I think that we all agree that the consolidation of these two
great cities is one of the most momentous questions of modern
times; even though the willing assent of both cities were at this
moment assured, difficulties which palsy the thought would yet
beset the pathway of our most gifted thinkers in their contemplation of this stupendous theme; well nigh insolvable problems
spring from ambush at every turn; they allure the imagination
but stay the judgment. Consolidation is not therefore a question
for hasty conclusion nor for certainty of result; in its final outworking it is not a question for the forum but for the statesman's calmest thought; not of politics but of patriotism. But
the question is here and demands solution; we cannot avoid it if
we would; arguments before this committee by our wisest citizens,
have revealed difficulties and dangers which have stirred Brooklyn's thought as never before. To extinguish the corporate life
of this great city of a million people is no light thing -— a solemn
obligation rests upon every participant in this crucial act which




182


[SENATE,


he cannot disregard. Palsied be the hand that would destroy
Brooklyn's corporate life save for Brooklyn's weal. Mistakes
may be irrevocable and errors crimes.
I state my own views though with many misgivings:
1. I favor consolidation.
2. I am against resubmission.
3. I favor a referendum.
By favoring consolidation I do not mean that it must come
to-day: Let the terms of consolidation decide that; I do mean,
however, that I am compelled to consolidation by forces external
to myself and beyond control. Ours is a material age. The law
of centripetal force is potent in finance as in physics. Overshadowing New York will be victor at last, and, I think, in the
very near future; $6,000,000,000 of wealth in New York against
$1,000,000,000 in Brooklyn; $75,000,000 yearly increase in New
against a nominal increase in Brooklyn; that is the proposition.
One may increase its debt two fold while the other is already
within $4,000,000 of its legal debt limit; one has vast resources
of income, aggregating $12,000,(J(00 per annum. while the other is
dependent on taxation alone. These two cities are separated
by a hand breadth in distance. The greater needs the smaller for
increase in world renoun and commanding power; the smaller
needs the greater for its co-operation and sustaining strength. We
may delay consolidation but, it is my abiding conviction, that we
can not finally defeat it; better consolidation now than further
delay with other complications, provided, the terms of consolidation shall safeguard the interests of Brooklyn.
This question is not new; for a hundred years New York has
sought possession of Brooklyn while Brooklyn has steadily
resisted. Until three years ago the word consolidation was not
used; the word was annexation. The change marks New York's
progress of thought toward Brooklyn; it was compelled by Brooklyn's century of successful resistence. Annexation would tack us
on to New York and give us as little as it must. Consolidationthat more self-respecting word -would braid these two great
cities into a single strand - a unity of interests; if that be not
its meaning let us decline it.




No. 44.]


183


I am opposed to resubmission.
First. The people have already voted upon it.
Second. A vote once case should be final; any other course is
un-American; the instinct of the people is against it; the voter
is responsible for his acts.
Third. A majority of one vote, if honestly cast, is as binding
as a thousand. A vote is a vote.
Fourth. To reopen the question would create endless confusion and arouse distrust, and, in the event of a vote adverse to
consolidation would embitter the voters therefor; it would also
carry the right to a second resubmission, and, why not to a third
and a fourth? These considerations, alone, and, apart from all
others, dispose me against resubmission.
Fifth. It is said that the vote was merely the expression of a
fdesire, Jthat it }i::I no legal efficiency. That is strictly true, but can
the voter solemnly register even his desire, without any responsibility? A re there no equities whatever due the victor? I
think there are and that any other theory is perilous and delusive.
Besides, both voter and Legislature exhausted their power in the
form of the vote as cast; legal efficacy was impossible, for law
making can not be delegated.
Sixth. I believe that equitable consolidation is still Brooklyn's
desire; if not to-day, then upon her sober second thought.
Seventh. The submission of a charter to the voter would, in
effect, be both a resubmission and a referendum.
Eighth. No harm can, therefore, come to Brooklyn by denying
a resubmission; for the above reasons I am opposed to resubmission..!
I am, however, in favor of a referendum; what is the present
apparent intent of the Legislature upon consolidation?  It is to
immediately and irrevocably decree these two great cities into
one gigantic city; that would wipe out Brooklyn's individual corporate life forever. Am I asked, Is not this what Brooklyn voted
for? Yes, but is it broad-minded, patriotic statesmanship to
assume that by its vqte for consolidaation, Brooklyn abandoned
her present life to strangers and her resurrection life to Tammany
Hall?  Shall her hand be stayed in framing the splendid struc



184


[SENATE,


ture in which she is to dwell? I)eny her this right and you
Brooklyn's self-respect full in the face. You shatter the principle
of home rule-at a single stroke and you commit a gigantic moral
crime. Do this and thenceforth there will be no more consolidationists, nor anti-consolidationsts, only citizens of Brooklyn1.
proud of their heritage and united in her defense. Withhlold yonr
decree and disclose the charter under which Brooklyn is to live and
let her vote upon it.
Consider the vast interests involved; though uniformity of taxation and of valuations is among them, others are even more
essential. Our social, educational, political and moral welfare
are in the halance as well:is our finan::(cil anp_ industrial, while the
question of municipal government dominates them all. How
are you to govern a great city of three to four millions of people
with every man a voter? Let some wise man tell us. Shall it
be by a general council supplemented by local councils with nm
lord mayor at the top, as in London? or by a multiplicity of mayors
and councils as in Paris and other European cities?
Already the government of our great cities is our conspicuous.failure. Under Brooklyn's benign charter she has set the pace
in good government for the entire land; shall we surrender this
charter without controlling voice in its substitute? As compared with New York, Brooklyn's government is purity itself;
there is not a notorious brothel in the town. Brooklyn is the best
all-around educated citi in Al'r!,erica:; h1er tea(chlers are b{htter paid
by I5 Tper eent. than those of New York. How are we assured that
improvement will.go forward; that morals will be conserved;
that education will be promoted; that uniformity of taxation and
of valuations will be secured, unless we can see the charter?  Is
it wise to take in all of Staten Island, the whole of BLong Island,
part of Bronx river and the rest of the Atlantic ocean? Would
this reduce taxation and assure good government?
Mr. Chairman, Brooklyn's life is in the balance, her pre'ss is not
subsidized, her pocket nerves are not mercenary, as a household
we differ, but we are all for Brooklyn. I am concluded that we
shall stand at last upon this platform -" Brooklyn must be permitted to decide her own destiny."  She asks for nothing that is
not right, she will submit to nothing that is wrong.




No. 44.]


185


MR. LEXOW:
Is not Brooklyn's charter thought to be the best of any charter
of any city in the United States? There is no notion of taking
away Brooklyn's charter. Perhaps the speaker referred to personal likes and dislikes.
MR. WOODHOUSE:
Yes, it is to the personnel we object to. We fear we will wake
up after consolidation, and at the resurrection find ourselves in
the grasp of Tammany Hall.
MR. LExOW:
You understand that the vote of 1894, and nothing further, is
in question? Brooklyn will be represented at Albany as ably in
the future as in the past, and there is no danger of her not being
heard on a charter. I have in two years seen Brooklyn represented, and know that there is no danger of the city suffering at
the hands of her representatives. I do not know, in my experience of two years, where all the representatives of a city or of a
district were opposed to a bill affecting the interests of that city,
where that bill has passed.
MR. WOODHOUSE:
Assure me that those who have the interest of Brooklyn make
up the charter and I will throw up the sponge.
MR. LExow:
How about the other four parties, the representatives from the
other districts that are consolidated - shouldn't they have a vote
also on the charter?
MR. WOODHOUSE:
I must not take up the time of the others. I have tried to avoid
all technical questions.
MR. LEXOw:
That is not a technical question.
[Senate, No. 44.]    24




186


[SENATE,


MR. WOODHOUSE:
The creation of the greater city and the taking of the life of the
city of Brooklyn of course is in the power of the Legislature, and
nowhere else. If the Legislature approaches the question of a
charter in the spirit of patriotism, that will be enough. There is
a binding law of morals which should be considered in every question. What I fear is the influence of those whose interests are
not concerned so closely as those in this city.
MR. LEXOW:
No one doubts that Brooklyn could get a good charter. A great
many of these questions are merely doubts, or they contain a
doubt, and it is hard to bring out facts. That is what we are here
for.
MR. GRADY:
A good deal has been said here with reference to the position
of Tammany Hall. Now, I officially state here that Tammany
Hall hfis not been eager for the annexation of New York and
Brooklyn. From my knowledge of Brooklyn politicians, I must
say you can not get the best of them very easily. When attention
is called to statements made here openly that Tammany Hall,
either through voters or its organization, is seeking to control
Brooklyn, I desire to say that they never have manifested the
slightest desire in that direction. I could satisfy you on that
point in five minutes' private conversation.
MR. WOODHOUSE:
Brooklyn has passed judgment upon Tammany Hall.
ALBERT G. MCDONALD:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: It seems to
me that the transaction of 1894, the legislation and the action
under the legislation, had none of the features of a contract.
Moreover, it as the purpose of the act that while New York voting "yes," must swallow the entirety of a proposition that the
other parts of the territory affected should determine separately




No. 44.]


187


for themselves. There were none of the elements of a contract in
the transaction. It was simply the polling of the sentiment of the
people of the localities on that question. While I am free to say
that I am in favor of resubmission, to my mind there has always
been great force in the arguments attending to the inconclusiveness of the situation. My experience of two years with the Legislature has taught me how rigid, and for general reasons, how
proper is their rule that on local matters the local delegation
shall control. Yet on the matter now in question, if the reports
of the newspapers are true, the whole Kings county delegation in
the Senate and the whole Kings county delegation in the Assembly are opposed to this project. At least they are opposed to it
without a reference to the people, either on the broad question of
consolidation itself or on the question of a charter. That alone,
it seems to me. should make this committee pause. The members
of iheT Legislature constructively speak, and usually actively
speak. the sentiments of their locality; yet all of this body is
opposed to the absolute consolidation of Brooklyn.  Now, the
committee came down here again for the purpose of reaching thee
sentiment of the locality, and they have these hearings for the
purpose.
This question is not one which is determinable properly by the
action of the people's representatives in the Legislature. The
reason of the thing, it seems to me, is very plain that it ought
to be submitted to the people, because it touches the whole of their
municipal affairs. Was the submission of 1894, such as should
non be regarded as in any way conclusive? I submit to you, no,
sir. Attaching to the vote of the people, then, there was nothing
conclusive. I don't say that the vote, then, should not be submitted to a measure of respect, but it is right to argue to you
that the vote then was inconclusive in its character. The act for
a submission of it was passed in February, 1894. It related to
a territory covering twenty-eight wards. In April and May. 1894,
there was annexed to the city of Brooklyn for other purposes,
territories so that it geographically doubled the size of the city,
and it was by these'people that this project was carried by 277
votes. The city of Brooklyn, as contemplated when that act was




188


[SENATE,


passed was not the city that passed upon the question of consolidation. Attaching to that vote all the force that y6u please
and all the dignity that you please the question now, I submit, is:
What is the sentiment of to-day? Of course, if this were a contract and if common law rules of contract obligation could be applied to it, that would be a different matter. But it was a poll of
the sentiment in 1894, and no action was taken by the Legislature
on that vote. If it were good to be annexed in 1894, but not good
in 1895, then the annexation ought not to take place. It is not
that in 1894 277 more people thought annexation should take
place, the question is of 1896.
This is a people's question, and I firmly believe the people's
wish, if not for a resubmission of the whole question, is, at least,
for a submission of the charter.
MR. GRADY:
Of course you don't mean that we shall submit the charter?
MR. MCDONALD:
No, sir; not for a moment. The annexation of West Fa.rms
was a pretty project along side of this. In that case no question
of settlement was raised against it. Of course, if the Legislature
of 1895, upon the strength of the argument of 1894, had included
consolidation, that was an end of it. But the question was left
open. The situation is deferentiated from any situation that
ever existed before. Senator Lexow's bill is a proposition and
we are discussing that proposition.
MR. GRADY:
As a New York man I am opposed to consolidation from the
New York side. I am very free to say, however, that while I
voted against consolidation just for the reverse of the reasons
I have heard stated here, I have always felt bound that the people
having spoken on the subject should have that opinion recognized.
MR. BRUSH:
With reference to the reasonableness of asking for a resubmission of this question in the case of an election which is final that




No. 44.]


189


is a case where the people have a chance to remedy it at the next
election. But this is final.
MR. MCDONALD:
I see no analogy because at an election the people knew that
they were voting on a conclusive question. The vote of 1894
decided nothing. It was simply the sentiment of the time. Is
there any doubt about what the sentiment of this time is?
Twenty-eight representatives of the people are on one side of the
proposition. The burden of proof is clearly shifted over to the
other side, when all the representatives are on one side.
MR. BRUSH:
The sentiment of 1894 is probably not the sentiment of 1896.
MR. MCDONALD:
These arguments concerning the advantages to the city of
Brooklyn, presuming them to be true, are arguments to be addressed to the locality and not to the Legislature. If Brooklyn is
to be consolidated then let Brooklyn decide upon that as a tribunal.
There is a dispute about the facts in this case. There is an assertion that much benefit will flow from consolidation, and there is
an assertion that no benefit will flow. Who shall determine it
but the people of the locality? I say let it be argued that taxation
will be less, and that real estate values will be taxed down, but
these things are asserted here and denied, and how are you going
to pass upon them except through the people? The proposition
of the Lexow bill is abhorent because the proposition is that on
a certain day consolidation shall take place. And so I say here
that this is a people's question, that they are the true tribunal,
that arguments for and against should be addressed to them,
that in view of the attitude of the local representatives, whatever
argument may be drawn from the vote of 1894 is compietely
overcome.
MR. REDFIELD:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I have the
pleasure at this time of saying a few words to you. And in com



190


[SESNATE,


mencing I wish to remove certain misapprehensions of fact that
exist. A very prominent Senator of the State of New York said
to an acquaintance of mine, from the central part of this state,
recently, that the sentiment in Brooklyn was manufactured because the league of which I am the head had spent $250,0)00
working it up. I desire to have the message conveyed through
this committee to the Senator who made that statement that if
he had said just one-tenth of that sum be would have been more
accurate. It is utterly untrue that any such sum or that onefifth of that sum or anything like it has been spent, directly or indirectly, by the League of Loyal Citizens. I desire to say also
that the counsel of this league has never received one penny for
services rendered, nor has the gentlemen who has gone to Albany,
from time to time to represent this league in Albany, ever received
one dollar of compensation, directly or indirectly. It is also true
that most of the expenses of traveling back and forth have been
borne by the parties going. I desire also to say that there has
been no coercion of any legislator in this city or anywhere else.
They were addressed an open letter, published freely at the time,
in which the league pledged itself never to ask for another resubmission; to accept as final such a vote; and to ask for their sentiments, which they reasonably and honorably gave. If there
were coercion it was the coercive force of the public sentiment of
the city of Brooklyn which is represented by twenty-eight members of the Senate and Assembly at Albany. No man dare say
that those men do not represent our public opinion unless they
say also that you do not represent the opinion of your people.
Do you, sir? Then do they?
Now, gentlemen, I wish to pass briefly to a discussion of some
of the alleged facts that have been presented before you here,
and I wish to say-very carefully say-that I imrpugn no man's veracity. I doubt no man's good intent. I do impugn the accuracy
of much that has been said to you. You are bound in honor to
follow the truth when you learn it; you have the right to the truth.
There was placed before you a list of the names stated to represent,
the majority of the large business houses of the city. Undoubtedly
there are large concerns upon that list, I have no reason to doubt




No. 44.j


191


it. 1 think that almost, if not all of the men upon that list are
doing business in this city. But I object to the alleged representative character of this list, for this reason, there are eightyfour names representing firms doing business. I have myself
personally examined the 1896 edition of R. G. Dun & Co.'s Mercantile Agency Report as to these names, in which agency twentyfour of these names do not appear; they are not in the latest
edition of the Mercantile Agency. On that list, furthermore,
there is one concern doing business under three different names
who signed all three. And there are two of the concerns in
addition that are owned in New York City. I do not doubt that
those gentlemen are all doing business. I do not doubt that they
signed the paper, but what I do protest against is its representative
character.
MR. MATTHEWS:
Will you give us the names of those men to whom you refer?
MR. REDFIELD:
I will give them to the committee. I will not do anything in
public that will injure any man's credit. I further wish to say
that the names of at least ten large concerns in this city are conspicuous by absence from that list; therefore. I object on behalf
of the truth to your giving that list any weight further than as
that of eighty-four individuals.
MR. LEXOW:
Have you got any petition signed by representative concerns
in the city of Brooklyn against consolidation?
MR. REDFIELD:
Yes, sir; and representing more than this list does; 170 names
since filed. I further notice, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Abraham in
his speech to you said that Brooklyn is near its debt limit, but
omitted to mention that it was twice as far away as in 1894.
lie also stated that Brooklyn's taxable revenues were nearly
exhausted, in reply to which I quote Mr. A. T. White's own
words: "I have come to the conclusion as a citizen and as a




192


[SENATE,


taxpayer that the necessary improvements on this side of the
river will progress more rapidly than if we are joined to New
York."  Mr. Abraham also dwells upon the fact that New 'York
city is to add " $80,000,)000 to its assessed valuation this year
alone, which represents but 50 per cent of the value of the new
buildings and improvements erected in New York." And I hold
in my hand the Real Estate Record and Guide which gives the
entire number of buildings completed in New York in 1895 up to
January, 1896, and shows the estinated value of the ll to be
$84,111,023. This at 50 per cent would add but 42,0)(),000) to New
York's values.   Mr. Abraham has made a trifling error of
$33,000,000 in his speech. I desire also to say to von that it is a
curious thing that Mr. Abraham asserts it is " a base liibel on the
intelligence of the voters " to say whether they did not vote intelligently when they voted forl col-solidation, but the C(onsolllidation
League published exactly six weeks before the election this statement: " There is scarcely any sign that the voters concerned are
adequately informed upon these matters or even interested."
That is " the libel " which they themselves cast upon voters of the
city of Brooklyn at that time.
I now pass to the speech of my friend, Mr. Rufus L. Scott, in
which a similar class of difficulties appears. He said tllere never
was a question more fully discussed than that, and l  y personal
testimony is as good as his, which is simply tlis: I wasl, on the
platform speaking every night for several weeks, several times a
night, at different places, and I never heard the subject of consolidation mentioned, nor have I ever heard any man outside of
the immediate ranks of the Consolidation League who did hear
that subject mentioned in this city in public discussion that fall.
MR. LEXOW:
Wasn't it a fact that prior to the vote of 1894 it was not only
discussed but made the subject of debating clubs in the city of
Brooklyn?
MR. REDFIELDr:
I never heard of any debating club discussing the subject in the
city of Brooklyn prior to the el(c-I ioln of 1894, olli dli(d I ev(er hear




No. 44.]


193


of any meeting in which that subject was discussed except at one'
meeting in the Real Estate Exchange, where the only man who
attempted to speak against consolidation told me he was fired out
of the hall.
Mr. Scott says there was " absolutely no considerable sentiment
against consolidation." I wish to ask if you believe that to be
true. Is that a truthful statement? If that be true I beg you to
explain to me the fact, first, that every legislator in this city
opposes consolidation.  I beg you to explain to me, if Mr. Scott
speaks truly, how it is that our board of aldermen unanimously
favor resubmission of this question. If that be true, explain to
me the action of the Central Labor Union, the action of every
Republican ward association in this city except one, so far as I
know; I beg you to explain to me not only our league's first enrollment of 77,000 voters which this gentleman attempts to
impugn, but to explain to me the list filed with you of 72,800
voters, by wards and election districts, with registration rolls
given to you for the purpose of comparison. I submit to you that
the statement that there is " absolutely no considerable sentiment
in Brooklyn against consolidation" is proven to be incorrect,
and it is proven to be so by the facts which you yourselves have in
your own hands. The statement would.be amazing if it were not
amusing.
And now, very briefly, I wish to take up the facts about the election of 1895. 1 have never said, though it has been stated as if I
had said it, that the question of consolidation was controlling in
that election. I do not say that the question of consolidation was
prominent in that election, and in evidence of that I offer to file with
this committee the advertisement from which I read to you before,
of the Consolidation League, in which they said over their own signature published night after night in the Brooklyn Eagle, that the
"only way " to express a vote for consolidation was by voting
for Mr. Grout. And I ask you to notice the fact that they published special editions of two pamphlets and circulated them
widely all over Brooklyn. And I ask you to note the fact that
[Senate, No. 44.]    25




194


[SENATE,


certain men were at the polls upon election day who may have
have misrepresented the Consolidation League, but who said to
friends of mine that they were there to work for consolidation
at the polls. If these men lie six men of six different districts
in one ward lie, for they said they were there to work for consolidation. I do not now say that it was controlling. I do say that
while our league kept it out and took no action direct or otherwise
on the subject, the Consolidation League brought it in and were
beaten. They brought it in, they forced it to the front, they kept
it to the front, and the other two candidates for mayor were for
resubmission. Those two other candidates had a majority over
the consolidation candidate of 12,000.
i Again, I ask you if, in all your legislative experience, you ever
knew of a case where all but four out of something like sixty-one
legislative candidates agreed in both parties, and in two factions
of one party (three parties in all), on one question? Is there any
sentiment opposed to consolidation in Brooklyn? Fifty-seven
out of sixty-one of our candidates for Senate and Assembly were
absolutely agreed on that question. Can you explain that away?
Did you ever hear in your experience Mr. Chairman, that a whole
delegation were united on a subject without backing behind them?
Those legislators were elected in all the districts on that issue. It
may not have been the controlling issue of the mayoralty canvass
but it was the issue in the legislative canvass, and you have the
results before you; you know they are true.
MR. LExow:
How could that be the issue where the candidates represented
both parties and where all were apparently agreed? You couldn't
get an issue then if they were all agreed on resubmission, there
was no way in which the people could have expressed their
preference for consolidation.
MR. REDFIELD:
That is apparently a conclusive question, but it is not, because
the contest came in the nominating conventions and here is a man




No. 44.]


195


who was the victim of it (Edward F. Linton) who says he was the
victim of a fraud. I know nothing of the fraud; it may be so,
but this I do say, that when in the ninth district senatorial convention it became known that Mr. Linton was a consolidationist
lie was defeated upon that one question and upon no other.
MR. LEXOW:
He was defeated by one vote, wasn't he?
MR. REDFIELD:
No, sir; I pass no judgment upon the facts; Mr. Linton is
probably better informed than I. On the first meeting it was
reported abroad in that convention that Mr. Linton was a member of our executive committee. The simple fact was made
known then that was not true, that Mr. Linton was a consolidationist and he lost it completely when the convention met again.
AM. LExOW:
Is it possible that the people in this city didn't know that Mr.
Linton for five years has been a member of the consolidation commission and one of the most earnest workers for consolidation?
MR. REDFIELD:
I will answer that by what the consolidation league said, that
the voters were not informed at all and not interested.
MR. LExow:
That would seem to imply that to-day, after five years of discussion, the matter is so indifferent to the people of Brooklyn that
they do not even know their representative on the consolidation
commission.
MR. REDFIELD:
I am very much inclined to believe that if you take the city far
and wide, you will find conm)aratively few men who can tell who
aIre the members of the commission.




196


[SENATEs,


MR. LExow:
Do you consider that as an argument?
MR. REDFIELD:
Not at all, nor on the other side. I think it has no bearing on
the case. I think I can find thousands of men who do not know
who represents their county in the Senate. I wish to further
enforce upon you the fact that in that election, when the matter
was made clear to the people, it did not enter into the legislative
canvass and practically the unanimous voice of Brooklyn spoke
through its aldermen and its legislators. How else could it
speak? Supposing Rockland county desired to speak to the
State of New York, must it not speak through you and its
Assemblymen? How else can it speak? But suppose beside that
they said we will back you up with signatures of nearly half the
voters of the county, and said, here is the registration roll, compare it; would I dare to say that you didn't represent the real
feeling of your people? It is absurd when this city has elected
its entire legislators and entire board of aldermen and backed
them up with these signatures that no one has dared to challenge;
it is absurd to say that the sentiment of Brooklyn is not in favor
of resubmission.
But I pass from that to take up the question of resubmission
itself. The heart of the difficulty of resubmission lies in the fact
that a referendum differs in its essence from all other votes; it
is radically unlike that in this respect, that lawfully, of itself, it
can decide nothing. The Legislature being the law-making power
can not delegate that power. It can ask the people to express
their wishes; and it can ask the people to give their opinions. It
is as free to act after that opinion as before save for the moral
effect of the vote. A vote so taken is only a mandate when its
conditions make it mandatory. Of itself it decides, and under
the law can decide, nothing. The fact is different with a vote
on constitutional amendments; there a majority must decide.
Such is not the law with reference to a popular referendum, that
is a guide to the Legislature, not a mandate to it. It is, it can




No. 44.]


197


be, only an opinion, and like opinion it has weight or weakness
according to its conditions. This was made perfectly clear by
the consolidation commission, who said, in 1894:  Electors will
please observe that this vote amounts to nothing more than a
simple expression of opinion. It is merely," they said, " the
gathering of the sentiment of the electors." It was not possible
for them to say more clearly that this could not be mandatory,
that it was simply opinion, and that its whole force lay in its value
as opinion. The law always provides for obtaining the mature
opinion of the people. Therefore our mayor serves two years and
then the question who shall be mayor is resubmitted to the people.
And you had the question who shall be Senator of your district
resubmitted to the people last fall with the happy result of your
election. Every election is a resubmission. It is not revolutionary, but it is wholly in accord with American law and
American institutions to say that the mature judgment of the
people is to be sought.  You, gentlemen, who have passed
in the Legislature upon constitutional amendments know that
it comes before the Legislature first and again in identically the
same form to the people. So that there are two resubmissions of
a constitutional amendment, one legislative and one to the vote
of the people. Why are terms of office made if votes be final'
Why do terms expire? That the question may be resubmitted.
The question of obtaining the will of the people is the heart and
root of the law, and they are revolutionary who say there should
be no resubmission. Besides, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Grady
especially, I ask you to find a precedent in law or history where
277 votes or any number of votes in this country ever finally
decided anything.
MR. GRADY:
The only trouble that I see in your argument upon that point is
this, that the first vote in any election accomplishes the purpose
of the vote and the second resubmission has no more force nor
finality than the question submitted first. So we may say that
the vote taken in 1894 was simply an expression of opinion, and




198


[SENATE,.


therefore should be given no legislative force whatever. When
we take the vote in 1896 why can't the dissatisfied element say
that should have no more force than the vote of 1894.
MR. REDFIELD:
They can.
MR. GRADY:
Then what practical result can come from it?
Mn. REDFIELD:
This practical result. I believe if the vote were taken a hundred times and showed that by a narrow margin (one-third either
way, with one-third silent,) this thing was hanging in the balance,
it never should be brought about.  It should not be irrevocably
settled. The law nor good morals would not sanction its being
so settled. But since 1894, new problems have arisen, new light
has been shed upon the subject. Our people have been educated.
We are willing to abide by a vote if it be in their favor absolutely.
And I believe that when a vote is had there will be a preponderating opinion one way or the other. The weight of 277 votes out
of 179,000, with 62,000 silent, that is very little. But if resubmitted -
MR. LEXOW:
Suppose the other fellow succeeded this time, how could you,
after establishing this precedent, ask the consolidationiists to consider that a finality and not resubmit again?
MR. REDFIELD:
I have not asked that. I say that what is right and fair should
be had, and that is it. I should say that the other side had the
right to prove the righteousness of another vote; why should
they not have it? But my plea is (and I think this is all side-play
anyhow), that the thing would be morally settled by the weight
of opinion either one way or the otherf.  I believe, Mr. (Chairman,




No. 44.]


199


and Senator Grady, that you would have said before 1894 that if
that thing got one-fourth of one per cent. majority, it would give
no warrant for taking away our municipal life.
MR. GRADY:
I stand on the position of Mr. Woodhouse; I believe in the
principle of representation. I would give the same weight to a
majority of one as to a majority of a million.
MR. BRUSH:
If I understand it, the object here is to get the sentiment of the
people as to their wishes in this matter. The sentiment of 1894,
you think, is not the sentiment of 1896.
MR. REDFIELD:
I do.
MR. AUSTIN:
Then we might have to settle a hundred times.
MR. REDFIELD:
Not quite; the question was not then discussed as fully as it has
been since. Now there is more light. Our friends say the light
is all with them, but we believe it is all with us. We are willing
to pledge ourselves; are they not willing?
AM I. AUSTIN:
Isn't it true, according to your statement, that the people in
Brooklyn to-day are so ignorant that they do not know which way
to vote?
MR. REDFIELD:
No, sir; I did not say that; what I said was this, that they were
not informed as to all members of the consolidation, commission.
Can you state them all? Can you from memory repeat them all
to me? Can you, Senator Page; I ask the gentlemen here how




200


[SENATE,


many of them can repeat the names of the consolidation commission?
MR. LEXOW:
That isn't it. I think every Brooklynite who takes any interest
in this city knows that Mr. Stranahan and Mr. Linton have, for
five years, been at the head of the consolidation movement in this
city, and if there is such a strong feeling against consolidation,
how is it that no serious obstacle has been put in their way?
MR. REDFIELD:
I can not answer your question. I do know, however, that it is
known in Brooklyn that Senator Lexow is interested in this matter and is very intent to establish the consolidation of these two
cities.
MR. LEXOW:
You have absolutely no business or authority to make any such
statement. It is not becoming your situation as a speaker for the
Anti-consolidation League, and you certainly do not either add
weight to your argument or show yourself possessed of the qualities of a gentleman in making any such statement. For myself, I
can only say this, that as the chairman of this committee I am
paying more than usual attention to the speeches and will decide
the question, as far as I am concerned, on the merits.
MR. REDFIELD:
Als regards my being a gentleman, that does not rest with the
committee to say; as regards my business to say what I said
that may be a matter of debate; as regards my reasons for what
I said, I am satisfied they are correct.
Mr. Chairman: I proceed now to say that resubmission has the
very best consolidation authority, for Mr. Edward F. Linton
said, in an address before the cities commission of the Senate, on
February 20, 1895, that if there had been thirty per cent. of the
vote in favor of consolidation it would not have been a reason




No. 44.]


201


to abandon the undertaking, "it would have been a very good
basis to follow up."  Having thus openly proclaimed, in Febru-;ary, 1895, that they would not have stopped if the vote had been
three out of seven in their favor, they would have gone on, an
argument against resubmission from their lips would seem to
come with very slight weight.
I now take up the speech of Mr. Jenkins, and his statement
that 75 per cent. of all the people in the eastern district were in
favor of consolidation is flatly denied by Mr. Bryant. I offered
to produce over 6,000 enrolled voters more than favored consolidation in 1894, from the eastern district, now opposed to
consolidation.
But I pass on to another statement, which was made with great
eclat. He said, I have a petition which represents "nearly all
the banks " of the city of Brooklyn. And it was said later by Mr.
Jenkins that there were " but two or three" that were not there,
and by Mr. Chauncey, that that list represented "three-quarters
of all the banking institutions of this city and county."  And yet
I have before me a list of fourteen banks that had not signed the
petition, and no savings banks are included in that list. I do not
doubt that some of these gentlemen in these banks that were not
mentioned may favor consolidation, but I do say that when it was
said to this committee that they represent " three-quarters," or
that it represented " all but two or three," that they deceived this
committee, and that the fact should be made clear. This should
be done upon a truthful basis, should it not?
Now, the remarkable speech of Mr. Frank Bailey on the same
day. He gives a lot of figures about the assessed valuation of
Brooklyn, saying that in 1883 it was $229,00,000, it was
$280,000,000; a trifling error there of $50,000,000. He says there
was a gain in the ten years before of $65,000,000; that is a mistake,
it was $82,000,000.  And so the whole later gain, stated as
$267,000,(00, is about $50,000,000 too much. And this same characteristic, to a greater or less degree, passes through his entire
argument.
[Senate, No. 44.]     26




202


[SENATE,.


I come now, however, to his statement that Brooklyn's gain in
taxable resources during the next year can not possibly be more
than $6,000,000. but note from the city records that during 1895
buildings to an estimated value of $12,000,000 have been erected.
I offer to show proof to you froin the department of buildings that
553 more buildings were completed in 1895 than in 1894, at an
estimated cost of almost $12,000,000. And Mr. Bailev's whole
deduction, from his $6,000,000 statement, is entirely imaginary.
He speaks of New York being " generous to her annexed district."
Yes, if to take $1,000,000 in taxes to give back $300,000 out of it, is
generosity, so she has. If to give them their firsi school-lhouse
fifteen years after annexation is just, she is just; if to give them
one school-house where there was a year ago habitually thirty
inches of water in the cellar is generosity, she shows generosity.
But I pass to Mr. Bailey's chief statement and argument for
the houselolders of Brooklyn, to the effect that the " average rate
of interest " on mortgages in New York city is 4- per cent. The
statement is not correct. In 1895 more than $48,001)0,0)0 was
loaned on bond and mortgage in New York at rates exceeding 5
per cent., thus leaving out of a total of $125,000,00( that was
loaned in New York city only $58,000,000 that was loaned at less
than 5 per cent. It is also true, on the authority of the Record
and Guide, that more loans were made in New York, both iln number and amount, in 1895 at rates over 5 per cent. than in Kings
county. There were 6,431 mortgages in New York and t;,300 in
Brooklyn placed at over 5 per cent. I take this from the Real
Estate Recorder and Guide; 15,000 mortgages in all, 6,4)00 ait over
five per cent., 6,500 at five per cent., and 2,000( at less than five per
cent. So the average rate would be about five per cent; quite that
if not a fraction more. But inasmuchl as Mr. Bailey's whole argument was based upon the alleged difference of interest rate, it is
all proven to be entirely imaginary. For the low-priced loans
are on the large business buildings, gilt-edged property- and in
amounts of fifty per cent of values or less, and not as a whole
upon the small residences. The rate of intertest on the average
dwelling-houses in New York, is according to the recoid, the




N;o. 44.]


203


same as here. And I am authorized to say for two savings banks:
in this city, in neither is one loan over five per cent., while a number are at four and one-half, and they have several other records
of mortgages at from four and one-half to four and three-quarters.
MR. GRADY:
The second mortgage might be placed in New York at over
five per cent. and the first mortgage might be, placed at five per
cent. and that wouldn't show the rate of interest. You have to
have the character of the mortgage. The practical situation of
New York is, that upon any residential property in New York, you
can place a first mortgage of sixty-six per cent. of its value at five
per cent. Can you do that in Brooklyn?
MR. REDFIELD:
I do not question that; I believe it is possible here to obtain
loans of sixty-seven at five per cent. on all first class property. I
am told that Mr. Bailey's own company is loaning it every day at
that per cent. All I can say now is that it is incorrect to argue
fromn that alleged difference of one per cent. in favor of the home
owners in New York as against the home owner here in Brooklyn.
As a matter of fact the result has been such that here we have now
over 7,000 more dwellings than there are in New York for a population three-fifths the amount. So we can not be so heavily burdened
by this alleged difference in mortgage interest as to prevent our
housing our people much more comfortably than it has been done
over there. It would be perfectly easy to go on with this speech
and point out other inaccuracies, but I come down to where
Senator Brush said during Mr. Bailey's spech than an increase of
ten mills on the New York tax rate would equalize the taxes, and
I point out to you that to even the matter up as suggested would
bring an additional tax burden on New York city per annum of
$15,000,000. I have had an actuary go over the tax levy for 1895
to find out what would be the increased taxes in New York city




204


[SENATE,


if they were equalized, as proposed under consolidation, and his
report was that if the expenditures were maintained as in that
year, and the taxes and rates of assessment made equal, there
would be an increase of more than $6,000,000 per annum in New
York city taxes.
MR. GRADY:
I don't understand the force of that. Is there any suggestion
anywhere that under consolidation the taxes wouldn't be equal?
MR. REDFIELD:
I have never heard anybody from New York city offer the least
guaranty or suggestion that they would assume any of Brooklyn's
taxes, and I have heard it said that there were senators in the
last legislature who said the idea was preposterous and would not
be attempted.
IMR. GRADY:
I do not understand that there can be any consolidation so that we can take Brooklyn's property and leave;Brooklyn's debts; my idea is that these  cities are  consolidated and that the government becomes one, and there
must be equality of taxes. I am not making a declaration that
is binding upon New York unless I am supported by law. Is
there any suspicion that a debt now existing in Brooklyn is to be
left a lien upon Brooklyn's real estate as a part of the city of New
York? I want to say that New York may not get in love with
consolidation, but she never will enter into any sort of govermental
partnership that is not founded upon principles of honor and good
faith.
MR. REDFIELD:
And there is nothing in the law, as the committee well know,
as it stands now, or in the bill introduced, to prevent unequal
taxation hereafter. The law simply says that bills will be pre



_No. 44.]


205


pared which, " when they shall have been enacted," will provide
for it. But there is no guarantee that those bills will be enacted
and there is nothing after enactment to prevent any improvement
being assessed upon any part of the consolidated city, just as Williamsburgh is exempted from Prospect Park assessment. There
can be nothing to prevent a continuance of that law. Equal
taxation is an impossibility to guarantee; this law does not provide it; this law can not provide it; it does not pretend to. It says
bills shall be prepared for it. If this Legislature were to enact
laws the next Legislature can repeal them, and if it does not repeal
them other laws can be passed, and if it does not repeal them
another Legislature may. There is nothing in this bill, and there
can be nothing in this bill to guarantee, to warrant equal taxation
permanently.
MR. GRADY:
All I can do is to guarantee to you that no citizen of New
York city who has anything at stake, either in the present or in
the future of the city, will ask for any union that is not based
upon making the territory one in fact as well as one in name,
and applying the general system of taxation for every purpose
from one end of the city to the other, and the rate of assessment
equal from one end of the city to the other. I claim for the people
of the city of New York, and I am proud to be able to speak for
the humblest laborer as well as for -the millionaire, that they have
no sort of corrupt or debased idea that would allow them to
exercise their power for any inequality of taxation, although of
course New York could not promise equal taxation now.
MR. REDFIELD:
I am very far from wishing to cast upon the people of New
York any aspersion, that is not my thought; I am simply dealing
with the legal aspects' of the question, that equal taxation can
not be guaranteed in the future.




206


[SENATE,


MnR. AUSTIN:
If as you state, in order to e(qualize the taxation the tax burden
of New York city must be increased.,$64)(),000() and that of 1Brooklyn relieved to the same extent, how could the people of Brooklyn
find fault with it.
MR. REDFIELD:
I don't L-ink tfhey would find fault with it.
I now pass on to say that-the natur-al result of consolidation
is an increnase in taxation. Mr,. Schieren has testified before this
committee tlhat the effect of consolidating the county towns with
Brooklyn i!;Is been to bring heavy burdens upon it. Corporation
counsetl Sucott, of New York, and the comptroller of (New York city
both are tills morning on record as statingj publicly tlhat the effect
of the:annexaltion of part of Westchester co(unty has been largely
to increase her burden, which is six and one(-half million more
than she paid last year, partly beclause of the increased territory
from Westchester County. Those gentlemen, each for their own
-city speak of the burdens brought upon those cities by the annexations of the outlying towns. And if you add Long Island City
and Queens County, and if vou add to that all of Staten Island,
the process which the comptroller of New York city has pointed
out, and which our mayor has pointed out is simply continued
to a larger extent. New York must assume not only her own
burden but those of Queens County, Kings County and Richmond
County, and the inevitable result of the assumption of such burdens is a large increase of taxatioln over the present rate. It is
perfectly certain, it seems to ne, that the assumption by the
Greater New York, if it come to be, of the necessity of providing
improvements for Staten Island and Queens county will result in
a very heavily increased tax rate throughout that city over that
which Brooklyn will achieve for herself if she remained independent. And in that I am supported by Mr. Alfred T. ]White




No. 44.]


207


in his statement. I have only time to say that all thie assertions
made before you of TBrooklyn's inability to take care of herself
are flatly contradicted by him and by Mayor Schieren. And I
would call your attention to this statement published by the Consolidationl League and distributed widely in a pamphlet furnished
by them. If consolidation be rejected and if municipal rapid transit be ordered the burden of taxation on un) New York will yet
drive thousands to Brooklyn to escape it.
One final word. If there were no other reason against consolidation it is sufficient reason would be found in the condition
of our public schools. It was said by Mr. Jenkins upon this floor,
that Brooklyn can not provide schools for her children. The
fact is, and the superintendent of public instruction will be here
to-morrow to tell you so that during the year 1896 every child over
six years of age wanting a sitting in our schools will be given it.
The land is already owned by the city, and the buildings are
partly under construction to accomplish this, and that statement
of Mr. Jenkins is absolutely untrue, and, gentlemen, it should not
have any weight in your minds, whatever. On the other hand
the city of New York to-day has over 50,000 children who can
find no seats in her public schools, by the official statements. I
put it very moderately, I may quote the New York Times, which
says the condition of the public schools in New York is outrageous,
the Forum which says that flesh and blood and one's purse are
alike abused by the New York schools. It would be like going
from light to darkness to permit our public schools to go under
the control of New York.
MR. LYNCH:
Mr. Redfield says that taxation is not equal, but we make a
difference between taxes and assessments, and we include some
of the taxes in a special assessemnt. The taxes for mayor and all
general purposes are equal, I am proud to say, and when special
assessments are made they are included in the tax bill.




208


[SENATE,


MR. REDFIELD:
I do not know about the detail of that further, than to say this,
that on the back of every Brooklyn tax bill is found a different
rate for every ward in the city. And the share of taxes which is
paid for Prospect park is not included in the eastern district tax.
MR. LYNCH:
I mean to say that when the idea is given out that the general
tax levy of Brooklyn is not equal all over the city, this is a mistake.
That when we have a special assessment on a particular district,
the amount of that assessment annually is put in the tax bills of
property owners in that particular district, and of course it
increases the rate of that district over the other.
MR. GRADY:
Is the expense of the maintenance of Prospect park put in the
general tax levy?
MR. LYNCH:
I can not answer that direct question. I know of other special
assessments that are included in the tax bill. The amount of
the assessment is added to the tax list in that district. It is a
matter of bookkeeping. We all pay the same amount for the
support of the mayor, aldermen, street cleaning and such expenses,
but in one district they may want to have a Prospect park or as
in one district here, there may be an expense of $100,000 for a street
sewer and that particular sewer is added to the taxes of that
district.
MR. GRADY:
Does the maintenance of your park constitute a city tax?
MR. MUMFORD:
Perhaps I can make this very clear to you. When the property was purchased for Prospect park, the purchase money for
that property was taxed on what was then understood as the




No. 44.]


209


western district of Brooklyn, and still continues, and the interest
on the bonds still unpaid or being paid from year to year, is taxed on
western district of the city, including all the wards from one to
twelve. The cost of the maintenance of Prospect park, and of all
the departments of the city, is a general tax    upon the
entire city, including the western and eastern districts.
The way that came about, at the time that Prospect park
was begun, or the purchase of the property was begun, the
miayolr of the city was Mr. Kalbfleisch; he was a sturdy old
Dutchman. He came from the eastern district and he represented
more especially the eastern district. Because by his efforts and his
efforts alone, that the eastern district from which he came and
which he lived, and in which he was more interested than in the
whole city, that this act was put in that the western district,
having the benefit from it, that the western district should pay
for it, and she is paying for it to-day. It was claimed by
Mayor Kalbfleisch at that time, and those who stood with him,
that this park was absolutely of no benefit and no use to the wards
of the eastern district, and that was the argument put forth why
the eastern district should not be taxed for that purpose. But
if you will go with me to-day to Bedford avenue which crosses
from north to south, you will find that the people of the eastern
district are having just as much benefit of that park to-day, and
have for years, as the people in the western district.
The following letters from W. J. Gilbert, and one from Henry W.
Bragg of Boston, were handed to the commission:
206 HARRISON STREET, BROOKLYN, N. Y.,
January 23, 1896.
To the Chairman of the Legislative Committee on the Matter of
Consolidation:
Dear Sir.- Two meetings have been held in this city by the
committee appointed in Albany to examine into the question of
consolidating the cities of New York and Brooklyn. There is
[Senate, No. 44.]     27




210


[SENATE,


deep interest in the matter and widespread anxiety concerning
the result. The committee has listened to the arguments of some
of our leaders upon both sides of the question; will you kindly
give a few moments' attention to one of the rank and file - one is
a rent-payer and who has lived in Brooklyn more than twenty
years. I am a Republican, but I wish to speak mainly as a citizen. The question, ih itself, is not one of party. There are
Republicans and Democrats on both sides.
First, speaking as a citizen, I repeat the statement, " It was
not generally understood that the vote of 1894 was to be conclusive." Indeed, we were distinctly assured to the contrary, and
many voted on one side or the other -just as they did on the
proposed constitutional amendments - because the votes were
put in their hands as a part of a large and confusing assortment.
Most of the constitutional amendments proposed were of little
or no interest to us. I voted against consolidation without having given the matter much consideration, simply because 1
thought we should altogether lose our independence under the
enormous vote of New York. A further and careful study of the
matter has led many people who voted for consolidation to change
their minds, and they now oppose consolidation on any terms.
The chairman is reported to have asked if the vote of 1894 was
to be considered a mere expression of opinion, would not the
same argument be used in the event of a resubmission. I am
decidedly of opinion that the answer to this inquiry is " No."
I repeat that there was no general knowledge of the purpose
of the vote, as it is now claimed. I scarce recollect hearing of the
matter until a few days before the election, and had given no
special thought to it. Such, I am assured, is exactly the position
of many others. Some gentlemen on the other side take a different view, and say that vote was intended to decide the-question
at once.
It is due to each side to suppose that both were absolutely
honest in this matter,-and it goes to prove there existed no general
knowledge upon the subject.
But now the question has been thoroughly considered in all its




No. 44.]


211


bearings, every one knows what will be involved in the result of
another vote, and the wish expressed by the majority will, I am
confident, be accepted as decisive.
I beg to remind the committee that of the vote of 1894, the
majority of the city of Brooklyn -as the city had existed for
years- was against consolidation; that only a bare majority of a
couple of hundred could be counted by including the vote of two
outlying sections that had just moved within the city limits, and
that the affirmative vote, all told, scarce included one-third of the
legal voters.
But it is contended that the election did, anyhow, show a majority in favor, and therefore the scheme should be carried out. I
protest against this as unfair.
In an ordinary election, it is right that the majority, however
small, should prevail, for the reason that the people have their
remedy at the ensuing election.
But this all-important proviso does not hold here; consolidation once effected will be final - there will be no appeal. No
action so grave and important, so far-reaching and irremediable,
should be taken 'by the Legislature except upon the assured majority of the registered vote. Republican government depends upon
the will of the governed. We contend that no authority has been
given, nor will be given, to break up the city of Brooklyn and
merge it in New York. Other gentlemen take the opposite ground.
Then, in all fairness and justice, let the matter be tried, now
that we all understand it.
Our study of this matter leads us to object, as citizens, to consolidation, because of the extreme difference, now prevailing
between the cost of dwellings and of rents, of expenditures and
the general condition of the two cities, and we fear higher rents
and higher taxes. Gentlemen speak of bridges to be thrown
over the East river.and other great improvements to be made
when the union is accomplished. But I beg respectfully to ask
you who is going to pay for them, and how can the amount now
collected in Brooklyn for taxes be reduced? Will New York, as
now constituted, contribute a single panny? I think not. Now




212


[SENATE,


and henceforth, under all circumstances, I suggest as a certainty
that all moneys spent on this side of the river must be raised on
this side of the river. It has been asked, why are all the Brooklyn representatives opposed to consolidation? It may not be quite
right to put the question in this form. They are opposed to consolidation without a full referendum of the people, now that the
matter is generally understood. The anti-consolidation feeling
was so strong here at election time that this promise was
demanded of each, and it is due to them to say that, so far as I
know, the promise was given cheerfully as one demanded by common justice.
In this connection I would call your attention to the petition
presented by Mr. Abraham on Saturday, and his remarks in the
same tone urging consolidation, "providing, among other things,
for attaining an equal and uniform rate of taxation and uniform
valuations for purposes of taxation."
Now the bill proposed at Albany, does not, as I understand it,
secure anything of the kind, and without such security the petition goes for nothing. No man who signed that petition can be
held for a moment as supporting a forced consolidatiorn. The
terms of which are unknown.
The extreme difference in the conditions prevailing in the two
cities will make it almost, if not quite impossible to establish any
"uniform valuation for purposes of taxation." The rate can of
course be equalized, but I can see but two ways to accomplish
this. Altholugh not quite up to those figures, the rate of taxation
in New York we may set at 2 per cent. and in Brooklyn 3 per cent.
Equalization can be effected by increasing the rate in New
York-which will hardly please the citizens of that locality and
will be of no advantage to Brooklyn-or lowering the rate and
increasing the assessments in Brooklyn. This we can not accept
as a satisfactory solution. A householder who now pays 3 per
cent. on a valuation of $10,00()  will hardly feel richer when his
tax bill is rendered at 2 per cent. on $15,000. The difficulties of
selling his property will be greatly enhanced, and increased rents
will necessarily follow increased assessments. More than this,




No. 44.]


213


with the tax rate once reduced to 2 per cent. there will be continual temptation before the party in power to venture upon expenditures under which the rate will steadily but surely rise
again, and our last condition be worse than now.
We object to losing our name of Brooklyn and what reputation
it has acquired. Take away our name and henceforth it is almost
inevitable that the maps and the postmaster will describe all the
section on this side of the river under the offensive name of "East
New York." If the members of the committee were all residents
of Brooklyn they would realize that this possibility is unpleasant
in the extreme.
With regard to the political side of the question I beg to remind
the committee that the adherents of the two great parties in Brooklyn are merely equal in numbers, but neither can claim a majority.
To be more particular, about 45 per cent. of the voters are democrats and 40 per cent. Republicans. The remaining 15 per cent.
represents the independent vote.
There are perfectly able men in both parties and we can live in
peace and comfort which ever side may win in. the election. If
the evil element which clings to the skirts of every party leads
to objectionable measures on the part of those in authority,
matters can be reformed when the next election comes by the
powerful aid of the independent vote. But if Brooklyn is made
a mere suburb of New York we shall be entirely under the control,
for taxation and every other purpose, of the Democratic leaders
in New York. Brooklyn democrats will object because, in place
of the absolute power in their hands, when in control, they will
hereafter be wholly under the dominion of the leaders in New
York and get only a few crumbs now and then from the political
table, while the Republican vote will be entirely useless and its
influence in the city obliterated.
It is therefore, for the interests of every citizen in Brooklyn
that we shall be let entirely alone-we want no interferencewe can manage our own affairs and we demand our right to do it.
Very respectfully yours.
WILLIAM J. GILBERT.




214


BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 23, 1896.
To the Republican Members of the Committee:
Gentlemen.- As a Republican I call your' earnest attention to
the perilous condition in which the party is now placed in this city
- and consequently in the State - there are 70,000 Republican
voters here whose right to govern themeselves is threatened with
extinction, and the power to accomplish this is in the hands of
the leaders of their own party at Albany. Will you not give this
matter very earnest consideration. The feeling is far deeper
here than some gentlemen seem to imagine.
What reason can be urged that will justify the wiping out of a
city with nearly a Republican majority and making political
enemies of 70,000 Republicans who will deem themselves outraged
by enforced consolidation. I do not say that all these 70,000 are
now against consolidation, but I do say it is my firm belief after
years of residence here and well knowing the present state of
feeling, that the passage of the simplest act looking to consolidation, except one of plain resubmission, will cost 10,000 Republican
votes - an actual consolidation bill will increase the disaffected
to 30,000 this year imperilling both State and national election 
and another year, as the miseries of the case are more distinctly
realized the Republican vote may entirely disappear. Why should
a people who feel themselves deeply injured and disfranchised do
anything to assist the Republican party elsewhere in the State
or nation?
It seems to me that the noisy New York World and the Democrats in New York who are clamoring for consolidation, have
before them not only the view of absolute control here - to the
exclusion of local Democrats - but they count on the sure disaffection in the Republican party to put the State at the ensuing
presidential election securely in the Democratic column.
I implore you to consider this matter with care. As political
friends and associates we are astonished at the dangerous position we find ourselves in, and that to at the hands of those to
whose political protection and assistance we may honestly claim




No. 44.]


215


a right. It is hard to believe and we can not believe that the
committee will allow this act to be forced upon us. The peril
to which the Republican vote in the city of New York is already
exposed will require the greatest care on the part of Republican
managers to save the State - why incur any additional risk?
The Republicans of Brooklyn ought to have absolute protection
from the Republican leaders at Albany. It would seem to be
plainly for the interest of the party - without any reference to our
personal and political rights - to prevent consolidation under
all circumstances so long as it was possible to prevent it.
No one at this time can be regarded as a friend who does not
work for and help us. We want actual service - we are dissatisfied with the governor who goes about with his head in the
clouds. He can help us, and if he doesn't we will hold him as an
accomplice. He will surely be defeated for the presidency, if
nominated, as will any State ticket that bears the name of a
member of the Senate or Assembly, who does not henceforth work
heartily and earnestly for the welfare of Brooklyn. Pass any consolidation act and Republican voters in Brooklyn, disfranchised
in all but the right to vote for the benefit of others, can not be
expected to go to the polls for that purpose.
If we can not prevent we can punish, and we will do so in
November.
Yours very respectfully,
WILLIAM J. GILBERT.
BOSTON, January 23, 1896.
WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, EsQ., President League of Loyal Citizens,
Brooklyn, N. Y.:
Dear Sir.-Yours of the 21st instant is received. Upon so short
a notice it is impossible to give you such statistics as could be
obtained from the different official records of taxation and valuations upon proper research, but perhaps I can state general facts,




216


[SENATE,


based upon personal observation and knowledge, which will be
quite as useful for your purpose.
I was city solicitor of Charlestown during the four years first
prior to its annexation to Boston, and was necessarily familiar
with all the city departments and the general affairs of the city.
For thirty years I have also been the solicitor of the Warren
Institution for Savings, which has deposits of over eight millions
and nearly all of its loans upon real estate have passed through
my hands, and thus I have always been familiar with the market
values of real estate in this vicinity.
There can be no question but what there has been a steady decline in such values since the date of its annexation in 1874, and
that such decline is universal throughout the annexed district,
except as to the very cheapest kind of property, which, perhaps,
has not changed materially as to value. Residential property
has depreciated fully fifty per cent. and the character of the
population has greatly changed for the worse. Scarcely one of
the old families are now represented in the district, and there
has not been erected within the past fifteen years, what would be
called a first-class residence, notwithstanding the district was
considered an ideal location for residence, by reason of the natural
conformation of the land, which afforded perfect drainage, and
unrivalled outlook over the Charles and Mystic rivers and Boston
harbor, and better than all, it was within fifteen minutes' walk
of State street, and the business centers of Boston. These conditions have not been changed except by the increased facilities
of transit by electric roads, but these have not staid the decline.
Business property has depreciated at least thirty per cent. notwithstanding the population has increased twenty-five per cent.
It is comparatively easy to establish facts of this kind, but usually
more difficult to ascertain the causes. It is generally conceded
by those whose judgment is entitled to the most consideration,
that annexation is the cause of this decline in all that goes to
promote the prosperity of a city, and to me that cause appears a
perfectly adequate one, for the following reasons:
First. Annexation has swept away every vestige of local pride




No. 44.]


217


and spirit. The cry was at once, "A Greater Boston," and all
local enterprise was merged and overwhelmed by the desire to
improve undeveloped property in the more distant suburbs and a
constant wrangling among the city representatives of the different
territories to obtain appropriations for local improvements, and
the result was combinations whereby the annexed district was
practically ignored.
Second. It destroyed all sense of local government and responsibility of representatives to the people. The needs and claims
of the district were ignored, and we have had no redress. Whoever we elected from our district, were out-voted, as the original
Boston had a much larger representation by reason'of its greater
population than all the annexed districts combined, and the result
is obvious. The people soon lost all interest and either moved
to the city proper where their claims would receive consideration,
or went into the adjoining towns where their influence would
count for something.
Third. The rate of taxation per thousand is a little less than
before annexation, but the assessors' valuation is increased so
that the burden of taxation remains substantially the same,
except as it is affected decreased rentals.
There are other reasons which might be presented showing
the direct connection between annexation and the present depression in values and interest, but those reasons are of themselves
sufficient to my mind, and I may add that the general consensus
of opinion among those who have considered the matter, sustains
this view.
Very truly yours.
HENRY W. BRAGG.
January 24, 1896, 2.50 P. M.
NELSON G. CARMAN:
Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee: There are
two reasons why I appear here this afternoon. One is because I
am a citizen of Brooklyn, taking a deep interest in this question
[Senate, No. 44.]     28




218


[SENATE,


of consolidation, as a considerable property-owner in this town.
The main reason why I appear here is to get from the embarrassing position of what might be termed getting astride of the
Schomburgh line. I was pictured as an anti-cionsolidationist in
a New York newspaper on the occasion of a big meeting in the
Academy of Music on January 13. Owing to a mistake of my
own and that of a reporter, I inadvertently got my name on the
call of the Academy of Music meeting that took place that night,
as going in favor of resubmission. I do not want to face both
ways on this subject, and I want to be put on record as for consolidation. As a real estate man, I am utterly opposed to resubmission, as calculated to establish a vicious precedent. Even
though the new vote should be for resubmission, I have too much
confidence in the judgment of the people to believe that it would
be against consolidation.  The question has been widely discussed, the local press was a unit against consolidation, and the
vote of 1894 was larger than that on the constitutional amendment by 20,000. Nothing shown by the Loyal League convinces
me that there is now a great change of sentiment for resubmission. I wonder why the committee come here. They come to
feel the pulse; but on any ordinary subject the people could feel
the pulse of Brooklyn and go back to Albany as wise as they
came. Those arguing against consolidation are men of professional pursuits and sentimentalists, such as lawyers and ministers. The consolidationists are business men, drygoods men,
having industrial and financial and commercial interests. The
Rev. Dr. Cuyler has said that this was a homogeneous city, and
that annexation would be a civic assassination, or something
like that. He could not imagine, in 1853, when it was proposed
to annex Williamsburgh to Brooklyn, that some venerable man
had objected on the same line; it would have been about as sensible. All that was left of Williamsburgh to-day was a more or
less fragrant memory. There was always an active and vigilant
minority that opposed reform and they were necessary to bring
out the real arguments. I will not speak about equal taxation,
or of bridge interests, or of the inadequacy of Brooklyn alone to




No. 44.]


219


meet the needs of the people. The primacy and prestige of New
York should prevail.
EUGENE G. BLACKFORD:
Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee: I appear
here as a citizen and as a taxpayer of the city of Brooklyn, to
place myself on record as being in favor of consolidation and
opposed to resubmission. Not that I fear resubmission, because,
if I believe that resubmission was proper and right, I think we
would have an immensely larger majority in favor of consolidation. In my capacity as president of the Bedford Bank, with
2,000 or more depositors, it is my privilege to come in contact with
those people, and it is very rare indeed that we find one of them
opposed to consolidation. In forty-four or forty-five stockholders, there are only two, a father and son, that are opposed to consolidation. I am also connected with three other banking institutions, and in all of these I find the sentiment overwhelmingly in
favor of consolidation. I am also a taxpayer in the city of New
York. I have a fair opportunity to compare the cost of owning
property in the two cities and the difference in favor of New
York is nearly one-half. Knowing these things, my interests are
entirely in the line of consolidation. I believe the taxation will
be very much smaller under consolidation. There is a large
amount of trust funds in New York in which the holders are
restricted, either in real estate or in mortgages, to the city of
New York. By consolidation this capital will be released, and
we will be able to place the mortgages on our property at moderate rates. We will also get rid of the discrimination against
Brooklyn interests and Brooklyn institutions. All of these things
have probably been rehearsed to you over and over again. I
don't know as I want to say anything more to-day. I simply
came here to place myself in favor of consolidation.
PERCY G. WILLIAMS:
Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am entirely
unprepared for this call. I came in merely as a spectator. I am




220


[SENATE,


one of those unfortunate individuals known as real estate dealers
and landowners, and yet I think the real estate interests make the
importance of a town. What are the facts of real estate in Brooklyn to-day? We find there is absolutely no demand for real estate
here. There is not one house in the city of Brooklyn that can be
sold for the amount of purchase price. Now, the question is,
what causes this? Taxes too high? That must be determined.
I think something should be said from the standpoint of a person
who buys and sells real estate as a means of livelihood. I think
the prosperity of the city depends upon the real estate values of
that city. Take a city where values are fixed higher, there is no
trouble at any time in disposing of a common piece of property;
but in this city you can not do that. In this city the real estate
interests are stagnant; there is very great trouble in disposing of
property. I find there is absolutely no demand for real estate.
You can notice signs "For Sale and To Rent " all over the city.
I am certain that there is not one house in 100 all over the city of
Brooklyn that can be sold for the price for which it was purchased. As an instance, I bought, a few years ago, a very fine
brownstone house upon one of the residence streets in the city of
Brooklyn, and after holding it for five years, and paying for several improvements in the vicinity, I was obliged to sell it for ten
per cent. less than the purchase price.
Another point, it is claimed that this question of consolidation
wasnot properly beforethe peopleatthe lastelection. Ithink itwas.
We had opposed to it all the newspapers in the city of Brooklyn,
with the exception of a little morning daily of very small circulation. All the consolidationists were able to do with the limited
means that they had was to distribute a number of pamphlets
among the people of the city of Brooklyn. That was all that was
done. Yet in spite of the opposition of all the newspapers, the
question was carried. It was charged that it was simply a movement of the real estate speculators and land boomers, but instead
of all that it was carried by a decisive majority. I think that
most of the Loyal Leaguers of Brooklyn that are opposed to consolidation are perfectly honest in! their conviction that it is




No. 44.]


221


not for the best interests of Brooklyn to have consolidation. I
am willing to give them credit for that. I can only say, so far as
I have come in contact with all kinds of people, that the sentiment of Brooklyn is overwhelmingly in favor of consolidation.
I think if it were voted upon the vote would be decidedly in favor
of consolidation.
M. J. MCGRATH:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I have heard
a great deal of this discussion, and I think the most potent argument that has been made against the question of resubmission
was made by the first speaker, Mr. Benedict. He said that the
election of 1894 was a quiet one and that political parties had
taken no part in it. I think that is a great argument for not taking another vote. If another vote were taken it would be carried
out on true political principles, and would not be an, expression
of the will of the people. I think that is what you have come
down here to find out - what the will of the people was then, and
not what it is now. Even if all of New York and all of Brooklyn
are willing that this case should be submitted over again it seems
to me that the districts outside would say no. It is a ridiculous
proposition to me for the officers of this city to come before the
people and ask that this vote be taken over again. I think it
would be in the nature of a crime. On the question of a referendum, I think every good subject of Brooklyn would be delighted
to have a referendum if it were practicable, but to have this charter framed, put a number of very eminent gentlemen to the trouble
of framing a charter, must be cumbersome, and to say that the
voters of this city would take up that charter and study it for
themselves and then vote upon it intelligently is what I don't
believe. Bulky matter, such as this, would not be read by the
ordinary layman; it would be unintelligible to three-fourths of
the voters, and I don't say anything against the intelligence of the
voters of this city. It is practically a legal document; its effect
would not be understood and the result would be an ignorant
vote. It would be taken up by the politicians of both sides, and




222


[SENATS,


whatever their verdict would be would practically be the verdict
of this city. In the heat of an election, I do not think that the
calm judgment of the people would be represented in any such
vote. I do not think that this Legislature or any other Legislature would pass a charter in any such way. A great deal has
been said about the effect of this vote and how it has been gained.
The argument has been used that Gravesend and that Mr.
McKane's subjects voted in favor of consolidation as a little run
in on the city of Brooklyn. As a matter of fact, a year before the
local election she had repudiated McKane and his methods. It is
true that all the county towns voted in favor of consolidation, but
the smallest percentage of majority was in that very town of
Gravesend, and the largest was in New Utrecht, which certainly
had no grudge against Brooklyn. I think that the vote of the
county towns was just as intelligent and as much entitled to
respect as that of Brooklyn; I contend that their voice has just
as much right to be considered as that of the city of Brooklyn.
The city of Brooklyn has grown to what it is to-day simply by the
addition of Bushwick, Williamsburgh and so forth.
MR. LEXOW:
In each of these acquisitions no vote of the people was taken at
all?
MR. MCGRATH:
Oh, no; it was simply that they were taking something in.
Notwithstanding that Brooklyn is such a quiet place and such a
homely place, it seems to me a very peculiar thing that they
should have taken in such a sink of iniquity as Gravesend. I
think Brooklyn, in this consolidation, more than any other place,
needed consolidation. The county towns have not been any burden. It is plain that Brooklyn has about three and a half millions
of a ballot.- How did they get that? By annexing the county
towns. There is nothing else left in Kings county for Brooklyn
to perempt. It has got to the end of its resources; I don't think
it will be more than three or four months before they get to the




No. 44.]


223


end of their tether. There is a vast amount of money that has
been appropriated for improvements which will have to be stopped
unless some sort of revenue is discovered. What Brooklyn wants
is to be stirred up. It wants to get into active contact with a
livelier people. We want a great many new improvements and
we especially want better communications with New York. If
New York and Brooklyn were consolidated both would have a
mutual interest in devoting itself to the improvement of all parts
of the city. The point was raised by the registrar of arrears
about the county towns and what a vast amount of property was
held for taxes. He did not say how much of the property in the
newly annexed towns had risen in value. In speaking of his own
department the registrar made the point that some of the county
towns were in a terrible condition. I think it would be a good
thing for Brooklyn to be taken in, because we are in difficulty.
JOHN H. BURTIS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I have been
seized upon as I came into the room to say something of the
deepest interest to the people of Brooklyn. I have seen Brooklyn
grow from upwards of 300,000 to nearly a million. I was one
of the originators of the first elevated road in Brooklyn. It was
started in my back parlor, and my wife was in the next room
and knew all about it; and I helped start the rapid transit in
other ways. In other words, I have believed in the territory on
this side of the river as being the most delightful and healthful
place for sleeping and eating. I have not believed in it as a
business community. We have more cemeteries convenient than
you will find in any city on earth. It is a good place to die in.
We have been trying to get rapid transit, easy transit, for the
laboring men from the grand old city across the river to this
city, where they could get cheap homes. Where did the opposition come from against rapid transit here?  Public meetings
were held everywhere in this vicinity by the same class in Brooklyn that have developed all the interest there is against consolidation here. Has it ever occurred to the Senator chairman from




224


[SENATE,


the back woods to ask himself why does White, as fine a man as
ever drew breath of life, oppose consolidation; why he lives on
the heights? Just one step and he is in New York. Where is
his property? Below, the City Hall, as near New York as he
can get. All the opponents to consolidation live below the City
Hall. The most distinguished opponent we have, I don't believe
he ever got beyond the City Hall in his life.
MR. BRUSH:
Do you know the districts in which you live and I live gave
500 against consolidation?
MR. BURTIS:
Yes; but they wouldn't do it again. I know what I am talking
about. I have seen thousands of citizens who pay taxes. I represent people who own millions.
MR. LExow:
Please address the committee.
MR. BURTIS:
I thought you could hear me. I wish I could speak so that
people wouldn't laugh, but sometimes I can't. I introduced the
bill for that vote and you helped me pass it like a good country
hayseed. Senator Brush tells you about the majority against it.
If they had known as much as they do to-day they would have
come in hoards - masons, plasterers, painters and tinkers. There
isn't any work here for them. Why? Go all over the country
and you won't find real estate as it is here, dead or dying. I have
been here for thirty years and I have seen widows thrown out of
their homes, and the most lamentable victims, you might say,
but never have I seen such a list of foreclosure sales as are advertised in the columns of the newspapers to-day. I tell you we
are on the verge of bankruptcy. In no other year has this depression been as bad as now.




No. 44.]


225


MR. BRUSH:
Don't you know that there is a great financial depression extending all over the country? 
MR. BURTIS:
Yes, I know that; but there is nothing anywhere like the depression in Brooklyn.
MR. BRUSH:
You say this is a nice place to sleep and to be buried in, intimating that there is no life or business here. Do you know that there
are 10,583 manufacturing establishments in this city?
MR. BURTIS:
Yes, I know it, and there ought to be 10,000 more of them. I
know we have manufacturing places but there should be more -
more.
MR. BRUSH:
Do you know that there are a hundred and nine thousand
persons in the population of Brooklyn that depend on these manufactories for their living? In other words, that one-ninth of the
population in this city work in our own manufacturing establishments here.
MR. BURTIS:
Yes. We have a lot of people working in manufacturing places
here. We have a lot of them in the penitentiary manufacturing
things.
MR. BRUSH:
Then this is not altogether a place of sleeping?
MR. BURTIS:
We have manufacturing places here, to be sure. We have
Brownsville. Perhaps you counted that in with the other places.
[Senate, No. 44.]  29




226


[SENATE,


Oh, we have lots of them, we have quite a few manufacturing
places in this city. But what we want now is the assistance of
New York's wealth. We want help. Help! I say; help! What
a stroke of Providence it was that, through the Legislature, New
York city was induced to pay half the expense of our new bridge.
Could anyone say that Brooklyn would have been able to pay for
that bridge? And why can't we pay for a bridge? I tell you
we are taxed almost to death as it is; why, I have a house worth
$10,500, on which I pay $190 in taxes. Why are we taxed so?
Because we must have the money to pay for our new streets, our
sewers, our schools and parks and municipal necessity. And
yet we have not enough money to provide for sufficient sewers.
We have to pray to heaven that we will not have a heavy rain
storm which will flood our cellars and deluge our streets. And
we need more bridges. But where will we get them unless New
York gives us the money? And New York has as much as offered
to do it. And I tell you the Brooklynites know this. And, Mr.
Chairman, when I think of our representatives from various wards
and districts going up before the Governor of this State and deliberately saying that the people of Brooklyn are against consolidation I imagine it is impossible to know where they found that out.
MR. BRUSH:
I would like to interrupt you for a moment to say that within
the last two weeks I have received resolution after resolution,
letters upon letters from societies and individuals, urging me to
stand for the city and against consolidation. And I have had
only four or five letters from other parties who favored consolidation, and most of these were from real estate dealers. That is
why I went before the Governor.
iMR. BURTIS:
Weil. I am very glrad to know that the real estate dealers have
had time enough to write oni, letter. These real estate men are
not disreputable men -




No. 44.]


227


MR. BRUSH:
I did not cast any such imputation or any reflection upon them.
MR. BURTIS:
Oh, I know he did not cast any imputation upon them, Mr. Chairman. I-Ie didn't get any letters from doctors? No. He didn't
get any from lawyers? No. From journalists?  No. They all
came from real estate men. Well, I say the interests of a great
city are created by its real estate men. They are the men to feel
the pulse for the city's condition. I have but one more remark to
make.   Unite the interests of these great cities, and give to
Brooklyn some of that wealth which she has helped to create.
Give us a chance to reap a little benefit from the work we have
spent there. Unite us legally, as we are naturally.
A VOICE:
Will Mr. Burtis tell us when, in 300 years of the history of
Brooklyn, has New York ever had anything other than opposition
for Brooklyn's interests?
MR. BURTIS:
I have not lived 300 years and can not answer that question.
A VOICE:
MWell, I have lived here half a century and know of many years
more, and never once has New York had anything but ridicule
and contempt for us here.
MR. GRADY.
I would like to know what the assessment was on that $10,500
residence of yours?
MR. BURTIS:
Seven thousand dollars. That is what they assess a $10,500
house for. Just seventy per cent. And that is not an isolated
case. I pay taxes for other people and the assessment is about




228


[SENATE,


the same all the way through. And sometimes it is more. And
there is a house a few doors from mine, worth $7,000, and assessed
for $6,000. Think of that.
J. LOTT VAN NOSTRAND:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am in favor
of this bill of consolidation, and I will give you one or two reasons
why. I am a resident of one of the new wards, the Thirtieth,
and hold police court at Coney Island. The town of Gravesend
gave a very small majority in favor of New York. That was in
1894. In 1893 there would have been three thousand majority
against Greater New York, because the conditions were then
different. My principal reason in favor of Greater Brooklyn is
that I live in a town that was in favor of going into the city of
Brooklyn, because our government was so bad. After we got into
the city of Brooklyn, we tried to get free delivery, and we used
every influence that we knew of to secure that end. We have been
unable to get that. Another reason is that the representatives
of this county should not control the sentiment of the other
legislators. I believe that their opinion was forced from them
by the officers of the Loyal League. I think any delay in granting
consolidation would be an injury.
MR. BRUSH:
I want to correct the impression that my opinion was forced
from me by the League of Loyal Citizens. When they wrote to
me I simply gave an honest opinion.
MR. VAN NOSTRAND:
They know that if they gave their opinion for consolidation,
the influence of the League would be used against them.
ABRAM J. DAILEY:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: It gives me
considerable pleasure to appear before you this afternoon and
say a few words in behalf of what I deem to be the best interests




No. 44.]


229


of these two great municipalities, New York and Brooklyn. I
have been a citizen of Brooklyn for upwards of thirty-eight years
and during all that time have been in the practice of law. From
the time that I first came here, it has always seemed strange to
me that two municipalities so related to each other by a community of interest, should be separated as municipalities. But
it does not necessarily follow because it seems so to me that I am
right in my conclusion; but I am simply giving my views on that
question and some reasons why I come to this conclusion. A very
pertinent question was asked by a distinguished appearing gentleman of Mr. Burtis, just as he way leaving the room, and it was
why New York was persistently opposing what was for the best
interests of Brooklyn. It is precisely that reason that causes
one municipality to do those things that tend to promote its
own interests and confer the least benefit upon the other. In
other words, if New York city can get Brooklyn to do-force
Brooklyn to do certain things, and bear all the burdens itself,
New York will do that every time; that is human nature.
MR. GRADY:
Where is there an illustration?
MR. DAILEY:
The Brooklyn Bridge, in which New York made Brooklyn pay
the largest share.
MR. GRADY:
The Brooklyn bridge was demanded entirely by the people of
Brooklyn.
MR. DAILEY:
New York would have demanded it if she had not been sulky.
MR. GRADY:
New York might just as well have asked for a bridge from New
York to Westchester county. I have been pretty well acquainted




230


[SENATE,


with the legislation of twenty years, but I never knew an instance
where there has been any blow struck by New York city against
Brooklyn.
MR. DAILEY:
The blow consists in a selfish means always taken by a separate
municipality looking out for its own interests. Unite these two
municipalities and you will see a great improvement-an improvement on a wide scale, no jealousies. The only people that I find
in the main, who are opposed to this consolidation are those
people, who by a sort of sentiment have got it into their heads
that they would not sleep quite as well at night, even though
they were in the same house, and in the same streets if this territory was called New York instead of Brooklyn; it is a sort of
sentiment for which I have no respect.
Now, it has been repeated here that the vote should stand. as in
1894; others have said that the vote was the conclusive will and
desire of the people of Brooklyn. Take the total aggre'z.te vote.
There was more than 64,000 votes for and less than 64,000 votes
against consolidation, and a little less than 64,000 did not vote at
all. Now the argument is repeated over and over again tl -t that
is not a fair indication of the feeling of the people on the subject.
It seems to me that it is very decisive. What did those 64,000
people mean? They knew what they were about. They knew
what was being discussed; the question was before the people,
and to say that the people of Brooklyn did not understand this
question of consolidation was to be passed upon, and if they were
opposed, then and there to cast their vote against it, is to declare
the people ignorant to an extent that I will not admit.
MR. LExoW:
Don't you think that the failure of those 64,000 people to vote
was an indication that they did not care which way the matter
was decided?
MR. DAILEY:
No, sir; I think it clearly indicated the reverse - that they
were not opposed to it, and if you take that and add it to the vote




No. 44.]


231


that was cast in favor of consolidation, then you have 128,000
voters who are certainly not opposed to consolidation. That is
the way I look at that vote. We need to have these cities consolidated because it is for the best interests of both that
they should work together in harmony because their interests are
identical. The people of the city of Brooklyn know that we have
not the facilities and accommodations that a great city should
have. I want to say something that is a little critical of bridge
management. It has been such that it will depopulate 50,000 in
two years to come. I know it. There is a small class of people
opposed to consolidation. I do not find many men that did not
vote coming before this committee and saying: " I did not vote
on the subject. It is the people that voted and they are coming
and asking for an opportunity to vote over again. Now, this
consolidation is for the interests of not only these two municipalities, but for the State of New York. I think that the Legislature
of the State of New York can well look upon the vote taken so
decisive. I am glad that you have come to Brooklyn to get the
sense and feeling of the people, but if you were to let them vote
again, you would be no more enlightened. Will you send the
question back? After you get another vote, won't there be another? Some of the gentlemen say not, but I don't believe them.
Let this question be settled and there will be a revival of business.
We have had a fair vote and it should be decisive. Let this
agitation be stopped. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this Legislature should respect that vote which has already been taken and
pass the bill that is now under consideration and let the two municipalities understand that this subject is settled, and settled forever. As I said before, there will be a great revival of business
and there will be better feeling than has existed for ten years past.
The people of the city who are working against it are working
against their best interests. I believe in a higher patriotism than
mere sentiment. I believe in looking to the best interests of the
great municipality. I have no sentiment on this subject. Let
us look and see what is for the best interests    of the
whole people.  Let us have something that we shall be




232


[SENATE,


proud of.   Let us have miles of improved streets.   Let
us have public improvements and beautiful parks and not be in
the stagnant condition that we are at present. Consolidation will
help us complete and carry on these great improvements.
Some people say: "What is to become of our public property? " We will own it. " What will become of Central park? "
We will own it. We will own it with the people of the city of
New York.    Somebody says that we will be governed by
Tammany Hall.    I am  not afraid of Tammany Hall; no
more than I am   of certain influences over here.  Another
thing, if Tammany Hall thinks that they can play any little
jobs on the city of Brooklyn they will find their mistakes.
Let there be no partiality. This million of people have influence
enough and independence enough to wipe out any opposition of
that kind. And we will command the respect of the people of the
city of New York because we occupy that position. I have no
question upon that result. I know New York is very wicked, but
we will make it better. Let us consolidate and we will go over and
help Brother Parkhurst.
H. B. HUBBARD:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I come before
you to discuss this question from a sentimental point of view.
Why should we lose the identity of the city of Brooklyn? If I
looked at the question in that way my feelings would all be
against the union of the two cities. My business is in this
city and my property is situated within this city, all my business
connections are in this city, and my family have been here for 250
years; so if anybody can speak, sentimentally, I would be one.
But as a citizen of this community the first interest to be considered is, whether it is for the interest of the general public, and
private interests as well. I am of the opinion that the best interests of the city of Brooklyn will be benefited. It will be of
benefit to our business interests if we shall be united with the
city of New York; and not only the city of Brooklyn and the city
of New York. but the entire State of New York will be benefited.




No. 44.]


233


The city of Brooklyn is in a peculiar situation; she has a very
large territory, larger than that of the city of New York; we
require sewerage, we require police. We require street lighting
and everything appertaining to a large city. For such a large city
there is no city in the world that is so little of a city; its business
is conducted on the other side of another stream which
separates us from New York. People have private interests here
but all their business is done on the other side of this river. We
of the city of Brooklyn ought to have some of the benefits arising
from the work of our own people. Brooklyn is poor in consequence of the enormous expense incurred in her municipal administration by reason of her peculiar position. But she is still able
to take care of herself, with time, but we ask to be joined so that
we may have the additional credit of a combined city. We can do
the business here. We are now reaching our debt limit, and we
have found it necessary to raise our valuations so that the taxes
are too high. In the city of Brooklyn our tax is about seventy
per cent. of the assessed valuation. In New York, I think it
averages about fifty per cent. on the assessed valuation. The
effect of this is, not that we can not pay but that we pay under
difficulties; we are obliged to pay higher rates of interests than
New York city. We want the credit to enable us to carry on our
business as we want it, and the effect of annexation would be
the equalization of the assessed value of property. Some may say
that we have different values in this city, as may be seen by the
back of the tax bills of 1895, a different value in each ward, but
this is because of general improvements for certain localities;
they are kept separate and that is why our tax rate is not uniform. It should be uniform throughout. It would be a great
benefit if she had increased power to borrow money. She should
have the benefit of a tax on personal property that is now largely
centered in the city of New York. The city of New York needs
our harbor; she needs our wharves, she needs docking; the
best docking facilities are on this side of the river. The shipping
here of heavy freight is, I believe, larger than in New York. New
York has the sea port and is known as the great commercial
[Senate, No. 44.]     30




234


[SENATE,


center of the State of New York, but she needs our docking
facilities to preserve her supremacy. Therefore, consolidation
would be of benefit to both cities in this respect. In the past
there has been great jealousy between the two cities, one growing
rapidly. We have great difficulty in getting one bridge. The city
of Brooklyn, small as she is in proportion to New 'York was
obliged to pay two-thirds of the expense of that bridge. It is
true that it brought a large additional population here. But is
it not true that the large additional population earns its money
and advances the interests of New York by doing its business
there? It is not true that the bridge connecting the lower part of
New York has increased the value of property. If there were no
rivalries or jealousies between these two cities another bridge
would be built, and it would tend to distribute the population in
New York city on the Brooklyn side instead of carrying it over to
Jersey and the extreme end of Westchester county. New York
is a peculiar locality; it is nothing but a narrow strip of land,
and it has no ability to spread unless it connects with Brooklyn.
We do not want these rivalries and these jealousies to keep us
apart any longer. New York has become and is becoming more
and more so every year the place of resid:ence of the extremely
wealthy and of the extremely poor. The poor live in the
tenement-house districts; the wealthy live up town; the great
middle class, the safeguard and the protection of humanity are
driven from New York and seek their residences here; they seek
their residences in New Jersey and in all surrounding counties.
Then comes the question of water supply and everything
of that kind, which can be better managed by combination than
it can singly.
MR. GRADY:
It was stated when the Brooklyn bridge was being constructed
that people from New Jersey and the other outlying districts
would come to New York and Brooklyn to live, but they did not
come along.




No. 44.]


235


MR. HUBBARD:
I think that the best evidence that they did come along is this:
The immense population in the city of Brooklyn since the bridge
was completed; also the fact that this bridge is now taxed to the
very utmost of its carrying power to take care of the people, with
all the ferries that were in existence before the bridge was built
still running and still carrying its own passengers.
MR. GRADY:
They come from New York.
MR. HUBBARD:
New York's population has also largely increased before the
bridge was built.
MR. GRADY:
Naturally it would.
MR. HUBBARD:
But it could not have taken care of the increased population
which has been thrown in part on this side of the river. They
do not emigrate from New York. It was the natural growth of
New York in its business residents seeking homes in other places
than New York city itself. We have saved many from going to
New Jersey that would otherwise have gone there.
MR. GRADY:
I remember that it was promised that we would see nothing
from early morning until late at night but people coming from
New Jersey and finding lodgment in Brooklyn. After the bridge
was built, the Jerseymen did not come along, but at the end of
the bridge there were a number of houses that gave way to large
manufactories, and a good many of the people went over to Brooklyn to take advantage of the cheap rents, advantage of the cheap
houses in Brooklyn, and paid their taxes into your treasury, and
then after breakfast they came over to New York to see if there
was not a little money for them.




2oG


[SENATE,


MR. HUBBARD:
The most singular thing in reference to that is that New York
property, from the bridge to the Battery, is worth from 25 to 100
per cent. more than it was before the bridge was built.
MR. GRADY:
You do not attribute that to the bridge?
MR. HUBBARD:
I attribute it very largely t tthe fact that the increased population and the people that would have been unable to find comfortable residences in New York city came to Brooklyn.
AIMR. GRADY:
Property in New York city has not increased. When I was
a boy. after a man got on the fourth story he was told to stop,
and now they build iron buildings from twenty-two to twenty-five
stories high, and of course that gives to the land an artificial
value. In 1870, when a man went to buy a plot of ground on
Broadway he had in mind that he might possibly erect a five-story
building. When you buy a piece of land now you are confronted
with the possibility of a building twenty-two stories high; that
is what accounts for the increase in the value of land between
the points that you have mentioned. The natural increase that
has come to us has kept us pretty busy.
MR. HUBBARD:
It has kept New York so busy that, with all the increase and all
the buildings, running from four to twenty-two stories high, are
still filled, and the people must seek other localities. It is most
desirable that we should have them in Brooklyn, so that they will
help pay the taxes of the greater municipality, instead of going to
New Jersey and paying their taxes there. It is much better for
us if we can keep them here, and I think we are keeping them
here by that course. New York, also, is the natural, financial and
business center, and we want to do everything that we can to assist




No. 44.]


2d37


New York in that direction, and we can do it by furnishing residences for her business men. We also have a water front which
New York requires, and which New York must have to maintain
her commercial supremacy, and in order to do that she must have
control of the government of this city.  In reference to all
such matters we should be one. We also' have advantages
for manufacturing, and we also have a large acreage of land in
the suburbs of Brooklyn, where manufacturing establishments
that can not be established in New York can locate. We can
build up her power and keep New York in the front rank, because
we have the facilities here for doing it. Look at our magnificent
water fronts. We want to bring money here to increase our
opportunities for business advancement, which will surely follow
consolidation. It seems to me that consolidation should come
at once; the people voted on it two years ago. We should have
it, and have it at once. Pass the act and then determine upon
the minor details of administration for the two cities. You have
plenty of time to do that between now and January 1. 1898.
Between now and then a commission can arrange a satisfactory
plan for governing the two cities in all detail.
Referring to the question of resubmission to the people. The
matter has been submitted. Not only was it submitted, but so
confident were the people in favor of consolidation that they simply rested upon their oars and waited for the verdict of the people.
The matter was thoroughly discussed; every newspaper in the
city of Brooklyn was discussing the question of consolidation, and
they were all opposed to consolidation. Those that felt it was the
interest of the community that consodidation should be had voted
for it, and they carried the day. Those that failed to vote were
the people that had no interest here, and were utterly indifferent
to consolidation or anti-consolidation. Now, if because the ma.
jority of the people have not voted at an election it is necessary
to resubmit the question, you never can do anything. People
might stay at home; because one-quarter, or about twenty-five
per cent. of the total number of registered voters have failed to
vote upon this question is not a sufficient ground for a resubmis



238


[SENATE,


sion of a question that has once been decided by a vote of the
people. They say a majority of the voters did not vote, and
that, therefore, you should resubmit. What is the use of submitting a question to the people for their determination unless
you abide by that determination? But my impression from talking with many people is that the great majority of the people
to-day is in favor of consolidation and believe that it will be for
the best interests of the whole community as well as their private
interests.
MR. BRUSH:
Of course, we are all working for the best interests of our city.
Now I may ask this question; from the arguments of some of the
gentlemen that Brooklyn is not prospering: Do you know how
rapidly the city has increased in population in the last fifty years?
MR. HUBBARD:
I don't know the percentage, but I know the increase has been
very large.
MR. BRUSH:
I can tell you that our population has increased 600,000 in
fifteen years. In the last ten and a half years the increase in the
assessable value of property is $113,000,000; so that it does not
seem that we are going backward.
MR. HUBBARD:
Many of the people are not the owners of property in the city
of Brooklyn. Aside from that question we have an increased
assessed valuation, but are you aware that that increase is made
by way of new buildings, very largely by simply adding so much
assessment each year? And that has not been a natural increase,
but it was done because we were near the limit of our bonded
indebtedness, and we had to issue bonds to make necessary
improvements.




No. 44.]


239


MR. BRUSH:
I think that has been done too much in the past, but we are
increasing very materially. There is a natural increase from this
number of people.
MR. HUBBARD:
The percentage and increase has been very much greater since
the establishment of the Brooklyn bridge; but Brooklyn needs
more bridges and she is not in a position to pay two-thirds of the
expense of additional bridges. She can not bear the burden.
MR. BRUSH:
This argument in favor of building more bridges to New York
is not paying the cost of building the East river bridge.
MR. HUBBARD:
Consolidation will put Brooklyn in a position where she will
receive aid from New York and be able to build the additional
bridges that we need.
MR. BRUSH:
In view of what has occurred in three years, don't you think
that we can go on and build another bridge?
MR. HUBBARD:
iNo. sir. Don't you know that we are now within a very small
amount of the limit for the issue of bonds of the city?
MR. BRUSH:
I know that we are two and a half million more outside of the
limit than we were two years ago.
MR. HUBBARD:
If you will go back to the time before this bridge was built, you
will find that while our expenses were less and the population
less. that we were very near the limit then. We have approached
ihe limit notwithstanding the increase in our population. This




240


[SENATE,


shows the utter inability of the city, without assistance, to build
more bridges.
MR. BRUSH:
I do not dispute the fact that we are very close to the limit;
but it seems to me in view of the prosperity of the last year and
the improvements that have been carried on under the last
administration that there is good prospect for the future.
MR. HUBBARD:
Unless I am mistaken as to the information given me by the
mayor of the city within the past week the bonds necessary to be
issued and called for now will bring us within half a million dollars of our limit.
MR. BRUSH:
That is not my information.
MR. HUBBARD:
That is my information. I think that you will find that I am
correct in that statement.
MR. BRUSH:
You say that the bonds have not been issued but are called for;
if you use the same argument for New York, you will come to
the conclusion that her underground transit scheme would bring
her as close to the limit as we are.
MR. LEXOW:
We are not obliged to build the rapid transit.
MR. HUBBARD:
I am speaking of obligations already incurred and which must
be met. rWe need two or three more bridges and we have no
money with which to build them.
MR. BRUSH:
I agree with you that we need more bridges.




No. 44.]


241


MR. LEXOW:
The vote taken in 1S94 was a- vote of the people and distinct
from a political vote, and if a resubmission is had a political issue
would be raised.
MR. HUBBARD:
At the previous election it was a vote of the people. Of course
it is impossible for me-I have the misfortune not to be a politician-but I think it would be decided on political lines.
COUNTY COURT HOUSE, BROOKLYN, N. Y.,
January 25, 1896.
MR. LExow:
The committee will hold one more continuous session unless it
is necessary to elucidate new points, and we request the speakers
to confine themselves, as nearly as possible to new points.
MR. REDFIELD:
I desire to file with the committee for its consideration to-day,
issues of the Real Estate Record and Guide, of New York city, and
have marked the articles which I desire the committee to consider.
I will also hand to the stenographer several other documents
which I desire incorporated in the record.
S. V. WHITE:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I propose
to abide by my time and not be greedy. I am limited to ten
minutes, and you will not be burdened long with what I have to
say.  I shall confine myself to answering questions asked by
the Hon. Mr. Coombs.
MR. LEXOW:
I want to know if the vote on consolidation in 1894 was not
binding.
[Senate, No. 44.]    31




242


[SENATE,


MR. WHITE:
It is not binding, because it was given out that that vote was
not to be binding. Without charging deliberate fraud, public
servants, in giving out the statement that the vote was not to be
binding, were guilty of making a grave mistake. When the question first came up it was said everywhere that the people of
Brooklyn were to be given an opportunity to vote on the terms.
There were but 33 1-3 per cent. of the voters who voted on the
question in 1894. Give us a chance to vote on it now, and we guarantee you shall have 90 per cent. of the voters express their views
on this subject. The weather will not interfere with us then, I
promise you. We shall be out with our umbrellas and mackintoshes, too, if necessary.
When you say that a vote of 33 1-3 per cent. is to be considered
as binding, it is not only the case of the tail wagging the dog, but
it is a very miserable stump of a tail wagging the dog. In regard
to the bill, I don't know very much about making laws, and I certainly do not want to criticise this bill in the presence of the father
of it, when I am trying to win his favor. It seems to me, however,
that it is a very remarkable bill, for it is a case of suspended animation. Some of the sections of the bill are to go into operation
immediately, while others do not take effect until 1898. The consolidation committee is to be continued in power and it is to prepare bills from time to time to effect the consolidation of the two
cities. It is not possible, then, to get through with the details of
the change immediately. The bill says that consolidation is to be
effected completely on January 1, 1897.
MR. LEXOW:
On January 1, 1898, Mr. White.
MR. WHITE:
Then I have a misprint in my copy, and I shall not, therefore,
need to make my point.




N o. 44.]


243


MR. LEXOW:
The two cities are to elect niayors to take office in 1S98, when
the change could be effected more easily.
MR. WHITE:
Very well, then my next proposition is that as you are the representatives of the people, you should not ask these men to frame a
law for this important transaction. You will not gain anything
if you do. You are not able to bind a succeeding Legislature
which will have to adopt the law so framed. Why not take it
upon yourself to frame a charter and let us vote upon it. It may
be that New York will favor that law - it may be that the country
towns will not want it. Why should New York and Brooklyn
want to take in Tompkinsville and South Oyster Bay, except to
create jobs for laying sewers and other purposes? Let New
'York and Brooklyn vote on the plan. No man here wants to take
in the cabbage and potato lots; let us keep politics out of the
nway; Democrats and Republicans are in earnest here in wanting
to be heard on this thing which affects millions of dollars worth
of lproperty and a million people.
MR. LExoW:
That is why we are here.
MR. WHITE:
That is what I am here talking for. An aphorism of Horace
CGreeley was to the effect that when the common people get mad
they get -    mad. We are in the condition of the common
people. No party or set of men can frame for us an alien government that will turn us over, bound hand and foot, to New York.
MR. LExow:
The consolidationists say they must have consolidation at once.
The resubmissionists say the question must be voted upon again,
and the referendum advocates want to vote upon the bill. It
places us in a dilemma.




244


[SENATE,.


MR. WHITE:
I am sorry for your dilemma, but you go on the theory of permitting the people of each locality to have a voice in their own
government and you will make no mistake.
RICHARD S. STORRS, D. D.:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I desire to
speak briefly and to confine myself wholly to the one question of
resubmission, because on that my views are distinct and positive.
On the question ulterior to that, of consolidation, I am not finally
committed in rnm  own mind to any determinate position. I see
arguments for it and I see arguments against it. B3ut on the
question of resubmission I am as solid as the court-house. It
seems to me very difficult to understand fully the views of those
who oppose it. For as far as I am concerned, and those who sympathize with me, we have never accepted the so-called result in
November, 1894, as giving an expression of the public thought
and feeling in Brooklyn even at that time. You are familiar, of
course, with the details of that vote. It was under very confusing circumstances, as has been indicated in the note of Mr.
McWilliams. There were a great many ballots and the time
was very limited, and it was for something in the air -for consolidation or against it, not for any formulated proposition whatever. The law itself stated that the object of it was to get an
expression of the wishes of the people of the different localities
affected. It was no suffrage, no vote in the way of accepting the
law or rejecting it, in the way of accepting or electing an officer. if
it had been a vote then according to our impression of things it
would have been satisfactory in its result and final, if it had been
five in the majority or ten in the majority instead of 277, or one
in the niajority. In the old commlonwealth of Massachusetts,
when I a lad not yet of voting age, Marcus Morton, not a relative,
I believe, of Levi P. Morton, was elected over Edward Everett,
the accomplished statesman and scholar by a single vote.
Nobody questioned the absolute finality of the election when the
majority of one vote had been ascertained. But this was not a




No. 44.]


245


vote at all. It was an expression of the public desire and wish.
Then there came out 19:),000 registered voters, 64,000 and a fraction for it; il4.000 and a fraction against it; (;2,0001) and a fra ction
voting neither way, and a majority on the whole of 277. In the
city of Brooklyn as it was when the act was passed, and as it was
wCen contemuplated by that act, ther was a majority of more than
a thousand against consolidation. New Utrecht and Gravesend,
under inspiration which we may conjecture the source of without affirming, voted heavily enough for consolidation to overcome the majority in the city of Brooklyn. But it was in no
sense a vote; it was the expression of a desire, simply, and that
was fifteen months ago. Now since that, what you want is
the present judgment of the city of Brooklyn on this question of
consolidation; many have died who voted then; their opinions are
not to be counted now. Many have moved away from the city and
others, more numerous, have come to live in it; they have a right
to their opinion and to the expression of it. Many who were not
then of age for voting have come to be of age, many hundreds
eri-ainly, probably 2,000, probably thousands, at any rate more
than a thousand in this vast voting force of Brooklyn of more than
200,000, more than one-seventh of the voting power of the State.
A great many have come to be of age, and they desire an expression of their opinion, and you have no right, in our opinion, to
refuse them that expression. Then we want to know how long
this thing is going to hold on. This expression was made, as I
say, fifteen months ago and the Legislature took no action upon it.
That Legislature has passed out of existence, another Legislature
has come in, differently constituted and under a different organic
law of the State. If this Legislature can go back to that former,
as we think,. nebulous and fantasma expression of popular opinion,
and base legislative action upon it, then the next Legislature can
do the same, and the next and it may go on into the next century,
and our children's children may come here to find that a legislative
action affecting them is to be based upon this expression of
opinion, so-called, in November, 1894. Where is the end to the
thing? We affirm that the onlv way is to take a new vote. Let




246


[SENATE,


the dead past bury its dead and let us start fair with a new expression of the popular feeling of Brooklyn. That is rooted in our
minds, that is a fire in our breasts. We are not to be content
unless the present voting population of the city of Brooklyn, as it
now is, shall agree to have measures of consolidation submitted
to the Legislature and afterward, of course, submitted to the people. But I have not got to that point. Now, observe, if you
gentlemen of the committee and of the Legislature go on passing
acts of consolidation without taking the present opinion of the
people of Brooklyn on the subject what are you doing? Well,
you are involving us by your own authority which is novel,
unknown and apparently to us very great, which you can not
measure and sound and which we certainly can not. Here is
a city which has been in existence sixty years and more, a city of
eleven hundred thousand people probably, very nearly that at
any rate, of more than 200,000 voters, as I said the seventh part
of the voting power of the State, and you undelrake to put this
city into the municipality across the river, larger in numbers,
and  determine its corporate existence.  Well, there are
great hazards in that. There is a hazard in regard to government. No precedent has ever been established. No such measure
has ever been adopted anywhere, and we do not know what the
future of government in this city is to be. We can take care
of ourselves as a separate community. We have had a good
government for the last two years. We have a good government
now; we will take care to have a good government in time to come.
But if we are to be controlled by the municipality of New York,
we have no guarantee of that government at all. We have had
troubles of our own on this side, frauds, no doubt, and conspiracy,
but in comparison with the frauds and conspiracies, whlicll you,.
sir, so largely contributed to unearth and bring to tlhe light two
years ago ours have been a mere transient, innocent pimple on the
face compared with a plague ulcer. Well, we do not want to come
into any connection which will subject us to unknown hazards.
We may waive it. We may say when all the argumentls on the
other side are in that we w ill take th( clhnce(s; b)ut for Vyo of




No. 44.]


247


the Legislature to expose us without our free, present, deliberate
and decided consent to hazards of that sort - well, I do not wish
to use any strong words, but I say it is tyranny. It seems to me
to be absolute, presumptuous arrogance, to take this large population, which has grown as it has, and to subject it to another
municipal power without its own consent. I would say, to speak
with all honor of the Legislature of the State of New York, in
which I have lived so many years, that it seems to me that while
you may have the power to do it, that is for constitutional lawyers
to decide, you have no more equitable right to do it than you have
to authorize the looting of one of our warehouses because a
window was left open casually a year and a quarter ago. Well,
then you call upon us to give up all the presumption in our favor
which has arisen from our past history. We can do that if we
choose, but you have no right to require us to do it. You must
submit the question first to the popular vote and make that vote
decisive. Brooklyn has a presumption in favor of its continuance.
It has been a city all these years. It has grown. I don't regard
myself as an old man, but in my public life in Brooklyn it has
grown from 60,000 to more than eleven hundred thousand, certainly to more that a million, multiplying eighteen times, multiplying four times faster than the population of New York and with
more desirable average population. Now, we have built noble
institutions here, done it ourselves, not called upon the State
or the other city or any other city to help us. And you will
find all these institutes of charity, of religion and of culture, crowning the town, built by the town, itself. We have developed a
good government. We have one of the best charters in the world
for city government, a model to other cities. We have developed
a high and generous public spirit. All the presumption is in
favor of going on in our city corporate life. We, as I say, can
give up that if we choose, and, when we go to the polls, can say:
"Yes, I will let that pass, too." But the Legislature can not
constrain us to give that up, in our judgment. They ought to
accept it as we accept it, and allow us to go on until we have
ourselves definitely decided that we are willing to terminate this




248


[SENATE,


which has been really an illustrious career. Well, then you require us to quench our own affection, to surrender our affection
for the city that we love. Now, gentlemen, do not say this is sentiment. Sentiment is a power, and this is our sentiment. I know
there are a great many who sneer at it and say, "Oh, well, this is
all gas."  Gas is illuminating and gas is sometimes explosive,
and we want it distinctly understood that this sentiment of ours
is a deep and energetic sentiment. Of course, I know a great many
gentlemen share it, they take Brooklyn as a convenience just as
much as they take a horse car or trolley car. They have no affection for it, because they never worked for it. They never did service and sacrifice that others have been doing here for fifty years,
and therefore it is to them a dormitory or a restaurant - nothing
else. They have no more affection for it than they have for a
lamp-post or a door-mat; not so much as they have for an old coat
of last year. Well, we say that this affection is something that
you can't trifle with. We can put it out of our way if we please,
but you can't control it or compel us to surrender it. It looks like
a harmless thing. Well, dynamite, I believe, is a harmless looking
thing, if I understand about it, but it don't bear much pounding.
Men say, sometimes - I have heard them say -" Oh, offer a man
a thousand dollars extra for his lot and house and his affection
for the two will disappear." You understand, each of you gentlemen understand, that affection is not something that can be measured by a yard stick. It is not something that can be put into
a dealer or grocer's scales and measured against the coin of the
realm; it is a power with us. Now, we may put all this aside
and say, " Well, I love Brooklyn, but I give it up now because the
general sentiment seems to be against it." But if you conatrain
us without our free assent to give up and stifle this affection, fond
and proud, which has been born in us and nutured in us for fifty
years towards the city of Brooklyn, you do yourselves no good.
You gain no peace, and in my impression and conviction, you will
do us an inestimable injury and harm. Then observe, further
than that, that you require us to submit in this case to that which
is irrevocable, and that is a very important nmater for all to




No. 44.]


219'3


consider - for us and for you.  You may make changes in our
local law, in our local policy, submitting them  perhaps or
not to local option.  You may impose them upon us.  You may
make modifications of our charter, which shall be minor modifications, imposing them upon us, and we may regret it, but
we shall not energetically, probably oppose or resist. But here
you propose to terminate our municipal life. Well, a man may.
be cured of many diseases and be as well afterward as before. He
Inay be healed of many wounds and be as well afterward as before.
-But if you cut off his head an entire college of surgeons can't set
it on again. Well, that is what you propose to do with the municipality of Brooklyn, brand it, stifle it and bury it-and bury it
beyond the power of resurrection. There is no resurrection
coming to this municipality of Broolyln if you once pass these
consolidated acts, and you can't disentangle it hereafter from the
great floor of population all over the territory any more than you
can disentangle the waters of the Hudson out a hundred miles
beyond Sandy Hoolk. It is inpossible. Now, we may say, "Very
well, we are agreed to all that." but I insist upon it that for the
Legislatuire to impose that on us without our free, present, general
assent. is simply preposterous arrogance. I do not think it would
be held possible in any. other country in the world. W~ell, then
there is no president in this country. Certainly I do not know of
any in any other country on the earth. Then remember, for my
time is passing rapidly away-remember that in doing this, in
any resubmission to the people you get exactly what you are
understood to have come here -for, that is, information as to the
present wish of the people of Brooklyn. You can't get that from
thirty or forty gentlemen. You can't get it from Mr. White or
from myself. or from Mr. Redfield. We probably look at things
through spectacles which our minds color very lightly. I do not
know at all how the ultimate vote would go. I know that many
who voted for consolidation a year and a quarter ago are now
against it. I think that many, some certainly, who voted against
it are noiw distinctly in favor of it. Which way the general set
of public feeling and opinion has gone I do not know at all, and I
[Senate, No. 44.]   32




250


[SENATE,.


do not know, as I said before, when the question comes up how I
shall vote, myself. But that we must have resubmission is unquestionable in order to ascertain the judgment and wish of the
people here. You might just as well try to get it by going out
and stopping a. trolley car and inquiring of the passengers in that
car as to try to get it by coming here and hearing on one side
and the other advocates of one opinion or another, and judging
from the general atmosphere of the place. Give us the vote;
then you will understand whether Brooklyn wants consolidation
or does not want it, and the legislature will understand it, and
the Governor will understand it and every power in thisi city and
in this State will understand it, and that is the only way to get a
full and final expression of the popular judgment without bringing upon yourselves opprobium, without exciting a storm here
that will not die or pass away. Give us the resubmission. And
remember, if you please, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, that there is more than the municipal life of Brooklyn involved in this question. The honor of the Legislature is involved
in it. We certainly do not desire after this fifteen months of
interval to count November, 1894, as if it were February or March,
1896. The honor of the State is implicated in this tiing. Every
city of the State which respects itself ought to make common
cause with us and to fight and protest to the last against the
hopelessly merging of the municipal life of one great corporation
and community in that of another without its own free assent.
My deliberate judgment is that, if you refuse us resubniission,
then you strike a blow, an astounding blow, at the judgment and
the conscience of every fair-minded man in the land.
MR. LEXOW:
Doctor Storrs, do you take the position that the vote of 1894 has
spent its force?
DR. STORRS:
It was worthless at the beginning and is invalid now.




No. 44.]


251


ST. CLAJR MCKELWAY:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: Until this
morning I did not intend or expect to take part in these discussions. I do so only at request of members of your body. My
respect for them and for the principle and for the substance of
authority which they represent, makes their desire an obligation
and my appearance a, duty. I trust, however, none will misunderstand my original purpose to take no part here in the
debate. It was not due to want of interest in the subject, or to
want of appreciation of this committee. It was due to!he fact
that I have a medium in which my own views can be expressed
contemporaneously with the publication of the views of otlers,
and to the fact that that pleasure and function leave to me little
time, personally, to interpose in controverted subjects.
The compliment and invitation of some of your members, however, acquit me of intrusion and afford to me opportunity to say
that I support the sentiment of those Brooklynites who ask for
a resubmission or a referendum of the matter of consolidation
to the voters of this city by the Legislature of the State. The
preferment of this request by a considerable number of the people
affected and concerned should, it seems to me, be an impressive
fact in itself. It should be a fact which others should be desirous
of granting, not quick to resent or glad to deny. I could not
comfortably contemplate a proposition to refuse such a request
if the decision of it rested on me. I should feel that I have
deprived a man or a city of something akin to a natural right.
There is only one thing more strange to me than a spectacle of
any one calling themselves Brooklynites opposing such a request,
and that is that any outsiders to Brooklyn should oppose it.
The action of the first is unfilial. The cause of the second is
not easy to explain, except on the theory of meditated spoliation.
Brooklyn can bear with, check and forgive her unnatural sons.
Brooklyn can be trusted to deal with her external foes.
In this city, as on a hinge, political destinies have turned, and
the future can be made as significant with successes and with
funerals here as the past has here been made for statesmen and




2:52


[SENATE


for parties. All moral revolutions in this State have had theib
initiative in Brooklyn. Here was the first school for general
free education established in this country-not a block fron
where I stand. In this city now is the second academy founded
and chartered in this State by the Board of Regents in the interest
of higher education. That board itself was created by the authorship and effort of Ezra L'Hommnedieu, this island's representative in the State Senate 112 years ago. Here, by victorious
defeat and aggressive retreat Washington's army saved the
Union's life and afterward were able to beat the consolidation
attempted against American liberty by the Hessians in New
Jersey and the English in New York. Trenton and Princeton
became a resubmission of man's right to be, and Stony Point a
referendum of the fate of freedom to the breast of freeman. From
this island came the first Governor whose election in 1856 ranged
this State against the advances of slavery. Here was spoken by
our great Cullen the judicial word that lighted the crime of
Maynardism to an immortality of fame and of fire. Here were
organized tle rebellions of conscience politics, which, in 1882 and
1892, 1893, 1894 and 1895. proved that neither party can put
machinehood above manhood in this country or in this commonwealth.
I ask for resi;bmission or for referendum. because it is a timehonored American recourse. Slavery was abolished only by repeated resubmission of the essential question in issue from the
candidacy of Van Buren and Adams, in 1848, to that of Lincoln
and Hamlin, in 1860. Twelve years of resubmission or of referendum. none the less real because informal was had; the effect.
even then, far outran the intent. The intent was only to confine
human bondage to prescribed limits. The effect was the freedom
of a race; the emancipation of labor and the rebaptism of the
republic into the glory of human rights. All the war amendments to secure the political and moral results of the war rejected
by a sufficient number of legislators to compel the repeated resubmission of them to such Legislatures. If I mistake not, such
States as Ohio, New York and New Jersey voted to retain the




No. 44.]


253


word " white " as a race restriction on suffrage in their Constitutions, but had to vote it out at last under the force of resubmission of the question to their voters. Our friends, the women
suffragists, have been repeatedly voted down by Legislature after
Legislature, only to resubmit their plea to the last Legislature
with success, and it is to be resubmitted to the present Legislature
on its way to the people, if this Legislature sends it down. Does
anyone suppose, if the women are defeated, they will give up the
contest? He little knows tihe better half of human nature, if
he does. If an expression on constitutional changes is not a
finality surely an expression on problematic absorption is not. It
is a part of history that the issue of the Declaration of Independence by the convention which adopted it was only reached
by a resubmission of the informally negatived proposition to issue
it on the demand of Dr. Witherspoon, of New Jersey. Resubmission or referendum is an immemorial habit of high civilization.
England repeatedly refused recurrence to arbitration on the Alabama claims on the northwestern boundary and on the Vancouver
channel matter, as well as on the Behring sea fisheries. Her
government, on a resubmission of the questions to it by ours, did
consent to arbitration just as her statemen and ours, let us hope,
will do on the Venezuelan matter. Wherever there is a wrong
there is a remedy. Wherever there is a grievance there is a hearing. Wherever there is a misrepresentative result, there is a
resubmission. It is only a local question now. Therefore, better
grant it, for the locality affected covets not, yet will not reject
the duty of making it a question decisive of State and National
contentions.
I shall oppose no verdict if the people of Brooklyn shall pass on
their own destiny. I shall respect none that is passed without
their consent. It is inconceivable that a Legislature will do
violence to the views of the solid delegation from this county on
a Brooklyn question. The Legislature that did violence to the
will of the people of Buffalo on a Buffalo question was revolutionized out of existence. The functionaries who did violence to
the will of the people of Troy on a Troy question bequeathed to




254


[SENATE.


their successors the murder of Ross and the fate of Shea. It is
a perilous thing to oppose the will of a city, more perilous when
it has changed its mind and desires so to record it. That Brooklyn has changed its mind I am unable to doubt. The consolidationists would hardly oppose a vote that they did not believe
would go against them. The paper I edit receives more letters
from its readers than any other two papers in the world. It
prints all that are not libelous or immoral. It prints them
promptly. Over eighty-two out of every 100 on consolidation urge
resubmission or a referendum. No one who knows the bonds
between that paper and its constituency can doubt what preponderance of sentiment here that means.
Gentlemen, the plain people of Brooklyn love it and wish to preserve it. They represent the manhood, the labor and that admirable middle class who are the salt of the earth. They sell what
they own. They own what they buy. They are, therefore, not
real estate speculators who neither own nor hold what they sell
or buy, but are all hyphenated vibrators, for a commission or for
a consideration, between the property of actual owners and the
money of intending purchasers. Neither are these plain people
legal or other users or usurers of the money of others. They earn
their own money and when they deposit it in banks or trust companies they- do not lay down a mortgage on their manhood with
it, and they do not recognize the right of bank officers to sign
away their sentiments, when those officers merely sign their own
names. A man's a man for all that, and every man is in Brooklyn the political peer of every capitalist or of every lot boomer.
These plain people prefer a government that costs them a modest
sum per capita to one that cost its citizens twice as much. They
prefer reasonable rents to high rents, homes to tenements, and
many houses to a few mansions. Our million plain people outnumber our ten or twenty millionaires, and, singular to say, they
outvote them, and they do not fear them.
This Ipeople do not believe in a charter or a measure devised
by a commission appointed by executives whom the people have
repudiated at the polls. They (do not lIropose to let tlle men




No. 44.]


255


whom they have buried rise out of their graves, galvanized into a
semblance of life, to bury the city that put them under ground.
Our people think it disorderly that institutions that owe to
Brooklyn all the prosperity they have received should lead in a
movement to extinguish Brooklyn. They do not believe that
New York will pay our debts or bear our burdens, and they know
of no manly man and of no manly city that sell their rights or
dodge their responsibilities for dirty money, no matter how high
it is heaped. Manhood counts for more than moneyhood here,
and whether we be poor or rich we are neither for conquest or for
sale. As I said on another and in a lesser crisis of Brooklyn's
life, when Brooklyn magnificently responded to my words:
"Brooklyn for the right and the right for Brooklyn," so will I
now confidently add: "Brooklyn for and by Brooklynites forever."
W. H. MAXWELL:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: My statement will be brief, but before making it, it is only right for me to
say that I appear before you to-day, not bearing any commission
from the board of education, not representing, as far as I know,
the school teachers of the city. I appear here simply as a citizen
who has given some twelve or fifteen years - the best years of
his life - in building up the school system of the city of Brooklyn,
to give my judgment upon this question, of how consolidation will
affect the Brooklyn schools. I have heard it stated that the city
of Brooklyn can not build school-houses to accommodate her children, and the inference has been drawn that in case Brooklyn is
consolidated with New York, we shall then be able to build schoolhouses. They claim that when consolidation is effected we shall
have school-houses for all our children, a seat for every child.
Before we reach any such conclusion as that I think it may be
well to compare the present condition of Brooklyn with reference
to school accommodations with the present condition of New
York; and I have been to some trouble in ascertaining, exactly,
the condition of our affairs. I find that according to the health




256


[SENATE,


board records of the two cities that the present population in
New York is 1,310,395; the present population of Brooklyn,
1.100,000. The registry of pupils on the 3d of October. 1895, in the
New York schools showed an attendance of 187,422; the register in
the Brooklyn schools on the same day 119,251. What do these
figures mean? They mean that one in ten of the entire population in that city is in the public schools; whereas, in the Brooklyn
schools the ratio of registration was one in every nine, showing
that the Brooklyn schools afford very much better accommodation to-day than do the schools of the metropolis.
MR. GRADY:
Do you leave out the parochial schools?
MR. MAXWELL:
I am speaking about the public schools. As a matter of fact,
there are more children in the parochial schools in proportion to
the population in Brooklyn, than in New York. I make that
statement without fear of contradiction.
MR. GRADY:
Every superficial circumstance is against the statement.
MR. MAXWELL:
We have no superficial circumstances against it, because the
census was taken and it proves my statement. This means, sir,
that in New York city only 10 per cent. of the entire population
of the city are in the public schools; whereas, in Brooklyn 11 per
cent. are in the public schools. Now, I further make a statement
which will be borne out by facts: I believe that our schools are
better built in -Brooklyn; take the average of the school buildings
of Brooklyn, they are better situated and better in every way than
the school buildings in New York.
MR. GRADY:
Are you aware that New York is now extending her school system by the acquisition of new sites for new school buildings?




No. 44.].57
_tJ N 


MR. MAXWELL:
I am aware of that fact. Also, that in 1895, the city of Brooklyn built more school-houses and better school-houses tll, in any
previous year of her existence, almost twice as many as any previous year of her existence, and we are prepared to do the same
thing this year and the money had been provided to do it. If
Brooklyn be consolidated with New York, it being the larger, the
wealthier, and the stronger city, we expect but one thing, so far
as our school system is concerned, and that is that the New York
city system of school administration will be extended to Brooklyn.
I think, sir, that among the educators there is but one opinion
with regard to the New York system of school administration,
and that is that there is no worse on the continent. The system
in New York is radically different from the system in Brooklyn.
In the city of New York there is a central board of education with
very little power; and there is a board, called the board of trustees, inl every ward of the city, that control these several members one fr-onl each of the wards- they really hold all the power
with regcard to schools, the board of trustees have the appointing
power, the power to appoint the teachers; and the appointing
power in a systenm of school administration has the power that
reall y controls the system.
MR. GRADY:
They are not supreme bodies?
MR. MAXWELL:
But the fact remains that they have the appointing power.
MR. GRADY:
They have a veto power.
MR. MAXWELL:
It is never exercised. The result has been that the New York
school system has been dominated by political influences. That
is the system that will be extended to Brooklyn.
[Senate, No. 44.]   33




258


[SENATE.


MR. GRADY:
I wish to say that there is no system of education so thoroughly
divorced from politics as the system of New York. The appointment of its commission is in the very same hands that has it in
Brooklyn, and the board of trustees are men who are appointed
by the board of education and they have never undertaken to
make their office in any way political. Where have you seen anybody turned out of office, by this body? The distinction is, that
Brooklyn has a central board while in New York the local authority, the subdivision of local authority is intrusted to deputies
selected by the central authority.
MR. MAXWELL:
There is another important difference between the two systems.
The city of New York has established two colleges, one is called
the College of the City of New York, and the other the Normal
College. These are colleges, so called. They are in the view of
the educator four-fifths high school and one-fifth college. Be
that as it may, the effect of establishing these colleges
with the great expense of nmain.taining them   has heretofore prevented New   York from   establishing high schools.
What is the result? (Only one-third of all the girls who
graduate from the granmmar schools are admitted to the Normal
College. Only about one-third, or perhaps less, of the boys wiho
graduate from the grammar schools are admitted to the College
of the City of New York. Two-thirds, at least, of all the girls.
and two-thirds of all the boys cannot find admission to those two
colleges. The result is that New York has established, in connection with its higher education, a purely aristocratic idea, admitting only selected pupils to these two colleges. Brooklyn. on
the other hand, so far as its higher education is concerned, has
gone in exactly the opposite direction. It has adopted the democratic idea, which is that every boy and girl who graduates fromr
the grammar schools should have an opportunity t: go on. A\r
we to have that system of New York introduced into i:roklyli?




No. 44.]


259


Is the opportunity to obtain a higher education which is now given
to every child, the poorest in the city, to be cut off by the adoption
of the New York system?
MR. LEXOW:
That matter is in the hands of the Legislature.
MR. MAXWELL:
If we may judge of the future from the past, we can arrive
at but one conclusion, and that is that the Legislature having
failed in the past to reform the New York school system will fail
in the future.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there wvas a law passed by the Legislature
in 1895, affecting the entire school systemn of the Empire State
that has elicited nothing but the highest praise and the highest
encomiums throughout the length and breadth of the land. I
was present at the great meeting of the National Educational
Association in Denver, on May 20th. Thousands of teachers,
ranging in rank from the kindergarten teacher up, were in attendance. I heard there a statement made by one of the foremost
educators of the country, that not since Horace Mann secured
the establishment of his normal school in Massachusetts has so
beneficent a statute been passed. That great body of teachers
passed a formal vote of thanks to the Legislature and the Governor for this splendid law. That is the law which declares that
after January 1, 1897, no teacher shall be licensed or employed
in any city of this State who has not graduated at least from a
high school or from a school for the professional training of teachers. There is one blot on the records of New York, with reference
to that law. It proves what I said a moment ago, that it is impossible, apparently, to reform the New York school system. The
city of New York is excepted from the operation of the bill.
MR. LEXOWV:
That was by request of the representatives of the city of New
York?




260


[SENATE,


MR. MAXWELL:
That is what we may expect when they get control of Brooklyn's
educational affairs.
MR. GRADY:
The Superintendent of Public Instruction has decided that we
are not exempt.
MR. MAXWELL:
But the law says you are.
MR. GRADY:
The first section says that; then in the second section there is a
general provision which he has decided, includes the city of New
York.
MR. MAXWELL:
I shall be most happy to hope that the State Superintendent
will be able to force New York city into doing something. I
sincerely hope that he will. If Brooklyn should resist the operation of this law it would be his duty to force Blrooklyn and he
would very properly do so.
MR. GRADY:
If Brooklyn was exempt you would not want anybody to enforce it.
MR. MAXWELL:
No, sir; and I imagine that New York will make a big kick
before it will allow it to be enforced.
MR. LEXOW:
It is only fair to say that t-her were a number of general
schemes for the correction of abuses before the Legislature, during
the past two years. and numerous reforms were suggested, but
of all the hills that came up they could not agree upon one, and
for that reason tlie bills were not passed.




No. 44.]


261


MR. MAXWELL:
The politicians of New York have always succeeded in defeating any provisions for school reform.
I have but one word to say in conclusion: Supposing we should
get consolidation; supposing we should obtain from the additional taxation all that these gentlemen have claimed for it, my
position is that the people of Brooklyn would pay very dear for it,
if it results, as I believe it will, in a serious deterioration of your
public school system, which now is our greatest pride.
MR. LExow:
Another act was passed by the Legislature of New York last
year with reference to the extension of a temperance education
to the public schools. I saw in a paper yesterday, or the day
before, that Brooklyn might lose all the State school moneys
contributed for this purpose, for the reason that she has been
unable to provide the necessary appropriation to buy the textbooks required under the terms of the act. Is there any truth
in that?
MR. MAXWELL:
If you saw that statement I did not see it myself. It is simply
untrue.
MR. LExOW:
I am glad to hear it. You don't mean the books have been
purchased?
MR. MAXWELL:
They will be.
W. A. SHORT:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I feel that
I have no right to take up the time ththa hs been granted to the
city of Brooklyn. I propose, therefore, to say nothing about the
legal questions involved or the constitutionality of the measure,
or about the various plans which you have under consideration.




262


[SENATE,


I desire, however, to say that there is unmistakable evidence of
a very strong change of opinion in Richmond county which voted
very largely in favor of consolidation in 1894. I appear here at
the request of a number of gentlemen from that county, some who
are in favor of consolidation and some who are not; they reflect
every shade of opinion, but are all in favor of resubmission of
the question if it be the desire of this committee to determine
what the feeling is. The evidences of this change of sentiment
are too varied and too long and too complicated to present to you,
and I shall not undertake to state them before you. I will only
say that since 1894 one very important consideration has come
into the minds of the people of Richmond county, which has,
more than any single cause, operated to change their sentiment
and feeling, and the evidences of which are, perhaps. by those
who come up and down on the boats with a long journey of
twenty-five minutes in conversation with the residents of that
county. I say, without any hesitation, that in view of such conversations, had not only with myself but with other friends,
that there is an unmistakable change of sentiment of a very
important character with regard to this question, and the chief
ingredient lies in the fact that the people of Richmond county,
having heard the matter thoroughly discussed, do not expect to
receive the benefits which the consolidation has led fus to believe
that we would receive. The residents of Richmond clounty believe
there is no possibility of bridges; there is no possibility of a
thousand and one other things that have been offered; at least,
the people of Richmond county, after considering tile question,
have reached this conclusion. I do not think it is possible to
ascertain the correct feeling without resubmission of the question.
Then, again, that their interests lie in the granting of a charter to
the county of Richmond which will consolidate it into one municipality; and in view of that feeling, that local pride, sufficient
change of sentiment has taken place to overcome the mere superstitious reasons which induced them to vote in favor of consolidation in 1894.




No. 44.]


-MR. REDFIELD:
Mr. Chairman: It hais been stated to yon that tlhe opposition
to consolidation consisted chieflv of the wealthy men of the
Heights, and that the plain people of the city of Brooklyn were
in favor of consolidation. It has also been stated to you that
seventy-five per cent. of the workingmen of the eastern district
desired, and were in favor of, consolidation. I now wish to introduce to you my friend, Mr. J. T. Koehler, who comes from as far
away in Brooklyn as you can go and still be a Brooklynite -the
extreme end of Greenpoint. This gentleman has been a Republican and has voted the Republican ticket since the days of Freemont. He was also a sailor on Commodore Perry's expedition
to Japan. He is a workingman and will speak for the workingmen of his district.
J. F. KOEHLER:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I do not
desire to detain you very long. I am a workingman, one of the
sons of toil, and am not; able to make speeches. I am employed
in a factory where 500 men are employed daily, and I have a
great opportunity to listen to the sentiments of the workingmen. The workingmen who voted for consolidation in 1894 -two-thirds of them did not know what they were voting for. In
my own family I have two boys, one aged 24 and the other 29;
they went up to the polls to vote, and when they came home I
asked them if they voted for those amendments. One boy said,
" I really do not know whether I voted the amendments or not;"
the other boy said he cast a straight ticket, but didn't know
whether he voted the amendments or not. Both voted the Republican ticket; they said the leaders of the district asked them to
vote for the amendments and everything else, and they did so.
Tho,- now say that if they had an opportunity they would vote
against consolidation. But to come back to the workingmen.
I am living in the fifteenth ward, but in going to and coming from
my work I pass through three wards -the fifteenth, the seventeenth and the eighteenth. I am known to everybody in both




264


[SEsATE.


wards, and this absorbing question of consolidation has been on
their minds; and through my travels I have talked with several
people and asked them what they thought about the consolidation
question; they would generally say that they were for Brooklyn.
Gentlemen, if you give us resubmission you will find that among
the working class they are decidedly in favor of resubmis;sion and
will vote against consolidation.  That is the opinion and the
sentiments of the working classes who reside in the district I
have referred to. We are not real estate agents; we are not
contractors; we are not lawyers; we are not capitalists; we are
men who work for a living. It took me many years to raise my
little two-story frame house, but as sure as there is a Supreme
Being above, I think more of that house than John Jacob Astor
thinks of his palace in New York, or Vanderbilt of his palace in
Newport.   I live in peace and quietness and I want to call
Brooklyn my home; it is Brooklyn for me; I have always lived in
Brooklyn. I believe in a man's speaking out. I was born in
Germany, and I came here to the United States as a boy, at the
age of 15. I joined Uncle Sam's navy and was honorably discharged. Of course I have no doubt but you were all born to
work and may be some of you gentlemen have done the same
honest work that I have done. No matter whatever happens to
Brooklyn she will always be Brooklyn to me, whether consolidated or not. I think four out of every five of the working class
will vote against consolidation. I will be a Brooklyn man and
remain a Brooklyn man all my life.
FRANK WOODRUFF:
Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee: I appoar
here to-day to state my views against the consolidation of Brooklyn with New York, unless the question is resubmitted to the
people to vote upon. I was one of those citizens of Brooklyn having had a long residence here, and having been somefwh:lt active
in politics, I voted when the question was before l, I( polle in
1894, in the affirmative upon the proposition. I then understood,
and have always understood, clearly, that the final plan, when it




No. 44.]


was conrsumllated, would be submitted to the people of lBrooklyn
to vote upon it. And it seems to me that it is only fair that it
stllimd ibe. I understood that the vote of 1894 was only to test
the feeling of the people - to get at public sentiment. 1 was in
favor of consolidation. I do not believe that if the people had
understood that vote was to be a finality that there would have
been 15,000 votes cast for it. I am frank to state to you, sir, that
since the election of last fall I have changed my views, and am
now a pronounced anti-consolidationist. I have considered the
question carefully and from many standpoints. They say it is not
a political question. I beg to differ with the gentlemen who
make that statement. You can no more divorce politics than you
can stop the mad rushing of waters over the Niagara. If this act
is passed it will be passed by a Republican Legislature and signed
by a Republican Governor, and the people of Brooklyn will hold
the Republican party responsible. It does not seem ro me that
it is fair to crowd this tiling upon Brooklyn without letting the
people vote upon it, without letting the people know what they
are voting for; and I do not believe that you will. I believe that
if consolidation is forced upon this city, far better it would be if
you should declare war against England over the Venezuelan
question than to force consolidation upon this great people without their consent. They will remember it in the future against
any candidate in this State running for an official position, and 1
believe that candidate will be beaten by 50,000 Republican votes,
and I will be one of them.
MR. LEXOW:
Don't you think that a legislator who would be guided by any
such threat would be a coward and would merit the opprobium
of the people?
MR. WOODRUFF:
I amn not making any threat: I am simply stating nim views on
this question, ind if you do pass this act I think you will find my
[Senate No. 44. 1    3 -



[SENATE,


statement prophetic. I am giving you my views; I:l1 expretssinl
my opinion, and I really believe, sir, with all due respect to the
chairman and gentlemen of the (c(omllitt- (, that in the future:, that
if this question of consolidation is put upon the people of -Brooklyn without a resubmission, that you will find that my wordu4s are
true. That is simply nmy judgment, and I believe that I am right
in saying that you will see the worst if this thing comes to pass.
I expect there is a political side to this question. You have seien
the political course of Brooklyn in the past and you will see it
again in ten-fold more force, in my judgment. What right have
vou to take this city and unite it with New York, without the
people voting upon it. I do not believe, sir, that you will be a party
to do that against the will of the people.
There is also a business side to this question. The city of
Brooklyn has natural advantages for becoming a great commercial center, greater than that of any other city in the country. She
has sixteen miles of magnificent water front and a good depth of
water. Three-quarters of all the heavy commerce c(omes to
Brooklyn, and to her warehouses; she has the finest warehouse
system in this country. New York is absolutely dependent upon
Brooklyn for her facilities for transacting her commercial business. Does Newr York propose to give Brooklyn any return if this
consolidation is materialized? Is she going to come here and
build up our water front, our piers and our warehouses?  Who
knows whether Greater New York will come over to Brooklyn and
spend any of the money they collect from taxation? I have been
taxed all my life. I have paid a large amount in the aggregate
because I have long been a resident of this city and the money I
have paid has gone into the parks and school-houses and l)ublic
buildings. It is true that our city is not as well off, financially, as
it might be, but this is partially because of Democratic misnianagement. We are now unde(r R-eplubliican administratioii, and 1
want to see a Republicatn administral tion c{onr inu}e in hIower. I
want to see a Republican rule', not only in this c(ity, but in the
State and all over the land; and when the Republican party lias
control in the nation the real estate dealers who aire advo catingr)




No. 44.]


267


this wrong will find a market for their real estate, and not until
then. At present there are too many men out of employment.
There will be no appreciable boom in real estate until there is a
change in the National administration; this is their only remedy.
Until the people have employment we can not expect prosperity
in this country.
I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to give us a chance to vote
upon this question, to vote on it honestly, and it does seem to me
that you ought to require nothing more than that every representative in the Legislature from this city is in favor of resubmission. The Republican Club of Brooklyn the other night
unanimously voted against consolidation. There has been a
very great change of public sentiment, and it is growing rapidly.
It seems to me that it should be resubmitted. The voice of the
members from this city should be heard -they should be recognized by the Legislature.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you think it is good judgment to make this question a
political one?
MR. WOODRUFF:
I do.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you think it is good judgment on the part of the Republican
organizations of Kings county to express themselves officialy on
a question that simply concerns the well being of the city of
Brooklyn?
MR. WOODRUFF:
I think it is well for them to express the opinion, because there
is a sort of feeling that we are going to be consolidated whether
we want to or not. It seems to me right that all good citizens
should express themselves.




268


[SENATE,


MR. LEXOW:
My criticism is passed upon the resolution adopted by the
Republican associations in this city. I ask you whether you
think the question of the existence or non-existence of consolidation feeling in this city which applies to the material interest of
this city should be made a political question.
MR. WOODRUFF:
You can not stop; politics will enter in.
MR. LEXOW:
Did politics enter into the vote of 1894; and if we have resubmission would not we have a political vote?
MR. WOODRUFF:
I do not think that it was discussed politically in 1894. It
was understood that the vote would not be a finality. If it had
been declared that we were passing upon the question finally I
believe that it would have been made a political question. If
we have another opportunity you will find that politics will
enter it.
MR. GRADY:
You remember that New York was not always dependent upon
Brooklyn for warehouses. Before the bridge was built
the warehouse business here was not so good. In your experience
you of course know that New York city was not all the time
dependent upon Brooklyn for warehouse facilities.
MR. WOODRUFF:
Pretty much all the time; back as far as I can remember.
MR. GRADY:
I can remember that it increased considerably after the erection of the bridge.




No. 44.]


269


MR. WOODRUFF:
I beg to differ with you.
MR. GRADY:
Don't you know that there are large number of vessels that
can not pass under the bridge?
MR. WOODRUFF:
There are no vessels that can not pass under the bridge. It is
simply a maltter of taking down the top mast.
MR. GRADY:
But at great expense.
MR. WOODRUFF:
Only fifty or seventy-five dollars. The largest ships that enter
and pass under the bridge by taking down their top masts.
MR. GRADY:
I desire to call your attention to the fact that the Republican
Legislature when the Democratic representatives from the city of
New York were unanimous against giving up their dock for
private corporations, the members from Brooklyn voted to turn
over their docks. 
MIR. WOODRUFF:
I do not know how Brooklyn's representatives have voted in
the past, but certainly New York has no standing, commercially,
in the warehouse business, she has but one railroad elevator,
nearly all her heavy freight is cared for in Brooklyn. Nearly all
the transatlantic steamers that come here are cared for in the
Brooklyn warehouses, nearly all of their merchandise is landed
h;ere in lBrooklyn. There are but two large elevators on the
Jersey side. If Brooklyn had a Merchants' Exchange, a Produce
Exchange, Coffee Exchange and Stock Exchange, their great
businesss wvould be on this side of the river, and the people from




270


[SENATE,


Brooklyn would not be going over from New York every morning for the purpose of transacting their business. All the sugar
is landed on our water front. It is manufactured and refined
on this side of the river and then carted over to the wholesale
grocers in New York, and they sell it to the retailers. If
Brooklyn had the facilities that New York has in addition to her
own magnificent water front, do you believe she would lack public spirit and allow the business to go to Boston and Baltimore.
It is a great misfortune that Brooklyn has not asserted herself
in the commercial world. She has the best wharf facilities in the
country.
MR. MATTHEWS:
Is it not a fact that siince the vote was eatst in favor of consolidation you have sold your interest in the warehlouse business
to the "New York Storage CotlXpany?
MR. LBxow:
There should be no personalities.
DAVID HEALEY:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Commiittee: I did not
expect to; be called upon to speak and I am too busy to present any
prepared or collected facts in the shape of an argument. In what
I have to say I shall be very brief. As has been intimated, I have
some familiarity with the feelings of the working people of this
city and among them I have many friends who made up the small
majority for consolidation in 1894. I cast my vote in favor of
that bill, but I had no idea whatever that it would wipe out the
identity of the city of Brooklyn; I had no idea whatever of favoring any proportion to consolidate with New York upon any other
than a business basis, or under any arrangement that would be
injurious to the city of Brooklyn or unsatisfactory t t the voters
of Brooklyn. I believe at the time the vote was taken nobody
believed that it was to be a finality? Since that vote was taken
there has been a change of sentiment and I have been surprised at
the grvowth of the opposition to the proposition. Amongst the




No. 44.]


271


assoc(t;lions of workingmen with whom it has been my privilege
to m-ingile in discussions during the recent canmpaign, I have found
it an absorbing question, especially since it has been introduced
in this Inew form. It was understood that the vote of 1894 was
merely an expression of opinion, and it was specifically stated
that it would h1ave no binding effect. In an association of which
I was one, about two weeks ago, a vote was taken upon the
question of consolidation as now presented. The vote of five to
one was for resubmission. A friend of mine who was present
here tlids morning and was also a member of this association c:nvassed one block of his neighboorhood in this city largely inhabited by wage earners and co'uld not find one advocate of the
proposition submitted in the form of the present bill. Nineoteen
were in favor of resubmission and only one was non-committal.
Tlic gentlemen of the committee before whom we are presenting
our arguments in opposition to this measure have the official
knowledge of the feeling on this question by the fact that the
united delegation from this county in the Legislature, is in favor
of resubmission. A year ago there were many advocates of consolidation representing this city in the Legislature; now there
is not one in either house. This is because the feeling has grown,.o intense and the representation of this city in the Legislature
is about one-seventh of the representation of the entire State.
We feel confident that your committee will give us another chance
to vote upon this question. If the vote of your committee shall
be adverse to the proposition. to the wishes of Brooklyn it would
engender some feeling in the approaching presidential campaign.
The simple expression of the opinion of the people in 1894 should
not bind the wishes of the people of Brooklyn at this time. If
these cities are united against our wishes we will take steps to
appeal from your verdict. Let us work out our own destiny; we
have taken a leading part in the cause of good government, in the
work of honest representative government and we want to continue in that way. In saying what I have said I feel that I represent the sentiment of the large proportion of the wage earners
of this city.




[SENATE,


MR. MATTHEWS:
Iow do you known that every representative in the Legislature
is in favor of resubmission, or against consolidation?
MR. HEALEY:
Because at a mleeting at the Academy of Music, a statement
was made from the platform and I have not heard that statement
contradicte-d nior its truth questioned from that day to this; and
I think it will not be denied to-day.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you not think that the representatives of Brooklyn in Albany
were coerced into taking the position they do on this question,
when the anti-consolidationists appeared before the candidates
from this city and threatened them with political extermination
unless they favored resubmission?
MR. HEALEY:
I am very glad that the chairman has brought this question to
my mind; I would be the last person in the world to attempt to
influence the memnbers of the Legislature in that way. The
people simply made known to them their wishes upon this question and that is a proper and logical and natlural result of American institutions. When the people vote to send repIresentatives
to the Legislature they have a right to make known their wishes.
HENRY HENTZ:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I will not
detain you long. I am an old resident of Brooklyn and have
lived here since I became a voter. During the same period I have
been a merchant in New York, but I have great love for BrookI vl. atlld h, '. lec(-n considerably interested in the welfare of Brooklyn, doing my duty in evexry p;lrticular, I think as regards political
work. I wish to say that in voting uponI the question of consolidation in 1894 I voted tagainst it; I thought it was merely an
informal vote and nothing more. Why, on the ('otton Exchange




No. 44.]


273


floor we have frequently taken such a vote when an important
question would come before the Exchange; in order to ascertain
the opinion, we would take an informal vote so as to avoid the
work of getting up rules and altering the by-laws; when the
informal vote was taken it frequently led to the adoption of
rules.
I do not think consolidation would help this city in the least.
I think we are doing very well at present, and I think that we can
continue to do well. I am very sorry, indeed, to know that there
are so many detractors of Brooklyn living here.. I was not aware
before that it was such a poor place to live in. We have started
many reforms here that have spread throughout the country, and
I hope you will permit us to continue the good work; I hope, sir,
that the Legislature will not make us unwilling citizens of the
great municipality. Do not put us in a position similar to that of
Alsace-Lorraine under the German empire. I was in Europe last
year and I was told there that many of the French residents were
so embittered and so dissatisfied living there as German citizens
that their young men went over the border so that if they were
compelled to give military service, they would give it to France
in preference to Germany. I hope, gentlemen, that you will not
make us captives. Give us another chance to vote on the question and if it goes against us we will abide by the decision. I
sincerely trust, gentlemen, that you will do so. I have heard
from the other side one of the chief reasons for consolidation, that
is that our taxes will be lower. I am a fair taxpayer myself, and
none of my property is productive. I am willing to continue to
pay the taxes if you will permit me to do so. I do not want to be
an object of charity to New York city. That seems to be the
position you are taking. If we were joined to New York, we
would get some crumbs from the table, that is all. I have not
seen or talked with any merchants in New York that think that
consolidation With Brooklyn would do for us what is claimed.
They have hardly considered it on that side at all. Very little
interest has been shown on that side. I hope, gentlemen, that
[ Senite, No. 44.]   35




274


[SENATE.


you will comply with our request and give us another chance to
vote on the subject. As American citizens we ask only what is
fair, and I sincerely hope that you will not report in favor of
consolidating us without giving us a chance to vote.
January 25, 1896.
Arguments in Favor of Consolidation.
SILAS B. DUTCHER:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: When I came
to Brooklyn nearly thirty-five years ago I looked carefully over
the situation; I became a unionist or consolidationist, from that
day. Consequently, I feel that I am one of the oldest annexationists, unionists or consolidationists or whatever you may term it,
that there is in the city. I look upon the city of Brooklyn
as a city of homes without corporative capital and other things
necessary to make a great city. Why not be united to New
York and get the benefit of the corporative capital of New
York. I realize as I look over the record that New York propertv is assessed for only one-half of its value. In Brooklyn it
is assessed for about 70 per cent. of its value. In New York
they,pay less than 2 per cent. on a 50 per cent. valuation; here
we pay nearly: per cent. on a 70 per cent. valuation; and we
know tlhat a large part of Ne-w York capital is owned by Brooklyn men; a large part of the wealth of New York has been
accumulalted by men who residle in Brooklyn, but who have their
places of business in New York city. It seems to me, so far as
I can fgather, that there is no politics in this question; in the
thirty -years that I have considered the question I have never
known of either party to look at it from a political standpoint,
but purely from what would tend to advance the best interests of
the city of Brooklyn. We have increased the assessment of our
property year by year, all it will bear, and I think a little more.
Property in some parts of the city to-day is asessed for more than
it can be sold for. I have in mind a piece of property that




No. 44.]


275


can not be sold for its assessed value. Now, I am not one of
those who fear the overwhelming power of New York when
Brooklyn is consolidated. During the forty years that I have
been a resident of the two cities, I have said again and again,
that I believe we can trust the people, absolutely. If you can so
arrange your municipal government that the terms of the legislative and executive bodies begin and end at the same time, so
that when the people desire to make a revolution, they may make
it complete, the people will meet their obligations and responsibilities and we will have good government. I have absolute
trust in the people and believe that Brooklyn will be benefited
by this union. The benefit will come from the corporative capital
which Brooklyn is without. I have no fear of the influence of
'Tammany Hall. I feel confident that we can take care of them
at the ballot box, we can right every wrong through the ballot
box. I have always favored taking in the outlying districts of
the city of Brooklyn and in every instance the city has been
benefited. I do not think any person here would say that the
eastern district of the city of Williamsburgh was not benefited
by consolidation with the city of Brooklyn. 1 do not think that
any one here will say that the country towns have not been
benefited by consolidation with Brooklyn. I am very heartily
and very earnestly in favor of consolidation. If you are consolidated you will not need any additional police to protect your
property, but if you extend Brooklyn six, eight or ten miles
and spread out over a large territory you will require more police
to protect your property. By all means let us have consolidation. I have studied this question for more than thirty years and
I feel very certain great good will come of it. I feel confident
that it will be a great boom for Brooklyn; there will be a revival of
business.
JAMES T. LYNCH:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: Although
I feel confident beyond the possibility of a doubt that a vote now
taken to get the sense of the voters of Brooklyn would show a




276


[SENATE,


larger majority in favor of consolidation than was cast in 1894,
still I oppose resubmission, because it would be un-American. A
majority, large or small, always decides according to our form
of government. Besides, politics would enter into the vote. I
oppose referendum, because I know the Legislature must and
will give Brooklyn justice, including equal taxation. To tlhe
plea made that the vote is stale, because it was not acted upon
by the last Legislature, comes rather ungracefully from those
same individuals who prevented the passage of a consolidation
bill last year. I think the owners of the large office buildings
around this court-house, who have spent so much money to
defeat consolidation, need not fear that their tenants will vacate;
this will continue to be one of the business centers long after
consolidation. The little civic pride among Brooklyn people
is shown by their well-known habit when visiting hotels in otler
cities of registering themselves as coming from New York. The
Wiestchester people think that consolidation with Yw- York
is a good thing for them, but not for Brooklyn. I shall read a
short extract from a letter from Senator Guy to the New York
W orld:
"During the last session of the Legislature I was largely
instrumental in bringing about the annexation to our city of the
lower part of AVWestchester county. I believe additional territory in the same direction can be added the coming session with
great advantage to our city, and I contemplate introducing bills.
with that object in view."
What are the practical questions?  Will consolidation benefit
New York and Brooklyn, and how should it be brought about?
are to be considered. The grand tax-list in New York, like, say,
$50,000,000,( in Brooklyn something like $12,500,)000. about four
to one.
Property is assessed in New York on an average of about fifty
per cent.
Property is assessed in Brooklyn on an average of about
seventy per cent.




lNo. 44.j


277


The tax rate in New York is 191, in Brooklyn 261, and upward
where special assessments are included in the tax bills. Equalization of these assessed values and rates might reduce Brooklyn
taxes about thirty per cent., and increase New York taxes about
seven and one-half per cent., because thirty per cent. on
$12,000.000 is only equal to seven and one-half per cent. on
$50,000,000, consequently the Brooklyn man whose tax bill last
year was $100 would find it become seventy dollars, and the New
York man's tax bill, which last year was $100, would be $107.
less the amount saved by discontinuance of unnecessary offices.
The great advantages to real estate in Brooklyn, which pays
over nineteen-twentieths of the whole taxes, would be increased
confidence in buyers, and particularly in money lenders, as
explained by Mr. Bailey, who is the vice-president and Brooklyn
manager of the Title Guarantee and Trust Company. That Mr.
Redfield did not understand his subject when he undertook to
discredit what Mr. Bailey said is fully demonstrated by Senator
Grady's questions as to whether he had not omitted to separate
second from first-class mortgages, and his confusion at other
questions. I have never heard of Mr. Redfield in the financial
world, whereas many people think, I certainly do, that Mr. Bailey
is the ablest financier of his age in Brooklyn. The Title Guarantee and Trust Company has loaned much larger amounts than
any other institution in Brooklyn during the last twelve months,
and every one of these loans which were on Brooklyn property
had to be approved by Mr. Bailey. Mr. Redfield said no one discredited the petition for resubmission. I should have been less
surprised if he hadl said no one seriously considered it -the man
who secured those names must have been paid, and your imagination will suggest the rest. Mr. Carman, one of those whose
names were signed to the call, explained his position. I remember Cyrus W'. Field told me that when Mr. William Waldorf
Astor was in the Legislature and worked to pass the five-cent
fare bill on the elevated railroad, Mr. Field caused a remonstrance to be circulated, and Mr. Astor's father unwittingly
signed the remonstrance. Now, consider what the lack of confi



278


[SENATE,


dence in the money-lenders means to the man of moderate means,
who owns a piece of property. He lives in constant dread that
the mortgage on his house may be called, that he can not borrow
money to replace the loan, and he may lose his property, and to
the poor man who wishes to build or buy a house, he can not
do so if he can not borrow liberally. To the gentleman who says
that six per cent. could be borrowed on Brooklyn property, I say
he is mistaken - to prove it, I say that the Title Guarantee and
Trust Company, to overcome the difficulty of getting capitalists
to take mortgages on Brooklyn property, was obliged to organize
the Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company, with $1,000,000
capital, to guarantee the payment of both prinicpal and interest
of bonds and mortgages, and this company will guarantee the
payment of mortgages on Brooklyn property only in the choicest
location and to about fifty per cent. of the value. I know, for I
am one of the directors and a member of the finance committee of
each of these companies. If consolidation is effected ixith New
York, taxes will be lowered in Brooklyn, and as I have said, over
thirty per cent., then capitalists will have confidence and loan on
Brooklyn property; this will encourage the construction of thousands of small houses and increase the assessable value propiortionately by the new additional structural improvements and cause
the man who hires a house in one of the suburbs of New Jersey to
be willing to come to Brooklyn, because after consolidation taxes
here will be lower and money can be more freely borrowed on
real estate. So that if a mortgage be called another loan can be
easily procured. Again, the consolidation of these cities will
remove sectional prejudices and make it easier to carry on public
works for the common good, particularly bridges. Some anticonsolidationists have asked, "Why don't the Greene and Stranahan commissioners bring in a charter (meaning a complete set of
bills for the government of the greater city) instead of this declaratory measure? " The answer is, there is no money to pay for such
elaborate work and, while it discontinues no offices, it, and this
bill give to the commission $25,000 with which, at a future time, to
formulate bills for equal taxation and other purposes, and to




No. 44.]


279


present them for consideration. Of course each one of these bills
when presented will be discussed in the Legislature, and perhaps
altered before being passed, or perhaps rejected, the Brooklyn representatives will always be there to see that their districts are
not injured. It is remarkable that while the Lexow bill contains
these words, New York, as by this act enlarged, and, among
other things, for attaining an equal and uniform rate of taxation,
and of valuation for the purpose of taxation throughout the whole
of the territory of the said municipal corporation so enlarged.
The Brush bill contains no words about equal taxation. I have
listened to every speech made during these four days' hearings.
I have given much thought to this matter ever since the movement
was started several years ago, and am firmly convinced that the
plan of the Lexow bill is the best. It would be very unwise to
longer delay the consolidation of New York and Brooklyn; for
uncertainty and delay are most detrimental to business interests.
I think it is not right to permit these men, inexperienced in business affairs, to have much consideration alongside such a large
proportion of the bank presidents, merchants and mechanics and
large real estate owners of the city.
MR. BRUSH:
Do you know that there are 8,000 more dwellings in Brooklyn
than there are in New York?
MR. LYNCH:
What's that got to do with the matter? If these people who
are living around this city and getting their figures from sources,
as evidently you do; they say figures can't lie, but the man who
puts them down can.
MR. BRUSH:
Excuse me. I got my figures from the census. How do you
explain that?.




280


[SENATE,


MR. GRADY:
I can. In New York they build their houses twenty stories
high, in Brooklyn they are content with two.
MR. BRUSH:
But isn't it desirable to have the smaller house?
MR. GRADY:
Yes, but the woman wants everything on the same flat and she
rules there as she does in everything else.
MR. LYNCH:
I am against the Brush bill, because it does not say a word about
equal taxation. I have confidence in New York city and I have
confidence in Senator Grady.
MR. GRADY:
That is the first time I have had a compliment paid to me during
this hearing.
JOHN D. KEILEY:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: On sentimental grounds I, and the three voting members of my family,
voted against consolidation when that question was before the
people in 1894. Since that time I have changed my views, and I
am now greatly in favor of consolidation. In the course of my
official duties as city treasurer of Brooklyn it became agreeable
for me to study the financial conditions of both New York and
Brooklyn. I approve of the sentiment here expressed by men
who are fond of Brooklyn. I, too, am fond of Brooklyn. I am
not one of those who signs himself as a citizen of New York when
he goes on a journey. The hotel registers of St. Louis, New
Orleans and other distant cities will testify to that fact. It is
because I love my city and anxious for it to continue in its course
of prosperity that I am here to urge consolidation with New
York.




No. 44.1


281


Let me present for your consideration a few figures. On
December 31, 1895, Brooklyn was within $2,199,208 of her debt
limit. The next day she received by the annexation of Flatlands
property assessed at $2,340,000, or added to her borrowing capacity one-tenth of that sum, $234,000. She is, therefore, at the present time, $2,500,000 of her debt limit. In no way can the city of
Brooklyn borrow more than $2,500,000 without increasing the
assessed valuation, and that cannot be done until next August,
when the assessors are empowered to meet and make another
assessment.
Brooklyn may well feel favored in being allowed to build a new
bridge from the foot of Broadway at a cost of only one-half as against
two-thirds paid for the present bridge. But had we been consolidated under wise conditions this city would need to pay only less
than one-fourth of the cost of that new bridge. The consolidationists and the anti-consolidationists are all anxious to have provided
means to cross the East river and reach the metropolitan city
quickly. The present bridge added more than $200,000),000, to
the assessed valuation of this city. After the construction of
the newN bridge it is reasonable to expect that a like amount will be
added to the assessed valuation in the annexed districts.
I was opposed to the consolidation of Gravesend beause then I
knew it would mean the consolidation of Brooklyn with New
York. But the anti-consolidationists who favored it, did not
think so. We didn't ask Gravesend if she wanted to come in,
but annexed her without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
It seems to me it comes with bad grace on the part of the anticonsolidationists now to say that the vote in favor of consolidation, 277, came from the town of Gravesend in view of the manner
in which that town was annexed to Brooklyn.
During the administration of Mayor Schieren - and, I believe,
he was the best mayor Brooklyn ever had - the city received the
full measure of value for moneys spent and yet during that time
it was necessary to expend $17,000,000. Over $5,000,(00 was
raised by issuing county bonds for park purposes, because we
[Senate, No. 44.]    36




OQ')
_d- -d


[SENATE,


were so near the debt limit. 1 am sorry that we were not able to
have the bonds for our new bridge issued in the same way, for
with them we are forced dangerously near the debt limit.
Already, as the superintendent of public instruction has told you,
$1,250,000 of bonds are to be issued for the public schools. The
schools must be provided for and then if it is necessary to issue
that amount of bonds, we have only $1,250,000 left for other
improvements. How can we expect to increase the valuation of
our property in the outlying districts, to pave the streets there and
lay sewers with that small amount? The entrance of the trolley
cars into these sections is not alone sufficient to increase the valuation of property in order that the assessed valuation will be
adequate. We are now carrying bonds that extend through forty
years. In the first instance, when the city issues bonds she must
give her credit. I)o you want to see the city of Brooklyn retrograde? The argument to preserve the name of Brooklyn is not
enough. I am fond of that name. I think it would be hard to
obliterate it. It is a name that has cut too much of a figure in
history to be easily obliterated. We all, however, are proud of
the Empire State and we are all anxious to have the imperial city
of the world here. It is shown that the Empire State has reached
the zenith of her power, that London, in ten or twenty years, will
yield the palm as the centre of the financial world and the commercial world and that it will come here to New York. Consequently we have interests here. The police and fire departments
of the consolidated city might easily be placed under one general
government and the officers governing the different sections
might be termed mayors, or anything you choose. The name of
the whole city might be Manhattan, and the different sections
might be given the names they now hold.
Shall we stop? In the period between 1880 and 1890 the
assessed valuation of the city increased $20,000,000, per annum,
and in the period between 1890 and 1895 it fell over $12.})00,000,
and had it not been for the fact that the annexation of the country
towns brought in $30,000,000, enabling us to increase our bond



No. 44.]


283


issuing capacity $3,000,000, we would have been unable to issue
our school bonds and carry out our plans.
MR. LEXOW:
Did the fact that the property in Brooklyn did not increase in
value justify an increase in the issue of bonds?
MR. KIELEY:
Under the Constitution it was permissible.
MR. LEXOW:
In other words, the increased valuation was forced?
MR. KIELEY:
Exactly.
MR. GRADY:
What wvas the difference between the bonded indebtedness at
the beginning of Mayor Shieren's term and at the end of it?
MR. KIELEY:
The bond and tax certificates issued during Mayor Shieren's
term amounted to $11,379,361.01; and there was paid off $6,568,682.73; the net income, therefore, from those sources was $4,810,678.28.
MR. GRADY:
Are the tax certificates similar to the revenue certificates of
New York city?
MR. KIELEY:
They are the same. The tax certificates do not count as additional indebtedness as affecting the constitutional limit, except,
when they are five years old. The gross city debt is $58,583,521.94.
Of that amount there is in the sinking fund $5,746,521.94. And
in tax certificates, $700,000. From this I figure the net debt to




2S4


[SENATE,


be, $51,827,000. The borrowing capacity, allowing for the sinking fund, is, therefore, $2,198,261.
MR. GRADY:
I wanted to know what two years of economical government
would add to the debt limit? There was no humor intended in
that remark. Every city that makes progress must spend money
for improvements.
MR. KIELEY:
Certainly, sir. I understand you. The net debt in 1893, was
$48,034,214.45 and at the close of 1895 it was $52,037,000, showing
a net increase of about $4,000,000 in two years and that does not
include the $5,000,000 devoted to the parks. Every dollar of it
was well spent, to'o.
MR. LEXOW:
According to your argument, then, Mr. Kieley, Brooklyn could
continue in its present course for about one year?
MR. KIELEY:
That is about all, if it were to make needed improvements. It
might continue for many years, if it did not make these improvements.
MR. BRUSH:
Is it not a fact that the assessed valuation of Brooklyn on new
property has increased every year at the rate of $13,000,000, and
tlat we are, therefore, able to carry on the necessary improvements?
MR. KIELEY:
I do not know that the increased assessed valuation is reckoned
on what you call new properiy. From 1880 to 1890 we were
ahead of the constitutional limit. In the next five years instead
of continuing onward we went back.




No. 44.]


285


MR. LEXOW:
Your argument is that these assessed valuations are not natural,
but forced?
MR. KIELEY:
That is correct. The increased assessed valuation as I understand it is on my neighbor's property and mine.
MR. LEXOW:
It is usual to increase it all along the line, is it not?
MR. KIELEY:
I believe it is.
MR. BRUSH:
I don't so understand it. Do you say that the assessed valuation showing an increase of.$13.00),0(}(., is not altogether a new
property?
MR. KIELEY:
The tax levy of 1893 showed that the total assessed valuation
was $486,531,506, and in the three towns of Flatbush, Flatlands
and Gravesend it was $24,816,895. The increase in 1894 was
$19,419,024. The debt limit of the county towns is higher now
than it was before annexation, because the Constitution which
permitted us to assume their assessed valuation as we might
fix it, did not compel us to assume the liabilities of those towns.
They have, beside our taxes, therefore, some debts of their own.
MR. GRADY:
Is that the kind of equal taxation the people are clamoring for?
MR. KIELEY:
No, but I am clamoring for an equal taxation. The assessed
valuation of the property in the county towns in 1895 was
$25,333,778; the president of the board of assessors knew at that




286


[SENATE,


time how necessary it was to strain every point, and the result is
that we have the old wards assessed at $509,851,331, an increase
over 1894 of $8,833,582, while the increase in the assessed valuation in the county towns is $5,170,577. The assessors in those
towns who, perhaps, favored their own interests, made the
assessed valuation show an increase of only $500,000, as against
our sum of over $5,000,000. While we did get an increased valuation of $13,000,000 in 1895, we got it by saddling $5,000,000 on
those county towns. Our borrowing margin at the present date
is $2,434,000. We are over $4,000,000 behind hand. I refused
to honor the drafts of the comptroller until I had received a note
from the law department authorizing me to do it. You know
how lawyers are about these matters, they do not want to go on
record, but I remained firm, until I got an opinion. We used
some of the money levied in 1895 to meet the current expenses of
1894. To-day this city is $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 behind hand.
We carry as an asset the account of a bank that broke twenty
years ago. We also carry $85,000 due from a defaulting city
treasurer.
MR. GRADY:
How do Brooklyn bonds sell as compared with those of New
York?
MR. KIELEY:
Brooklyn bonds sell well. They are as good as New York
bonds for estates, but not so good for commercial purposes.
MR. GRADY:
What is the distinction between the bonds?
MR. KIELEY:
There is the same difference between them as there is between
United States bonds and those of New York State. Your New
York city bonds sell at a premium, allowing three per cent.
interest, and ours, three and thirtv-five-one hundredths. That




No. 44.]


287


was the condition before our present financial troubles. Of
course, these rates might not prevail now. It is because of my
love for my city that I favor consolidation. I don't want to see
the city stop, but I want to see it go on. I am glad to find that
Senator Grady favors the plan of consolidation. I think that
Mr. Lynch rather exaggerated when he said that consolidation
would increase the assessed valuation of the city seven dollars
on eveiLv $100. I certainly should not want to pay taxes on
p$107 for every hundred dollars worth of property that I own.
If the increase were so great it would afford landlords an excuse
for raising their rents. To be fair, we ought to spend all of the
$5,000.000 levied on the county towns for improvements there,
but we can't possibly do it. New YTrk can well afford to help
us build more bridges. They say we have 8,000 more houses in
Brooklyn than there are in New York, but I am sure a great
mafny of them are empty. What we want is more people in
Brooklyn. We want to keep the people in the Empire State
instead of permitting them to go over to New Jersey to make
their homes. I thank you, gentlemen, for the courtesy you have
shown me, and for your kind attention.
RUSSELL PARKER:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I appeal to you
in the interest of consolidation, not as a real estate boomer, real
estate speculator, officeholder or politician, but as a plain business man. and in order that you may weigh my few remarks, I
will state that I am interested in a manufacturing corporation
in the city of New York, having an actual capital invested of
$450,000. I am president of the company, and I will clearly state
that all my associates, therein interested, are in favor of consolidation and reside in Brooklyn. I am president of the Montauk
Theater Company, of Brooklyn, although I do not claim to represent that company concerning the issue of consolidation; however,
I know that many stockholders favor it, possibly more than a
majority of the stockholders - in fact I do not know any that disapprove. Yet there may be some. I have interests in five insur



O288                  [SENATE,
ance companies in Brooklyn and New York. I own the house
where I live in Brooklyn- and, by the way, it is free and clear.
I keep it so as an investment, believing that I am benefited more
by saving the high rate of interest that I would probably have to
pay on a mortgage on said property, rather than I would be by
raising money in that way to invest elsewhere. I believe this
statement of my personal interests, as distributed in New York
city and Brooklyn, will convince you that my opinions on consolidation are clearly of a business nature, and I do not discard my
right to exercise sentiment, for I was born in New York city
and have lived in Brooklyn for over forty years.
Now, as to the vote of 1894. I understand it is as follows: Sixty
odd thousand: positively favored consolidation; sixty odd thousand positively disapproved consolidation, and the remaining
sixty odd thousand did not disapprove consolidation. Now, to
capitulate, what do we find? It clearly establishes the fact that
sixty odd thousand disapprove consolidation and that one hundred
and twenty odd thousand did not disapprove consolidation, all
having an equal right and opportunity to express themselves.
Our friends, the Antis, may say, but the sixty odd thousand that
did not vote, did not express themselves favorable to consolidation
and therefore we can not couple them on our side. I contend that
we should couple them with us. I contend that we should
couple them with us, as they are on our side and did express their
opinions by silence that they did not object to consolidation, as
silence gives consent -the world over. Were it possible to ascertain, you would, no doubt, find that every one that voted on the
consolidation matter voted on consolidation, and that twenty odd
thousand or more, in addition, voted on the consolidation matter,
that were probably influenced by the solid press against:s - and
even against such forcible opposition, we won the day. not by
any hard work on our part but by simply leaving it to the good
judgment of the people, and yet we are now told that thliere has
been no fair or intelligent expression on this subject by the people.
I further contend, gentlemen, that the result of the vote on this
matter, by sections in 1894, has entirely wiled out the issue as




No. 44.]


289


applying to sect-ions, and is now and was made so by the vote of
1894. a matter of the whole as one. Therefore, if there is to be
another vote on this subject, it must be by the voters of the whole
section; but, gentlemen, do not misunderstand me. I do not advocate another vote, not because I am afraid of such vote, as
I believe we would get an overwhelming majority in favor of consolidation, but because I would not care to insult the voters of
the section involved by inferring that they were lacking in intelligence; and also, in my judgment, it would be a very bad precedent
to establish. I believe that the whole section interested would
be greatly benefited by consolidation. In fact, I have heard none
and know of no good argument against it. It is unnecessary
for me to burden you with my opinion on details that have already
been so ably presented favorable to consolidation, therefore I
close by saying, that I am satisfied with the bill known as the
Greater New York commission bill, and enter my protest at this
time against any and all unnecessary delay in the passage of
the same.
MR. MATTHEWS:
I have received a telegram: "Impossible to leave. Tell the
committee I favor consolidation, with equal taxation. No vote
necessary. Darwin R. James."
MR. LEXOW:
The president of one of the exchanges in New York?
MR. MATTHEWS:
Yes. I now have the pleasure of introducing to you Joseph
Hendricks, president of the Union National Bank of New York,
and also ex-Congressman.
JOSEPH H. HENDRICKS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am very
sure I can add nothing to the argument which has been presented
to your committee, and I simply offer myself in evidence here for
[Senate, No. 44.]     3T




290


[SENATE,


wnat little I may be worth, to favor my belief as a business man,
and as a lover of the city of Brooklyn, that it is for the best interests of this city that it should be consolidated with the city of
New York. I have reached this conclusion, Mr. Chairman, by
reversing very much in my own mind the grounds of both parties
of this controversy. I share fully the feeling which inspires the
gentlemen who oppose this question from sentimental grounds.
I love the city of Brooklyn, its social atmosphere, its literary institutions, its libraries, its school systems - all that make a part of
its life; and while I am susceptible to all those impressions, at
the same time, as a student of the city of Brooklyn, from the
standpoint at various times in my life of postmaster of this city,
of a member and the president of the board of education and of
an association in, its financial operations, my judgment is clear
that the best interests of this city are to be conserved in every
way by this forward movement; and I can not understand, Mr.
Chairman, how a committee representing the great legislative
power of this State can consider for one moment the reversal of
the judgment which has been recorded by this community upon
this question. You, gentlemen in the Legislature, are custodians
of the public policy, and there is a principle in statesmanship -
there is a high command in the responsibility which is invested
in you that, when the only monarch that we know in this country
registers its edict there is nobody to say it nay; that in the league
which this city entered with the other cities about us here that
they should pass upon the question among themselves for or
against consolidation. When this community passed upon it for
consolidation, that stands, sir, as the dictum of this community
and the commnands to the Legislature to move forward. Any
review of the public judgment would be a reversal of the fundamental principles under Awhich we all live. We could not go forward in a republican form of gove'rnment with any success, or
with any surety, if we felt that a vote registered by the people
to-day might be picked to pieces, turned over, strained, evaded
and reversed under legislative influences, or under political or
associational influences at somle succeeding time. Is this vote




NSo. 44.]


291


attacked? Is the purity of the intention of tlhe majority of the
people of this city who registered their judgment in favor of
consolidation open to question here or anywhere else? I believe
the argument turns simply upon the smallness of the majority.
Mr. President and Gentlemen, you have nothing io do with that.
The battle has been fought, and the verdict has been rendered,
and a malingering troop of people on the battlefield of WAaterloo
migrht as well discuss what they could have done or mighllt have
done under certain circumstances; but the battle is ended, and it
1lis entered into history, and it is the command of the Legislature
of the State of New York. It is important to the city of Brooklyn
tlhat this question should be settled. How are you going to settle
it in any other iway than by moving forward along the lines
pointed out to you by the people of the city of Brooklyn? Are you
going to halt as between two courses? Are you going to say to
the people of the city of Brooklynl, "You must express your opinion.a second time upon this question before we know exactly what
you mean," Can you afford to say to the pleople of tle State of
New York when they vote upon a constitutional amendment or
upon any great question whiclh is submitted to them, "Gentlemen, the majority is small. We mu- lli come ba1ck to you and see
what vou think about it the next time." Where would thle world's
p)rogress be if we had to halt the great machinery, which has
struck in this case definitely and clearly; and I can not explain
how any man can for a moment think a Legislature can sit anywllere tllat will be guilty of a violation of pxublic policy which
would be involved in the reversal of a popular verdict of that
kind. But while the question is in the air it is a cloud upon the
futulre of the city. Are vwe going to be consolidated,  o olght we
not? Can a capitalist come here with certaiinty and buy the
lil'operty and develop it with the expectation that the city will
grow and become greater; or must caplitall loolk upon tlie unfortunate financial condition of tile city, nust he consider how much
it is now eating up of its own capital, how very much embarrassed
it is at its own affairs, and stop and hesitate, or go off elsewhere.
It is to tle interests of tlie city of Brooklyn that the question




292


[SExNATr,


should be settled. We belong to New York. We are all in one
community.   We want the metropolitan spirit which blows
through that great centre of finance and commences to come in
through our atmosphere and fill up our veins; we want to draw
on its nourishing wine, which it has in abundance, and which
belongs by right to the people of this city who either directly or
indirectly help to makle up the great commercial depot there.
The commerce of the nation comes down there to meet the tonnage of the world; and our dome is here-a string of village ex-tending over many miles of tIerritory, lacks that metropolitan
spirit-fails to.-'t out of the commercial surroundings here that
to which it is entitled. Any one who has studied the city of
Brooklyn has seen that it has responded like an enfeebled invalid
to every bit of good nourishment it has ever received. When any
improvement is mentioned in transportation, when any new ferry
is secured the city has felt the thrill of it. When the bridge
was opened the city bounded forward, and we felt as though
now we begin to get more of the fine breeze of the metropolitan
spirit; but the moment we grow up to the advantage which we
have attained the city waits and hesitates, and does not go forward until it gets a new stimulus. We have no place to draw
from except the great city of New York. We have no transient
population filling our streets. We have no great trunk lines
coming here bringing people from all parts of the world. We
have an incident in the great growth of this metropolis here;
and it is important that there should be no constriction of any
artery which could bind the two members of tie two bodies together; but that the nourishment and circulation tending to
growth and development should be perfectly uninterrupted, and
perfect according to their own mission. Now, unless we can get
this question settled, Brooklyn is going to be like a great mlagnificent oak tree which is rotlting and decaying around the trunk,
and showing a little spronlt lhere and there at the end of solme
extreme branches; and is it to go on that way for the next generation? It is time, it seems to me, that this question should be
taken up by your boldy along the lines of instruction from the
people; the next thing, sir, is the act of consolidation. That




'No. 44.]


293


follows the commanlid which you have received from all ofl these
communities, and it is a larger question than questions of statistics, than questions of Brooklyn, than questions of that nature.
It is the edict from a great community entering into a league of
cities to pass upon this quesiion; and from this point the commund, it seenms, to you gentlemen, is, go forward.
MR. CHAUNCEY:
I would like to make a statement in regard to the evasion of
taxes in Brooklyn by large corporations. I make this statement
now, and have it from the assessors' office. The large corporations of Brooklyn for years have in every possible way tried to
dodge the collection of personal taxes; and they now pay their
taxes, very many of them, at their principal office, which they
have a right by law to choose, and in almost every case that principal office is in New York city, where the tax rate is the least.
I will instance the Union Ferry Company. Until four years ago,
they paid personal tax on three million dollars of capital, for many
years and are now paying in New York. I will also instance the
DeKalb Avenue railroad, that now pays personal taxes in New
York city; and I will instance the Brooklyn Wharf and Warehouse Company, which owns every foot of property on the water
front from Catherine ferry to Red Hook upon two miles, every
wvarehouse, every dock, every bulkhead. Before Mr. Franklin
Woodruff changed his mind, in regard to the subject of consolidation, that property was owned almost exclusively by the people
of Brooklyn. To-day that has been bought by the great corporation, which pays this personal tax in the city of New York. Its
capital is $30,000,000; and from the day the sale took place, Mr.
Woodruff changed his mind. He had no further interest in it. I
merely call you attention to the changes taking place to make
Brooklyn poorer and poorer every year.
MAYOR GLEASON, OF LONG ISLAND CITY,:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I do not
know why I am here to-day to address this committee upon the




294


[E[SENATE,.


consolidation of both cities convenient to New York. I was
going to ask, however, of this committee, if it was their intention
that a hearing should be held in other cities that are equally
interested with Brooklyn. I intended to write the committee a
letter asking that question of the committee; but as I am here
to-day I will give my views and the people that I represent. The
people of Long Island City have voted and declared their intontions to become a part of the Greater New York: and they have
not changed their mind, and they do not desire to change their
mind upon that question. We consider that we have always
been a part of the city of New York, for perhaps one-half of the
population resided with us in Long Island City and in Queens
county. I have listened with great interest here, on two occasions, upon the question of Brooklyn, in regard to its bonded
indebtedness and its taxation; and I have made up my mind that
Long Island City is a prosperous city, after I have heard the argument. I believe that we are the richest city in the State. I
know it. I know the bonded indebtedness; I know the floating
indebtedness of it and I know the value of the property; but if
we are called upon to pay any of the debt of Brooklyn, or any of
the debt of New York, I should oppose the consolidation; but I
know there is a just committee upon this question. I know the
Legislature intends to do justice to all parties. I know there
are wicked corporations in both of those cities, and more
especially in my own city, that they evade the taxes, the personal taxes especially, because the law requires and states thatt
the corporation shall pay taxes where they have their office, and
they have all got their offices in New York city. Very many
of them swear off their taxes.  They say they have paid in
Long Island.  That is not so; and when I called lhe attention of New York to it, the Long Island railroad made their
principal office in what they call their " Round House" in
Jamaica to evade the other taxation. Those are the benefits tlhat
Brooklyn and Long Island City wAill get the benefit of; and I add
to the people of Brooklyn here, that llhe people of Long Island C (ity
do not require another votle on it, alnd I do notl- myself; but if yo'u




No. 44.]


295


come to Long Island City and request me to give you a statement
of our bonded indebtedness and what we have, I will present it
to the committee at Albany, so that that committee can act for
our little city, and we will throw ourselves into your hands.
MR. SNOOK:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I had the
honor of presenting this petition partially the other day, and it
was not completed and I will now read it. (See copy of petition
attached to Mr. Snook's previous remarks.)
MR. LExow:
Have you any more speakers?
MR. MATTHEWS:
Any more? I do not know where to shut them off. We have
on our list thirty speakers, and they have come in as we expected
they would. I have announced them and have received communications from Andrew G. Brady, Henry Batterman, James
McMahon, James Meserole, Nelson Beach, Donaly Ayers, Rufus
L. Griggs, Frederick Ullman, Henry A. Meyer and James Gascoigne. They are coming in all the time. We are ready to submit our case at any time in closing. We can keep on and use all
the hours the committee might give.
MR. LEXow:
You have, in order to divide the time equitably, fifteen minutes
more. If you want to abandon that fifteen minutes we will be
pleased to have you do so.
MR. MATTHEWS:
I know the gentlemen coming here are coming here under
stress of business, and we are perfectly satisfied by leaving it
by submitting this letter:
ABRAHAM & STRAUS,
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 25, 1896.
My Dear Mr. Matthews:
1 am sorry I can not be with you this afternoon. A matter of
importance will prevent my attendance at the hearing.




296


[SENATE,


Mr. Redfield, in his argument yesterday, stated that I was
wrong in claiming that New York city would add $8,000,000 to
its tax revenue this year, and that but $4,000,000 would be added.
My information was derived from such a reliable source that I
was justified in quoting the amount. As the budget is not yet
made out for publication nor passed upon, neither of us can give
official figures, yet time will show that I am right and Mr. Redfield wrong.
The slurs Mr. Redfield cast on a number of merchants who
signed the petition favoring consolidation by impugning their
financial standing and credit was irrelevant and mean. Among
the 120 signers of the petition are the firms of Fred'k Loeser & Co.,
A. D. Matthews & Son, Henry Offerman, Liebman Co., Brooklyn
Furniture Company, Henry Batterman, Wm. Batterman, Joseph
O'Brien, Joseph Weschler Sons, Wechsler Bros., J. McCormick,
Henry Rothschild, Harding Manufacturing Company, Sam'l Koch
& Son, Alfred F. Wise, Theodore Ovington, P. F. Cassidy and
Abraham & Straus; if these are not the leading firms of Brooklyn
I would like to hear who Mr. Redfield thinks are. I will further
add that the canvasser stated that not five per cent. of the firms
he solicited refused to sign the petition. One dry-goods firm
would not sign because it was a stock company.  From this
result I am justified in claiming that easily seventy-five per cent.
of the entire mercantile community of this city is in favor of
consolidation and would sign the petition were they solicited.
I saw in this morning's Tribune that Senator Brush made a state.
ment that there are 10,583 manufacturing establishments in this
city, valued at nearly 20,000,000. The many millions annually
produced from these factories I do not know, but does Mr. Brush
realize that the city of New York reaps the result of all this
brawn and brain? In other words, New York is the clearinghouse for all we do. We help to fill her storehouses and offices,
which produce so much revenue to New York. They sell the
products and wares we produce, receive the money, which enriches
her banks and trust companies, etc. Now, why should not New
York give us back in part what we help her to acquire?




No. 44.]


297


I am glad that the committee visited Brooklyn. The debate
is educational and results in much good to this city.
Sincerely yours,
A. ABRAHAM.
MR. LEXOW:
As I understand this, by mutual agreement and acquiescence
on both sides, the hearings in Brooklyn will now be declared
closed.
JAMES A. SKILTON:
Mr. Chairman: I wish to present a communication here.
MR. LExow:
Mr. Skilton, this is your communication. I notice that it is
quite lengthy, and probably covers all the points that you would
dwell upon in making a public address.
MR. SKILTON:
No; not as long as I would like to make it.
MR. LExow:
Sometimes we reach better conclusions by taking a condensed
form.
MR. SKILTON:
This is a large subject, and can not be very well condensed.
MR. LEXOW:
I think, Mr. Skilton, that your letter here, when read before
the committee, will convey to them all that you might possibly
say by way of further elucidation of it, and we are all fairly intelligent and understand the argument that you make here. I will
take pleasure in presenting it at the next meeting of the committee,
if you hand it to me.
[Senate, No. 44.]    38




298


[SENATE,.


MR. SKILTON:
Nevertheless, I suppose the chairman and committee will allow
me to add to that statement in writing.
MR. LEXOW:
Certainly.
MR. SKILTON:
I don't care to take the time to read at present what I say in
writing here in this paper and later on.
MR. MATTHEWS:
I wish to present to the committee this extract taken from the
New York Tribune of to-day:
"But even aside from past sins and present necessity for improvements there are reasons why Brooklyn can not hope for
taxes as low as New York's. It extends over a wider territory
and has fewer people. Long stretches of streets must be cleaned,
paved, lighted and policed where the adjoining property has not
a tenth of the value of property in New York which requires the
same public expenditure. Consequently the cheaper property
has to pay taxes at a higher rate for the benefits conferred upon
it. Then, too, Brooklyn has not the vast taxable wealth of New
York. Its citizens, in fact, contribute largely to sNew York's
treasury. They live there on comparatively inexpensive property, while their business is here and they own real estate in
the downtown district of great value. From this the residence
regions of Brooklyn get no benefit, while the residence regions
of New York are cared for from the taxes on the business of its
citizens, aided by those levied on Brooklyn men's investments
here. This condition results from Brooklyn's situation and character, and no administration can lchange it. Honest officials can
in time pay off its debts and give it its money's worth in improvements, but only consolidation will give Brooklyn its fair share
of the revenue levied in the metropolitan district and relieve




No. 44.]
~j


209


it from paying for the conduct of a vast city without the real
estate values which make the burden light."
MR. LEXOW:
Before this committee takes final action, the probabilities are
that it will hold at least one session in the city of Albany, and if
any citizens, whoi have not been heard, desire to speak before the
committee, they will be heartily welcome, especially if they can
throw any light on the subject.
MR. GRADY:
Before the hearing of the speeches close, J would move on the
record that there be made a minute of our thanks to the officials
of Brooklyn, for the kind treatment they have extended to the
committee during our sessions here.
MR. LExow:
It is ordered unanimously.
MR. MArTTHEWS:
In addition to the letter of Mr. Abraham, which I presented, I
also have one from Mr. Parker, representing a large moneyed
interest, which lie asked me to read, and which I do not care to
take the time of the committee in reading it.
MR. LExow:
Is there anybody further who desires to be heard?
MR. SKILTON:
I desire to ask one question. Can we send communications and
petitions to the committee at Albany, that will be observed the
same as if we spoke on the floor here?
MR. LExow:
Certainly; if those communications are addressed to the chairman of the committee, or to the committee by names.




300


[SENATE,


MR. SKILTON:
I want to make a communication and will send it in a day or two.
MR. LExOW:
I understand, by general consent, approved by all, both on the,one side and on the other side of consolidation, we have given a
full hearing to the subject down here and will now take an
adjournment.
The following address was presented by Mr. James A. Skilton:
NEW YORK, January 25, 1896.
Hon. Clarence Lexow, Chairman, and the Honorable Gentlemen
Members of the Subcommittee on Consolidation, now in session in the city of Brooklyn:
Gentlemen: On the sixteenth of January I sent a letter to the;chairman asking " the opportunity of appearing before your committee in this matter of consolidation."
I received no reply to my communication, have attended several
meetings of the committee, always to find the time of the committee fully engaged, and from the announcements in the newspapers I am led to believe that the time so far allotted for hearings in Brooklyn will expire without my having the desired
-opportunity.
I beg now to renew my request, and with that renewal to make
as brief statement as possible of the subject-matters that it seems
to me very desirable that the committee should have presented
before it takes action and before the Legislature and the Governor of the State shall take action upon this most important subject of consolidating Brooklyn with the greater New York.
As legislators of the greatest and wealthiest State in the union,
and competent for the high duties imposed upon you as members
of this committee, I must assume that you are aware that there
is a most instructive and illuminating history of attempts to
-destroy great charters by the government and authorities of New
York, more than 200 years old.




No. 44.]:)lLt


You are aware that under the royal authority of Charles IrT
and the Duke of York, his brother, subsequently James II,
of England, an attempt was made to take away the charter of
the Colony of Connecticut; that the attempt was successfully
resisted by the sturdy colonists of Connecticut for more than
twenty years, and that the charter was finally saved, notwithstanding all the powers of royalty and of New York brought to
bear for its destruction or abrogation.
You are also aware that after more than three generations of
men had lived and wrought and prospered under the charter, it
became the model, not simply of the Constitution of the United
States, but of the American system for the protection of human
freedom and for the enlightenment of the world."
We can now see and rejoice over the results as they could
not, of the work of the sturdy men who protected that charter,
who threatened to put the daylight through a Governor of New
York who proposed to abrogate home rule under it, and who
finally, when the charter was about to be taken away, blew out
the lights, concealed the charter in the charter oak, and preserved
not only that charter but liberty for their prosperity and for us.
I desire the opportunity to recall to you and to all those whom
you represent, but particularly to the citizens of the city of
Brooklyn, the historic fact, that during those twenty years and
rmore of effort to destroy the charter of the Connecticut colony,
the men who made that effort were walling and living over an
abyss of revolution which finally destroyed them, theirs and their
successors root and branch forever, until now. I wish also time
and opportunity to show that similar influences and impulses
under a new form of imperialism is, in seeking to destroy the
charter of Brooklyn, endangering the foundation and fabric of
American institutions and jeopardizing the hope of western
civilization.
Prof. Bryce, speaking in the city of Brooklyn a few years ago,
said that when he first came to America he found America
Europeanized as far west as Buffalo; that on his second trip he
found it Europeanized as far west as Chicago; and that on his




302


[SENATE,


then third trip he had found it already Europeanized beyond the
Mississippi river. I would like the opportunity to show that in
one respect Prof. Bryce was mistaken; and that owing to a variety
of circumstances and conditions, including topography and various
other matters, Brooklyn had been plassed )y in the swirl of
Europeanization, and was left, not only an American, but practically a. New England city, but seriously threatened by a
European city lying across the East river. I wish to show in
this connection that the attenlpt to unite these two cities is as
unseemly as it would be to unite any American city with any of
the great cities of Europe; that the salvation of American institutions is wralpt up in the solution of the municipal problem; that
it is a problem from the attempted solution of which Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and their associates might well
shrink, if they were now living, and was beyond their contemplation or grasp in the foundation and construction of our institutions; and to add to this that Brooklyn is thle one city in the United
States, and the only one, in which at the present time, and, so
far as we now can see, for future time, that municipal and American problems can be dealt with with any prospect of success andl
salvation. This, in part, because it has been isolated from New
York and the continent, surrounded and indented by sea water
and the great, free ocean, and therefore peculiarly protected as
the locus of the great experiment, yet to be made, with an extensive island behind it, in every way (adapted by hygienic, economic
and other characteristics. I should like the opportunity to show
that only recently have the great inventions making possible the
building of a city in which its citizens can lave not only fresh
air, pure water and the other necessities of life, but also purity in
politics, in all sociological relations and in all the requirement'
of American life, been made, and that this is peculiarly not the
time in whlich to destroy the opIportunity of lBrooklyn, the State
and the States, forever.
In this connection I should like tlJe l rivilege of showing tlhit
politics. Ia d l litic.ilns 11lhave absolitell!y:I tn filly'i1 broke1il  (down
and failed as saviors of American. instit utions, broadly and




No. 44.]


generally; that we have come upon a sociological age, and upon
the co-ordinate necessity and duty of studying anew the organization of society, especially in great cities, which have heretofore been the destruction of all civilizations, even the strongest
and most hopeful.
There are many other matters that I should like to present, but
which time does not permit me to mention; and if those already
mentioned are not sufficient as a basis for my request, then probably nothing that I could add would give my request sufficient
weight to secure a favorable answer.
Perhaps you will ask, and it would be quite proper if you should.ask, on what personal grounds this request is made.
My first reply would be that now nearly thirty years ago I
selected Brooklyn as my place of abode, because I found that it
was an American city, the home of native Americans and
Americanized Americans, discarding and spurning New York as
not American, and the home of and controlled by un-Americanized
Americans. This selection of Brooklyn and spurning of New
York I have renewed daily for seven days in every week throughout the subsequent years, until now.
My further reply to the question would be that more than forty
years ago, and before people in America had discovered that
there was any such thing as a great municipal problem, I had the
privilege of studying, for the better part of the year, the great
city of London, and have for all the years since that great year,
1851, watched with interest the Londonization of American cities,
great and small, much of the time aghast because of the threatening perils, all too little recognized, and nowise remedied either
by the citizens in general, its victims, or by the leaders, teachers
and guides of the American people.
And now I find that the one citadel city of American municipal
citizenship left in the country, wherein we might yet be saved,
is besieged by the enemy, in danger of capture, and, most pitiable
of all, that many of its citizens, at least one of them a former
president of the New England Society, are endeavoring to per



304


[SENATES


suade its people to accept as a gift of the gods to the pious, the
Trojan horse of consolidation.
Further, I discovered, on looking up the matter anew in connection with the attempts now being made to destroy the charter
of Brooklyn, a fact and a duty; that I am descended from three
at least of the original grantees of the original charter of Connecticut, one of them then, and the other subsequently, Governors of that colony, from John Allyn, known as the Great Secretary, into whose custody the duplicate charters of the colony
were placed for safe-keeping, and who faithfully to the end of his
life carried out that trust, and also from many of their associates
and successors, who for several generations lived under and had
to do with the administration and support of that charter and
system of government, which, as has been before stated, became
a model later for our American system; and that I ought not to
allow the charter of Brooklyn to be taken away without protest,
on my part, and without making some effort to call the attention
of those of whom there must be many in Brooklyn, who are the
descendants of some of the same ancestry which saved the charter
of Connecticut, and the attention of others, public-spirited citizens. to the fact that under the circumstances the successful
abrogation of the charter of Brooklyn, of home rule and a right
to decide its own fate, fully and fairly presented, face to face
with destiny, would be a political and social crime for which there
is no parallel in history, ancient or modern, and to which there
should not be a single instant of contemplated submission —
except resubmission.
If you and your committee should ask how much time I desire
in which to prepare, develop and present the subject-matters
above mentioned and indicated, my reply would be, not less than
ten days, but ten weeks if possible. And my general contention
would be that a commission of the most learned experts in the
land should be appointed to consider the whole subject during the
period as long as that in which the Connecticut charter was in
peril - somTething over twenty years - and. at the end, that consolidation and greater N\w Y(rkT be aIbahln(loned in favor of




No. 44.]


305


greater Brooklyn, the great American city and sample of many
great American municipalities.
Awaiting your early reply, I am very respectfully yours.
JAMES A. SKILTON.
THE CONSTITUTION STANDS IN THE WAY- DANGERS AND
DIFFICULTIES OF THE "GREATER NEW YORK SCHEME."
(Editorial in New York Times, May 8, 1895.)
AN IMAGINARY ()BJECTION.
Opponents of the Greater New York bill are in desperate
straits for some ground for their opposition when they set up the
constitutional bugbear of the right of every county not identical
with a city in its boundaries to have a board of supervisors. There
is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the Legislature from
changing the boundaries of counties in any way that it may
see fit.
WAhen some of the towns of Westchester county were annexed
to New York over twenty years ago, they were added to the
county as well as the city. There is nothing to prevent the addition of more of them. If a part of Westchester county can be
added to New York, so can a part of Queens county. If a part
of W-estchester county can be added to New York, so can a part
of Queens county. If a part of a county can be set off and
attached to an adjoining county, what is to hinder annexing the
whole of it? The fact that the Constitution provides, in connection with the subject of apportionment, that the Legislature may
abolish the county of Hiamlilton an(d ann1ex its territory to other
counties raises no presunmption that it can not abolish any other
county. It is only a qualification of a provision that Hamilton
shall elect a AMember of Assembly with the county of Fulton until
its population shall entitle it to a member of its own. There is a
proviso in another section of the apportionment article that nothing, therein contained " shall prevent the division at any time of
counties and towns " by the Legislature.
[Senate, No. 44.]    39




306


[SENATE,


If the Legislature sees fit to make one county as well as one
city of the area which it is proposed to consolidate, there is no
constitutional bar to its doing so, and we see no reason why it
should not do so. There is no occasion for two systems of administration covering the same territory any more in the case of the
extended municipality than in the case of the present municipality of New York, or that of Brooklyn after it shall include all of
Kings county. Doubtless when the consolidation shall havk.
been effected the boundaries of the city will be the same as those
of the county and there will be no occasion for boards of
supervisors.
But all this is irrelevant to the pending bill, which provides
practically for nothing but a commission to devise the legislation
necessary to effect the proposed consolidation. In the meantime
all the existing "bodies politic and corporate" are expressly
retained with their administrative functions unimpaired. What
shall be done with county lines and the functions now exercised
by boards of supervisors hereafter is among the thingsto be considered by the commission. The Legislature will do nothing in
regard to them until measures affecting them have been proposed,
and then it will be time enough to raise questions on that score.
They have nothing to do with the pending bill. It is not unlikely
that the commission may devise a system of government involving subdivisions of some kind for local administrative purposes,
but whether it does or not, there is nothing in the way of any
change in county boundaries that may be found expedient.
(From the New York Times, May 9, 1895.)
GREATER NEW YORK QUESTIONS - ROBERT D. BENEDICT ON
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION CONCERNING
COUNTIES AND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS.
To the Editor of the New York Times:
I see in the Times of this morning an editorial on the (reater
New York bill, in which the objection that the bill would result
not in one city with one municipal government and one debt -




No. 44.]


307


contracting power, but in a city the five parts of which would be
subject to the government of five boards of supervisors, with a
city government imposed upon them, and with a debt-contracting
power up to twice the constitutional limit, is spoken of as a " constitutional bugbear," and the reason for calling it so is stated
to be that "there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the
Legislature from changing the boundaries of counties," and further that, "if the Legislature sees fit to make one county as well
as one city of the area which it is proposed to consolidate, there
is no constitutional bar to its doing so.'"
I think your epithet of "bug-bear" was used without full consideration of the provisions of the Constitution bearing on the
question, or of the provisions of the bill. The bill proposes to
constitute the city of New York out of the territory of the county
of New York, the county of Kings, part of Queens, part of Westchester county, and the county of Richmond. It also, in its fifth
section, provides as follows:  ".Nothing in this act contained
shall be construed as attempting or intending to affect in any
way the government, rights, powers, duties, obligations, limitations or disabilities of any county, or officers thereof, as fixed by
the Constitution, or to obliterate any county lines."
It follows, therefore, inevitably, that by the bill as at present
proposed, the Greater New York would be composed of five different parts, subject to six different governments, as I have said
above. That this is very objectionable I understand to be conceeded
But, it is said that the question now is, only the framing of a
charter for the Greater New York, and that by the charter, when
framed, this difficulty may be avoided, by making, as you suggest,
"one county as well as one city of the area which it is proposed
to consolidate." It is certainly a grave question whether a commission appointed under the act would have the power in view
of the fifth section, which I have quoted above, to provide a
charter which should so seriously affect the government, etc., of
these several counties, as would be done by making one county
as well as one city of the area in question.




.. qr


[SENATE,


But if the commission did frame a charter, which should make
one county as well as one city out of the territory of New York,
could the Legislature enact it?
Possibly the Legislature could change the boundaries of Westchester county and Queens county and of New York county; for
the Constitution, article III, section 5. expressiy provides:
"Nothing in this section shall prevent the division at any time
of counties and towns, and the erection of new towns by the
Legislature."
But when we come to the question of aboiishing the county of
Kings and the county of Richmond a very different question is
presented.
If there were no provisions of the Constitution, excepting the
provisions of section 5, article III, the power to abolish a county
could hardly be claimed to exist, for that section has the following language: "Every county heretofore established and separately organized, except the county of Hamilton. shall always
be entitled to one Member of Assembly. * *  But the Legislature may abolish the said county of Hamilton and anniex the
territory thereof to some other county or counties. * * *
Members of the Assembly shall be apportioned to the several
counties as follows: * * * Kings county, twenty-one members; * * * New York county, thirty-five members; Richmond county, one member. * * * Nothing in this section
shall prevent the division at any time of counties and towns."
Could it be held under these provisions, which expressly authorize the abolition of Hamilton ('lnlit-y lllone, and expriessly pro viders
for the division of counties alon,. that the power to abolish aun
county but Hamilton was implied? No rule of const-itutionl
construction that I am familiar with would allow it.
A n,.- a,'nii,.  f Richnrrln,   (mlmtY is li! thlie ( 'onistiuti ion to have
one Member of Assembly. and Kinigs ou ity'' iy tI the Consltitlltion
is to have twenty-olil Members of Assembly, can either of those
counties, constitutio ially. be abtolished? AXndi if New Yor'ok (oumntf
can constitutionally hav.(1 only thirty-five members of the Legislatulre, can thef L gislature, by wiping out Richmond county and




No. 44.]


309


Kings county aind consolidating those two counties anid parts of
W\cstlchestelr 11n  Qllueens (coll tiles into one 11and calling it the
county of New York, provide that the people residing in that
Greater New York shall have a representation of only thirty-five
Members in the Assembly, whereas they are now entitled to fiftysev\en, besdes those apportioned to the parts of Westchester and
Quieens counties?  Is tle suggestion that the people can not
thus be robbed of their constitutional right of representation a
mer'e "constitutional bugbear?
But the words of the Constitution relating to Members of the
Assembly are not the only ones to be considered.
The same article provides that the'State shall be divided into
fifty Senate districts, and that the first district "shall consist of
the counties of Suffolk and Richmond."  Can the Legislature
abolish Richmond county? If there is no Richmond county, will
the first Senate district, consist of Sutlolk county alone?  The
third to the ninth district are each to be "'Part of the county of
Kings." Can Kings county be abolished?
And, again, article 6, section 2, of the Constitution provides as
follows: "The Legislature shall divide the State into four judicial departments. The first department shall consist of the
county of New York. The other shall be bounded by county
lines.  *   *  *   There shall be an appellate division for the
Supreme Court, consisting of seven justices in the first department, and of five justices in each of the other departments."
Can the Legislature by abolishing the county of Kings and the
county of Richmond, and including them in the county of New
York, provide that the Greater New York, shall still be the first
judicial department, with only seven justices in its appellate
division for its doubled population?
Again, can the Legislature, under the Constitution, change the
first department by taking into it, parts of Westchester and
Queens, in the face of the provisions that the other departments
shall be, "bounded by the county lines?"
In the case of Lanning vs. Carpenter (20. N. Y. p. 447), the Court
of Appeals discussed the questions arising, under the Constitution




310


[SENATE,


of 1846, out of the formation of Schuyler county. In that opinoin
it is said:
" It is parcel of the requirements of the Constitution that the
several judicial districts shall always be composed of counties
and never of parts of counties. True, the Legislature has power
to create new counties out of the old ones. Whenever this can
be accomplished without deranging the limits of districts it may,
perhaps, be done at any time. And when it is deemed advisable
to constitute a new county out of parts of several districts it
may be done at a time when the Legislature is empowered by the
Constitution to reorganize the districts, but not at any other time."
Whether these words are applicable under the present Constitution, which provides for departments instead of districts, may
possibly be a question. But if they are, can the Legislature
change the boundaries of a county so as to transfer part of it
from one judicial department to another?
What about the county courts of these counties which it is
suggested can be abolished?  What about their clerks, their surrogates, their sheriffs? If the questions involved in the above
considerations are in the view of the Times "constitutional bugbears," the Times idea of bugbear is very different from mine.
These considerations have certainly not been presented to the
public mind as they should have been. In view of them I say,
without hesitation, that the only proper foundation for the building of the Greater New York must be an amendment to the constitution.
Very truly,
ROBERT D. BENEDICT.
NEW YORK, May 8, 1895.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 18, 1896.
Thomas H. Loomis, being duly sworn, says: I live at 288 Quincy
street, Brooklyn, N. Y. On election day, November 6th, 1894, 1
was a canvasser in the ninth election district of the twenty-third
ward. I saw an intelligent looking German who became so con



No. 44.]


311


fused about his ballots that after once asking for instructions he
finally refused altogether to vote any of tlhet ballots. I also saw
two other men who refused to vote any of the amendments or
consolidation ballots, because they were confused about them.
Also that the inspector of election was so intoxicated that he put
all the ballots in one box.
THOMAS H. LOOMIS.
Sworn to before me, this 18th
day of January, 1895.
GEO. W. GATEHOUSE,
Notary Public, Kings County, N. Y.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, 88.:
John P. Morey, being duly sworn, says that he acted as ballot
clerk in the twenty-seventh district in the sixth ward in the city of
Brooklyn at last election and states that to the best of his
knowledge that about three-quarters of the people who voted
in his district did not know what they were voting for when they
voted the amendments and the consolidation ballots, and some
wanted to vote for and against the amendments not knowing
what they were, and further this deponent says not.
JOHN P. MOREY.
Sworn to before me this 18th
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Corn. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, 88.:
Patrick McGinniss being duly sworn, says that he acted as
inspector of elections in the twenty-seventh district in the sixth
ward of the city of Brooklyn at the last election, and states that
the majority of the voters in that district did not know the differ



312


[SENATE,


ence between the consolidation ballots and the amendment ballots and got so confused that they refused to vote them and
further this deponent says not.
PATRICK McGINNISS.
Sworn to before me, this 18th
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Corn. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, SS.:
Augustine M. McHale being duly sworn, says that he acted as
ballot clerk in the sixth district in the sixth ward at the last
election and states that about one-third of the people in that
district did not know the difference between the amendment and
the consolidation ballots, and a great many asked him what they
were for, and if they should vote them or not. And further thi;:
deponent says not.
AUGUSTINE M. McHALE.
Sworn to before me, this 18th
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Com. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, SS.:
Chas. H. Callahan, being duly sworn, says that he acted as
ballot clerk in the second district in seventh ward in the city
of Brooklyn at the last election, and states that more than onethird of the voters in his district did not understand the amendments and the consolidation ballots, and asked him for instructions in regard to voting the different ballots. He also states
that, owing to the confusion, that a great many people who




No. 44.]


313


originally intended to vote againstl consolidation, through confusion, voted for it. And further, this deponent says not.
C. H. CALLAHAN.
Sworn to before me, this 22d
day of January, 1895. 
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Corn. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW     YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, SS.:
Dominick Byrne, being duly sworn, says that he acted as inspector of election in the first district in the eleventh ward in
the city of Brooklyn at the last election, and states that more
than one-third of the voters in his district did not understand
the amendments and consolidation ballots and asked for instructions in regard to voting the different ballots, and also states,
owing to the confusion, that a great many people who originally
intended to vote against consolidation, through confusion, voted
for it. And further, this deponent says not.
DOMINICK BYRNE.
Sworn to before me, this 21st
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Corn. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, SS.:
David J. Scanlon, being duly sworn, says that he acted as
ballot clerk in the fourth district of the sixth ward in the city
of Brooklyn, and states that more than one-third of the voters
in his district did not understand the amendments and the consolidation ballots and asked him for instructions in regard to
[Senate, No. 44.]    41




314


[SENATE,


voting the different ballots. He also states that, owing to the
confusion, that a great many people who originally intended to
vote against, consolidation, throulgh confusion, voted for it. And
further, this deponent says not.
DAVID J. SCANLON.
Sworn to before me, this 18th
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Corn. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, SS.:
George O. B. Weaver, being duly sworn, says that he resides
at 375 Cumberland street in the city of Brooklyn, and states that
at the last election, held November 6, 1894, in the city of Brooklyn,
that, owing to the large number of ballots to be voted for he
got so confused that instead of voting against consolidation, as
he intended, he voted for it. And further, this deponent says not.
GEORGE O. B. WEAVER.
Sworn to before me, this 21st
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Corn. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, SS.:
Frank J. Tynan, being duly sworn, says that on last election
day, November 6, 1894, he was a ballot clerk in the twentieth district in the sixth ward in the city of Brooklyn, and states that a
large number of very intelligent men became so confused about
the amendment and consolidation ballots that they finally refused
to vote any of them. The number of ballots was so great that




No. 44.]


315


many voters could not distinguish between them. And further,
this deponent says not.
F. J. TYNAN.
Sworn to before me, this 18th
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Com. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW     YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, 88.:
Chas. A. Scott, being duly sworn, says that he served as inspector of election in the sixteenth district in the fifth ward in
the city of Brooklyn at the last election, and states that about
three-quarters of the voters in his district asked for instructions
in regard to the different ballots and wanted to know how to
vote them, and that a great many of the voters who intended to
vote against the amendments and consolidation, through the confusion caused by the number of ballots, voted for them. And
further this deponent says not.
CHARLES A. SCOTT.
Sworn to before me, this 19th
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Corn. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, 88.:
Joseph S. Stone, being duly sworn, says that he resides at 1621
Fulton street in the city of Brooklyn, and served as a ballot clerk
in the twenty-sixth district of the twenty-third ward at the last
election, and states that more than one-half of the voters in that
district asked him for instructions in regard to voting the different ballots, and also states that some voters who intended to




316


[SENATE.


vote against consolidation informed him that they did not know
how they voted. And further, this deponent says not.
Sworn to before me, this 21st
J. H. STONE.
day of January, 1895.
JOHN F. FOLEY,
Notary Public, Kings County.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, 88.:
John F. Ryan, being duly sworn, says that he acted as a ballot
clerk in the last election and that he noticed that the majority of
the people were confused and got rattled over the amendments
and that they asked the ballot clerk if they would have to fold the
ballots the same as the regular ballots and that a great many
voted for them not knowing what they were voting for. And
further this deponent says not.
JOHN F. RYAN.
Sworn to before me, this 17th
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Corn. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF KINGS, 88.:
Wm. B. Powell, being duly sworn, says that he resides at 27
Brevoort place in the city of Brooklyn; that he acted as Republican watcher in the thirtieth district in the seventh ward of said
city, at the election on November 6, 1894; that at least one-third
of the voters in said district were sent back to the booths to rearrange their ballots properly, among these being many men of
more than average intelligence; that the number of ballots was
such (19) that many voters became disgusted and voted only the




No. 44.]


317


ballots for candidates, tearing up those for amendments and consolidation and throwing them away. And further this deponent
says not.
W. B. POWELL.
Sworn to before me, this 22d
day of January, 1895.
GEO. D. GELMORE,
Com. of Deeds, City of Brooklyn.
THE BROOKLYN CLUB, January 24, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW:
I regret that I can not speak in favor of consolidation of Brooklyn and New York as I sail for the West Indies to-morrow. I
am heartily in favor of the movement.
Yours truly,
E. W. BLISS.
BROOKLYN, January 25, 1896.
JAMES MATTHEWS, ESQ., Chairman:
Dear Sir.- My engagements in New York prevent my being
present at the meeting to-day to speak in favor of consolidation.
I, therefore, desire to say, that after having given the subject
long and careful thought from every point of view, and while
the bill under consideration is not entirely to my liking in its present form, I am forced to the conclusion that the consolidation of
the two cities into one greater city is for the best interest of all
concerned, I ani fully persuaded that no further obstacle ought
to be placed in the way of immediate consolidation, but that it
should be secured at the earliest possible moment.
Yours very truly,
JOHN GIBB.




318


[SENATE,


BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 24, 1896.
GEORGE M. CHAUNCEY, ESQ.:
My Dear Sir.-Business of importance compels me to visit Boston to-day, and in making necessary arrangements previous to leaving, my time will be fully occupied, to the extent which will prevent my appearing before the committee. I wish to reiterate
a fact which is well known, that I am thoroughly in hearty support
of consolidation. I doubt if I could say anything more than has
been said. Our friends have touched upon all the vital points.
I believe the matter could be safely left with the people's representatives in the Legislature. The people of Brooklyn and New
York have passed upon the matter, and the malcontents who desire
a new election, remind us very much of the action of some of the
candidates in the recent election in Brooklyn, but happily for the
city and State the majority rule will continue to prevail, and the
sentiments and desires on consolidation, as expressed by the people
will receive proper recognition at the hands of the people's representatives.
Very truly yours,
(Signed.)    EDWIN KNOWLES.
195 WASHINGTON PARK, BROOKLYN, January 24, 1896.
To CHAIRMAN LEXOW, Legislative Joint Committee, Room 23, County
Court House, Brooklyn, N. Y.:
Dear Sir.- Permit me to vote before your committee most
heartily in favor of consolidation. It is more than thirty years
since I moved to Brooklyn - I am a property-holder there. I
love Brooklyn, but I love Greater New York more.
It seems clear to me that a number of contiguous towns consolidated in one body can be governed more cheaply and more wisely
than as separate organizations. I live every summer on Staten
Island. The county of Richmond has a number of small municipalities. Nothing could be more corrupt than the political rings
that rule some of those villages. Neither the Tammany nor the




No. 44.]


319


McLaughlin ring compared in wickedness with the ring that ruled
Gravesend.
The moral sentiment, whether in small or large communities,
must be pure and assertive and controlling, or there will be corruption. It is no more true of a large than of a small community
that " an indifferentist in politics is an enemy of the government
that protects him." All communities must learn this lesson, and
I believe that it is easier learned in a great community than by
the same number of people broken up under small municipalities.
You will remember that the argument that was most frequently
urged against the combination of the colonies under one government was the unwieldiness of so large a territory. The same was
urged against the consolidation by Bismarck of the German principalities under one rule. But we now see successfully governed
under " Old Glor y" the thirteen colonies grown to forty-five, and
never could Germany have so prospered as under one rule.
I am so strongly persuaded of the desirability of consolidation
that I feel like Sumner felt when asked to listen to the other side
of the slavery question. He replied, " There is no other side."
All I ask is, that you see to it that the basis of union is equitable.
Respectfully.
I. K. FUNK.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 24, 1896.
W. C. REDFIILD, ESQ., President League of Loyal Citizens:
Dear Sir.-Enclosed find list of some of our merchants and
business men who are in accord on the subject of resubmission.
I find at the Kings County Savings Bank that five-sixths of our
mortgages are at five per cent., and one-sixth at four and one-half
per cent. Not a dollar in mortgages at six per cent.
I notice, on statement of William Burgh Savings Bank, January 1, 1895, over $14,000,000 on mortgages at five per cent. and
$159,000 at six per cent., and I assume that if any of the latter
asked for five per cent. they would be told to look elsewhere.




.320


[SENATE,


because of the narrow margin in value for security of bank - a
wise thing to do.
They have many mortgages now at four and one-half per cent.
Your friend Biley, of the Indemnity Company, is a little bit off.
J. C. Lowdon, of 161 Keep street, and Geo. F. Yates, of 431 Bedford avenue, voted for consolidation, and are now against it, and
will vote that way if opportunity offers.
Yours truly.
JOHN S. McKEON.
List of names of merchants enclosed in letter from John S.
McKeon to W. C. Redfield, president League of Loyal Citizens:
Frederick Loeser & Co.
W. H. Bullard.
James Harkness, 692 Fulton street.
Geo. B. Lewis, 660 Fulton street.
S. P. Willetts, 71 Layfayette avenue.
Benjamin Rosenzweig, 624 Fulton street.
D. Maguire, 703 Fulton street.
Peter Flynn, 701 Fulton street.
Brooklyn Hardware and Sporting Goods Company, 601 Fulton street.
Wechsler Bros., 538-540 Fulton street.
Johnston Bros., 8-12 Nevins street.
P. W. Taylor, 521 Fulton street.
M. Rosenberg, 481-483 Fulton street.
Isaac Mason, 860 President street.
Thomas Thompson, 101 Park place.
Walter B. Shipman, 123 Myrtle avenue.
Joseph J. McIntyre, 1278 Putnam avenue.
P. M. Dale & Son, Myrtle avenue and Gold street.
Armstrong Bros.,:: 9 TMyrtle avenue.
F. C..Toslin, 404 Myrtle qavenue.
Joseph Wechsler Sons. Bediford;ivenuee and Fulton street.
H. W. Bach, 345 Myrtle avenue.




No. 44.]


321


Lonlgmore & Warw-ick, 382 Myr'tle avenue.
Isaac Knee, 442 Myrtle avenue.
N. F. Green, 455 Myrtle avenue.
David Jacob, 623-627 Myrtle avenue.
Henry J. Leach, 1103 Fulton street.
John Doyle, 1099 Fulton street.
Samuel Downing, 1_095-1097 Fulton street.
The Long Island Brewery, Third avenue and Dean street.
Ernest Nason, 601 Fifth avenue.
T. L. Murphy, 66 Richmond street.
John McCormick. Fifth avenue and Ninth street.
J. W. Kimball, 450 Fifth avenue.
C. S. Stephenson, 577-579 Fifth avenue.
M. J. Maxwell, 55( Fifth avenue.
Morris Nason, 601 Fifth avenue.
H. B. Monahan, 503-509 Fifth avenue.
January 22, 1896.
To the Committee of the Loyal League:
Sirs.-At a meeting of the Brooklyn Woman Suffrage Association held January 21st, the following resolutions were adopted
to be presented to your committee:
Truly yours.
CORNELIA K. HOOD.
21 First place, Brooklyn.
Resolved, Whereas the women of Brooklyn are homekeepers
and taxpayers, and as vitally interested in the question of consolidation as the men, we, the Brooklyn Woman Suffrage Association, respectfully ask the committee of the Loyal League to
include in their resubmission bill a request that the women of
Brooklyn be allowed to express their opinion on this subject at
the polls by ballot.
Signed: On behalf of the Brooklyn Woman Suffrage Association.
CORNELIA K. HOOD,
President.


[Senate, No. 4-1.]


41




322


[SENATE,


Resolved, That we, the Brooklyn Woman Suffrage Association,
urge upon the members of the Legislature from Brooklyn to vote
for the bill introduced by Mr. Brush, providing for the resubmission of the question of consolidation to the popular vote.
Signed: On behalf of the Brooklyn Woman Suffrage Association,
CORNELIA K. HOOD,
President.
NEW YORK, January 23, 1896.
HON. SENATOR LEXOW:
Dear Sir.- I am in favor of consolidation and can see no reason
against it. We are really one now, but not in name. Our interests are one. We own property in New York and Brooklyn, and
have been served by New York government fully as well as the
Brooklyn government. We own considerable in both Brooklyn
and New York, and all our family are in favor of consolidation.
There are George Vernon, Harold, Paul and myself of this firm,
voters in Brooklyn, and five more voters in the family owning
property in both cities; nearly all were born in Brooklyn. We
voted for consolidation and are opposed to resubmission, as we
see no necessity for it. We all vote the Republican ticket, but
do not see any question of politics in this question. Interested
parties alone are against it. The moneyed interests I find are for
it and the plain people. It will help New York commercially. I
know that people like to live in the biggest place. I traveled many
years through the west, and buyers like to buy of the biggest
place and to visit it. I trust, as we voted for it once, you will
have it speedily accomplished.
Very truly,
T. ALFRED VERNON.
256 Clinton avenue.
BROOKLYN, January 17, 1896.
To the Chairman of the Legislative Joint Subcommittee on Consoli(fdat ion:
Sir.- Unless the majority of this committee have been mis



No. 44.]


323


reported, they have declared that the question of consolidation
has been settled, and that the only thing now to do is to find the
best and most! feasible plan for accomplishing that purpose.
Against such a proposition I most earnestly protest. We have
never had a settlement of this question by the people of Brooklyn.
True, there was a vote upon the subject in 1894, but the people
of this city did not regard it as a " settlement." Neither did the
friends of consolidation regard it as a settlement before the
election. Their committee put forth a circular upon the subject
in which they declared: " Electors will please observe that a
vote amounts to nothing more than a simple expression of opinion
on the general subject of consolidation. If every ballot in the
city were in favor of consolidation there would be no finality about
it," etc.
The people of Brooklyn looked at the question in this indifferent
way, and but one-third of the registered voters of Brooklyn voted
in its favor; and of those who favored it, we know of a large number of persons who voted for it under a misapprehension. There
were a large number of constitutional amendments to be voted
on, and Republicans urged upon their followers to vote for all
the amendments.   Many Republicans voted for consolidation
thinking it was a constitutional amendment, as the ballots were
similar in form. This is a fact, however much it may go agaihst
the intelligence of the voter. And now, forsooth, with less than
one-third in favor, and many of them voting under a misapprehension, we are told that the question of consolidation has been
settled by the people of Brooklyn in its favor, because there was
a paltry majority of 277 votes out of 129,000 voting, and 62,000
who did not feel interest enough in the subject to vote at all.
To take this view of the matter and to annihilate the autonomy
of a great city of over a million on such a pretext, will be the
most infamous outrage of the nineteenth century.
But, for argument's sake, let us for a moment grant that the
vote of 1894 was valid and binding; but the Legislature did not
act upon.that vote when the opportunity was presented. And I
claim that because of that failure to act then, Brooklyn is entitled
to another vote on consolidation. Are we to be told that that




324


[SENATE,


vote is to be always binding?  Can a great people not reverse
its opinions?
In 1888 the people of the United States elected a Republican
President and a Congress in favor of the McKinley tariff by so
great a majority that many said the Democrats would never be
heard of again, not in at least a quarter of a century.
In 1892 the people of the United States elected a Democratic
President and Congress in favor of the Wilson tariff by a majority so great that Democrats said the Republicans were dead, and
they bade them an everlasting good-bye, as they thought.
Two years later the Republicans were again on top in Congress,
with a greater majority than the Democrats had in the former
Congress; and nobody doubts the election of a Republican President next fall, unless he is defeated by the stupidity and foolishness of Republicans in the New York Legislature in cramming
consolidation down the throat of Brooklyn at a cost of 30,000
to 50,000 Republican votes in our city.
I speak of these things to show that a great people not only have
the right to reverse their opinions, but that they do reverse them.
Suppose that either Congress had said to the people in 1888 or
1892, you havee voted for the IMcKinley tariff or the Wilson tariff,
as the case might be, and that question is settled, as our legislators at Albany now say to the people of Brooklyn on the consolidation question. Well, suppose they had?  I need not discuss
the result.
Now, if Brooklyn was for consolidation in 1894, she had a right
to reverse her opinion, especially as the Legislature did not act
upon that opinion at its following session; and Brooklyn has
reversed that opinion; and now she has a right to give an expression of that reversed opinion by a resubmission of this important question to her voters. She asks. nay, she demands this right
from this Legislature. If that right is granted and the vote is
for consolidation, you will never hear a word again from any
present Brooklynite. But if that right is denied us, and consolida.tion is forced upon us without resubmission, and, as we
know. against the will of a large majority of the voters of this
city, then all I have to say is, God hell) the Republican party in




No. 44.]


Brooklyn and in the State next fall. On the 14th day of January,
1896, the Brooklyn Eagle said editorially:
"There are 100,000 votes in this town to make things and to
smash things, and they can be wielded as a unit, to make or to
smash things and men, according as the things or the men are the
friends or are the enemies of Brooklyn's right to determine
Brooklyn's destiny.
"Mr. Morton would like to be President. It is a commendable
ambition. He would lose New York State by more votes than
Harrison lost it in 1892, if he wrote his name under a bill to
abolish Brooklyn without Brooklyn's consent. Hamilton Fish
would like to be Governor. But he could no more be elected
Governor of New York, even if he received the nomination of both
political parties with a record for the effacement of Brooklyn
without Brooklyn's consent to score against him, than lhe could
be elected Pope of Rome. Brooklyn means business, and the
Eagle means business, on this thing, and when both mean business on the same thing, events prove that business is effectively
done."
Gentlemen, without any thought of boasting, but simply to show
that I have a right to speak as a Republican, let me say that I have
been a staunch Republican, since the 7th day of August, 1854,
when the first Republican convention was held. I was a member of that convention. I have never flinched from Republican
doctrines. I have always worked faithfully for the party. I
wrote a book on the tariff, of which 3,000,000 copies have been
circulated. I know something of the party and its teachings and
its doctrines. I love the party for what it has done and is doing,
and for what it will do if wise counsels prevail; and I know
something of the temper and feelings of the Republicans in
Brooklyn; and I say to you in all earnestness and sincerity, that
the Eagle is right, and that if you compel us to take consolidation without resubmission, or at least a referendum, there will be
no longera Republican party in Brooklyn. They will never again
trust or support a party that has deliberately robbed them of
tlheir dearest rights and privileges, and turn them and their
proIperty over to the spoliation of Tammany Hall and its vile




326


[SENATE,,


crew, with its Republican attachment, equally vile. One of the
fundamental doctrines of Republicanism is home rule, and on
this doctrine we also demand resubmission.
The chairman of this subcommittee was in Brooklyn at the
Republican judiciary convention, last October, and was then
asked how he stood on the question of consolidation. He
answered in my presence: " Gentlemen, that is a question that
you ought to settle in Brooklyn." We have settled it in Brooklyn.
We have now a legislative delegation that is unanimous for
resubmission; we have a common council that is unanimous for
resubmission; our mayor and ex-mayor are both earnest for resubmission; and the people of Brooklyn are for resubmission.
I entreat you, give the people of Brooklyn another chance to
vote on this all important question, and thus let it be forever
settled in the only just, right and righteous manner.
(Signed.)    D. G. HARRIMIAN.
SHRINKAGE OF LOCAL VALUES - CONSOLIDATION WITH NEW
YORK AS A REMEDY FOR IT.
To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle:
Permit me to say a few words relative to the several editorials
that have appeared of late in your influential paper as regards
the depopulation of and shrinkage of values in Brooklyn. In my
opinion this condition of affairs will lprevail until ample facilities
of travel are provided for tile (people now residing in Brooklyn
and the multitude of those who would reside here if proper means
of travel were at hand. To bring this abouit large expenditures
will be necessary, the greater part of which should be borne by
New York city, and not, as in the case of the Brooklyn and New
York bridge, one third by New Y)ork and two' thirds by Blrooklyn;
inor, as in the case of the contemplated East River bridge, half
tb each city. To arrive at the proper proportion that Brooklyn
should bear, I advocate consolidation with New 'Yol;k lnder
equal taxation. Consolidation with New York, I advocate, also,
for many other reasons, too numerous to mention in this letter,




No. 44.]


327


knowing how valuable space is in your paper. I must mention
a few, however. First, to fully develop Brooklyn and vicinity.
Second, to make sure that the metropolis of this continent remains
where it is. Third, this is really the most important and probably should have been mentioned first-the people so decided
it by vote when the question was submitted to them. Of course,
T understand your paper's position on this question; that it was
a light vote, that the question was not thoroughly understood,
etc. I am fully aware, also that the mayor elect and many other
late candidates for office have expressed themselves in favor of
resubmitting the question to popular vote. But what has this,
I ask you, to do with the question that has been decided by the
people whose servants the aforesaid candidates were willing to
be and many of them soon will be? It would, in my opinion,
be a dangerous precedent to set aside the question of consolidation with New York that has been decided in the affirmative by
the people. And, for one, I do not understand how the people's
representatives at Albany during the last session dared to ignore
the will of the people. Mr. Grout, the late Democratic candidate
for mayor, has as much, if not better right to have the question
of who is or who should be mayor of this city for the term beginning January 1, 1896, resubmitted to the people because of the
vote cast. Mr. Wurster was elected by a very much smaller
majority than was given for consolidation. Perhaps the people
did not understand fully. Mr. Grout does not advocate resubmission. Is it because he is not a loyal Brooklynite? I realize
that I will be put down as a traitor to Brooklyn by certain people,
but I would have them understand that I am a resident of Brooklyn for more than thirty years, have done and am ready now to
do everything in my power to influence and advocate the material
prosperity of Brooklyn, and that I represent large interests, all
of which are located in Brooklyn, and my love for Brooklyn is
second to none. I might and could say much more, but dare not
encroach further on your space.
CONSOLIDATIONIST.
BROOKLYN, December 24, 1895.




o>2<S


[SENATE,


CONSOLIDATION ARGUMENTS ARRAYED AGAINST THOSE OF
THE LOYAL CITIZENS.
To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle:
Since writing you my letter of the twenty-fourth ult. and which
in your impartiality and desire to air all sides of a question you
published in one of your issues I have noticed and read quite a
number of opinions also printed in your paper, emanating from
so-called "Loyal Citizens" of Brooklyn, many of who are, and
rightly so, highly honored gentlemen and citizens and who are
opposed to consolidation with New York for various and what
seems to be valid reasons, among which and the most prominent
are these: First, a pride in the municipality of Brooklyn. Second,
a desire not to see Brooklyn effaced from the map of this country.
Third, a wish to know the conditions or terms of consolidation,
and to have them submitted for approval to the vote of the people. Fourth, a desire to have the question of consolidation resubmitted to the people of Brooklyn on the ground that it was not
properly and fully understood when voted on before, because of
the fact that at the time nineteen questions or ballots had to be
considered. So far as the first reason is concerned, and to show
an inconsistency, I will merely refer to the well-known fact that
when the municipality of Brooklyn wanted to restore the city hall
tower after the fire, the first thing the authorities did was to
invite New York architects to submit designs, Brooklyn's architects being silently and successfully ignored.  Mr. Schieren,
during his term as mayor, accomplished a great deal of good
for which he is and ever will be honored by the people of Brooklyn,
and because of which a considerable degree of civic pride has
been inculcated in their hearts, but, to my mind, not sufficient to
overcome the advantages of consolidation with New York. It is
stated that the Republicans of Brooklyn are against consolidation,
because of the fact that there seems to be a possibility of their
party permanently getting control of affairs in this city, and they
do not want to sacrifice the chance( (  by consolidating the two
cities of Brooklyn and New York. I fail to see what bearing
this has on the matitr. Have thlle the best and honest interests
of Brooklyn at heart, or are they merely out for spoils? Mr.




No. 44.].29


Schieren's administliation Lwas a very cre(ditablle one, but, strictly
speaking, not Republican. The present administration, as 1 understand, is to be purely and religiously a Republican one, and I
am glad of it; but if that is all there is to recommmend it and no
good is to be accomplished, the people will and should make
short work of it. In municipal affairs, give me good men first and
if Republicans so much the better. I have full and undoubted
faith in the virtue of the people to believe that they will relegate
Tammany to the same oblivion that has been meted out to the old
ring of Brooklyn, with the aid of your valuable paper. As to the
second reason how do these gentlemen know but that the consolidated city will not be called Brooklyn. It is certain at this time
that the name:New York should be changed, as it is very difficult
for foreigners, and for that matter many natives, to distinguish
the difference in relation as understood by New York city, New
York county and New York State, Some ephonious name should
be adopted. and I know of none more so than 1Brooklyn. As to the
third reason: To sunmit the conditions of annexation to the
average voter is not feasible, especially when it is claimed that
these same voter, did not understand the question of for and
against consolidation. A competent body of men, such as would
be capable of framing the laws under which the consolidated
city should be governed, should determine the conditions and
Brooklyn should be ably represented by men of well known standing and ability, and possessing the full confidence of its people.
As to the fourth question: If this question should be resubmitted
why should not the other eighteen be resubmitted as well? If
the vote on consolidation had been in the negative instead of the
affirmative would these gentlemen be so ready to have it resubmitted to popular vote on the same grounds as now set forth by
them? Many of those who have expressed themselves as opposed
to consolidation and whose reasons for being so you have published at different times, as well as those gentlemen, twenty, I
believe, who attended the meeting at the academy assembly
rooms on the seventh inst. I recognize and know them to have
large interests in New York city. It is true they reside in
Brooklyn and are widely and favorably known because of their
[Senate, No. 44.]    42




,:-,[0


[SENATE,


philanthropy and furthermlore, of benevolent enterprises, but it
is, nevertheless the fact that far their greatest investments are in
New York city, both in real as well as personal property. Is it,
perhaps, that these gentlemen fear an increase in taxes in New
York city if Brooklyn were annexed to it? However this may be,
it is true, none the less, that the wealth of Brooklyn is invested in
New York, and being so is subject to taxation there. This in the
nature of things will always be so and, therefore, Brooklyn
should have the benefit of taxation on this enormous capital, the
amount of which can not be computed. To reach this capital
for the purpose of taxation so that Brooklyn should have her due
share of it I know of no better way than by consolidatino the
municipalities of Brooklyn and New York.
CONSOLIDA TIONIST.
BROOKLYN, January 11, 1896.
BROOKLYN, January 25, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOw, Chairman Joint Committee on Consolidation,
Court House, Brooklyn, A.. Y.:
Dear Sir.- Inclosed I beg to hand you for your perusal clippings from the Brooklyn, Daily Eagle, being copies of letters from
myself to the editor over the signature of " Consolidationist."
These letters appeared respectively, in the issues of the Eagle
of December 26th and January 16th.
My excuse for troubling you in this matter is primarily because
I am thoroughly interested in the welfare of Brooklyn and New
York city, and I am too modest a man and too little of a public
speaker to weary you with any talk on the subject. I want to
write you in the matter, however, because I notice that frequent
reference is made at the meetings held by your honorable body to
the fact that all, or nearly all, of the representatives from Brooklyn at Albany, who were elected last fall, were pledged to resubmission, or against consolidation. This is a fact, but how it
occurred I think was as follows: The anti-consolidationists having nothing to lose desired a resubmission of the vote taken on
consolidation and therefore "the Loyal League" took it upon




No. 44.]


331


themselves to interview all candidates for offices for which ain
election was held last fall and obtained their pledges to vote for
resubmission. Those in favor of consolidation, so far as I am
aware, took no such steps and because of the fact that they considered that the question had been definitely settled the year previously. I, personally, so understood it. Now, the anti-consolidationists, or the "Loyal League," having pledged all candidates, is it to be supposed that those in favor of consolidation
should refrain, from voting altogether because if they voted at
all they must vote for a Republican, a Democrat, or any otherindividual who was already pledged against consolidation or for a
resubmission of the question?
The honorable representative from New York has frequently
propounded the question to persons speaking in favor of consolidation as to-whether it is a fact that the taxes of what is now
New York city would increase proportionately to the reduction, and which I thoroughly believe will take place in the taxes
of Brooklyn. To this I would answer, yes, and New York city can
well afford to pay the ratio of increase over and above what is
paid on the assessment now prevailing in New York city, and
have what is now Brooklyn a part of the greater city, being, as
it is, the most convenient to the heart of commerce of the present
New York city, and be the means of diverting the population
which is naturally overcrowding New York to Brooklyn instead
of obliging them, as now, to seek residence in New Jersey, which,
aside from Brooklyn, is the nearest point to the marts of New
York city. If it were not for the fact that the land west of the
North river is under the jurisdiction of another State, I would be
heartily in favor of consolidating New York city with that portion of it westward to the extent of at least fifteen miles. As
this is impossible, however, it is then the more necessary that
Brooklyn should be consolidated with New York city.
Respectfully submitted.
H. C. BECK.




33~


[S ENATE,


120 LEXINGTON AVENUE, January 6, 1895.
MAr. GRIFFITH:
Dear Sir.- My niece has asked me to write you about the Duffield street property. On inclosed slip you have an account of it
and its indebtedness.
As I can not take care of this kind of property I should be willing to sell it for whatever I can get over and above the indebtedness. I am told that the houses are worth, at lowest valuation,
$10,000. Three years ago they were officially valued at $12,000
each. The question of what they are worth does not concern me;
it is what I can get for them, as I do not want tenement-house
property, or. indeed, any real estate.
Please get the best offer possible for me and greatly oblige,
Yours truly.
CATHERINE G. FOOTE.
THE PIACIKEI COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE, 
]BROO()KLYNI N. Y., Jantlary 23, 1 9(". 
MR. ELDWARD BARR, Secretary the League of Loyal Citizens, Brooklyn. N. Y.:
Dear Sir.-3 y engagements out of town will prevent my
attendance upon legislative subcommittee on consolidation this
week.
I am informed that one of the speakers before the committee
on Friday afternoon of last week, urged consolidation as a means
for providing better public school instruction for neglected
children of this city. Such a statement, if unrefuted, would have
great influence upon the tloughtful members of the committee.
I hope that Superintendent Maxwell, who stands at the head of
his special line of educational work, will be called before the committee to give authentic information showing the proud advance
which the Brooklyn public schools have nmade during the last
ten years. There is notling in the city's history more stimulating to civic pride than knowledge of the generous appropriations
of money, and, in the main, esconomicala and xvise use of such funds




No. 44.]


333
v 0 - I


for the development of the public school system. The teaching
force of the city has been greatly strengthened. \We lave the
largest and in some respects the best high schools of the country,
and our new school-houses are admirably planned and beautiful
buildings. Do not fail of having the facts in this particular
brought to the attention of the committee.
Very triuly yours.
TRUMAN J. BACKUS.
BRiOOKLYN, JanuaJry 20, 1896.
MR. R. D. BENEDICT:
Dear Sir.-Pardon me for asking a portion of your valuable
time in an examination of the decisions of Judges Dykeman and
Patterson, and the affirmation of them by the Court of Appeals
in the question of consolidation of the Westchester towns, under
the act passed last winter. I am confident that you are perfectly
willing to correct an error if its justice can be demonstrated, and
I am as firmly convinced that the records of the decisions rendered
in July last, and later, will furnish ample proof that county lines
are no bar to consolidation. Under these decisions the towns
referred to are a portion of New York city, and enjoy to-day the
benefits of equal taxation.
Very respectfully,
GEORGE W. CHAUNCEY.
BROOKLYN, January 21, 1.896.
GEO. AV. CHAUNCEY, ESQ.:
Dear Sir.- I have received your letter of the 20th inst. You
are quite correct in judging that I would be willing to correct
any error which I had made, and I am equally confident that you
have the saiIme willingness.
I am acquained with the cases you speak of, which arose out
of the transfer of some of the towns of Westchester and joining
them to the city of New York. But I think you had not adverted
to the fact that in that legislation no question of abolishing a




334:


[SENATE,


county was involved. The county of New York and the county
of Westchester both exist to-day, as they did before that act
was passed. The only change that has been made has been a
change of the boundary between them. You are mistaken, therefore, in supposing that the case "furnishes ample proof that
county lines are no bar to consolidation." It furnishes proof
that existing county lines can be changed, so as to transfer a portion of one county to another. But it has no bearing whatever
on the question of whether a county can be abolished.
If you will read what I have heretofore in my speech before the
legislative committee and elsewhere said, in reference to this
matter. you will see that what I have said was first, that county
lines can not be abolished and that the consolidation bill which
has been introduced expressly provides for the continued existence
of the counties involved; second, that as in each county of the
State the Constitution requires the existence of a board of supervisors, it follows that in the consolidated city the board of supervisors of the county of Kings and the board of supervisors of the
county of New York must be each re-established by the passage of
a bill which brings both those counties within the boundary of a
city. I have urged that no man that was in favor of good government could believe that it would be promoted by the establishment
of a city, five parts of which would be governed as to its financial
concerns by five boards of supervisors, with a municipal city government extending over the whole territory in addition, and with
the limit of the debt-contracting power extended to twenty per
cent. instead of confined, as the Constitution now confines it, to
ten per cent. of the assessed valuation. I can not believe that you
would desire the establishment of such a complex and grotesque
form of government. If you would, you are the first man that I
have met to express such a desire.
But it occurs to me that it is possible, in view of your reference to the act of last year, that you might think that the existence
of Kings county, as a county, might be preserved, although, let
us say, nine-tenths of it was consolidated and made part of the
city of New York; that, for instance, to put an extreme case, all
of Kings county, except Barren island, might be declared to be
part of the city of New York, thus leaving Barren island as being




No. 44.]


335


the county of Kings. Such an act would be a somewhat similar
one to the act which was passed last year, differing in the extent
of the territory annexed. But there are many difficulties which
would arise in the case of such legislation. Under the Constitution the county of New York is entitled to thirty-five members
of the Assembly, and the county of Kings to twenty-one members.
The effect, therefore, of such legislation would be to give Barren
island, then the county of Kings, a representation in the Assembly
of twenty-one members and to give to the territory, which is now
the city of New York and to all the territory which is now the
county of Kings, except Barren island, the same representation
of thirty-five members only, which New York county alone, under
its present administration, is entitled to.
Such a result of itself is alone sufficient to show that no such
legislation could be adopted.
Furthermore, under the Constitution, Senate districts Nos.
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are required by the Constitution to consist
each of certain specified parts of the county of Kings. This
provision could not possibly be complied with if all the county
of Kings, except Barren island, were made a part of the county
of New York. Furthermore, Senate districts Nos. 10 to 21 are
required by the Constitution to consist of certain specified parts
of the county of New York. District No. 21, by the Constitution,
is required to consist of a certain specified part of the county of
New York, "and all that part of the county of New York not
hereinbefore described." The result of such legislation, therefore,
would be to put the whole of the county of Kings, except Barren
island, in to district No. 21, and to give to that district but one
Senator.
I think you will see that no legislation which should produce
such results is possible.
The act of last year of which you speak, in my judgment
established great injustice to the inhabitants of the annexed district, and to the inhabitants of the Senate and Assembly district
to which the annexed district was necessarily joined. It diminished the proportionate right of representation of every inhabitant
within the district affected.




[SENATE,


The case to which you referred decided that the Legislature
had power to work that injustice, but I think no man will be found
hardy enough to suggest that the Legislature should so exercise
that arbitrary power as to deprive the citizens of Brooklyn of
their fair proportionate representation in the Legislature of the
State.
If the above views which I have expressed commend themselves to your judgment as reasonable, it would seem to me that,
unless you are in favor of such a consolidation of the cities of
Brooklyn and New York as would deprive the city of Brooklyn
of such fair representation, or are in favor of a city which would
be governed by five boards of supervisors, as well as a municipal
government, with a double tax limit, you would have to concede
that you are in error in supporting the present consolidation bill.
And, if so, I am sure you are willing to correct that error.
I remain your obedient servant.
R. D. BENEDICT.
We, the undersigned real estate brokers in the city of Brooklyn,
are in favor of resubmission:
Ruston & Robbins, real estate, 44 Court street.
W. G. Rushmore, real estate, 186 Remsen street.
C. J. Bisbee, real estate, 73 Flatbush avenue.
Hermann Roeker, real estate, 118 Prospect place.
G. H. Barnsdall, real estate, 286 Flatbush avenue.
J. O. Cleaveland, real estate, 186 Remsen street.
We, the undersigned real estate brokers engaged in business
in the city of Brooklyn are in favor of resubmission of the question of consolidation:
Thomas W. Story, 76 Broadwvay.
E. C. Macchuchey, dealer in real estate, 392 Broadway.
Henry Fettel, real estate and insurance, 896 Park avenue,
Brooklyn.
D. G. Campbell & Son, real estate and insurance, 1147 Myrtle
avenue.




No. 44.]


337


We, the undersigned real estate brokers in the city of Brooklyn,
are in favor of resubmission:
Edmund R. Terry, conveyancer, 12 Remsen street.
Wm. O. Sumner, 166 Pierpont street.
Isaac H. Cary, 200 Fulton street.
George D. Gilmore, 44 Court street.
John W. Pierce, Boulevard and Neptune avenue, thirty-first
ward.                  I
Chas. A. LaRuesue, 371 Fulton street, Brooklyn.
Hiram G. Bedell, 375 Fulton street.
Francis E. Heron, 1149 Third avenue.
J. B. McQuillon, Fifty-second street, Third avenue, Brooklyn.
Wm. H. Mayband, 1562 Fulton street.
The undersigned business men of Brooklyn, believing our interests at stake, do hereby protest against consolidation and respectfully demand that this important question be resubmitted to the
voters of this city:
F. H. Chandler, 300 Fulton street.
John Segelken, 371 First street.
H. C. Segelken, 314 Hicks street.
Casper Segelken, 314 Hicks street.
Charles A. Packard, Jr., 601 Evergreen avenue.
Michl. O'Connor, 55 Atlantic avenue.
Patrick Dunnigan, 39 Atlantic avenue.
John Loughlin, Atlantic avenue, Brooklyn.
Francis Hayward, 635 Carroll street.
Theo. J. Grunewald, 25 Canton street.
Henry F. O'Neill, 65 Columbia place.
S. H. Liddle, 66 Atlantic avenue.
Wm. T. Liddle, 291 Columbia street.
Win. T. Hagan, 291 Columbia street.
Thos. G. Splint, 77 Atlantic avenue.
J. E. Carroll, 91 Atlantic avenue.
[Senate, No. 44.]     43




338


[SENATB;


Frank Berry, 89 Atlantic avenue.
Robert Milne, 116 Atlantic avenue.
Henry A. Olsen, 113 Atlantic avenue.
John P. Johnson, 117 Atlantic avenue.
Wm. H. Short, 119 Atlantic avenue.
Augustus C. Vaennams, 145 Atlantic avenue.
H. J. Brunton, 171 Atlantic avenue.
Peter Becker, 173 Atlantic avenue.
Byrne Brost Co., 183 Atlantic avenue.
Wm. Xeller, 187 Atlantic avenue.
J. J. Rife, 193 Atlantic avenue.
C. G. Schwitter, 193 Atlantic avenue.
Joseph Dahlbender, 98 Court street.
We, the undersigned merchants and business men of the city
of Brooklyn, respectfully petition the Honorable Legislature,
through its joint sub-committee on consolidation, to take no final
action of any kind on consolidation until the matter shall have
been submitted to the people of Brooklyn for a further expression
of their opinion.
Edward J. Ovington, 38-42 Flatbush avenue.
Hardenburg & Co., 42-44 Flatbush avenue.
William Wynn, 496 Fulton street.
Smith, Gray & Co., Fulton and Flatbush avenue.
James C. Hughes, 376 Clermont avenue.
George Rockitts Sons, 5130 Fulton street.
Thomas P. Blankley, 518 Fulton street.
F. M. Horton, 394-396 Fulton street.
C. W. Brindley, 453 Fulton street.
C. W. Kienan, 447 Fulton street.
Balch, Price & Co., 376 Fulton street.
L. Schwager, 325 Washington street.
L. Levyson, 325 Washington street.
Slee & Longstreet, 504 Fulton street.




No. 44.]


339


Harry Bristow, 500 Fulton street.
C. F. Case, 498 Fulton street.
Henry J. Bladger, 478 Fulton street.
Cushing Adams, 417 Fulton street.
Edward D. Burt, 446-448 Fulton street.
James McCullough, 364 Fulton street.
William Arthur Chutrugh, 467 Fulton street.
J. W. Peek, 110 Fulton street.
J. Chobot, 449 Fulton street.
John A. Dietz, 433 Fulton street.
D. B. Powell, 69 Lefferts place.
John W. Kissam, 423 Fulton street.
Bore, Crawford & Co., 419 Fulton street.
Aaron Sherk, 451 Fulton street.
J. Franklin Bowie, 589 Fulton street.
Jackson & Cowenhoven, 639 Fulton street.
J. Fred Windolph, 564 State street.
Louis S. Earll, 272 First street.
Theo. H. Sommers, 580 Atlantic avenue.
Adolph Schwartz, 511 Atlantic avenue.
Moerstaller Hartmann, 502 Atlantic avenue.
Elias Johnson, 494 Atlantic avenue.
H. A. Dahl, 290 Schermerhorn street.
T. J. Bennett, 31 Pond street.
L. Lippmann, 12 Hanover place.
M. McNamee, 342 Fulton street.
We, the undersigned merchants and business men of the city of
Brooklyn, respectfully petition  the Honorable Legislature,
through its joint subcommittee on consolidation to take no final
action of any kind on consolidation until the matter shall have
been nubmitted to the people of Brooklyn for a further expression
of their opinion.
John S. MclKeon, Broadway and Bedford avenue.
J. Henry Huhn, 49 William avenue. 




340


[SENATUB,


D. R. Banks, 95 Broadway.
Chr. I. Wolf, of Kings Co. Fire Ins. Co., 97 Broadway.
A. Fahey, 128 Broadway.
Henry W. Allers, 446 Bedford avenue.
Theodore Wolcott, 84 Norman avenue.
J. H. Fountain, 397 Bedford avenue.
William Vincent, 139 Broadway.
Thomas A. Christopher, 381 Bedford avenue.
M. J. Hayden, 153 Broadway.
B. G. Latimer & Sons' Co., Broadway and Driggs avenue
A. G. Brown, 420 Bedford avenue.
George F. Yates, 431 Bedford avenue.
Arthur Rifenburgh, 417 Bedford avenue.
Edward Cooper, 107-109 Broadway.
Isaac Reynolds, superintendent Geo..TT Coger, 124 Broadway.
H. Steinicke, 122 Broadway.
H. B. Parham, 91 Broadway.
M. E. Sutton, 141 Broadway.
William Lewis, 408 Bedford avenue.
Frank B. Anderson, 369 Bedford avenue.
Fred. G. Anderson, 3G9 Bedford avenue.
S. B. Anderson, 369 Bedford avenue.
R. F. Thompson, 254 Division street.
George W. Swain, 429 Bedford avenue.
John Hoerle, 201 Broadway.
James S. Reams, President Kings County Savings Bank, 80
South Tenth street.
Frank J. Manier, 625 Willoughby avenue.
We, the undersigned, merchants and business men of the citj
of Brooklyn, respectfully petition the Ionorable Legislature,
through its joint subcommittee on consolidation, to take no final
action of any kind on consolidation until the matter shall have




No. 44.]


341


been submitted to the people of Brooklyn for a further express
sion of their opinion.
John W. Woltmann, 121 Macon street.
W. B. Clark, 9 New York avenue.
J. W. James, 176 Herkimer street.
McElhenie & Marsland, 259 Ryerson street.
Wm. C. Anderson, 318 Lafayette avenue.
Frederick Wilkins, 344 Classon avenue.
Wm. P. DeForest, 392 Classon avenue.
R. Schurenbeck, 248 DeKalb avenue.
Bernard Rasler, 73 Lafayette avenue.
T. Clark, 90 Fort Greene place.
W. B. Dayton & Son, 647 Fulton street.
Y. V. Corvenhoven, 639 Fulton street.
W. & H. Mumford, 390-392 Fulton street, per H. M.
A. Clinton Bird, foot of Montague street.
Marston & Son, 21 Water street.
Chas. WV. Davidson, 84 Montague street.
Herzog & Erbe, 83-87 Washington street.
Thos. R. Almond, manufacturer of machinery, 85 Washington
street.
Frank J. Schenck, 124 Pearl street.
Aaron Levy, wholesale butcher. 256 Hudson avenue.
We, the undersigned, merchants and business men of the city
of Brooklyn, respectfully petition the Honorable Legislature,
through its joint subcommittee on consolidation, to take no final
action of any kind on consolidation until the matter shall have
been submitted to the people of Brooklyn for a further expression of their opinion.
A. J. Haff, 402-404 Nostrand avenue.
W. H. Bemdery, 406 Nostrand avenue.
A. W. Totten, 277-279 Quincy street.




342


[SENATE,


Wm. Cabble & Sons' Manufacturing Company, Union avenue
and Ainslie street.
Chas. B. Paul, 467 Keap street.
Brooks, Mack & Peace, 479 Keap street.
Alex. R. Harris, 430 Keap street.
Charles Kloeffer, 452-460 Keap street.
We, the undersigned, merchants and business men of the city
of Brooklyn, respectfully petition the Honorable Legislature,
through its joint subcommittee on consolidation, to take no final
action of any kind on consolidation until the matter shall have
been submitted to the people of Brooklyn for a further expression of their opinion.
Joseph A. Osborne, 88 Fifth avenue.
W. H. Webster, 117 Fifth avenue.
Hermann Witte, 188 Fifth avenue.
Wm. J. Brown, 156 Fifth avenue.
J. Solomon, 154 Fifth avenue.
M. Grace, 70 Fifth avenue.
F. D. Hadjes, 64 Fifth avenue.
Henry T. Vail, 46 Third avenue.
George Boyle, 74 Third avenue.
George A. Duke, 109 Third avenue.
Chris. Gatz, 120 Third avenue.
Walter Galpine, 129 Third avenue.
Martin Wohlgement, 130 Third avenue.
Edward F Woods, 129 Third avenue.
Geo. K. Walters, Third avenue and Douglass street.
Frank C. Willett, 192 Third avenue.
Dennis Russell, 254 Third avenue.
Thomas W. Woods' Sons, Gowanus canal and Third street.
William Nungann, Third street, near Third avenue.
George House, 358 Fifth avenue.
Andrew Jenkins, 386 Fifth avenue.




No. 44.]


343


Henry Jochens, 43 Sumpter street.
C. W. Veith, 390 Fifth avenue.
Charles Bemmhes, 390 Fifth avenue.
William Brereton, 373 Thirteenth street.
Samuel Lusk, 288 Fifth avenue.
Persons who voted for consolidation in 1894, and who now desire
resubmission.
(List No. 1.)
Silas P. Wirsley, 467 Tompkins avenue.
G. M. Schmidt, 101 Macon street.
C. A. Borrow, 284 Quincy street.
Jno. E. Burns, 529 Greene avenue.
Henry Taylor, 102 Conselyea street.
Wm. Storms, 439 Graham avenue.
T. W. Spear, 497 Gates avenue.
Edward McCann, 289 Park avenue.
J. dePalos, 177 Sand street.
L. M. McNaughton, 589 Pacific street.
Edward Holloway.
Wm. Pond, Gates, near Bedford avenue.
G. Froland Johnson, 619 Washington avenue.
W. M. Marshall, 858 Atlantic avenue.
Howard Fleming, 860 Atlantic avenue.
David Healy, district attorney's office.
C. W. Miller, 298 Fifth avenue.
Bernard Fowler, 679 St. Mark's avenue.
Isaac H. Hodgdon, 267 Nassua avenue.
E. R. Terry, 12 Remsen street.
Jos. D. Stone, 794 Greene avenue.
E. K. Robbins, 604 Madison street.
G. H. Richards, 295 Decatur street.
Franklin Woodruff, 106 Remesen street.
Wim. O. Miles, 101 State street.




3)44


[SENATE,


A. E. Smith, 303 Nostrand avenue.
Jas. E. Byrene, 450 Grand avenue.
J. W. James, 176 Herkimer street.
R. Schierenbach, 284 De Kalb avenue.
James M. Meade, 139 Myrtle avenue.
Henry A. Phillips, 15 Willoughby avenue.
P. Barrett, Johnson, corner Navy street.
P. Barrett's first son, Johnson, corner Navy street.
P. Barrett's second son, Johnson, corner Navy street
P. Barrett's third son, Johnson, corner Navy street.
Frank A. Baltz.
Lincoln M. Adams.
A. R. Stevenson, Market, near Magenta.
Geo. S. Abell, Seventh avenue and First street.
Wm. J. Logan, Atlantic, corner Crescent.
G. W. Brush, 2 Spencer place.
H. B. Brush, 90 Hathorne street.
F. W. Kristeller, 419 Pulaski street.
R. S. Kristeller, 419 Pulaski street.
J. C. London, 161 Keap street.
Geo. F. Yates, 431 Bedford avenue.
Aug. Donohue, 5 Hanson place.
G. Johnson Froland, 619 Washington avenue.
Geo. P. Fiske, Montague street.
John G. Hudson, 364 Sixth avenue.
Geo. A. Booth, 116 Verona street.
J. Horton, 381 Fourth avenue.
J. A. Hardner, 213 Manhattan avenue.
George C. Gledhill, 184 Franklin street.
James Dewey, 163 State street.
Robert Caset, 255 Reid avenue.
R. Auerbach, 112 Third place.
C. Seibert, Fifteenth avenue and Coy street.
J. S. Scanlon, 80 Tompkins avenue.
Wm. H. Powers, 760 Grand street.
F. Fay, 129 Third avenue.




No. 44.]


345


W. H. Livingston avenue, 202 Columbia street.
M. C. Helfrich, 123 Fifteenth street.
Charles Clark, 420 Fifth avenue.
Thomas Dove, 122 Twelfth street.
Hans Larsen, 671 Third avenue.
D. F. Farley, 477 Third avenue.
John E. Close, 198 Tenth street.
George Ellis, 148 Eleventh street.
Nelson M. Hedges, 362 Tenth street.
S. Ellis, 148 Eleventh street.
Frank J. Blessington, 159 Prospect avenue.
Frank Neiman, 112 Fifteenth street.
Jesse D. Frost, 482 Eleventh street.
John G. Thomson, 442 Eleventh street.
John Rodgers, 361 Twelfth street.
S. J. Plummer, 224 Eleventh street.
Herman T. Smith, 244 Sixth avenue.
C. G. Duflon, 208 Fifth avenue.
W. W. Morton, 449 Eleventh street.
George P. Boxold, 273 Twenty-first street.
Robert M. Noble, 368 Eighth avenue.
F. J. Creighton, 456 Sixteenth street.
W. R. Smith, 612 Sixteenth street.
Thos. Ford, 1345 Third avenue.
Charles W. Miller, 298 Fifth street.
Herbert R. Churchill, 362 Throop street.
James Donovan, 157 Second avenue.
C. J. Bode, 542 Fourth avenue.
We, the subscribers to this instrument, declare that we voted
"For consolidation" in the election of 1894. We further now
declare tht we favor resubmission and respectfully urge it.
Charles A. Bradley, 201 Myrtle avenue.
Sylvester Blume, 190 Myrtle avenue.
[Senate, No. 44.]     44




346


[SENATB,


G. Schulze, 256 Myrtle avenue.
F. W. Kunzinger, 270 Myrtle avenue.
Charles W. Senior, 713 Myrtle avenue.
Noah Otton, 709 Myrtle avenue.
Charles E. Farman, 720 Myrtle avenue.
William Hilz, 730 Myrtle avenue.
Thomas A. Kennedy, 80 Sandford street.
William Garlick, 723 Myrtle avenue.
Edmond Angeline, 109 Spencer street.
M. Walsh, 725 Myrtle avenue.
James A. Todd, 566 Willoughby avenue.
Henry Wollman, 736 Myrtle avenue.
M. Pass, 729 Myrtle avenue.
R. Hoppen, 7251 Myrtle avenue.
Richard A. Ward, 721 Myrtle avenue.
P. J. Sweeney, 332 Myrtle avenue.
Hugh Conolity, 106 Sandford street.
Edward Doran, 738 Myrtle avenue.
Ben Freen, 810 Fulton avenue.
Henry Morris, 140 Nostrand avenue.
Marcus Morris, 145 Nostrand avenue.
Peter Snyder, 52 Vernon avenue.
Frank R. Tenk, 384 Madison avenue.
John Wogart, 126 Nostrand avenue.
John H. Stamm, 114 Nostrand avenue.
Daniel Cooney, 109 Nostrand avenue.
Thomas Dailey, 507 Marcy avenue.
William Sander, 239 Floyd street.
Alfred G. Wood, 788 Myrtle avenue.
William Hoehn, 217 Central avenue.
John Prenderville, 85 Nostrand avenue.
Harry Lill, 746 Park avenue.
George Gebhardt, 138 Nostrand avenue
Christian Gebhardt, 98 Union avenue.
Joseph Menelle, 742 Myrtle avenue.
John Becker, 740 Myrtle avenue.




No. 44.]


347


James Lawrence, 740 Myrtle avenue.
Louis R. Goabowsky, 595 Park avenue.
Morris Marks, 58 State street.
David Ferris, 163 South First street.
M. Minden, 999 Atlantic avenue.
M. Abrahams, 884 Myrtle avenue.
Edward J. McGlynn, 66 Heywood street.
Thomas J. Lynch, 44 Stockton street.
David Mendes, 187 Classon avenue.
John A. Cambel, 178 Nostrand avenue.
S. Abrams, 125 Sandford street.
S. R. Seymour, 125 Sandford street.
B. Davis, 182 Nostrand avenue.
P. Benjamin, 144 Hart street.
A. Nohert, 44 Willoughby avenue.
J. Hertzog, 732 Myrtle avenue.
W. Powerman, 735 Myrtle avenue.
A. Kagel, 735 Myrtle avenue.
F. O. Kane, 470 Koscinaka street.
John B. Donovan, 134 Eckford street.
George Henhum, 703 Myrtle avenue.
Augustus Roupp, 717 Myrtle avenue.
Peter Hyppart, 788 Myrtle avenue.
W. S. Hammond, 22 Lawton street.
J. J. Hiffans, 703 Gates avenue.
Thos. Hiffins, 65 Floyd street.
D. Jacobs, 737 Myrtle avenue.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 15, 1896.
To His Excellency, the Governlor, and the Legislature of the State.of New York:
The undersigned, merchants of the city of Brooklyn, respectfully urge the passage of a bill consolidating Brooklyn city with
New York city, providing among other things, for attaining an




348


[SENATE,


equal and uniform rate of taxation and uniform valuations for
the purpose of taxation.
Frederick Loeser & Co.
W. H. Bullard.
Joseph Wechsler's Sons.
James Harkness, 692 Fulton street.
Morris Nason, 601 Fifth avenue, corner Prospect.
George B. Lewis, 660 Fulton street.
S. P. Willets, 71 Lafayette avenue.
Benjamin Rosenzweig. 624 Fulton street.
D. Maguire, 703 Fulton street.
Peter Flynn, 701 Fulton street.
Brooklyn Hardware and Sporting Goods Co., 601 Fulton street;
H. H. Nudough, President.
Weschsler Bros., 538 and 540 Fulton street.
Johnston Bros., 8, 10 and 12 Nevins street.
P. W. Taylor, 521 Fulton street.
M. Rosenberg, 481 and 483 Fulton street.
Isaac Mason, 860 President street.
Thomas Thompson, 101 Park place.
Walter B. Shipman, 123 Myrtle avenue.
Joseph J. McIntyre, 1278 Putnam avenue.
P. M. Dale & Son, Myrtle avenue and Gold street.
Armstrong Bros., 339 and 3391 Myrtle avenue.
F. C. Joslyn, 404 Myrtle avenue.
John Flynn, 137 Carlton avenue.
Henry M. Bach, 345 Myrtle avenue.
Longmore & Warwick, 3182 Myrtle avenue.
Isaac Knee, 442 Myrtle avenue.
N. F. Green, 455 to 461 Market avenue.
David Jacobs, per H. J., 623 to 627 Myrtle avenue.
Henry J. Leach, 1103 Fulton street.
John Doyle, 1099 Fulton street.
Samuel Downing, 1095 and 1097 Fulton street.




No. 44.]


349


The Long Island Brewery, J. W. Brown, President; Third
avenue, Dean and Bergen streets.
Ernest Mason, 601 Fifth avenue
Thomas L. Murphy, 66 Richmond.
John Mc Cormick, 448 Fifth avenue.
John W. Kimball, 450 Fifth avenue.
H. V. Monahan, 503 to 509 Fifth avenue.
C. S. Stephenson, 577 and 579 Fifth avenue.
M. J. Maxwell, 550 Fifth avenue.
To the Honorable Mlemnbers of the New York State Assembly:
The following resolutions, passed by the "Unity Republican
Club," of the city of Brooklyn, were ordered to be sent to you:
WHEREAS, A bill has been introduced into the Legislature, looking to the consolidation of certain territory, to be known as
"Greater New York,"
Resolved, That we, the members of the " Unity Republican
Club," of the city of Brooklyn, representing, as we believe we do,
the voice of the people of the eastern district of said city, heartily
denounce said consolidation as being a real estate scheme, pure
and simple, to rob the masses of their born rights.
AVe do not believe that an expression of opinion favorable to
the incorporation of a " Greater New York" is obtained when
but one-third of Brooklyn's registered voters vote in the affirmative, and we appeal to the Governor of our State and to every
right-minded member of the Legislature to vote for the bill introduced by Senator Brush and Assemblyman Audett, for a resubmission of this all-important question, believing that two-thirds
of the people of the city of Brooklyn would vote against consolidation had they the chance.
During the last municipal election, Mayor Wurster, Repiiblican,
wlo agitated the question of resubmission, was elected over Mr.
Grout, a consolidationist, by 2,500 majority, the first time in many
years that the affairs of our fair city have been presided over by
a Republican mayor without the aid of the independent organizations. We sincerely believe that a party in power wllen such a
bill goes througlh will lose Kings county at the following election
by at least 25,000 majority.




350


[SENATE,


Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the Hon.
Levi P. Morton, the State Senate, State Assembly, and the Hon.
0. L. Forrester, Assemblyman from the thirteenth district.
E. A. CONNOR,
President.
T. K. FRENCIARD,
Secretary.
The following was handed to the commission by Mr. Matthews:
There did a party call on me at my house, begging me to sign
the call for resubmission; that he was getting five cents a signature. It was at night, and he said he was out of work. A great
many signed it to help this poor fellow.
H. L. BRYANT.
105 Butler street.
We, the undersigned members of the Union League Club of
Brooklyn, are in favor of consolidating New York and Brooklyn
into one city:
Howard M. Smith, ex-President Union League Club.
Benjamin Russell.
Austin Kelly.
J. W. Harman.
Ira Preston Taylor.
Russell Parker.
Adolphus G. Bailey.
George B. Jones.
E. C. Fuller.
M. J. Cooney.
George P. Chappell
J. G. Dettmer.
J. S. Nugent.
A. G. Perham.
C. Washington Colyer.
William IX. Lyon.
Nelson J. Gates.




no. 44.]


351


Louis J. Seitz.
J. D. Carpenter.
C. D. Rhinehart.
D. P. Darling.
W. H. Biggam.
M. S. Hayes.
T. G. Christmas.
0. W. Ingersoll.
E. C. Moore.
S. H. Benton.
Chester Pell.
Alexander H. Doty.
Theodore Corning.
B. C. Miller.
F. J. Ashfield.
Joseph L. White.
John H. Donnelly.
R. O. Sherwood.
S. S. Voshell.
George H. Squire.
W. A. Porter.
J. L. Voshell.
T. E. Quinn.
Edward H. Hobbs.
E. W. Scarborough.
James H. Taft, Jr.
Thomas Bishop.
S. B. Holt.
H. E. Jacobs.
W. H. Pierson, M. D.
George I. Jackson.
James G. Stevens.
William Cooney.
Frank L. Bartley.
Owen E. Houghton, M. D. S.
Thomas L. Wells, M. D.




352


[SENATE,


James H. Stearns.
W. H. Irwin.
A. S. Haight, 8 Spencer place.
Abel E. Blackman, ex-president, — if with equal rights.
William A. Barnum.
Charles E. Newton.
James Rice, Jr.
Henry C. Larore.
Marshall T. Davidson.
Ethan Allen Doty.
Jon. V. Jewell.
Frank L. Coon.
T. B. Keppy.
F. H. Sellman.
D. M. Munger.
T. H. Taylor.
David Thornton.
Montrose WV. Morris.
Benjamin Estes.
John A. Schmidt,- provided equal taxation
F. E. Barnard,-with equal taxation.
Herbert S. Ogden,- no commission.
L. F. Silva, — on equal taxation.
William C. Pate.
Stephen H. Hand.
Charles H. Reynolds, Jr.
H. H. Gates.
J. WV. Hussey.
William H. Coon.
F. H. Wilson, ex-president.
B. L. Houghton.
F. H. Cowperthwaite.
C. W. Prankard,- for equal taxation.
John Nash.
W. M. Matthews.
T. G. Garner.




No. 44.]


353


Henry C.. Alger.
J.. FHamilton.
\Velcome S. Jarvis.
E. H. Warren.
A. H. Romeyn.
John R. Crum.
William H. Reynolds.
M. L. Bowen.
R. W. Gleason.
W. E. Edmister.
Roho Lundell.
Ysindo Pendas.
William P. Gill, 24 Brevoort place.
J. Hamilton Gill, 24 Brevoort place.
J. Culbert Palmer, 14 Breevort place.
James M. Cromwell, 29 Brevoort place.
Edgar 0. Pearce, 1092 Dean street.
William H. Sterling, 1086 Dean street.
Seth T. Stewart.
Bennett E. Fettman.
George N. Robinson.
Hugo Hirsh.
James Webb.
William Degbie.
A. Abraham.
Edward Lyons.
George H. Conklin.
E. G. Blatchford.
Charles H. Macklin.
John Ditmars.
W. B. Mead.
Thomas J. Washburn.
William Jeremiah.
Charles J. Sands.
Arnold Cooper.
G. W. Connithies.
S. W. Milligan.
[Senate, No. 44.]     45




354


[SENATe,


Andrew Mercer.
A. H. Carleton.
E. M. Cragin.
Frederick H. Pouet
ASSEMBLY CHAMBER, ALBANY, N. Y.
WEDNESDAY, January 29, 1896.
Meeting of subcommittee of joint committee on cities of Senate
and Assembly, for a continuation of hearing on "the Greater
New York bill."
PRESENT.- Senators Lexow, Brush and Grady; Assemblymen
Austin, McKeown and Keenholts.
MR. LEXOW:
The committee is now ready to listen to further argument on
the Greater New York question.  I understand that Senator
Brush has a communication to present, in the first instance, to
the committee.
MR. BRUSH:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I received this telegram a short
time ago from Mr. Redfield, the president of the League of Loyal
Citizens of Brooklyn:
To Senator George W. Brush, Assembly Parlor, Capitol, Albany:
We do not think necessary to trouble your committee by appearing in Albany after full hearing here. Are working actively for
Brooklyn, however, and shall be glad to furnish any information
desired or to come when needed.
WILLIAM C. REDFIELD,
President League of Loyal Citizens.
MR. LEXOW:
Will you kindly file that with the stenographer, Mr. Brush?
I believe the introducer of the resubmission bill in the Assembly
was Assemblyman Wilson, and inasmuch as we first hear argu



No. 44.]


355


ments against the bill pending in the Senate, which would mean
by an advocate of the resubmission bill in the Assembly, we would
like to hear if Mr. Wilson has anything to say upon the subject
of resubmission.
MR. WILSON:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I thank you for the compliment
of being called on before your honorable body, but it occurs to
me that, inasmuch as we shall sit as judge and jury in this case,
that it would not be right for me at this time to present my
views upon the subject. In fact, what I would say has been
reiterated time and time again by the different papers of New
York and Brooklyn and elsewhere; but I must say, with all respect
to the committee, that we are wholly unprepared on such short
notice. As far as I am concerned personally, with all respect to
the committee, I think that we ought to have had more time for
consideration, to mature our plans, so that our friends who understand our side of the question of resubmission could present their
views intelligently, quietly and conservatively.
MR. LEXOW:
(Interrupting.) Excuse the interruption - but a telegram is
on file now to the effect that the friends of resubmission do not
desire to have any further argument upon the question.
MR. WILSON:
Very good, sir - but I merely wish to say that, of course, they
have no desire to have them, for the reason that they have not
had time to prepare themMR. LEXOW:
No - that was in the telegram - that the matter has been
fully presented by their side, and that they do not care to present
anything else.
MR. WILSON:
\Vell, so I understand it now - because they have not had




356


[SENATE,


time - even if there were time -  So, Mr. Chairman, thanking
you for the honor, I beg to be excused from further remarks.
MR. LExoW:
Is there anybody here who desires to speak against consolidation? (Pause.) Then the side in favor of consolidation will be
heard; but I assume the same principle will apply, namely, that
the ground has been fairly thoroughly threshed over, so far as
both sides of the question are concerned, and relating only to the
city of Brooklyn; and we would ask any speakers on the consolidation side of the question to apply themselves to new arguments,
if they have any, and to present new speakers upon the question
and not those that have been heard before - unless Judge Tenney
will give us an oration - I think we would all make an exception
in his case.
MR. MATTHEWS:
Mr. Chairman: As I have individually no new argument to
present, I will introduce to you General George WV. Wingate,
who, I think, will present some arguments.
GENERAL GEORGE W. WINGATE:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I am somewhat embarrassed
in addressing you in regard to - in view of the suggestion of the
Chairman. So much has been said already upon this proposition
that it is almost impossible to say anything that is new.
I congratulate the committee that after the storm of talk to
which they have been subjected they are now coming into a
position where they can seriously consider the weight of the
arguments which have been addressed to them and the weight
of the people who have brought forward those arguments.
When you take the testimony, as I have done, and weigh it
through, you will be pleased to find-and what?-how few
arguments haye really been presented to you in opposition to this
plan. They are simply these - I propose to be very brief on this
matters; and sinfply sum uI) tlhe arguimnnts whichi have been
brought against this plan. The burden is, as the committee has.
decided, on behalf of thlose wlio oppose the bill.




No. 44.]


007


The arguments are: First, that the people of Brooklyn were
not aware whe'n in 1_94- tlhey v-oted at the electionl on1 tihe sublject
of whether or not there should be a consolidation with New 'ork,
what they were doing.
That some of tlhel who migllt have voted did not vote. In
other words, tlhat the majority was not sufficiently large to be
satisfactory.
That the Brooklyn people fhave such a high idea of the sanctity
of their positions as citizens of that gieat - illage -because
that is about all it is, as Mr. Depew said - that they go out and
have fits in the public squares whenever anybody suggests to them
that they should be annexed to New York. That the majority
of the people of Brooklyn have not yet changed their minds and
are opposed to consolidation. That under —not this bill, but
under some legislation which comes, I suppose, in carrying out
tie bill- there will be difficulty in connection with the board of
supervisors, and other legal difficulties.
That the law is an experiment, and the Legislature should
not try any experiments.
Thai it is possible - as Jesse Johnson argued - for great cities
to be governed by imperial government, but it is not possible to
govern great cities under republican form of government.
That Brooklyn will not be able - that Brooklyn is able to raise
all the money she desires for her future needs and that if she
was annexed to New York, New York would not assist her.
And, finally, that there ought to be a referendum.
Now, those are all the arguments, boiled down, which have
been produced to this committee.
Nowl, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, in considering this question -
in view of the fact that there was an election; in view of the
fact that the voters of.the city of Brooklyn are all men over the
age of twenty-one and not women. children and ministers, entirely; and that a vote is to be considered as being conslusive
unless those who are opposing the vote and those who are opposing the bill can show, not by mere argument, not by oral statements, but bv overwhelming evidence, that the bill- the votewras not a fair one or that there has been such a change in the




358


[SENATES


sentiment of the people that that vote should be disregarded. On
this question I say, without hesitation, that instead of the opponents of this bill being able to demonstrate that, the contrary has
been proven to you. The gentlemen who have appeared before
you in opposition to this bill are undoubtedly eminent and respectable citizens of Brooklyn, but they represent a comparatively few
interests. All the interests of Brooklyn which make it what
it is; all the people who represent all this business, these interests
which depend for their prosperity iupon the development, are in
favor of this bill. All the railroads, the elevated railroads, and
the surface railroads, have signed petitions in its favor. What
class of the community is there whose very life depends upon
Brooklyn being prosperous and populous as the railroads?  All
the great merchants have been in favor of this bill. They are
dependent upon the same things. The banks, the trust companies, the real estate dealers, all the people who are business
men, who make it their business to study what is good for Brooklyn, because what is good for Brooklyn is good for their pockets,
those men have all come to you and addressed you in favor of
the bill. The other gentlemen, largely, I think, are sentimentalists, and largely who bring theoretical arguments; but they
are not entitled to the weight as practical men which the supporters of this bill have.:Now, the argument that the people of the city of Brooklyn, or
most of the people of the city of Brooklyn, have any particular
affection to this place, because it is their birthplace, because their
children have grown up there, is the merest nonsense. The average ciizens of Brooklyn knows how to perambulate about a circle
over about a mile from his house, and he knows how to coime to
New York, and that is all he knows about Brooklyn, and pretty
much all that he cares. All of the great measures which have
been introduced in Brooklyn, as the railroads, the manufactures,
the' great stores, etc., have been introduced by the people who
have come from the other side of the river. As far as the sentimental question of the thing is concerned, it is not entitled to any
consideration which is worthy of your thought.
Now, the law -it is said that nobody ever had a city of this




No. 44.]


359


size before, and, therefore, you should not pass a law which
establishes it now. Is not this Legislature every day passing
laws which are experiments? Is not the whole theory of the
government such that we should constantly develop? Is it not
an experiment to annex to Brooklyn the county towns? Was it
not an experiment to annex to Westchester the annexed districts,
and have not those experiments been successful? What right
has anybody to say that it is going to be - that we are not going
to be able to carry out the administration of the great city?
They have been able to carry out the administration of the present
cities, where New York has grown from what is was when I was
a boy to its present condition, and Brooklyn has grown to its
present immense population -why, my father told me a few
weeks ago that when he first came from the east to settle in
New York city, he was a teacher in Flatbush. At that time
Flatbush was a bigger place than Brooklyn; he settled there
because he thought the prospects would be better than they
would be in Brooklyn. Brooklyn has grown to be a great city
and Flatbush is a little village. But Mr. Johnson says —and
that is the fair type of the inconsistency of the arguments which
are brought against this bill - it is an instance of the desire
of those who are opposing the thing, for different reasons, to
clutch at anything which looks like an argument against itMr. Johnson says that you should not pass this bill because,
while great cities may be governed by imperial authority, it is
not practicable to do that under popular suffrage. If that is the
case, then our government is a failure, and you might as well
recognize the fact, and instead of introducing bills for consolidation, bills should be introduced for disintegration and distribution.
It seems to me that the argument, on its face, is clearly entitled
to no weight.
Now, as to the question as to whether or not Brooklyn is in
such a financial condition that it is for her interest to be annexed
to New York, that is the question of the day. On that you have
been overwhelmed with figures; on that you have heard many
speakers address you; and it seems to me that there can be no
question but what, at the present time, while the people who live




.')G0


[S N ATE,


in Brooklyn build up New York and make it rich, because they
do business there, because they pay office rent there, that, on the
other hand, Brooklyn, being a city of homes, is not able to increase
its taxation, is not able to issue bonds which are necessary for
the improvements which were required; but if the two cities are
united, as they ought to be, there will be plenty of money for all
the purposes, and then you will have a true city, the business city
which New York will be, and the city of homes which Brooklyn
will be. The taxation in New York will be increased to a very
slight percentage, the taxation of Brooklyn will be reduced to
such an extent that the poor man will be able to obtain what he
can not now, and that is, a loan of money upon his house at a
moderate rate of interest. It is for this reason, to attract, to
make the little homes of Brooklyn - to reduce the taxation upon
the little homes of Brooklyn, so that they will attract the workers
in New York who now live in tenement-houses to come over there
and buy them, and in this way build up the population of Brooklyn
and stop the stagnation which now crushes it, is the main object
of the supporters of this bill.
But, the great argument here is referendum. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of you and the gentlemen of the
committee, who ever heard of the principle in a republican form
of government that after a grave question of legislation, such as
the annexation of Brooklyn with New York, was, after three years
of discussion, deliberately submitted to the people and was
adopted by a majority vote ---whether that majority was large or
small makes no difference -that thereafter it was the duty of
the Legislature when they proceeded to frame legislation to carry
out the will of the people thus expressed, that the details of that
legislation should be submitted to a popular vote? Nothing of
the kind was ever heard of in our political history; it is not practicable to do anything of the kind, and the argument in favor of
referendum is brought forward by those who; seek in that way to
kill the bill. They all admit it, if I am not mistaken, every single
one of them admits it, when asked by the chairman, that that was
the opposition to the bill, and they hoped if it was again submitted that by the division - not upon the general subject of




No. 44.]


361


wlether or not there should be annexation - but by the division
of sentiment which might take place in regard to the details of
the bill, that they could crystalize and concentrate such an opposition to it as would enable them to defeat it, thus seeking to do
unpractically what they have failed to do practically. Now, no
such effort and no such purpose should be permitted. It is not
possible for this commission of the Legislature- or, perhaps,
even at the next session of the Legislature - to prepare a proper
and a detailed bill which will cover all matters, the thousands of
matters which have to be thought out and considered on such a
problem as the charter for the Greater New York. The bill provides, as it should, that annexation is declared and will take effect
on the 1st of January, 1898, and that the principle upon which
this annexation is to take effect is equality of taxation and equality
of valuation - those are the two things, the two special propositions; all the rest are matters of detail. Now, to carry out these
details will take thought. They should not be put in a single
charter. They should, as the bill well provides, be prepared one
by one, each great interest being taken by itself, discussed by
itself and voted by itself, and then thus, one by one, a harmonious
and symmetrical edifice imay be constructed, which will be a
credit to all concerned.
In deference to the suggestion of the Chairman, I will be brief;
and I assure you that there can be no question in the mind of any
unprejudiced man - that laying aside any particular "fads" which
some gentlemen may have in regard to loyalty to Brooklyn,
laying aside any particular enmities which some gentlemen may
have in regard to this person or the other person, and laying
aside some particular interests which some gentlemen may have
in regard to the effect of consolidation making a fall in their real
estate property around the city hall, laying aside all which is
merely for personal ends, and looking at it in the general interest of the city of Brooklyn as a whole, there can be no doubt
whatever in the mind of any reasonable man that seventy-five to
eighty per cent. of the people:are in favor of the consolidation
which is contemplated by this bill; consolidation, to take effect
[Senate, No. 44.]     4)




362


[SENATE,


in 1898, upon equal taxation, equal valuation, and the details to
be discussed, one by one, as the emergency arises.
MR. LEXOW:
I understand that Senator Wray has something to say to the
committee. Is Senator Wray present? (He must have left.)
MR. MATTHEWS:
I have a few telegrams. I do not know that you wish to have
the time particularly occupied. I will read just one or two.
I will state to the committee that we did not know of this
meeting until about four o'clock yesterday afternoon; and I
sent out some words for friends of consolidation to come up; and
I received quite a number of telegrams stating the reasons why
they are not present. (Reading)
James Matthews, Esq., Chairman Consolidation Committee, Kenmore
Hotel, Albany, N. Y.:
Am detained by important engagements. You can not overestimate the importance of consolidation. Should the opponents
defeat it they will realize their great mistake when the people
become fully conversant with the subject. Our citizens will not
forget such disregard for their interest and such a contempt for
their will.
DAVII) A. BOODY (Ex-Mayor Boody.)
Russell Parker, Kenmore Hotel, Albany, N. Y.:
Detained. Record us as in favor of consolidation; no referendum.
WILLIAMS & ADAMS.
MR. MATTHEWS:
And then comes another - shall I present the names?
MR. LEXOW:
I think it unnecessary. I assuire consolidation has some friends
in Brooklyn.




No. 44.]


363


MR. MATTHEWS:
Well, they are names of those to whom I sent. I have a letter
which I would likeI have received this letter Mr. Chairman, which is from Henry
Batterman, one of the new bridge commissioners, who expected
to come with me, and Mr. Andrew D. Baird, the president of
that commission, but they have a meeting this afternoon to settle
upon the four or six tracks to go over the bridge. He says:
OFFICE OF H. BATTERMAN,
BROADWAY, GRAHAM AND FLUSHING AVENUES,
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 28, 1896.
Mr. James Matthews, 208 Berkeley Place, Brooklyn, N. Y.:
My Dear Sir.-I regret exceedingly that a meeting of the East
River Bridge Commission on Wednesday will prevent me from
going to Albany with you. It seems to me that no further arguments are necessary to convince the Senate Committee that the
consolidation of the cities of New York and Brooklyn is not only
very desirable, but an absolute necessity. I desire to call the
attention of the committee to the fact that every man, who is doing
business in Brooklyn, and who is interested in the growth and
progress of Brooklyn as a city. commercially, is heartly in favor
of consolidation; whereas the opponents are those who desire to
keep Brooklyn as a quiet abiding place. So far as this section of
the city, the Eastern District, is concerned, I am safe in saying,
that ninety per cent. of the people are in favor of consolidation, for
the reason that they are largely engaged in local enterprises.
Sentiment is not to be considered here.
I was born and have always lived in Brooklyn, but I realize that
the unity of those two cities, means prosperity to the people, who,
are actively engaged in the development of the city.
The two factions to this question are: Progress and anti-progress. Consolidation means progress; anti, the contrary.
I sincerely trust that the will of the people, as expressed by
their vote, for consolidation, will be consumated by our legislators.
Yours very truly,
H. BATTERMANN.




-6 4


[SENATE,


MR. BRUSH:
Mr. Chairman, I want to answer that letter, in the presence of
the committee, by saying that I represent the district in which
Mr. Batterman lives or has his business and the district which he
mentions in his letter, a large portion of it I may say, and that
district gave 500 against consolidation in 1894. He says ninety
per cent. of the people are in favor of it. I simply make that
statement to show how much truth there is in his letter.
Mr. Matthews filed with the committee the following telegrams
received by him:
JAMES MATTHEWS, ESQ., Kenmore Hotel, Albany:
Regret not seeing you before you left Albany. In my judgment
the best interests of Brooklyn demand immediate consolidation.
HOWARD GIBB.
MR. JAMES MATTHEWS, Kenmore Hotel, Albany:
Brooklyn's welfare necessitates a speedy enactment of the Senator Lexow bill for consolidation.
ABRAHAM & STRAUS.
RUSSELL PARKER, Kenmore Hotel, Albany:
Short notice will prevent attendance. Heartily in favor of
consolidation.
BENJAMIN F. SUTTON.
87 Halsey street.
JAMES MATTHEWS, Kenmore Hotel. Albany, N. Y.:
The building interest of Brooklyn is almost a unit in favor of
consolidation. The Brooklyn chapter of the American Institute
of Architects on Saturday last passed resolutions unanimously
favoring it.
GEORGE L. MORSE.




No. 44.]


RUSSELL PARKER, Care Kenmore, Albany:
Notice too short to attend, but strongly favor consolidation.
H. C. BURTON.
615 St. Mark's avenue.
RUSSELL PARKER, Kenmore House, Albany, N. Y.:
Short notice will prevent attendance. Heartily in favor of
consolidation.
JAS. H. STEARNS.
585 St. Mark's avenue.
RUSSELL PARKER, Care Kenmore, Albany:
Notice too short to attend. but strongly favor consolidation.
F. D. SOPER.
615 St. Mark's avenue.
RUSSELL PARKER, Care Kenmore, Albany:
Notice too short to attend, but strongly favor consolidation.
A. H. DOTY.
615 St. Mark's avenue.
RUSSELL PARKER, Kenmore House, Albany:
Can't attend on such short notice. Positively favor consolidation.
W. G. BUTON.
MR. LEXOw:
Let us hear your next speaker, Mr. Matthews.
MR. MATTHEWS:
I now take pleasure in presenting to you Hon. Asa W. Tenney,
a gentleman whom you would like to hear, I think.
MR. TENNEY:
Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee: I hardly
think I had better speak to you this afternoon, because after the




366


[SENATE,


suggestion of the chairman, to select new questions to talk about
in this matter-that is, an absolute impossibility. There are
really but two questions, it seems to me, now before this committee, and they are - whether resubmission or referendum.
'When I was before the committee in 1'rooklyn I did not expect
to speak upon referendum. I did say something upon resubmission. And if the committee will indulge me, I will take a moment
or two upon the subject - upon both of those subjects, because
they seem to me to be very important in this matter; especially so
after the speeches that were made against consolidation and
against the bill now before this honorable body, at your last hearing in Brooklyn. A great deal was said, gentlemen, of learning
and of thought and of high consideration; said that resubmission
was a part of our government, and that the thirteenth, the fourteenth and the fifteenth Constitutional Amendmnents had been
resubmitted again and again and again, and I believe the newspapers have gone so far as to say that I had traveled the country
advocating the resubmission of those questions, these amendments.
Now, gentlemen, this is what one of the speakers before you said:
" All the war amendments to secure the political and moral results
of the war, were rejected by a sufficient number of Legislatures to
compel the repeated submission of them to such Legislatures."
Now, bear in mind, gentlemen of the committee, which you doubtless have already done, these measures, these war amendments
were rejected until it became necessary for a resubmission - that
is right. I make no issue upon that. That is true. They were
rejected by these Legislatures, and they were voted upon again
until they were adopted; but there is a great difference, gentlemen
of this committee, between rejection and adoption. I challenge
any man who spoke before this committee in Brooklyn, I challenge
any maln upon this committee to name me a single instance in the
history of this government, from its commencement until the present moment, that an amendment or a proposition or a question that
has been submitted to the people and adopted and approved has
ever' been subhnitted a second time for adoption and approval. An
instance does not exist; it can not be done: it is only when the
amendment, the proposition and111 the question is rejected tlhai it is




No. 44.]


367


to be resubmitted. Hence, we claim that the vote in Brooklyn
was final. It was final. There is no question about it; and it is
about time, gentlemen, that we brushed away words and sentiments and ideas and got down to the law and to the fact in this
matter. The election in 1894 was based upon an act of the
Legislature which, perhaps, some of you gentlemen were instrumental in creating. It was the act of 1894, and it has never been
referred to as I have seen in any of the arguments that have been
made before this honorable body.
Now, let us see what that says, and what is the title of the act.
Men say this was an informal vote. One gentleman said to this
honorable committee that it was no vote at all. And yet, it was
based upon a law that grew out of the Legislature of this State,
known as chapter 64 of the Laws of 1894, "An act providing for
the submission of the question of consolidation of the city of
New York with certain territory under a single municipal administration to a vote of the people." Now, that goes on and says,
speaking about how the ballots should be formed: " One-half of
the number of said ballots shall read ' For consolidation' and the
other half of the number of said ballots shall read 'Against consolidation,' and the indorsement on said ballots shall read 'Consolidation.' Each elector shall be provided, in addition to the
other ballots furnished at said election, with two ballots, one of
which shall be for and the other against consolidation." That
is what the law says. He is furnished with the other ballots at
the election, and then he has two other ballots, one for and one
against consolidation. And now, what is the provision of this
law, gentlemen, which, to my mind is exceedingly important in
disposing of this question, and it is this: All the provisions of
said chapter 680 of the Laws of 1892, relating to the submission
of a constitutional amendment or other propositions or questions
to a popular vote, shall, in all respects, be followed, complied with
and applied to and carried into effect in the submission of said
proposition or question of consolidation to a popular vote as
therein provided. Now, I ask you, have we ever in our State
asked' for a resubmission upon any constitutional question that
has been adopted in the State or any question or any proposition




368


[SENATE,.


since our State had existence. Hence, I repeat what I said before
your honorable body in Brooklyn, to attempt to resubmit this
question is un-American; it is unconstitutional; yea, more, it is the
overthrow of the very principle upon which our government
exists; for one of the greatest statesmen of our country said,
within the last ten or fifteen years, that the law of this country
was the supreme will of the people, honestly and fairly expressed
at the ballot box.
Now, they say that it is no vote; that it is simply a guess; that
it is a wish or a desire. Let us see what the law says about this;
" The ballots cast shall be deemed and taken as an expression
of the voter, as the case may be, in favor of or against the consolidation with the city of New York." That ends the whole
question. They may say it was no vote; they may say it was a
guess or a wish or has become stale; the law that this body enacted
and put into the statute books of this State and under which we
live, says that the ballots so cast shall be deemed and taken as an
expression of the voters.
MR. BRUSH:
Mr. Tenney, may I ask you a question? Do you contend that
that act laid any legal obligation upon the Legislature to act
upon it?
MR. TENNEY:
Any legal obligation? I don't understand your question.
MR. BRUSH:
Any binding obligation - I will change my question - any
binding obligation upon the Legislature?
MR. TENNEY:
I don't understand it now.
MR. BRUSH:
Well, hasn't the Legislature full power to enact laws without
the vote of the people, without any vote upon the question by
the people?




No. 44.]


369


MR. TENNEY:
To enact- full powers- in what regard?
MR. LExow:
Consolidating the cities without the expression of the voter,
Senator Brush means.
MR. TENNEY:
Within the Constitution- well, I suppose they may have, but
the fact that you passed a law - I am speaking upon this actwhich is to control this body and control the entire community.
MR. BRUSH:
Yes; but the feature of it that I was trying to get was, did that
act ever have any binding effect upon the Legislature?
MRt. TENNEY:
The fact that that act was passed?
MR. BRusH:
Yes.
MR. TENNEY:
Most certainly; just as much binding effect; upon this Legislature as the adoption of our Constitution last fall.
MR. BRUSH:
I don't see it.
MR. TENNEY:
Just as much binding effect-no; I know you don't see it.
That is the trouble. (Laughter.)
MR. TENNEY:
{Continuing.) If you did see it, we would not be here, perhaps. (Laughter.)
[Senate, No. 44.]    47




370


[SENATE,


MR. BRUSH:
No; I am afraid you don't get my meaning, now.
MR. TENNEY:
I get your meaning, now. I say that that vote of 277 majority
in the city of Brooklyn, cast as it was, is as final, is as certain, is
as obligatory upon this committee and upon this Legislature as
though the majority had been 277,000.
MR. BRUSH:
Then the Legislature of last winter did not do its duty?
MR. TENNEY:
I am not criticising that Legislature; I have personal views
about that, but it is not here.
MR. LEXOW:
It tried to, Mr. Tenney.
MR. TENNEY:
I am not here to criticise. I hope this Legislature will do its
duty. Let this Legislature do its duty and the last Legislature
will take care of itself. I claim that that majority of 277 votes -
my dear friend, Senator Brush, as you are my friend - I say that
that vote is final, from which there is no appeal, and you have to
act upon it and accept it absolutely.
MR. BRUSH:
I do not wish to take your time, Mr. Tenney, but the point is
hereMR. TENNEY:
Provided you ask a question.
MR. BRUSH:
The point is this: The vote, as I understand it, of any locality
upon any question has no actual binding effect upon the Legisla



No. 44.]


371


ture; the Legislature has full power, in other words to enact those
laws without any reference to the vote of the locality?
MR. LEXOW:
No doubt of that.
MR. TENNEY:
Mr. Senator, the trouble with that position is that this law is
here.
MR. BRUSH:
I admit that; that is all right.
MR. TENNEY:
This law is here, and it your duty as a Senator to stand by that
law that stands upon the statute books until it has been repealed. It is my duty, it is the duty of every man; and when
they say that that shall be an expression of the voters it is the end
of it until - so long as the law stands upon our statute books and
is unrepealed.
MR. LExow:
It is only fair, Mr. Tenney, that the chairman from personal
experience should say that the Legislature last year attempted to
do its duty; that the Assembly did its duty and passed the bill
(if it was a duty), and that the Senate tried to pass the bill and
was obstructed in so doing by a failure to receive the constitutional majority for the bill, failing by one vote to do so.
MR. TENNEY:
I know -
MR. LEXOW:
(Continuing) - and that the reason it failed was that the
gentlemen who are opposing the bill to-day obstructed the passage
of the bill last year.




[SENATE,


MR. TENNEY:
Yes; I do not want to be considered in the slightest as making
any criticism upon the Legislature in doing that; I am not doing
that at all. I simply say this: That the town of Westchester
defeated - cast 220 votes for consolidation and 221 against it.
Now, if they want resubmission, let them go right up there and
apply there arguments to the town of Westchester; it was not
voted there, it was not ratified there, but it was in Brooklyn.
MR. LEXOW:
And they are annexed to-day?
MR. TENNEY:
They are annexed to-day, as I understand it, or part of them.
And I want to say a word more. I intimated, when this honorable body was in Brooklyn, that it does not make any difference,
gentlemen, in my view of this case, what your opinions may be;
you may be against consolidation or for consolidation. (To
Senator Brush:) I don't know - only my friend, I know how he
stands; but it does not enter into this matter at all. I do not see
how it is possible for any man to escape the conclusion that I
have come at, whether for consolidation or againstl c(onsolidation,
namely, that he must accept the vote as passed in the city of
Brooklyn - that that vote was final and at an end.
Now, I come to one other question. IMuch more could be said
upon that, but it has been reviewed again and again and again.
The point I made is this, with nmy friends on the other side. that
when a measure is approved by a popular vote it ends it and is
final. But when rejected, (s -our con sitiltiional aiiendme(nts weLre
by many Legislatures, then it may be resubmitted; but the instance is not in existence when once accepted and once adopted
it has gone back to the peop)l for a second adoption.
Now, I desire to call your, a tltition, gentlenlie.l of the conmittee,
to one other matl;er, upon which I have not said yet one word,
and that is referendum. It is claimed by some of our friends on
the other side - the nnmlber is few - that the charter should be
adopted here, created here in the lawmaking power, and then




No. 44.]


373


go back to the people to be voted upon by them. Now, this,
gentlcemen, to illy- nind, is as absurd and inconsistent a request
as the question that we should resubmit the question to the
people. The only reason given for that is, as my friend General
Wingate, has said, that the bill may be defeated. N5ow, suppose for a moment that you refer this matter back to the people.
You can not - you can not amend the charter by the vote of the
people. You can not enlarge or abridge the charter by the vote
of the people. You can not make a suggestion to the Legislature
by the vote of the people. You can simply reject or accept or
approve the charter; that is all you can do. If the charter is
rejected then it comes back to the Legislature the next session
for another charter. Now, who ever heard of a city charter being
referred back to the people for their ratification? There never
was an instance in this State to my knowledge. There never was
an instance in any city in this land, to my knowledge, where that
was done.
Now, the first thing to be done is this: The charter is here to
be created, and in getting at this matter directly you have to
bear in mind, gentlemen of the committee, that a city is nothing
but a corporation. It is just the same as a bank, an insurance
company or a railroad company. It is the creature of the Legislature, of the statute; that is what a city is. It is born right
here in Albany, in the Legislature; it grows by the sea. You
might, with the same propriety, refer the charter of a bank to the
people as a charter of a city to the people. You can, with the
same propriety, refer the charter of a railroad to the people, to
the community through which it runs as to refer back the charter
of a city to the people. The present charter that we have in the
city of Brooklyn was never submitted to the people of that city,
nor was the charter of the great city of New York submitted to
the people. It was made here in Albany. Brooklyn came to
her present magnificent charter by a journey of forty years in
the wilderness, over briar and thorns and pitfalls, until she has
one of the best charters now known ii the world; but the people
of Brooklyn did not do it. Her representatives in Albany, the
representatives all over the State did it, and they did not make
the charter perfect first; during -




374


[SENATIES


MR. BRUSH:
(Interrupting.) We are trying to preserve the charter now.
MR. TENNEY:
Yes - well, all right. They did not make it perfect first and
it is not perfect now.
MR. BRUSH:
Well, it is the best one we have in the country and we are
trying to preserve it.
MR. TENNEY:
Two or three bills are before this Legislature now to make that
charter better. Now, you will not make a charter that will be
perfect.
MR. LEXOW:
You do not see any difficulty in extending that charter so
that it shall cover the greater city?
MR. TENNEY:
None whatever.
MR. LExOW:
If that charter is perfect -
MR. TENNEY:
I do not say it is perfect -
MR. LEXOW:
Then the greater city should get the benefit of it?
MR. TENNEY:
Certainly, get the practical benefit. When people say that you
can not make a charter that will cover these two great cities they
are tallin" in the air. It is just as easy to make a charter to cover
these two great cities, or three great cities, when consolidated, as it




No. 44.]


375


is to make a charter for the city of Brooklyn. It is as easy to make
a charter for three millions of people as it is for one million of
people. As a citizen of the city of Brooklyn, I am perfectly
content, perfectly willing, to leave this charter making to this
committee or any other commnittee that may be selected in this
Legislature. I believe I have confidence in the Legislature, and
I think it is a very poor compliment to the lawmakers of our
State when people will say, " We won't trust them but we want
it to come back to us." Now. I tell you, gentlemen, I had
rather —and I think I touch the heartstrings of every man on
this committee- I had rather have seven men make a charter for
me. bright, intelligent, experienced men, than to have seven
hundred or seven thousand. Submit that charter back to Brook]yn! W ho will read it and who will know anything about it? It
will amount to absolutely nothing. Bring about you gentlemen,
here the best influence and the best means you can from the
two cities. Frame your charter the best you can, you will not
get a perfect charter, as I said before, at first. It will be after
years of experience, after testing, after trial; you will get a good
charter, that will cover all the exigencies of the times and meet
every requirement and every demand.
I do not understand why it is - I do not understand why it is
that they want a referendum - a referendum is something for the
defeat of this charter. The charter should be made here, and
applied to the great city the best that can lbe done, and then
under experience we can perfect that charter, if it should need
perfecting, as we go along in time and experience.
Now, gentlemen, I do not want to detain you, and I am not
going to. But I am a New Yorker as well as a Brooklyn man;
and I tell you, gentlemen, I want a big city by the gates of the
sea! I have a little civic pride in this matter.; that is not controlling by any means, for I believe, as 1 believe I said before you
gentlemen, that Brooklyn can only be saved by consolidation.
But -we want here a great city! We want here a city which
every American will be proud of, outside of the city of Chicago.
We want here a city like the city of London, occupying both
sides; London, as you know, occupies both sides of the




376


[SENATE,


Thames; Paris occupies both sides of the Seine; Rome occupies, as you may know, both sides of the Tiber; Vienna both
sides of the Danube; St. Petersburg both sides of the
Neva; Berlin both sides of the Spree. Now let us have the
great city on this continent occupying both sides of the East
river; and let us have, as I said to you when in Brooklyn, let us
have a ship canal reaching across the outer part of the island,
linking Flushing bay on the north with Jamaica bay on the
south, so that the heavy tonnage from out of New York harbor
can be taken there, relieving the harbor of its now over congested
condition. And let us remember this, men of New York, that
these two great cities belong to our State. They are part of
New York. They pay allegiance to the same laws, pay taxes into
the same treasury. They are nearest to the commerce, admit of
the same weather; they lie upon the same bay, they have the same
custom-house and the same clearing-house. They have the same
stock exchange, produce exchange, and oil exchange and cotton
exchange. The princely merchants of Brooklyn unite with the
princely merchants of New York in the same chamber of commerce and in the same board of trade. And it has been the muscle
and the brain and the capital and the thought of these two great
cities, each working in harmony and together, that have builded
these magnificent cities by the sea. They are joined together in
wedlock to-day in fact, if they are not in law.
Gentlemen of this committee, I beg of you not to hesitate in this
matter, but to act and act promptly, and lift this great question
out of politics. There should not hb, a particle of politics in it
and if there was politics in it, I would not be addressing you
to-day. It is a question of citizenship. It is a question for the
well-being of these twNo great cities. It is a life and death struggle
for the city of Brooklyn. (Give us consolidation! Put your
bridges across the river. Settle the riparian rights of tlhe East
river between these two cities by consolidation. Tunnel tlh:, East
river, and the years are, not manyl before the )pop)alion on the
east side of the East river will outstrip bhy thousainds a<i1 lens of
thousands the population on Manhattan island.
rWe can not delay longer. If you do dolay. geni Illenmcli. if voui do




No. 44.]


377


delay, politics will get into this question; there is no doubt about
it -- and the next Legislature - it will be a political question.
Now, it is not a political question; the people who voted for this
question voted as citizens, not as politicians. They voted for the
welfare of Brooklyn, not as partisans, but as citizens, and I beg
of you, therefore, gentlemen, to act and act promptly in this matter, that we may know where we stand.
Gentlemen of the committee, there are other things I might say,
but I will not. But I want to thank you personally, as a citizen
of Brooklyn, for the magnificent consideration you have given this
question. It is a great question. It is a question that reaches
beyond persons, beyond individuals; it is a question that concerns
millions of people and millions of money - it should be carefully
and thoughtfully considered. You have come to Brooklyn and
heard us there. You have invited us here. You have treated the
citizens of Brooklyn magnificently, and as a citizen of that town
I return you grateful thanks.
MR. BRUSH:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Tenney one or two questions, just to get his opinion. You spoke of London, the government of London, Mr. TenneyMR. TENNEY:
No, I did not speak of the government of London.
MR. BRUSH:
Of the government of the city of London.
Mn. TENNEY:
No.
MR. BRUSH:
* Did you not?
MR. TENNEY:
I spoke of London occupying both sides of the Thames.
[Senate, No. 44.]    48




378


[SENATE,


MR. BRUSH:
You, of course, know that London is governed by nineteen different municipalities?
MR. TENNEY:
I know, sir, that the old city of London covers only one square
mile; I know that the present city of London occupies 122 square
miles.
MR. BRUSH:
And that it is governed by nineteen different municipalities?
MR. TENNEY:
I know that London - I do not know that fact, but I know that
London is a set of villages. And I know another fact, that within
a year and a half or within two years the city of Vienna has taken
into her borders her entire outlying suburban districts.
MR. BRUSH:
You recognize the fact, Mr. Tenney, that this problem of municipal government is the question for this generation to solve?
MR. TENNEY:
I do, sir; one of the greatest questions we have ever had to do.
MR. BRUSH:
I agree with you there. Then, do you not think - you say to us
that we should act and act speedily.
MR. TENNEY:
I do.
MR. BRUSH:
Do you not thinkMR. TENNEY:
I want this Legislature to take care of this question.




No. 44.]


379


MR. BRUSH:
Do you not think that it would be rather rash for this Legislature to go to complete this question, when it is so important a
question?
MR. TENNEY:
No, sir.
MR. BRUSH:
And consolidate this district?
MR. TENNEY:
No, sir. We have been discussing, as you ought to know, this
question of consolidation in Brooklyn, for twenty years. It is
no new question with us. I made a speech, myself, in 1892, I
think, years ago, with Judge Gaynor, Mr. Greene, Mr. White, in
the Real Estate Exchange, on this very identical question. It is
no new question with us; it has been the liveliest question we
have had in Brooklyn for the last five or ten years. There is no
question about it. The great question has not been precipitated
on us, as full discussion has been had in the newspapers, and full
discussion in the Consolidated League.
Any more?
MR. BRUSH:
I am much obliged to you.
MR. LEXOW:
Senator Wray, do you desire to address the committee?
MR. WRAY:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I had not
intended to occupy your time at all in talking to this subject, as
I shall expect to say something in the Senate concerning it.
The purpose of the appointment of this committee, I believe,
was to obtain information from the people at large, rather than
through their representatives in this body. But I have here a




380


[SENATE,


telegram from the secretary of the Brooklyn Young Republican
Club requesting me to come before the committee and say to it
that that club had adopted resolutions favoring a referendum.
That I do.
The Brooklyn Young Republican Club is a club having among
its membership no officeholder, no political officeholder, by
constitution of the club. It is a club which reaches into every
ward in the city of Brooklyn; and it has had for its president Mr.
Low, who was afterwards mayor of the city of Brooklyn, and is
now president of Columbia college. It has had that eminent civil
service reformer, Mr. Deming, as its president. It has had as its
president, ex-Mayor Schieren; and I had the honor to be in a
humble capacity an officer in the organization myself, some years
ago, having been chairman of its advisory committee at the time
the work of reorganizing the Republican party in the county was
undertaken.
MR. TENNEY:
Mr. Chairman: I would like to ask if the gentleman knows how
many were present of that club at that meeting?
MR. WRAY:
I do not, Mr. Chairman; I do not. Possibly, Judge Tenney can
tell me, better than I can tell you, probably; and I would ask
him if he knows to state to the committee.
MR. TENNEY:
I do not know, personally. I know it is a club originally, or
until lately, 'of about three thousand members. Some of the
grandest men in our city belong to it. And 1 know by hearsay
about its meetings, and I would simply say, in parenthesis, "Do
not put too much support in this." (Laughter).
A brother of our chairman, Mr. Matthews, who is not here,
is a member of that club, and informed me all about it.
MR. WRAY:
The telegram speaks for itself, and is my only authority. I
attend to my business here, and the gentlemen in Brooklyn are




No. 44.]


381


attending to theirs, I suppose. The secretary of this club requested me to make this statement to this committee to-day. I
do it.
MR. LExow:
Senator Wray, I think the committee regrets very much that
political bodies should take any formal action upon a question
that the committee have desired to keep out of the range of
politics, so far as we could.
MR. WVRAY:
That suggestion is very well as a positive proposition. The
Brooklyn Young Republican Club of the city of Brooklyn, as
Mr. Tenney has said, has been one of the strongest organizations
in that city for a long time, having a membership of about three
thousand; it is not so strong now, as he intimated in what he
said; that is true in part. All things considered, I believe the
Young Republican Club is very strong in the city of Brooklyn.
MR. TENNEY:
(Interrupting) Once a year.
MR. WRAY:
Never mind how often. It has had as its presidents and officers
men who have met the commendation of the people repeatedly,
time after time, and do to-day, Judge; they do to-day. So, that
the Young Republican Club, while it is a Republican club, is not a
political organization alone, but represents the thought and the
manhood and decency and the honesty of the people of Brooklyn,
where we have thousands and thousands of that kind of people.
For that reason, I personally place some little significance in the
action of the Young Republican Club, more than I do in the ward
organizations, which are purely political bodies; that is to say,
they are partisan political bodies, whereas this Young Republican
Club lhas not always been a strongly partisan Republican body.
I should have contented myself with merely making this statement had it not been for the fact that the bill drawn and intro



382 '


[SENATE,


duced by me relating to the referendum of the charter has been
spoken of by Mr. Tenney; and I was requested by a gentleman
in attendance on the committee to explain the nature of that bill.
I presume the gentlemen of the committee have read and considered the bill, although it has not been printed long; but I should
like briefly, in order to correct any error that may have been
lodged in the mind of the committee by the remarks of Mr. Tenney
concerning it - I should like briefly to state the provisions of the
bill.
It seems to me that as it was distinctly and well understood and
could not be properly - if the Legislature would intend it to be
so - that the bill passed in 1894 submitting this question to a
vote of the people was merely for the purpose of obtaining an
expression of opinion; as it declares by itself - the bill itself says
that the vote shall be taken and deemed as an expression of opinion
of the voter for or against.
MR. LEXOW:
Do you understand, Senator Wray, the reason of the bill of
1894?
MR. WRAY:
Why, certainly; a commission - they have been years -  Mr.
Tenney has said this has been before the people for a good many
years; it has been agitated day after day, day after day, time after
time - and I believe in consolidation; I believe in it. I believe
if we did not consolidate the cities, they would consolidate themselves.
MR. TENNEY:
That is the talk!
MR. WRAY:
I believe in it.
MR. LEXOW:
The question then before the Legislature was whether we should
decree consolidation without a vote of the people, or whether




No. 44.]


383


we should first ascertain the desires of the people of Brooklyn on
that subject; I was in the Legislature at the time.
MR. WRAY:
Ah!- Now in the provision
MR. LExow:
(Continuing) I know that the same gentlemen, the same associations, the same that are arrayed against consolidation, arrayed
even against the bill submitting it to popular vote down there,
and it was only after a controversy of about two months in the
Legislature that we finally succeeded in passing a bill submitting
the question to a popular vote.
MR. WRAY:
And I made a hearty, strong fight to have included in the provisions of that bill a further provision that any charter-that
this vote should be taken with at least this much of knowledge
on the part of the voter as to what should be done and what consolidation meant, that the bill when drawn, or at least, that the
question when submitted as to whether they wanted to have consolidation of those cities or this territory with a uniform rate of
assessment and taxation. I wanted them to understand that,
but the friends of the bill said that that would probably defeat
it. As a Brooklyn man, having every interest in Brooklyn, I
felt that we must have some sort of security that the people
would understand what they were voting for, and not vote at
random for some proposition.
The question assumed this form in my mind. Suppose that
two men, A and B, agree to enter into partnership, each having a
certain amount of capital or a certain amount of experience. A
says to be B, "Let us go into partnership;" B replies, "All right;
I am satisfied; let us begin at once." And A says, "No, I want
to be in partnership with you; but let us go to Senator Lexow,
who is a good lawyer, and get him to draw our writings of copartnership agreement, so that we will each understand exactly where
we stand in the division of profits and bearing of losses."




384


rSENATE,
L


Now, wherever there is power lodged in any body of people
and there is an unequal distribution of power, one body of people
concerned having more than another, it has been the universal
history of the human race that the strong has held down the weak,
and where occasion offered, rather than give up their own rights,
they have oppressed the weak; and as a friend of Brooklyn, one
of her sons, I do not want to see Brooklyn, which is in this case
the weaker one, the weaker for her having not the same numerical
strength, borne down or overslawed by the great vote of New
York.
MR. LEXOW:
I understand that, and I admit the proposition, excslping' that
the weakness is here, that the very Legislature passes upon the
charter and not the representation of the city of New York.
MR. WRAY:
Very true; but if the proposition which is before that Legislature to-day, take it, with a solid delegation lacking only one from
the county Republican, what can we expect from another Legislature in the way of consideration of what we ask. We ask to-day
- a united solid delegation in this Legislature, to have either
one of two things done for us in this matter, that the people - we
ask-and those of nm friends whlo atl'ce witll Iie iln n11  view
of the matter who are for land hcave been for consolidation all
through consistently -we ask that a charter be drawn and submitted to the people. On the other hand, there are some gentlemen who say, " Let us submit the question of whether a charter
be in fact drawn; that is, whether we would have consolidation,"
Now, it seems to me that we can come together on that prlop)osition. But on the one proposition we are all together, and all say
to this Legislature - the twenty-nine representatives of the city
of Brooklyn come here in a solid body, and say to the Legislature,
" Do not force this proposition upon us." Now, if they do not
listen to that request, aMr. Chairi'n:n and gentllemen, what can we
then expect from the Legislatlurl 'hvl(n this weaker power shall
ask to be protected from the strong;er?l




No. 44.];)I5


I would like to say — in( I liope I am not tresp)assing upon the
time of the gentleman - I will ask his pardon for taking so imuch
of his time - in answer to the chairman's question, I want to say,
this consolidation plan has been a question which has been agitated in New York and Brooklyn, as to the territory mentioned
in the terms of that bill, Mr. Chalirman, for a good inany years.
There was a growing and strongly growing feeling that consolidation would be a good thing and would cure many evils existing
in both cities. After a time, the Legislature was induced to take
that view of it, and a commission was appointed for the purpose
of granting information and ascertaining whether or not it would
be a wise thing to consolidate the cities. That commission was
at work for years before the matter ripened, and finally it came
to a position where the Legislature submitted the question of
consolidation or not. The old commission having then performed
its work, as I regard it, it having ascertained the condition of the
public mind, having worked up public sentiment to take hold of
it at all, and the Legislature submitting this question in 1894,
got an expression of the will of the people, lwhich some contend
was not a fair one. If a vote under such circumstances as this
was taken is to be considered as conclusive then it was a conclusive
vote; if not, then it was not a conclusive vote. I do not question
that.
But here, then, comes the other question. This matter has been
before us; it is before us. People are taking sides on it; people
are looking into it. They are informing their minds as to what
there is in it, for and against it. After examining the question,
I am of the opinion that consolidation will benefit us all.
Now, as a friend of c)nlsolidation, as a iman who believes in it
certain, as sure, as the people live on Manhattan Island and as
sure as the people live on Long Island, I believe that the manifest
destiny of those two cities, make it very, very unwise for us to
force an issue upon them which may result disastrously to us.
Why should not we take as much time in considering the question
of a partnership interest between these two cities owning billions
of dollars of property, as we should in forming a partnership
[Senate, No. 44.]     49




386


[SENA rE,


among ourselves where we would invest ten or fifteen or twentyfive thousand dollars?
Now, in this referendum if this charter is drawn - not drawn
by this Legislature-Judge Tenney, we have no time to draw
charters here-my bill provides that this Legislature shall -
that the mayor of New York shall appoint three property-owners
of that city, the mayor of Brooklyn shall appoint three propertyowners of that city, the Governor of the State of New York shall
appoint three property-owners from the territory affected outside
of those two cities, making nine; and that the two mayors shall
themselves be members of the commission, making eleven. They
shall employ counsel, buy maps, prepare maps, and employ all
necessary help, and between now and the 15th day of September,
1896, they shall prepare a plan or scheme of the consolidation of
the two cities - of this territory, rather - and file that in the
form of a report to the Legislature in the Secretary of State's
office. He shall have a hundred thousand copies printed and have
them delivered to the commissioners for distribution in the territory affected, for my very eloquent and able friend to study in
order to inform the voters in our town, for lawyers to study in
order to inform their clients, and for other people, laymen, who
have the time and interest in it, to study to inform themselves.
That the commissioners shall prepare in this way, then, the
synopsis of the charter and have that published daily in the newspapers, at least five in each city. Then, the people shall vote for
or against that charter; and if the charter is fair, and I believe it
would be drawn fairly under such circumstances, and the people
want the charter —want consolidation-they will vote for it
and they will take it. And if they do not want it, they will vote
against it. NowMR. LExow:
Another word, Senator WAray - suppose that if any large proportion of the people objected to some insignificant detail in connection with that charter, then all that work, all that trouble and
the general plan of consolidation itself shall be defeated by a




No. 44.]


387


trivial mistake of judgment on the part of this committee preparing the charter.
MR. WRAY:
This is so, exactly, Mr. Chairman. And that is the fundamental
law of the State of New York, as contained in its Constitution;
and we have just seen the State doing it in this State, in holding
a constitutional convention for the purpose of finding out whether
we wanted any amendment to the Constitution, and then we
might submit it to the people, the vote on that Constitution, running the risk that on any proposition contained in it if it met with
the disapproval of a majority of the people, the whole Constitution
should be swept away.
MR. LEXOW:
I beg your pardon - that is in orderMR. WRAY:
Except in the three - in the fact that there were three separate
propositions. But the main bulk of the Constitution was contained in one amendment.
MR. LEXOW:
I understand, but there were separate divisions, and three
separate divisions for the express purpose of not permitting the
defeat of the entire revised Constitution, because one or the other
elector of this or the other place disagreed on a particular feature
or some part of it.
MR. WRAY:
Exactly. But the main - all the main propositions contained
in our Constitution were submitted in one body, one body. So
that if any one of these provisions had met the disapproval of
enough people to have them vote against it, we would have run the
risk of having the whole Constitution defeated. This has been so
right along, every time; it must be so. But, Mr. Chairman, the
very fact that that was so made it absolutely impossible for a man,




388


[SENATE,


considering his dignity as a voter, as an elector in this Stale, considering the importance to himself and the other electors in this
State, to allow some trifling thing contained in that Constitution,
that proposed Constitution, to affect his vote so as to endanger
all these vast interests. Now, wouldn't it be so with consolidation? We have in the consolidation act of the city of New York
a charter. We have in the Brooklyn consolidation act a charter,
the Brooklyn charter. The main provisions of those charters
would apply, with but very little change.
Now, then, comes the main question - these main questions
upon which the charter should be based which would in reality be
the facts the people wanted to know, the main points of the
union - as to a uniform rate of assessment and taxation, and that
the city of Brooklyn would be taken care of in its public works
department, so that when we wanted a street paved or a lamp set
or a street flagging set or a sidewalk laid, or some such thing, the
people of the outlying districts would be sure that somebody was
charged with the care of these, so that they would not have to go
to the city hall in Brooklyn and encounter an. adverse vote because - and in New York encounter an adverse, vote because
somebody else having the majority of the men in power should
vote it.
MR. LExow:
Now, Senator, a vote on the cha: lter would not be a vote on the
question of union. The great trouble is that you would have -
against union would be arrayed all those people, for instance,
who have incumbrances upon the sidewalks, with reference to
which the charter says something - every one interfered with
by authority would organize against the charter because it says
that restrictions shall be enforced on the sidewalks; and so you
could go into every community where such government interferes
with the personal righis and liberties of the individual. There
would not be a vote tl.akern n -tllh great question of consolidation;
but a vote would be) taken as to wvIhetlher or not the law would be
too st i.ri (l'l in one reslpeco(t or t1oo le{nient in another.




No. 44.]


389


MR. WRAY:
Do you think, gentlemen of tihe comllliittee-d(o you i think
that on a question involving so much of real initerest to the people,
that a matter of an incumbrance on the sidewalk -I know that
is only one instance mentioned by the chairman -or hait any
other interest which does not go so deeply into the question of
the rights of the individual and affect him so nearly in his person
and his property - do you think that these questions would
defeat the great question?
MR. LEXOW:
Why, Senator Wray, the gentlemen who argued against consolidation before this committee substantially stated that the
people had taken absolutely no interest in the matter at allso little interest that after five years' work the people of Brooklyn
were absolutely unable to tell who their particular representatives were upon the consolidation commission.
MR. WRAY:
Well, it is quite possible, because they did not regard the consolidation commission as being consolidation, but the work of the
commission was entirely aside from the commission itself.
But it seems to me that the main proposition which this committee will have to consider, could well be met by adopting the
suggestions contained in my bill, and I wanted to say- I have
no pride of authorship in it -while I drew it last year, while
I had it in mind the year before, because I had to settle the question of where I should stand, when I came to go before the electors in 1894. Now, I had to settle it in 1893. And I have maintained an absolutely consistent course in the matter from the
beginning to the end up to this present moment, and I expect to
maintain the same course all the way through.
Now, if we prepare such a charter as the wise men who would
undoubtedly be selected by the mayors and the Governor employing the counsel, if they would prepare a plan of consolidation, 1
truly believe that the peoplle, after seeing what they were
getting (not buying a pig in a poke), would be in a position to make
bV~rCLI~ ll~r \~~L~ Ib W rn I,, rv~~j(  r vuu N~ 11 Ur~lLIC~IV  C~V~-LI




390


[SENATE,


a vote upon that charter a finality, either that they would have
consolidation, or that consolidation would be put to sleep, the sleep
of Rip Van Winkle possibly, not to wake up in twenty years.
MR. TENNEY:
I would like to ask Senator Wray, if you will permit me, Mr.
Chairman, if he does not consider that the vote taken in 1894
in the city of Brooklyn was not a finality?
MR. WILSON:
Can I answer that?
MR. WRAY:
Oh, Mr. Chairman, not by any means; not by any means! In
the first place, if the vote were intended to be a finality - if one
Legislature could submit a question which could bind the answer
to which would bind another Legislaltu-e -- it can not do it by any
possibility absolutely. By no possibility can this Legislature do
a thing which binds the next one, recommend a thing. If that had
been 
MR. TENNEY:
I would like with the permission of the chairman, to ask the
gentleman if he does not consider that the canal improvement
vote, that was submitted, is binding upon this Legislature?
MR. WRAY:
The canal improvement submitted was not binding on this
Legislature, any more than the work of the constitutional convention was binding on this Legislature, until its adoption and
ratification by the people, and then it became governing
MR. TENNE'Y:
Exactly that is it.
MR. VnRAY:
Now, that was a totally different thing. " Here is the canal
appropriation," was tlhe question stibmnitted o to tlI rel( -- "If




No. 44.]


2,91


you ratify this then it becomes a law." This was merely a question w-hicll said: "Do you want (onsolif n i(llo r not?" And the
answer, "Your vote shall be to this effect; it shall be recorded as
an expression of opinion on your part; the vote for consolidation
will be regarded as an expression of opinion that you want consolidation; and a vote aga)inst it an expression of your opinion
that you do not want it."
MR. BRUSH:
And not binding upon the Legislature.
MR. WRAY:
Oh, how can one Legislature bind another? It is utterly
impossible. The Constitution binds us; not the former Legislature. I do not believe that Judge Tenney or any one else will
claim that we are bound in fact by it-bound to the people
MR. LEXOW:
How can it have any effect if that final vote on the question has
no moral legislative obligation on the question as a legal binding -
MR. WRAY:
NowN, -then, when we come to the other proposition -- That has
been settled, I believe, Judge, has it not?
MR. TENNEY:
(Testily) Oh, anything is settled - so far settledMR. WRAY:
Then we come to the next proposition, as that Legislature
could not bind this, then the question is, did they want to bind
the Legislature in this way. Was there such an expression of
opinion as will put a moral obligation upon this Legislature to
heed the voice of the people?
Now, as to that I did not intend to speak at all, if it were not for
the questions asked me by the Judge. In a community where
they have nineteen ballots handed them, under the old ballot




392


[SENATE,


law - which was a nuisance aside from the nineteen ballots -- and
five propositions to amend the Constitution among the things to
be voted on, and the question of whether or not the voter wanted
consolidation also to be voted on. aWVin the votelr went into
the booth with nineteen bollots in his hand from which he was
to select the ballots he would vote, he was told 1b tihe leaders
of his party, if he happened to be a Republican, that he must
vote everything that h.ad "For" on i tt wtat was llnded him by
the ballot clerks; and if he were a member of the Democratic
party that he must vote everything that had "Against " on it,
and where that man - and unfortunately there are people in this
world who are not fully educated and up to the highest standardwhere that man, we will say, was in sonme fear, not underslianding-,
the position or understanding comparatively little, and having got
these confusing ballots and having these different instructions
given him, when he finally struggled through this mass of stuff
and picked out things, I fully believe that I am justified in the
statement that of the 63,000 or 64,000 men who voted for consolidation, I believe that 20,000 of them there were who did not
fully understand what they were doing at all; and there were at
least 60,000 people who did not vote on the proposition at all; I
believe that of the 63,000 people who voted against it, at least
20,000 did not understand what they were doing.
MR. WILSON:
Will the Senator allow me to read a short extract?
MR. WRAY:
I am not sure, Mr. Chairman -
MR. LEXOW:
What is it?
MR. WILSON:
It is in reference to what the consolidation (commissioners
officially stated, in a pamphlet published October 15, 1894, over
their own officers' signatures, that this vote was to be only an




No. 441.]


e'Xlp.es(-iol (f olfiliol, 1merlelly to.. at Itl ti  Sft.imltls: aof the
electors; a.lso, adding in thli same lpamphlet, that if every ballot
inl a city oi' town were ca(st in favor of consolidation, there would
be no finality.
MR. LExOW:
Nobody disputes that; and it is a fact, there is no finality about
it until the L egislature puts its final touch to the bill.
MR. WI'TLSON:
That is how- the peoplle voted, Senator.
MR. PARKER:
I attended the sessions of this committee in Brooklyn, not
because I was a resident of Brooklyn, but because I drafted the
bill and was anxious to see whether any criticism, any substantial criticism, was made upon its form or substance. I waited
there during four sessions, four days' sessions of the committee,
and went away, having heard really no plausible objection to the
bill whatever. It is practically the same bill that was submitted
to the Legislature last year, and with very slight changes, and
whatever objection the anti-consolidationists had to it were then
urged. However, I took from the lips of the speakers the objections as they were uttered; and although I shall not refer to every
one of them, since some are so trivial, really so desperate that
they need no answer, yet, some of them I shall answer, simply
because the average man conceives an unanswered objection is
a formidable one.
Mr. Benedict referred first to the fact that if New York city is
extended under this bill, it would present the anomalous feature
of a city partly in one county and partly in another. I do not
believe that is anomalous, sir. So far as a city can be in one
county partly. and partly in another, has it not been observed
that New York city is to-day in that condition? At the last
Legislature part of Westchester county was, as it was said,
"annexed," and the Court of Appeals has decided that that
[Senate, No. 44.]     5,,




294


[SENATE,


annexation lhas taken place as far asc it ',-veri can t-akle place, for
certain purposes that territory remains in the county of Westchester and for certain purposes it is in the county of New York;
still returns are made to the county canvassers in \Westchester
in the election, but the New York city officials count the votes.
Mr. Chairman, under that law, you have had a tax levied, you
have had a vote counted. I am referring now to the board of
supervisors. Has anybody declared that that tax was invalid
or that the canvass of that vote was illegal? Wre have got away
from that objection a great deal - I simply want this to go upon
the record that it may be answered - on the committee's record
-we have got away from that practically by the fact that we
have postponed the vote and effect of the first section until January 1, 1898.
His next objection was, that under this bill the c(ity and county
of Brooklyn - of Kings -could each contract ten per cent.
indebtedness. I think if he looks at the constitutional provisions he will find that that is not tenable at all but by reference
to the bill - I may refer first to article eight, section eleven, of
the Constitution, which provides the debt-raising or debt-contracting power of the county, which restricts it -and to article
twelve, section one, which provides that the Legislature may at
any moment restrict the debt-contracting power.
It was asked who is to be the mayor and act on the bills submitted to him?  The answer is so simple that I should think it
would occur to anybody. TUntil consolidation takes place, the
same mayors we have always had, with power. When consolidation takes place, the mayor who shall take the place of those
mayors.
It was said by Mr. Benedict that they had an insuperable
objection. That it would take ten years to complete this process.
Nobody has exaggerated the size of this problem. It has not
been overstated. It is almost the building of an empire! But,
as I believe with many who have appeared against the bill, that
consolidation is inevitable, so I believe that the only way to;olve
that problem is to grapple with it and not to shirk it.
As to the argument against increased jurisdiction- you will




No. 44.]


395


notice that I am replying to these very briefly - the argument
against increased jurisdiction has been made over and over
again. It was said. How can you concentrate power so as adequately to rule the immense territory, with its tremendous official
interests? That is the sole argument that has been made against
every increase of jurisdiction, municipal, State, national, from
the beginning of our history. It must be met sooner or later.
We can not, as London is - we can not remain in this seggregated condition  and I may say to Senator Brush that one of
the most imminent and pressing problems that London has been
confronted with for now twenty years is the problem of unifying
these separate municipalities.
MR. BRusH:
You are right.
MR. PARKER:
(Continuing): Commission after commission has been appointed The privy council has insisted upon the absolute necessity of unifying these separate municipalities, if London would
become the economic government they want her to be. The
abuses of the seggregation have been dwelt upon over and over
again. In the time of Dickins the costliness, the corruption, the
foulness of the parish and the vestry governments had already
become a by-word.
MR. BRUSH:
The commissioners have not been able to solve the problem.
MR. PARKER:
We have surpassed them in that, as we have in many other
things. We have not had all the obstacles they had. That is
hardly an argument.
MR. BRUSH:
It is a fact I am stating; that is all.




396


[SENATE,


MR. PARKER:
Oh, yes; still, you intended it as an argument.
MR. LEXOW:
Their difficulty arose from the fact of having over thirty independent municipal governments that they have brought into
one-they have consolidated into one -
MR. PARKER:
That is it.
MR. LEXOW:
While we have to treat with substantially only two. The
interests of those are so small, comparatively, that there is no
difficulty in unifying them. The only difficulty arising here is
the unification of the two great interests, Brooklyn and New
York city.
MR. PARKER:
That is about all, sir. But one word upon the much-mooted
point that the vote was an opinion, not a determination. It was
as much a determination as anything ever can be, submitted to
the people. It need never have been submitted. It was submitted as an act of mere grace, if I may say so. It is without
precedent that a charter should be submitted to a peopleMR. WRAY:
(Interrupting) Mir. Chairman, will the gentleman give way for
one moment? Judge Tenney made that statement also, and I meant
to have answered it. There are cases reported in our own New
York State reports where the Legislature has submitted a charter
after it was passed by the Legislature, to be approved by the
people, and the Court of Appeals held that such a submission
was unconstitutional. For that reason I prepared my bill for
the submission of the charter to the people before the Legislature
should adopt it. So, I should say that the question has been
submitted to the people time and time again in this State.




No. 44.]


397


MR. LExoW:
But as I understand it, Senator Wray, a submission of that
kind is entirely without constitutional precedent and is entirely
unconstitutional, for this reason, that any number of cases in this
State hold that unless there is something in a law which goes
absolutely into effect without the expression of the popular will,
the law is unconstitutional. We had that question in the rapid
transit matter.
MR. WRAY:
Your statement of the law, as I remember it, is exactly correct;
but the point is this: The Legislature has seen fit here to submit
this to the people for their approval. The Court of Appeals said
that was wrong because they were of no! effect; after having been
passed by the Legislature, they were either laws or no laws.
Now, if they have submitted these charters to the people before
this, that establishes a precedent for us to submit a charter in
such a form as a matter of submission.
MR. LEXOW:
You mean as an opinion and not as a legal finality?
MR. WRAY:
It has always been so - yes, that is all it is.
MR. PARKER:
I had not quite concluded as the gentleman interrupted meperfectly, properly. I say it is without precedent that a charter
has ever been submitted to the people in this state, for them to
declare whether or no the Legislature shall enact it into law.
Now, I think I am correct on that; and the unconstitutional precedent to which Senator Wray refers does not touch that. In those
eases the Legislature had passed upon it and it was said to be
wrong.
Now much has been said, as to whether any one Legislature
can bind another. Absolutely not; except where the action of
the first Legislature takes the shape of a contract protected by the




398


[SENATE,


constitutional provisions of the United States Constitution; in
no other way, as I take it. In other words, there could be no
more binding, final decisive way in which the people could speak
what they wanted and preferred.
Now, I do not touch upon resubmission or referendum, because
that has been dwelt upon ad infinitum almost. I pass to Judge
Reynolds at the time-and the only new thing he brought to
the discussion was that this was a stale vote - and I took these
notes from his remarks —that the people of Brooklyn understand that the Legislature of 1894 only meant that the vote taken
in pursuance of its act should be taken for the guidance of the
Legislature of 1894; and when the vote was taken the Legislature
on of 1894 had adjourned sine die. Now he must have said that
without thinking; because he could not have meant, speaking for
his friends, that the Legislature of 1895 before you came up here
to Albany and before your committee declared it was already
no —as I said —declared it was already stale. So much for
that.
Mr. Johnson rose, and thought that he saw a "mare's nest"
in the fact that the word "Charter" was omitted. As you
recollect, Mr. Chairman, last year you empowered the commission to get a charter and such other bills as should be necessary
for the government of the greater city. This year the word
"Charter" was omitted; and you personally are aware of the
reason, a very simple and innocent reason. In olden times the
king granted charters, he made the corporation, and his court revoked the charter if the corporation abused it in their opinion.
Now, no king grants them now; the Legislature makes the law,
and erects the corporation by the same machinery as it does any
other corporation, and a charter means nothing to-day, apart
from any other bill. Where, pray is the charter of New York
to-day?  The Dongan charter, the Montgomery charter have
passed away, since this has become an independent commonwealth, and the Legislature has made the charters in the same way
as any other bill. Look for the charter of New York to-day.
Look even for the fundamental general act, to which Mr. Johnson
so generally refers as the contract of incorporation. Where is it?




No. 44.]


399


Embodied in a tremendous volume of law known as the consolidation act. Look similarly for the charter of Brooklyn. It is perfectly innocent; we should have done it last year, if it had not
been that having two gentlemen on the commission who supposed that this same suspicious criticism would take place that
has now. Moreover, its surprising that Mr. Johnson should raise
the objection because in section 14 of article 3 of the other
constitution, which he was so prominent in revising here, occurred
these words: " No law shall be enacted except by bill," which was
niot only our authority and almost our controlling one, that a
bill, it alludes to the presenting of the bill. It is a merit, not a vice.
Dr. Johnson once apologized for writing a long letter because,
said he, " I have had no time to write a short one." There has
been more labor compensated in that bill, sir, -which should
declare all the wider outlines, and still would simply cover a
page of the statute books - than there might have been if we had
added to it ten thousand words; no merit would have been
added to it.
He says it is a bill not for consolidation but for annexation.
That is merely a matter of words; the whole population will have
a chance to do what it pleases about it. It is a bill of annexation,
of consolidation of municipal corporations. Brooklyn will always
play her part in the greater city, you can place her upon that, she
will alwaysMR. LEXOW:
(Interrupting) Call her name.
MR. PARKER:
(Continuing) Call her name.
Mr. Johnson asked, to my surprise, "How many corporations
will there be here?" Until consolidation takes place, as many
as ever there were. When the consolidation takes place, one.
He asked, " Who owns the property? "- the same answer; until
it takes place, the same corporation; when it takes place the new
corporation. Those are such axioms I hardly think them worth
dwelling upon. He says we have not got down to the provisions




400


[S ENATE:


by which the bills are referred-of course we haven't-the
Constitution won't allow us -the bills will be referred if necessary; if not, they won't.
Well, heeding the request of the chairman I won't read all these
things -I am taking them only once. I-Ie speaks of the terrible
complications in the problemMR. LEXOw:
(Interrupting) We have got all of this.
MR. PARKER:
(Continuing) Of course, there are complications that have got
to be met. Now, ex-Mayor Schieren wants to have this thing
submitted - ex-Mayor Schieren wants to have this thing submitted to the people of the cities, becauseIte tlpeople of -the
United States voted on the Constitution of the United States.
That is not so. They did not. Mayor Schieren ought to know
that the Constitution of the United States was voted by conventions of representatives, as to whether or no that should be the
Constitution. I think it was at Poughkeepsie that Alexalnder
Hamilton carried it by only three votes -carried New York,
if I am not mistaken. Now, those are the only questions. I think
that touch the bill as a bill.
I want to say but one word for the commission. There has been
only one allegation, that the commission of which Mr. Greene is
chairman has been insincere, and that is, that in a leaflet, a
printed leaflet, issued over the name of the president and the
vice-president, the statement was made that if every vote in
Brooklyn was for consolidation that would not be a finality -
and the chairman -you chairman, has said, certainly, that is
very true. Now, to dispose of that, I will not say that if it were
a finality, you would not be talking about it all, it would have
gone into (etlec.t at once.
Now, one word as lo tl le bill itself. It is absolutely as provisional, fas h11rmle(ss. as olpn and(l ingeinious a measure as could
be devised for the first step in tlhis ltreniendous process. In the
first place, in its first se'.tion, it sinmly a nnlouines that consolida



No. 44.]


401


tion shall take place. Could we do less than that?  It puts it
off two years in the next place; it holds all things in statu quo,
meanwhile, and unless seriously (hlanged by the Legislature. In
the third place it provides who shll go ahead and approve those
measures to be submitted to you. Everything is left open for
consideration. Brooklyn can comte lhere and object; every part
of the State can come here and object. 'he slow and careful
process of discussion in committee and in the House and Senate
can go on always; the most intelligent discussion ---not the discussion that will follow up sending copies of huge charters out
to people of all kinds, illiterate and literate, but the most intelligent, careful discussion by educated, interested and qualified
men, will take place, the only discussion contenmplated by the
constitution. We could not do less. The following and last provision siimply supplies a small amount of money necessary to pay
for this work.
Now, allusion has been made to the age of two members of the
commission. They,are aged, and they have grown old in the
service of these cities and of this State. I am not their apologist
nor their champion; they need neither an apologist nor a champion. You could not find two men who by a consensus of opinion
would more quickly, promptly and indisputably -two such men
- conduct an operation of this sort to success.
Now, I have no feeling against the gentlemen who have opposed
this matter, who have fought it from end to end; I think we are
indebted to them for the extreme clearness in which this issue has
been brought forth. I consider them in a good many ways about
as good advocates of consolidation as you could have found; but
in view of the harmless character of this measure, in view of its
extreme provisionality, I do not think that they can be regarded
as little more than obstructionists, salutary obstructionists it may
b1, but obstructionists; for I believe that consolidation must go
through in one shalpe or another.
It las been said that behind the scheme of consolidation lie
opportunities and purposes of political interest and faction pur[Senate, No. 44.]     51 




402


[SENATE,


poses. If that be so it is my belief that they will recoil upon the
party or faction which makes use of it. I believe it will hang
about them like a cloud for a generation, if they do. I believe, on
the other hand, if carefully and safely carried through it will
redound in equal degree to their credit for that length of time.
But ultimately I do believe it will go through.
You can read in the Rabbinical writings, Mr. Chairman, that
when the first lines of Solomon's Temple were laid they were laid
among the twitterings and noisy protests of ten thousand sparrows,
who entered an indignant opposition to the disturbing of their
retreats (Laughter). They twittered when the lines were laid,
they twittered as the walls were raised, they twittered as the
rafters were put in place, they twittered when the roof tree was
finished. But at length, when every detail was complete they
sought shelter beneath the broad eaves, in every bit of ornamentation upon the cornices and the entablatures, and it declares they
and their descendants bless the name of the prophet whom they
had just reviled. And, so, Mr. Chairman, when we have at
length filled out the immense detail which we now simply outline,
when the influence of this troubling has become nothing more
than a dim tradition, and when the descendants of these opponents,
prominent in the great city as they are in the less, when they look
back to this day, I believe they will thank Heaven for nothing
more fervently, than for the failure of the well-meaning, but
shortsighted efforts of their ancestors.
MR. BRUSH:
I am one of those who, like Senator Wray, believes in consolidation having time. But do you think it unreasonable for us in
Brooklyn, who believe in consolidation, and fitting out this beautiful temple -that we should see the architect's specifications before you ask us to pay for it?
MB. PARKER:
No, I do not; we do not propose you should.




No. 44.]


403


MR. BRUSH:
That is my point.
MR. PARKER:
We do not propose you should. Following out the gentleman's smile, sir, we have simply I)roposed that certain gentlemen
heretofore engaged in making estimates, shall continue to lay
before you the ground plan of the temple, and every specification
can be objected to by this Legislature; it will take some years
before the process is completed.
MR. BRUSH:
You used the words - you said the bill said "shall be." I
notice the bill reads, "are hereby consolidated;" look at the last
section and you will see that section don't take effect until
January 1, 1898.
MR. PARKER:
Yes, but the first clause reads, "are hereby consolidated"why not later on?
MR. BRUSH:
You make that "shall be."
MR. PARKER:
Well, why will it? I may ask you.
MR. BRUSH:
Simply that they conform to each other then.
MR. PARKER:
Oh, no, I beg your pardon; pardon me for contradicting; if that
sbhall be consolidated on January 1, 1898, we should then alter
the last section and say, "This act shall take effect immediately,"
so that it would be simply the substitution of one charter for
the clean-cut scientific way of drawing an act, if I may say so;




404


[SENATE,


we drew it as that is drawn, and then in the section which declares that the different parts shall take effect, prescribe those
duties. That was done deliberately, sir.
MR. BRUSH:
Now, I want to ask you one question more. I didn't hear you
answer the question. A great deal has been said about the revival
of the board of supervisors, both in Brooklyn and in New York.
Now, we have just gotten rid of a board of supervisors in Brooklyn,
and we would rather keep them out of office; we don't want any
more of that kind; and I would like to ask you as to your judgment on that point.
MR. McKEOWN:
(To Senator Brush) You ran for that office, didn't you, once?
MR. BRUSH:
No, sir; I did not -- a good many years ago -
MR. MCKEOWN:
Oh, I know that - it is a good many years ago, but nevertheless you ran.
MR. BRUSH:
I had forgotten it.
MR. McKEOwN:
Well, I didn't.
MR. BRUSH:
But nevertheless, it is —
MR. PARKER:
The answer to that, -and the slll(e ans\wer that was maf last
year, is this — this bill — assumling for a momeni tlhat it is imperative to creale a board of supervisors. in case the boundarics
of this city are extended beyond New York county, assuming




No. 44.]


405


that it be granted for the moment this bill is unconstitutional.
When you say a bill is unconstitutionalMR. BRUSH:
No, I did not say that it was unconstitutional.
MR. PARKER:
You mean that there will be hereafter created a necessity
forMR. BRUSH:
Yes, I mean under the constitution - that the constitution says,
in such counties as are not identical in territory there shall be
boards of supervisors.  Now, does that revive the board of supervisors?
MR. Lnxow:
I think Senator Brush means this: That while the city of
Brooklyn is able to elect good officials in every other office in the
city of Brooklyn, the reappointment of that board would lead
again to a discreditable board.
MR. BRUSH:
I did not - excuse me - I do not make any criticism nor intend
to be understood as making any adverse criticism upon the board
of supervisors. I said that we had gotten rid of the board of
supervisors and we did not want to revive it; the reason is that
it saves us some seventy-five thousand dollars a year, for that
board of supervisors.
MR. PARKER:
Well, I will answer your question very simply upon that. The
sane question was presented in 1874 in New York city. Charles
O'Connor drew an act of that nature, and that act was a very
short one, which consolidated the city and county governments.
There was between the passage of that act, in the spring of 1874,
and the enactment of the constitutional amendment, to which you




406


[SENATE,


now refer, an interregnum of several months. During that time
things went on just the same as before; there was a tax levied,
a vote counted, and both declared valid; never anybody ever
thought of contesting them. Then, in 1874, came the present
form of the constitutional amendment. Now, the reason I refer
to the tax and the vote is this -the canvass of the vote -is
this: That in New York county, little by little all the power of
the board of supervisors was taken away form them. There was
a popular distrust of the board of supervisors and of the board
of aldermen as such, until at length, practically all that was left,
practically all that is left to-day with the board of aldermen as a
board of supervisors, are those two powers - and they were -
existed through those few months; that is very important to recollect. The principle upon which that was sustained by the best
lawyers in New York - and Charles O'Connor stood at the head
of the bar, concededly at that time - was this: That no matter
whether or no a duty is imposed upon a Legislature and no
matter how imperatively, their mere neglect to perform that duty
and to provide the agency for the carrying out of a great and extensive governmental function, can not, therefore, kill that
function.
MR. BRUSH:
Your interpretation of it is, then,- whether a board of supervisors - providing the Legislature did not take action -
MR. LEXOW:
(Interrupting) A single act, the board of aldermen would act?
MR. PARKER:
Would act absolutely.  Whenever a great governmental
power- I want to go further, because I want this to go on the
records now, as long as we have come to it.
Your Constitution provides, in the most imperative way, that
the Legislature should apportion this State every twenty years.
The Legislature did not do it. The Legislature, if I may say so,




No. 44.]


407


violated its duty in omitting to do that. Year after year, year
after year great regions of people were unrepresented in the
Legislature, but who ever contended that a legislator holding
his seat under the wornout apportionment had no title to it, and
so- I had a reference here, I will supply it to you later on - I
recollect in New York in the corporation counsel's officethere was a new tax law passed and the old tax law repealed, conferring upon the board of tax commissioners new powers, but
omitted inadvertently one particular preliminary to levying the
tax to which they had been accustomed; the comptroller, at that
time, Mr. Kelly, held that the tax, under certain columns of the
tax book -unless that could be done you could not levy the tax.
Well, they did it; they took the responsibility, upon the corporation counsel's opinion of doing it, and thereupon John Stranahan
- whom probably you know, you remember him - who was an
acute lawyer - carried that vote to the Court of Appeals, and
submitted that because there was no provision, that there was no
place to put that power; that the only place where it was lodged
could not go on, could not do it; they had to have specific power.
The Court of Appeals said, "They have got to levy a tax and they
have got the power to do so;" and the Court of Appeals, the highest court of the State, located that just where it was. Now, does
that sufficiently answer.  Another thing I may say, that you
have two years-if you take the other view —you have two
years in which to erect a board of supervisors. We do not want
any more than Kings.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in order to have the records correct, I would like to answer some statements that I read in the
daily press.
I read in most of the Brooklyn papers, last evening, that all the
delegation from Brooklyn, in both the Senate and Assembly, are
in favor of resubmission or referendum. I know that is not so.
I wish also to offer in evidence a paper, which I handed one of
your committee, as you will remember it, as an evidence or par.
tial evidence of why so many of our delegations from Brooklyn
are in favor of either referendum or resubmission. Prior to the




408


[SENATE,


election I was approached by some anti-consolidation people and
asked how I stood upon this question. I answered that I had
been a member of the Consolidation League ever since it started.
I was then informed that except I would sign a paper handed me
or sent me that they would beat me in my election. I answered
them, calling their attention to the Senators' oath, that when he
takes office he swears that he has made no promise. By referring
to that paper you will find, I think, these editorials directed
against me, the first one of which will read, "The duty of the
hour is to defeat McNulty for election as Senator."  Knowing
the feeling that paper engendered, in my canvass, speaking three
or four times a night, for four or five nights, I frequently would
ask the audience in different wards wherein I spoke, in a district
numbering 26,000 voters, "All those in favor of consolidation with
resubmission or referendum, will please hold up their right hands
or stand up; and those for consolidation under equal taxation
and equal valuation will please signify their assent;" I am prepared to say that I would be false to a constituency running
through the heart of Brooklyn from the center of it - I should
not represent them correctly if I favored either resubmission or
referendum.
MR. WRAY:
In view of the fact that I have made a statement here that all
of the members of the Kings county delegation, except one were
for consolidation, I would like to ask the gentleman whether
he speaks for himself alone or for any one else whom he knows.
MR. MCNULTY:
This gentleman will speak for himself.
MR. WRAY:
I would like to ask Senator McNulty if he speaks for anybody
else.
MR. MCNULTY:
I know of some other gentlemen, yes, one more.




No. 44.]


409


A. EBBETS:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I have the honor to represent
the twelfth Assembly district of Kings county. At no time and
under no circumstances have I ever said that I was against consolidation and in favor of resubmission or referendum. I have
heard it stated several times that all or all but one were so in favor
of it. I wish to deny that, and while I am about it I would
like to give my reasons: In 1894 the people of my district voted
very strongly in favor of consolidation. I think I am in honor
bound to respect that vote, which I shall do, unless on the final
passage of the charter 1 think that Brooklyn is not being treated
fairly, or unless it strikes me that there should be too much
politics in it. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
you.
MR. LEXOW:
You do not know as to whether you will be here when the
charter is passed.
MR. EBBETS:
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is my first attempt at legislative
duties; I do not know whether I will be here or not, but if I will
be that is my feeling.
MR. HENESHEL:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I believe it
is proper for me to call attention to the fact that Senator Wray
in referring to the referendum bill that he has introduced has
practically answered the question in regard to it, when he stated
that one Legislature can not bind another. Is it not clear that if
we go to the trouble of presenting a proposed charter to the people
to vote upon it, and if succeeding Legislatures should pass favorably upon that charter, and enact it into a law, that thereafter another Legislature could violate all that had gone before, the referendum would not be worth anything, and the Legislature assum[Senate, No. 44.]     52




410


[SENATB,


ing again its constitutional powers could alter, amend or modify
that charter which had been referred, and consequently there
would be a circumlocution of no practical use. WAhy not go
directly at the thing? Of course, there would be no harm, excepting the harm of delay - delay *hich every defendant wishes
who believes that he is beaten in his suit.
I would like to refer briefly to a few points that presented the
submission of this question to a vote. In 1889, Mr. Andrew
H. Greene, the father of this present movement of consolidation,
presented a bill to the Legislature asking that a commission be
appointed to determine the expediency of consolidation. Those
who opposed consolidation immediately got together and said,
" We do want any such commission. We do not want the
question examined."  But, in 1890, a law appointing such a commission was created. Then after this commission had discussed
the subject, sought information, giving public hearings, and had
come to the determination and had so reported, that consolidation
was advisable, those who opposed from Brooklyn said," It is not
fair to empower this body with the right of preparing a charter
without knowing whether the people in the communities really desire to be consolidated." Thereupon they said let us vote. What
did we do? \Ve immediately prepared a bill allowing the people
to vote; and when these people who had demanded a vote said,
' Tliere is not enough interest in the subject to submit it. It ought
not to be submitted."  Finally, after stripping the bill of all other
matter, a law was enacted, Governor Flower having in his message
favored it, and Mayor Gilroy at the time in his message also favoring the mere fact that this question which had created such an
agitation should be submitted to the people. Thereupon it was
so submitted. Now, after the vote had turned in favor of consolidation, they say to us that the submission was no submission,
and that they would like to have it submitted again. Now, I
claim that under these circumstances existing heretofore this
question is not a new one.  It is as old as the existence of
the city of Brooklyn itself. And permit me briefly to allude to the
remonstrance which was made by the city of New York against the




No. 44.]


411


city of Brooklyn securing a separate charter for itself apart
from the city of New York, in 1834. The remonstrance in part is
as follows: ' That it is impolitic, as well in respect to the interests
and w elfare of the applicants themselves as of the inhabitants
of the city of New York that the former should be incorporated
as a city except in connection with the city of New York upon just
and equal principles." This is the language of the city of New
York in 1834, remonstrating against the establishment of a rival
city right on the other side of the East river. They continue,
"That the saIme can not be otherwise done with any substantial
advantages to the inhabitants of Brooklyn, without materially
intrenching upon the vested rights and necessary immunities of
the city of New York.   That from the peculiar situation of
the city of New York, its commercial character and importance, and the inseparable connection existing between
its prosperity and that of,the whole State, it is for the
interests of the people of this State, as a political body,
to second your memorialists in their efforts to preserve and
protect the right and privileges of the city of New York
in their full integrity, and to defeat all attempts to establish a
distinct and rival commercial community, which, by exercising a
divided or concurrent jurisdiction over the waters which now
constitute the harbor of New York, must inevitably interfere with
regulations already established in respect to its navigation,
embarrass the commercial pursuits of this ancient and flourishing city, and lead to a state of hostility and bad feeling between
parties whose contiguity and peculiar location indicate that they
should be united as one body, to participate in and enjoy with
mutual security and benefit the advantages with which nature
has surrounded them." There is a great deal more literature
on this subject tending in the same direction, and which is a sufficient index thereof. There is only one other point I desire to
call your attention to and that is to the great advantage in securing improvement in the governing of municipalities which it is
believed in this country of ours has been'very largely to a very
large extent a failure. How is that municipal government to be




412


[SENATE,


improved by the proposed consolidation? Mr. Andrew    H.
Greene, in a document which I propose to present for the archives
of this committee, has said among other things upon this point:
" If the lines of division between city and country be drawn upon
the same lines which divide dense city populations from sparce
rural populations, we accentuate by artificial boundaries the
antagonisms which it is the part of prudence to moderate. A
large city can with advantage be so extended as to have within its
own! lines the modifying element of rural space and rural populalion, thus broadening and shading off differences which become
difficulties only when sharply defined." In another place he says,
and this shall be my last quotation -- and it goes to the very
ethics of securing a beneficial improvement and progress in our
city affairs - Mr. Greene says: " It is an unwritten presumption
of our political code that a citizen is a voter in the neighborhood
of his work, and that his work is in the neighborhood of his home.
It is this presumed arrangement which is supposed to inspire the
voter with discretion in exercising the voting privilege. Yet
there are very many thousands of persons earning a livelihood
here who vote elsewhere, and very many who vote here who have
the tie of merely transient domicile and whose prospective homes
are situate in other jurisdictions. It thus happens that actual
conditions are at variance with our theories, and as a result there
is produced a character of citizen who is a drudge in his field of
work and a dummy in his sphere of citizenship. Whatever mischief there is in absenteeism is to be found in this."
Now, I claim if we have the good people, that good, honest
class of citizenship of Brooklyn, exerting in behalf of good
government their power and their voice in our municipal
elections, the judgment of the people, in the place where
they work, where they live as a united city, will bo potent
in improving city affairs.  What is the fact?  We have in
the city of New York a large body of men who occupy our
factories, our mercantile establishments, or stores, our colleges and our schools, who have no voice in the condition of city
affairs; the place where they spend most of their days, the place




No. 44.]


413


where their life is practically spent, there they must suffer whatever inconvenience results from bad government, if there is any;
and although they are largely taxpayers, although they are practically dwellers in the city of New York, they can not raise a finger
in the affairs of that city without the charge of being intermeddlers or of concerning themselves with matters they ought not
to have anything to do about. Now these same citizens become
half-hearted citizens in Brooklyn. They are only half citizens
in Brooklyn; they sleep there; and they can not be expected to
exercise that vigilance, exercise that power and care which it is
the duty of a citizen to exercise in observing the affairs of a city
and seeing that the management is proper. Now T say, make
these people citizens of one city and you will bring to bear upon
this Government, upon the nomination and election of its officers,
an amount of public influence, and in the direct office of its real
citizens there could not be but a large step in favor of purer and
better city government.
One more point. Senator Brush has referred to the fact that
city governments in this country are largely failures. Now T
believe I can state a circumstance which will lead probably to the
solution of that problem. Our United States, under the United
States Constitution and that form of government. dividing the
functions of government as nearly as possible into executive,
legislative and judicial. is a pretty fair government. Tn our State
rovernments we have a fair example of republican institutions,
working successfully under that same arrangement of dividing up
the sphere of government into natural divisions which have been
outlined and determined by the fathers of the republic. It is
only in city governments that that arrangement, that that system of republican government, is violated, that the Constitution of
republican government is violated, that I claim that in the formation, of this charter, which I expect will be a model of a charter
tor the government of cities. there will be this following of the
federal Constitution in the arrangement; and if we do that I
beliove that with consolidation and with a specific arrangement
of the functions of government properly divided among the offi



414


[SENATE,


cers, I believe that you will find a great improvement; and while
we do not expect a perfect charter at once, the gradual process of
amelioration and the amendment of modifying law will go on
until in ten or twenty years hence we will have a charter which
will be the wonder of the world.
I take pleasure in presenting the document I referred to, and
also a little pamphlet on the subject embodying my views, that
I have here.
MR. LExow:
File them with the stenographer.
MR. CLEVELAND:
I will say I am one of the two gentlemen that interviewed
Senator McNulty, and I wish to say in answer to what he said,
that I worked every hour during the campaign for his election,
both because I believed with him politically and also from what
I could learn of the character of the two men running for the
office I thought that it would be better represented by the major;
and so far as the statement is made that the league of which 1
am a member did anything to make this a party question or to
work against a man during the campaign, I do not think it fair
to say so. If gentlemen of the opposite political faith have done
anything to make this a political question why that is their affair.
It certainly was not made by the League of Loyal Citizens - and
I would say one word and close -- I believe that I fairly represent
nine-tenths of the members of that league when I say that primarily the reason why we oppose consolidation is because we
believe that the problem of the government of great municipalities in this coulntry is the most serious one that confronts us, and
that until it is better solved it is very unwise to make that problem
a greater one by increasing the size of these two cities.
MR. LEXOW:
Do I understand that that is the fundamental objection of ninetenths of the members of the league, and not that objections -




No. 44.1


411


MR. CLEVELAND:
(Interrupting.) I think it is.
MR. LExow:
(Continuing.) That have been stated before this committee at
its hearings in Brooklyn.
MR. CLEVELAND:
T think that has been stated very clearly by every Brooklyn
man that addressed this committee.
MR. LEXOW:
I would like to get on the record, Mr. Cleveland, inasmuch as
you say you represent nine-tenths, as to whether or not that is
the objection -
MR. CLEVELAND:
(Interrupting.) I said that in my opinion -
MR. LEXOW:
(Continuing.) That they make; that is characteristic of their
position?
MR. CLEVELAND:
I stated to you, in my opinion, that primarily that was the
reason that influenced nine-tenths of the members of the League
of Loyal Citizens.
MR. LEXow:
That, therefore, the sentimental question does not influence the
citizen of Brooklyn or any of those other subsidiary questions that
have been dragged into the argumentMR. CLEVELAND:
I hardly think so.




416


[SENATE,


MR. NEWMAN:
I represent the seventh district of Kings county. Unfortunately
I have been sick since the Assembly organized, so that I know
very little of what is going on. I do not know how Kings county
stands on Greater New York; but I want to put my district and
myself on record as being heartily in favor of consolidation, and
against anything that would block the wheels of progress.
Mn. LEXOW:
Is there anybody else who desires to be heard? If not, the
chair is authorized to state that while it was the judgment of the
committee that this should be the final hearing, on the request
of the representatives of the city of New York on this committeeI may add their very earnest solicitation-that the city of New
York shall be extended the courtesy of a hearing, although it is
not known that anybody desires to speak at it.
This committee will stand adjourned, when it does adjourn, to
meet in New York, on Saturday, at half-past 10 o'clock, for the
purpose of holding a hearing there, in Part I of the Supreme Court,
Criminal Division, in the Criminal Court building.
NEW YORK, February 1, 1896, 10.30 A. M.
Proceedings held in Part I, Supreme Court room, Crininal
Court building, New York city.
P.IrESIENr.-Chairman Lexow and the remainder of the commi ttee.
MR. LEXOw:
A quorum of the committee being present, we will now proceed to hear any arguments against the Greater New York bill,
and incidentally in favor of the resubmission bill or the referendum bill. The same procedure will be followed here as was
followed in Brooklyn, viz., those opposed to the bill will receive
two hours' attention and then those in favor of the bill, if they




No. 14.]


417


desire to speak any further, will be heard for two hours on the
question. Who appears against the bill?
MR. BENJAMIN F. ROMAINE:
Mr. Chairman: I represent the New York Taxpayers' antiEqualization League, and individually, and of counsel of my own
right, I have to make a formal application in behalf of the signers
of the pamphlet which has been circulated, and which only canme
from the printer's hands yesterday, for an adjournment of one
week, and that meanwhile the process of this committee, by way
of subpoenas issued to the persons named in our applications for
the further information of the committee on this subject, and for
such further issuance of the process of the committee as the
investigation undertaken by your honorable committee may
develop.  Mr. Chairman, we have had but forty-eight hours'
notice of the intention of the committee to come to the city. Our
morement, while it began practically with the pamphlet issued
by a committee of our association, Mr. Deering and Mr. I)oremus,
in the fall of 1894, before the New York referendum, our movement practically, in its present phase, commenced only with the
beginning of the commission of the present legislative session
hearing. It was clearly demonstrated that the bill last to be
brought in implied an equalization of taxes and valuation in the
whole of the consolidated municipality. I wish to have it distinctly understood that we are not opposing political consolidation.
MR. LEXOW:
Then it would seem to me as though this appearance before
this committee was premature. The bill that is now before the
comnittee proposed political consolidation - actual political consolidation, as you suggest. It then enabled this Greater New
York commission to frame bills for the actual consolidation of the
Oreater New York area, and, among other requirements, imposes
upon them the duty to bring in bills that will equalize taxation,
assessment and valuation throughout the district.
[Senate, No. 44.]    53




41.8


[SENATE,


MR. ROMAINE:
That is precisely it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LEXOW:
Therefore, your opposition does not go to the merits of this
bill, but will go to the merits of any bills brought in afterwards
in favor of actual consolidation.
MR. ROMAINE:
But we object to the commission being given any authority to
bring in a bill like that. What consideration is this committee
entitled to at the hand of taxpayers of New York? We object
to their being given authority for anything of that kind, in
behalf of the taxpayers of New York. We are only the advance
guard that will throng the sessions of this committee.
MR. LEXow:
I understand, Mr. Romaine, but do you not think the thronging ought to be when the vital question you have under consideration is under discussion. This committee, appointed by the two
houses, this joint committee is charged with the duty of only
considering this one question of political consolidation. I think
that is a very apt phrase to use, and used for the first time"Political Consolidation;" but if they should come to the conclusion that " Political Consolidation " should be had, then they
are charged with the further duty of ascertaining the terms and
conditions. If this committee should report in favor of political
consolidation, and therefore the passage of a skeleton bill, making
the political consolidation a fact, then they will give hearings
upon the terms and condition upon which that consolidation
shall be had; and if, then, you have any reason to oppose the
general equitable proposition of equal taxation and assessment,
it would seem to me, if you are in favor of political consolidation,
that you should then make any argument you please upon the
question of this taxation.




No. 44.]


419


MR. ROMAINE:
Will the chairman allow me to read, from what I understand
is a bill now before the Senate?
MR. LEXOW:
Certainly.
MR. ROMAINE:
Mr. Chairman, Senate bill No. 12, in its third paragraph, states
this: " The commission appointed under chapter 311 of the Laws
of 1890, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare such bills
as will, upon their enactment into laws, provide a government for
the municipal corporation, the mayor, aldermen and commonalty
of the city of New York, as by this act enlarged, and among other
things for attaining an equal and uniform rate of taxation, and
of valuation for the property's tax." We ground our opposition,
sir, at this hearing, on that clause.
MR. GRADY:
What system of taxation do you favor?
MR. ROMAINE:
Well, sir, that is hardly now before the commission; we do not
see any reason for the departure from our present method of
governing the present municipality of the city of New York.
MR. GRADY:
That is on the basis of equal taxation.
MR. ROMAINE:
Excuse me, sir, regarding the methods now in vogue respecting
the territory of the city of New York.
MR. GRADY:
I say the present territory of the city of New York is under
precisely that system of taxation. You do not distinguish as between the annexed district of the city of New York?




420


LSENATE,


MR. ROMAINE:
No, sir; we do not.
MR. GRADY:
That provision is that you shall not distinguish in the Greater
New York, as between the territory of New York and the present
territory of Brooklyn.
MR. ROMAINE:
That is what I am proposing now.
MR. GRADY:
Then I ask you what system instead of the fair and equal system
you oppose, do you propose?
MR. ROMAINE:
That will be disclosed by testimony we will offer.
MR. GRADY:
We can not take testimony on one provision of the bill, unless
there is some plan offered to us on which you will take testimony.
MR. ROMAINE:
That will be disclosed at the hearing, which we ask. Now,
after reading this pamphlet, Mr. Chairman, one of my associates
will undertake to explain that phase of it to you, if you so desire.
IMPORTANT TO EVERY CITIZEN AND TAXPAYER IN NEW YORK
CITY-ABOUT " GREATER NEW YORK " - HOW THE PROPOSED
SCHEME TO EFFECT AN "EQUAL AND UNIFORM RATE OF
TAXATION AND OF VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE TERRITORY " OF
GREATER NEW YORK, AS PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSIONERS' BILL, WILL RETARD THE PROGRESS AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND INCREASE ITS TAXA_
TION FOR THE BENEFIT OF KINGS, QUEENS AND RICHMOND
COUNTIES, WITHOUT COMPENSATING ADVANTAGE.
Tie bill introduced in the Legislature by the " Greater New
York "I c:oreimission provides in it; tllirid section as follows:




No. 44.]


421


" The commission  * * * is hereby authorized and directed
to prepare such bills as will, upon their enactment into laws,
provide  * * *    among other things, for attaining an equal
rate of taxation and of valuation for the purpose of taxation
throughout the whole of the territory of the said municipal corporation as so enlarged."
The expressions above quoted are the same as those which
the consolidationists of Brooklyn have uniformly employed. They
frankly admit that the mere sentimental argument of size of the
enlarged city proposed has no weight with them, but that it is the
opportunity to divert the surplus moneys raised by taxation of
New York property to the improvement of Brooklyn which makes
them so eager for " Greater New York."
How this is proposed to be effected may be seen from; an address
issued by the Consolidation League of Brooklyn just prior to the
last municipal election, which we quote in full, so that the taxpayers of New York may judge of the merely selfish motives
which the advocates of consolidation oif Brooklyn; openly avow.
It is difficult to see from the standpoint of New York taxpayers
just where the New York "comes in":
The Consolidation League of Brooklyn has favored the union
of the two cities. It has favored such union on a basis of uniform
taxation and a uniform rate of valuations, as provided in the
Lexow bill.  How important these provisions are to Brooklyn
is evident from the construction of a few figures. From simple
arithmetical calculation we are able to make three distinct statements which we challenge any one to controvert:
First. We declare that with consolidation and a uniform rate
of taxation on the valuations as given in 1894 in the two cities,
the rate of taxation in the consolidated city would be less than
$2 on $100..Second. We declare that with consolidation and a uniform rate
of taxation with the valuations in New York raised to seventy
per cent. of real value as in Brooklyn, the rate of taxation in the
consolidated city would be less than $1.56 on $100.
Third. That with a tax levy of $2.62 on $100 - being Brooklyn's




422                    [SENATE
tax rate in 1894, on the valuation of the two cities at seventy per
cent. of the real values, there would be more than $R5,000,000 raised
beyond the sum necessary to meet the whole budget of the consolidated city. Here are the figures:
Brooklyn's valuations, including Kings county,
1895, at seventy per cent....................  549,469,412
New York county's valuations, at eighty per
cent....................................  2,003,332,037
Total.................................  $2,552,801,449
BUDGET.
Kings  county.........0...............           500,000
N ew   Y ork..................................   7,5 (,000
Total...................................   $52,000,000
To raise $52,000,000 on the above valuations it will be seen by
a simple process of division that the raae will be $2 and a fraction
on $100. This is giving no credit for the several millions of dollars
annually paid into the treasury of New York from its ferries and
water fronts and other sources, nor for less cost of government.
Raise the valuations of New York to seventy p)e cent. as in
Brooklyn, and we have a valuation in New York of $2,80()4,664,857,
and a total of $3,354,134,"23.
To raise $52,000,000 on such valuations it wVould mnake the tax
rate $1.56 on $100.
These figures are based on t1he former tax rate and valuations.
We call attention to the fact that the bonded debt under Mayor
Schieren has increlased $3:,000(,000, and that the average tax rate
for 1895 will be $2.77 on every $100), an increase of over fourteen
points.
These figure.s prove that the only financial salvation for the
city of Broollyn is Hi ro(ugh consolidaltion.
Consolidation means more bridges, more facilities for travel,
more improvements in our st reet s land avenues, more schools,
more investments in real estate for rental purposes, and less




No. 44.]


4 23


shifting and uncertain rentals, more activity in all kinds of business, and more civic pride in what is destined to be tlle great
metropolis of the world, with all the attendant advantages.
Briefly stated, the argnument of tliese 11Brooklyn gentlemnen is
that valuations in New York should be increased from fifty per
cent. to seventy per cent., so that the tax rate of Brooklyn may be
reduced from $2.62 per $100 to.$1.56.
Our Brooklyn friends naively conclude: "These figures prove
that the only financial salvation for the city of Brooklyn is through
consolidation." We, on the other hand, propose briefly to consider how the "salvation" of the present city of New York, considered in the light of its future progress and improvement, will
be affected by the proposed scheme of uniform taxation and valuation. As the figures below given show, New York had on December 31, 1895, a limit within its constitutional power of indebtedness (ten per cent. of valuation) of say $55,000,000, while Brooklyn
was - ithin $2,000,0)0 of its limit.
The following admirable presentation of the relative financial
conditions of New York and Brooklyn is from the Reccrd and
GaTide of January 18, 1896:
"Not wit-lstanding the great improvements made and contemplated il New York, the city can show a clean balance sheet,
while keeping within the statutory limits of its debt, for the next
five years. As the debt now stands it could still spend $54,000,000
on a rapid transit railroad and not exceed the ten per cent. limit
of the assessed valuation on real estate. It is estimated that it
will have to issue bonds for various works outside of the rapid
transit railroad in the next five years amounting to $61,794,000.
The income of the sinking fund amounts to about $8,500,000 and
there is no reason to suppose that it will fall off, but rather that it
will increase. Allowing that that will be the income for the five
years, it will make a reduction in the debt of $42,000,000, leaving
the net increase of the debt at $19,294,000. The increase in the
assessed valuations based on the increase for the past five years,
is estimated at $247,971,450, which if realized will increase the




424


[SENsATE,


legal limit of the city debt by $24,797,145, leaving a further margin
of about $5,000,000. Moreover, New York has immense latent
resources to meet the cost of necessary improvements in the low
valuation put on real estate for purposes of taxation. It is impossible to estimate what the actual proportion is. Some good
judges put it at fifty per cent., and this is always used for the purpose o'f making fiivorable comparisons. The commonly accepted
idea of sixty per cent. is certainly a very 'high one. In Brooklyn
the tax department admits that the assessed valuation is quite up
to seventy per cent. If New York's assessments were made on
that basis it would give the city to-day an additional borrowing
power of $16,000.000, and in five years of.$18,000,000. The following is an authoritive estimate of' the bonds to be issued in
the five years 1896-1900, inclusive, and the estimated resources
to meet them:


Balance from bonds authorized to be issued for
pending work, but not yet actually issued....
Additional Croton water stock...............
Additional water stock......................
Additional water stock (sanitary protection)...
Third avenue bridge.........................
Willis avenue bridge........................
East river bridge...........................
Dock  bonds.............................
Repairing...........................
Repairing, twenty-third  and  twenty-fourth
wards..................................
Site and building, College City of New York....
Metropolitan Museum of Art.................
Riverside Park improvement...............
School-house bonds......................
Fort Washington Park...................
St. John's Park............................
Parkway, twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards,
Concourse, one-half estimate cost............


$3,500,000 )00
1,.320,000 00
10,500,000 00
1,500,00  004)
500.000 (0)
1,883,000 00
3,500,0(0 00
7,5O00,00 00
'1,400,000 00
115,000 00
1,128,000 00
1,000,000 00
384,()00 00
5,000,000 00
1,00(),00() 00
300,00000  O
'-)(),4)()0  ()0:)4),4))()  04)




No. 4-4.]


425


Change  of grade damage.....................
Miscelllaneous plurposes, authorized and to be
altlhorized..............................$1,401)0!(N 00
15,0()0,0}0 00


Total................................
Estimated * surplus  revenue  sinking  fund
$8,500.000  a  year........................


$61,794,000 00
42,500,000 00


Estimated net increase city debt.............
Net December   31, 1895......................


$.19.294,000 00
109,885,509 45


Estimated net debt December 31, 1900........


$129,179,509 45


Estimated assessed value of realty, 1900...... $1,894,000,000 00
Ten per cent., limit of debt, 1900............. $189,400,000 00
Estimated debt, 1900.......................  129,179,509 00
Estimated surplus....................   $60,220,491 00
If we make a summary of these figures and a similar calculation
for Brooklyn, which will be purely arbitrary, of course, and only
reliable for illustration, some idea may be got of the relative
credits of the two cities. If for Brooklyn we allow that the
increase of debt will be five times what it was in 1895, and that the
increase in real estate valuation will, in the coming five years, be
equal to what it was in the past five years (the same allowance
as was made for New York in the figures previously given), we
shall have about the following comparison:


New York.
Assessed valuation real estate.... $1,646,028,655
Legal limit of indebtedness.......  164,602,865


Brooklyn.
$540,608,346
54,060,834


[Senate, No. 44.]


54




426;


[SENATE,


Present indebtedness, less sinking
fund.........................
Estimated net increase of debt in
five years (Rapid Transit railroad
not included)...............


New York.
$109,885,509


B'rooklyn.
$52.037,000


19,294,000    9,640,000


Total estimated debt December
31, 1900..............   $129,179,509
Total  estimated  valuation  of
realty, 1900................. $1,894,000,000
Margin of debt limit.............  $60,220,491


$61,677,000
$632,414,222
$1,564,422


These figures suggest, at least, if they do not prove, that Brooklyn will have much difficulty in carrying on needed improvements
in the next five years and keeping within the constitutional limit,
with her assessed valuations based on seventy per cent. of actual
value; while New York will have no such difficulty even on a fifty
or sixty per cent. basis of valuation. If it were proposed that consolidation be effected by conditions that would keep the burdens
on property where they now belong, the objections to it that are
found in these figures would not hold good. But as it is, on the
contrary, proposed that the basis shall be equalization of valuations and of taxes, they have force. Brooklyn has a tax rate varying in the older and new portions of the city, but the average in
1895 was 2.62; in New York it is 1.91. If the valuations are to be
equalized it can easily be seen that the cost of administration and
of the improvement of the consolidated city can only be met by
an increased valuation in New York or a higher tax rate. A
competent authority has estimated that consolidation means an
increase of fifteen per cent. on the tax rate of New York city.
Such an increase would bring the tax rate up to 2.19, and the
addition would be equal to a new permanent charge on a $10,000
investment of about twenty-nine dollars a year, or the interest
on $580 at five per cent. How far the property would depreciate
under the affliction of a new burden like this it is hard to say.




No. 44.1


427


As an example of the several degrees of efficiency the two cities
are in, the following table showing their mileages of streets
and the nature of the paving is applicable It should be noted
that the figures do not relate to the new portions of either city.
The superiority of New York would be brought out in much
greater prominence if the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards
had been included. The number of miles of unpaved streets and
of streets paved with the antiquated cobbles in Brooklyn is a
startling evidence of the necessity for large expenditures in the
near future in order to bring the condition of the city to respectability at least. It should be noted that New York's unpaved
streets are graded and curbed, while those of Brooklyn are not,
and that the Brooklyn departments have no record of street
mileage or paving in the towns recently annexed:
22 wards. 28 wards.
Miles  of streets.............................. 449.86  666.20
Miles of streets laid in granite................. 184.19 106.60
Miles of streets laid in Belgian block or trap.... 111.88  41.30
Miles of strets laid in cobble....................58  269.04
Miles of streets laid in asphalt................. 69.97  26.10
Miles of streets laid with wood.................5...... 
Miles of streets laid with macadam.............  20.68  2.80
Miles of streets laid with brick.......................30
Miles of streets unpaved.....................  62.00 219.70
If a comparison be made of the taxable resources of Long
Island (-ity, inero!ler of these towns clamorous for a' equality of
taxation and valuation," with New York city, the result is still
more astounding
From the latest figures available it appears that on January 1,
1894!). the net debt of Long Island City was $2,301,205. while its
assessed valuation was but $16,717,677, thus showing that it was
considerably beyond its constitutional limit.
It is notoriously bankrupt -in arrears to its very policemen
and its public officers, without ability to collect their salaries.




428S


[SENATE.


To summarize our objections to any plan of consolidation involving " equality of taxation and valuation " we submit the following:
1. The outlying territory is composed very largely of lands
unimproved. Any municipal improvement in this area of necessity, from the figures shown, must be made at the expense of the
taxpayers of the city of New York, since all these towns or municipalities are now staggering under debts closely up to their
constitutional limits - Brooklyn within one per cent. thereof
and Long Island City already beyond it. What New York taxpayers will acquire from these corporations will be the heritage
of debts, the result of many years of misgovernment.
2. New York city has entered upon a period of large public
expenditures for improvements within its present area.  Its
powers of taxation should be retained for the benefit of its
present inhabitants and not expended for distant districts.  Its
constitutional power of indebtedness should be carefully guarded,
so that it may avoid the embarrassment of applications to the
courts whenever new issues of bonds are proposed, as has been
the case lately in the city of Brooklyn.
3. It is not too much to say that all projected improvements in
this city, including a municipal system of rapid transit, must be
abandoned if the proposed scheme of consolidation on the basis
of equality of taxation and valuation be ca;rried into effect. The
comptroller of the city of New York, Hon1. Aslbe] 1'. Fitch, in
testifying before the Supreme Court Rapid Tvransit Conmmission,
said:
"Having regard for the constitutional limitation (ten per
cent.) to the debt of the city, we have, therefore. a margin now of
about $55,000,000."
This margin is, however, only a theoretical one, as Mr. Fitch
proceeded to show, for besides the amount of bonds which would
have to be provided for in the immediate future.' The first of
these is for work that has been authorized by lawV and is actually
under way. The second is whelre expenditures have been authorized by law and can be estimated upon, and part are authorized
by law, but are beyond any one's power to calculate the cost of.




No. 44.]


4 '29


Of the first kind, he said, there was a total of $4,069,303.56 in
bonds which he had been legally ordered to issue, and that would
be issued whenever the proper call was made upon him for the
money. Of the next lot, where the expenditures were authorized
by law but not yet by the municipal authorities, lie had made a
calculation. These included such items as the Carmel and
Jerome Park reservoirs, which would cost $16,800,000, and were
to be completed respectively in 1902 and 1903. It would take
$2,000,000 a year probably to pay this. Then there was $500,000
a year authorized to spend for the protection of the Croton watershed. The entire sum had been used in 1895, and it was fair to
assume that the entire half million would be used in each year for
some years to come. Then there was an estimated $500,000 for
land for the approaches to the new Harlem bridge at Third avenue,
$1,833,000 for another Harlem bridge to be spent within the next
three or four years, $1,250,000 authorized for a bridge at One
Hundred and Forty-fifth street across the Harlem, and one-half of
the $14,000,000 or $16,000,000 which the new East River bridge
will probably cost.
The dock board has a right to call for $3,000,000 a year. Last
year it got $1,190,000, but the improvements now going on at
West Eleventh street to accommodate steamship lines, and some
other work, is likely to call for the whole $3,000,000 this year.
Repairing streets will make another demand. Then there is a
little sum of $1,175,000 for the new site and buildings of the
College of the City of New York, likely to be called for soon; an
addition to be built to the Metropolitan Museum of Art at a
cost of $1,000,000; new small parks, $3,000,000; new schoolhouses, $5,000,000; land damages at Fort Washington Park,
$1,400,000, and at St. John's Park, $533,765; $100,000 for parkways in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards, and a few
more little items of about that size. Leaving out of consideration
such uncertain items as the Grand Concourse in the Boulevard,
which is variously estimated at from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000;
a new park west of Ninth avenue, between Twentieth and Thirtieth streets; the Colonial park; damages for the change of grade




430


L[SENATE,


in the Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Wards, which may cost
$2,000,000; St. Nicholas park, a park at One Hundred and
Eleventh street and the East River, and one at Dykman street;
the Harlem driveway and the rapid transit scheme of $50,000,000.
Mr. Fitch said he had estimated that during the next five years
the city is likely to be called upon to issue $61,794,000 up to and
including the year 1900.
The income from the sinking fund averages about $8,500,000.
This would make $42,500,000 in the five years leaving a net increase of estimated positive debt of $19,294,000 in 1900. Taking
the increase of assessed valuation upon the basis of recent increases, Mr. Fitch said that on December 31, 1900, the real estate
in this city would be rated at about $1,894,000,000.
"This would leave a margin for the increase of the debt at that
time to the extent of $60,220,491," said Mr. Fitch; " but this is
based upon estimates for the accuracy of which no man can vouch.
The results may be very different. I am a great friend of the
rapid transit scheme, but if its cost were to be much more than
$50,000,000 I should be very much afraid it would get us into
serious difficulties. I am much afraid of the consolidation scheme
for the same reason, for Brooklyn has about reached the legal
limit of her debt; her tax rate is 100 points higher than ours, and
property there is taxed at eighty per cent. of its real value, while
ours is only rated at fifty per cent."
4. All the outlying territory proposed to be annexed on this
basis of "equal taxation and valuation" has both higher tax rates
and higher valuations than those of New York city.
We challenge a denial that all the advocates of annexation in
Brooklyn in their public utterances and publications have favored
consolidation solely upon the sordid financial consideration that
their taxes may be reduced at the expense of New York and that
local improvements may be made and paid for from the same
source; in other words, that the resources of tlis city shall be
frittered away among overgrown villages and cities to pay for
improvements which the law will not permit them to make at the
expense of their own taxpayers.




No. 44.]


4.21


5. New York city has within its present corporate limits ample
accommodations for an increase of more than a million people.
If rapid transit be accomplished, as without consolidation it can
be, such increase will inure to the lessening of the taxation of
New York. But this increase will of necessity be drawn largely
from these outlying debt-burdened communities, and the advocates of equal taxation and valuation know this but too well.
Whether a city composed of such diverse communities, of widely
distinct areas, is likely to insure economical and efficient government is certainly at least very doubtful. Certainly the local
history of New York in the past gives us very little assurance that
it can be. On the contrary every local improvement proposed
would meet with little favor from districts not interested, and
the result in all probability would be such as is witnessed in the
national legislature every winter over the "river and harbor bill,"
i. e., a log-rolling combination certain to invite municipal corruption and scandals far exceeding the shameful annals of the most
corrupt period of our local history.
The vote which was taken on consolidation is not an answer to
any of the considerations against "equalization of valuation and
taxation." It is certain that very few persons, either taxpayers
or rentpayers in New York city, would have voted in favor of
the proposition if such a condition had been annexed. If taxes
are increased by consolidation, rents will necessarily be raised;
if improvements are obstructed, values in New York will either
remain stationary or decline. In either event, both taxpayers and
rentpayers will suffer.
If either or both "equalization of valuation and taxation" is to
be a condition of consolidation, those questions should be submitted to the taxpayers and rentpayers of New York. The submission of the naked question of consolidation gave no notice
whatever to the electors of New York that their taxes would be
increased or their property interests affected. To impose such a
scheme as a prerequisite of consolidation is a grave political




432


[SENATE,


blunder, certain to react most disastrously on any party or individuals responsible for it.
CYRUS CLARK,
CORNELIUS DOREMUS,
R. H. L. TOWNSEND,
BENJAMIN F. ROMA.INE,
AUGUSTUS A. LEVEY,
JAMES A. DEERING.
NEW YORK, January 29, 1896.
AUGUSTUS A. LEVEY:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: As counsel and
individual and on behalf of the Anti-Equalization League, as
counsel and as an individual taxpayer of New York, I propose
to direct myself particularly against this provision, -hich makes
it mandatory upon this commission to be appointed under this act,
which, having been introduced by the chairman, may be called
the Lexow bill. It provided "a government for the municipal
corporation, the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of
New York, as by this act enlarged, and among other tiings for
retaining an equal and uniform rate of taxation and of valuation
for the purpose of taxation. That same expression is contained
in the similar bill, which is before you, introduced, I think, by Mr.
Gray, if I am not mistaken; and the same expression has been
continuously used by the advocates of consolidation in the city of
Brooklyn; and they explain, in their publications and circulars,
just what they mean and what they intend to have carried into
effect by your committee, under this expression, " Equal Taxation
and Valuation." What they mean is, that there shall be a uniform
assessment through this district, and that the percentage of valuation to the real values of the p)roperty shall bc uniform all over
the district; and tthat is what wie pIrl:iciularly object to, as taxpayers of the city of Broo!klyv, beclause, sir, l\i va\lues in this district
differ ini every section of it. In I'rf3ldyn, Ii';,assess'd values are




No. 44.]


430


about eighty per cent. - from seventy to eighty per cent. on the
real values. In the city of New York, they are about fifty per
cent. Now, what these Brooklyn gentlemen propose and what
we more specifically refer to in the pamphlet, which I shall lay
before you, is that this equal taxation of values necessarily involves raising the valuations that the taxation of the city of
Brooklyn may be reduced and we considered that, however valuable the political consolidation of these towns and municipalities
may be, that it is possible to effect that consolidation at too high
a price, and that this will be too high a price. We have shown
you, sir, and it may be proved, and we propose to prove it, if you
give us an opportunity to do so, by subpoenaing the witnesses
here, which we have named in our application before you, and
which motion, I understand, you are now entertaining. We propose to show this will increase the taxation of every taxpayer
in the city of New York about twenty-nine dollars for each $10,000
of assessed valuation. Now, the effect of that must necessarily
be to impair the value of all real estate in New York so taxed.
It will necessarily involve an increase in the rents of the people
who pay rents in the city of New York, for by increasing taxation,
you increase rents. It affects the value of real estate. There is
not a single taxpayer in the city of New York, with whom I have
had an opportunity of conversing on this subject since this committee proposed to give us, on a two days' notice, - and, by
the way, here the lowest motion in the city of New York is on a
notice of eight days; and now you propose on a notice of two
days to require us to answerMR. LExow:
That criticism has already been passed once.
MR. LEVEY:
I propose to pass it repeatedly here.
MR. LExow:
It was not taken notice of, for this reason: We first stated
[Senate, No. 44.]     55




434


[SENATE,


that we would give hearings in Brooklyn on two occasions, that
the next week we would come to New York. During the three
weeks that have intervened, with the exception of one telegram
received by the chairman of this committee the day before yesterday, there has not been a single individual in the city of New
York who has asked for a hearing here.
MR. LEVEY:
Well, sir, that is only more disgraceful to the inhabitants of
the city of New York. They do not know whether their interest is
impaired; and they have got so accustomed in the city of New
York to be treated by the Legislature of the State of New York,
as if the city of New York was a kind of province, as ancient
Rome treated their provinces. They have got so accustomedMR. LEXOW:
Unless you restrain yourself within parliamentary limits, the
committee will not hear you.
MR. LEVEY:
I am speaking in a parliamentary manner. I have not made
any individual assertions whatever. The language, I suggest,
I could use in any court room.
MR. LExow:
You can not use it before the legislative committee.
MR. LEVEY:
I propose to use it. It is not contempt of the legislative committee. I do say it is shameful that upon a notice of merely two
days, with these enormous millions and millions of dollars interest
in the city of New York, that you propose upon an ex parte application here in one city to dispose of these questions, which affect
vitally the interests of every taxpayer and rentpayer in the city
of New York. No, you can not do it. The Legislature of the State
of New York can not do it. The Governor of the State of New




No. 44.]


435


York is an honest man, and he, sir, brought you down here, and you
know he will not permit this legislation to go through, without
carefully considering all the suggestions that may be made by the
taxpayers and rentpayers in the city of New York.
MR. LEXOW:
What do you mean by the statement that the Governor sent
us down?
MR. LEVEY:
I meant what I said. I mean that if it had not been for the
Governor of the State of New York you would not be here now.
I mean to say that he will not permit this legislation to go through
without careful consideration.
MR. LEXOW:
I mean to say that the Governor of the State of New York made
absolutely no suggestion, in reference to this matter at all, and I
call on you again to restrain yourself, within the limits of the
proprieties of argument, and not go outside of it
MR. LEVEY:
I am doing that.
MR. LEXOW:
Unless you do so,, your privileges will be taken from you.
MR. LEVEY:
I am doing that, and when you get ready to take my privileges
away from me, you can do so. If you think I have made individual aspersions on any individual member of this committee, I
have not.
MR. IEXOW:
Address your argument to the chairman.
MR. LEVEY:
I am addressing myself to your body.




4-36


[SENATB,


MR. GRADY:
It is fair for the committee to state that the first information
they had that there was on Manhattan Island one man who desired to appear before the committee, they immediately provided
for a hearing; and the statement that they ever proposed to deny
to anybody to give anything germain to the subject to a hearing
is entirely gratuitous and against the action of the committee.
We never heard, until it was announced that there was to be no
hearings in New York, because no applications had been made
for one -we never heard that there was a man who desired to
be heard; and just as soon as there was the slightest evidence
that we could come here and find any one to talk to us, the
committee dealt with New York city, precisely as they dealt with
other localities. Now, isn't this a shame that the committee do
not provide for a numbe(r of extended hearings in New York;, a
shame that all these millions of dollars that wanted to speak and
did not speak, so as to give the committee an opportunity to' provide for their being heard.
MR. LEVEY:
I agree with vou ent-ir.ly, sir.
MR. GRADY:
I want to say, for myv associates on the committee, those from
New York city, and those from out New York city, that as soon
as Mr. Austin, the chairman of the committee of the Assembly,
suggested that there were people in New York, who wtere mnlaking
some criticism lupon the committee for not meeting in New York
city, that was immediately provided for by this meeting. and
they put no limit as they appointed the time to be occupied, the
number of hearings to be had, or the number to whom they would
listen. It is under those circumstances, and not only those that
you appear before the committee.
MR. LEVEY:


Then I will say that this committee is attended by many tax



No. 44.]


437


payers of the city of New York, and will be attended by lmany
more before they get through; and this large assemblage is an
intimation that if they have an opportunity to be heard they will
appear before the committee in large numbers, but certainly, they
have had their opportunity to appear before you. But now in
regard to the question to which I addressed myself, particularly
in the first instance. We have shown you, in reference to that
pamphlet, that to equalize the tax rates and valuation in the city
of 5New York will be detrimental to the taxpayers in the city of
New York. Whhat we propose is this, and there is no difficulty
whatever in undertaking this, and this is what we desire to prove
by the witness we shall ask your committee to subpoena: That
the taxes and valuation in each of these districts shall remain under any political consolidation that you effect just as they are
now; that the tax rates in the city of Brooklyn as they exist now
shall be expended in the city of Brooklyn; that the taxes in the
city af Long Island shall be expended in Long Island City; that
the tax rates in the towns of Richmond county, as they exist now,
shall be expended in those towns; that the taxes raised in the city
of New York, as it exists now, shall be expended in the city of
New York; that no alteration shall be made either in valuation
or in taxes. There is no more practical difficulty in effecting
that than there is in the present tax system in the city of Brooklyn, in which they have a different tax rate in every ward of Brooklyn. That is what we have directed ourselves towards, and that is
a simple proposition for which we appear before you to-day, to see
that the interest of the taxpayers of the city of New York are
safeguarded; that the moneys received in the city of New York
shall not be diverted to the improvement of Bensonhurst or Far
Rockaway or towns in Richmond county.
MR. GRADY:
Mr. Levey, why not extend that. Let us provide that the money,
raised in each ward in the city of New York be applied in that
ward?




438


[SENA TJE,


MR. LEVEY:
No, sir, because the situation is an institution existing to-day.
If you look in the city of Brooklyn, you will find that they have a
tax for every ward. You can continue it.
MR. GRADY:
If you are going to subdivide as to the existing lines of division,
why not make it entirely fair, why not have the money raised in
New street, spent on Riverside drive; why not keep the appropriation within the ward?
MR. LEVEY:
You are making an absurd argument.
Mn. GRADY:
I am not making an argument ad absurdum, unless the argument is absurd. You propose a division, which the bill proposes
to obliterate. Why not keep up the old lines? You and I know,
that New York has not always embraced the territory embraced
to-day. W\ hy was not the proposition made when we annexed
Westchester county, that the money received in New York should
be spent in New York, and the money received from West Farms
should be spent in West Farms. Does the water make a
difference?
MR. LEVEY:
As a practical matter, those twenty-third and twenty-fourth
wards did just get about what they received in taxes.
MR. GRADY:
I know at one time they gave more money than they got in
taxes, when they were annexed.
MR. LExOW:
You do not propose uniform taxation throughout. You do
not dispute that there is uniform taxation and valuation through



N4o. 44.]


439


out the city of New York, including the taxes of the annexed district last year?
MR. LEVEY:
I think there is, but I do not know anything to the contrary.
MR. JEFFERSON LEVY:
I addressed you as chairman last week, when I first heard you
proposed to go ahead in the annexation of the Greater New York,
without the city of New York being heard. I myself addressed
you as chairman, and I believe you have called this meeting to-day
at my request as one of the taxpayers of New York. I believe
you desire to treat us fair, but the position to look at is this:
I do not think we have a large attendance here to-day, and I
would like to call your attention to the reason why you do not
havi them. M.any people think you hold them in the County
Court house; it is mixed up between two court houses, where the
meeting is to be. Many do not think this is new Supreme Court
house of the Supreme Court chambers, part one. I would like to
state this: In 1892, there was 335,000 votes cast in the city of
New York; there was 98,000 cast in favor of it and 68,000 against
it; that made about 170,000 votes virtually that opposed this
annexation. We New Yorkers, as a whole, I do not think, oppose
annexation of the Greater New York; but they most decidedly
oppose annexation on, the ground of uniformity of taxation. This
is a most stupendous affair. Mr. Green, himself, will tell you in
the laws of 1894, this adjudication was that the Greater New
York have annexation upon fair taxation. We are all proud of
Brooklyn, with its million of inhabitants; the citizens of New
York are proud of it, we are willing to receive it; but are willing
to receive it upon fair and equitable ground. What right have
you to put upon the city of New York the taxation of the city of
-Brooklyn, with its enormous debt, with no comparison - with the
exception of taxation - in income. The city of New York has
a vast sinking fund. as the comptroller can tell you, amounting
to millions of dollars, receipts every year amounting to millions.




440


[SENATE,


I will answer the Senator, Mr. O'Grady, from New York, when he
says, "Why divide up?"  Why, it is a common practice. In
the great cities of Paris and London they have taxation there by
districts and municipalities, you may say. It has mayors of
different districts. Why shouldn't we tax it that way? Take,
for instance, the city of Brooklyn. Why, to-day their bonded
indebtedness outside of Kings county, from what statistics we
have in our hands, amounts to over fifty millions; and I am sure
the comptroller of that city can not say to-day positively what
their indebtedness is. I verily believe it amounts to sixty millions. They have gone recently and bought enormous tracts of
land. I myself, and the late mayor of the city, Mayor Ely, own
some property in the city of Brooklyn. We could not sell it. The
city of Brooklyn said: "We are going to take this as a highway."
We laughed at them, and said: " What do you want of it; you
can not pay for it." And they said: " We are going to buy it."
We said: "You can take it at your valuation; we don't want
you to condemn it." And when we came to pay the taxes and
assessments they could not tell us what the assessment was in
that particular district. They can not tell to-day when you put
in a search there what the assessment is. I hold in my hands
a piece of property which I own in the city of Brooklyn. You can
not sell it to-day for the amount of its assessment, for under that
bill the tax rate is some twenty-seven dollars a thousand. It runs
up in some wards of the city to $101 a thousand. The city of
Brooklyn can not go on as it is going on to-day. What will be the
upshot of it? If we take in the city of Brooklyn I and every other
property holder in the city of Brooklyn shall demand that the taxation values shall be fair. The law of the Supreme Court states
the valuation of real estate is sixty-six per cent. of its real value.
Here is a case where it is valued for as much, and in fact what you
can not receive for it. That is the situation of affairs in Brooklyn.
They have recently passed a law to build a bridge for $25,000,000.
They are to pay half of it. Their limit is extended and does not
amount to over $2,000,000. fHow are they to raise this indebtedness? It is to be raised in the city of New York. If you carry out




No. 44.]


441


this proposition the taxes in New York will be three dollars and
fifty cents instead of about two dollars and ten cents the coming
year. I hope the Legislature will only listen to the citizens of
New York. You should look into it, because it is becoming very
important —this enormous debt that is heaped upon us. We
hear every year of legislative increase of salaries for court officers
we do not need.
MR. LExow:
If that is true, why is it that in the two years that I have been
a memlber of the Senate, with all these bills coming before us,
there has not been a single property owner from the city of New
York who has taken enough interest in the subject apparently
to even send a letter or circular?
MR. LEVY:
I admit that. Mr. Chairman. That is the great people of New
York. They will not take any interest in anything until it is
thrust upon them. When it is thrust upon them they come like
a whirlwind. Why, if this proposition goes through - outside
of politics - throw politics aside and ignore it - if this proposition goes through, the party in power that carried the bill
would be wiped from existence all over the Union; for whatever
we do in New York, it affects the whole nation. That is the
situation here. Now, I admit what you say is perfectly correct.
The citizens of New York are very dilatory.  Then there is
another thing I want to call your attention to. There was an
announcement here that you were going to give a hearing. That
was the first I heard to any extent that uniform taxation would
go into existence. Think of it! In some wards in Brooklyn it
it $101 per thousand; and think of it, that the valuations are the
full valuations of the property! They can not go on that way.
It has got to stop. I do not blame the people of Brooklyn coming
in and saying, " Give us uniform taxation and we will go in."
Why, their taxes would be reduced. If you had a piece of property in New York worth $5,000 the fair valuation would be
[Senate. No. 44.]    56




442


[SENATE..


assessed for about $3,000 taxes. Now, that is the way the great
uniformity of our taxes is here. If a piece of property is valued
at $20,000 it is assessed here for probably $13,000, but in Brooklyn
the full valuation is put on it. Now, there is nothing to prevent
the Legislature from saying to the city of Brooklyn and each one
of these great municipalities, "You can do as they do in Paris,
make up your own tax budget." It could be taxed against their
own property, and then we can go on and be the Greater New
York. Now, they have no docks in the city of Brooklyn; they
have no large receipts. While I believe you have a right in the
Legislature to pass any laws for annexation purposes, I do not
believe if any bond holder in New York comes in and restrains
you in the courts that you could succeed with this policy, because
the sinking fund of New York is pledged for the security of these
bonds. Now, you must go into another thing, and I would like
to call your attention to it here, that to some extent in the future
you would consider these enormous expenditures as to New York,
the increased taxation, the increase of the tax-list, the amount
of money collected for taxes. The amount of money going into
bonded indebtedness in the city of New York since 1894 amounts
to over $19,000,000; and if we keep on in New York I do not know
where we will land. Now, the pamphlet here of Mr. Deering
shows very plainlyMR. LEXow                                           i
This is the pamphlet you refer to?
MR. LEVY:
Yes.
MR. LExOW:
Sent out by a committee of six, I think.
MR. ROMAINE:
Yes. I think if you allow me, the committee should have the
pamphlet of 1894, which was sent by Mr. Deering.




No. 44.]


443


MR. LExow:
I was just going to ask for that. Now, is it not a fact that this
question was before the people when they voted in 189)4, upon
the question of consolidation?
MR. ROMAINE:
No, sir.
MR. LEVY:
No, sir. The statement was made that that business would be
settled afterwards, that New York would be treated fair; that
the taxable properties of each district would pay their own. Now,
that is not a foreign thing in our ideas; it is not an improper
thing to be done. The city of Brooklyn can raise its own budget.
as Paris does it. The city of London does the same thing. Why
shall we not have it here. Here is this enormous sinking fund
of ours. Why shall we give it to the city of Brooklyn? The next
other important thing I would like to call the Senator's attention
to, is one thing referred to by the Senator from New York. He
stated that in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards more
money was expended in those districts than they ever received
from taxation. I desire to say that he is incorrect in that statement.
MR. GRADY:
You do not give my statement as I made it. I say, immediately
after the consolidation of New York with what is known as the
annexed district the expenses of the city government were far in
excess of any money received from that district.
MR. LEVY:
I disagree with you, Senator. I was a property owner at that
time in 1871, and for several years the city of New York did not
expend the money they collected there for taxes. In fact the
district lay dormant, and no money was expended there. We have
now an extraordinary state of affairs in the new districts of




444


[SENATE,


'Westchester county. This year no tax is paid in those districts
at all to the city of New York, by reason of lax legislation of
last year and the year before in regard to those annexed districts.
Those districts pay no taxes at all. That is the most extraordinary
state of affairs. But in these districts of the twenty-third and
twenty-fourth wards for many years the property was, in fact, very
low before annexation. People thought it was going to go up.
It went immediately down. Of course there might have been a
panic, or some other reason; but for four or five years they did
not expend any money for improvements in those districts; and
I am quite confident the moneys raised there were more in excess
than the amount expended in those districts.
MR. LExow:
Mr. Levy, I would like to ask you a question. I believe you
are posted in real estate values in the city of New York as well,
perhaps, as any man living. Don't you think the material welfare
of New York would be subserved so largely by consolidation that
a small difference of taxation possibly the first year, would be
very much more than equalized by the additional value gained
here by the effects of consolidation within a year or two?
MR. LEVY:
I verily believe it will really hurt the city of New York, although
I am individually in favor of annexation on the ground that each
district pay their own taxes; but I tell you for several years it will
not benefit New York. We have a vast territory here that we
ought to improve. We do not expend the money. These new
wards have no taxes this year. We spend very little in improvements even to the present day compared to what they are
entitled to. They need a great deal more to be expended there,
that is, the districts in Westchester which may be hurt materially.
We ought to include the roads and highways there. They are
in bad condition; and the city of Brooklyn will absorb all this,
and take it away from the real interest of New York. While
New York feels a feality towards the city of Brooklyn, I think a




No. 44.]


445


great deal more than other people feel towards us, at the same
time we want Brooklyn to make us a greater New York, provided
our taxes and our sinking fund are not affected. This will put our
taxes up. It can not put it up less than three per cent. unless
we issue bonds.
MR. LEXOW:
I have a letter from the president of the Emigrants' Industrial
Savings Bank, Mr. James McMahon, and in his letter he says:
"I regret that I can not appear before your committee to give my
views upon subject matters of consodidation. I do not flatter
myself that I could add anything to the information already posessed by your ( committee, for it seems to me that the ground has
been gone over very thoroughly; at the same time I think the
testimony of representative citizens - those who are in a position
to feel the pulse of the people- should put themselves upon
record for, or against legislation deciding this question, although
it would seem unnecessary for citizens to give their views, when
the people as a whole have already manifested their decisions by
ballot.
'I am an old New York merchant, and have lived in Brooklyn
thirty-five years, and believe the sentiment favoring consolidation
of these two cities is very general in both cities. With few
excxeptions, I find that the opposition to it springs from interestied motives; especially is this the case in Brooklyn, where the
press are a unit in opposition to the movement. I heartily favor
consolidation, because I believe it will be of the greatest possible
good to both cities, and for very different reasons respecting
each - Brooklyn needs a helping hand to enable her to accomplish her destiny successfully. New York needs a polplation and
the area which she would acquire by having Brooklyn annexed,
to forever secure to her the prestige of being the great city, and
the commercial and moneyed heart of this continent. No matter
at wat cwh ost - Brooklyn would be for New York a most desirable
acquisition.
"llut would New York suffer any material loss in this connection.




446


[SENATE,


I claim it would not, because the very act of consolidation would
tend to strengthen and increase values in Brooklyn to such an
extent that in the near future, Brooklyn upon her merits, would
be self-sustaining, and New York would be a great gainer, because the two cities could work in unison in so many directions
for their mutual benefit.
"I could say a great deal upon this subject, having given it my
careful study and attention for many years, but from what I have
read in the papers of matter given to your committee, it seems to
me I would be only wasting your time by giving you matter of
which you are already in possession."
MR. LEVY:
That is very well for Mr. McMahon, who resides in the city of
Brooklyn, to write such a letter, He is in favor of Brooklyn,
of course. I am informed he resides in the city of Brooklyn.
MR. LEXOW:
He is president of one of the largest banks in this city.
MR. LEVY:
Tie is president of the Emigrants' Industrial Savings Bank, but
he resides in Brooklyn, and Brooklyn must have some relief. It
is impossible for Brooklyn to go on as they do. They must raise
the tax. They can not tell from their own statements or accounts
there what their indebtedness is. It is a most extraordinary
statement. If you go over there to-day you can not ascertain
the exact amount of assessl-ment in some of those districts, and
they do not know the exact amount of their bonded indebtedness.
Now here conres the bridge whlich will cost $12,5()0,(0)(. They
have gone oll of the way and ill iad a bill to build a railroad
on a bridge, which was intended for the plublic benefit. Why?
Simply bhc(,l; ', thle elevated railroad il ]in Brooklynn can not pay
without tils )!bidgre. They have got about fifty millions of dollars
of debt now,;,rt  xvwiih tlIe buyiing of tlhese Iprl'ks t(here nmust be
sixty or sixty-fivec millions of dollars; but tlie )property is assesed




No. 44.]


447


so high as to valuation that when we come to the great city of
New York, and when we find a piece of property here is only
assessed at sixty per cent. of the value they will insist that their
property shall be reduced in that same way, and we shall have
our taxes increased; so, putting the facts together as to tax
rates, which I am informed will be about $2.20 in the city of New
York next year, with an increased valuation over what we have
already had and it will make the tax $2.50.
MR. LYNCH:
I think Mr. Levy has made a very bad mistake. I understand
the taxes in Brooklyn will be $3.50.
MR. LEVY:
No; I say in the consolidated district. It would be less in the
consolidated district than in Brooklyn.
MR. LEXOW:
It would be upwards of $3.50 according to your remarks.
MR. LEVY:
No; in the city of New York it will be two dollars and twenty
cents.
MR. LEXOW:
What will it be in Brooklyn?
MR. LEVY:
Where it is now. In some cases it ran from two dollars and
seventy-nine cents to three dollars and one cent. Here is your own
bill.
MR. ROMAINE:
Now we read there are thirty-one wards in Brooklyn; twentyeight of them are the main part of Brooklyn, the other four are
only country towns that have been added. In none of the twenty



448


[SENATE,


eight wards can you find where the rate runs as high as three
per cent.
MR. LEVY:
I stated they ran from two dollars and seventy-nine cents to
three dollars and one cent.
MR. ROMAINE:
I want to state the fact.
MR. LEXOW:
I think Mr. Levy wants to be fair. I think he is a fair man.
MR. ROMAINE:
The fact is that a great bulk of the property is in the twentyeight wards. The other four wards are very small and are known
as the Kings county wards, added by annexation in the last four
years. The assessment is by special assessment. Here is a sample of the taxes in Brooklyn for 1895:
DEPARTMENT OF COLLECTION,
MUNICIPAL BUILDING.
Collector of Taxes and Assessments.
To City of Brooklyn, Dr.
Tax, 1895. Confirmed November 15, 1895. Due and payable
December 15, 1895.
R. ROSS APPLETON,
Collector.
HICKS.       EAST SIDE.
WARD.      Tax roll Block.  Lot.  Street  Des.  Val.  Tax.
index.             number.
First ward  --—.....  633  41  2      -23 H. & L. $5, — --  $,979
First ward —.   633     41     2     23 H. & L. $5,00  $1:1,979


Received payment,
~  Collector of ~ Taxes and Ass.ent
Collector of Taxes and Assessments.




No. 44.]                  449
The following is on the back of this bill:
RATE OF TAX, 189.3, PER $1,000.
WARDS.                               Dollar.  Cents.  Mills.
--------  --------------------------—.... —...............
1............................ 27  95   8
2....i                   28    01 1   1
3 —   I.. —...................-........... 27  98  6
4.....-. ----- —....-.................... 1 27  96  9
5-...-....... —....-...-..-..-........28  10i  7
6........  —..- ----....-....- ---.............  27 8  51
7...................... ---...... 27  97  0
8... ----.  —. —.. —...............-............. 27  989
8     -27                                   98     9
9 —......27                                 97     4
10-. —28                                00    8
11...28                               00     0
12     -...-.................   28    00    5
13...- -..... --- —-......... ---...-...........  26  15  1
14-..26                                      18    9
15-. -----  ------------------ --.. --- —- -  26  22  8
1... ----.... ---... —.....-..-....-................ -26 1
16.-.-.....             26     17    9
17..    --..-. -- - --  -- - - - - 26   15    1
18 - ---   -... — ------ ------  -- -- -26  23    1
19.......                         26    14    6
20 —. ----  -.   I ---.. ---—. —. ---—. ------------. 276 97 7
20 1....                              27     97    7
21.. -.!.. ----..-. —. ----. --- —--—. --------.... 27  97 8
22-........27                           96    1
23-.:....-... --- ----------—..... ---...  27  95  5
24....  -. -. ---------.. —  —. —......... - -   28  00  1
25 —                          ----     27 1  98    0
25 —.. —. -... —..-......... ---...................27 9
26............ ----... --- — --. ---. ----—... -  8  45  4
27 --- —-.  ---—. --- --- --- -...-.......  26  18  1
28-2.- ---- 1.... —..................3 — ---   26  14  3
School districts Nos. I ad 2........  31  24  9
School district No. 3... —...... ---   31  89  7
29........  School district No. 2 of Flatlands...  31  24  9
School district No. 1, in sewer district.  35  22  4
School district No. 1, outside.. -..... 30  31 
School district No. 2, exempt —.....30  15  1
30-........  School district No. 2, outside —.... 30  32  8
School district No. 3, exenmpt....   30  44  2
School district No. 3, outside -..... 30  61  9
School district No. 4............. 29  60  7
School district No. 2 of Flatbiish..   29  60  7
School district No. 1, outside —...   27  46  2
School district No. 2, in sewer district. 101  61  9
31........  School district No. 2, outside --—.. 27  46  2
School district No. 2, sewer only... 74  15  7
School district No. 3..-.. ---......-29  87 
School district No. 4, in sewer district  101 61  8
School district No. 4, outside.. ---  27  46  2
School district No. 5.......... —... -.. 27  46  2
School district No. 6, in sewer district..  89  63  9
School district No. 6, outside-.....- 31  23  5
School district No. 6, sewer only. 58  40  5
[Senate, No. 44.-]   57




450


[ [SN AT -E.


WILLIAM E. RODGERS:
I appear, Mr. Chairman, as representing some considerable
real estate in this city belonging to others, and also to myself.
I did not intend to say anything; but it seems to me that in consequence of the question of Senator O'Grady, perhaps a word
may clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding. The point
of the thing in a nutshell, so far as I see it, is that, whereas in the
city of Brooklyn - we will take the year 1894 - the rate of taxation, as shown by the documents submitted to you to-day,
average about two dollars and sixty-three cents on a hundred
dollars, upon a valuation averaging about seventy per cent. of
the cash valuation; whereas, in New York, at the same time, the
rate of taxation was one dollar and ninety cents on an assessed
value of fifty per cent. on cash valuations. Well, it is perfectly
evident that if these two cities come together and taxation is equalized over the whole area, that New York must be raised or Brooklyn must be lowered. Now, the documents submitted to you today, in reference to which there is an application to have witnesses
called to substantiate under oath, show, that in case of this consolidation, and in case of this equalization of the taxation, the
result will be that New York will have to pay $6,000,000 more
upon an expenditure equal to that of 1894, and Brooklyn will have
to be permitted to pay $6,000,000 less. That is where the injustice
comes in to the taxpayers of New York.
MR. GRADY:
There is no misunderstanding on that point, Mr. Rogers.
MR. ROGERS:
Now, let us get to the motive. The Brooklyn Consolidated
League frankly state as the reason for consolidation that the rate
of taxation will be lowered in Brooklyn and will be raised in
New York. I congratulate them upon their frankness; but I
confess that is rather a strange way to bring about New York's
consent.




No. 44.]


451


MR. GRADY:
The suggestion is that with that very evident proposition in
view New York voted for consolidation; and that this inequality
and apparent injustice to the city of New York, at the moment and
time of consolidation, will be remedied and will be atoned for by
the future increase in values in Brooklyn, which will make it a
more than self-supporting city. The difference in income and outlay under consolidation is much more marked when you take in
Staten Island than when you take in Brooklyn; and yet the people
voted at the election that they would consolidate, not only with
Brooklyn, but would even consolidate with Staten Island.
MR. ROGERS:
It is true, Mr. Senator, that in the referendum of 1894 they did
so vote; but it was simply a sentimental vote; and I think almost
everybody is agreed that the reference of the question of an
economical character, somewhat complicated in its form, to
universal suffrage, is not a success. The conclusion derived
therefrom is not one that carries a great deal of weight. I do
not think the average man in New York who does not pay taxes
appreciates that the increased taxation is a detriment to him.
The so-called " poor man " who does not draw his check or come
to the taxpayer's office and pay his money, does not appreciate
that an economic law decreases his taxes to be paid. Higher
taxes mean higher rents. Higher rents means higher prices paid
for everything the poor man eats or wears. The poor woman who
gets her peck of potatoes or scuttle of coal at the grocery has to
pay to the grocer the pro rata of the taxation in order to pay his
rent. They do not appreciate that.
MR. LEXOW:
Is not that equalized by the fact that consolidation will add to
the population and will increase the taxable area.
MR. ROGERS:
I fail to see how consolidation with a territory separated by
such natural boundaries as Staten Island, and Brooklyn, and




452


[SENATE,


Long Island lhave( -- I fail to see how consolidation can have much
effect Iupl)n populatlion one way 1 or the other. I have read the
arguments that have been set forth. The only one that I have
seen other than the selfish one of saddling on New York the taxes,
has been a purely senltilmental one: Because we live in t-le
greatest country in the world we ought to have the biggest city in
the world. The next we will hear will be the obligation to take in
additional territory in New York, including perhaps Hoboken
and Newark, and we won't be the biggest city unless we take in
up to the classic shades of Nyack.
MR. LEXOW:
I believe we are agreed as to consolidation up there.
MR. ROGERIS:
Then, so far as this referendum is concerned, remember Mr.
Senator, that there was not a word said in the law authorizing
it, or in the ballots when the vote was taken, as to the terms upon
which consolidation should take place. It was a mere expression
of opinion. It was not mandatory; and it was merely an expression of opinion, and in my opinion a very false one. Then, in
regard to people representing property in New York not appearing before your committee. It is perfectly true. I was in Albany
nine years, and I constantly saw economic questions involving
the taxation of New York in regard to which nobody ever came,
unless the corporations were interested in it, until it was too late
to come. I do not think it is fair. I know it is not fair to
assume that the majority of tlhe people are in favor of consolidation in New York in consequence of that vote in 1894.
MR. LEXOW:
Mr. Rogers, you wemre aw(are, were you not, that this same bill
in words as thils, v(erb'lil i adl litratlllll, so far as its principles
are concerned, was in tlhe Assembly, and passed by the Assembly,
and failed in thie( S(eniate, by not siecuring the consittitutional majority necessary to make it a law. In other words, that this question




No. 44.]


i4-: ]


that has non suddenly been objected to has been before the
Legislature practically two years, and that no objection lias been
made until within one week.
MR. ROGERS:
I saw, sir, that it was there, and I plead guilty with tlie rest
of the million of inhabitants of New York to neglect and laches
in not appearing before.
MR. ROMIAINE:
I will say for myself and associates, with the possible exception
of Mr. Deering, who is so busy that he is not able to be here, that
we were not aware of that bill.
MR. LExoW:
The debates in the Assembly and Senate turned very largely on
that expression.
MR. ROMAINE:
It seems very strange, because I have had the honor to appear
in Albany every year in behalf of the New York Tax Association,
that I had not heard of it. It seems to me, if you will pardon the
allusion, that the political confusion of last year probably obscured the horizon of the New York taxpayer, and therefore it
was not noticed in the Legislature, for which the chairman of
this committee was responsible, and the other legislators of last
year. I think you will find New Yorkers are slow to take up
economic questions. Some of you gentlemen may remember the
avalanche of opposition to the Speedway, and the measures taken
to secure the Speedway repeal; and you may also remember - I
make now no criticism on any present member of the Legislature,
because I think none of them are responsible for it -there was
an aqueduct measure introduced in the year 1891. that sought
to deprive the city of New York of the benefit of trial by jury
in the immense cl(aims for extra worlk made by the aqueduct contractors. re'l1e gentlemen at Albany. in theirI wisdom that year,




454


[SENATE,


in their first hearing, gave three-quarters of an hour to the counsel
for the aqueduct contractors, and then told two of the aqueduct
commissioners and the assistant corporation counsel that the city
of New York would have five minutes. Now, this committee, 1
know, will do nothing of that kind with the New York taxpayers.
Now, sir, what has been said by us is simply introductory to a
formal application which we have the honor to make to your
committee, and it is seconded by a former member of the Legislature, Mr. Alfred R. Conkling, setting forth that we have had
practically but two days' notice that the committee intended to
sit here. Shall I read it, Mr. Chairman?
MR. LExow:
An application by whom?
MR. ROMAINE:
It is a formal application by a committee of taxpayers and their
counsel. I think it had better be read to you. It is entitled in
this proceeding.
27 EAST TENTH STREET, NEW YORK, February 1, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairmlan, etc.:
Dear Sir.- I am confined to my house by a severe cold, so I can
not attend your hearing to-day. I fully concur in the statements
contained in the pamphlet of the Anti-Equalization League, signed
by Mr. Cyrus Clark and others, and I think they are entitled to
an adjournment of at least one week to present their case and to
produce the attendance of witnesses. As a freeholder and trustee
of property of great value I respectfully request a hearing against
the proposed tax equalization involved in the consolidation of
the two cities.
Yours respectfully,
A. K. (()ONKLING.
ANNEXATION AND TAXA.TION.
At a special meeting of the West End Associ:tion, hleld on




No. 44.]


455


Monday evening, October 22, 1894, at its rooms, No. 167 West
Eighty-first street, New York city, it was ordered that the communication of Mr. James A. Deering and the remarks of Mr.
Cornelius Doremus, relative to the proposed " Greater New York,'
be printed and circulated.
CYRUS CLARK,
President.
MR. CYRUS CLARK, President of the West End Association:
Dear Sir.- I regret exceedingly my inability to attend the
special meeting of the association called for this evening, to consider the " Greater New York " and " Rapid Transit " propositions,
which are to be submitted to the taxpayers and citizens of New
York city, for their approval or disapproval, at the approaching
election. I therefore take this means of presenting to the association, through you, some of the reasons which in my judgment
should induce every citizen of New York to vote against, and use
his utmost endeavors to defeat the proposed consolidation or the
annexation of 279 square miles of additional territory to be known
as "The Greater New York."
Why is it that the promoters and advocates of "The Greater
New York" have never informed us, but on the contrary have
studiously avoided giving any information as to what the effect
of annexation will be upon the taxation and indebtedness of this
city and the several municipalities to be annexed?
Does the proposition to annex Brooklyn and the outlying towns
and villages mean anything more than to compel the taxpayers
of the present city of New York to contribute largely to the
annual support of the government of these localities, and provide
the means for their development and permanent improvement?
If this be so, and no other conclusion is possible, after investigating the history of the movement and the financial standing of the
several localities favoring the proposition, consolidation will be
the greatest check to the improvement and growth of New
York city that it is possible to conceive of. Not only will the
annual taxes for the ordinary purposes of government be at once




456


[SE:NATE,


increased fully $6,000,000 per year, and tlie rate to more than
two per cent. but the margin it now holds within the constitutional
limitation for the creation of a funded debt to meet the cost of
permanent improvements, which are not paid for by yearly taxation, be applicable to (as it certainly will be devoted to) meeting
the cost of public worlks and ilnproven(ents in these outlying
districts, which their present indebtedness forbids them to incur.
~ The scheme is permanent to say the least. No possible present
or future advantages can outweigh the immediate and permanent
loss which New York will sustain.
For a better understanding of the situation it may be well
to state the procedure for raising public moneys by taxation and
otherwise.
The ordinary expenses of government in each locality are paid
by annual taxation. These ordinary expenses are such as its share
of State taxation, the interest on its own funded debt, the salaries
of police, fire, school, and health officers, etc., and the annual supplies for all departments.
But for permanent improvements, such as furnishing a sul))ly
of pure water, public parks, boulevards, water front extensions,
etc., the money is raised by the issue of bonds or stocks payable
at some future time, usually after twenty years, tlie annual interest
by taxation, and the principal, either from a sinking fund raised
by annual taxation or by the issue of other bonds.
There is another class of improvements tlhe cost of which is
payable in whole or in part from the proceeds of bonds, namely,
ordinary street improvements; but these bonds are usually issued
fora short time and redeemable from the special assessments levied
upon property immediately benefited, but until so repaid they
constitute part of the funded debt.
The Constitu]tion (ai'tic(]le VIIT, section 11,) pl(ace.s a lilllit llI)on
the debt which may be thus created, as follows:
"No colunty containing a city of over 1(00,000 inlhbitliitants, or
any such city, shall be allowed to beclomei inde(,ht(e for any )purpose or in any manner to an amoulnt vlhilch, includinng existing
indebtedness, shall exceed ten per centunl of I!j assessed valla



No. 44.1


I __
*, I 


tion of tflh real estate( of such county or city on thle <last assessment
for State or county taxes prior to the incurrilitn of sc11(1 ilndebltedness."
But the i)ractice of New York city and Brooklyn in respect to
the creation of an indebtedness in the last two classes has been
widely different. In New York, bonds and stocks have rarely
been issued otherwise than for improvements of a )perinanent
character, and of benefit to the entire city, such as its water supply, its parks, water front improvements, etc. For the new
parks and the new aqueduct since 1887, bonds to the extent of
$28,(00,000 have been issued. But in Brooklyn, the city at large
has, in many cases, assumed the cost, or a great part of the co!st,
"of street improvements of an ordinary character and of value
only to the property adjacent thereto and specially benefited
thereby. Hence we find that the net funded debt of New York
on September 30, 1894, was but $1039,888,589.48 against an assessed
real estate valuation of $1,61'3,057,735, leaving a margin under
the constitutional limitation of $57,417,184.02, while the net
funded debt of Brooklyn on October 1, 1894, was $49,164.000,
against an assessed real estate valuation of $500,752,349, leaving
a margin of only $911,234, and if the valuation of Flatbush, New
Utrecht and Gravesend, which were annexed in 1894. be added,
a total valuation of $525,762,827, the mlargin is but $3,412,282.
From the latter, however, should be deducted the outstanding
bonded indebtedness of these new districts, the amount of which
I have not been able to ascertain on inquiry at the comptroller's
office in Brooklyn.
It may be well also to bear in mind Brooklyn's financial standing prior to the recent laninexation of these outlying towns. In
1892 its real estate valuation was $467,112,182, and its net funded
debt $46,513,111.95, leaving a margin of but $198,106.25, and in
1893 the valuation was $486,531,506, and its net funded debt
$48,034,214.45, leaving a nmargin of $618,936. By the annexation
of these town1s it hlas increased its valuation so that it has now
appaIrently Ia nargin of over.$3.!0001,000. Evidently tilis annexation of 1894 has secured to it a slubstantial ability it did not before
[Senate, No. 44.]     5 




458


[SENATE,


possess to incur further expenditure. Does it propose to annex
to New York for the same reason?
To meet or provide for the payment of their respective funded
debts when they shall fall due, New York has a sinking fund of
$68,990,795.25, while Brooklyn's sinking fund is but $5,398,521.94.
New York's sinking fund, with its rapid accumulations will fully
and promptly meet every dollar of its present liability, but could
not possibly, with the slight increase it would receive upon
annexation, meet the combined obligations of both cities. That
this would injuriously affect the value of our securities in the
hands of all present holders is equally clear.
While it appears, therefore, that the present New York city
has sufficient power, but not more than sufficient, to meet the obligations which may be incurred, possibly within a short time, for
much needed permanent improvements, such as a municipal
rapid transit system, the completion of the " New Aqueduct,"
which will require new reservoirs and supply systems in the upper
part of the city, and in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards,
the laying out and improvement of these wards, as recently
planned, new docks and piers on the North and East rivers; the
small parks laid out within the last few years, and others much
needed in the lower part of the city, as the committee of seventy
has pointed out, Brooklyn has neither the power nor desire to
incur, on its own credit, such expenditures for similar improvements within its own limits, much needed as they may be.
To the owners of property and residents of the west side of
the city, the results of annexation would be especially disastrous.
For more than ten years we have been agitating and urging
additional rapid transit facilities, and  these, it is now
conceded, can only be obtained by municipal aid, by extending
thereto the city's credit, the acquisition of the water front adjacent to Riverside park, and the completion of the park itself.
From year to year these admittedly urgent improvements have
been postponed mainly for the reason, or upon the pretense, that
the expenditure involved would unduly increase the city debt. It
is safe to say that should the p)roposed annexation be carried,




No. 44.]


459


the immediate demands upon the public credit by Brooklyn, and
of the 297 square miles of annexed territory, would postpone
indefinitely the possibility of the realization of these to us most
important and necessary undertakings.
The question, therefore, upon which the people of New York
city are to pass at the coming election is niot only whether they
will assume annually a very substantial part of the ordinary
expenses of these outlying cities and towns, but whether they
will surrender their ability to incur an indebtedness for permanent improvements which are only needed at the present time but
demanded by the progress of the city. And that they are asked
to surrender this and assume the cost of improvements outside
of it, in which they are in no way interested, is very apparent from
the legislation of last winter, and the recent public utterances
of the advocates of annexation. See chapter 758, providing for
a park and parkway in Brooklyn, apparently a water front boulevard to Coney Island, to be paid for by the issue of city bonds.
In the address issued by the Municipal Consolidation Commission it is said: "Consolidation means no more than the formation
of a partnership between an established and prosperous firm and
the younger members of the family." The present area of New
York city is 38.85 square miles. The proposed "Greater New
York" will contain 317.77 square miles. The "established and
prosperous"' 38, whose resources are scarcely sufficient for their
own immediate wants, are called upon to at once assume all the
obligations and assist and establish the younger and additional
279 "members of the family," who have no resources whatever.
At the public meeting held at the City Hall, Mr. Green, among
other things, said, referring to the necessity of building a great
drain along the valley of the Bronx river from VWestchester
County: "New York has no authority to enter upon the Westchester side even to make surveys. Much less have the towns of
the Westchester side the willingness to contribute their share of
the expense of this great main drain so essential to the development of both sides."




460


[SENATE,


A comparison of the most recent financial statements of New
York city and Brooklyn (I have been unable to obtain within the
brief time allowed, any information from the other smaller cities,
towns and villages), will sufficiently illustrate the result upon
future taxation in, and the ability of, the "Greater New York"
to institute and carry out public improvements payable by the
issue of bonds and stocks.
First. Comparative ability of New York city and Brooklyn to
incur indebtedness for public improvements within the constitutional limitations.
NEW YORK CITY.
City debt September 30, 1894................. $172,879,384 73
Less sinking fund..........................  68,990,795 25
Net funded  debt.......................  $103,888,589  48
Total valuation of real estate................. $1,61:3,057,7350 00
Constitutional limit of indebtedness..........  161,305,773 50
Excess of constitutional limitation over indebtedness..................................  57,417,184  02
BROOKLYN.
City debt as represented in bonds and stocks on
October 1, 1894.........................  $54,562,521 94
Less amount held in sinking fund............  5.,398,521 94
Net city debt October 1, 1894.............49,164,000 00
Total valuation of real estate, including Flatbush, New Utrecht and Gravesend, annexed
in 1894...................................   0$52.5,7(2,827 (
Constitiilional limitation, ten per cent........,5,576,282 70
Excess of constitutional limitation over debt...:1,412,282 70
Fronmthis should be deducted the indebtedness of three annexed
towns.




No. 44.]


4(61


Second. Annual taxation as affected by the annexation of
Brooklyn.
NEW YORK — TAXATION FOR 1894.
The assessed valuation (real and personal) of
New York city for 1894 is................. $2,003,332,037 00
Total taxes for 1894.........................  35,659,026 78
Or equal to rate of $1.779 per $100. But owing to the difference in rate of taxation of personal estate of corporations, jointstock companies, upon personal estate and real estate, the rate
is: Upon personal estate of corporation, $1.58 per $100; upon
real and personal estate generally, $1.79 per $100.
BROOKLYN - TAXATION FOR 1894.
The assessed valuation for Brooklyn for 1894 is, $506,054,676 00
Total taxes for 1894.........................  14,466,271  90
Rate of taxation, $2.86 per $100. As taxes are assessed in
Brooklyn by wards, at different rates, the rate runs from $2.71
for the nineteenth ward to $2.91 for the tenth ward.
NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN ANNEXED.
If Brooklyn should be annexed to New York the result would be:
Valuation New York city................... $2,003,332,037 00
Valuation Brooklyn.......................  506,054,676 00
Total valuation....................... $2,509,366,713 00
Taxation New York city.....................  $35,658,026 78
Taxation Brooklyn........................    14,468,271 90
Total..................................  $50,127,298 58
Or equal to rate of $1.997 per $100, of which
New York city's proportion would be
$2,003,332,037 at $1.997...................  $40,018,360 24
Of which Brooklyn's proportion would be
$506,054,676, at $1.997.....................  10,108,897 60
Or New York city's taxes increased by........  4,359,334 36
Brooklyn's taxes reduced by.................  4,359,374 30




462


[SENATE,


Third. A further increase of New York taxation to equalize
salaries.
The principal items of annual expenditure in both cities, exclusive of State taxes and interest on the city debt, and for the redemption of the city debt, are:


Police department. 
Fire department...
Board of education,


New York.
$5,139,147 64
2,240,397 00
4,634,137 27


Brooklyn.
$2,027,650 00
1,259,030 00
2,331,924 00


Total..
$7,166,797 64
3,499,427 00
6,966,061 27


Total..................................  $17,632,285  90


Of these amounts there was expended for salaries:
New York.     Brooklyn.     Total.
Police department.. $4,506,570 00 $1,916,000 00 $6,425,570 00
Fire department... 1,467,280 00   710,900 00  2,178,180 00
Board of education, 3,684,470 00  1,772,268 00  5,456,738 00


Total................................    $14,060,488  00


Upon annexation the equalization of salaries (raising the same
to those now paid in New York city) would result, taking the
average of the salaries now paid in each department, as follows:
Police department, 5,368 officers and employes,
at  $1,232.47............................  $6,115,898  96
Fire department, 1,679 officers and employes, at
$1,376.20................................   2,310,639   80
Board of education, 7,812 officers and employes,
at  $771.13............................  6,024,067  96
Total.................................  $14,950,406  72


Making increase of taxation to equalize salaries
in those departments......................
To this may be added for similar increase to
equalize salaries and wages in all other departments...............~..............


$889,918 72


500,000 00




No. 44.]


463


To which also add additional amount required
to equalize salaries of policemen under chapter 741, Laws of 1894, increasing salaries of
patrolmen and roundsmen.................


$1,143,750 00


Making a total increase of taxation to equalize salaries and wages.................
This added to present amount raised by taxation,


$2,533,668 72
50,127,298 68


Making total taxation...................


$52,660,967 40


Making rate of taxation, $2.098.
New York city's share in proportion to valuation,
Present taxation of New York city...........


$42,128.774 32
35,659,026 78


Increase in annual taxation of New York city,


$6,469,747 54




If New York desires to extend its limits at all, such extensions
should be to the northward and take in the towns and villages
close to its present northerly boundary, and extending to Long
Island Sound. The Sound and the East river are at present the
natural boundaries of all our important city interests. Even this
at present time would be premature, and may be well laid aside
until we have secured municipal rapid transit and additional
school accommodations, the completion of our public parks, large
and small, and of the new aqueduct, its reservoirs and system
of distribution, the laying out and improvement of the twentythird and twenty-fourth wards, and the renovation of our pavements and sewerage system. Providing for these, even with the
utmost economy, will exhaust our ability under the Constitution,
and increase the burthen of annual taxation.
Very respectfully yours,
JAMES A. DEERING.
NEW YORK, October 22, 1894.




461


[SENATE,


MIR. DOREMUS:
3Mr. P'resident and U(entlemciii: 1' y tlhe last Legislature an act
was passed intended to elicit at the election to be held on November 6th next, an expression of opinion by the inhabitants of the
counties of New York, Kings, Queens and Richmond on the
question of annexing to the present city of New York the territory contained within the three counties last named.
While the opinion thus expressed by the inhabitants of the
proposed " Greater New York" will accomplish nothing practically, it will surely lead, if the majo.rity of votes be in the affirmative, to an act of consolidation by a subsequ(ent Legislature,
which act will most likely not be submitted to tile people for
ratification or rejection.
With Chicago pressing New York so closely in the number of
her population it is natural, perlhaps, to desire that our boundaries be extended to take in as much( territory as Chicago to-day
does, and thereby show a population double that of the latter
city.
It is, however, very necessary that voters inform themselves
thoroughly as to what is involved by the proposed annexation.
The question of taking Brooklyn into our municipal limits is
the main factor and a matter of most serious import.
The debt of New York city is about $1()),000,000 on an
assessed valuation of $2(0(),())00,00((), or 5 per cent. The debt of
Brooklyn is about $50,000,000 on an assessed valuation of $500,000,000, or 10 per cent.
This comparison, however, does not by any means show the relative situation financially of the two cities, because while New
York real estate is not assessed for purposes of taxation at more
than one-half its value, in Brooklyn it is assessed for fully threefourths, and I frequently find instances where the assessment for
purposes of taxation is greater than the value of the property.
Take the following instance of Brooklyn assessments for the
purl)ose of taxation.




No. 44.]


465


Value
of property. Assessed at
1.....................................  $14,000   $11,000
2....................................   7,000    5,700
3....................................  9,000     6,500
4....................................  9,000     6,500
5....................................  27,500   25,000
6....................................  11,400    8,400
7.....................................    9,000     7,000
8.....................................    8,000     5,800
9.....................................   13,000    12,300
10.....................................   7,000     7,500
$114,900   $95,700
Showing total value of these ten properties to be $114,900,
while they are assessed for purposes of taxation by the city of
Brooklyn, $95,700.
On these excessive valuations for purposes of taxation, the rate
in Brooklyn is almost three per cent. per annum, while in New
York, on a much lower assessment, it is considerably under two
per cent.
No public improvement, such as our new bridges, viaduct,
speedway, thousands of acres of parks, can be made in Brooklyn,
because she is in debt to-day up to the constitutional limit, and
every dollar extorted from taxpayers on the scale shown above
is either used in payment of interest on the existing debt or
absorbed by the ring by which she is governed.
A couple of years ago, after years of effort in that direction,
the Brooklyn Congressmen got an act passed selling to the city
part of the navy yard land for market purposes, at a price of
$1,00(,000. The transaction could not be carried out, because
the city had no money to pay for the land, and the Constitution
of the State properly debarred her from incurring further indebtedness, so that Mayor Boody made an arrangement with the then
Secretary of the Treasury to give a year or more of time for the
payment.
[Senate, No. 44.]     59




466


[SENATE,


Whereby by still further increasing their already enormous
tax valuations it was made possible to issue bonds and pay for
this land from the proceeds of them, or whether the land be not
paid for yet to-day I do not know.
It is no wonder that, in Brooklyn, a most active consolidation
league has been formed, with branches in every ward, to further
this scheme to foist a city practically bankrupt into partnership
on equal terms with the prosperous metropolis.
It is a matter of easy calculation to ascertain to what an
enormous extent the annual taxes on New York city realty will
be increased, as things stand to-day, if this scheme of consolidation be consummated.
And when we consider that Brooklyn, in everything that pertains to the making of a city, has been starved for generations;
that half of her streets to-day are paved with cobble stones and
boulders, many of them the size of a flour barrel; that her water
supply is entirely inadequate to her population; that Prospect
park is the only park worth mentioning within her borders, and
that in almost every respect she is lacking in everything which
goes to make a large city attractive, we can faintly imagine what
a scramble there would be on the part of her population immediately after her annexation to New York to have all these things
supplied to her at the expense of the New York city of to-day.
It behooves every one who has the interest and further progress
of New York city at heart, not only to vote against consolidation,
but to see that all whom he can influence, and who may not be
aware of the evil effects of consolidation, do the same.
MR. ROMAINE:
In explanation, Mr. Chairman, of the last clause, I will say that
I do not now personally represent any one from the twenty-third
or twenty-fourth wards, although Mr. Levey has appeared here
as the individual reptresentative of his own interest, anld ex-M'ayor
Ely's interest, and they hatve several associations up1 there
whichi now desire to have at full hearing on I Ihis sblllje (ct, bcause
they are convinced that it means the practicael cessation of the




No. 44.]


467


appropriations for that district if we have any so-called equalization of taxes and valuation.
MR. LEXOW:
It means more, does it not? It means those upper wards of
New York city are opposed to consolidation as a principle; that
their representation in the Senate last year are opposed to
consolidation.
MR. ROMAINE:
It may be, sir.
MR. LEXOW:
It means that the consolidation will redound to the benefit
of Brooklyn, and take from them the natural increment of the
population they will get if Brooklyn is not annexed or consolidated
with New York.
MR. ROMAINE:
That I understand is their view, but they are in the habit of being
heard very distinctly when they are given an opportunity. It is
a long distance from here to the Harlem river, and I know one of
their counsel could not get here to-day, as he is out of town; and
they will undoubtedly be present and ask of your committee a
day on which their side of the case can be heard; therefore, I
have purposely refrained from including the name of Mr. Haffen,
the commissioner of street improvement for that district, and the
concourse commissioners, and possibly certain others connected
with the immediate development of that locality, and I have
omitted to include in the general development of the city of New
York the aqueduct commissioners, and the tenement-house commission that are applying to the Legislature, I believe now, for an
expenditure of $5,000,000 a year for certain purposes. Mr. Chairman, that my own position may be clearly understood, I state I
own neither dock property or tenement-house property, so I
am not h]r( in the position of a pIleaidler for condemnation proc(odinrils (on the part of the city of New York. I would not be




468


[SENATEs.


affected by the expenditure of all these moneys which, largely by
mandatory legislation, has been put on the city of New York.
They would not affect my individual property in the slightest
degree. We therefore respectfully ask for an adjournment of the
meeting for that purpose.
MR. LExow:
Have you any further argument to make to-day, or would anybody here like to be heard?
MR. SETH Low:
I would like to be heard as a New York merchant.
MR. ROMAINE:
I would like to ask, as a taxpayer, that any citizen and taxpayer in the city of New York who appears here in advocacy of
the scheme of equal taxation, may hereafter be held amenable to
the process of this committee, so we can have his testimony under
oath. We are not asking for testimony at present from gentlemen
in Brooklyn, or Long Island City, or Staten Island; but I would
simply like to reserve that right, Mr. Chairman, to the league
which I represent, that we may hereafter call these gentlemen,
if we see fit, and examine them; or that you may call them, Mr.
Chairman, under oath hereafter; and that we may have the
opportunity to cross-examine.
MR. GRADY:
Mr. Romaine, you can see the granting of the application made
by you would put the Legislature practically in arrears.
MR. ROMAINE:
We only ask for time for a hearing.
MR. GRADY:
Yes; but Vyol wisli these gentlemen to be sub)poenaed at such
time as you suggest; and the time for hearing would de)(end on




No. 44.]


469


the time you might set. There would be a good deal of cumulative
testimony if we only subpoenaed those gentlemen named.
MR. ROMAINE:
That may be so, quite largely. The comptroller has already
testified before the Supreme Court Commission in the matter of
rapid transit that the vote of 1894, taken at the same time, as
the expression of the opinion of the citizens of New York that
fifty million dollars should be spent, could not be carried out by
the city in his opinion, with the other expenses passed by mandatory legislation. Rapid transit could not be carried out, if this
thing went through in its present form.
MR. GRADY:
I understand that to be the result attained by all the testimony
taken. Of course we could not disturb the fact, that is, of New
York city if consolidated with Brooklyn and the other territory
under the terms of fair and equal taxation, will certainly at the
inception of the consolidation be subjected to greater burdens
of taxation than it now bears, and that Brooklyn and other localities will be to the same extent relieved. Would the inquiry go
any further than that.
MR. ROMAINE:
I think it would go further. I think it relates to the legal status
of the sinking fund of New York, whether it can, or shall be
diverted by legislation.
MR. GRADY:
There is not in this question now before the committee any
possibility of at all interfering with the sinking fund or determining its legal status, or disturbing it.
MR. ROMAINE:
You are aware that the question of the status of the sinking
fund went to the Court of Appeals.




470


[SENATE,


MR. GRADY:
I am; but here is the position of this committee: We are now
hearing those who are in favor of the consolidation of New York
and the adjoining territory upon the ground that the people
have voted for it upon the one hand; and those who believe that
notwithstanding that vote, for some reason that political consolidation should not take place. Then there is the other element to
which our attention is called, if the political consolidation is
decided upon, shall it be on lines of fair and equal taxation. I
am, in my personal judgment and opinion, an anti-consolidationist; first, for all the reasons that have been stated, that I think
New York will have enough to do to take care of itself. I am
opposed to it upon the political ground that the Constitution provides that this great community shall never have more than
one-half of the representation of the Senate, even if it has threequarters of the population.
MR. ROMAINE:
Those matters we have not touched on.
MR. GRADY:
I want to say on both of those grounds I am opposed to it myself; but how is any man who holds his commission by reason
of a public vote going to get from under the vote that instructed
the Legislature that in the opinion of all these localities, consolidation should be had. Now that is a point to which I think
all legitimate discussion before this present committee should be
directed. How can you get from under this vote? You say there
were circumstances attending it that do not make it a finality.
What vote can you get that will be so relieved from c-ircumlst ances
that affect it that it will be considered a finality? What objection
can be urged to that vote that can not be urged to the vote on a
constitutional amendment? How is any man who is appointed
under representation of that vote to get from under that vote?
That disturbs the committee. There are others who think they
iee their way clear to avoiding that question.




No. 44.]


471


MR. ROMAINE:
We will present our side on that question at length at the
proper time; and if you will allow me, Mr. ChairmanMR. LEXOW:
That was the very reason why I suggested to you at the beginning, that this argument of yours and this testimony you seek
to take here would be more properly addressed to this committee
if this committee reported in favor of political consolidation at
all, and then upon the terms and conditions, and ways and means
whereby actual and final consolidation can be secured, this
argument you now make can be more properly addressed. Here
we have to deal with the simple consolidation or carrying into
effect the popular vote of 1894; and the argument about Brooklyn,
although it did go into the question of taxation and subsiduary
questions, were mainly addressed to the committee to show that
on the part of the anti-consolidation commission that that vote
had some point, and some reason behind it why it should be disregarded.
MR. ROMAINE:
This is New York and not Brooklyn, and we believe we have
cogent reasons; we believe we can show them to you.
MR. LEXOW:
We will hear you on other reasons, then.
MR. ROMAINE:
Will the committee, if the chairman please, be in a position
to announce that it will remit all those questions to a future day
to discussion on taxation, and will address itself solely to the political union; that it will cut off debate on the other side of the East
river, who claim that they stand on the foundation of a reduction
of taxation for Brooklyn? No. sir; you have not done it radically.
MR. LExow:
I think it is perfectly proper for vou to bring that into debate




472


[SEN AT,


in debating the motion proposed, but not to make an issue or point
here which will distract the committee from the main proposition,
which is, " Shall this committee report back to the Legislature
its belief that the popular vote of 1894 should be adhered to?"
MR. ROMAINE:
I think we would greatly desire to be heard to-day on that
point.
MR. A. A. LEVEY:
Mr. Chairman: I would like the privilege of a few words in
addition to what I said before directed particularly to this question, and what you yourself and the Hon. Senator Grady said,
as to the effect upon your committee as published on this referendum vote which was taken in 1894. From the published statements of the proceedings in Brooklyn I understand that you,
yourself, Mr. Chairman, repeatedly asked the question whether
that vote might not be considered as an estoppel upon the Legislature on the main question of consolidation. Now as matters
very properly bearing on that question, I hold in my hand here
a publication which appeared in the New York Sun, October 26,
1894, which was a reprint of a publication issued by the commission, of which Mr. Green was chairman. I will read the whole
of it. This was just prior to the vote of 1894: "At the coming
general election the question will be put before the people of this
city, of Brooklyn, and of a considerable surrounding territory
on the northern and eastern boundaries of these two cities,
whether, in their opinion, it will be better or not to make this
whole territory one great municipality. It is an important question and one which should be thought about and carefully discussed so that by the time election day comes around, a little
more than a month hence, all the electors may be prepared to cast
their ballots upon this subject with an intelligent purpose.
" In this article it is not proposed to enter into the merits of the
consolidation scheme, but to put before the reader a clear idea of
what he is about to be asked to vote upon.




No. 44.]


473


"For many years efforts have been made to bring New York city
and Brooklyn under a single government. Each city has had
territory added to it in the meantime until New York city has
absorbed the county that it stood in and taken in a lot more of
land to the north of it, and Brooklyn under the action of the recent
laws by which it has acquired Coney Island and other places, will
soon include all of Kings county.
"The Consolidation League of Brooklyn and Mr. Andrew H.
Green and his associates in this city, who believe that it will be
of advantage to go on with such work and bring the two cities
and some of their surrounding towns into one compact municipality, got the Legislature last winter to pass the following bill:
"Chapter 64.- An act providing for the submitting the question
of consolidation of the city of New York with certain territory
under a single municipal administration to a vote of the people.
{Chapter 64 of the Laws of 1894. And publishing that bill which
provided that at the next general election held in this city there
should be submitted to a vote of the duly qualified electors of the
said territory the question of consolidation under one municipal
government. Now, that was the whole extent of the notice that
was given to the voters of the territory affected as to the question
that was to be brought before them for the exercise of their
franchise: 'The question of its consolidation under one municipal
government.' That was all the notice the electors had. That
was the question upon which they voted; nothing more, nothing
less. Now, after publishing this act, this circular of this commission prints a map of the territory, and winds up with these
remarks: ' The accompanying map shows just what territory it
is proposed to include in the new city, and it is the electors living
within these limits that will be called upon to decide whether they
will cast the ballot which reads for consolidation or the one
against it.'
"The questions which the voters will naturally ask now are:
"What will be the outcome of this if there is a majority vote for
consolidation?
[Senate, No. 44.]    60




474


[SENATE,


"If one great city be erected in place of the two big ones and the
surrounding towns and village governments, what form of government is to succeed these?
"Will New York also absorb the others and take them under the
wing of its present city government, or will an entirely new
organization follow?
"The present vote will settle none of these questions. The voter
need not bother himself at all about them. Whether he votes
for or against his ballot, either singly or aggregated with all the
others cast, will not have a particle of legal weight. If every
vote were cast in favor of consolidation the only thing that would
be accomplished would be to furnish the advocates of the Greater
New York with a cogent and perhaps overwhelming argument to
prove to the next Legislature that the necessary laws should be
passed to carry out their demand.
" This is the whole purpose of the vote. The friends of the
Greater New York have arranged this in this manner purposely.
Had the law made it obligatory for the coming Legislature to
pass laws to carry out the consolidation of this territory in case of
a favorable vote, it would have been a grave question as to whether
such an enactment, seeking to bind the action of a future legislative body, would have been constitutional.
" All the questions, therefore, which might arise as to how the
Greater New York is to be governed, will be fought out in the
Legislature. What you are to decide is whether you want a
Greater New York or not, and whether you wish to become a part
of it."
Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of that statement published
by this Consolidation League it is very clear that neither the
Legislature or your committee is at all estopped by the question of
the vote of 1894 from considering the entire question of consolidation in its details as res nova.
MR. LEXOW:
Then any suggestion I made or you made on the first argument before the committee was that when the question of detail




No. 44.]


475


was reached, it should more properly be addressed to the committee after we have decided the main proposition as to whether
consolidation shall take place.
MR. LEVEY:
Mere inchoate consolidation, without any details whatever.
Without affecting the office or tenure of office of any office holder
in any part of this district, a mere expression of opinion. Have
you got no further than that. Then I say you should follow the
mandate of the people in this vote; but I say after that vote it is
impossible that you can consider yourself estopped from anything
more than a mere declaration by the Legislature that these territories shall be consolidated. Your bill makes it mandatory upon
this commission to enact a system of equal and uniform taxation;
that is the expression.
MR. LExOW:
They propose bills to the Legislature, they can not enact any
thing.
MR. LEVEY:
You suggest whether it is desirable that the bill shall be proposed. You should consider the question or you should
not have come saying that you are estopped by the legislation
passed, which compels you to say the taxation shall be uniform.
MR. GRADY:
It may raise the question whether you shall have consolidation
at all. If you are not going to have consolidation upon the line
of fair and equal taxation, I do not think there can be any
difference of opinion about this committee being able to decide
that you can not have consolidation at all.
MR. LEVEY:
I rather agree with the Senator myself on that point.




476


[SENATE,


MR. GRADY:
Why not face the question.
MR. LEVEY:
If the chairman takes the view that this vote of the people of
1894 is a mandate compelling the Legislature to make a report
in favor of consolidation and leave the details afterwards to be
considered -- which I should consider very absurd legislationwhy, I can not object to it; but it goes on further.
ANDREW H. GREEN:
Allow meMR. LEXow:
You are in favor of consolidation, I suppose?
MR. GREEN':
I believe I am.
MR. LEXOW:
I want to ask a question. I want to correct a statement made
by the gentleman. It speaks of the Consolidation League. Did
you mean the Consolidation League, or the consolidation commission?
MR. LEVEY:
I simply read what is in there.
MR. GREEN:
This is an article in the newspaper, not published by any consolidated league.
MR. LEVEY:
It is contemporaneous.
MR. GREEN:
I do not wish to interrupt, as it is taking up the time of the
other side.




No. 44.]


477


MR. LEVEY:
That statement has considerable value as contemporaneous
evidence.
MR. GREEN:
It is a newspaper statement.
MR. LEXOW:
I think, however, Senator Grady is stating the position of this
committee with absolute accuracy; that is, that every location
shall be treated fairly.
MR. ROGERS:
Mlay I say this one word; fair and equal taxation has a very
plausable sound; but when two partners come together in the
way of business, one putting in ten thousand dollars, and the other
putting in fifty thousand dollars, should the one putting in ten
thousand dollars receive a greater proportion of benefit than the
one who puts in fifty thousand dollars? I think not.
A VOICE:
That depends on the amount of brains contributed.
MR. ROGERS:
I think so. Fair and equal taxation would be to let the city of
Brooklyn pay its share of expenses and the city of New York pay
its share; that would be fair and equal taxation.
MR. GRADY:
What I desire to be understood as saying is that from my
experience it is not practicable to attempt to pass nor is it profitable to discuss any bill that will provide for a consolidation,
unless we provide that all of the new territory should be treated
alike in the matter of assessment and taxation.




478


[SENATE,


MR. ROMAINE:
I would simply state that the former comptroller of the city
of New York is of the opinion - Mr. Theodore W. Meyer - that
consolidation is practicable having taxable units, as it has now.
MR. GRADY:
It is practicable?
MR. ROMAINE:
Yes.
MR. GRADY.
The practicability that I am discussing is the practicability of
getting seventy-six votes in the Assembly.
MR. ROMAINE:
I understand you. He says as a financial problem it is quite
practicable.
MR. GRADY:
I understand that; but I say the question is not an advisability
question, as you might think that while you do not appear opposing political consolidation, but appear here only opposing the
equal and uniform taxation of all the new territory, in case a
bill should pass that that is one and the same question. You
might as well not attempt to pass a bill that would provide
political consolidation without all the territory was treated alike
in the matter of assessments and taxation. I am not one of the
majority of the Legislature, and perhaps I ought not to speak
for it, except as an old and intimate friend hlas a feeling on that
subject.
MR. ROMAINE:
I will ask the committee if they will be kind enough to rule on
our colmmittee's ap)plication for an adjournment.




No. 44.]


479


MR. LEXOW:
The committee will take that into consideration in executive
session.
MR. ROMAINE:
Will we have an announcement of it?
MR. LExow:
I can not say. We will probably consider it immediately after
this session. and probably announce the decision. That will rest
with the majority of the committee. Is there anybody else who desires to speak against consolidation?
MR. LOWE:
I desire to speak against it. I desire to protest, Mr. Chairman,
against any action being taken by the Legislature of New York,
or by this committee, on the basis of the vote of 1894. Now, while
it may be admitted by some that from a view taken in accord with
the letter of the law we are committed to the question of consolidation, when we take the spirit of the law into consideration we.are committed to nothing whatever of the kind; and I also protest, Mr. Chairman, against a vote which is called a vote of
opinion before election, without any finality about it whatsoever,
being called the will of the people after election. Now, I think
the people of Brooklyn know the difference between their opinions
and their will; and when they voted on this question they did
not express their will. The act which was passed by the Legislature of the State of New York said nothing about the will of the
people; it merely said "an expression;" so it is idle talk. It
is un-American talk to speak of the people of Brooklyn expressing their will on the subject of consolidation; and I call
you to witness, gentlemen, that the papers and the hostile
press had in every direction since the election spoken of
the opinion of the city of Brooklyn as the will of the city
of Brooklyn. I need not say that the people of Brooklyn know the
difference between an expression of their opinion and an expres



480


[SENATE,


sion of their will, and so I believe of every American citizen.
Now, I am opposed to consolidation because I have honest
convictions on the subject, that it is much better for New York,
and much better for Brooklyn not to consolidate. I speak from
the standpoint, of course, to-day as a merchant of New York;
and I also speak more or less directly as a resident of Brooklyn;.
and I am sure that I have as much the interest of the one at
heart as I have the other; and I do not feel that this all-important
question has received the consideration that it ought to have.
A question of this magnitude, affecting the entire interest of the
whole country to an extent which perhaps no one realizes. The
metropolis of the United States is something more than a big city.
It means that it affects every man and woman in the United States
in the same degree; and I say that it is a question of the very first
magnitude, for every American. citizen, as well as for every
resident of New York and Brooklyn; and I say that I welcome the
hearings which have been given to the citizens of Brooklyn and
New York, for the reason that they let in a great deal of light
upon this important subject; and I feel that even with the best intentions in the world - and I think you will find in the city of New
York as good people as you will find anywhere in the world - it
is foolish to suppose that the people living anywhere else are
better or worse in any respect, but with the best intentions in the
world, I do not believe it is in the power of New York to do justice
to the people that of necessity should have it really at arms length.
It is, therefore, that I urge and respectfully pray that this question receive more and thorough attention. When the city of
London was consolidated the matter was considered most exhaustively. They had meeting after meeting, and thousands of individuals were invited, and -thousands and thousands of reports were
sent in; but it has been our experience in that respect that the
matter has been in charge of a commission of inquiry. Now, Mr.
chairman, may I ask to what extent this commission of inquiry
has inquired? Has it consulted, for instance, in Brooklyn, the
men who occupy tieh most responsible positions there, who are
most interested tllhre? JIhs it called alany pullic meetin g? I saw




No. 44.]


481


a statement the other day to the effect that it had not held a
meeting there for twelve years.
MR. GREEN:
May I answer the question?
MR. LowE:
I an very happy to have Mr. Green answer it.
MR. GREEN:
You alluded to a statement made in the paper that we had not
had a meeting for twelve years. We have not been in existence
longer than six years, so it would not be possible to have it in
twelve years. This thing started in 1890. We had meeting after
meeting and public hearings advertised in the paper for four or
five years, and men from Brooklyn and New York appearing
before us, gathered all the statistics of debt and taxable areas;
and therefore, I want to make public that fact in the newspapers,
as I have no doubt the gentleman speaks with fairness.
MR. LExow:
You refer to your memorial setting forth all those facts.
MR. LOWE:
I am glad to know that statement in the paper is not correct.
The gentleman who has spoken, I think, refers to the time of the
appointment of the present commission. I am not sure whether
there was not another commission prior to the present one. At
any rate this question has been talked about, of course, for a long
time informally; but nevertheless, speaking of the report of that
commission, after the vote of 1894, I tried in vain to procure a
single report of that commission. I sent to Albany to get this
report; and finally, in order to get what there was to be had,
I sent to Mr. Green's office, and I received a small pamphlet on
the subject. Now, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I do not think
that this question has received the consideration to which it is
rScnate, No. 44.]    61




482


[SENATE,


entitled; and I think it is only fair that a committee should be
appointed to investigate the commission itself, and to find out
to what extent it is an inequality for the citizens of Brooklyn
and for the citizens of New York, and find out exactly what it
has done. Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the work of this
commission has been mostly voluntary. Under those circumstances
I can easily see that they would be limited in their belief to do the
question justice; and I think that it is only fair that you should
have ample means and ample facilities placed at your disposal
in order that a proper investigation may be made; but I do say
that I think when the investigation of the committee is made that
it will be found that they have had no facility for giving the
matter proper attention, and therefore, I respectfully protest
against any action being taken by the Legislature of the State of
New York until this matter has received the consideration to which
it is entitled.
MR. LEXOW:
Does anybody desire to speak further against consolidation?
MR. CLARENCE WINTHROP BOWEN:
I desire to say a word.
MR. LEXOW:
The first hearing is against consolidation. Are you against it?
MR. BOWEN:
Yes, I think so; a word on that. I have been asked to come here
and say a word on the subject, and I wish to say this, if you will
kindly allow me to, that inasmuch as a number of hearings have
been given to the citizens of Brooklyn, that an equal number should
be given to the citizens of New York, and that we should be in no
hlrry to close this matter to-day or Monday; but that we should
take ample time to consider it in every respect. I was born in
Brooklyn, and have lived there most of my life, but at present
a citizen of New York; and I believe the citizens of Brooklyn, as




No. 44.]


483


well as the citizens of New York, wish consolidation; but they
wish it in a way that will be honorable to both cities, and fair to
both cities, and certainly there can be no harm in the fullest discussion. I would suggest - perhaps the suggestion has already
been made- that the mayor of this city, and the heads of the
different departments and some of the leading members in this city
be especially requested to come here and give their views. Certainly there can be no harm in that. I would, therefore, repeat, viz.:
That the fullest hearing be given, and the fullest investigation
be made before your honorable committee make its recommendations at Albany.
MR. LEXOW:
Does anybody else desire to be heard against consolidation?
If not, the hearing four to-day on that branch of the subject will be
closed, and those who are in favor of consolidation will be heard,
if they desire it.
MR. ROMAINE:
At what time does the committee sit?
MR. LEXOW:
That will depend on whether those in favor of consolidation
wish to do any talking. We will sit two hours if those desiring
consolidation wish to be heard.
MR. GRADY:
We can arrange, Mir. Romaine, to notify you and your colleagues of the decision of the committee on the point you raised.
MR. ROMAINE:
I sin/ply want, if the committee overrules me, to be on record.
MR. LEXOW:
You probably would like to hear the argument on the other side.




484


[SENATE,


MR. ROMAINE:
I would only ask, on behalf of the taxpayers of New York, that
if any citizen of New York appears before you in advocacy of the
equalization of taxes involved in consolidation, that we be allowed
the privilege, in case we have an investigation under oath, that
we may examine them under oath, and that the subpoena of the
commission issue to them. I desire to place on record one communication on the subject that is about to be closed; and if you
will allow me, I will hand that up to the desk. I wish to present
to you the two articles in the Record and Guide of February 1,
1896, and also a letter signed by Mr. Alfred T. White, of Brooklyn.
The articles are as follows:
"A correspondent, writing to us from Brooklyn asks: 'Where
do you stand on the question of consolidation? Are you for or
against? The Record and Guide is as much a Brooklyn as a New
York journal - in fact, isn't it the representative of real estate
in Greater New York? —and it should lean to the interests of
Brooklyn as well as to those of Manhattan Island.' This extract
exhibits the working of the ordinary mind; upon every vexing
question under the sun one is to take at once a definite stand at
either extreme of the problem. The middle ground, where thought
and self-instruction is possible, is never for a moment considered
tenable. It is this middle ground, however, that the Record and
Guide occupies at present in reference to consolidation. We desire to have the subject intelligently treated. Up to the present
moment we have had very little except newspaper gush, ' politics '
and 'hurrah,' and we believe that to rush through so serious a
matter upon this stupid impetus is to, create for ourselves certain
confusion and a number of harassing problems. So far, tle creation of a Greater New York has received scarcely as much real
sober consideration, downright careful 'figuring,' as would be
given to the formation of a partnership between two,peanut
stands. The vital matters of taxation, finance, adminisration,
development of the proposed municipality, have scarcely been
dealt with at all. Indeed, from the marked absence of rational




No. 44.]


485


discussion as to the rmany problems that lurk under these details,
it might be imagined that consolidation involves nothing but a
legislative creation of a geographical expression - a sort of baptism, over which everybody can make merry, and then proceed
with business as before. Once establish our larger city, however,
and people will promptly discover that the difficulties and problems which they previously and blindly ignored will thrust tlhemselves imperatively to the front for solution. New Yorkers have
been strangely apathetic about consolidation. Will they be as
indifferent when they find themselves burdened with taxes for
needed municipal improvements in localities across the East river,
the proposition of which they are profoundly ignorant of? There
is no dodging the fact that New Yorkers will have to pay something for consolidation. If they are willing to foot the bill, well
and good. Anyone is entitled to what he will honestly pay his
cash for. But New Yorkers ought not to order goods and kick
afterward when the legitimate charges are demanded. Moreover, consolidation involves the abandonment of a long tradition
and the substitution of a new policy. New York hitherto has
regarded the north as the natural direction for civic expansion,
and has annexed beyond the Harlem a very vast territory, a great
part of which is yet undeveloped. All the superfluous resources
of the city for years to come will be needed to improve that
district and advance it to the condition of even many New Jersey
suburban towns. Under consolidation, is the capital of the city
henceforth to be deflected in part from the betterment of this
section in the north to the improvement of the outskirts of Broolklyn in the east? The question is not, where does the Record and
Guide 'stand' upon these matters, but where do the people of
this city, the real estate owners and taxpayers, stand?
"Messrs. Cyrus Clark, Cornelius Doremus, R. H. L. Townsend,
Benjamin F. Romaine, August A. Levey and James A. Deering, on
behalf of the Taxpayers' Anti-Equalization League of New York,
have issued an address to citizens and taxpayers of New York city
pointing out the probable effect upon property interests and public
improvements in this city if the consolidation of the various




486


[SENATE,


cities, towns and outlying villages to constitute ' Greater New
York' be carried into effect upon the basis proposed by the Consolidation Coimmission - the equalization )of taxation and valuation. The statement is one that must interest every citizen and
particularly such as are property owners. Those who desire to
peruse it and join in the work of the league should communicate
with its secretary pro tem., Mr. Levey, at No. 20 Nassau street,
room 65.
"The joint committee on consolidation has announced from
Albany that it will give a hearing on the subject of consolidation
in this city to-day. Presumably the place of hearing will be the
City Hall and the time 11 A. M."
The following is the letter from Mr. White:
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF CITY WORKS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING,
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 31, 1896.
MR. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Garfield Building, Brooklyn:
Dear Sir.- I received your letter yesterday morning and it is
now 6 o'clock P. M., and I have not yet had the opportunity to
look over Mr. Kieley's statement which you sent me. I read it
at the time he made it and have a general recollection of it. I do
not remember that Mr. Kieley opposed " Resubmission," which I
take it is the issue of the hour. The statements he made could,
with great propriety be discussed during a campaign prior to a
vote, but they seem to me of little account now when the main
issue is the right of citizens of Brooklyn to determine their own
future.
I think I recall that Mr. Kieley said there would be no additions
to the sinking fund prior to August, and, therefore, no opportunity
to issue bonds for improvements beyond the $2,300,000 on hand
January 1st. If he said this, he must have forgotten the items of
surplus water revenue, interest on sinking fund, etc., etc., which
will increase the margin between January and August some seven
or eight hundred thousand dollars, I think. I speak of this because




No. 44.]


497


people generally imagine that our only increase in resources is by
new buildings or increased valuations, which is an error. I remember, too, that he said something of public schools, in which matter
Brooklyn is far ahead of New York to-day that it would be retrogression for us to fall to her level. Nothing that Mr. Kieley said
has altered, in the least, my opinoin that Brooklyn,can'
go right along in a moderate way with all needed improvements
and that they will be made more rapidly and more wisely without
consolidation than with it. Of course, this is a matter of opinion
and I respect Mr. Kieley's judgment to the contrary, while I
differ from him. I have never seen anything in the treatment of
any annexed territory by any city, even our own, to warrant the
faith which he seems to have that a " Greater New York " would
spend more money on schools, pavements, parks, etc., in Brooklyn,
than we shall spend by ourselves, but as I said before, these are
questions to be discussed when the opportunity for discussion is
given by another vote.
I regret not to be able to oblige you by a reply in detail, but you
know something of the strain of closing up two years' work in this
department to leave it in clean shape for my successor.
Sincerely yours,
ALFRED T. WHITE.
ERASTUS WIMAN:
I desire to appear as an advocate for consolidation, for the
advantages that it will offer to New York in three things: That
it will check a decline of foreign commerce, which, at this moment,
is menaced to a great degree; second, by the proposed absorption
of Staten Island, it will check the decline in manufactures, which
New York is rapidly losing, and which, because of the disabilities
under which it suffers, enables cheap towns, such as Bridgeport,
New Haven, Paterson, Newark, Scranton, Reading, and even
Philadelphia, to compete most successfully against them; the
third, that by the proposed consolidation homes will be created
for the workingmen which are now impossible in New York. In
relation to ocean commerce, it is a fact that the disabilities which




488


[SENATE;,


it suffers in the harbor of New York are the most astonishing in
the history of the commerce of the world. The absorption of
Staten Island by consolidation would supply the three great
needs that New York now feels most acutely, that is, a place
for receipt, for storage, and for shipment. Because New York
lacks what Staten Island alone can supply, her foreign commerce
is rapidly declining; she can no longer compete with other near-by
towns in other States in manufactories, and worse than all, no
workingman within the city limits has the hope of a home. I
maintain that the hope of property is one of the strongest incentives of good government, and to deny to the wage-earner the
hope of a home of his own is to defeat the idea of perfect citizenship. By the acquisition of Staten Island all these three acquisitions to a perfect city could be placed within the city limits.
When they are united there is a perfect terminal furnished to
receive the commerce of the world. Now, we receive the commerce from.the world in Jersey City, store it in Brooklyn, and
have it transferred to New York; and if the devil had wished to
exert a malign influence to divert the ocean commerce from New
York and make it costly, that is the plan he would have recommended. That New York is not accessible to the trunk lines is
a fact of extreme importance to it, because it implies a system of
lighterage from New Jersey to New York which is the most costly
expenditure for the purpose of any in the world.
The decline in ocean commerce, I  maintain, can be checked by
making available under consolidation the wide stretches of water
front on the west shore of the commodious harbor of Staten
Island, and which, under consolidation, would be immediately
improved. This portion of the new city is the only portion of
the harbor within the State reachable by all the trunk lines west
of the Hudson,, which handle three-fourths of all the exports
and imports of this great center. New York, as she is to-day, is
completely isolated from this most important trunk line connection, and equally with Brooklyn, nothing can come or go from
either of them except at an expense for water communication by
floats or lighters. This involves a tribute so great that it has




No. 14.]


489


driven the commerce of the port away. On the Staten Island
shore the ships and the cars can come side by side, and here
alone in the harbor can the three great purposes of a terminal be
perfectly performed, namely, receipt, storage and shipment. We
are now receiving nine-tenths of our products in Jersey City,
storing them in Brooklyn and shipping it in New York. Hence,
you can ship a barrel of flour from Baltimore or Newport News
from the dock to Liverpool for less than it takes to handle it in
the harbor of New York. The figures presented show a decline
so great that if continued for ten years the foreign commerce of
New York would cease to exist.
The tribute levied on New York on its foreign commerce is
simply suicidal, and amounts to a vast sum. Thus the drayage
system which results from the absence of storage on the water
front cost no less a sum than thirty-five millions a year. The
number of drays are so great that stretched in a line west from
New York the oaths of the drivers could be heard-between each
other all the way to San Francisco. This vast tax added to
lighterage, which amounts to fifteen or twenty millions more,
make an annual tax on commerce of more than fifty millions a
year. Thus a million of dollars a week is taxed upon a commerce
largely for the interior and to avoid which it is going in other
directions. I will adduce the following figures to show the result
of this system of tribute:
FOREIGN COMMERCE OF NEW YORK.
Total.      Increase.   Decrease.
Fiscal year ending June
30, 1895...........  $934,290,314.......... $27,028,077
Fiscal year ending June
30, 1894...           961,318,391..........  73,047,013
Fiscal year ending June
30, 1893............  1,034,365,404..........  26,855,474
Fiscal year ending June
30, 1892............  1,061,220,878 $61,328,243..........


[Senate, No. 44.]


62




490


[SENATE.,


Thus it will be seen that the total decrease in three years, 1892
to 1895 inclusive, was $126,000,000. This vast sum is full of
significance to any thinking man.
The chief element in the foreign commerce of the port of New
York is the export of breadstuffs. If the tonnage that reaches
this port can not get a return cargo from this broad continent of
its products that the world requires of it, then shipping will cease
to come to this port. Hence, the true test of foreign commerce
are the figures as to the receipts and exports of flour, wheat and
corn. With this in mind note how startling are the following
figures, indicating a decline so great that, if it continues at the
same ratio, ten years will witness an almost total obliteration
of the traffic.
Receipts at New York average for five years, of flour, 7,000,000
barrels. For 1895, they averaged only 6,400,000.  Receipts of
wheat, for five years ending with 1894, averaged 43,000,000 bushels. Last year these receipts fell to 28,000,000 bushels, a most
startling decline. Of corn, the receipts for five years averaged
30,000,000 bushels. Last year they reached only 25,000,000.
The same starling decline appears also in the exports from
New York. Thus for five years exports of flour were 5,219,000
barrels, while for last year the export reached only 4,400,000
barrels. The exports of wheat for five years averaged 34,000,000
bushels, while in 1895 they attained only 24,000,000, a loss of
10,000,000, and a loss of over three million bushels in the exports
of corn.
The decline in the grain trade of New York in 1895, as compared with that of the five preceding years, will approach twenty
per cent., a percentage so startling and so significant as to set
every one thinking. For the last week, even, the movement in
corn is full of significance.  Thus while New York received
280,000 for distribution over the most densely populated area,
the one-horse port of Baltimore received 639,000, and far away
Newport News no less than 477,000 bushels, New Orleans receiving
nearly one-half the total movement, 1,107,000. This total movement amounted to 2,757,000 bushels, out of which the great port




No. 44.]


491


of New York received the beggarly quoto of only 280,000. These
figures speak in trumpet tones and indicate conditions here that
consolidation with Staten Island alone can remedy.
This remedy, that Staten Island once within the city can afford,
is that by the great railway bridge across the Staten Island sound
all the trunk lines west of the Hudson can be brought into immediate touch with the water front of such ample dimensions as
will permit storage at the cheapest shipment by the largest class
of steamers without cost of lighterage. No boom to the commerce
of the port would be so great as to effect a perfect union between
railway and ship, impossible either to New York or Brooklyn,
and equally difficult to Jersey City from want of room. The
astounding statement was made that cars loaded with flour waiting for storage and shipment to the extent of thirty miles now
were occupying tracks outside of Jersey City. Think of it! A train
thirty miles long loaded with a costly article like flour waiting
for shipment, tying up equipment, stopping transportation by
a car famine in the west, while miles of water front within the
harbor are available on the Staten Island shore, and if once within
the limits of New York would be used for the growth and permanence of the commerce of the port. No contribution to the continued supremacy of the port of New York would be so great as
to place within her control ten miles of fore-shore with the deepest
water available for the largest shipping, and immediately reachable by the greatest system of transportation the world has ever
seen making the great point of transfer for the products of the
continent to meet the tonnage of the world.
Mr. Wiman then proceeded to show how serious were the disabilities for manufacturers in Brooklyn and New York. No sane
man would enter either of these cities expecting to compete successfully with such cheap towns as Bridgeport, New Haven,
Newark or Paterson, Reading, Scranton or even Philadelphia.
Raw material and coal cost more to get from the wharf to the
factory than elsewhere for an equal distance in the world, while
finished products for distribution over the country could only be
conveyed to points for diffusion at a cost that handicapped every




492


[SENATE,


manufacturer within the limits of either city. As against this,
Staten Island offered access by the sea for raw material from all
parts of the globe; for co!al by train direct from the mine into the
bunker of the boiler; while for distribution of finished products
it would give a switch into the back yard to trunk lines from every
factory. No region could be imagined better adapted for manufacturing facilities than Staten Island affords, and New York will
bitterly rue the day if she does not include it within her borders
and possess herself of advantages which alone can arrest the
decadence of her manufacturing interests.
As for the workingman and his home the statement that ninety
per cent. of the populace within New York paid tribute to the other
ten per cent. for the privileges of shelter, shows how impossible
it is that within the city limits he could have a house of his own.
The hope of a home of the average wage-earner is the most hopeless of hopes. If it was a fact that the perfection of civilization
was found in the character of the home, then in New York the
home of the workingman shows that civilization is a failure. The
hope of property is the strongest incentive of citizenship, its
noblest ambition and its strongest basis, yet to nine-tenths of the
wage-earners of New York this hope is utterly denied. By the
acquisition of Staten Island this vast mistake could be remedied.
With its area of fifty-eight square miles of most diversified topography, and reachable from the Battery for a five cent ferry fare,
a region for workingmen's homes would be added to the city limits
by consolidation that would be of the highest importance morally,
physically and financially and makle it continue to be the greatest
city of the greatest country under the sun.
MR. ROMAINE:
I would like to know from the gentleman if he voted for the
referendum in Richmond county.
MR. WIMAN:
The gentleman is a British subject, and is not entitled to vote,
but has done more for the harbor of New York than any other
gentleman.




No. 44.]


493


MR. BRUSH:
He made the statement that there were no manufactories in
Brooklyn.
MR. WIMAN:
No; but they are far less than they ought to be.
MR. BRUSH:
I would like to read from a memorandum I have taken from the
United States census: In men's and women's clothing in Brooklyn,
there are employed 14,240, and the value of the output is
$13,000,000.
MR. WIMAN:
I did not mean to state that there was no manufacturing in
Brooklyn, because that would be very wide of the mark; but I say
they suffer from a disability, from a separation from the point of
distribution and the point of receipt of raw material, which is
mostly costly in coming to them, for which reason I projected the
tunnel under the bay.
GOVERNOR ROSWELL P. FLOWER:
I came here to-day rather unexpectedly, but I came here to say
that I, in my message of 1894, asked the Legislature to pass a
bill to give the people of New York and Brooklyn, and these
outlying places, a chance to vote on consolidation. I understood
from the papers that they voted for consolidation. I would not
be in favor of consolidation unless the people were; but if they
were in favor of it in these several great cities I could see great
advantage to flow from a consolidation under a home rule charter
and an honest government, and that is the only way the people
of these great cities can live under; and if they have any other
they will throw it off in time. So, therefore, I am in favor of the
consolidation of these great cities. The results to flow from, it,
as Mr. Romaine has said, are very great as far as your terminal
facilities are concerned - the cheaper you can make your terminal




494


[SENATE.


facilities, the cheaperyou can get your railroads and canals to bring
freight to this market, the greater will be the volume of businessin
exports from abroad and imports to this city. The manufacturing
industry always, under the shifting scenes in the tariff, will
naturally seek the best place in which to manufacture. The less
crowded, and the less freight they pay the better will be their
facilities. New York to-day is the greatest manufacturing city
in the world, and Brooklyn runs up pretty close to it. If you
can give them the proper facilities, if you can give them the proper
mode of getting to and from their homes quickly, if you can give
them cheap freight, and cheap truckage you can still retain in this
great city this great manufacturing interest for all tine to come.
To-day it is reaching out to Long Island City, it is reaching out to
Newark, New Jersey, and all along among these Jersey villages.
It will soon reach out to Staten Island; but give us clothes large
enough to stretch around this great body of people, and there are
good citizens enough in this city, in Brooklyn, in Staten Island,
in Long Island City to make this government what it ought to be.
It can not run itself. You may all be interested in it to-day; you
may stir it up all you have a mind to; but after one election they
all go to sleep. That is not the way to run this great city. It has
got to be run by active, vigilant, intelligent citizenship the year
around; and when that is done this great city can be run more
economically than it is now, with a Greater New York and Brooklyn and Staten Island and Long Island City, and all combined.
Mr. Romaine has touched upon one more point, that is, the home
of the poor. Any historian will tell you the more sparsely settled
the country the less it is subject to revolution. If you can take
the densely populated places of this city and scatter it over the
great flats in Brooklyn where the streets are made, che sewers are
made, and everything complete for houses; if you can take this
tenement-house population and put it into little homes where they
can own them, and where they can buy lots for $100, or two or three
hundred a piece, if they can buy the house, if they can go to those
homes, anybody can tell you who has had anything to do with
labor, if they got their own homes there would be but few strikes.




No. 44.]


495


If you can scatter the population in a line you have accomplished a
great betterment for the people and this city, and this commonwealth. I do not worry about the taxes, as a New Yorker being
larger in this great city as compared with Staten Island, and
Long Island City and Brooklyn. Take their tax rate, where they
have spent money for the last ten years in building good streets;
as fast as you fill it up your taxes will go down. When you fill
up the upper end of New York you have added to the taxable property in this city; and I think the cheapest city in the State of New
York to live in, with all its taxes, will be New York city. Again,
I do not believe that Staten Island is going to take all this great
overflow when it comes. I believe that the Erie canal when once
equipped with electricity as I saw the actual experiment made
last fall and winter, and you get that for one-fifth the cost of horses
and mules- with electricity you can get double the speed to bring
your freight down here.
I have the idea that you should build this city to-day for all
time to come. Remember that the lowest population of Europe
is that of France, and that is 180 people to the square mile; the
highest is Belgium, 485. We have less than twenty and seventenths for a square mile in this country. Haven't we as good
government as they have? Why do they flock from the old world
if we have not? Then, believe this, that the time will come
when New York and Staten Island is going to be all built up,
when we will have ten or fifteen million people, and will be as
densely populated as France. To do that, and to keep the people
happy, you have got to get bridges across from Jersey City; you
have got to have terminals from Staten Island, and got to have
bridges from Brooklyn, four or five of them; and you do not
want to change your cars in going from Brooklyn to San Francisco any more than you do going from here to Albany. Within
thirty years, in going to Albany, you had to change on to a ferry
boat; you are doing it now. To-day, as to expressage, the man
in Brooklyn and the man in New York can employ a hundred
wagons to run around your streets and deliver goods all over.
You will have, some time or other, the streets given to the rail



496


[SENATE,


roads, who will be doing that express business and getting rid of
the wagons, except on the streets where you want to deliver; and
they will simplify that system of charges that are now so exorbitant in this city. All those things will come together under consolidation; and I want to have this city with a great big government, big enough for the whole of it, and strong enough to protect
us in our rights; and the way to get the strength is to spread it
out and take these crowded tenements and put the people in the
different places that are isolated and give them some ground to
work. When they get a part of the ground they will feel that
they are a part of this country. We assimilate the peoples of
the whole world in this city; our civilization is different from that
of any in the world, and it ought to be stronger, and I believe it
is stronger. We may have different ideas about licenses and
religion; but all these in time in this great city will be made to
work together for good, because, if we are a little bit rapid in
our ideas about this thing we must give away to our neighbor and
try to live in unity, and in that way; I believe now is the time to
pass the Greater New York bill, and then in your Legislature
in 1898 frame your proper charter for it. I believe the question
of personal taxation will not enter into it much.
MR. LEXOW:
Does anybody else desire to address the committee in favor of
consolidation?
The following was presented to the committee:
January 30, 1896.
To the Legislature of the State of New York:
We, the undersigned hotel proprietors, respectfully urge the
passage of a proper bill for a " Greater New York."
J. H. BRESLIN & BRO.,
Gilsey House.
GEO. C. BOLDT,
The Waldorf.
WM. G. LELAND,
Grand Hotel.




No. 44.]


497


TIHOMAS GUNNING (custom tailor):
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am a workingman, and a few of us came here this morning to give our
opinion on this question. Our opinion is that it is already decided
by the vote which the working people cast, when the people at
large cast their vote on this question; and after the last speaker, I
think there is nothing more that I can say. I am in favor of
what he has said.
MR. GRADY:
Do you come here in your working capacity or as a committee
of an organization?
MR. GUNNING:
From the organization of the custom tailors.
JOHN BOGERT:
I appear here also as one of this delegation of workingmen. I
have not been specially credentialed to appear here to-day on this
subject; but I should say that it fair to assume that of the thirtysix thousand majority cast in favor of this scheme, the greater
portion are workingmen and it is safe for me to say that the workingmen are in favor of it. I have ascertained that in conversation
with workingmen. I am at present a representative, but not appearing here as such at this time. I have been recently elected
as an organizer of a state branch of the American Society of Labor,
and I mean that as being qualified to speak on behalf of workingmen. I have noticed a growing feeling among workingmen, that
they have not heretofore shown a proper interest in these public
questions, and I think the tendency is now that they should express themselves as an organized force in the community; they
should have something to say as to these great projects, which are
safe-guarded for the benefit of the people; and we have noticed,
I think, that in many instances where undertakings have been
authorized, great public works authorized, there has been unnecessary delay; and we felt that if we could come here to-day and
[Senate, No. 44.]    63




49S


[SEN ATE.


say to our representatives in the Legislature, represented here by
a committee of the Senate and Assembly, that we feel as though
this project ought to be pushed, and that there ought to be no
unnecessary delay in the work, as in some otters, that we would
be doing a proper work for our constituents. It may be that if
the workingmen guarded the enjoyment of their functions, that
there would be an extension of franchise privileges, and that in
such extensions workingmen might expect to get some concession,
which they do not have now, in the way of cheap affairs, and
larger accommodations, etc. I think that that is a point it is fair
to speak of. Of course, we have not the details of the scheme
in any shape for discussion, and it is only upon general lines that
we speak. The indications are that in the enjoyment of the jurisdiction of the city government, we may have also a distinct benefit
for the labor organizations, which are doing a great work for the
wage-earners of the State. I think myself all the large unions
will have to be in favor of us extending their jurisdiction, and
therefore the benefits of the work they are doing now.
MR. LExoW:
Do you represent any large body of workingmen?
MR. BOGERT:
Well, sir, as an organizer for the State branch of the American
Federation of Labor, I represent about ninety thousand workingmen in that official capacity.
MR. GRADY:
You do not appear in your official capacity?
MR. BOGERT:
I do not. I have not been specially credentialed, but I have no
doubt if the matter had come before our convention two weeks
ago in Albany, that we would have been willing to take a stand
in favor of this project.




No. 44.]


499


MR. GRADY:
A State organizer of the American Federation?
MR. BOGERT:
Yes.
MR. GRADY:
Of course, you have more or less discussion and conversation
with various representatives throughout the State?
MR. BOGERT:
Yes, sir; I should say that it is because of that experience of
twenty odd years with labor organizations and other work that
I have been connected as an organizer of other unorganized workingmen.
MR. LExow:
Do you understand that you represent the sentiment of the
workingmen of the city here, while not officially representing them,
that that is their opinion?
MR. BOGERT:
I should say as far as I have spoken, I do represent the sentiments of workingmen. Heretofore, they have not had the proper
public interest in great works; that they propose to have more
interest in them; and that the only way to do it is through their
organized movement, and that very likely the extension of this
government would need many changes in the franchises from
which we might expect some benefit. I have no doubt about
that. I ofier this resolution:
WHEREAS, By a majority vote of 36,979, the people of the city
of New York voted in favor of the consolidation of the territory
commonly known as Greater New York; and,
WHEREAS, We believe that such a consolidation would be for
the common good; and,
WHEREAS, It is evident that delay and uncertainty in deciding
the matter are prejudicial to business interests in general;
therefore,




500


[SENATE,


Resolved, That we, the undersigned, respectfully recommend the
enactment of such legislation as is needed to carry into practical
effect the sovereign will of the people thus formally expressed at
the polls.
HERMAN ROBINSON,
MAYER SHOENFELD,
T. J. CROUCHLEY,
HENRY WHITE,
Members of the General Executive Board, United Garment Workers
of America.
JOHN N. BOGERT,
State Organizer, A. F. of. L.
G. W. JONES,
Clothing Cutter.
G. E. SCHULTE,
Clothing Trimmer.
LOUIS SCHWAB,
Clothing Cutter.
JULIUS SAMUELS,
Clothing Cutter.
JULIUS FRANKEL,
Clothing Cutter.
WOLF MARKS,
Clothing Cutter.
B. J. HAWKES,
Printer.
HENRY MALKER,
Bookseller.
G. TOML1NSON,
Gilder.
THOS. GUNNING,
Gilder.
CHAS. G. BLOETE,
Gilder.




No. 44.]


501


MR. GEORGE TOMLINSON (Gilders' Union):
I do not appear here as a delegate to represent anybody, but
owing to the fact that it had, as in the case of the last speaker,
been brought before our organization; but I believe I voice the
sentiment of the majority of the workingmen of this city and of
Brooklyn when I say we are in favor of consolidation. A gentleman, a little while ago, alluded to the hardships or the impossibility of a workingman getting a home in New York. I might
apply an old remark that is frequently made and put it this way:
That it would be as easy to drive a camel through the eye of a
needle as for a workingman to get a home in the city of New
York, as it is now; but we hope in consolidation that we may
possibly reach that point. The workingmen feel that if consolidation goes into effect, that it will increase the work; it will make
more work for the people, and for that reason and many other
benefits that they feel would accrue from it, they are in favor of
consolidation. They have already cast their votes, and they hope
it will not happen that that vote will be put aside. With these
few remarks, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I think that I might
say that I express the sentiment of the workingmen generally
on this question of consolidation; and I hope it will become a
positive fact in the near future.
ROBERT WsINSTON:
I represent the New York hackdrivers.  Mr. Chairman and
Gentlemen of the Senate and Assembly, I thought that when the
votes were taken at the election on the referendum clause, that such
a question as this would not occur, especially to the workingmen;
but as the Legislature thought it necessary to make inquiries of the
condition of the people's mind on that vote, I thought it wise to
talk to my fellow-workmen. I am a journeyman hackdriver. I
want to say that the feeling of the hack trade is in favor of having
consolidation.  I want to say we took an active part in the
question of the referendum clause in the various organizations, and
especially in the New York Hackdrivers' Association, known as
the Labor Dawn Association. I find, Mr. Chairman, that one side




502


[SENATE,


of the house has been very strongly represented for and against
the bill, and I also know that one of the speakers made a remark
in regard to the situation, that the general run of the people were
not in favor of consolidation. If that is what is meant that is not
true. When the municipal bill was first introduced in 1874, that
bill was placed before the people the same as the referendum clause
was put before the city of New York. I took a very active part in
that amendment; and before I came to this country; and after
the bill took a very particular turn, and the very same people who
oppose this measure to-day are the very same people who opposed
the bill in those days. The property owners who did not desire
to see that bill made the law, from the very fact that it took away
a great deal of power, that they could send their representatives
to the board of guardians, and did not represent the people. Now,
that bill is one of the greatest success. The government was one
of the most corrupt before the bill. Now, after the bill of the
Greater New York, I claim the consolidation of New York with
Brooklyn means a brotherly existence between New York and
Brooklyn. I claim there is a sectional opinion existing to-day.
I assure you the sooner we get together and form a brotherhood
in this gigantic city, the sooner we can get together as brothers
and travel across that chasm. What we want is the consolidation.
The people, Mr. Chairman, will have a chance then. Now, they are
living in ramshackle, rackrenting, tumble-down houses in some
district unfit for residences, and then the people will be able to go
across the bridge ten years from to-day, and travel just as quick
as they travel now from Harlem to the City Hall. It is necessary
often to live in the city, and we can then enjoy the good atmosphere of the city in the suburban districts. That is our work in
London. Thousands of workmen travel night and morning, after
working hours, fifteen miles out of London and live in small houses
with gardens back and front. Why? Not because they want
to favor consolidation, but the consolidation wiped away all the
little obstacles.
MR. LEXOW:
Will you address the Sen.lte and A sselnbly colmmittee?




No. 44.]


503


IMR. WINSTON:
Excuse me, I feel somewhat warm on this question.
MR. LEXOW:
We are much interested in your remarks if you will address them
to the committee.
MR. WINSTON:
I felt so warm about it that I made up my mind, after I came in,
to say a few words in regard to consolidation. I heard one of the
speakers remark, in regard to wages in New York, that they were
about fifteen dollars a week or sixty dollars a month; that is a
glorious state of affairs, if it is true; but it is not so. The average
workers, take skilled artisans, get seven dollars a week. You
can imagine, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, what a remarkable
state of affairs it is, when a man is compelled to pay fifteen dollars
for three small, poky rooms in the city. These are living figures
and you can understand how necessary it is for the workmen in
New York to live further out in Brooklyn and have the glorious
haven of rest in Staten Island. They could also travel to Yonkers
on a cheap, tariff system, provided the consolidation is brought
about and made a fact. The question of commerce has been very
scientifically put, and I am sure everybody knows the condition in
New York, the peculiar surroundings which apply to New York,
to have to stretch out our wings and take in everything around
us to make the greatest city of the world. Even Chicago will get
ahead of you. You are in the very worst condition to spread your
wings, worse than Chicago; nevertheless, this narrow rock, as it
were, does not give the chance and the same scope as if you were
connected with the mainland, but it is necessary that we should
make the most use of all that we have. Why not have it now.
You might as well let me have some of those blessings and let
my children see some of those blessings; and I think I have touched
very closely, at least, upon the fact; but 36,000 votes are a large
majority of the very popular vote; and, of course, we understood
that it was going to be passed and agreed that there would be




504


[SENATE,


no trouble; but evidently there has been some hitch in the arrangement. As far as the hack trade is concerned, we are unanimously
in favor of consolidation. The present system of the hack trade
in New York is not what it ought to be. A new consolidation
would mean a new licensing system. It would bring about a
man's reputation being above par, and the examination would
be an examination of a good citizen. To-day we have in New
York some of the very worst characters known to represent the
hack trade in New York, and for that alone, we would desire to
bring about a new licensing system for New York and Brooklyn;
and I am sure you gentlemen, who ride at night from the various
hotels and theaters, - I know the gentlemen I carry, I see them,
I know the class of men; and at night, from theaters and hotels,
you find you have a different class of men altogether than you do
early in the morning. We want, Mr. Chairman, to have this bill
passed on purpose to make a new license system, and have the
same character of men at 9 o'clock at night as we have at 9 o'clock
in the morning.
MR. ROGERS:
Is the gentleman a natuialized citizein?
MR. WINSTON:
Yes.
J. P. COHEN:
I want to come before you as a member of the Manhattan
Single Tax Club, to speak upon this question of consolidation.
The physicial surroundings of the city of New York make it so
that the people who own the land here keep the population of the
city like a lemon-squeezer keeps a lemon within it, and they
squeeze, squeeze and keep on squeezing until the lemon is almost
dry, and has not the virtue and hardihood to get up here and
speak for their rights. The gentlemen from the other side represent the squeezer. I represent the lemon. They fear that the
lemon will probably have a chance through this consolidation




No. 44.]


50 5


to get across the river, and if planted over there may grow into a
sightly tree, and more lemons may come to the tree. I am one of
these people whlo have been disappointed in getting a home on
Manhattan island. I am a graduate of your public school and
college here, and it has been the hope of my life to establish
my house for my wife and children in this greatest city of this
continent and of the woirld. I have lived outside New York for
many years, and I felt I was only camping out, and New York was
the city of mny lheart, and where I wanted to live. We can only
get rid of these people who are manipulatingthe squeezerby spreading ourselves across on the other side of the river. I do not own
any land over there. I do not own any land here. I do not own
any land on Staten Island. I do not want any commerce to be
sent down there to increase my property. I come as a representative of the poor woman who goes to the store and pays her price
for these little goods which, as the gentleman says, she pays for
with a portion of the rent, and therefore she is a taxpayer of the
city of New York. Out of our population of nearly two millions
now there are about thirteen to fifteen thousands owners of the
land. That is about one in one hundred and twenty-five. Now
the other one hundred and twenty-four have voted upon this
question, and they think that vote should be final. They can not
understand how you can get from under the votes that announced
their intention for more light, and more air and a better mode of
living. I can imagine somebody at the bottom of the " Black
Hole in Calcutta " crying out against the opening of the ventilators at the top of it. These gentlemen would knock anybody
down that offered fresh air in the Black Hole of Calcutta; and
these people want now to keep them living in cellars and in the
sweat-shops. They do not want them to have a chance to go
across the Brooklyn bridge in from two to twenty minutes on
foot; but to carry them further, I would spread this city across
the North river. I would include a part of Jersey to Newark,
and make it one grand city, easy of access, so that people would
work here as bookkeepers and bank clerks, and lawyers and go
[Senate, No. 44.]    64




506


[SENATE,


out there and get a little bit of land, and fresh air and a garden.
That can all be brought about later on. But there are representatives here from the upper end of the island. They are afraid
these people are going to increase their assessments. They have
been speculating in land up there, and they hold it vacant. Now
if the bridges are built, and the city is extended across to Brooklyn, there will be vacant land coming in competition with their
holdings, and they do not want the people of this city to, go upon
that land.  They have stated that the increase of taxes increase rents. As a matter of fact the increase of taxes can not
increase rents. The rents are as high to-day as they possibly can
be under the conditions existing. They have stated here that
the increase of rent will fall upon the tenant. They can not possibly saddle any increased rent upon the tenant. When a vacant
lot stands alongside a building, the man who owns that building,
knowing that the vacant lot is not his competitor, and he can
increase his rent; but as soon as a vacant lot contains a building,
he knows he has a competitor, and the rent will come down.
We have on the island forty thousand vacant lots. We have
enough lots to populate the entire east side; but they do not
want to have it so. TheyI want to have the people down here,
where they can keep them, and squeeze them, and get forty times
the amount of rent out of them that they ought to pay. I am in
favor of consolidation; not on the ground that it will make it
the most glorious city on the globe, not on the ground that it will
make the commercial center like London; but because we can have
God's fresh air, because we can get a chance to go out and dig in
our garden, and cultivate our brains with contact with another;
not to meet hard brick walls and sodden streets, but get a little bit
of God's blessing; and we can get that by consolidating these
cities. We ought to have perfect autonomy and home rule. We
ought to have bath-houses all over the water front. We can have
those things. We can spread our facilities for transportation,
more playgrounds, more parks, and more blessings of every kind;
but particularly and above all we can have better homes for our
workingmen, and the hope of having a home will then become




No. 44.]


507


revived in the heart of the men that are working for a thousand
or fifteen hundred dollars a year, because he can be a New Yorker
and go down and have a bath within walking distance of his own
house. I say this, not as an owner of real estate, not as the owner
of any interest that will be promoted by the consolidation of
these cities; but as a person who desires to be an honest citizen
of the United States. It has been touched upon that the home
owners are the best citizens. The greatest miracle to-day is that
there is not more crime in New York than there is. It is not that
crime has been increasing, as it has been alleged, but it is that
it has not increased fifty times more than it has increased. I can
not understand how men with families to support, who sit down
to empty tables, do not go out on the streets and clutch men to
get money to support their wives and children; and yet your
landlord would try to prevent consolidation. We will get them
by the throat. I say you can not possibly recommend to the
Legislature that these cities can not be consolidated. You can
not, in the face of that justice that reigns above; you can not
in the face of the demand of these people who want these homes,
and light, and fresh air; and if you do, your names will go down
in ignominy because it will be a century before they have a chance
to vote on the question of consolidation again, if they ever have it.
MR. LEXOW:
Does anybody else desire to be heard on the subject of consolidation?
EDWARD F. LINTON:
Since you have asked if there was anybody else to be heard,
and I waited to see if somebody would rise before I took your
time. Nobody having risen, I want to say a very few words. Perhaps it would be as well to say that I have the honor to belong
to the Consolidated Inquiry Commission. Next it might be proper
to say that I have the honor to live in Brooklyn. I do not wish to
take up the time here as a commissioner, nor necessarily as a resi



5)08


FSENATE.


dent of Brooklyn. I do want to say two or three things in answer
to two or three points that have been made here, and notably by
the gentlemen who appeared first, various gentlemen calling themselves counsel, and appearing here as opposed, and more particularly referring to the limited notice that they have had of this
hearing, etc., and words to that effect. I want to say another
word about the confusion of those people as to the Court-House
and some other building as the Court-House. I want to say that
this commission held a meeting in the City Hall of New York once,
prior to the vote, and publication was made of that meeting, more
than any meeting the commissioners ever held, and there were not
in that City Hall twenty people to hear or take any part in the
matter at all. I only speak of that in reference to the commission
itself and the opportunity offered those people then. Another
thing, I am glad to have been in this hall to-day and heard a wider
scope of treatment of this great question than was heard in the
four hearings in my own city. I am glad to come over here to-day
and hear the breadth of treatment of this question and not a puny
narrow treatment of the question. It has been better said than
I can speak here in regard to the home; and I can say there is no
human tribute that outranks the hope of home. It outranks the
hope of salvation. The hope of salvation is a personal and selfish
hope; but the hope of home is broad and covers one's offspring;
so I am glad to hear that thing brought up here as bearing upon
this question. I am not going to enlarge upon it: but I do say
that there is more in this question of consolidation bearing upon
the ultimate achievement of the hope of home, that it outranks
all the other questions pertaining to it. Now I am going to close
with these very brief, few further words: We had a vote upon
consolidation in 1894. Prior to that vote, for a long time in this
city there was a bridge from this city to Brooklyn. New York
paid one-third, and Brooklyn paid two-thirds towards the erection
of that bridge; and I have heard many eminent men in New York,
occupying many different branches of life — legislators and
others - who have said New York will never pay another dollar
towards any bridge to lBrooklyn, and that has been the cry and




No. 44.]


5(09


announcement all along the line for years. The point I want to
make upon that is that in connection with the vote for consolidation, carried by a majority of more than 40,000, within the entire
district, that a bill was introduced in the Legislature last year,
two months after that vote, to build another bridge across the
East river; and that that bill went through the Legislature,
I think, easier than any other bill ever went through that was
given wide publicity, involving such an expenditure; and I was
present in Albany at the hearings on that subject, and never heard
a dissenting voice on the proposition for the new bridge; and if
you please, Mr. Chairman, New York, instead of refusing to pay
a dollar, is going to pay half the cost of it. Now, I want to
make a point of that fact, and of the bill, and of the bridge,
in this way, that it was the very best evidence of good will. In
Brooklyn it was asked, what evidence that Brooklyn is going to
be treated fairly. I say, the first evidence was in Albany in
that very bridge bill, without a dissenting voice from New York.
New York has answered your vote by saying, "Here, we will
give you half the money to build the bridge." That is a response
and an evidence of what New York's disposition is towards a
part of its suburbs; and so I say, and I believe that our people of
Brooklyn would not have got that bill and that bridge, which is
absolutely on the way to construction to-day, except by reason of
the vote on consolidation; that the New York legislators, representing this city, voted affirmatively on that bill, on the ground
that they were not building a bridge to Brooklyn any more, but
building a bridge between one part of New York and another
part. Now that is about all I have to say. I could not help
getting up here. I would not have spoken if there had been
other speakers taking your time; but I felt like expressing myself
just as I have done.
MR. GEORGE J. GREENFIELD:
While I do not wish to detain this committee at all, I deem it
very important that I should refer to what I consider some misstatements probably made at the time in good faith, which have




51.0


[SENATE,


been presented with reference to the county of Richmond, which
I understand from the newspapers has recently been presented
to this committee by the corporation counsel of this city, Mr.
Scott; and as this seems to be quoted from his communication to
you, I presume it is correct as it is stated. He says: "Without
at present expressing any opinion as to the desirability of consolidating the cities of New York, Brooklyn and Long Island City,
may I not beg your committee to take into very serious consideration the question whether they should not, at the outset, eliminate
that portion of the proposition which contemplates the inclusion
of Richmond county in this consolidated city. That county, as
you are aware, comprises an island situated in New York bay,
many miles distant from the present city of New York, too far
to even permit of the erection of a bridge between the two, and
while not so far from the city of Brooklyn, yet separated from it
by the ship channel, which itself will probably render the erection
of a bridge impracticable for many years to come.
The county is, for the most part, sparsely settled, there being
no considerable towns or villages upon it, and its inclusion into
the consolidated city would necessitate the attempt to apply metropolitan methods and appliances to a large territory which is now
purely country, which will be separated from the other parts of
the city by water, which will be accessible otherwise than by water
transportation only by going through an adjacent State, and which
has no geographical or logical reason for annexation to the city
of New York." Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I must say
that is the most extraordinary manifestation of ignorance upon
the part of a gentleman of intelligence whom I have known for
many years, and living in the city of New York; but, gentlemen,
I do not believe he ever could have been on Staten Island,;i a1ll
events, not within the last two or three years, or I might say
ten years, and then have come and presented deliberately to this
commission statements of that description. The county of Richmond, or Staten Island, contains within its boundaries three important villages. The village of New Brighton is, I believe, either
the second or third largest village in the State of New York, and




No. 44.]


I11


contains to-day, at least I have been informied so, 20),00 inhabitants, enough to create a city of the third class. The village of
Edgewater, which immediately adjoins it, contains at least 15,000
inhabitants, if I am not misinformed; and the village of Port Richmond contains five of six thousand; and then they have a new
village of Tottenville opposite Perth Amboy. The total population of the county of Richmond is to-day at least 60,000, which
would entitle it to be placed as a city in the second class. It
takes in all cities over fifty thousand inhabitants; and yet, gentlemen, that is the community of which Mr. Scott says, "it is
sparsely settled.  No considerable town or villages in it,
and its inclusion in the consolidated city would necessitate the attempt to apply metropolitan methods and appliances to a large territory which is now purely country,
which will be separated from the other parts of the city
by water and practically inaccessible."  Now, gentlemen, as
to the accessibility of Staten Island, we know this, that it is
not distance, but time, that is the question which constitutes
inaccessibility or separation. Staten Island is really practically,
and should be to-day, within fifteen minutes of the Battery by
transportation, and at the time the present boats were built
they were guaranteed to make that distance in fifteen minutes,
and it is practical to do it, if the distance is only five miles, but
at all events in twenty minutes, which would not be unreasonable
in any way; and with the trolley car system which has been
introduced on Staten Island, any part of Staten Island within
five or ten miles of the shore front would be accessible to New
York city within thirty or thirty-five minutes, and into the very
heart of the business section of New York in at least thirty-five
or forty minutes. Now, look at the outlying districts of New
York city. How long does it take to get from Harlem and the
annexed district?  You know it takes an hour at least. From
the remotest part it is more, and they can only get less time by
express trains.  Now, by the reasonable traffic between New
York and Staten Island I can vouch for it that, after consolidation, there will not be three years or five years after it goes




512


[SENATE,


practically into effect before you will find fast ferry boat transportation and cheap ferry boat transportation that will give homes
to any of the working people in the city of New York, that will
bring Staten Island an income in the neighborhood of $5,000,000
and bring the people within a distance of thirty-five or forty
minutes of the places they have got to work in. Is not that a
boon, gentlemen? You may say, "VWhy is it not done now?"
I will tell you why it is not done now; because the attitude in the
city of New York has been and is hostile to the increase in facilities that is going to include Staten Island, as they say, at the
expense of New York city; and it was because of that that one
of our mayors said that he did not propose to build any golden
bridges from Staten Island to New York city. To-day we are
taxed as I understand people are taxed in some of the eastern
countries, for every man that passes from Staten Island to New
York city. They have to pay toll to New York city for the privilege of entering its borders. The ferry companies are taxed so
much per passenger, and, of course, gentlemen, that makes the
cost of traffic greater. It is like putting up a Chinese wall around
New York-and I do not speak now with reference to Staten
Island, but with reference to New York city -I say that is a
suicidal policy that will make it hard for any one to reach New
York city and to reach their business, even if he lives outside its
borders.
MR. LExow:
You do not mean there is any tax imposed against residents of
Staten Island beyond the selling of the franchise to the ferry?
MR. GREENFIELD:
Yes, sir; I say it was sold in this way: So much percentage
upon the ferry proceeds they receive, besides the rental of the
docks.
MR. GRADY:
They get so much of the gross.




No. 44.]


513


MR. GREENFIELD:
It comes from each individual passenger, and is in fact a tax
on the passenger himself.
MR. GRADY:
Do I understand that New York should give its franchises away?
MR. GREENFIELD:
No, sir; I say if we were a part of New York city that reason
would be gone; and I say further that I do not believe in the
principle that New York city has a right to tax the waters of
the bay of New York at all. It ought to be free to every passenger, free to the world; and that is a tax not only by the rental
of the dock and ferry, but it is a tax upon the right to enter New
York city from any place outside of its borders.
MR. GRADY:
New York city should not tax any of the waters of its bay; but
she ought to get every dollar she can for franchises. I do not
see anybody granting New York anything; and when we come
to talking about New York city property that ought to be looked
after first, nations next and civilized communities all over the
world afterwards. You put the proposition as though New York
city was maintaining some injustice at the present time. It is
fair for the city to say that she should get all she can for the
franchises she grants.
MR. GREENFIELD:
I was going to say that this franchise originated under the
Montgomery charter at the time New York city was a small village as compared to what it is to-day, when it was struggling for
existence; but if that was to be presented to-day I warrant you
there would be no such charter ever granted again, which was
putting a tax on the people doing their business in New York city,
because there was no home within it where they could live. As
[Senate, No. 44.]     05




514


[SENATE,


a general principle, you are right. So long as New York city
holds that franchise as a property, she has a right to enforce it.
I am not disputing that. I am not saying it is wrong, but I say
as a matter of policy I do not believe it is a good policy for New
York city. The small amounts it acquires in that way is not a
matter that should be considered by the great commonwealth of
the city of New York.
MR. LEXOW:
You mean it is a restraint on the city and on the citizens of New
York itself.
MR. GREENFIELD:
Yes, I do. I know it is on Staten Island. I know the feeling
there; and consolidation will remedy that feeling; and that is
one reason we feel strongly about it, without hurting New York
either. And I was going to say one more thing to show how
small a matter this opposition to New York taking in Staten
Island is: It can only be because of the increase of taxation. I
can not see anything else why the city of New York should
object because they are afraid, as Mr. Scott says, that it is going
to cost them a great deal to develop this "purely country
district."  Now, Mr. Chairman, the total levy, county levy
on Staten Island-and it is the largest one, I think, we
have had for some years-was $300,000 last year, and that
included the interest on our bonds, the maintenance of the
county roads, the interest on the county road bonds, and every
other debt and every other expense that could be covered. What,
gentlemen, would that be in the levy of New York city? I do
not believe the whole expense. if it were put on New York city,
as it is now without any added territory, would raise it to onetenth of one mill; and yet, gentlemen, that is the reason, that
is the outcry, that we ought not to be brought within the city of
New York. And then, if we take in the addition of the expense
of village government, and other inatters in connection with it,
it certainly would not exceed six hundred thousand dollars all




No. 44.]


515


told, the total expense for the mIllllici);il (govt\ uenlt of Staten
Island; and I say these are consideraltions, tlese facts which I
state, which it seems to me show that there ought to be no real
opposition on any ground whatever to having Richmond county
in the great consolidation.
MR. LEXOW:
There being apparently nobody else who desires to be heard,
the hearing now will be adjourned, and the committee will decide
in a few minutes whether to grant any further hearing in the city
of New York.
MR. GREEN:
I do not wish to detain the committee, as the time is up that
they allowed to New York. I have quite a large number of
letters here which I think had better be read.
H. H. BREWER & CO.,
33 NASSAU STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman:
Dear Sir.- We are in favor of Greater New York; the people
voted for it and should have it.
Delay will be detrimental to the interests of the city.
Very truly,
H. H. BREWER & CO.
THE MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF NEW YORK,
32 LIBERTY STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Greater New York Committee:
My Dear Sir.- The people voted for Greater New York and I
urge you to pass a proper bill for that purpose as soon as possible.
Yours respectfully,
H. R. FREEMAN.




516


[SENATE,


HENDERSON & COMPANY, BANKERS,
\   64 CEDAR STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman:
Dear Sir.- Regarding the " Greater New York " bill it would
seem to every fair-minded man that as the people voted in favor
of the measure, that their will should be respected and in due time
the consolidated consummated.
Yours faithfully,
CHARLES HENDERSON.
JOHN B. WATKINS,
213 PEARL STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW:
My Dear Sir.- Regretting my inability to attend the hearing
Saturday, February 1st, I trust that the action regarding " Greater
New York" will be urged to the utmost.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN B. WATKINS.
TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST CO.,
55 LIBERTY STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Joint Committee on Greater
New York:
Dear Sir.- I regret that I am unable to be present at the hearing before your committee on Saturday. I desire, however, to
urge the committee to carry out the will of the citizens of the
community interested, as expressed by their vote in favor of consolidation.
There is no other way known to us of getting at the general
judgment and executing it, except by ballot. There seems to be




No. 44.]


517


much special pleading before your committee, and it would be
possible to occupy many sessions in listening to arguments in
favor of the measure by those who think they would be benefited
by it, and against it by those who think they would be injured by
it; but it would seem as if it were the duty of your committee to
consider only the general good of the whole territory and if the
inhabitants of it have decided by a majority vote that it is best
for them to come together, to carry out that will.
It has not been the practice in the United States to try a ballot
over again if those who have lost are not satisfied. In my judgment, the measure now before the Legislature proposing to enact
consolidation and call the territory and community one city, will
itself make easy of solution all the other problems.
Business interests will be benefited by prompt and decisive
action. Politics should have no part in the settlement of the
question, and any political party which attempts to use this
Greater New York movement for partisan ends will be injured
thereby.
Respectfully yours,
C. H. KELSEY.
AUDOBON PARK,
NEW YORK CITY, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Joint Committee on Greater
New York:
Dear Sir.- I am a citizen of New York, with considerable interest in land in this city.
I believe it to be the duty of the Legislature to obey promptly
and without taking a new vote of the citizens, the will of the people
of New York and Brooklyn, already expressed in favor of consolidation. No difference of opinion as to details or temporary
municipal arrangements should delay a step that is essential to
the welfare of the metropolis.
Very respectfully,
HELEN G. PAGE.




518


[SENATE,


AUDOBON PARK,
NEW YORK CITY, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Joint Committee on Greater
New York:
Dear Sir.- I am a citizen of New York, with considerable interests in land in this city.
I believe it to be the duty of the Legislature to obey promptly
and without taking a new vote of the citizens, the will of the
people of New York and Brooklyn, already expressed in favor of
consolidation. No difference of opinion as to details of temporary
municipal arrangements should delay a step that is essential to the
welfare of the metropolis.
Very respectfully,
WILLIAM MIBEE GRINNELL.
AUDOBON PARK,
NEW YORK CITY, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Joint Committee on Greater
New York:
Dear Sir.- I am a citizen of New York, wit-h considerable interests in land in this city.
I believe it to be the duty of the Legislature to obey promptly
and without taking a new vote of the citizens, the will of the
people of New York and Brooklyn, already expressed in favor of
consolidation. No difference of opinion as to details of temporary
municipal arrangements should delay a step that is essential to the
welfare of the metropolis.
Very respectfully,
LAURA GRINNELL MARTIN.




No. 44.]


519


SMITH & MARTIN,
7 NASSAU STREET,
NE-W YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Joint Committee on Greater
New York:
Dear Sir.- I am a citizen of New York, with considerable interests in land in this city.
I believe it to be the duty of the Legislature to obey promptly
and without taking a new vote of the citizens, the will of the
people of New York and Brooklyn, already expressed in favor of
consolidation. No difference of opinion as to details of temporary
municipal arrangements should delay a step that is essential to the
welfare of the metropolis.
Very respectfully,
NEWELL MARTIN.
MARTIN KALBFLEISCH CHEMICAL Co.,
39 LIBERTY STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Joint Committee on Ghreater
New York:
Dear Sir.-As president of the Martin Kalbfleisch Chemical
Co., I venture to express the hope that the consolidation of New
York and Brooklyn may soon be an accomplished fact.
I believe such political union to be to the interest of my company as well as to that of the cities themselves.
Respectfully yours,
GEO. W. KENYON.
SMITH & MARTIN,
7 NASSAU STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Joint Committee on Greater
New York:
Dear Sir.- I desire to urge upon your committee the wisdom




520


[SENATE,


of carrying out as speedily as possible the will of the citizens of
New York and Brooklyn, as expressed by the ballot already taken.
As a citizen of Brooklyn, doing business in New York, I feel
that I have a vital interest in this question. With considerable
interests in New York, and paying taxes there equal to those
that I pay in Brooklyn, I am in a position where my New York
taxes scarcely benefit me and where I have no voice or vote whatsoever in their disbursement. This is the condition of at least
100,000 citizens of Brooklyn to-day, and the result is that taxes
so paid in New York by Brooklyn citizens are diverted from
Brooklyn, and the largest industry that any city can have, that
of the building trade, with all its ramifications, is practically
paralyzed in the city of Brooklyn.
The two cities are essentially one, geographically, but their
political separation has resulted in doing an injustice to the business interests of Brooklyn and is doing an equal injustice to the
political interests of New York by preventing a participation in
its management of that large and confessedly intelligent vote
which exists in Brooklyn.
Very respectfully,
CHAS. ROBINSON SMITH.
WILLIAM T. MEREDITH & CO.,
48 WALL STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE) LEXOW, Chairman:
Dear Sir.-There ought to be but one opinion in the mind of
every citizen who is anxious for the prosperity and happiness of
the cities of New York and Brooklyn, and that is, that the attempts
that are being made to delay the steps towards a final consummation of the complete joining of the two great cities under one
Greater New York are practically attempts to dwarf the growth
and the prosperity of the two communities.
Yours truly,
WILLIAM T. MEREDITH.




No. 44.]


521


THE NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH AMERICA,
25 NASSAU STREET,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
HON. A. H. GREENE:
Dear Sir.- In reply to your communication, it gives me pleasure
to write that I am strongly in favor of the consolidation of New
York, Brooklyn and contiguous territory. Such a union is inevitable in the near future, and will, I trust, be successfully con-.
summated within the next two or three years. I am confident
that the result will be for the best good and largest prosperity
of the communities interested.
Very sincerely yours,
WARNER VAN NORDEN.
DR. EDWARD SEAMAN BUNKER,
178 ST. JOHN'S PLACE,
BROOKLYN, January 31, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Chairman, Etc.:
Dear Sir.- I have been a resident of Brooklyn more than forty
years. All my interests are here.
Consolidation. I think, would be advantageous to all the communities affected.
Referendum, I do not desire. I am no more competent to pass
upon the complexities of the act than is my patient to decide what
course of treatment I shall adopt on his case.
Truly yours,
E. S. BUNKER.
Mr. Grout disposed of " resubmission."
SWAYNE & SWAYNE, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW,
120 BROADWAY,
NEW YORK, January 31, 1896.
ANDREW H. GREEN, ESQ., 214 Broadway, ANew York City.
My Dear Mr. Green.- In compliance with the request which
you have made of me, among others, to examine the bill introduced
[Senate, No. 44.]    66




522


[SENATE,


into the Senate, January 8, 1896, to consolidate into one the local
governments of New York city, Brooklyn, and adjacent cities, and
then write to you in reply.
No better bill has I think, been framed or easily could be. It
first concludes the main fact that such consolidation is to be; a
fact which is material, if not necessary, to a right disposition and
earnestness on the part of those whose concurrence in matters
of detail is part of the general plan.
It then provides time enough before the consolidation is operative, for full consideration and agreement, with no change whatever in the meantime, and with the State, through its Legislature
and Executive, as arbiter, upon every aspect the consolidation,
when it becomes operative, is to have.
This affords scope for careful, and, if need be, gradually,
bringing about "an equal and uniform rate of taxation," and whatever else is found to be requisite to give to the consolidation itself
an equitable basis.
Yours very truly,
WAGER SWAYNE.
MR. ANDREW H. GREEN:
I desire to say a few words. The question is. wha-t is before this
committee? I understand it is a bill to give effect to a vote of
the people, and that is all thlere is of it, exc(ept ii authorizes c(ertain bills to be prepared to be hereafter presented to the Legislature. I can not go on with any remarks on this subject, which
involves so great a subject, in five minutes time; and if tie committee are satisfied with what they have heard, and prefer not to
hear any further remarks, I should prefer to submit it now. I
have no disposition whatever to prolong the session. The letters
which I have presented are from persons in New York who have
large interests here and desired to give expression to their sentiments. I have -et to hear one word against consolidation at this
meeting, except the gentlemen who spoke over in the corner.
Whenever the qustion of establishing any machinery of govern



No. 44.]


ment in this area comes up then it will be time for them to be
heard. This commission has been at work for six years on this
question. The press has been full of it. It has been three or
four times before the Legislature, and the bill finally passed to
submit it to the people, and they passed upon it by a very large
majority. Now whenever any bill comes up to set in motion any
part of the government within this area, then is the time for these
gentlemen to be heard. If they have anything to say about taxation, or any other branch of it, then, when that is brought before
this body, they can be heard on it. There has been no want of
care or want of entire appreciation of the delicacy of this whole
subject, and in communication after communication that has been
presented to the public, has been presented the greatest effort
to assimilate, with an assurance that no public or private interest will be damaged in any way. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the
committee think they have heard enough on this subject I have
not the slightest desire to go on.
MR. LEXOW:
I do not think it will be necessary, Mr. Green, to continue the
argument, except in so far as you can meet any argument on the
other side. As I understand the situation to-day there has been
no argument presented by either side against political consolidation. On the contrary, a number have announced in making their
remarks, and in premising their remarks, that they were in favor
of political consolidation, but that they did not wish the question
of political consolidation to be solved excepting upon a more
equitable distribution of the taxes and assessment question over
the greater area. There is, therefore, really no necessity for
argument on the question of political consolidation. So far as
New York is concerned it seems to be conceded that they are in.favor of that; but some gentlemen appear here to-day opposed
to any proposition that lays a foundation for equalization of taxes
and assessments over the greater area, and have asked for an
adjournment upon that ground; and the committee now will
consider that part of the question disembarrassed by the other.




524


[SE-NATE,


MR. A. A. LEVEY:
I understood Senator Grady to say in his view it was useless
to consider the question of consolidation at all if you eliminated
from it this question of equalization.
MR. GRADY:
I said one was part of the other.
MR. LEVEY:
In other words you could not get a bill through the Legislature
which did not involve in itself the determination of this question
of equalization and taxation.
MR. GRADY:
That is my position.
'MR. LEVEY:
Yes; and that is my position. Although we do not come here
to oppose political consolidation as such, we do not favor it.
MR. GRADY:
Mr. Levey, can't you see that if the committee are agreed upon
the question, that if they are to have any consolidation it must be
upon fair and equal taxation, as we understand it, and equal assessment - if the committee have agreed that they have anything at
all - they must have that; and what is the use of going through
an investigation as to an accepted condition of things. That
means New York shall pay something to Brooklyn and the other
localities for the privilege of consolidation.
MR. LEVEY:
That is where we want to be heard.
MR. LEXOW:
I shall rest the question of hearing you on accepted state of
things. You will understand that. The resolution passed by




No. 44.]


525


the Senate on Thursday. In all probability the financial statements of all these communities will be before the whole committee before they act, and these statements will show very clearly
that if consolidation is had New York will pay a little more than
she is paying now, and these others to be relieved will either get
more for their money than they get now, or be asked to pay less
in the way df taxes. The committee then must address themselves to the question as to whether or not, the people haven't
given their opinion as to whether this consolidation should take
place or not, shall it take place in the face of the admitted accepted
fact that taxation must be uniform, that the assessment must be
uniform, and that that means at the present time at all events that
it shall be at the expense of New York.  Now, is not that the
situation?
MR. LEVEY:
That is not Mr. Green's theory. Mr. Green says you can consider consolidation without the question of equalization of taxes.
MR. LEXOW:
Mr. Grady says it can not be. Each man voting on this main
question has in mind certain propo;sitions outside of the main
proposition, and that is one of them. Neither the city of New
York nor the city of Brooklyn would want any consolidation
except on fair terms as between the tw!o municipalities, and in
voting on the main proposition we bear that in mind; but what I
want you understand is that this proceeding does not foreclose
any New York man in making himself heard on the general question of equalization of taxes and assessments; that this bill is a
direction to the commission as to formulating the bill or charter
that they shall bring in before the Legislature, a bill which shall
substantially provide for an equalization of taxes and assessments
throughout this extended area; but it is not absolutely obligatory
on them, and New York can be heard on the question; and the
resolution under which this committee is now operating will give
New York an opportunity to be heard on that question when those




526


[SENATE,


bills which are submitted for that purpose are brought before the
Legislature; therefore, we want to have this question now disembarrassed of any argument on the question of equality of taxation
or assessment, because you will have your day in court when
that proposition is reached.
MR. LEVEY:
If Mr. Green will agree that that question is not before this
hearing at all, and is eliminated from the question, we can agree.
MR. GREEN:
It is as plain as a pike-staff in the bill that, for all, this consolidation takes effect on the 1st of January, 1898; and for all the legal
purposes of the territory all the functions and all the government
remains precisely the same. The taxing power remains the same
in Brooklyn and New York until the Legislature, in its wisdom,
thinks it best to act on that subject or fifty other subjects that may
come up. That has been published in the newspapers, and I
have said it over and over again. The only argument that was
made on that subject that seemed to have some place, with all
deference to the speakers, was that a passage of this bill would,
in a sense, foreclose the Legislature; and that having passed the
bill for the main question of consolidation, coupled with the bills
which indirectly declare an intention to equalize taxes and assessments over the greater area, that they could substantially be foreclosed from taking any future action which would be at variance
with the direction in the bill itself. But all legislation proceeds
upon the fundamental basis of justice and fairness and equality
to all interests; And this main proposition should not be, now
in the eleventh hour, embarrassed by something which is subsidiary and auxiliary to the whole, and not connected with the
main proposition at all.
MR. BRUSH:
May I put in a question which has been bothering me some;
that is this, you pass a bill and suggest in the bill equalization




No. 44.]


527


of taxation, but perhalps the bill is Lprepared to equalize taxation
and assessment and that bill is not passed, does that question
prevent the consolidation?
MR. GREEN:
Not at all.
MR. BRUSH:
You may not pass a bill for equalization of taxation, but for consolidation you do.
MR. LEXOW:
The bill places itself on an equality of taxation, and that is the
only fair adjustment as stated by Senator Grady. It is a selfevident fact, however, that if future hearings upon this question
should disclose a dishonest situation, one that would work such
an injustice to the city of New York, that an absolute basis of
equality of taxation and assessments could not be reached excepting by being a gross injustice to the city, then it would be for
future legislation to consider that subject, unembarrassed by any
colmprehensive declaration in the bill. I think that is very plain,
and I think every gentleman on this committee agrees with that
general proposition; and that being the case, unless there is argument to be made against the main proposition, we see no reason
why the time of the committee should be taken up by discussion
of a question, the discussion of which will have ample room, the
discussers of which will have ample opportunity when we come to
consider these subsidiary questions.
MR. LEVEY:
We think the phraseology of the Lexow bill - you can not get
away from the fact that when this bill is passed the Legislature
and this committee will be committed to the framing of bills,
" Directed to prepare such bills as will provide for retaining equal
taxation and valuation in this district." And it is that principle
we are opposed to, and we appear in opposition to that principle,
and even in the preparation of a bill. It prejudices our case.




528


[SENATE,


MR. LEXOW:
I do not agree with the gentleman at all. As I introduced
that bill it seems to me my interpretation of that bill should
stand. All that bill means is, we are going in this consolidation
to treat every part of the annexed territory fairly, and in any
consideration of the question the benefits derived by the city of
New York in consolidation have got to be taken into consideration. If New York pays a few cents or dollars more in the way
of taxes after consolidation than she did before, but derives
benefits from consolidation which would enable her to pay that
ten times over, certainly then you could not disagree with us in
establishing a uniform system of taxation and assessment throughout the district. Now, those are matters properly left to legislation. All this bill does is to declare the political union.
MR. ROMAINE:
We are not here to advocate political union, but we do not
oppose it.
MR. LEXOW:
We are simply giving effect to the voice of New York requiring political union, at the same time expressing ourselves as
being in favor of absolute justice towards the sister cities or
places that are annexed.
MR. ANDREW H. GREEN:
I would call attention of the gentlemen to one or two paragraphs of the communication of the commissioners with the Legislature. This commission was constructed purely on the homerule principle. Every district in it has its representation on this
commission. The State is represented by six persons appointed by
the Governor. It has the State Engineer and Surveyor. The city
of New York has itself represented by appointees of the mayor; the
city of Brooklyn its representatives appointed by the mayor of
Brooklyn; and the counties of Westchester, Kings, Queens and
Richmond all have their representatives appointed by the super



No. 44.]


529


visors of those various counties. So, the constitution of the commission is strictly a home-rule constitution, and every district
proposed to be involved in this matter has its representative
members diligently attending to his duties, except the gentleman
from  Westchester, who has not, but Westchester fortunately
came in. I want to read one or two paragraphs here: " To provide, then, the miiethods and means for the transfer ftrom, existing
conditions, conplicated as they are. to those nmore silple and
direct, without shock or injustice or injury to persons or property, there may well be employed the utmost forecast, the widest
experience and the most conscientious and painstaking application. While the commissioners would gladly see this transition
promptly effected, they are of the opinion that the details involved
in the transfer, so far as they affect the tenure of existing officials,
their emoluments, and the scope of their duties, should be left
to be worked out without disturbance as time brings fitting opportunity, as the Legislature may direct, and as considerations of
prudence and protection of public and private interests dictate."
It is to distrust the Legislaiture and the representatives of the
various organizations to say that when these various questions
come up before the Legislature, each district having its representative in the representation, Brooklyn having its seven Senators and twenty-one Assemblymen, is to distrust their own representatives to say that anything will get past the Legislature that
is not going to be fair and honorable and just to anybody. That
is precisely what the bill means, that there shall be an equal and
just rate of taxation for all, and that may come by next year
or may come about the year after. if this bill has not passed the
Legislature -a gentleman made the suggestion that this bill be
amended. The committee have full power over this bill, but the
simple object of this bill was to effect the consolidation, and put
in motion the means of submitting to the Legislature a proper
subsidiary bill.
MR. BRUSH:
You say 'this matter of equalization of taxation might come
[Senate, No. 44.]     67




530


[SENATE.


about the next year or the year after. Is it not possible it might
come about in ten years?
MR. GREEN:
It will come about, sir, in just this way: You and I meet in the
street. You and I are in the same line of business. I say to you,
" Would you like, Senator, to do away with the double expense
and conduct a partnership? " You say, " No; " and that ends it.
You say yes, and then we have got to agree upon the terms.
MR. BRUSH:
Consolidation is a fact, and you have got to accept that, and
accept the conditions of the fact.
MR. GREEN:
Yes. Let me carry out my figure, if you please. You say yes,
and we agree on the terms. The people of these sections say yes,
and we want this consolidation. If every man in New York and
every man in Brooklyn should say that this consolidation should
take place it can not take place under our form of government
except through the Legislature. Who is the Legislature? How
is it made up? Brooklyn has its representative. Everybody is
there to look after the interest of that locality. There is no other
authority than the Legislature that can dictate or consunmmate
consolidation. You have asked the advice of the people, and
they have said they want it, and it is your business to carry it out,
in my judgment.
POLICE COMMISSIONER PARKER:
Mr. Chairman: It seems almost incredible that there should be
any question about the meaning of that bill. The partnership
has been used as a means of illustration through this discussion.
It contains a fallacy. They meet and discuss whether they shall
go into partnership, and they, and they alone, decide it. That is
not the case here. A and B - New York and Brookln - are
both suitors before the Legislature. The people as a whole have




No. 44.],))1


decided whether two corporations sllal i,<1 f1'used into one; and as
we said in Albany, " It is a mere act of grace " that they are
permitted to voice their sense on that question. It is above all
things just, equitable and fair; but still in its essence, an act
of grace. Let us thus put the question. Suppose that A and B,
not having free will, not having decisive power, were to say,
" Shall we go into partnership, and shall we submit to the sole
arbiter that there is in existence - C - made our arbiter by lawthe question of what the terms shall be." That is the state of
affairs. They say, " We shall. We have only one person to decide
on what terms we shall join - the Legislature." That is all that
is said. In brief the duties of the commission by that provision
are that it shall submit, among other measures, a bill providing
for " attaining."  That word means the sole means by which that
is to be done. The provision simply says, if I may put it succinctly, " Go, Commission, draft such a bill as seems to be a fair
and equal and just thing. Submit it to us, and we will say
what shall be done with it. It practically meant to put this
bill before the Legislature so they shall pass on that question;
and the next Legislature, if they do not see fit to indorse that
view, can repeal it. New York, Brooklyn and the whole State
can elect delegates against it. Senator Grady has pointed out
what, in my opinion, is the only way ultimately to rule that greater
city -by equality of taxation. You may take as many steps
to avoid it as you please, that is the only escape in the end from
the anomaly of different burdens upon different sections of the
same population. Not a right but is preserved by this bill. It
will take years of discussion, years of fight, years of obstruction,
years of labor to settle that whole affair. I only put this as one
last word to the gentlemen on the other side who object to that
provision and see great trouble in it. Let them formulate, if they
can, some clause that shall indicate at once the term towards
fairness that the Legislature of this State has all along extended
to these constituent municipalities, and will preserve the rights
of the municipalities to any better degree, and I have no doubt this
Legislature will accept it.




[SENATE,


MR. LEVEY:
I would like to reply to a few of the arguments Mr. Parker has
just made on a legal standard. Mr. Parker is evidently of the
opinion that a corporation of the city of New York and its franchises depend upon the grace of the Legislature of the State
of New York? Now, I differ with him as to his law. I think that
under the last Constitution of the State of New York, the Legislature of the State of New York has no power to interfere with
the county of New York; and I think we will find when he comes
to the Court of Appeals that the Court of Appeals will agree
with me rather than him. But that agress with the difficulties
that we begin to see on the horizon of this question, that this
question has ultimately to be decided in the courts, and will be
there so decided. We see here, in the course of this discussion,
that it is impossible to eliminate this proposition from the
question of taxation and valuation. The discussion has brought
it out. It is clear that it is impossible to decide this question of
consolidation under this bill of yours here without considering this
question, and we see that we should, to go on with this examination under the motion that we have made, examine our witnesses,
and show you the financial condition of the city of New York, and
the financial situation of these other municipalities that desire
to be brought in here, and then see exactly what would result
if a uniform tax were to be put on all these communities, show you
what would be fair to the communities to be brought in. Otherwise the discussion of this question and drafting a bill making
political consolidation, without interfering with any department
of this Greater New York, without disturbing a single office
holder, would be a mere vox praetoris magnun. Now, for instance
I am a property owner in the town of New UJtrecht which is a portion of the county of Kings now. If I had an opportunity to
examine the officials of the county of Kings on the condition of
the former town of New Utrecht I could show that the city of
Brooklyn to-day is up to its constitutional limit of taxation, and
beyond it; in other words, the city of Brooklyn is to-day bankrupt.




No. 44.]


533


MR. GREEN:
That has nothing to do with it.
MR. GRADY:
So it is. Now go on. Its financial statement will show how
near the financial responsibility is.
MR. LEVEY:
It does not show how much that is in these bonds.
MR. GRADY:
We can not go into that. If you are going to have this committee decide on the validity of the bonds, suppose we did adjourn
for a week, suppose we summoned the officials here, would not
the result of all the investigation resolve itself into the financial
statements of these several localities?
MR. LEVEY:
It would be necessary to examine what amount of revenue bonds
are issued. For instance a mere financial statement would not
cover the rights of Long Island City.
MR. GRADY:
Why not?
MR. LEVEY:
Because the deeper you go into the finances of Long Island City
the more inexplicable they are. It has no way of paying its public
officers and police. It is a disgrace and shame to the State of
New York.
MR. LEXOW:
Does it not come to the proposition that we can admit here that
every one of these municipalities are not in the best financial
condition, that their financial condition does not compare with
the city of New York, and we will start an argument that, admit



534


[SENATE,


ting all these facts, and you can not paint them any blacker than
our imagination can paint them; but it don't interfere with the
main proposition that the committee shall pass the consolidation
bill, making a consolidation bill, without considering the question
of taxation at all.
MR. ROMAINE:
To the extent that we feel we are prejudiced by your committee
bringing in such recommendations I think we ought to record our
protest with you.
MR. LEXOW:
Suppose we put in the body of this bill that, among other things,
this commission shall report bills provided for a single-headed
police commission in the greater area, do you mean to say that we
foreclose the Legislature, at the next Legislature when it comes
to pass upon that particular bill, from putting in a bi-partisan
commission, or any other commission it deemed wise?
MR. ROMAINE:
It might; but it would prejudice the taxpayers of New York
if they do not lend their opposition.
MR. LEXOW:
This is the conclusion at which the committee has arrived:
MR. GRADY:
Let me say before the Chairman reads that conclusion that I
have not read it, and I will dissent from it before I read it.
MR. GREEN:
I think the appointments of the gentlemen here by the mayor
of New York are quite as competent to protect the taxpayers of
the city of New York as these gentlemen are. I do not choose
to sit here and see a man say he appears here to defend the taxpayers of the city of New York. I attend to that business
myself.




No. 44.]


535


MR. LEVEY:
Who constituted you their protector?
MR. GREEN:
The mayor of the city of New York. If you look at the laws you
will see that.
MR. LEXOW:
Inasmuch as the ground of application for adjournment is
confined to the question of tax equalization and valuation, and as
ample opportunity will be had for the discussion of the subject
after the committee makes its report on the main proposition;
and inasmuch as the information required and suggested by
those asking for the adjournment will be procured by the committee without formal postponement of this hearing, the application for a week's adjournment will be denied.
MR. BRUSH:
I wish to go on record as dissenting from that decision. I
wish to get all the light I can on this subject; and I would like
to hear everything we can hear that will give us any light; and I
would be in favor of these gentlemen having the extension of
time.
MR. ROMAINE:
In the sense that we feel prejudice by the ruling, we present
this protest:
Subcommiittee of the Joint Committee on the Affairs of Cities:
The undersigned citizens and taxpayers of the city of
New  York, in their own behalf and as counsel for the
Taxpayers' Anti-Equalization League of New York, and of all
citizens or taxpayers of the city of New York, who may now or
hereafter signify their approval of the course of the undersigned,
hereby except to and protest against the denial of their application for an adjournment of this hearing, and for process by way of




56tl


[SE NATE,


subpoena to the proposed witnesses named in said application
dated February 1, 1896, as an infringement of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the State of New York, and of
the United States.
JAMES A. DEERING,
AUGUSTUS A. LEVEY,
BENJ. F. ROMAINE,
Individually and of Counsel.
Dated February 1, 1896.
The following memorial was then submitted to the sub.
committee: Consolidation by Hon. Chauncey M. Depew, at the
dinner of the New England Society, December 21, 1894, and the
memorial to the Legislature by the Consolidation Commission.
The second speaker was Chauncey M. Depew, whose toast was
"Municipal Consolidation." He said: Mr. President and Gentlemen: Under ordinary circumstances it would be a hazardous
undertaking for a New Yorker to invade Brooklyn in the interest
of consolidation. I come here to-night, however, not as a soldier,
a conspirator or a missionary, but as a wooer. So experienced a
lass as Brooklyn, ought to be besieged by the usual process which
reduce a beleaguered city. Her heart should be surrounded with
ditches and earthworks, her supplies cut off, her avenues of communication intercepted, and finally the citadel stormed in the hope
of a surrender at discretion. But Father Knickerbocker, whose
ambassador I am, adopts no such militant procedure. He bids
me lay his heart, his fortune and his future at fair Brooklyn's
feet. He appreciates that he is rather mature, and relies upon
the fact that can be stated with bated breath that Brooklyn is at
least old enough to know her own mind. Ever since the fair
Priscilla bade John Aldine speak for himself, the PIuritan maiden
has known well how to bring the baslfull, halting or uncertain
lover to the altar.
Puritan Brooklyn, following the traditions of the Mayflower,
has not been backward in coming forward, and I am here to-night




No. 44.]


537


on her invitation, and she also invited me to make this proposition. I know that the Rev. Dr. Storrs, than whom there is no
higher intellectual, moral or spiritual authority in this community, has declared against the union, and on lesser and narrower lines the local critics have also been heard. These opinions
embarrass the situation, but nothing can stop the inevitable.
All arguments against Greater New York are based upon the
experiences or the lessons of the past, and of the distant past. It
is the privilege of our glorious period that it exists because of
revolutions and upliheavals which have destroyed the value of the
past and precedents. The ancient, the mediaeval, the feudal and
the independent city are pictures which have value like the canvases of the old mlasters, portraying saints and martyrdom, but
which t-each few lessons to the modern student. The (Greek city
prese-ted in larger and fuller measure than we can hope to reach
the elJemllents of the high civilization and civic pride which justify
the ardor o t the local patriot who would limit the boundaries of
his town. in Atliens was a population which did not compare
in numbers with one of our great cities. Within its walls was
concentrated( that splendor of intellectual gifts and development
which inspired t-he philosopllers of the academy, the orators of the
Assembly and the Areopagus, the architects of the Parthenon,
the painters of the inmmnortal pictures and the dramatists whose
works have survived the centuries. But without its walls was
brutish ignorance. and more than half its population were slaves.
Its wives and daughters had no proper place'in the domestic
circle; its superb and cultured intellectuality was confined to a
few brilliant men and bad women. The mediaeval city, whether
a free town or the seat of royal power, was primarily a fortress.
Its industries, its arts, and its learning were subordinate to its
castles, its walls, its moats and its drawbridges. It could encourage population only to the point where it could stand siege
and feed the people.
Steam, electricity and invention have created conditions in our
times where the city assumes new relations to the world. One[Senate, No. 44.]     6S




538


[SENATE,


third the population of civilized countries are gathered in these
busy communities. The farmer and the miner and the sailor
still gather from the fruitful fields and the bowels of the earth
and the depth of the sea their wealth, but the city works up the
raw material in its manifold industries and factories, attracts
enterprise and becomes the representative of national life.
It is true that this beautiful city of Brooklyn has a singularly
intelligent and homogeneous population; it is true that it possesses characteristics in its Puritan origin and development which
lend to it peculiar grace and strength. It is also true that these
qualities could be preserved, and the city become infinitely more
a matter of pride to its citizens, by being part of the metropolis
of the two American hemispheres.
It is seldom that poetry and prose, finance and fiction, sentiment and sense are in unison for a political idea. _1ut they are
all in harmony with the idea of the imperial city, which is and
shall remain the center and source of the industrial, the financial
and the intellectual life of the American republic.
New York, with a million and a half people, and Brooklyn, with
a million, are to be easily surpassed in a deceade by Chicago, and
buffeted by the petty strife of figures and censuses. The Greater
New York, with three millions of inhabitants, is easily the empress
of the new world and a power in the old.
It can not be claimed that better government is more sure without than with the union with New York, you have not been free
from similar circles; if we have found it difficult to break ours,
you were for years struggling to escape from yours. Both New
York and Brooklyn have furnished the argument against selfgovernment in cities. Both of them have given to the pessimist
and to the advocate of State control the illustrations to enforce
their ideas; both of them have had periods when the most hopeful
of us have despaired, and yet by the resolution of lthe twelvemonth pessimist and opitlnist are united in enthusiasm for popular
government in great cities. A trifling accident in each aroused
inquiry, and the result of inquiry demonstrated the ever-present
power of public opinion and public spirit. I called attention




No. 44.]


539


three years ago, at a dinner given to me in this city, to the rumors
current of municipal corruption. The mayor, himself, a worthy
and respectable man, left the table in a rage. Instantly, not only
Brooklyn, but the whole country, began to inquire if it was chaff,
why not meet it with chaff; if it was a charge, why not answer it
by refutation; if it was false, why not deny it; if it was true, then
the people demanded a remedy. And so a mad mayor broke the
Brooklyn ring.
A Presbyterian clergyman in New York made charges of which
he had no proof, but which he believed from public rumor. He
was summoned before the grand jury to be jailed as a slanderer,
or laughed out of town as a scandal-monger. Again the community wanted to know whether the rumors and the reports and
the charges were true or false. The answer has revolutionized
the great city and made a hero of Dr. Parkhurst. The forces
which produced these reforms were not on the Fifth avenue in
New York, nor the Heights in Brooklyn. They were those whom
Abraham Lincoln, loved to call the " plain people "- who live in
the cottages and tenements, who toil day and night, but who, when
they appreciated the situation, brought to the rescue of the city
their intelligent and indomitable courage and civic patriotism. I
found the Bowery blooming with peach trees.
Two-thirds of the business men in Brooklyn sleep here at night,
but their business, their capital and their energies are in New
York. For them and their affairs the stone piers and basins and
docks are builded; for them the great warehouses are extended
and the granite structures rise to enormous heights to house them;
for them the banks and trust companies and the exchanges multiply. New York for them derives the sources of her wealth,
the splendor of her trade, the extent of her commerce and the
taxable resources which enable her to be lavishly extravagant,
and still, so far as taxation is concerned, apparently economical.
It is because there is drawn to New York capital, individual
and corporate, and because there is concentrated there such immense wealth, that on an assessment twenty-five per cent. lower




540


[SENATE,


than in Brooklyn of real estate values the tax rate is one per
cent. less.
New York is jealous of New Jersey across the North river,
Brooklyn and Long Island across the East. She does what she
can to retain her population within her borders. She does not
meet you in your effort to bridge the river on one side and she
scorns the proposals of New Jersey on the other. The crowded
tenements of a block are torn down and upon their sites rise the
sky-scraping buildings of twenty-two and twenty-four stories
which would arouse the anger of the gods, if they did not excite
their admiration, at the audacity of architect and constructor.
The people thus made homeless are crowded into already congested districts until the density of population surpasses that of
any other city in the world.
New York frantic:lly seeks to retain its population within its
own limits by the panacea of rapid transit, but the difficulties of
a transportation problem by which twenty miles are to be covered
within as many minutes at a rate of fare founded upon stops and
the filling up and discharging of cars every two thousand feet
do not tempt the capitalists. The city places its resources in the
hands of the individual or corporation who will undertake the
task, and yet there is little enthusiasm or confidence in the project. The individual or corporation who undertakes to pay four
and one-half per cent. on the city's loan wants to see for his risk
a handsome profit. If, however, New York and Brooklyn and
Queens county and Staten Island were one, the energies of the
great city would not be concentrated upon north and south lines
of transit. Bridges would span the East river at half a dozen
points of prominence, tunnels would be dug under it and the
ferries would increase their capacity. It would be then not a
matter of policy but of pride. The congested population finding
its way under the river, on the river and over the river, would
meet the developed resources for transportation and transit on
this side to be carried to cheap and healthful homes.
The pessimist says this is a real estate view. Suppose it is.
The history of our municipal development shows that when real




No. 44.]


541.


estate is solidly advancing the prosperity of everybody is correspondingly accelerated. If there were hundreds of thousands
of people a year seeking homes in the suburbs of your city it would
mean wealth to the holder of the land; it would also mean that
barometer of prosperity - the quick transfer of lots from one to
another by enhancing prices. It would mean the employment
of a large army o'f mechanics in the building and equipment of the
houses; it would mean the vast distribution of money in the purchase of materials; it would mean local industries and internal
commerce, all tending to the employment of labor and the distribution of wealth.
You have the beauties of the situation upon your Heights; in
the healthfulness of the ozone of the sea which pervades your
streets and your houses; in the natural facilities for drainage
and the absence of the conditions which poison the atmosphere,
healthful opportunities for a resident population which are offered
nowhere in New York. And yet the anxiety to live in New York,
to be part of the metropolis, to be a segment, however small, of
that imperial power which stands for so much in every department
of American life, crowds the avenues of our city so that equivalent
situations in New York sell for ten and fifty times as much as in
Brooklyn.
You go to London, and you find its Thames spanned by bridges
which are historic and by new bridges upon new models and upon
new theories in constant course of construction. I was last winter
in Rome, to discover that with all the poverty of the country
and the city, millions were being expended to unite the older
and the newer towns across the turbulent Tiber. The same improvements I discovered in Florence, over the Arno, and the same
in Vienna, over the Danube. It was because one government,
one municipality, moved by a common spirit, was earnestly seeking to bring all its sections in harmonious and profitable contact.
AWhen the lower towns of Westchester county were annexed to
New York the conservative voted against it and dreaded the result.
They were ideal communities, not only in their civic conditions
and in their neighborhood life, but in invaluable historic associ



542


[SENATE,


ations. No sooner, however, were they united to the great city,
than without feeling the additional taxation, the city assumed
the opening of streets, the laying out of their avenues, the projecting and building of their parks and their sewer and water systems.
None of these things could have been done by the towns without
burdens which would have bankrupted them; but with taxes less
than those of their town life, they were brought within the full
benefit and enjoyment of metropolitan oportunities, development
and progress.
The essence of the marvelous development of the nineteenth century is combination. It is the strength, the force and motive power
of our age. It crowned the Emperor William at Versailles and
created modern Germany. It made Rome the capital of Italy.
It is inspiring the Slav and the Scandinavian for government and
liberty on broader lines.  It has made London, Paris, Berlin,
Vienna and Rome, Europe. It has drawn all the surrounding
towns to Chicago, Philadelphia and St. Louis. The lesson of
Puritan ancestry and experience is for union, and in union
strength.
This day of all days in the year is full of inspiration derived
from Plymouth Rock for Greater New York.' The Plymouth
Colony represented the flower and fruitage of the Puritan idea.
Persecution had done more than confirm their faith. It gave
them a prophetic vision of the future which developed a broad
spirituality, which in its declarations and conduct produced that
consummate realization of the hope of man -Anmerican liberty.
Their eleven years in Holland had brought them in contact with
the common school and with other sects, under the blessings of
toleration and religious liberty in its modern sense. They bore
with them, as they sailed from Delfthaven, the inmmortal message
of Pastor Robinson, that God has not revealed the whole of His
truth, and therefore it was right to search, to inquire, to speculate
and to doubt. They formulated in the cabin of tle Mayflower
for the first time in the ages the doctrine of man's equal rights
before the law. Around them in Massachusetts Colony gathered
bigots and zealots, who hung witches, banished BTaptists and per



No. 44.]


543


secuted Quaflkers, wiho would not permit anyone to hold office who
did not belong to tleir conlgregations, and who formed and exercised a modilied sort of Church Tammany. There were 40,000 of
these outside. narrow-m-linded Puritans of Massachusetts bay and
7,000 of tlhe enlightened and developed Pilgrims at Plymouth.
-But the far-sighted Plilgriim was a State-builder. He realized
the power, the influence and the supremacy of concentrated and
homogenous populations, and by mutual consent Plymouth was
consolidated with Massachusetts Bay. The Pilgrim leaven leavened the whole lump and the fruit of the Pilgrim and the Puritan
marriage impressed itself upon the Constitution of the United
States, upon the Ieclaration of Independence, and upon the Constitution of every new State which has come into the Union, and
carried the common school, the church and the blessings of equal
liberty to the creation, development and conditions of the American Republic as we have it to-day.
One hundred years ago to-day and Philadelphia was twice as
large as New York. Ten years from now and Chicago will be a
third larger than New York, as circumscribed by Manhattan
island and the annexed district. When the World's Fair went
to Chicago the world knew her not. To-day she is one of the
most celebrated and best known of cities, and her population has
increased by reason of this knowledge and the prestige that the
great fair gave her more rapidly within two years than any
other municipality has ever grown.
There is a national and international power and prosperity of
incalculable value, which is accorded to the unquestioned metropolis of a country. As soon as Berlin became the metropolis of
(erlmany she drew from the cities and from the rest of the country
tleir best in every department of life, so that she is not only one
of the largest towns in Europe, not only advancing with a rapidity
in population and in the construction of houses and in the laying
out of streets and avenues equal to that of any booming town in
the United States, but she is, by the very aggregation within
her walls of the political, intellectual and financial life of Germany, a greater safeguard and strength for German unity than




544


[SENATE,


the throne, or parliament, or army or navy. London, with its
5,000,000 of inhabitants, is the capital of the world. A residence
there of three months is a liberal education. Its financial institutions control the government and the policies, to a large degree,
of South America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Syndicates in parlors on Lombard street, by the results of an afternoon's consultation, affect the destinies of hundreds of millions of the human
race all over the world. Meetings and conventions stop massacres in Armenia, ameliorate the condition of the Jews in Rlussia,
or compel action of infinite moment to the civilization of African
tribes or the condition of the people of India. Through its drawing-rooms pass all that is most eminent in statesmanship, in
literature, in art, and in genius of every land, our own being
always well represented.
So impressed is the European mind with the representative
character of cities that it judges countries by their society, their
business and their government. I was in London one year, and
met there American Governors, United States Senators and Congressmen. Said Mr. Gladstone to me: "I had a conversation
last evening with a most interesting countryman of yours."  I
ran over the list of Governors, United States Senators and Congressmen then in the city, and he said: " No; he held a much
more important position than any of those. He was once mayor
of New York." I was very glad that the Grand Old Man met with
such a worthy representative of all that is best in New York, as
ex-Mayor Abram S. Hew!itt.
With the Greater New York an accomplished fact, the metropolitan center of this republic and of these two hemispheres is
fixed forever. In the future, as in the past, only in a larger
degree, the banking-houses of the world will have their agencies
in New York. The thrift and energies of the country will concentrate in New York. New York will continue to be the greatest
manufacturing city in the United States. Wall street will remain
the financial heart, whose throb-beats are felt by the miner in
Colorado, the fruitgrower in California, the sheepraiser in Texas,.
and the farmer, manufacturer and laborer all over the country.




No. 44.]


545


The metropolis will stand, as a metropolis always does, for sound
currency, for wise finance and for stability of credit. In a larger
measure than ever before, great calamities like the Chicago fire
and the Johnstown flood will be relieved by the millions of dollars gathered from New York. In national crises the government
will appeal with confidence to the city which floated the national
debt in the Civil War, in 1863, and took in an afternoon the
fifty millions of bonds required to meet the demands of the
Treasury in 1894. Scientists and educators in every department
will make the city the university of the country. The intellectual life of the nation will concentrate here upon magazines,
books and publications which make the fame and name of the
century. The artists in stone or in metals, or with the brush, or
upon the dramatic or lyric stage, will seek reputation in New
York. The grandeur of the city, the rapidity of its growth, the
majesty of its power, the splendor of its civilization, the prosperity of its people, and the intelligence of its citizens will compel
honest government and pure administration. In twenty years
the office next to President of the United States in the eyes of the
world will be that of mayor of Greater New York.
THE COMMISSION'S REPORT.
The consolidated bill, as introduced by Senator Lexow, was
drawn up by the Greater New York Commission, which also sent
the following report to the Legislature:
To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New York:
The commissioners appointed under chapter 311 of the Laws of
1890 to inquire into and report upon the consolidation of certain
areas about the port of New York into one municipality, respectfully report: That during the nearly five years that have passed
since their appointment they have given much time and attention
to the work assigned to them. It was only at the session of 1894
that the passage of the act to submit the question of consolidation
[Senate, No. 44.]    69




5i6


[SENATE,


to the arbitrament of the electors was secured. These electors,
availing themselves of the provisions of this act, have given their
verdict in favor of union.
The Secretary of State certifies the official result of the ballot as
follows:
VOTE OF CONSOLIDATION.
New York County.- Total vote cast, 166,505; for, 96,938;
against, 59,959; defective and blank, 9,608.
Kings County. —Total vote cast, 129,466; for, 64,744; against,
64,467; defective and blank, 255.
Queens County. —Total vote cast, 12,453; for, 7,712; against,
4,741.
Richmo nd County.- Total vote cast, 7,041; for, 5,531; against,
1,505; defective and blank, 5.
Town of Eastchester.-Total vote cast, 634; for, 374; against,
260.
Town of \estchester.- Total vote cast, 1,241; for, 620; against,
621.
Town of Pelham.- Total vote cast, 404; for, 251; against, 153.
It will be seen that every municipality proposed by the commissioners for union has declared in its favor, with but two exceptions,
the towns of Flushing and Westchester, the vote in the former
of these towns being 1,144 for and 1,407 against, and in the latter
there appears a majority of one against. Taking the total vote
throughout the area of the greater city, there stands a decided
majority of 44,188 in favor of consolidation, and it is not to be left
unobserved that the great municipality that offers the chief
advantages of union is unmistakably in favor of it.
The popular will having been thus expressed, it remains for
the Legislature to determine the terms and conditions upon which
effect shall be given to it.
The great diversity of civil jurisdictions established by law -
legislative, executive and judicial, each at work in its own way -
within the area proposed for the greater city is but rarely understood and their respective functions are often ill-defined and imperfectly comprehended.




No. 44.]                              5)4 7
A few statistics arc subjoined to give sline idt_~a of the complexity of affairs with which wve have to dleal:
Percentage
of assessed
Amounit of    Population,  to actual   The aRssess((
NAME OF COUNTY..1Atax for     census of   value as  v-alue of real estate
159-11 1095.    1990.     shown by      for IS9 a.
State assessors for 1893.
New York         -       1$4 2186 119 96  1,801,739       63.0    $1,562,582,393
Kings --------— 1,114188-6 36               995,276       68.4       518,501',441
Quleenls ------- -  ----   1B4,100 51       *117',982     50.0        5O,7672,141'9
Richmoind -------            58,344 88       53,i452      50.0        19,750,376
Westchester ------          242 119 41      t29,412       51.0        82,802,083




The asscssed  Area,                Debt value
NAME OF COUNTY.    valaci of personal  square  Area, acres.  of inunlcipal
estate for 189").  nil es.          prpry
New Yorlk --- —-— $370,9;36,~136       38.85   24,864.00 I $105,784,549 12
Kings. --- —-----        19,704,920    77-5t   49,606.40  Not alntheuticQueeus. --- —----        2,377 -,860  "123.98  79,347.20  ally   n scerkhclmolld.         162,90     57.19   36.Ii0l.60  taliied.
Westchester. --- —------- 2,277,9056  t20_24   12, 9513.60
*Includes the whole town of Hempstead.Sikngfd
t Includes only the whole towns of Eastchester, Westchester and Pe-lha.Snkigfn
deducted. Staite, $9,253,702.88. Entire State tax for the whole.
As things now a-re, counties, towns, incorporated villages,
school districts, officers and boards, with their varied powers and
duties, wheels within wheels, issue their mandates, contract debts,
dtvisie and execute each of its own plans.
Were this complicated condition confined to the preservation of
order and peace, and to affairs not involving physical undertakings, t le untoward consequences might pass away with the lapse
of tinie, leaving no traces other- than great expense and disco-nif ort.
When, however, it comes about that the num-erous agencies
employed in this confused condition are applied to, and act upon
material works, it will readily be seen that the results, becoming,
fixed, are projected into the future, with continuous cost and disconifort- to succeeding generations.
To f use these multifarious powers, duties and f unctions, involving -as they do, the conveniences, the necessities, th-e nearest Inter



548


[SENATE,


ests of 3.,000,000 people, into a unit of govermental care and control is a task of no ordinary dimensions.
The suspension or disturbance of the varied machinery of administration now operating within the area to be united, until other
agencies are provided, will inevitably bring confusion, litigation,
and possibly further damaging consequences.
To provide, then, the methods and means for the transfer from
existing conditions, complicated as they are, to those more simple
and direct, without shock or injustice or injury to persons or property, there may well be employed the utmost forecast, the widest
experience and the most conscientious and painstaking application.
While the commissioners would gladly see this transition
promptly effected, they are of the opinion that the details involved
in the transfer, so far as they affect the tenure of existing officials,
their emoluments. and the scope of their duties, should be left to
be worked out without disturbance as time brings fitting opportunity, as the Legislature may direct, and as considerations of
prudence and protection of public and private interests dictate.
What is at present proposed is the enactment of a simple
declaration by the lawmaking authority that the territory concerned. its people and its property, shall thereafter be one city,
under one government, with one destiny; and the bill herewith
submitted to the Legislature is framed in consonance with these
views.
That the administration of the affairs of the enlarged city
should be continued under the same corporate name, "The
Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York,"
seems too clear to admit of serious discussion. The city of New
York is known the world over, and it appears quite inexpedient to
attempt a change of its name.
In any thorough consideration of this subject there occur three
prominent conditions that must sooner or later be dealt withnamely, debt, taxation and valuation.
It seems but reasonable, that those intending a partnership




No. 44.j


549


should each bring some contribution towards the accomplishnent of the ends for which it is formed.
The indebtedness of the divisions proposed to be united differs
widely, as thus the rate of taxation and the percentage that the
valuation for taxations bears to actual value.
In the city of New York the debt of the city and county are
practically the same; and though this debt differs in detail as to
maturity and rate of interest, it is one debt, and its volume easily
ascertained. There is also but one rate of taxation and one standard for valuation.
In Brooklyn it is very different. There are some fifty odd rates
of taxation, each higher than that of New York, and there exists
both a county and a city debt. Compared with the simpler condition of New York, this is confusing; and it would seem that the
sooner the situation is simplified the better it would be.
However desirable it may be, it is very obvious that the diversity
in the financial affairs of the various municipalities can not at
once be replaced by a system less intricate and more simple. It
also must be left to be adjusted by time and the equitable provisions of future legislation, and in such wise that ultimately
within the whole area of the greater city but one standard of
valuation for taxation, one equal rate of taxation, and one debtcontracting authority only, shall exist.
There appears to be no insurmountable obstacle to the vivifying of the frame work of the proposed unification, by the immediate setting in motion of the executive departments of police and
health.
The appropriate functions of these two bodies, which are to be
exercised in the common field, are admittedly essential for all,
and, in the interests of all can be neglected in none.
Should your honorable body deem it wise to put these particular agencies at work at an early date, the appointment of commissioners of police and of health, with jurisdiction over the whole
area of the greater city, might well be left to the joint action
of the present mayors of the two principal cities, with the provision that such of the subordinates of these commissioners as




550


[SENATE,


are to act in divisions outside of these cities should for the present
be made upon the nomination of the existing authorities of these
divisions respectively.
The existing forces to re, main as now with their duties and
emoluments until these beneficial changes are made, which it is
quite too apparent are imperatively demanded.
It is perhaps as well to call to mind the fact that the commission
that has for nearly five years been devoted to this work, was
constituted on the basis of the home rule idea. The State, the
parent of all its subdivisions, ias among the members of the
commission the State Engineer and Surveyor and a representation of six members appointed by the Governor; the cities of New
York and Brooklyn each has its representatitive designated by
their respective mayors; and the counties of Kings. Queens, Richmond and Westhestster each has its representative, designated by
their respective boards of supervisors, so -that the commission
is distinctly representative of -the various localities.
The commissions are also of the opinion that among the
earliest and most essential movements for administration of the
contemplated union should be the constituting of an elective local
legislative body, with adequate power and sway to give to it
dignity, respect and importancu. This is the solid and only permanent basis of local self-government - home rule.
In this body the elected representatives of each locality should
have a large voice in the determination of the improvements to
be made and the moneys to be expended in their respective districts, preserving local influence with local central autlhority.
which latter should be relieved of (lldmnistrative details when
its intervention is not necessary, and the local reprcsenlt-atives
intrusted with such duties as they can conveniently discharge,
care being taken to respect the natural desire of t(he citizens of
various localities for the preservation of memor-ials of historic
achievements and local traditions.
Every year that passes brings with it new colmplications, fixes
those existing more firmly, greatly increasinsg tli- obstacles to
union, while rendering its (esirability more manifest.




No. 44.]


r.)


In London, the subject of anialllgalmating its congeries of subdivisions, jurisdictions. pow'ers and authorities has claimed attention for more than fifty years. Commissioners after conmmissioners have addressed themselves to the task.
As late as March, 1893, a Royal Commission issued " To Consider
the Proper Conditions under which Amalgamation of the City
and County of London can be effected, and to make specific and
practical proposals for that purpose."
The following is an extract from the text of this appointment:
"And for the better effecting the purpose of this our commission, we do by these present give and grant unto you, or any three
or more of you, full power to call before you such persons as you
shall judge likely to afford you any information upon the subject
of this our commission; and also to call for, have access to and
to examine all such books, documents, registers and records as may
afford you the fullest information on the subject, and to inquire
of and concerning the premises by all other lawful ways and
means whatsoever.
" And we do further by these presents, authorize and empower
you, or any three or more of you, to visit and personally inspect
such places in our United Kingdom as you may deem it expedient
so to inspect, for the more effectual carrying out of the purpose
aforesaid."
With no "feeble" or shrimped authority, but supplied with
those ample powers so evidently essential for the intelligent performance of the great work entrusted to them, these London commissioners proceeded, and in August last submitted a report bearing signs of patient investigation, judicious discrimination, and
an experienced and informed statemanship.
Reading its pages, one can but feel an anxious desire that the
unification of the cluster of municipalities about our port may not
be postponed to be entangled with increasing obstacles, but that it
may be now resolutely and disinterestedly met and consummated.
With a climate that contributes and favors the beauties and
the bounties that come with the ever varying seasons, with a
diversity of topography that responds to the amenities and the




552


[SENATE,


requirements of a great city, with a population of similar pursuits
and interests, with capacious waters that bear to its marts the commerce of nations, nothing beyond the approval of the expressed
wish of the electors by their representatives in the Legislature
remains to insure the permanent establishment at this port of a
city that shall in its institutions and in its administration stand
as a type and an example.
If we would secure in this most important undertaking the
best and broadest advantages, conveniences and economies for
the present and the future, it needs that we look to those whose
vision is equal to taking a wider horizon, rather than to those
whose apprehensions, however groundless, naturally incline them
against that union which is so manifestly desirable and which
whole communities are looking with confidence to your honorable
body to see perfected.
While neither expecting nor desiring any pecuniary advantage
from their employment, which indeed they are by the law of
their creation expressly prohibited from receiving, the commissioners respectfully suggest the necessity of a moderate appropriation to meet the expenses of clerical and technical service
that obviously will be required in the discharge of the responsible
duties committed to them.
The commissioners submit the accompanying bill as an initiative measure, to be supplemented by such further bills for legislative action as may be required for public convenience or demanded by its necessities.
ANDREW H. GREEN,
President.
J. S. T. STRANAHAN,
Vice-President.
Dated, NEW YORK, December 31, 1894.
MR. LEXOW:
We will now stand adjourned without date, unless there are
others who desire to be heard on the main proposition. There
being no others, we stand adjourned without date.




No. 44.]


r553


CONTINUATION OF GREATER NEW           YORK HEARING.
SENATE LIBRARY, CAPITOL, ALBANY, February 5, 1896.
MR. SCOTT:
I think I ought, perhaps, to apologize, in the first place, for
having asked you to give me this hearing, because, strictly speaking, I suppose I should have appeared before the committeeat
the time you sat in New York, but I thought there were so many
gentlemen who were anxious to be heard that realized it would
be night before you could get to me.
I think it is proper to say to the committee before I start in on
what I have to say, that I am not and never have been an ardent
advocate of the scheme of consolidating the municipalities in the
lower part of the State into a greater New York. I have always
had a great deal of doubt as to the wisdom and expediency of
that course, and for that reason that I had and that I voted against
the proposition, I am inclined to think that I should vote
against it again if I had another opportunity.
My feeling, hlowever, upon that subject has been actuated not
by reason of the difference in taxation, as to which so much has
been said, but because I had a serious doubt as to whether it was
a practical proposition, at all events, to provide in a proper
way for the government of so large a city as you contemplate
creating. If the consolidation of these municipalities should tend
to better government and better conditions of living, I should
consider that it made very little difference whether, as a result
of that, the city of New York paid a little less or a little more
taxes than the city of Brooklyn, or paid a little less.
But I had a great deal of doubt as to whether or not this
consolidation would tend to good administration and toward
better conditions of living. I felt for a long time ' I think, perhaps, we will all agree to that - that the most difficult unsolved
problem that we have to do with is the question as to how to
govern, how best to govern, portions of our State which are
thickly populated, as cities are. And I felt that when -where
[Senate, No. 44.]    70




5-5


[SENATE,


we arrive at the question of attempting to decide how to govern
so large a city as this, we shall be met with a great many problems.
TUp to the present time, the general concensus of opinion appears to lave been that the most satisfactory way of arriving at
the government of a great populous city has been to-center, so
far as Iossible, responsibility and power, and at the same time
tolimit the exercise of that power and responsibility by strict
legislative lines. Whether or not that systemn could be applied
to so great a city as you contemplate seem s to me to be doubtful;
and it seems to me probable that you may have to apply for something like a Federal systeml of administration, similar to that
which is now in operation in London.
Now, I know that the answer to all that is that the bill proposes
to appoint a commission which will provide for all that, which
will consider that and report to the Legislature. And yet I can
not help feeling some apprehension that even slch a commiission
as that, with the limited experience which any comnmission organized here must have upon a subject of that sort, might, perhaps,
not reach the wisest conclusion. And therefore, as I say, I have
been in a great deal of doubt, and am still, as to.whether the whole
plan is a wise plan; because it seenls to me to be a very momentous,
far-thinking proposition, the end of whlichl I can not see; mnomentous and far-reaching, too, because the history of this State is tllat
the cities increase in population, and the country in proportion
apparently decreases; and if you create this Greater New York
which is contemplated tby the bill, it seems to nme that wc may lo:ok
forward witll reasonable certainty tlat within a, time, perhlapls,
during the lifetime of some of those here present, it will arrive
that a majority of the Legislature in both branches may be representatives of this Greater New York that you propose to create;
and I confess I do not know what the result upon the State of
New York would be if
MR. LExow:
(Interrupting) - Under the Constitution, it can not be, Mr.
Scott.




No. 44.]


MR. SCOTT:
Under the Constitution, IMr. Chairman, it can be for this reason
- the only thing that the Constitulion prohibits is that at no
time shall the representatives - shall there be nore than half
of the mlembers of the Senate or Assembly represented in two
counties in the State or the territory - now, then, on the 1st of
January, 1894, comprises in two counties of this State - you propose to consolidate in this bill three counties and a little over -
MR. PARKER:
(Interrupting) - Oh, no; I beg your pardon. We do not propose to consolidate the counties at allMR. SCOTT:
(Interrupting) - I beg your pardon, but upon the law -
MR. P'ARKER:
Simply the municipal corporations.
MR. SCOTT:
(Continuing) - I mean the territories - what the Constitution
says is this: " That no two counties or territory now comprising
two counties shall ever hereafter have more than half the Senators
and Assemblymen." Now, in that bill it is proposed to create a
city which shall include a portion now included in three counties
and a little over; and therefore the constitutional prohibition
would not prevent that city electing more than half of the Senators
and Assemblymen. I think if you look at the Constitution you
will see I am entirely right about that.
However, I do not suppose - and I do not come here for the purpose of making an argument against consolidation.
I think that there are a great many cogent reasons that you
have suggested for the question, though a new one, but I assume
that from all that I have seen and heard, that it is the intention
of the majority of the Legislature to pass some measure, at least,
upon this subject; and therefore, altlough not being an advocate
of that measure, I have come before you to-day, striving earnestly




556


[SENATE,


and honestly to make to you some suggestions toward the improvement, as it seems to me of the bill that you now have before you.
And I want the committee to feel that while I do not pretend - I
am not undertaking to masquerade in false colors - while I do not
pretend to be an advocate of consolidation, yet, if you decree that
some bill upon that subject shall be passed, I feel it to be a duty
that I owe to the committee, and to the community to attempt to
offer to you such suggestions to making this a more perfect bill
before it is permitted to be advanced.
Now the first suggestion that strikes me is that, as Mr. Parker
has just suggested, you propose to create a city which is to be composed of three, and a little over, counties in this State. And you
provide for that in the first section of the bill and in the fifth
section of the bill, in the most positive terms that nothing in this
consolidation contained shall - the language of the statute is, I
think, to be entirely accurate -"Nothing in this act shall be construed as attempting or intending to affect in any way the boundaries, government, rights, powers, duties, obligations, limitations,
or disabilities of any county or officer thereof, as fixed by the
Constitution or otherwise."
That means that you are going to produce as I have said an
entirely novel state of affairs in this city and which are not contained in any city we have had. Wre have had cities which are
co-terminous with the counties in which they are located. We
have had and we have to-day many cities in this State which
comprise only a portion of the counties in which they are located.
But never before has it been suggested that we should have a city
which comprised within itself three whole counties and a part of
another county. And the proposition embodied in this bill is
that you shall have a municipal corporation known as the city of
New York, which shall comprise the whole of the county of New
York, the whole of the county of Kings, the whole of the county
of Richmond and a portion of the county of Queens.
Now, the first result that follows from that proposition is, that
you will at once revive in each one of these counties separate
boards of supervisors. The constitution provides that they shall




No. 44.]


557


have in every county in this State except those counties the boundaries of which are the same as a city, a board of supervisors.
Under that provision of the Constitution we have had no board
of supervisors in the county of New York, they have had no board
of supervisors in the county of Kings, although until the first of
January they had a board of supervisors. There is a board of
supervisors in the county of Richmond. And under the bill as
drawn, as this greater city will not be bounded the same as any
county, there will necessarily be in each county a board of supervisors. Now, I can not tell how other cities in the State may feel,
but I know that in the city of New York we have gone through a
bitter experience arising out of the dual government of a common
council and a board of supervisors. And I think I can speak
for the inhabitants and taxpayers of the city of New York when
I say that we have no desire to repeat that experiment. You
know, gentlemen, upon this committee - know better than I do -
are more familiar than I am with the great powers that are vested
in the board of supervisors as to this State. And you will from
that very familiarity be able to appreciate in an instant the
confusion and the trouble that is to be ours, if you have a great
municipality and within that great municipality three or four
separate and distinct boards of supervisors, passing resolutions,
incurring debt, obligating their separate counties in various ways.
That is the first obstacle which appears to me to stand in the way
of the scheme in this bill as it is now before this committee.
In addition to that it will be necessary, I take it, under the Constitution, if this plan goes through that now is before you - it will
be necessary to have four different surrogates exercising concurrent jurisdiction over different parts of this great city, and four
different district attorneys exercising jurisdiction over different
parts of this great city; for the Constitution appears to clearly
contemplate that surrogates and district attorneys, and other
officers, but those are the principal ones, shall be elected by
the counties and upon county lines, and subject to county
limitations.
But perhaps the most serious difficulty, the most serious




[SE-NATE,


result, which is likely to flow from the inclusion of three or four
counties within a single city is, that you are going to open the
floodgates of municipal and county extravagance in a way that
I am quite sure this committee has n:ot yet considered. It was
held by the Court of Appeals in the case of Adams against the
East River Institution that the ten per cent. limitation which the
Constitution provides against the incurring of debt by counties
and cities - that is that enactment that no city should issue bonds
to an extent exceeding ten per cent. of the assessed valuation of
the real estate contained therein -that that limitation applied
to counties and cities distributively. It appeared in that case
that the city of Brooklyn contained within its boundaries ninetysix per cent. of all the assessed real estate in -the county of
Kings, and that the city of Brooklyn had issued up to the full
extent of the ten per cent. of assessed value of the real estate
contained in it. Then it was proposed to issue, and there were
issued, bonds of the county of Kings - which added to the bonds
already issued by the city of Brooklyn exceeded ten per cent. of the
assessed valuation of all the real estate in the county. And it
was objected by the purchaser of those bonds that they were
invalid. The Court of Appeals held that this was not true, saying that the power of the county, or of the city, as the case may be,
is restricted only by the amount of its own debt, and for the purpose of creating a disability against the one or the other the debts
of both can not be aggregated. As a consequence it was held that
the county of Kings might issue bonds to the full extent of ten
per cent. of all the real estate contained within its limits. And
the city of Brooklyn, comprising ninety-six per ((ent. of all the
real estate within the county of Kings, might go on and issue
another ten per cent - bonds to the extent of another ten per
cent - on that ninety-six per cent. Now the reasoning of that
case, and it appears to be very strong reasoning, in that case, as
applied to this great city that you propose by this bill to create,
would be that the great city could issue bonds to the extent of
ten per cent. of the assessed value of the real estate contained
within its limits, and then that each of these separate counties




No. 44.]


559


which is contained within it could in turn issue bonds to the
extent of ten per cent. of that portion of the real estate which
was included within the limits o'f the county. Therefore, this
benevolent and most useful check which the Constitution has
set and imposed upon municipal extravagance and municipal
debt-incurring, would be swept away at once, and it would be
entirely possible - I fear it would be probable - that there would
be issued bonds to the extent not of ten per cent. of the real estate
comprised within this great city, but of twenty per cent. as could
easily be done by the device of issuing city bonds on the one hand
and county bonds on the other.
Now, it does not seem to me that all those objections are
serious objections to the scheme of this bill, which provides that
the counties shall preserve their autonomy and remain distinct,
and I can see no reason why they should do so.
The first suggestion I have to make, sir, is that, if the committee favorably consider this bill, and propose to report it, that
they shall strike out from it all those provisions which forbid
the consolidation of counties, and that you should add to the
city of New York not only the city of Brooklyn and the city of
Long Island City, and these towns and villages which are mentioned in the bill, but that you should also add to the county of
New York the county of Kings, the county of Richmond, and
those portions of the county of Queens that are to be included
within the bill.
Mn. LExow:
HIow can that be done constitutionally?
MR. SCOTT:
I see no possible difficulty in doing that constitutionally, Mr.
Chairman. Last year the Legislature passed an act, as you will
recollect, annexing to the county of New York a portion of the
county of Westchester. The validity of that act was promptly
and ably contested, and it was argued - and the question as to
its validity was exhaustively argued-before the Court of Appeals




560


[SENATE,


by as able counsel as there are in this State. After due deliberation that court unanimously held - and I quote now almost the
exact words of the decision-that the only limitation - that
the erection of counties in this State was a branch of the legislative power - (sotto voce to Commissioner Parker, " 147 N. Y.
State Reports ") - that the only limitation upon the power of
the Legislature to erect new counties and the creation of old
counties into new ones was the requirement that each county
should have a population sufficient to entitle it to one Member of
Assembly; and if that decision decided anything, to my mind, it
clearly decided that it was within the power of the Legislature
to make new counties, to re-establish county lines so far as it
chose, providing that it should not interfere with those of the
Senatorial- would not interfere with the several district lines.
MR. LExOW:
Well, Mr. Scott, if that were applied to the county of Queens,
would there be sufficient left of the county of Queens to entitle
them to a Member of Assembly?
MR. SCOTT:
I don't know anything about that, about the application of
that; that I couldn't tell you.
MR. LExow:
I rather think we take in about two-thirds.
MR. SCOTT:
That could be easily evaded by taking in less of the county of
Queens, or by taking in all of it.
MR. LEXOW:
Yes.
MR. SCOTT:
Now, as to the power of the Legislature, I do not think there




No. 44.]


561


can be any difficulty. It seems to me that the act gives power
to erect a city, and under that decision of tile Court of Appeals
that they considered very carefully, that I think is conclusive
upon that subject. If that were not so, I think you would find in
the Constitution itself an intimation, a very clear and direct
intimation, that it is within the power of the Legislature to unite
these counties, because in that very section to which I referred
a moment ago, in the legislative article of the Constitution - I
think it is the third article - and various sections, where it is
provided, as I had said, that no two counties shaill have more
than a majority, more than half of the Senators and Assemblymen, the framers of the Constitution were careful to use these
word's, that no two counties, or the territory now comprising two
counties, shall hereafter be entitled to one-half the Members of
Assembly. Now, it seems to me, that the inclusion of those
words, " or the territory now comprised in two counties " clearly
foreshadowed in the Constitution the attempt by the Legislature
to create a Greater New York out of the counties which are situated in the lower part of the State, at the close, itself clearly
foreshadowed - carried out the idea that the Legislature had
the power to do that. And I feel quite sure, sir, that I risk
nothing in saying that if you will take the trouble to look at the
decision of the Court of Appeals in the People on the relation of
Henderson against the Board of Supervisors of Westchester
County, you will be convinced that the court has there held that
the Legislature has absolute power as to making and remaking
counties in this State.
MR. BRUSH:
Do you know the section on the subject of the Constitution?
MR. PARKER:
Section four of article three.
MR. LExow:
Mr. Parker, have you looked that up?
[Senate, No. 44.]     71




562


[SENATE,


MR. PARKER:
I have, yes. I did not want to interrupt -
MR. LEXOW:
That is right. I only wanted to suggest to you to answer that,
if there is any answer to it.
MR. PARKER:
I think so, yes.
MR. SCOTT:
Well, of course I have not come here for the purpose - I have
no desire to enter into a polemic or legal discussion as to what the
Legislature can or can not do. If the members of this committee
should be of the opinion that they can not do this thing, why of
course, that is all I have got to say.
MR. LEXOW:
Of course - I will say that was my opinion up to this time.
MR. SCOTT:
Precisely, sir, and it has been the impression of the people -
it was the impression of a good many people until the Court of
Appeals decided in the Henderson case. I know it was the impression of all my antagonists in that case (Laughter).
But what I do want to impress upon this committee is this, that
if upon the consideration of that case and the consideration of
this Constitution, you should be of the opinion that it is within
your power to combine these counties as well as combine the cities,
then I beg you to consider whether or not that would not be a
wise and judicious thing to do.
Now, the next subject to which I wish to call your attention is
the question of taxation. I am by no means one of those who contend, as I heard contended before your committee on Friday last 
that there should be no general taxation. As I understood the
argument the proposition was that if there was a consolidation




No. 44.]


56G3


each city should be assessed and be ttaxed in tlie saile proportion
in which it is now assessed and taxed. I do not believe in that
view at all. If we are to have a municipal marriage, then I believe
that we should have a municipal marriage for better or for worse.
If it is a good thing to consolidate the county of New York with
other counties, then it is a good thing in general, I think, to distribute taxation over all parts of the county, in an equal and uniform way. But I think there is a distinction to be made between
taxes and taxes. There are certain classes of taxes, taxes for certain purposes, which I think it is entirely clear should be distributed over the whole of this new city in equal ratio, and in proportion to the value of the property. And I thing that any plan
of taxation for the general administrative purposes, for the support of the police department, for the support of the fire department, for the support of the health department, for the support of
the law department, for the expenses of the - that come entirely
under general administrative expenses - I believe if are going into
this thing at all - that those should be clearly divided throughout
the country. But on the other hand there is another class of
taxes which I believe it is not for the benefit of any one that they
should be equally distributed throughout all members of the
Greater New York. And I refer to that class of taxes which
has especially to do with the improvement and development of
communities and the maintenance of public works. It would be
manifestly unfair, I think, for instance, that the land that comes
within the county of Richmond should be called upon to contribute
any taxes to the payment of debt which has been incurred by
the county of New York for the establishment of its Croton water
system, a system which has already cost some thirty millions of
dollars, and the bonds issued for which have, under the law and the
Constitution, to be paid out of taxation. The only county
at the present time, at all events, which    derives any
benefit from that water is the county of New York;
and it seems to me that it would be manifest injustice
to the county of Kings and the county of Richmond that they
should be compelled to contribute by their taxes to the payment




564


[SENATE,


of those bonds, the only benefit from which is derived by the
county of New York. In the same way, it would be equally unfair to the county of New York and the county of Richmond, that
they should be called upon to contribute by their taxes to pay the
bonds which have been issued by the county of Kings, or of the
city of Brooklyn, for the water supply which they have in that
county and in that city. Those are some of the kinds of taxes that
it appears to me should be laid and distributed. And in making
that suggestion I am speaking very much for the benefit of what
may be termed the outlying and undeveloped portion of this
Greater New York, than I am for the thickly populated and developed portion. We have had in our county an experience in
that direction which teaches us a great deal. Many years ago
we annexed to the county of New York that portion of the present
city of New York which is known as the twenty-third and twentyfourth wards, and there was no provision made for the distribution of taxes, and all taxes were to be levied equally. Naturally
enough the people who were to determine how much taxes were
to be levied and how those taxes were to be paid out and distributed, were people who were elected in, and were especially interested in the thickly populated portions of the city, and for years
they retarded the development and advancement of what wve then
knew as the annexed district, because the representatives of the
city who lived down town were unwilling to vote to extend the
city's money derived from general taxation in the development
and advancement of this outlying district of our city. It may be
an alluring prospect to the inhabitants of Richmond county, to
the inhabitants of Hempstead, to the inhabitants of Flushing, to
the inhabitants of Jamaica, to think that they are going to have
their territory, their home territory, developed at the expense
of New York and Brooklyn. But if they think that this is going
to happen, they are buoying themselves up with a false hope. That
will not happen for a great many years. If taxation is made equal
over the territory, because whatever board or body of men, in
the development of the scheme for the government of this city -
whatever board or body may be charged wTith the duty of determin



No. 44.]


565


ing where and how the taxes are to be paid - will inevitably be
controlled by the reprcse(ntatives xlwho coiien from, and vwho represent the thickly populated and tlie richer portions of this city,
and they will not vote for the expenditure of their money in the
development and improvement of the outlying districts, which
have neither a large population, nor any political influence in the
government of the city. Therefore, I contend, sir, that the proposition that there should be some difference made in certain classes
of taxes, is one which is made for the benefit of the outlying
undeveloped portions of this new city, and not for the benefit of
the richer portions which are now tliickly populated.
Now that all leads up to the proposition, that this committee
and this Legislature should not hamper the commission you propose to appoint by any instructions whatever upon the subject of
taxation. You have in the bill a provision for the appointment
of a commission who are given the widest possible powers as to
the preparation and submission to the Legislature of bills providing for the government of this great city. You have hampered
them and restrained them in no possible way by this bill, except
only in one, and that in the one way which it seems to me they
shiould be left the freest possible hand. You say they shall
report bills providing for the municipal -providing a government for this municipal corporation which is to be made; and
among other things for attaining an equal and uniform rate of
taxation, and of valuation for the purposes of taxation throughout
the whole of the territory of the municipal corporation as consolidated. Now as to that most important matter, a matter which
I think needs a great deal of consideration in detail and not only
in general, you propose to foreclose and tie the gentlemen of this
co-mmission you are about to appoint. Now, sir, let me ask this
committee if they can trust this commission to devise and frame
laws for the government of this truly novel and anomalous city,
can you not trust them to devise and submit to you, for your
approval, laws for the regulation of the question of taxation? Is
it not better and safer? Are you not likely to have better results
in the end if you allow this commission, after having obtained all




566


'[SENATE,


the light that it can obtain upon the subject - if you leave their
hands as free upon the subject of taxation as you have upon any
other subject, and allow them to report to you at once a scheme
of government and a scheme of taxation? Nothing can be lost
by that because you do not pretend you could not extend to this
commission power of legislation; the best that you can do to them
is to give them the power you propose to give them here, to frame
laws and submit them to you for your approval. Nothing that
they submit can become a law unless it is approved by you. And
with all deference to the committee and the Legislature, I think
I may venture to suggest that after that commission has sat and
have examined into this subject, have heard the opinions of
experts and taken testimony, and have considered it, even the
Legislature will be in a better position to determine wisely and
justly upon the scheme of taxation for this great city than they
can possibly do now with the limited knowledge and informa
tion that is at their disposition.
And, therefore, sir, the second suggestion that I wish to make
to the committee, is that you shall throw out of this bill all restrictions and limitations which you undertake to place upon the
judgment and discretion of this commission you propose to
appoint, leaving them as free to report to you a scheme of taxation
as you leave them free to report a scheme of government.
Now, sir, there is one other matter, and a matter of real seriousness, to which, I think, every friend of this bill will agree, when
the proposition is stated. You propose by this bill to enact that
so many cities, towns and villages shall, two years hence, be
consolidated into a great city, a great municipal corporation,
and pending that actual consolidation, you propose to leave to
the town boards, the boards of supervisors, and the village boards
all powers and authority that they have at the present time. In
other words, you give two years' notice to all these boards that
at the end of two years they are to be consolidated with the city
and county of New York into a. great municipality, and, of
course, as must naturally follow that, at the time of that consolidation, this greater nlunieipality will assume all the debts and




o. 44.]


567


obligations which have been incurred by these smaller municipalities. We have had in the city of New York some experience
with that kind of legislation. Last year, as I have said, the
Legislature passed an act providing for the consolidation with
the city of New York —for the annexation to the city of New
York - of a few towns and villages in the lower part of Westchester county, a small, sparsely populated territory, and it did
not seem as if there was any particular import in the annexation
to the city. There was much doubt up to almost the last moment
whether or not that act would become a law. It was sent to the
city of New York, and after considerable hesitation and argument it was accepted by the city and was returned to the Governor and met his approval. Only a few days elapsed between
the acceptance of this act by the city and its signature by the
Governor, and yet within that time, within those few days - I
can not venture to saw now how many contracts were awarded,
how many franchises were granted, how many schemes were put
into operation designed to ultimately extract money from the
treasury of the city of New York. It is currently reported- I
do not know that it is true - it is currently reported that most
of the officers in those towns and villages sat up all night and
every night from the time of the approval of that bill by the
mayor until its signature by the Governor, in order that all these
plans and contracts and schemes should be consummated. I
am not prepared to say, sir, that those schemes and plans were
fraudulent, but I am prepared to say, and prepared to establish
it if necessary, that they were wildly extravagant. That it is
almost true, as has been said of some one, that electric lights
were put upon every stump in the district. Now, sir, if those
things could be done in a small district, and in a few days, what
can not be done in this great territory that you propose to annex
to the city of New York in two years? Whlat schemes can not be
concocted; what contracts can not be entered into? What franchises can not be granted, if the Legislature does not take some
steps in this bill which they now have before them to prevent the
incurring of these enormous obligations. And, sir



568


[SENATE.


MR. LEXOW:
(Interrupting.) I understand, Mr. Scott, Brooklyn must be
excepted from that general remark, because she has already
reached her debt limit.
MR. SCOTT:
Welil, Brooklyn is one of those cities, sir, that nobody could ever
suspect to go into a scheme of that kind, but I was specially referring to the otherMR. BRUSH:
(Interrupting.) Thank you.
MR. SCOTT:
But it is perfectly safe to say that it is not necessary in order
to grant contracts for work and make agreements for putting
down sidewalks and roads and for all of these cases -it is not
necessary you should have power to issue at present investmentissue bonds. It would be quite sufficient for the people who, I
imagine, may be entering into these schemes, if they had an
agreement that at some future day when the Legislature has
consolidated the cities, that bonds will be issued.
At all events, it seems to me to be, and I think it will appeal
to the members of this committee when I say that, if possible,
some restriction should be devised -if you are going to give
two years' notice of this consolidation -that some restriction
should be devised and put into this bill which will provide against
that, that every contract entered into in some parts of this city
in these two years should be noticed in some shape.
Now, sir, these are the principal suggestions that present themselves to me as requiring some action upon the part of this committee. And I submit them to you, as I said at the outset, with a
view not to criticise, with a view not to embarrass or retard your
action, but simply with a desire, if possible, to assist you, in framing a bill with which you may yourselves be satisfied hereafter
if it shall become a law.




No. 44.]


569


There is only one other thing that I want to say before I close.
I want again to urge the committee, as I have already urged them
by letter, to seriously consider whether they should not restrict
the limits of the city especially whether they should not exclude
from all consideration that piece of country which lies far away
from our borders and which is wholly uninhabited, known as
Richmond county. (Laughter.) Nobody, so far as I can learn,
desires the inclusion of that county, except a few gentlemen
who own real estate there, and expect their property will be increased in value. We have heard a great deal of its vaunted water
front, but we have not been told always that that water front is
now wholly in the hands of private individuals, and that if it were
developed so as to be a mart for foreign commerce that that would
be no advantage to the people or to the city of New York, but that
that would simply assist the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, which
is a foreign corporation, to run things out of the State of New York,
into -New Jersey. There is no argument that I can see, except a
purely sentimental argument, a geographical argument, arising
from the desire of drawing straight lines on a map rather than
crooked ones, which have ever led to the inclusion of Staten Island
into this scheme at all - and I feel quite confident that my friend
Parker who drew this bill- if you can persuade him to put his
hand upon his heart and tell us what he really thinks - will say
that he did not think himself that Staten Island ought to be added
to New York.
I am not at all sure that that same proposition does not extend,
perhaps in a minor degree -or rather the same thing does not
extend to those outlying towns, now chiefly celebrated for their
hunting facilities, which you propose to annex out of Queens
county —Flushing, and Jamaica, and Hempstead, and Cedarhurst, and all of those places down there. It seems to me that if
we are to have a Greater New York, if we are to have a consolidated city, if we are to consolidate into one municipalitythese three
cities, which now stand at the threshold -at the outlet of the
State of New York - that there should be some degree of modera[Senate, No. 44.]     72




570


[SENATE,


tion and reason exercised in doing it; and that that will be best
exercised if you limit this bill to the three cities of New York,
Brooklyn, and Long Island City, which are already cities in name,
the inhabitants of which have become as it were used to being
governed by civic methods, and which logically, geographically,
historically and in every other way, are the proper component
elements of a great city, if you desire a great city at the mouth of
the Hudson river.
Now, I am quite aware that it will be said by some people
that this whole proposition, including Staten Island, was submitted to the people at the end of 1894, and that they voted in
favor of it. That referendum vote, certainly so far as the city of
New York is concerned, does not seem to me to be of any value
whatever, it certainly does not seem to me that it should
be of controlling value upon that subject, and upon this Legislature, if upon mature consideration you think the proposition submitted about that was to be made. So far as the city of New York
is concerned I think that every one will agree with me, and you,
Mr. Chairman, perhaps more than any one else, that the vote upon
the referendum should be given but slight attention, because, as
you are well aware, the citizens of New York in that year had
many other things of more pressing and immediate importance
to attract their attention than this idea, which was then largely
in the air, of annexation. Some developments had taken place in
the city, with which you, yourself, had something to do, which had
attracted such a measure of public attention, and which had created so much public excitement that I am confident that I speak
the exact truth and keep within mention, when I say that the
attention that was given to the question of Greater New York was
a very slight attention of any one; that it obtained a large majority
of the votes, I think was due to the fact that in the election everybody was in favor of voting for the affirmative of every proposition. They voted for the new Constitution, they voted for the
referendum and for the Greater New York. I think they voted
for the people who were making the affirmative fight against those
who were making the defensive fight. There was a feeling in




No. 44.]


571


the air arising not out of any consideration of the Greater New
York, but out of other considerations altogether, and whatever
was suggested was a good thing, and that whatever was new must
be better than what was old. And I therefore think that the
vote was - certainly so far as the details of the scheme is concerned- should not be considered as binding or conclusive upon
this Legislature, if upon mature consideration you think that
other provisions in your judgment ought to prevail.
I want to thank you, sir, for the courtesy and attention the committee has given me, and the kindness of listening to me.
MR. LEXOW:
I think the committee are pleased, Mr. Scott, to have heard you,
and have been very much instructed by your remarks.
MR. BRUSH:
One question I would like to ask, if the chairman will permit,
and that is this: We have adopted an amended Constitution
since this referendum vote - is it in your judgment, or should it -
should this vote of 1894, which was purely a vote of sentiment, be
considered as binding upon this Legislature when this Legislature
has not authorized that vote at all — pon the Legislature of
1894- which authorized it.
MR. SCOTT:
Well, sir, that is a question of legislative ethics more than -
and that Legislature - that is, these men who are elected for that
purpose legislate, and the legislation went over this vote, upon the
supposed expression of opinion by the people in a somewhat
irregular way, and one which is not provided for in any system of
government that we have. That is my idea about that. I don't
know that the amended Constitution has much to do with it one
way or the other. If it has, I think it is fair to say that there
is a provision in the new Constitution which foreshadowed and
looked forward to a consolidation of cities, and indeed I think
it is perfectly fair to say that there is no doubt that the framers




572


[SENATE,


of the Constitution did have in mind the possibility advanced that
there would be a consolidation of this sort attempted, and that
they made certain provisions which point in that direction.
MR. LExOW:
It was open to debate at that time-if you remember the
proceedings of the Constitutional ConventionMR. SCOTT:
Oh, yes; that was beforeMR. LExoW:
(Continuing) making these various propositions having in mind
the creation of the greater city.
MR. SCOTT:
Yes; there is no question about that. There is no doubt that it
has been in people's minds for a great many years, as a public
question.
MR. BRUSH:
But as I understand yo, Mr. Scott, you do not consider that you
would be morally bound by the vote of 1894 having been for
consolidation?
MR. SCOTT:
I should not consider it so, if I had a vote on it.
MR. BRUSH:
Well, argument has been made here by some of the gentlemen
that there was no obligation laid upon the Legislature.
MR. SCOTT:
I should always feel that referendum was an easy way to get rid
of the responsibility (laughter).




No. 44.]


573


MR. MATTHEWS:
I take pleasure in presenting the following list of members of
the Union League Club of Brooklyn.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., February 4, 1896.
HON. CLARENCE LEXOW, Senate Chamber, Albany, N. Y.
Dear Sir.- I take pleasure in presenting the following list of
members of the Union League Club, of Brooklyn, who have subscribed in favor of consolidating New York and Brooklyn into
one city.
This list was started Saturday, February, 1, 1896, four days
ago, and I desire to state that I have devoted but a small portion
of the said four days to such purpose, and that during such time
I have interviewed 148 members, without a prior knowledge of
their views, and have secured the signatures of 131, a percentage
of 88 19-37, favoring consolidation, among the 11 18-37 per cent.
who might be understood as opposing consolidation. I find many
who say that they favor the matter but object to signing for
reasons peculiar to themselves.
We, the undersigned members of the Union League Club, of
Brooklyn, are in favor of consolidating New York and Brooklyn
into one city:
Howard M. Smith, ex-president Union League Club.
Benj. Russell.
J. W. Harman.
Russell Parker.
Geo. B. Jones.
Jno. J. Cooney.
J. G. Dettmer.
A. G. Perham.
Wm. H. Lyon.
Louis F. Seitz.
C. D. Rhinehart.
W. H. Biggam.




574


[SENATE,


T. G. Christmas.,
E. C. Moore.
Arthur Pell.
Theo. Corning.
F. J. Ashfield.
John H. Donnelly.
S. S. Voshell.
W. A. Porter.
F. E. Quinn.
Austin Kelley.
Ira Preston Taylor.
Adolphus G. Bailey.
E. C. Fuller.
Geo. P. Chappell.
J. S. Nugent.
C. Washington Colyer.
Nelson J. Gates.
J. O. Carpenter.
D. P. Darling.
M. S. Hayes.
O. Ingersoll.
G. H. Benton.
Alex. H. Doty.
B. C. Miller.
Joseph L. White.
R. O. Sherwood.
Geo. H. Squire.
J. L. Voshell.
Edward H. Hobbs.
E. W. Scarborough.
Thomas Bishop.
N. E. Jacobs.
Geo. I. Jackson.
Wm. Coone.
Owen E. Houghton, D. D. S.
James H. Stearns.




No. 44.]


575


A. S. Haight, 8 Spencer place.
A. E. Blackmar, ex-president of Equal Taxation.
Wm. A. Barnum.
James Rice, Jr.
Marshall T. Davidson.
Jno. V. Jewell.
F. B. Keppy.
D. M.'Munger.
David Thornton.
Benj. Estes.
F. E. Barnerd (with equal taxation).
Herbert S. Ogden, no commission, and with equal taxation.
L. F. Silva.
Stephen H. Hand.
H. N. Gates.
Wm. H. Coon.
B. L. Houghton.
Jas. H. Taft, Jr.
S. B. Holt.
W. H. Pierson, M. D.
James G. Stevens.
Frank L. Bailley.
Thomas L. Wells, M. D.
W. H. Irwin.
Chas. E. Newton.
Henry C. Larowe.
Ethan Allen Doty.
Frank L. Coon.
F. H. Sellimar.
W. L. Tyler.
Montrose W. Morris.
John A. Schmitt, provided equal taxation.
William C. Pate.
Chas. H. Reynolds, Jr.
J. W. Hussey.
F. H. Wilson, ex-president.




576


[SENATE,


F. H. Cowperthwait.
C. W. Prankard, for equal taxation.
Jno. Nash.
T. J. Games.
J. F. Hamilton.
E. A. Warren.
William H. Reynolds.
R. W. Gleason.
Robert Lindell.
William P. Gio, 24 Brevoort place.
J. Hamilton Gill, 24 Brevoort place.
J. Culbert Patmer, 14 Brevoort place.
James W. Cromwell, 29 Brevoort place.
Edgar O. Pearce, 1092 Dean street.
Wm. H. Sterling, 1086 Dean street.
Seth T. Stewart.
Geo. N. Robinson.
James Nibb.
A. Abraham.
Geo. H. Conklin.
Chas. H. Macklin.
W. B. Mead.
William Jeremiah.
Charles Cooper.
S. W. Milligan.
H. A. Carleton.
W. M. Matthews.
Henry C. Allard.
Welcome S. Jarvis.
John R. Crum.
M. L. Bowden.
W. E. Edmister.
Ysidno Pendas.
F. Pelletman.
Hugh Hirsh.
William Degler.




No. 44.]


Edward Lyons.
Eugene G. Blandford.
John Ditmars.
Thos. J. Washburn.
Chas. J. Sands.
G. W. Carruthers.
Andrew Mercer.
E. M. Cragin.
Fred H. Pond.
MR. BRUSH:
The Union League Club is composed of over a thousand members - and he says that was the result of his labors - that only
shows that consolidation
MR. LEXOW:
Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER:
I should like to ask Mr. Scott one question. Mr. Scott, I believe, advocates consolidation, into one county, of the three
counties- the three whole counties named in this bill. That is
correct, is it not?
MR. SCOTT:
Yes, that is my idea.
MR. PARKER:
I wish to call his attention to this clause in section 4 of article
III. of the Constitution: "No county shall have more than one
third of all the Senators," and to direct his attention to the fact
that Kings county at present has seven, and New York, has at
present twelve, which together make nineteen, and which is more
than one third of all the Senators — and simply ask how that
could be avoided.
[Senate, No. 44.]    73




578


[SENATE,


MR. SCOTT:
Well, I don't know.
MR. PARKER:
Well, then, that settles that, I rather think. That is the only
thing which at the very outset, laying aside every other objection,
that might have been urged, determined the proposed consolidation of municipal corporations, expressly excepting counties.
And there stand those words just ahead of the constitutional
provision, that no two counties or a portion thereof as now organized, which are adjoining counties, or which are separated only
by public waters, shall have more than one half of all the Senators.
Now then that is decisive of it, it appears to me. Here is that
thing you are running against in a moment —take even these
two counties, you run over the constitutional prohibition —
Suffolk and Richmond comprise another Senatorial district, and
Queens another, and so you see, there you are.
MR. LEXOW:
That is twenty-one - now addingMR. PARKER:
Well, leaving out the argument of growth, you see that Richmond itself is not a whole district. I mean even taking those
where there can be no question. It takes nineteen, anyhow.
Certainly Mr. Scott's argument, I may say at the outset, and
his statements here, have been made in so moderate and so
friendly a spirit to this whole scheme that, although many of his
arguments have been heretofore touched upon, and in my opinion practically exhausted, that we cannot but thank him at this
time for his suggestions, and it is in that friendly and temperate
spirit that I propose briefly to speak of them now. I will take
them up in the order that he did. HIe spoke at the first of the
magnitude of the problem. Mr. Chairman that has been conceded and dwelt upon at meeting after meeting, and we admit
that absolutely. I believe personally that it will be a decade




No. 44.]


579


before the process of consolidation is colmpleted. It will be more
than a decade before the full assimilation has taken place of all
the diverse circumstances and interests throughout this territory.  There are different degrees of interest and different
natures of obligations and different rates of taxation, all these
to be fused into one great aggregate, but, as has been heretofore
said, the way to grapple with that problem, inevitable and soon
necessary to be referred, is to grapple with it, not to avoid it.
We realize the magnitude of that. For five years it has been
dwelt upon. Representatives and delegations from all parts of
this territory have been summoned before the commission and
their opinions taken pro and con, and as a result the magnitude of the problem has been impressed more and more deeply
upon the minds of the commission.
Now I think that this clause of the Constitution to which Mr.
Scott very particularly admits that there is no answer disposesMR. SCOTT:
I only want to say this. The answer is this. One answer is
this: That the Court of Appeals in the same Henderson case
decided that the present apportionment could not be disturbedthey would not interfere with the present apportionment.
MR. PARKER:
I have read the speeches, and read word for word, sentence
for sentence, the opinion of the court on the cases cited. It does
just this-and I have it here-it does just this: That for all the
county purposes enumerated in the Constitution the apportionment of the Assembly district, the election of a Senator, for all
that theretofore inhered in the county of Westchester as an
integral community of the State recognized in the Constitution,
that county must still live in every way. As to purely - as to
purposes of the election of an alderman and I think of a district
judge - I am not - I don't remember about that - it proposes
as to those it should be a part of the city and county of New
York. I know very well that the Legislature by the change of




580


[SENATE,


boundaries - as Senator Brush exhibited some curiosity as to
that, or some inquiry - there is no doubt about that. I have not
spoken of these things until they have arisen. There is no use
of pouring out upon this committee the crude processes by which
we have arrived at our results.
MR. BRUSH:
My thought was whether the Legislature had the power to
abolish the county. I have no doubt you can take a piece of one
county and add it to another.
MR. PARKER:
Well, it is abolition in one degree or another, whether you cut
a county up, or Awhether you totally parcel its territory out among
other counties. For instance, on the question of annexation,
on taking in the towns of Westchester and Williamsburg - I
think it is - that act of 1895, that is taken away from the county
of Westchester and annexed and made a part of the county and
city of New York, and of the twenty-fourth ward. Here is
the text of it, and there is no doubt about that; in the Constitution there is no express provision that that can be done, but the
Legislature - the court alludes to it here and says, when there
is no provision in the Constitution, but there are allusions that
plainly point that way, and the general power of the Legislature
is not expressly prohibited, the necessities of the case give it to
the Legislature.
Now, I shall be very brief about these matters. A!s to the
taxation clause, Mr. Scott's suggestion is that it be aboslutely
taken out of the act, out of the bill. The language of the bill
is that the commission which is to be, and through which the
bill shall be transmitted to the Legislature, that the commission
shall submit to the Legislature bills for the government of this
greater city, and which shall provide, among other things, for
attaining an equal rate of taxation. We arrive at that as an
ultimate result. Now, Mr. Scott has argued that in the interest
of outlying districts —he says, while it is perfectly just and




No. 44.]


581


proper that he should do so, no doubt - but I do not think that
they will argue that themselves -he says that you have hampered the commission by that. I beg to differ from him; we have
not hampered the commission at all. The commission is directed
to submit that one, among, perhaps, a thousand bills, as it
chooses; if it chooses, it may at some time submit to this Legislature a strong disapproval of that bill, or it may at some time
submit one together with it, one looking to the conservation of
the present conditions, and strongly approve that. It is not hampered in any way. It is not hampered any more than when, Mr.
Chairman, the commission had been directed as a contingent
experimental reaching toward a result, directed to submit to the
Legislature a bill providing for the government of that greater
city by a city council of two houses, or something of that kind,
something in the Federate way. And these questions, as I have
said before, as we have said right along, these questions will
come up before the Legislature at some time.
MR. LEXOW:
Well, all that the commission intends to imply from this provision in the bill is that they start out with a desire to do the fair,
square, just and honorable thing by every one of these districts
they propose to be annexed.
MR. PARKER:
YesMR. LExOW:
(Continuing.) And they put the Legislature in passing this
bill upon the platform of fairness and equality, so that the Legislature in years to come can take against any one of the various
localities, whether New York city or otherwise, any position that
is hostile to the intent of the bill, without going back upon this
record as established in this bill. Is that the proposition?




582


[SENATE,


MR. PARKER:
Well, that is even more fully than I think, sir. I do not believe the Legislature is in any way estopped whatever in fairness
from adopting another policy.
MR. LEXOW:
It is intimated that every locality shall be fairly treated.
MR. PARKER:
Fairly treated- and as you have said -
MR. LEXOW:
And by that you mean that there shall be equal taxation
throughout the entire district when that, in fairness, can be
consummated?
MR. PARKER:
Can be consummated. We are well aware -here is the
municipality of New York with between eleven and twelve
millions of dollars - I think the figures are about that, something of that kind —nobody proposes that there shall be any
injustice done to any one of those municipalities. And if the
outlying districts expect they are going to get any undue advantage, it is rather good than otherwise that these advantages
should be gradually filtered out to them. It is a very good thing.
Now, the last proposition - the last suggestion that Mr. Scott
made - was that there should be included in this bill something
to restrain the outlying municipalities from contracting debts
and from flooding the city of New York with debts contracted
improvidently. Well, that can be done in any bill at any moment if it is considered well. I can not see a way to do it very
clearly. I do not think Mr. Scott can; and I think if you ask
him to put his hand on his heart, and he will tell you that it
will be a very difficult thing to do-to restrain these-to
oversee and restrain and restrict these outlying municipalities




No. 44.]


583


from contracting debts, to watch them, and determine that this
or that thing is improvident -
MR. SCOTT:
(Interrupting.) I think if you were to provide that they could
make no contract obligation extending more than two years,
that might do it.
MR. PARKER:
They could not make a contract -it would be very improbable, that would not extend over two years.
MR. SCOTT:
They are all of them up to their debt-issuing capacity.
MR. PARKER:
Well, then, if they are, there is not very much danger.
MR. SCOTT:
Yes there is for new obligations. There is no danger of their
increasing the present debt.
MR. PARKER:
After the two years?
MR. SCOTT:
Yes, I should allow them two years. That thing may be done,
MR. PARKER:
There is no objection that I can see to it, if it can be devised
in any way; it can be done in fairness to them; I am sure there
is no objection to that; if they will stand it the city of New York
will have nothing to say on that.
MR. SCOTT:
Well, they ought to be thankful to get in out of the rain
(laughter).




584


[SENATE,


MR. PARKER:
Well, I think so, too.
Now as to the question of including Richmond county; and as
to the question possibly of leaving out a part of Queens county
that is provided for. I do not believe in limiting it entirely to
the three cities mentioned by Mr. Scott. You want something
of latitude for expansion from consolidation. It is something -
you know when we took in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth
wards there were rocks and groves and streams, and pieces of
land there that looked almost as if they were in the Adirondacks.
You go to the Bronx park and you can hardly believe that you
are in the city of New York -you would make a tremendous
mistake about that; Chicago and Boston include many country
districts in their proposed consolidation. As to Staten Island,
I will frankly say that at the outset of this argument I had considerable doubts as to the desirability of including it. I do not
think anybody can have any doubt of the wisdom upon a broad
policy of including that territory after having heard the arguments before this committee from Saturday last. I heard Mr.
Wiman's arguments there, and I never heard a more.solid, substantial, forcible argument than that. I am well aware that
Mr. Wiman is a large property holder there, and the improvement of that property may enrich him, and I thought of that as
I listened to him, but what has that got to do with it? Whether
it was John Smith, or James Brown, or William Jones that would
be made rich by it; the question is, what is the proper thing,
what is the policy that is going to make a rounded, perfect whole?
That is hardly a question of law, and perhaps it is not within
my province to advert to it, since I simply wish to answer questions of law. But I submit that to the consideration of the
committee as to whether or no those things, likely to develop in
the near future, do not make it very politic, very desirable, to
include the tremendous advantages that Staten Island offers.
If I were asked to throw my vote one way or the other, as to
whether it should be included, I should say decidedly, yes.




No. 44.]


585


Mr. Scott said what I can not quite understand. He was asked
about this restriction of less than one-half of the Senators to
two counties. He said that two counties can not elect more
than one-half the Senators. But this proposed one county —I
do not think he could have meant that - how could the city, if
it could not elect as a county, how could it elect as a city? You
might, with equal logic, declare that a city after you have taken
the entire county, elect more Senators than the county.
MR. BRUSH:
(To Mr. Scott)- One of the questions I want to ask is this:
You say that you have come to help to elucidate this latter, or
that is, as I understand it. Have you thought of some such
plan as the subdivision of this district into certain districts and
each one of those districts preserving it local form of government
and a representative or representatives from each local form of
government to be selected to represent it in the central government?
MR. SCOTT:
No, sir; I have not. I have not thought very much about
details of the government. I have assumed that you would have
to take some such plan as they have adopted in London; have a
central council.
MR. BRUSH:
So far as Brooklyn is concerned, I think we are anxious to
preserve our local form of government, that is preserve our
charter; and the proposition to swallow us up, and make us in a
certain measure serfs, we seriously object to.
MR. SCOTT:
The difficulty appears to be that you do not want to be swallowed up, and New York don't want to swallow you up, and yet
we have got to.
[Senate, No. 44.]   74




586


[SENATE,


MIl:. PARKER:
I will say to Senator Brush that the commission has in time past
given not a little attention to the form of local legislature of this
great city. We have refrained from discussing it heretofore,
because it is a large subject. The question has come to our
minds, to the minds of the commission, should it be a legislature
of two houses, should it be one house, should the representatives
in one house, which ever you choose, from a given locality, have a
peculiar vote, a peculiar power and weight in that house, as to
expenditures over the other; shall we form it on the scheme of the
London county council; or what shall we do. A good deal of
thought has been expended upon that, but we have thought it
premature to dwell upon it at this time. And I should be very
glad with Senator Brush, to show him all the things and talk to
him about all the alternatives we have dwelt upon.
MR. BRUSH:
Why not give us a skeleton of the scheme, if there is any such
scheme, in the minds of these gentlemen. Why not give us the
skeleton of the scheme as it is laid out and then we shall have
something to work on.
Now I think I can say for Brooklyn, and I certainly can for
myself, in this matter, that we do not care to stand as the obstructionists; what we do want is to preserve the charter of the city of
Brooklyn, and our own form of local government. If it is proposed to divide this district into subdivisions, I can conceive in
that being done and the local government of each district being
preserved, and a representative body organized, coming from
each one of these subdivisions, that shall preserve the principle
of home rule and still preserve the local autonomy of each one of
the districts. And I believe that such a scheme as that, if it was
worked out, and we were given the skeleton, I could properly
swing in with the position which this bill as it it now stands has.
We do not know what you ask of us; it is a leap in the dark;
and we want something that is tangible. and that we can depend
upon.




No. 44.]


587


MR. PARKER:
The Senator of course understands that every movement, at
every stage of what is to be proposed, is to be submitted to the
Legislature, to be published, to be argued upon in the clearest
manner, and that all that he requests is that that submission
be made now, rather than a few months later on.
MR. BRUSH:
Excuse me - what we want in Brooklyn, is to know what you
ask us to go into. This bill provides for consolidation; consolidation is had before we know what is back of it, and we do not
want to be asked to take a leap in the dark.
MR. PARKER:
You know what is back of it, and you do not have to accept it
until the State says so. Ini other words, this bill passes, and
whatever may come thereafter, whatever may be proposed, whatever may be prepared by this or any commission, does not take -
MR. BRUSH:
No - excuse me, Commissioner Parker - this bill passed, and
consolidation is effected.
MR. PARKER:
Yes.
MR. BRUSH:
If it becomes a law?
MR. PARKER:
Yes.
MR. BRUSH:
Then we have got to take what follows whether we like it or
not.




588


[SENATE,


MR. PARKER:
No; I beg your pardon - you have not. You have not, sirand it seems to me strange that we should have to dwell upon
that. Let us take for instance the making of a health department.
Suppose we say that is the first thing it is to be extended over.
What is done? A bill is drawn. It don't become a law at once.
It comes up here, delegations come from Brooklyn to protest
against this or that feature, commend this or that other feature,
and it goes through the same slow process of fight or repulse and
advance that any other bill in this Legislature does.
MR. BRUSH:
Yes.
MR. PARKER:
(Continuing) And so on bill after bill goes through the Legislature. Now what more - what can you ask any fairer than
that?
MR. LExow:
Even that affecting the police department - you don't seem to
be at all nervous about it.
MR. PARKER:
Even that, I presume sir, will take that same slow, tentative
way.
MR. BRUSH:
No what we ask for is your frame work now. Give us your
frame work, and let us know what you are going to build on.
MR. PARKER:
We build on this bill.
MR. LEXOW:
I am glad to see that Dr. Brush has become so good a consolidationist. By slow stages I think we will have him.




No. 44.]


589


MR. PARKER:
This is an illustration of the slow tentative way in which the
process goes on (indicating Dr. Brush.)
MR. BRUSH:
I beg your pardon; Dr. Brush is no consolidationist on the lines
which are here proposed. Dr. Brush is open to any reasonable
scheme for the welfare of the district, that is right; but he don't
propose to stand as an obstructionist, and he does propose to
stand for the rights of the people that he represents and for the.
charter of the city of Brooklyn, and to preserve its local autonomy
until the last ditch.
MR. LEXOW:
But suppose Doctor, that we take that magnificent charter of
the city of Brooklyn, and spread it over the whole district
MR. BRUSH:
We want to preserve our own local autonomy there in Brooklyn;
that is what I shall contend for. I give due notice of that.
MR. LEXOW:
I believe some members have requested copies of the charter
of Brooklyn, and have not been able to get them; are they guarded
so sacredly?
MR. BRUSH:
I think I can furnish them.
MR. SCOTT:
You will find them in the laws of 1888.
MR. LEXOW:
Were the bills forming the charter consolidated in 1888?
MR. SCOTT:
They passed the consolidation act of Brooklyn in 1888.




590


[SENATE, 1No. 44.]


MR. BRUSH:
We have new copies that have just been issued by the -
MR. LEXow:
(Interrupting) And I may say from personal experience of two
years or over, covering the period from 1888 down to, the present
time that they have been tinkering with that charter ever sinceand that a very large proportion of the time of the Senate and
Assembly of the two last years has been given to making improvements upon that charter, or changes.
MR. BRUSH:
There has been issued this year a copy of the charter, a new
copy, down to the present time.
MR. LEXOW:
If there is anybody else to be heard on the subject of consolidation, or no consolidation, the committee will be glad to hear
them. If not the hearing will be declared closed.




EXHIBITS.




I




EXHI BITS.
NEW YORK, January 22, 1896.
Hon. Clarence Lexow, Chairman Joint Committee on Consolida.
tion, Senate Chamber, Albany:
Sir.- I venture to address you upon the subject of the duties
impo'sed upon the committee of which you are chairman:
First. Because, if I recollect aright, by the resolution under
which your committee is acting, you are authorized to consult with
the counsel to the corporation of this city; and
Secondly. Because there are some matters which will require
the careful attention of your committee, and as to which an early
opportunity to obtain information should, as it seems to me, be
sought.
The proposition touching the proposed legislation is to consolidate into one municipality all the territory now composing the
city of New York, the city of Brooklyn, Long Island City and
Richmond county, comprising all of Staten Island and certain
outlying towns and parts of towns on Long Island adjacent to
the present city of Brooklyn.
To pass an, act saying that these territories shall be consoflidated into and hereafter shall form one city, is apparently a simple
proposition, but to legislate intelligently upon the subject, and to
treat all portions of the proposed consolidated city fairly and
equitably will require the knowledge of certain facts which I think
can only be ascertained by your committee, acting in its official
capacity and with the power vested in it to compel answers to its
inquiries.
As you are doubtless aware, the existent municipal corporations, which it is proposed to consolidate into one corporation,
differ widely from each other as t:o the amount of their bonded
indebtedness; as to their capacity for issuing bonds under the
[Senate, No. 44.]     75




594


[SENATE,


provisions of the Constitution, as to their revenues, as to the
assessed valuation of property for purposes of taxation and its
proportion to the actual value of property assessed, as to the rate
of taxation upon the assessed value thus fixed, and as to the
present state of efficiency of the several instruments of municipal
administration.
For instance, the city of New York has at the present time a
margin of debt issuing capacity, under the limitation fixed by the
Constitution, amounting to some sixty millions of dollars.
The real estate in this city is currently reported to be assessed
for purposes of taxation at an average rate not much exceeding
sixty per cent. of its real value in the market. Upon this valuation the tax rate has for a number of years fallen below three per
cent. and the city has, by virtue of its ancient charters and for
other reasons, large revenues from various sources aggregating
nearly or about twelve millions of dollars per annum.
As opposed to this state of affairs, the city of Brooklyn, if I am
correctly informed, has pretty nearly, if not quite reached its debt
issuing capacity. Its real estate is said to be assessed for purposes of taxation at an average rate approaching very nearly and
in many cases quite reaching its real value in the market, and upon
this valuation the average tax rate is about one per cent. larger
than that of the city of New York upon its smaller conlparative
valuation; and the city of Brooklyn, as I am informed, has no
considerable sources of revenue other than that which is derived
from taxation.
I apprehend that similar discrepancies would be found to exist
if a careful examination were made of the financial condition and
resources of each of the other municipalities which it is proposed
to consolidate with New York into this large city.
The arguments and discussions which your committee are now
engaged in hearing in Brooklyn, and expect hereafter to listen to
in New York, may be and doubtless will be instructive to sonim
extent as to the wishes and desires of the inhabitants of those two
cities upon this important question; but after you shall have
ascertained those wishes and desires, if you deem it proper to




No. 44.]


595


proceed with the subject and recommend (onsolidation, you will
find it necessary to carefully consider what adjustment and
arrangement should be made as to the assumption of present
indebtedness of the several existent municipalities; of the disposition: hereafter to be made of such revenues as each municipality may now have; and of the disposition hereafter of the
burdens of taxation.
The suggestion that I desire to make to you is that your committee should, as soon as practicable, address a circular letter to
the proper officers of each of the municipalities proposed to be
included in the consolidation, asking for formal and accurate
statements as to the condition of each of such municipalities in
the particulars to which I have referred, and in such other particulars as will doubtless occur to your committee upon consideration of the question.
It will probably take some little time for the preparation of
these statements, and it would therefore seem that the sooner
such a request is made the sooner will you committee be in a
position to consider the matter with that full comprehension
which I am sure you desire to possess.
I suggest that such an inquiry should be made by your committee, because it is very difficult to obtain this information except in some manner such as I have suggested. Somle time ago I
made an effort to obtain this information myself and found that
so far as concerns certain localities it was impossible to obtain a
satisfactory statement of their financial condition.
Without at present expressing any opinion as to the desirability of consolidating the cities of New York, Broloklyn and Long
Island City, may I not beg your committee to take into very
serious consideration the question whether they should not at the
outset eliminate that portion of the proposition which contemplates tle inclusion of Richmond county in this consolidated city.
That county, as you are aware, comprises an island situated in
New York bay, many miles distant from the present city of New
York, too far to ever permit of the erection of a bridge between
the two, and while not so far from the city of Brooklyn, yet separ



596


'FSENATE,r,


ated from it by the ship channel, which itself will probably render
the erection of a bridge inpracticable for many years to come.
The county is for the most part sparsely settled, there being no
considerable towns or villages upon it, and its inclusion into the
consolidated city would necessitate the attempt to apply metropolitan methods and appliances to a large territory which is now
purely country; which will be separated from the other parts of
the city by water; which will be accessible otherwise than by
water transportation only by going through an adjacent State,
and which has no geographical or logical reason for annexation to
the city of New York.
As you will recollect, the Legislature of last year annexed to
this city a small piece of territory formerly comprising a part of
Westchester county, which compares very closely as to the density
of its population, and its general characteristics to the present
county of Richmond; and, even as to that small territory, it has
been the experience of the officers of the city that the annual
expenses necessary to be incurred for the purpose of bringing it in
some degree up to the metropolitan standard of efficiency has
largely swelled our budget for this year.
It seems to me that whatever may be the final conclusion to
which your committee may arrive as to the consolidation of the
city of New York with the cities adjacent to it, you will readily
see that there is no sufficient reason for the attempt to bring
Staten Island into this municipality.
I hope to be able to consult you personally upon this subject
before very long, but in the meantime ask you to consider this
communication, and lay it before your committee.
Yours very truly,
FRANCIS M. SCOTT,.!.... s,          Counsel to the Corporation.




No. 44.]


597


BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 16, 1896.
To the Committee on Consolidation:
The statement made yesterday by one of your comnittee, Dr.
George W. Brush, that those in favor of consolidation were mostly
real estate speculators, was intended, no doubt, to cast discredit
upon those engaged in real estate business who see that consolidation alone can save owners of real estate from disaster. I regret
that so estimable a gentleman as Dr. Brush should make such a
statement over his own signature. The firm with which I am
connected has never engaged in real estate speculation, and I
have therefore a right to be heard, by communication, at least.
We represent hundreds of men and women who are not real estate
speculators, but whose little all is invested in realty from which
they look for an income to keep body and soul together. They see,
as we see, only disaster in the near future where a city having
only realty from which to derive an income is constantly piling
up indebtedness of millions year after year.
I beg to assure your honorable committee that the cry about
real estate speculators should not deceive your committee. There
are no real estate speculators in Brooklyn. They have all been
wiped out long since or have passed to Westchester county or
Montauk point. Our friend, Dr. Brush, knows this as well as his
neighbors, and he knows that the Brooklyn realty market has long
since been abandoned as a field for speculation.
If another election is insisted upon and the will of the people
is to be set aside, how can there be any certainty that innocent
and well-meaning people may not rise up and ask for a third
election to make sure that people have not again changed their
mind. If it takes two elections why should our Senators refuse
the people an opportunity to say whether they have not changed
their minds as to who should represent them.
Yours truly,
C. AUGUSTUS HAVILAND.




598


[SENATE,


BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 15, 1896.
To his Excellency the Governor and the Legislature of the State of
New York:
The undersigned, representing the railroad companies of the
city of Brooklyn, respectfully urge the passage of a bill consolidating Brooklyn city with New York city, providing, among other
things, for attaining an equal and uniform rate of taxation and
uniform valuations for the purpose of taxation.
THE KINGS COUNTY ELEVATED RAILWAY C(.,
THE BROOKLYN AND BRIGHTON BEACH RAILROADI CO.
By James Jordan, President.
THE BROOKLYN ELEVATED RAILROAD,
By Elisha Dyer, Jr., Treasurer.
VAN BRUNT STREET AND ERIE R. R. CO.,
By Michael J[urphy, President.
CONEY ISLAND AND BROOKLYN R. R. CO.,
By W. lan Derhoef, Treasurer.
In case the provisions of the " Cantor Railroad Act" do not
apply to the territory of Brooklyn.
THE NASSAU RAILROAD CO.,
By P. H. Flynn, President.
P,BooKLYN, N. Y., January 18, 1896.
Senator Clarence Lexow, Chairman of Committee:
Dear Sir and Senators.- You asked me at the hearing of the
committee yesterday if I had " changed my opinion that the bill
would be unconstitutional." I think you will remember when I
recall it to you, that my argument of unconstitutionality last year
was directed against the bill of last year on the ground that it
practically was an attempt to abolish county lines, which could
not be done under the Constitution. That view has been adopted
in the preparation of the bill of this year, for it in express words
provides that the county lines shall not be disturbed.




No. 44.]


599


That being so, I think you must agtree with me that the only
consolidation that is possible is one that would reinstate the
county boards of supervisors in New York and Kings county and
would make of the Greater New York a city, the government of
whose affairs was divided between five boards of supervisors and
a municipal government, with the debt contracting limit twice as
high as it was intended to be by the Constitution.
Now, I am sure that we all agree that the construction of a good
form of government for such a city as the Greater New York
would be is one of the most gigantic works of legislative arclcitecture of the time; and it seems to me that all must agree that a
governmental structure with such a division of authority and
responsibility as I have indicated would be faulty in design and
would be not only incommodious but dangerous.
Mr. Senator, it is not of so much importance that consolidation
shall take place in one year, or five or ten, as it is that if it takes
place it shall be upon a plan which shall not increase the difficulties of good government and discourage the exercise of good
citizenship.
The only sure foundation of a wise constructive legislation is a
change in the Constitution of the State, which shall enable the
Legislature to make one municipal government for the greater
city.
And, if you, accepting the force of the positions above expressed
should determine no longer to proceed in a way whose results can
not possibly be such as all friends of good government desire, and
should lead off in what seems to me the only way to accomplish
a satisfactory result, viz.: that of amending the Constitution so as
to enable our legislators to deal freely with so gigantic a plan
involving such enormous interests, the judgment of reasonable
and well-informed men must be that it was a course dictated by a
far-reaching statesmanship and not by hand-to-mouth politics.
I earnestly beg your thoughtful consideration of these suggestions. I remain,
Your obedient servant,
ROBERT D. BENEDICT.




600


[SENATE,


BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 21, 1896.
Senator Lxoiw:
Dear Sir.- I am in favor of the Greater New York. I, however,
see no serious objection to a " referendum." If the terms of the.union are made just and equitable I am confident that a bill for
consolidation would be endorsed by a large majority of the voters
in the city of Brooklyn.
Yours truly,
TIMOTHY PERRY.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 22, 1896.
To the Hon. Clarence E. Lexow, Chairman of the Legislative Consolidation (Conmmittee, Albany, JT. Y.:
Dear Sir.-As a citizen of Brooklyn and a large taxpayer, I take
the liberty of writing to you in relation to resubmission to the people of Brooklyn of the question of consolidation.
From my knowledge of the feeling of the people, there would
be seventy-five per cent. against consolidation when put to a vote.
I am president of one of the prominent corporations in Brooklyn
and director in many others and have a g(eneral interest at stake.
Politically, the Republican party, of which I am one, would feel
the injustice that would be done to Brooklyn.
Yours respectfully,
CLEMENT LOCKITT.
NEW YORK, January 22, 1896.
Mr. Lexow:
Dear Sir.- I am a resident of Brooklyn and a taxpayer, and
very much in favor of consolidation; and any relIresentatiorn by
our representatives in the Legislature that thlre is a change 'in
sentiment in regard to this matter is n'ot true.




No. 44.]


6(1


While it is true that I live in Brooklyn, yet every dollar that I
spend in that tax-ridden and cobble-stoned town is made in New
York. And, therefore, anything that contributes to the prosperity
of New York city is of great interest to me.
Trusting that you will carry out the expressed wishes of the
citizens of Brooklyn in regard to this matter, and pay no heed to
the threats of our mis-representatives,
I am yours, etc.,
JOHN L. SHEPPARD.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 25, 1896.
Hon. Clarence Lexow:
Dear Sir.- I desire to say in reference to the matter of consolidation now before your committee, I voted against consolidation
in 1894, not that I was opposed to it, but did not think it wise at
that time on account of the condition of New York city, and I
know many more like vmyself. My office is located at the foot of the
elevated station. I called in the first hundred gentlemen who
passed my door that I knew personally, the morning previous to
your first visit to Brooklyn, to sign a petition if in favor of consolidation; out of thle hundred called in four refused (three were
opposed and one said it made no difference to him, so he would not
sign). I do not claim there is such a large percentage all over the
city, but I do claim there is a large majority of Brooklyn people
in favor of consolidation, and what I have stated is my experience
and hope you will use your best influence to bring about such a
result. I can refer you to Senator Brush.
Very respectfully yours,
JOHN   PULLMAN.


[Senate, No. 44.]


76




6 02


[SENATE,


NEW YORK, January 29, 1896.
Senator Clarence Lexow;, Albany, N. Y.:
Dear Sir.- I do not hesitate to say that a large majority of the
people of Staten Island are in favor of consolidation with the city
of New York. At the election held in 1894, the vote for consolidation was 5,531, against 1,505. The people stand to-day where they
stood at that time. The taxpayers and most of the voters are for
consolidation. I am a taxpayer both in the city of New York and
in Richmond county, where, thank God. I reside, and have resided
for many years - a most beautiful island, situated upon New
York bay - needed by the greater city because of its many miles
of deep water front. Corporation Attorney Scott puts us many
miles removed from the city, yet, nevertheless, I comfortably pass
over those "many miles" in a ferry boat in a few minutes. What
is the matter with Scott, anyhow? A look at the map will prove
that Richmond county is nearer to the City Hall than is Central
park. "Sparsely settled! " says Mr. Scott, yet we have one village
with 20,000 inhabitants, and a total of about 70,000, a vast majority of whom desire consolidation and look anxiously for a
favorable report of your honorable comnmittee. I send you a copy
of my remarks before the Staten Island chamber of commerce,
a majority of whom promptly laid the resolution seeking a separate
charter upon the table.
Grant this boon of consolidation and the greater portion of
the people of our Empire State will hail you and your honorable
committee as blessed.
Yours truly,
READ BENEDICT.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 29, 1896.
Hon. Clarence Lexow, Albany, N. Y.:
Dear Sir.-At a large meeting of tllhe Tlwenty-second District
Republican Association of the Seventh lWai'd, the following resolu



No. 44.]


603


tion -was unaminously adopted, with instructions to forward you
a copy of the same:
Resolved, That this association most earnestly protest against
the enactment of any bill by the State Legislature having for its
object the consolidation of our city with the municipality of the
city of New York, without first submitting the same for the
approval or disapproval of the citizens of Brooklyn.
Very respectfully yours,
JOHN J. WALKER,
President.
N. K. EVERETT,
Secretary.
W'HEREAS, A bill has been introduced into the Senate of the
State of New York, by Senator George W. Brush, providing for
the resubmission of the question of consolidation with New York
to our voters, therefore
Resolved. That we. the Republican Association of the Sixth
Ward of the city of Brooklyn heartily favor such a bill. We
urge the members of the Legislature from Kings county to do
their utmost to secure its passage and commend it to the favorable action of legislators from other parts of this State.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each member
of the Legislature from Kings county, the Speaker of the Assembly, the President pro term. of the Senate, the Hon. Clarence Lexow,
chairman of the joint subcommittee on consolidation, Lieutenant-Governor Saxton and Governor Morton.
(A true copy.)
C. J. TEEHAN,
Sect etary.
BROOKLYN, January 21, 1896.
At a meeting of the First Ward Republican Committee held




604


I[SENATE,


this date, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted
as the sense of this body:
WHEREAS, A bill has been introduced into the Senate of the
State of New York, by Senator George W. Brush, providing for
the resubmission of the question of consolidation with New York,
to our voters; therefore,
Resolved, That we, the Republican Committee of the First Ward
of the city of Brooklyn, heartily favor such a bill. We urge the
members of the Legislature from Kings county to do their utmost
to secure its passage, and commend it to the favorable action of
legislators from other parts of the State.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each member
of the Legislature fromi KEings county, the Speaker of the Assembly, the President pro terim. of the Senate, the Hon. Clarence
Lexow, chairman of the joint legislative committee on consolidationi; Governor Morton! and Lieutenant-Governor Saxton.
iWMI. T. SHARPT,
President.
WM. R. FLEMING,
Secretary.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 23, 1896.
Senator Clarence Lexow, Albany, N. Y.:
Sir.- Acting in accordance with the expressed wish of the
Seventeenth Ward Republican Committee of the city of Booklyn,
assembled Tuesday evening, January 21, in the Kerasmos Building, this city, we beg leave to transmit to you, enclosed herein, copy
of the resolutions adopted at that meeting, asking their earnest
consideration at your hands.
Very truly yours,
THOMAS J. PERCIVAL,
President.
EUGENE A. AMELI,
Secretary.




No. 44.]


(605


BROOKLYN, January 21, 1896.
At a meeting of the Eleventh Ward Republican Committee held
this date, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted as
the sense of this body:
" WHEREAS, A bill has been introduced into the Senate of the
State of New York, by Senator George W. Brush, providing for the
resubmission of the question of consolidation with New York to
our voters; therefore,
" Resolved, That we, the Repulblioan Association of the eleventh
ward of the city of Brooklyn, heartily favor such bill. We urge
the members of the Legislature from Kings county to do their
utmost to secure its passage, and commend it to the favorable.
action of legislators fromi other parts of the State.
" Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each member of the Legislature from Kings county, the Speaker of the Assembly, the President pro tem. of the Senate, the Hon. Clarence
Lexow, chairman of the joint subcommittee on consolidation;
Governor Morton and Lieutenant Governor Saxton."
JOHN E. THORNE,
President.
WM. F. ABBOTT,
Secretary.
WHEREAS, A bill has been introduced into the Senate of the
State of New York by Senator George W. Brush, providing for the
resubmission of the question of consolidation with New York to
our voters, therefore,
Resolved, That we, the Republican Association of the twentysixth ward of the city of Brooklyn heartily favor such bill. We
urge the members of the Legislature from Kings county to do their
utmost to secure its passage, and commend it to the favorable
action of legislators from other parts of this State.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each member
of the Legislature from Kings county, the Speaker of the Assembly,




G06


[SENATE,


the President pro ten. of the Senate, the Hon. Clarence Lexow,
chairman of the joint subcommittee on consolidation, Lieutenant-Governor Saxton and Governor Morton.
The foregoing resolutions were unanimously adopted at a regular meeting of the above ward committee, on January 21,1896.
F. W. CODDINGTON,
President.
W. M. FRANSECKY,
Secretary.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 23, 1896.
Dear Sir.- You are hereby respectfully notified that at a regular meeting of the Twenty-seventh Ward Republican Association,
held on Tuesday evening, January 21, 1896, the following was
unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, A bill has been introduced into the Senate of the
State of New York by Senator George W. Brush, providing for
the resubmission of the question of consolidation with New York
to our voters; therefore, be it,
Resolved, That we, the Twenty-seventh Ward Republican Association of the city of Brooklyn heartily favor such bill. We urge
the members of the Legislature from Kings county to do their
utmost to secure its passage, and commend it to the favorable
action of the legislators from other parts of this State.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each
member of the Legislature from Kings county, the Speaker of the
Assembly, the President pro ter. of the Senate, the Hon. Clarence
Lexow, chairman of the joint subcommittee on consolidation.
Lieutenant-Governor Saxton, and His Excellency, Levi P. Morton,
Governor of the State of New York.
Very respectfully yours,
GEORGE SCHLAGENHAUF,
President.
GEORGE SENN,
Secretary.




No. 44.]


607


January 23, 1896.
We, the undersigned, citizens of the city of Brooklyn, desire to
put ourselves on record as in favor of a resubmission of the question of consolidation:
Collins & Day, 138 Livingston street.
Charles Meyer, 94 Livingston street.
James S. White, 109 Livingston street.
Robert J. Wilkin, 105 Schermerhorn street.
A. J. Foren, 40 Boerum place.
E. W. Meek, 83 State street.
G. A. Dessart, 42 Boerum place.
T. B. Sidibotham, Jr., 85 Schermerhorn street.
William A. Butler, 67 Schermerhorn street.
John Wilson, 197 State street.
T. H. Doheney, 78 Livingston avenue.
AW. B. Willicott, 78 Livingston street.
Edward Devos, 78 Livingston street.
E. C. Airla, 356 State street.
BROOKLYN, February 10, 1896.
Hon. Senator Lexozw:
WHEREAS, The members of the Bushwick Republican Club, of
the eighteenth ward, of the city of Brooklyn, believing that, on
the last popular vote of the people relating to the question of
annexation with New York, the matter was not thoroughly understood by them as to their interests, whereby they might be benefited or otherwise by the carrying or rejecting of the same, and
thereby insuring an intelligent vote on the question; be it
Resolved, That we, the members of the Bushwick Club, endeavor
to have the respective Senators and Assemblymen representing
the people of Brooklyn in the Legislature of the State exert themselves to the utmost of their power to secure the enactment of
laws to enable the people of the districts interested in such




608


I SENATE.


annexation having another popular vote on the question; and,
further, be it
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the
Governor of the State of New York and each of the said Senators
and Assemblymen for their consideration.
JACOB MAURER,
Secretary.
BROOKLYN, January 30, 1896.
Hon. Clarence Lexow, Albany, N. Y.:
Dear Sir.- By direction of the executive and advisory committees of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club, I hand you herewith
a copy of resolutions adopted by the club Monday evening, January 27, 1896, and for which I ask your kind consideration:
Resolved, That, without expressing any opinion in favor of or
adverse to the consolidation of Brooklyn with New York, this club
is strongly opposed to the passage of any charter or other legislation. consolidating the two cities which shall not be subject to
ratification by the voters of Brooklyn.
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to his
excellency, Levi P. Morton, Governor of the State of New York;
to each Senator and member of the general Assembly and to the
press.
Respectfully,
JUDSON G. WALL,
Secretary.
FLUSHING, N. Y., February 13, 1896.
Hon. Frederick Storm, Albany, N. Y.:
My Dear Sir.- At a well attended meeting of the Republican
Club of Flushing, last night, the following was adopted:
Resolved, That this club is opposed to consolidation.




No. 4.]


609


It might be well to state that the passage of this resolution was
well night unanimous, but two vot es being c-ast against it. The
club also wishes me to state that no previous action in this matter
has ever been taken by this club.
Very truly yours,
(3. W. HILLMAN, JR.,
President.
WHEREAS, It is contemplated by a Republican Legislature to
enact what is known as the Lexow Consolidation Bill, merging
the city of Brooklyn into the Greater New York, without any
knowledge or information as to the conditions upon which such
consolidation is to be effected so far as it relates to our city;
WHEREAS, The Republican party in Kings county for the past
two years has demonstrated renewed vitality and fealty to true
Republican principles, by its reorganization on the election district system, by its active and successful participation in the great
work of redeeming the city government from corruption and misrule, by its victories in county, State and Congressional campaigns, and by its united and aggressive action again securing a
Republican control in municipal affairs, which gives every indication of force and permanence;
WHEREAS, This organization is to-day still united and loyal to
the principles of the party and is looking forward with eagerness
to the larger duties of, and still greater achievements in, the
national campaign of this year, and
WHEREAS, The contemplated legislative action in passing a
consolidation act without a referendum, threatens to take from
this city and county the results of the achievements of this party
organization, without any satisfactory indication that the interests of our municipality and citizens will be properly safeguarded;
be it
Resolved. That we, the representatives of the Republican party
organization of the county of Kings, earnestly and emphatically
[Senate, No. 44.]    77




61()


[SENATE,


declare with all the force, power and influence of a united party,
that we disapprove any and all attempts to consolidate our city
with any other, unless full and complete information be obtained
of the terms and conditions upon which such consolidation be
based.
G. H. ROBERTS, JR.,
ALEX. ROBB,
M. B. CAMPBELL.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 31, 1896.
At a regular meeting of the Republicans of the nineteenth district of the sixth ward, held Tuesday evening, January 28, 1896,
the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:
Resolved, That we, the enrolled Republicans of the nineteenth
district of the sixth ward, are most emphatically opposed to the
passage of any charter or any other legislation consolidating the
two cities, until the question shall have been referred to the voters
of Brooklyn.
That copies of the above resolution be forwarded to His Excellency, Levi P. Morton, Governor of the State of New York; to
Senators Lexow, Brush, Gallagher, Wray and Assemblyman
Cullen, and to The Standard Union, Eagle and Times.
HENRY H. HANTON,
Secretary.
I, Robert Seabury, clerk of the board of supervisors of Queens
county, do hereby certify that the annexed is a true copy of a resolution duly passed by the said board of supervisors, at a regular
meeting thereof, held at Long Island City, in said county, on the
20th day of January, 1896.




No. 44.]


(i11


In witness whereof I have hereunto set miy hand and affixed
the official seal of said board of supervisors, this 22d
day of January, 1896.
ROBERT SEABURY,
Supervisors' Clerk.
WHEREAS, By a concurrent resolution of the Senate and Assembly of the State of New York, the corporation counsel of the cities
of New York, Brooklyn and Long Island City were specifically
named in said resolution as counsel to aid the joint committee of
the Senate and Assembly in the investigation relating to the
Greater New York; and
WHEREAS, A large portion of the county of Queens, outside the
limits of Long Island City, is included in said Greater New York,
and the board of supervisors of this county is deeply interested
therein; therefore,
Resolved, That the said joint committee of the Senate and Assembly be requested to add the counsel of the board of supervisors
of Queens county to the said joint committee; said counsel to be
paid by Queens county.
At a regular meeting of the Thirteenth Ward Republican Committee (Brooklyn), held January 21, 1896, on motion of Hon.
Stephen B. Jacobs the following were unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, A bill has been introduced into the Senate of the
State of New York by Senator George W. Brush, providing for
the resubmission of the question of consolidation with New York
to our voters; therefore,
Resolved, That we, the Republican association of the thirteenth
ward of the city of Brooklyn, heartily favor such bill. We urge
the members of the Legislature from Kings county to do their
utmost to secure its passage and commend it to the favorable
action of legislators from other parts of this State.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each member of the Legislature from Kings county, the Speaker of the




612


[SENATE,


Assembly, the President pro ter. of the Senate, the Hon. Clarence
Lexow, chairman of the joint subcommittee on consolidation;
Lieutenant-Governor Saxton and Governor Morton.
F. J. LE COUNT,
President.
WM. A. MARINUS,
Secretary.
January 17, 1896.
To Hon. Clarence E. Lexow and Gentlemen of the Legislative Consolidation Conmmittee:
I regret exceedingly that a most urgent business engagement
at the very hour at which you are t;o meet prevents my being
present in person at your hearing, but that my voice may not
be entirely unheard I take this method of presenting briefly my
views on the subject of consolidation of the cities of New York
and Brooklyn.
I shall not waste your time by going over the arguments that
others who will be present can more effectually lay before you,
but say to you as a Republican, desirous of the continued success
of my party in city, State and national elections, that if consolidation is brought about without referring the matter to the citizens
of Brooklyn, the party guilty of such legislation may expect and
will receive such a condemnation at the polls at the next election
as will seriously affect the chances of their candidate for the
presidency carrying this State.
Kings county went against Folger by upwards of 45,000 majority. Governor Morton, or whoever is the standard-bearer of
the Republican party this year, will lose the county by over
50,000 if this unwise legislation is brought about, which, added
to New York county's Democratic majority, will wipe out the
Republican majorities in the other counties and give the State
to the Democrats.
Very respectfully,;WM. C. BRYANT.




-No. 4 4. 


613


BROOKLYN, January 20, 1896.
To Hon. Clarence E. Lexowl and Gentlemen of the Legislative Consolidation Committee, Albany, N. Y.:
It does not appear that the moral phase of the question of consolidation was presented at the recent sessions of your committee
in this city. I would therefore respectfully submit for your consideration the following questions, viz.:
Is not the moral phase of the question of consolidation more
vital to the future welfare of the city of Brooklyn than the matter
of speculative real estate values and the glory of rivaling other
great cities in population and grandeur?
Do not the facts in regard to great cities all through the ages
make it important that we should carefully consider this question
from a moral standpoint before uniting New York and Brooklyn
under one municipality?
How do the records of New York and Brooklyn compare as to
morality?
Does any intelligent person familiar with the past and present
history of the two cities, question that the moral status of Brooklyn has been and is higher than that of New York?
What will be the effect upon Brooklyn from a moral standpoint
should consolidation take place?
Would not it be a great injustice to all intelligent citizens of
Brooklyn to force consolidation without first allowing a full and
fair discussion of this and other phases of the question?
I would also ask, has not Brooklyn, "The City of Churches," a
higher reputation morally throughout this country and the civilized world than New York? If this is so, I ask shall we surrender this reputation? I say no! emphatically, no!
Respectfully yours,
A. A. ROBBINS.




614


ISENATE,


BROOKLYN, January 17, 1896.
To the Chairman of the Legislative Joint Subcommittee on
Consolidation;
Sir.- Unless the najority of this committee have been misreported, they have declared that the question of consolidation
has been settled, and that the only thing to do now is to find the
best and most feasible plan for accomplishing that purpose.
Against such a proposition I most earnestly protest. We have'
never had a settlement of this question by the people of Brooklyn.
True, there was a vote upon the subject in 1894; but the people of
this city did not regard it as a "settlement."  Neither did the
friends of consolidation regard it as a settlement before the election. Their committee put forth a circular upon the subject, in
which they declared: "Electors will please observe that a vote
amounts to nothing more than a simple expression of opinion on
the general subject of consolidation. If every ballot in the city
were in favor of consolidation, there would be no finality about
it," etc.
The people of Brooklyn looked at the question in this different
way, and but one-third of the registered voters of Brooklyn voted
in its favor; and of those who favored it, we know of a large number of persons who voted for it under a misapprehension. There
were a large number of constitutional amendments to be voted
on, and Republicans urged upon their followers to vote for all
the amendments. Many Republicans voted for consolidation
thinking it was a constitutional amendment, as the ballots were
similar in form. This is a fact, however much it may go against
the intelligence of the voter. And now, forsooth, with less than
one-third in favor, and many of them voting under a misapprehension, we are told that the question of consolidation has been settled by the people of Brooklyn in its favor, because there was a
paltry majority of 277 votes out of 129,000 voting, and 62,000 who
did not feel interest enough in the subject to vote at all. To take
this view of the matter, and to annihilate the autonomy of a great
city of over a million on such a pretext will be the most infamous
outrage of the nineteenlth centui-y.




No. 44.]


X,15


But. for argument'. s;ake, let u1 for a moment grant that the
votl- of 1894 was valid and biinding; bt the Legislature did not
act upon that vote whtnlt  the opportunity was presented. And I
claim that because of that failure to act then, Brooklyn is entitled
to another vote on consolidation. Are we to be told that that
vote is to be always binding?  Can a great people not reverse its
opinions?
In 1888 the people of the United States elected a Republican
President and a Congress in favor of the McKinley tariff by so
great a majority that many said the Democrats would never be
heard of again, not in at least a quarter of a century.
In 1892 the people of the UJnited States.elected a Denmocratic
President and a Congress in favor of the Wilson tariff by a majority
so great that Democrats said the Republicans were dead, and they
bade them an everlasting good-bye, as they thought.
Two years later the Republicans were again on top in Congress
with a greater majority than the Democrats had in the former
Co'ngress; and nobody doubts the election of a Republican President next fall, unless he is defeated by the stupidity and foolishness of Republicans in the New York Legislature in cramming
consolidation down the throat of Brooklyn at a cost of 30,000 to
50,000 Republican votes in our city.
I speak of these things to show that a great people not only
have the right to reverse their opinions, but that they do reverse
them. Suppose that either Congress had said to the people in
1888 or 1892, you have voted for the McKinley tariff, or the Wilson
traiff, as the case might be, and that question is settled, as our
legislators at Albany now say to the people of Brooklyn on the
consolidation question. Well, suppose they had? I need not
discuss the result.
Now, if Brooklyn was for consolidation in 1894, she had a right
to reverse her opinion, especially as the Legislature did not act
upon that opinion at its following session; and Brooklyn has
reversed that opinion, and now she has a right to give an expression of that reversed opinion by a resubmission of this important
question to her voters. She asks, nay, she demands, this right




616


[SENATE,


from this Legislature. If that right is granted and the vote is
for consolidation, you will never hear a word again from any
present Brooklynite. But if that right is denied us, and consolidation is forced upon us without resubmission, and, as we
know, against the will of a large majority of the voters of this
city, then all I have to say is, God help the Republican party in
Brooklyn and in the State next fall. On the 14th of January,
1896, the Brooklyn Eagle said, editorially:
"There are 100,000 votes in this town to make things and to
smash things, and they can be wielded as a unit, to make or to
smash things and men, according as the things or the men are the
friends or are the enemies of Brooklyn's rights to determine
Brooklyn's destiny.
" Mr. Morton would like to be President. It is a commendable
ambition. He is well fitted for the office. He would lose New
York State by more votes than Harrison lost it in 1892 if he
wrote his name under a bill to abolish Brooklyn without Brooklyn's consent. Hamilton Fish would like to be Governor. But
he could no more be elected Governor of New York, even if he
received the nomination of both political parties, with a record
for the effacement of Brooklyn without Brooklyn's consent to
score against him, than he could be elected Pope of Rome. Brooklyn means business, and the 'Eagle' means business, on this
thing, and when both mean business on the same thing, events
prove that business is effectively done."
Gentlemen, without any thought of boasting, but simply to
show that I have a right to speak as a Republican, let me say
that I have been a staunch Republican since the 7th day of
August, 1854, when the first Republican convention was held. I
was a member of that convention. I have never flinched from
Republican doctrines. I have always worked faithfully for the
party. I wrote a book on the tariff, of which 3,000,000 copies
have been circulated. I know something of the party and its
teachings and doctrines. I love the party for what it has done
and is doing, and for what it will do if wise counsels prevail;
and I know something of the temper and feelings of the Repub



No. 44.]


617


licans in Brooklyn - andl I say to you in all earnestness and
sincerity tht ththe " Eagle " is right, and that if.you compel us
to take consolidation without resubmission, or, at least, a referendum, there will be no longer a Republican party in Brooklyn.
They will never again trust or support a party that has deliberately robbed them of their dearest rights and privileges, and
turned them and their plroperty over to the spoliation of Tammany Hall and its vile crew, with its Republican attachment,
equally vile. One of tlhe fundamental doctrines of Republicanism
is home rule, and on this doctrine we also demand resubmission.
The chairman of this subcommittee was in Brooklyn at the
Republican judiciary convention last October, and was then asked
how he stood on the question of consolidation. He answered in
my presence, " Gentlemen, that is a question that you ought to
settle in Brooklyn." We have settled it in Brooklyn. We have
now a legislative delegation that is unanimous for resubmission;
we have a commnion council that is unanimous for resubmission;
our mayor and ex-mayor are both earnest for resubmission, and
the people of Brooklyn are for resubmission.
I entreat you, give the people of Brooklyn another chance to
vote on this all-impdrtant question, and thus let it be forever
settled in the only just, right and righteous manner.
Truly yours,
D. G. HARRIMAN,
Police Justice. Second District.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., February 4, 1896.
Hon. Clarence E. Lexow, Chairman of Joint Subcommittee:
Dear Sir.-The public hearing to the citizens of Brooklyn on the
question of consolidation having been closed. I beg as a citizen of
that city the privilege of addressing you in relation to the late
vote on consolidation. This vote was authorized by the Legislature.


[Senate, No. 44.]


78




',18


[SENATE,


A vote upon the question without such authorization would
have been entirely without effect. Hence, any commanding or
limiting effect which it might have upon the Legislature, was
derived from the act of the Legislature authorizing it. The vote
either did or did not positively or morally bind the Legislature
authorizing it to legislate in accordance. If an affirmative vote
bound the Legislature so to act, a negative vote would likewise
have debarred them from so acting (otherwise the proposition
would have been, Decided by your votes, whether or not Brooklyn,
New York and other districts shall be consolidated. If your vote
is an affirmative one, the Legislature will act in accordance; if it
is in the negative it will or will not so act, but will act at its discretion).
If an affirmative vote in any way bound the Legislature to
legislate in accordance, or lhad a negative vote forbidden the
Legislature to sanction the project, the authorization of such
commanding or limiting vote was a delegation of legislative
power. The Legislature could not pledge itself to carry into effect
an affirmative vote without limiting the freedom of two-thirds
of its members to override a possible gubernatorial veto.
If the vote had any binding or commanding effect upon the last
Iegislature, was not that command fully satisfied by the last
Legislature by the introduction and urging of the bill which
failed?
If the present Legislature is in any way, morally or positiveiy,
bound by the vote, they are so bound by the act of a previous
Legislature, and if this Legislature is so bound will not all succeeding Legislatures be similarly bound?
Had the consolidation bill been passed by the last Legislature
and approved by the Governor, the present Legislature would
have power to repeal it and the Governor to approve such repeal.
Can it be consistently held that this Legislature holds the right
and power to repeal or reverse an act of the last Legislature
carrying into effect a majority vote, and yet be bound to remedy
the failure of the last Legislature to pass such an act?
Whatever commanding or limiting effect, direct or moral, the




No. 44.]


(;19


vote may have had upon the last Legislature it became such by
the delegation of its powers. And whatever effect it may have
upon the present Legislature is in the line of a restraint or a
limitation of its free action by the act of a previous Legislature.
Viewing the vote as an expression of popular feeling at the time
it was certainly within the province of the previous Legislature
to authorize such a vote as a test of the sentiment of the citizens
of the localities which were to be affected. It would be equally
within the province of the present Legislature to call for a second
expression, and it would be of far more use as a guide and aid
in the wise performance of its legislative duties.
During the hearings in this city it was affirmed that the call for
a resubmission or a new vote placed the Legislature in a dilemma,
that if the last vote was admitted to be indecisive and another
should be authorized, that vote so authorized might also be
claimed to be indecisive, and so on ad infinitum. The dilemma
disappears if it is recognized that the vote was a more or less imperfect expression of the sentiment at the time and not of binding
force upon the Legislature, but an aid to it in the fulfillment of its
legislative functions.
This vote differed widely from a vote for public officers or for a
constitutional amendment, in either of which cases the votes are
cast for the decision of a clearly marked and definite action to be
taken, or are a definite and positive expression of a choice of
individual representatives.
The vote on consolidation was different in this, that it was an
expression in favor of a complex project involving countless
modifications, none of which had been formulated, and fixed no
date either for beginning or for completion. As no date was fixed
it certainly could not be construed as a demand for immediate
legislative action, and this fully justifies any reasonable postponement for consideration and final deliberate action or inaction.
To argue that the vote was an assent to an agreement between
the cities and sections, the terms of which agreement were
unknown, and at the time unknowable, would seem an absurdity.
As an expression of the sentiment of the people at the time it was




620


'[SENATE,


certainly entitled to the respectful attention of the last Legislature. As such an expression of opinion it has far less force to-day.
A resubmission to-day would give expression to a far more
enlightened and deliberately formed opinion, and afford a safer
basis for legislative consideration.
As a measure of public opinion the simple rule of majority is in
no sense conclusive, nor is it to be relied upon as a safe guide.
On the contrary, as respects important measures of vital interest, a nearly even division of opinion should suggest caution, and
act as a warning against precipitancy of action not to be disregarded with safety.
Very respectfully,
JNO. L. DIBBLE.
NEW YORK, February 1, 1896.
Hon. Clarence Lexow, Chairnman Joint Committee on Greater New
York, New York:
Dear Sir.- When the subject of consolidation was put to the
public vote, something more than a year ago, I voted against it.
Since that time I have had more opportunity to study the question
and I am now of the opinion that it is decidedly for the material,
moral and political advantage of both cities to be united.
In expressing this view I know that I express the feelings of my
associates in the Sackett & Wilhelms Lithographing Company.
Respectfully yours,
C. WILHELMS,
Treasurer.
STATEN ISLAND SOLID YET FOR CONSOLIDATION.
To Senator Clarence Lexow, Chairman Investigating Committee
Regarding Greater New York:
Dear Sir.- As a member of the Staten Island chamber of com



No. 44.]


(; 21


merce, and known here as an advocate of public improvements, I
desire to state that all reports coming through certain parties, who
would like a little penny municipality of their own down here,
to whistle on, according to their own sweet wills, setting forth
that a " change " has come over the people who voted for consolidation, is absolutely false and unauthorized in my opinion, so far as
the people are concerned. I am, in daily touch with many of the
most wide-awake and energetic citizens of this place, on my way
to my office in New York, and have not found one who objects to
consolidation where I find ten in favor of it. A few penny whistle
advocates undertook to get the chamber of commerce here to indorse their views and declare against the Greater New York by
resolution of the chamber. Notice was given one month before
hand, but when our regular monthly meeting came, with the members prepared to defeat the resolution, the propounder thereof,
having found that general sentiment was strongly against him,
simply withdrew the part declaring against consolidation and instead substitute a resolution that " we prepare a city charter, in
event of this consolidation not being settled within a short time,
and instruct our Richmond county representatives at Albany to
apply for power to incorporate now with a view to consolidation
when the time might come for it." But this clear back down substitute was not acceptable as an equivalent to the original resolution - did not give ample scope for ranging against it a few even
of the many broadsides lined for a volley - and after a farcical debate in the air by a lonely few in favor of it, and more against it,
as a substitute, some adroitness being used to suppress one or two
who were well handed with shot destructive to the resolution, the
whole thing was "ingloriously" placed on the table, where it
belonged, in the majority vote opinion.
There are some here who are afraid that they will lose their individuality as leaders on the island if absorbed into a Greater
New York; but the real active, far-seeing men, here, who have the
respect of the whole county for their patriotism in public matters
of magnitude, and who take into consideration the near future
result to the whole grand scheme, with its immense possibilities,




622


/[SENATE,


are all in favor of immediate consolidation. With the North river
bridge once and for all time a fact, it will, in my opinion, only be a
comparatively short time when Staten Island will be also connected at Constable Hook by bridge, and a railway to New York
via the Hudson Suspension bridge lines into New York's center.
Millions of dollars already have just been capitalized, as your
books there at Albany show, incorporating for active operations
in Staten Island, and this at once. The trolley has just begun to
branch in various directions also, and new concerns in manufacturing have begun to apply for sites, one such already having
located and now setting up their plant. This capital is largely
from outside, and more is even now nucleating for a project with
which all others here combined will pall in comparison, I sincerely
have reason to believe.
It is the larger, fuller, grander view, of the prospect as a whole,
which inspires us when we look upon the map of the Greater New
York, and reflect upon the possibilities that are before us. The
miles upon miles of deep water frontage for our commerce - now
cramped and taxed so heavily at the nucleus, or present New
York- will be utilized on Staten Island comparatively soon; the
western products, loading at both places direct into foreign ships
without the present enormous lighterage cost, will come this way
instead of seeking outlet from other ports in the country north
and south of us in the United States. Perhaps the antis of Brooklyn storage-house owners, for instance, are afraid of Staten Island
for the above reason.
As it is impossible for me to be present to give these views and
statements in person before your honorable committee and publicly, I take the liberty to address your board by letter, hoping it
may be read by you publicly, as an expression or statement of facts
and opinion concerning the real expressed attitude of the people
of Staten Island, and as a direct contradiction of the statement
made quite recently before your board in public by a Staten
Islander, who says there has been a change since the vote in favor
of consolidation, and who would make it appear as though our
whole people were doing nothing else, while riding to and from




No. 44.]


623


New York daily on the boats, but talk about this so-colled change
of heart and anti-consolidation. I think that man must be a lawyer unwisely talking in the interest of a client in Brooklyn who
pays him for this particular kind of talk; otherwise I can not conceive of anyone spending the time that would be necessary to canvass the entire or even major part of the vote which declared for
consolidation, and without which canvass he can not have authority to say that the people of Staten Island " have changed their
minds,' if the papers report him correctly. Without such a canvass, or even with it, in absence of the public's expression of the
same, it is in my opinion a libel and an infringment upon our
rights. But we have no fear of losing them.
Truly yours,
J. W. MOULTON.
BROOKLYN, January 29, 1896.
To the Hon. Members of the Commission on the Consolidation of
New York, Brooklyn and Surrounding Cities and Towns:
Gentlemen.- Kindly allow me as an American citizen, a resident of the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., for over twenty years past,
a Republican in political principles, and because I have been requested by a number of prominent citizens to say what I think
would be for the best interests of Brooklyn in matters of consolidatioln with New Yorlk and other surrounding cities and towns,
based upon 1y.experience as a resident of the city of London
twenty-five to thirty years ago and my observations of the changes
there and here since that tilme.
In introducing this subject I would like to say that I fail to see
how any sensible and independent person who has the present
iand future good and prosperity at heart can in honor oppose the
consolidation of these places except through certain kinds of
hollow sentimentality which has no weight as against common
S(11se.




624


I[SENATE,


E Pluribus Unum is one of our principal mottoes and if this be
true, as it has so often proved itself in conflicts of opinion, in times
of peace and even when such opinions had to be carried to the force
of arms, we found that our forefatlters succeeded by such union
as in 1776. I would ask lwhat could have Boston or Massachusetts
have done without the twelve sister States than in union with
them, as against the old Tories of these colonies and the mother
country of these days, who as to-day were obstructionists and
fought against the development and progress of the masses of the
common people. In looking back at the pages of history it will be
found that there was not a place in the colonies where the old
Tory spirit was more obstinate than within the precincts of the
present city of Brooklyn. Remember the battle of Long Island;
then look back through nore recent years and see whlo has been
the parties to oppose nearly every improvement that has been:
introduced into this locality of Brooklyn, and you will see the
spirit that induced them to do so was simply 'thie sen.tii:ental
fear of loosing their personality or sovereignty as popular and.
public individuals.
Be it remembered that the cry made against land sharks and'
speculators as being the only ones who want consolidation is a
false alarm, and that most of the nmen who now cry aloud we want
to be left alone in our dear circumscribed Brooklyn and to bask
in its quietude, are men whose forefathers owned the farms and
lands on which Brooklyn now stands and have grown rich, some
with their millions, througlh sales and investments made by cutting up lands into town lots and selling them at prices as high as
procurable. Then lending their money to those so-called speculators, but really builders and develope.rs of cities, at large rates of
interest or profit, keeping all power in their own hands in a legal
ways, that when the proper time came they could crowd these poor
fellows into submission and sonetimes poverty, and it seems to
the writer that this to a great extent is lbein, don( now. What
means these large New York institutions, who sre( somet of tllhn
controlled by our so-called Brooklyn leading men, in refusing to
loan one dollar on real estate se(curity in tlhe city of Brooklyn?:




No. 44.]


G625


They know and it is for the public to find out. In this is the
principle of some of the men whio come out with the strong
language and say, "We don't study tle public," and when their
vacillating arguments will hold together no longer they then get
enraged and use their financial forces to bring about their own
nefarious schemes with the destruction of lheir opponents whose
desire it is to advance the interests of their fellow men and develop
their city so that it shall be second to none in the whole world, not
excepting the great city of London, England.
Why is it that there should be such difference in values of
real estate between the city of New York and the city of Brooklyn?
Why is it I ask that twenty-five hundred square feet of land in New
York at one end of the present bridge should be valued at one
hundred dollars a square foot, and the same amount at the other
end of the same bridge should only be valued at five dollars a
square foot when it it only six minutes ride or twelve minutes
walk between them? We answer it is for want of union of interests or consolidation.
Why is it there are millions of dollars lying in New York banks
and trust companies for investment that the city of Brooklyn can
have no interest in? It is because that money has been devised
for investment in New York city and for want of consolidation
all these millions must stay on the other side of the East river
although it could find investments more secure and safer on the
Brooklyn side of the river than on the New York side.
Why is it that mechanics in Brooklyn are compelled to work at
from fifty cents to one dollar a day less than mechanics in the
same trade get in New York? We answer it is because Brooklyn
prolperty owners can not afford to paymore; therefore the employers
can not pay New York wages for want of consolidated interests.
Why is it that Brooklyn's water front has never developed to the
same extent as New York? We answer it is New York owns
the whole of the East river to low water mark and Brooklyn people
who want dockage have to pay to New York annual taxes, etc.,
which ought not to be the case, because they are paying taxes to
[Senate, No. 44.]     79




626 


['SENATE,
L


a corporation in which they have no rights to representation. We
claim this to be unconstitutional.
Why is it that a piece of property in Brooklyn is not worth more
than one half of a similar piece in Harlem?  It is we answer for
want of consolidation and more bridges and closer communications by railroad connections. With them we should be nearer
to the commercial center of New York than Harlem is to-day.
Why is it that hundreds of our Brooklyn manufacturers whose
interests are all on this side of the river are compelled to have
warehouses and offices in; New York? It is simply because of the
prestige of New York as a city known all over the world as one
of the principal ports of entry in the United States, and they therefore find they are forced to identify themselves with New York,
which would be unnecessary if Brooklyn iand New York were one.
The writer has noticed among other and many improvements
in the city of London, England, and its citizens that land on the
Surry side of the river which sold for one pound one shilling per
square yard before the union has since that time sold (and directly
after) at an advance of from four to ten pounds per square yard
and in some choice sections for more than that. All this of course
was brought about because of union of interests and concert of
purposes. As every person felt that his interest could be protected as well on one side of the river as the other; being under
the same municipal laws he had the same security.
As a matter of history, before the so-called consolidation
there were only seven public and two railroad bridges and most
of those were toll or pay bridges in those early days, but now there
are over three times that number and all free because they are
the property of the people, except the railroad bridges, and there
is no reason whatsoever that there should not be at least six
bridges over the East river - one over Hell Gate and another
over the Narrows, within the next ten years - because the people
of these United States know how to build bridges about as well
as any peopIle in the world, and it is nlo more trouble for us to
build bridges than it is to miake other gigantic city improvements
which are found necessalry and profitable for the people and it is




No. 44.]


62 I


a fact that all the money required for- s'811(1 'vas imlproIvements
would be forthco'ming without any i roubl,.
Referring again to the incre(ase of values of property through
consolidation we would call yourl attention to certain matters
which are facts of record of property in Harlem and above in the
year of 1871-1872 and 1873, when lots were sold at from one to
three hundred dollars each and in some cases less than those
prices that since the annexation some of those very lots have sold
at from three to twelve thousand dollars each, and gentlemen, we
contend that this is the possibility and probability of the increase
when we get consolidation as a Greater New York.
And all this prosperity means so much more work and better
wages for our mechanics, so much more trade for our storekeepers, so many more orders for our merchants, and so much more
prosperity for our industries.
Consolidation is the one thing needful in this city at this time.
Although there has been an increase in the population since the
building of the present bridge of about four hundred thousand,
but this increase in numbers has not been a financial improvement
to the city but rather a drawback than otherwise, as it demanded
an increase in buildings which has been no en.ouragement to the
builders, who would often have to dispose of his property for less
than it cost him, because he could not realize, as in New York, a
fair value for his labor, trouble and expense; now, therefore, the
values of properties have been put down, city improvements have
been compelled to go on, and on account olf a low valuation of
property taxes have always seemed to be very much higher than
they ought to be, and this would not have been the case if we had
been part of the city of New York as we ought and demand to be.
In conclusion, allow me to say that I have had a long and varied
experience in the city of Brooklyn, being a large employer of labor
and a consumer of manufactured goods, I therefore know in the
foregoing whereof I speak.
I know that in the natural course of events Brooklyn property
ought to have increased in value per ratio with other parts of the




(;2S


'[SENATE,


same distance of New York City IIall, and would have done so if
it had been called New York and under the one bonded interests.
But where interests are divided there is nothing in common,
therefore, I pray and beseech you to make the consolidation of
these two cities your one grand effort, this session, putting aside
resubmission, as this would be an insult to the intelligence of the
present city of Brooklyn; also referendum, as this, we think, would
be unconstitutional and cause a precedent which would be a
disaster to the commonwealth of this State.
I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. C. METCALFE.
BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 20, 1896.
Hon. Clarence E. Lexow, Chairman Investigating Committee:
Honorable Sir.- I am in favor of consolidation of New York
and Brooklyn.
Brooklyn can not stand the increased rate of taxation that will
be absolutely necessary to make the necessary public improvements.
The owners of Brooklyn, those who pay the money to carry on
the government, are in favor of it.
Who is Brooklyn anyway, but those who furnish the money.
The few people who appeared before you in Brooklyn against
consolidation were from what is called Brooklyn Heights, a certain aristocracy of high literary a  and aesthetic character, and act
on sentiment, but know little of the burdens of taxation, but
think they are Brooklyn, but really have not seen as much of
Brooklyn in years as you saw in the short time you were here.
The building in which I write now is three miles from Brooklyn
Heights, and I guarantee that most of them have never seen it.
Although it is the finest banking building in the world (I mean it),
but they know nothing of this section of the city. I believe threequarters of the voters are in favor of consolidation, and the
women, a large number of them having considerable property




No. 44.]


629


interests (45,000 women depositors in this bank), I believe are in
favor of it.
If there had been no East river there would not have been two
city governments here.
Give us the Greater New York, the greatest city of the world,
that to say "I live in New York," will be as great an honor as of
old to say, "I am a Roman citizen."
Yours truly,
J. V. MESEROLE.
To the Cities Commilittee of the Senate and Assembly of the State
of New York:
WHEREAS, The public press reported on February 21, 1896, that
your honorable committees had decided to leave the town of
Flushing out of the proposed Greater New York; and,
WHEREAS, The public press to-day reports that such determination has been reconsidered, and that said town is to be included
in the bill providing for the Greater New York; and,
WHEREAS, This mass meeting of citizens of the said town of
Flushing was called to protest against the exclusion of our town
from this beneficial legislation, and to repudiate the statements
of that member of Assembly who claimed that the residents of
this town are opposed to consolidation with New York; be it
Resolved, That this mass meeting of residents and voters of the
town of Flushing heartily approve of the action of your joint committees in restoring their town to the Greater New York bill, and
urge the members of said committee to use every honorable effort
to keep the town of Flushing in said bill.
Resolved, That your committees be requested to present these
resolutions to the Senate and Assembly, and to impress upon the
members of both branches of the Legislature the fact that the
residents of the town of Flushing, irrespective of party affiliations,
are heartily in favor of the Greater New York, and that the sentiment on that question is rapidly increasing.




630


[SENATE,


Resolved, That the chairman and secretary of this meeting sign
these resolutions and forward them to the chairman of the Senate
and Assembly committees on the affairs of cities.
Adopted by unanimous vote at the mass meeting of voters of
the town of Flushing, held in the village hall at Whitestone in said
town, Tuesday, February 25, 1896, in accordance with the annexed
placard and accompanying typewritten resolutions.
T. D. GODLEY,
Chairman.
ALFRED MITCHELL,
Secretary.
A MASS MEETING
Will be held in the Whitestone village hall, next Tuesday, February 25, 1896, at 8 P. M., to protest against the exclusion of Whitestone from Greater New York. All favoring consolidation with
New York city as voted by Whitestone, College Point and the
town of Flushing in 1894, are urged to attend the above meeting
in order to devise methods to carry out the vote of the people for
Greater New York. The small but active minority against
Greater New York have suddenly succeeded in striking our town
out of the bill reported to the Legislature last Thursday, and
unless immediate effort is made by the sleeping majority we shall
be left out altogether.. Come. Come.
By order of
EXECUTIVE OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE.
WHITESTONE, February 22, 1896.
PETITION OF CITIZENS OF TOWN OF FLUSHING FOR
GREATER NEW YORK.
Resolved, Whereas, after protracted discussion by lte people
concerned, the. Legislature submitted to the legally qualified




No. 44.]


u: I


voters thereof, at the election lheld in Novelber, 1894, the question
of consolidation with New York city as part of the Greater lNew
York; and
TWHEREAS, At the said election tihe said question was decided
in the affirmative by the emphatic vote of the said territory,
including the almost unanimous vote of Whitestone, of the
town of Flushing, and whereas the said question having been thus
decided, and thus finally settled by the said vote, the said inhabitants contentedly relied upon the Legislature carrying out the
wishes of the people it had itself obtained at the said polling;
and
WHEREAS, The opinion of Whitestone as expressed at the said
voting has undergone no change but continues, remains and constitutes the well-considered and emphatic expression of the strong
desire of a very large majority of the voters and also of the inhabitants aforesaid; and
WHEREAS, It now further appears that the minority opposed to
the said consolidation, after their complete defeat at the said
polling, has continued its opposition to the present time and has,
in defiance of the said vote, at last temporarily succeeded in
excluding Whitestone from the Greater New York, to the great
disappointment and disgust of the said people generally; and
WHEREAS, The said exclusion, being so regarded and  being
highly injurious to the best interests and lasting welfare of the
said place generally, depriving it of the advantages certain to flow
from the more closer union with the great American metropolis,
of which the town of Flushing is already to a large extent practically a part and portion; and
W'HEREAS, Such defiance of the people's will, as expressed at
the ballot-box, is a dangerous and unprofitable proceeding, certain
to weaken respect for law and order, discouraging to peaceful people and gratifying only to political schemers and wire-pullers
seeking to serve personal purposes without regard to the general
benefit; and
WHEREAS, No good reason has been advanced by any one why




C:2A


'[SENATE,


the town of Flushing should be deprived of the great benefit it
was invited to share;
Therefore, this mass meeting of inhabitants of tlhe town of
Flushing, now held in the village hall at Whitestone. in said town.
without respect to party affiliations of any kind whatever, does
hereby, in the name of fairness, reason, justice and law, most
sincerely and emphatically object and protest against the proposed exclusion of the town of Flushing and particularly of the
village of Whitestone, from the proposed Greater New York city.
It is also further submitted and averred in support of the
foregoing protest that the town of Flushing is not a rural district
nor its inhabitants a rural population, as alleged.
That by far the larger part of the male population goes daily as
commuters to New York city or Brooklyn, being employed therein
in law, banking, manufacturing, mercantile and other business
houses, to a much larger relative proportion than are the inhabitants of Brooklyn, similarly engaged in the city of New York.
That a large proportion of the now vacant land of Fllshing town
was once farming land, but is now abandoned by agriculturists
and is being cut up into streets and graded, p)avIed, curbed.
guttered, sewered, supplied with water, gas and electricity. and
rapidly being sold off in building lots, or dwellings erected thereon
for lawyers, bankers, merchants, clerks and workmen, who simply
sleep in the town of Flushing with their families, and daily go
and return between New York city Brooklyn and Flushing town,
by trolley car, railroad, steamer or ferry boat, to earn their livings
in one of the two said cities, just as the same daily exodus prevails between the upper and lower parts of the county of New
York.
That agriculture in the town of Flushing is a rapidly dwindling
pursuit, which is being crowded out by the natural growth, extension, increase and overflow of and from the great American
metropolis, and it is estimated that something like ninety-five peAcent. of the population of Flushing town is in the villages of
Flushing, College Point and Whitestone, in which three said
incorporated villages, the foregoing condition altogether prevails.




No. 44.]


C3I
6}..>.)


That it is a fact that the vote of 1894, of Queens county, was
relatively very many times greater, in favor of consolidation than
that of Brooklyn. Yet Brooklyn is included and we are at present excluded. The actual figures were, Kings county, 129,211
votes, giving a majority of 277 for consolidation, whilst that part
of Queens county in question gave 12,453 votes with 2,971 majority for consolidation.
In other words, we who are now excluded gave relatively many
times a greater vote in favor of consolidation than those who are
now included. Our majority vote for consolidation was, in fact,
relatively greater than that of New York city itself. The total
vote was given for the inclusion of the whole of the district voting,
and being carried by a large majority there is now no authority
for leaving out any district simply because a portion of it voted
in opposition. Odd districts can not now be left out unless majority rule is to be an unmeaning sham. As a matter of fact Whitestone had a very large majority in favor.
Wherefore, your protestors respectfully petition and pray that
the Legislature of the State of New York will not allow the outrage of exclusion to be finally consummated against your dutiful
citizens, but will in its wisdom restore the said territory to the said
bill as originally arranged, so that the people's mandate, as cast
by them, at your request in 1894, may be faithfully enacted into
law.
That a copy of the foregoing be sent to each member of the
committee of the Legislature in charge of the bill, and that a delegation of citizens be appointed by the chair, to go to Albany to
interview the said committee in the interest of the object of this
meeting generally, that it have power to add to its number and to
invite the corporation of Flushing and College Point.
DELEGATION, IF NEEDED.
Sanders Shanks.             Moses Wrorms.
Judge McKnight.             James F. Taylor.
Alfred Mitchell.            S. H. Wessells.
[Senate, No. 44.]     80




634


[SENATE,


Stephen Poey.
Lawrence Collins.
R. S. Munson.
D. L. Godley.
Joseph H. Titus.
Louis Fromer.
W. S. Overton.


H. B. Niles.
D. A. Harrison.
Joseph Winkler.
Rev. J. J. Moffitt.
Robert Blissert.
John Morrison.
Oliver Taff.
ALFRED MITCHELL,
Secretary.


WHITESTONE, February 25, 1896.




No. 44.]


635


Debts of Queens County and Towns and Villages in Queens
County, January I, 1896.
Total debt, Queens county......................... $1,121,500
Total debt, Long Island  City.......................  3,456,000
Total debt, Jamaica town..........................  109,000
Total debt, Flushing  town.........................  338,500
Total debt, Newtown  town.........................  387,500
Total debt, Hempstead town, about 1-10 to be apportioned.........................................  490,000
Total debt, College Point village...................  231,000
Total debt, Far Rockaway village..................  12,000
Total school debt of Jamaica town..................  325,000
Total school debt of Flushing town..................  250,000
Total school debt of Newtown town................  175,000
Total school debt of Hempstead town, about 1-10 to be
apportioned...................................  30,000
TOTAL ASSESSED STATE VALUES.
Real.    Personal.  Totals.
Newtown................   $8,232,961  $58,500  $8,291,461
Hempstead...............   9,915,834  319,200  10,235,034
Jamaica.................  11,746,934  710,000  12,456,934
Flushing.................   8,851,963   79,050   8,931,013
Long Island City..........  21,199,922  232,500  21,432,422




636


[SENATE,


(Queens County Herald, December 28, 1895.)
The County's Valuation-Long Island City Gets a Heavy
Dose as Usual.
The board of supervisors completed the annual audit, with the
exception of the sheriff's bills, on Thursday morning. The amount
of real and personal valuation in the county as returned by each
town and by Long Island City is as follows:


Real.
Newtown...............   $6,472,658
Hempstead.............    7,795,730
Jamaica...............    9,488,020
Flushing...............   6,959,320
Oyster Bay.............   4,335,768
Long Island City........  16,667,132
North Hempstead.......     3,423,950
Total.............. $55,142,575


Personal.
$58,500
319,200
710,000
79,050
476,950
232,500
474,150
$2,350,350


Totals.
$6,531,155
8,114,930
10,198,02)
7,038,370
4,812,718
16,899,632
3,898,100
$57,492,928


Amount of State valuation.......................


72,168,015


Deficiency..................................  $14675,087
The supervisors made the following apportionment among the


towns and Long Island City to make
State valuation:
Real.
Newtown.............    $8,232,961
Hempstead............     9,915,834
Jamaica................  11,746,934
Flushing..............   8,851,963
Oyster Bay.............   5,514,688
Long Island City........  21,199,922
North Hempstead.......    4,355,363
Total..............  $69,817,665


the aggregate equal the


Personal.
$58,500
319,200
710,000
79,050
476,950
232,500
474,150
$2,350,350


Totals.
$8,291,461
10,235,034
12,456,934
8,931,013
5,991,638
21,432,422
4,829,513
$72,168,015




No. 44.]                    637
The State tax for 1895 is as follows:
For  schools.....................................  $67,837  93
For care  of insane...............................  72,168  02
For general purposes............................  67,837  93
For canals.....................................  25,980  49
For stenographers, etc...........................  2,880  43
Total.....................................  $236,704  80
Of the above amounts the following sums are apportioned to
Long Island City:


For schools....................................
For care of insane...............................
For general purposes............................
For canals......................................
For stenographers, etc...........................


$20,146 47
21,432 42
20,146 47
7,715 67
855 34


Total......................................  $70,296 37
The county is credited with $150,268.72 in the State Comptroller's office, and of this su-_ the county has given Long Island
City credit for $101,138.92 for taxes paid in 1894, making the
amount of State tax to be raised $135,565.58, and this sum has
been apportioned as follows:
Newtown.......................................  $15,575  32
Hempstead.....................................  19,226  26
Jam aica.........................................  23,400  03
Flushing.......................................  16,776 70
Oyster  Bay.....................................  11,255  17
Long  Island  City................................  40.260  25
North Hempstead..............................    9,072 15




638                    [SENATE,
The following is the increase in the valuation of real estate in
the county in 1895 over 1894:
Newtown......................................     $407,200
Hempstead.....................................     358,982
Jamaica.......................................     673,260
Flushing......................................     378,992
Oyster  Bay.....................................   42,821
Long  Island  City................................  201,955
North  Hempstead...............................     71,325
Total......................................  $2,134,135




Population of Queens County, I4I,805 -District to be taken about oo00,000.






-   ---,,                                                                                            --— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


_ill~~~   I


Jamaeia-... --- —---------
Richmoud Hill *
Jamacia Valley    --------
Richmond Hill. --- —. —.
Flushing -....-... ----...Flushing Village.- 
College Point.......
Whitestone Village 
Newtown.. —..-.........

Bonded debts.
$109,000
FlIshing $338,500
College Pt. 231,000
$387,500


School district debts.
No. 1 to 3 $160I 0n
No. 5 io 10  16,00
No. 4       100,000
65,000
$250,000
$175,00C
$30,0OOC


27 to 30
27 to 30
27 to 30
27 to 30
2o  3
27 to 30


I


O 
7 to 9
7 to 9
7 to 9
7 to 9
7t — t9


I


0 0
z e
Mc 
1 to 9
1 to 9


Tax rate.
Gen. 1.38
School 1.00
2.38
Gen. 1.70
School 1-00
2.70


a 0
04.
0-.00:0.
-   S
'.,  


I                I


M as
*20
Ca
M. z
L. cr, 
50
40


O
cP. I


Hempstead t..-..........Far Rockaway....


$490,000
12,000


1 to 9
1 to 9
5 wards,
3 il each.


Gen. 2.48
School 2.00
4.48
Gen 1. 76
School 1.00
2.76
Cities 3.10
State   56
Ward    28
3.94
4.21


I  20
$20,
40
$500,000i  40


Long Island City.. —. ---
Queens County........ ---.


$3,456,000
$1,121,500


4:


$6,145,500


$780,000


_ _                           I  


j Assessed value only 20 per cent of actual value.


*Incorporated villages. t About one-tenth of Hempstead is in consolidation district. 1 28 county officers.




LSENATE,


Department of Finance and Receiving of Taxes and
Assessments.
LONG ISLAND CITY, October 19, 1895.
To the Honorable, the Common Council:
GENTLEMEN.- In compliance with the requirements of the city
charter the undersigned herewith submits to you account of the
receipts and expenditures, from the time of my entering upon the
duties of the office to the 1st inst., with exhibit of the state of the
treasury on October 1, 1895, as follows:
STATEMENT FROM JANUARY 1, 1895, TO OCTOBER 1, 1895.


RECEIPTS.
January 1, 1895. From ex-Treasurer Bleckwenn as
the full amount of moneys in his custody belonging to Long Island City, as per his report accompanying the transfer thereof to me..............
May, 1895. From Queens County Bank, credit of balance due city and not set forth in ex-Treasurer
Bleckwenn's report...........................
City taxes for the year 1895......................
Ward taxes for the year 1895....................
State and county taxes, 1895.....................
Percentages...................................
Interest on city and ward taxes..................
Interest on State and county taxes................
Water taxes, with interest......................
Extra water rates..............................
Taxes with interest of levies previous to 1894, and not
for  the  year  1895............................
Redemptions from tax sales to sundry persons......
Redemptions from tax sales to Long Island City-....
Redemptions from assessments, first ward improvement.......................................


$149,305 01
830 00
$150,135 01
308,953 76
53,358 17
110,859 60
5,213 38
3,088 64
1,262 26
27,643 76
26,638 33
187,694 86
1,374 02
29,506 52


51 80




No. 44.]


(41


From Union College, under chapter 973, Laws of
1895.........................................
From interest on deposit in banks................
From department of public works, for street openings........................................
From fire department, sale of horse and old hose....
From city clerk, license fees......................
From board of excise, license fees................
From board of education, State funds.............
From board of plumbers, filing fees...............
From clerk of justices' court, fines................
Assessments for the improvement of Jackson avenue,
Vernon avenue and the Boulevard..............
Assessments for the Grand avenue and Main street
im provem ent...............................
Assessments for Fulton avenue and Main street
improvement...............................
Assessments for Flushing avenue improvement....
Assessments for Steinway avenue improvement....
From sale of refunding survey and map bonds......
From sale of refunding water debt bonds..........
From sale of revenue bonds, 1895................
From sale of general improvement bonds..........
From accrued interest on sale of bonds............
From premium received on sale of bonds...........
From water supply bonds, to James Stevenson.....
From mayor's office, enclosed with statement of delivery of water bonds by his honor directly to snow
steam pump works and F. W. Miller, independent
of this office.................................
Credited to special surplus funds as overpayments,
etc..........................................
From general improvement commission to credit of
Jackson and Vernon avenues and Boulevard improvement fund..............................


$5,000 00
4,757 29
105 00
151 75
3,035 40
15,6  00 
124 11
158 00
778 75
30,663 60
1,917 49
480 84
7,121 74
1,921 81
8,500 00
15,000 00
50,000 00
274,000 00
4,442 47
1,442 75
2,500 00
116 34
228 98
12 00
1,333,838 43


$:


[Senate, No. 44.]


81




642


[SEN A'E,


PAYMENTS.
On account of new school, fourth ward............
New school building fund.......................
Fifty thousand dollar school fund.................
Board of education fund, 1894....................
Board of education fund, 1895....................
Salaries fund, 1895............................
Salaries fund, 1894.............................
Police department fund, 1894....................
Police department fund, 1895....................
Water department fund, 1895....................
Water department fund, 1894....................
Fire department fund, 1894......................
Fire department fund, 1895.....................
Health department fund, 1895....................
Health department fund, 1894...................
Contingent fund, 1894..........................
Contingent fund, 1895..........................
Poor  fund,  1895................................
Ioor  fund, 1894................................
Judgment fund, 1894...........................
Judgment fund, 1895...........................
Ex. and Sup., board of plumbers, 1895.............
First ward road and street fund, 1894..............
First ward road and street fund, 1895..............
Second ward road and street fund, 1894............
Second ward road and street fund, 1895...........
Third ward road and street fund, 1895.............
Third ward road and street fund, 1894.............
Fourth ward road and street fund, 1894...........
Fourth ward road and street fund, 1895............
Fifth ward road and street fund, 1 895.............
Fifth ward road and street fund, 1894.............
First ward lamp and gas fund, 1894...............
First ward lighting fund, 1895....................
Second ward laprll) and,'as fund, 1894............


$23,098 57
112 47
665 86
11,385 44
71,916 56
15,367 20
100 00
2,046 93
36,714 13
56,022 93
4,248 01
4,126 35
30,821 17
6,922 83
2,111 43
8,134 95
21,189 41
8,076 04
9,760 45
782 85
3,496 00
1,550 75
442 50,S 1 (), 4
467 50
2,042 53
2,526 65
276 66
68 25
888 73
956 A2
97 92
3,}024 68
6,036 62
3,003 90




iNo. 44.]


643


Second ward lamp and gas fund, 1S94..............  3,033 90
Second ward lighting fund, 1895..................  5,025 19
Third ward lamp and gas fund, 1894...............  3,132 18
Third ward lighting fund, 1895...................  5,422 15
Fourth ward lamp and gas fund, 1894.............  5,126 34
Fourth ward lighting fund, 1895..................  9,584 77
Fifth ward lamp and gas fund, 1894...............  2,413 15
Fifth ward lighting fund, 1895.................... 5,508 96
County treasurer, on account taxes, levy 1893...... 105,00 0( 
Expenses, Blissville bridge......................   1,013 79
Redemption, Newtown debt bonds................  20,000 00
Redemption, survey and map bonds...............  12,000 00
Redemption, water debt bonds...................  20,000 00
Public dept aand  interest........................  45,120  00
Interest on general improvement bonds...........  21,687 80
On warrants of general improvement committee....  275,206 29
Jackson avenue, Vernon avenue and Boulevard assessment fund...............................  15,020  53
Jackson avenue, etc., improvement fund.........     20 00
Redemption from first ward improvement sale.....    51 80
Surplus from sale for first ward improvement assessment, per order of Supreme Court...............  420 49
Redemptions from sales, 1886....................   538 87
Redemptions from sales, 1888....................    96 57
Redemptions from sales, 1890....................    19 52
Redemptions from sales, 1892....................    33 69
Redemptions from sales, 1894....................   125 73
To Sheridan  Post, G. A. R........................  269  50
To Ringold Post, G. A. R.........................  130  00
From   excise  fund...............................  2,276  94
From   licenses...................................  662  65
From   justices' fines.............................  834  50
From sinking fund (judgment)....................  1,119 89
From special surplus fund, overpayment of taxes...   10 81




644
From special sinking fund, return of interest charged
and collected in excess of two per cent. and part of
allowance under provisions of same act relating


[SENATE,




thereto......................................  $846  12
Purchase of revenue bonds.......................  10,000 00
Interest and premium on revenue bonds............  19,573 27
Interest on funded debt bonds, 1893...............  1,090 20
Interest on Grand avenue, etc., improvement......  5,232 25
Interest on Fulton avenue, etc., improvement.......  570 00
Interest on Flushing avenue improvement.........  1,857 00
Interest on Steinway avenue improvement.........  1,053 90
Total  payments...............................  $941,350  95
Total receipts.................................  $1,333,838  43
Total payments.................................  941,350  95
October 1, 1895, cash balance on hand........... $392,487 48
ANALYSIS OF CASH BALANCES.


Sinking funds, for public debt, and interest, etc....
Sinking funds, for redemption of revenue bonds, etc.
Improvement funds..............................
Improvement funds, first ward....................
Tax sale and surplus funds.......................
Trust funds.....................................
Hospital fund....................................
Judgments fund.................................
School  funds...................................
County funds...................................
Ward funds and Flushing avenue repair funds.....
Charter and special funds........................


$28,703 20
261,945 18
37,346 34
8,530 73
1,247 13
2,567 51
29 53
2,007 06
19,744 20
5,859 60
13,363 10
11,143 89


Total...................................... $392,487 48




No. 44.]


645


STATEMENT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.
Seven per cent. Newtown funded debt bonds.......
Seven per cent. Newtown refunded debt bonds......
Six per cent. Newtown refunded debt bonds........
Four per cent. Newtown refunded debt bonds......
Seven per cent. funded debt water bonds...........
Five per cent. refunded water debt bonds..........
Four per cent. refunded water debt bonds.........
Six per cent. water debt bonds....................
Three and one-half per cent. water debt bonds......
Seven per cent. survey and map bonds.............
Five per cent. refunded survey and map bonds......
Seven per cent. fire department bonds.............
Four and one-half per cent. fire department bonds..
Four and one-half per cent. public school bonds.....
Four and one-half per cent. public school bonds, new
Five, per cent. engine-house bonds................
Five per cent. station-house bonds................
Four and one-half per cent. funding debt bonds, 1893.
Four and one-half per cent. street improvement
bonds.......................................
Four and one-half per cent. general improvement
bonds.......................................


$101,500 00
64,000 00
112,500 00
16,00 00
170,000 00
75,000 00
45,000 00
47,000 00
34,000 00
12,000 00
66,000 00
20,000 00
35,000 00
220,000 00
122,000 00
16,000 00
15,000 00
112,000 00
573,500 00
790,000 00
106,500 00
53,000 00
77,000 00
44,500 00
6,500 00
39,000 00
29,500 00
28,500 00
50,000 00
80,000 00
50,000 00


Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue


bonds, 1883............................
bonds, 1884...........................
bonds, 1885............................
bonds, 1886............................
bonds, 1887............................
bonds, 1888............................
bonds, 1889.............................
bonds, 1890............................
bonds,  1891............................
bonds, 1892...........................
bonds, 1893............................






646


[SENATES


Revenue bonds, 1894.............................  $60,000  00
Revenue  bonds, 1895............................  50,000  00
$3,321,000 00
Water bonds delivered by mayor as per resolution of common council:
To Snow Steam Pump Works....................       3,000 00
To  F. W. M iller.................................  3,000  00
Total bonded indebtedness.................. $3,327,000 00
Respectfully,
LUCIEN KNAPP,
City Treasurer and Receiver.
Taxes of I895 -Levied by the Common Council, December
30, I895 -Approved by the Mayor December, 30, I895.
INFORMATION FOR T AXPAYERIS.
ASSESSORS' VALUATIONS.
First  ward.....................................  $5,314,160
Second  ward...................................  2.083,680
Third ward...................................     2.622,772
Fourth  ward....................................,945,310
Fifth  ward.....................................  2,933,710
$16,899,632
STATE AND COUNTY TAXES.
State and county purposes.....................    $5,24 91
Expenses, Blissville bridge.......................  1,510  20
Surplus........................................   1,237  56
Interest........................................,956  20
Support of county  poor..........................   2709  07
$94,6:7 )94




No. 44.]


fi47
CITY TAXES.


Public  debt and  interest.........................  $104,8X58  42
Interest on general improvement bonds..........   43,0!).3 63
Support  of  schools..............................  112,00(   00
Salaries........................................ 3,12( 00
Police department..............................  58,650 00
Fire department................................   40,000 00
Health department.............................     9,00 00
Contingent fund................................   7,500  00
Poor  fund......................................  8,000  00
Judgment fund.................................    69,937 50
For board of examiners of plumbers, etc...........  2,100 00
Public library..................................   2,000 00
$523,981 55


TOTAL OF TAXES.
State  and  county................................  $94,637  94
City..........................................  523,981 55
W ard..........................................  76,112   00
$694,731 49


First ward......
Second ward.....
Third ward.....
Fourth ward....
Fifth ward.....


SUMMARY OF RATES ON $100.
City.    Ward......  3.10.28.....   3.10.55.....   3.10.54.....  3.10.55.....  3.10.50


State.56.56.56.56.56


Agg.
3.94
4.21
4.20
4.21
4.16


The interest of $21,707.50 for the year 1895 on water bonds is
not included in the tax levy, but will be paid out of the receipts of
water taxes.
The interest on bonds for the improvement of Jackson and Vernon avenues and the boulevard for the year 1895 is $25,807.50, of




6418


[SENATE,


which there is included in the levy $10,372.50 and the balance,
$15,435, is to be paid from the collections of the assessment.
SPECIAL NOTICE.
City and ward taxes may be paid within thirty days before the
4th day of March, 1895, free of charge; during the next thirty days
1 1-3 per cent. will be added. After such sixty days said taxes
will be levied and collected in the manner provided by law,
together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent. per
annum from the 1st day of February, 1895.
The State and county tax may be paid with the addition of one
per cent. fees thereon, within thirty days before the 4th day of
March, 1895. After the 3d day of March, 1895, five per cent. will
be added; and if not paid within the prescribed time, such tax
will be collected by distress and sale of the goods and chattels
in the manner provided by law, together with interest thereon, at
the rate of eight per cent. per annum.
Tax bills will be furnished on application (personally or by mail),
subject, however, to such additions to the items of " Percentages"
and "Interest" as the lapse of time may render necessary to
comply with the law. Applicants must state ward, block and lot
numbers, or give an exact description of their property.
N. B.- Communications must be accompanied by return
postage.




No. 44.]


649


Bonded Indebtedness of Towns in County of Richmond.
MIDDLETOWN.
Two bonds of 1891, $1,000 each, interest 6 per cent.-$2,000, one-half payable
June 1, 1895, and June 1, 1896.
Four bonds of 1892, $2,500 each, interest 6 ler cent.-$10,000, one-quarter payable Sept. 1, 1897, one-quarter annually thereafter.
Four certificates issued Nov. 24, 1894, amounting to $1,064, interest $12.97 -$1,064, payable March 1, 1895.
NORTHFIELD.
Four bonds of 1894, $1,500 each, interest 6 per cent.-$6,000, one-quarter pay.
able May 1, 1895, June 1, 1895, April 16, 1896 and May 1, 1896.
One town certificate, $250, May 15, 1894, interest 6 per eent.-$250, payable
May 15, 1895.
SOUTHFIELD.
Thirty-eight bonds of 1891, $600 each, and six bonds same issue, $1,000 each,
interest 4 per cent.-$28,200.  One bond of $600, payable Dec. 1, 1894, and
annually thereafter with the last bond payable Dec. 1, 1932.
WESTFIELD.
No bonded indebtedness.
CASTLETON.-(Village of New Brighton.)
By charter the power to issue moneys is wholly and solely vested in the trustees of said village.
The above is a transcript of a statement filed with the board of supervisors in
February, 1895, and furnished to us by Mr. F. C. Vitt, clerk.


[Senate, No. 44.]


82




Bonded Indebtedness of Richmond County.


Date.


Series.


Amount
each.


Aug.
April
April
July
July
Jan.
April
April
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Nov.
June
June
June
June
Aug.


1, 1879
30, 1883
30, 1884
31, 1884
31, 1885
31, 1886
1, 1887
1, 1888
1, 1889
1, 1889
1, 1889
1, 1889
1, 1890
1, 1891
1, 1892
1, 1894
1, 1894
1, 1894
1, 1895
1, 1895


1 to 15........
to     8........
A I to 57........
58, 107.........
B 108, 115........
11i............
117,118,120.25.
B 119............
(   126............
C 1 to 63.........
1 to 5..........
D..............
(,..............
E 1to 40........
F    to  4.........
G 1 to 10.........
H  1to 10.........
I  1to  10........., —1 1.........
A 1 to 20.........
B 1 to 30.........
C 1 to 45.........
D 1 to 75.........
E 1 to15.........
1 to 95.........
F 1 to 35.........
G 1 to 100........


$1,000o
5,)000
1,000
1,000)
10,000
9,400)
10, 000
11,000
8,000
1,000
5,()000
5,0000
5,000
10,000
5,000
5,(.)0
5,000
5,000
3,000
5, 00)
5,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,(00
1,000
1,000


Rate
Total.       Rate
i nterest.
$55,000   5 1-2 per. ct
57,000  4      do
139,400  41-2   do
99,000  4 1-6  do
63,000  3 1-2  do
58,000  3 1-4  do
40,000  3 1-2  do
40,000:3 1-2 (do
50,000  3 1-2  (1o
50,000  3 1-2  do
50,00   3      do
58,()00  3     (1
100,000  3 1-2  (lo
150,0)00  4 1-2  do
45,000  3 1-2  (lo
75,000  5      (lo
15,000  5      (lo
95,000  4      (1o
35,000  4      do
100,(000  4     (lo


Law.               Purpose.
Ch. 75, 317 L. 1878 and  To retire mat. bonds.
acts amend. thereto. 
do                  do
do                  do
do                 (do
do                  do
do                  do
do                  do
dto                 do
do                  (10
do                 (do 
do                  do
Chap. 555, Laws 18!90.... Improved county rds.
do                 (do 
(10                 do 
(         do        do
do           Maintaining co. rds.. I
Chap. 8S, 576, Laws 1892. Funding debts noti
rep. by bonds......
Chap. 555, Laws 1890.... Maintaining co. rds..
1do         Improving co. roads-.


Payable.


Co. treas.
do
do
do
do
do
(do
do
do
do
do
(lo
do
do
(lo
do
do
(10
do
do


When
payablc.            Remarks.
Aug. 1, 1899 Coupon.
April 30, 1898  Coupon.
April 30, 1899  58 & 107 reg. 108 & 116 reg.
July 31, 1900  Registered.
July 31, 1905  Coupon.
Jan. 31, 1901  Registered.
April 1, 1902     (10
April 1, 1908     (1o
Aug. 1, 1904      (o
Aug. 1, 19)06     (1o
Aug. 1, 190)      tlo
Aug. 1, 1910      do
Aug. 1, 1915 IRoad bondl, registered.
Aug. 1, 1916  Road bond, registered.
Nov. 1, 1917 jRoad bond, registered.
June   1, 1919  Gold rd. bond, registered.
June   1, 1919  Gold rd. bonds, reg. main.
June   1, 1914  Gold bonds, coupon.
June   1, 1920  Gold road bond, mainten.
Aug. 1, 1!21   Gold road bond, mainten.


Compiled for the committee Oct. 8, 1895, from the records of the board of supervisors, by F. C. Vitt, (C rk.


GO
tz
t4
s^
1.




No. 44.]


651


School Districts Bonded in Richmond County.
AUGUST 31, 1895.


TOWNS.


When
bonded.


Amount.


Payments
made


Castleton.......No. 2
"t 4
" 5
Middletown... No. 2
Southfield. ---.No. 2
't 4
" 5
i  6
Northfield......No. 1
" 4
"( 6
" 7
" 8
'( 9
Westfield.. —..No. 6


1889
1 1890
1895
1889
1895
1895
1889
1890
1894
1890
1894
1895
1891
1895
1895
1891
1895


$60,000 00
8,000 00
32,000 00
7,500 00
98,000 00
12,000 00;1,700 00
5,500 00
4,500 00
2,000 00
4,300 00
25,000 00
30,000 00
3,500 00
2,100 00
4,000 00
11,875 00


I$32,600 00
4,500 00
2,200 00
3,000 00
225 00
1,000 00
430 00
12,000 00
2,222 22


Last
Indebtedness. Ipayment
due.
$35,400 00     1899
1900
32,000 00     1911
3,000 00     1899
98,000 00     1944
12,000 00     1915
480 00     18)9
2,5)0 00     1900
4,275 00     1914
1,000 00     1900
3,870 00     1904
25,000 00     1920
18,000 00     1901
3,500 00     1905
2,100 00     1905
1,777 77     1899
11,875 00     1914


This statement was furnished to our committee
West, school commissioner.


by Mrs. Julia K.


The assessed valuation of Richmond county as equalized by the
board of supervisors December, 1895:
Castleton...... --- —-... —...-.. ---.. ---.. --- —-   $8,615,287 48
Northfield..............................................  4.054,253  40
Middletown............................................  3,142,046 38
Southfield...... ---.. —........................... 2,533,908 38
Westfield.............................................  1,925,770  36
$20,271,266 00
The county budget......................    $387,397 59
Yours very truly,
JOHN    B. PEARSON, CAair2man.




652                    [SENATE,
New York Tax Levy, I895.
VALUATION.
Real estate................................. $1,646,028,655  00
Personal estate.............................  288,575,587 00
Shareholders of banks.......................  82,343,420 00
$2,016,947,662 00
Amount of tax..............................  38,403,761  18
Rate, 1.91 per cent.
Rate on personal estate of certain corporations, 1.7278 per cent.
Confirmed at 1.40 P. M., Tuesday, August 27,1895.
Finance Department-Abstract of Transactions of the Finance
Department for the Week Ending February I, I896.
DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.
To the credit of the sinking fund................  $79,012 34
To the credit of the city treasury................  910,647 94
Total....................................  $989,660 28
BONDS AND STOCK ISSUED.
Three per cent. bonds..........................  $520,360 04
Three per cent. stock..........................  5,000  00
Total....................................  $525,360 04
WARRANTS REGISTERED FOR PAYMENT.
The mayoralty:
Salaries and contingencies, mayor's office........  $2,024 98
The common council:
City contingencies.................  $100 00
Salaries, common council..........  7,191 44
7,291 44




No. 44.]


653


The finance department:
Cleaning markets.................    778 43
Salaries, chamberlain's office.......  2,083 33
Salaries, finance department.......  18,886 88
$21,748 64
Interest on the city debt.......................  1,020  29
The aqueduct commission:
Additional water fund........................    18,211 01
The law department:
Contingencies, corporation attorney's
office..........................  $142 00
Contingencies, law department.....   1,250 00
Salaries, counsel to commissioner of
street improvements, twenty-third
and twenty-fourth wards........    516 66
Salaries, law department..........  11,561 54
13,470 20
Bureau of public administrator:
Salaries, bureau of public administrator..................................        1,083 32
The department of public works:
Additional water fund.............  $1,044 20
Aqueduct, repairs, maintenance and
strengthening.................    2,838 10
Boring examinations for grading and
sewer  contracts.................    73  50
Boulevards, roads and avenues, maintenance of......................  1,353  99
Bridge over Harlem river, between
First and Willis avenues.........  371 66
Bridge over Harlem river at Third
avenue........................     561  66
Bridge over Harlem ship canal at
Kingsbridge road...............     853 83
Bronx river works, maintenance and
repairs........................  201  62




654


[SENATE,


Croton water fund.................  $7,109 46
Fire hydrant fund................    266 33
Free floating baths................  321 70
Lamps and gas and electric lighting.   90 00
One Hundred and Fifty-fifth street
viaduct, maintenance and repairs,    35 12
Public buildings, construction and
repairs........................     322 60
Public buildings, Seventh District
Police  Court....................  7,426  50
Public building, twenty-third and
twenty-fourth wards, in Crotona
park........................        24 00
Removing obstructions in streets and
avenues........................     82  00
Repairing and renewal of pipes, stopcocks, etc.......................  3,011 59
Repairs and renewal of pavements
and regrading..................  1,530 27
Repaving, chapter 475, Laws of 1895,  67,590 40
Repaving streets and avenues......   4,655 00
Repaving, chapter 35, Laws of 1892,  2,291 76
Restoring and repaving, special fund,
department of public works......   1,854 12
Roads, streets and avenues, unpaved,
maintenance of and sprinkling....   142 87
Salaries, department of public works,  21,445 89
Sewers, repairing and cleaning.....  1,652 25
Street improvement fund, June 15,
1886...........................  19,100 32
Street improvement, for surveying,
monumenting    and   numbering
streets.........................   24  00
Supplies for and cleaning public
offices..........................  5,725  67
Water-main fund.................     534 00


$152,534 41




No. 44.]


655


The department of public parks:
Aquarium........................    $108 71
Cathedral parkway, improv-ement
and  completion  of...............   31  50
Corlears Hook pa rk, con struction and
maintenance of..................     21  00
Harlem river bridges, maintenance
and  repairs.....................   141  97
Improvement of parks and parkways,
chapter 11, Laws of 1894.........  1,523 22
Maintenance and construction of new
parks north of Harlem river......  570 19
Maintenanceand government of parks
and places......................  9,358 91
Riverside park and drive, construction   of.........................  4,300  00


The department of public charities and corrections 
Public charities and corrections................
The department of street improvements, twenty-third and
twenty-fourth wards:
Bridges crossing the New York and
Hartford railroad depression in the
twenty-third  and  twenty-fourth
wards, etc......................   $20 06
Bronx river and other bridges, repairing and maintenance of, etc......   19 12
For making rock soundings, borings,
etc.............................   183   00
Maintenance,   twenty-third  and
twenty-fourth wards.............  2,919 92
Monumenting avenues and streets,
twenty-third  and  twenty-fourth
w ards..........................    36   00


$16,055 50
11,186 36




656


[SENATE,


Sewers and drains, twenty-third and
twenty-fourth wards.............
Salaries, office of commissioner of
street improvements, twenty-third
and twenty-fourth wards.........
Street improvement fund, June 15,
1886...........................
Surveying, laying out, maps, plans,
etc., twenty-third and twenty

$305 50
1,989 98
4,738 91


fourth wards..................     153 00
Telephone service and contingencies,   65 00
Williamsbridge sewer fund.........     28 00
The department of public charities:
Department of public charities.................
The department of correction:
Department of correction......................
The health department:
For bacteriological laboratory......  $2,112 42
For burial of honorably discharged
soldiers. sailors and marines......  175 00
Fund for gratuitous vaccination....   300 00
Health fund, for disinfection.......  1,280 00
Health fund, for payment to board of
police..........................  5,733 33
Health fund, salaries..............  22,062 88
Hospital fund, hospital supplies....  135 00


$26,513 99
4,396 62
12,966 05
31,798 63


The police department:
Contingent expenses of central department and station-houses, etc..
Police fund........................
Police fund, salaries, clerical force,
etc..........................
Police pension fund...............
Police station-houses, alterations, etc.
Supplies for police................


$916 66
467,471 02


11,053 33
75,000 00
2,916 66
9,583 33


566,941 00




No. 44.j


657


The department of street cleaning:
Cleaning streets, department of street cleaning...  $64,919 83
The fire department:
Fire department fund..............  $61,332 47
New York fire department relief fund,  18,206 00
179,538 47
The department of buildings:
Department of buildings, special fund...........    101 25
The department of taxes and
assessments 
Salaries, board of assessors........  $1,733 33 
Salaries, department of taxes and
assessments...................   10,685 93
12,419 26
The department of docks:
Dock  fund....................................  22,298  42
The board of education:
College of the City of New York.....  $10,567 36
School-house fund.................  6,910 00
Public instruction.................  5,653  40
23,130 76
The board of excise:
Commissioners of excise fund...................  10,787 72
Printing, stationery and blankbooks:
City Record, salaries and contingencies............................  $824  98
Printing, stationery and blank-books,  473 69
------- ~1,298 67
Municipal civil service examining board:
Civil service of the city of New York, expenses of,  1,778 15
The coroners:
Coroners, salaries and expenses.................  3,474 96
The commissioners of accounts:
Salaries, commissioners of accounts.............  5,987 46
[Senate, No. 44.]     83




658


[SENATE,


The sheriff:
Furniture, keep of horses, etc......
Incidental expenses of sheriff's office
and county jail..................
Salaries, sheriff's office.............
Salaries, county jail...............


$50 00


148 90
8,912 18
1,470 96


The register:
Salaries, register's office.......................
The bureau of elections:
Election expenses.............................
The judiciary:
Salaries, city courts...............  $27,291 33
Salaries, judiciary.................  94,729 89


$10,582 04
9,223 66
14,107 38
122,021 22


Charitable institutions:
Babies' wards of the Post Graduate
H ospital.......................
Mothers and Babies' Hospital......
New York Medical College and Hospital for Women................
New York Post Graduate and Medical School and Hospital..........
New York Society for the Relief of
the Ruptured and Crippled......
The Babies' Hospital...............
Miscellaneous purposes:
Advertising......................
Armory fund......................
Armories and drill rooms - wages
of armorers, engineers, laborers,
janitors, etc.....................
Assessment commission, awards....
Benjamin Brewster and Richard M.
Hoe, as executors and trustees of
David Dows, deceased...........


$1,288 96
885 00
1,763 81
5,000 00
6,203 01
1,408 28


19,500 31


$738 40
217 00
456 00
97 69


25,395 83




No. 44.]


659


Block tax assessment map fund....
Board of street opening and improvement..........................
Board of estimate and apportionment, expenses of...............
Bureau of licenses................
Change of grade damage commission, twenty-third  and  twentyfourth wards...................
Contingencies, district attorney's
office..........................
Examining board of plumbers......
For removal of old gate-house at
Tenth avenue and One Hundred
and Ninteeenth street............
For the   preservation  of public
records........................
Fund for street and park openings..
Jurors' fees, including expenses of
jurors in civil and criminal trials
Judgments.......................
New East river bridge fund........
Rents............................
Refunding taxes paid in error......
Revenue bond fund- Furnishings
for Appellate division of the Supreme court..................
Revenue bond fund-Compilation of
Arrears of taxes and assessments.
Revenue bond fund, county clerk's
office..........................
Salaries, board of revision and correction of assessments (salary of
the recorder)...................
Salaries, commissioner of the sinking fund (salary of the recorder),


$774 98
166 66
250 00
1,045 83
1,208 33
6,551 37
85 00
1,037 20
2,781 18
22,190 12
9,584 00
3,594 30
1,887 13
3,625 00
28,335 70
24 00
924 96
566 65
83 33


83 3t




660
Salaries, inspectors and sealers of
weights and measures...........
Trustees of the Seventh Regiment


[SENATE,


$450 00


ai
Une


rmory........................     8,  0  000 
Ilaimed salaries and wages......     16 51
-$120,170 50
Total...................................  $1,492,527  00




Court.


Supreme..
Supreme..
Supreme..
Supreme..
Supreme..
Supreme..
Supreme.Supreme -.
Supreme..


SUITS,
NAME OF PLAINTIFF.
Opening Tiffany st., from Longwood ave. to East river.
Opening 141st st., from Third to
St. Anne's ave., and from center
of Cypress ave. to Locust ave..
Opening Brown place, from East
132d st. to East 138th st.
Opening Hall place, from East
165th st. to Intervale ave.
George W. Cook.................
James W. Fellows..............
Max Gombossy.. ---..........
In the matter of opening Decatur
ave., from Kingsbridge road to
Brookline st.
In the matter of establishing permanently,  the location  and
boundaries of the Fort Washington Ridge road.
W illiam  Kelly...................
Dodge & Bliss Co. (a corporation), against The Mayor, etc.,
Joseph Moore, and others 
In the matter of the petition of
Jacob Lorillard and others, for
appointment of commissioner of
appraisal, under chapter!249,
Laws of 1890.


ORDERS OF COURT, JUDGMENTS, ETC.


Amount.                      Nature of Action.                       Attorney.


------ ----


Notice of motion to confirm reports of commissioners in following matters:.................................................


$125 00
1,679 55
382 74
829 91


o
1;
p


Summons and complaint, for salary as assistant clerk
to the Board of Coroners for month of Dec., 1895.
Transcript of judgment..................
Transcript of judgment.........................
Certified copies of orders confirming report and taxing costs of commissioners in said matter.
Certified copy of order confirming report of commissioners in said matter.
Transcript of judgment.. —.......
Notice of pendency of action and summons and complaint. To foreclose lien upon contract of said
Moore for furnishing materials for fitting up north
end of the arsenal building in Central park.
Certified copy order entered at a Special Term of
said court fixing compensation of David Leventritt
for services rendered as special attorney and
counsel to the corporation in said proceeding.


F. M. Scott, corporation counsel.
F. M. Scott, corporation counsel.
F. M. Scott, corporation counsel.
F. M. Scott, corporation counsel.
J. A Donegan.
J. A. Deering.
Goldfogle & Cohen.
F. M. Scott, corporation counsel.
F. M. Scott, corporation counsel.
Kellogg, Rose & S.
J. Kearney.
H. Nathan.


8,100 00
441 50


20,000 00


-




CLAIMS FILED.


Date.        NAME OF CLAIMANT.        Amount.                      Nature of Claim.                       Attorney.


1896.
Jan, 27..
Jan.   27..
Jan.   27..
Jan.   28..
Jan.   28..
Jan.   28..
Jan.   28..
Jan.   28..
Jan.   29..
Jan.   30..
Jan.   30..
Feb.    1..


Henry Otto.. ---..-.... —...
Mrs. Grace D. Kane.. ---........
Ellen T. C. Fallon, ex'x, etc..
Selina M. Brien........ —...
John Dunbar........ ----. ---
TownsendWandell,as ex'r,etc.
James Slattery. ---..-.......
Frank S. Beard.............
Thomas W. Osborne ----. ---Peter Miller................
Joseph McQuade....... ---.
John J. Shea................
Jane Curry, adm'x, etc......
New York News Publishing
Co-...........-...-.. ---.
McCarthy & Baldwin.......


$1,500 00
5,000 00
2-7 30
1,503 00
274 75
152 00
1,761 00
492 30
135 10
2,753 00
8,488 50
5,660 00
20,000 00
227 45
1,565 41


For damages for personal injuries..............
For damages for personal injuries. —.... --- —-—.-...
For return of amount paid for an assessment for open
ing 12th avenue from 59th to 153d street.
For return of amount paid for an assessment for regulating, etc., 1st avenue from 92d to 109th street.
For return of amount paid for an assessment for regu
lating, etc., Worth street.
For return of amount paid for an assessment for opening 12th avenue.
For return of amount paid for an assessment for regulating, etc., West 87th street.
Claims and demands. For furnishing transcripts of
testimony of cases tried in General Sessions:
Claims and demands of the following named persons
for extra services and duty as keepers in the prisons
on Blackwell's Island, for the years 1889 to 1895:
For damages for death of Thomas Curry, caused by
being thrown from a truck.
For balance claimed to be due for advertising the
official canvass on Iecember 23, 1891.
Notice of lien for professional services on award made
for damage Nos. 1 and 2, made to Gabreil Nuoffer, or
wife, in matter of opening Cromwell avenue, from
Jerome to Inwood avenue.


E. F. Bullard.
G. F. Boyd.
E. H. Hawke, Jr.
E. H. Hawke, Jr.
E. H. Hawke, Jr.
E. H. Hawke, Jr.
J. I. Green.
J. I. Green.
J. I. Green.
Weed & Story.
M. J. Stein.
McCarthy & Baldwin


Il




No. 44.]                  663
STATEMENT OF THE CITY DEBT AS REPRESENTED IN BONDS AND
STOCKS OUTSTANDING JANUARY 31, 1896.


CLASSIFICATION OF BONDED DEBT.    Outstanding  ' Outstanding
December 31, 1895. January 31, 1896.
i CLASSIFICATION O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E~~~ BONDED DEBT,  O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cltstandlng   OutstandinR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


3 —....


6....
7....
8....
9....:10....
1....
1. —.
2...
3.-..


Funded Debt.
Payable from the Sinking Fund, under
ordinances of the common council..
Payable from the Sinking Fund, under
provisions of chapter 383, se(tion 6,
Laws of 1878, and section 176, New
York city Consolidation Act of 1882.
Payable from the Sinking Fund, under
provisions of chapter 383, section 8,
Laws of 1878, and section 192, New
York city Consolidation Act of 1882,
as lamended by chapter 178, Laws
of 1889.-...... --- - -----... ---- -.-.
Payable from the Sinking Fund, under
provisions of chapter 79, Laws of
1889..............................
Payable from the Sinking Fund, under
provisions of the   constitutional
amendment adopted November 4,
1884...... —.. —............. ---
Payable frolm taxation, under provisions of chapter 490, Laws of 1883..
Payable from taxation, under the several statutes authorizingr their issue.
Bonds issued for local improvements
after Julne 9, 1880.................
Debt of tlhe annexed territory of Westchester county (chapter 329, Laws
of 1874).. --- -—...................
Del)t of the annexed territory of Westchester county (chapter 934, Laws
of  1895)...........................
Total funded debt..............
Deduct Sinking Funds for redermption
of debt (investment and cash)....
Net funded debt.................
Temporary Debt —Rerenue Bonds.
Issued tuder special laws —........
Issued in anticipation of taxes of 1995.
Issued in anticipation of taxes of 1896.
Total revenue bonds.... —.....


$2,512,100 00
9,700,000 00
69,832,221 12
9,810,100 00
33,670,000 00
445,000 00
49,598,246 05
9,355,429 91
490,500 00
175,000 (0
$185,588,597 08


$2,500,600 00
9,700,000 00
69,875,721 12
9,812,100 00
33,977,000 00
445,000 00
49,598,046 05
9,430,429 91
490,500 00
234,009 64
$186,063,406 70


75,703,087 63  7 75,838,935 92


$109,885,509 45  $110,224,470 78
$1,406,910 78    $1,453,269 72
1,157,600 00     1,150,000 00................7,600      00


$2,564,510 78


$2,610,869 72


----- -----
--
--—  ---


Cash-City treasury accout.................................... $1,840,628 97
Sinking Fund for the redemption of the city debt........ 2,260,815 32
Sinking Fund for the redemption of the city debt, No. 2..  1,327,823 87
Sinking Fund for the payment of interest on the city debt,  485,550 57
Total cash......................................  $5,914,824  73
CITY OF NEW YORK, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, 
COMPT'ROLLER'S OFFiCE.February 1, 1896.
I. S. BARRETT,
General Bookkeeper.




Municipalities of New York and Brooklyn. - The Logic of the Figures.-They Tell Their Own Story.
NET PUBLIC DEBT AND OFFICIAL CITY VALUATIONS FOR TAXABLE PURPOSES, JANUARY 1, 1895.


ASSESSED VALUATION.
Per cent.of
Real estate.    Personal.       Total.  real value on Realvalue.
real estate.
BROOKLYN: All of Kings
Co., except Flatlands,  $527,008,427   $22,460,985    $549,469,412   70*     $77,5,330,166
NEW YORK............. 1,613,057,75       390,274,302   2,003,332,037   50     3,61(0,389,772
$2,140,066,162  $412,735,287  $2,552,801,449         $4,391,719,938
FLATLANDS............       2,18,810         53,C0        2,333,810
$2,142,246,973  $412,788,287  $2,555,035,259
If the tax rate only were equalized, Brooklyn's share for budget
of  1895 would  be  at...............................................  70  to  produce


*Mr. R. A. Bishop, accountant, Comptroller's
Tax                           office, Brooklyn, who has given especial
budget     Tax rate.            attention to equalizing valuations throughfor 1895.                       out the State for twenty years past, in
relation to the State tax, for the Kings
$14,500,000  $2.638 per $100     county board of supervisors, claims that
37,500,000   1.872   "          the assessed value of all real estate in
Brooklyn was, in
$52,000,000  $2.037 equalized.  1880-70  p. ct. of its current purchase price.
1883-75    "     "     "       " 
1890-79.22  "    "             " "
(Saving to Brooklyn tax52,000,000 at 2.037       $11,192,692 —$3,307,308==  payers, say 22.80 per
ct. of present budget.
52,000,000   2.170 01
would be the rate equalized.                                              l


Valuations equalized at
50 per cent........... $1,989,492,325
BROOKLYN.............     $:76,43.1,590
NEW YORK............. 1,613,057,735


$412,735,287
$22,460,985
390,274,302


$2,402,227,612   50    to produce
$:398,895,575
2,003,332,037


If valuation and tax rate were both equalized, Brooklyn's share
for budget of 1895 would be......................................  50  to produce     52,000,000 at 2.170
N. B. —In the above conputation each city assunes interest charges on its own personal obligations.


( Saving to Brooklyn tax$8,656,034-$5,843,96-6=  payers, say 40.:0 per
ct. of present budget.


THE DEBT OF EACH IMUNICIPALITY.t
Brooklyn county and town dlebt, net..............   862,000,000 = 11.76 per cent. of pIresent real estate valuation, and 16.44 per cent. of equalized real estate valuation.
New York..........................................  104,000,000 =  6.45 per cent. of present real estate valuation.
Combined...................................... $166,000,000 -- 7.75 per cent. of present real estate valuation.
Combined......................................  166,000,000 = 8.35 per cent. of equalized real estate valuation.


+ For the debt limitations of cities, see article VII, section 10, of the new State Constitution.


C I,$
i<




No. 44.]                           665
TO OFFSET NEW YORK'S INCURRED DISADVANTAGE OF $3.00 PER
$1,000 IN HER ANNUAL TAX RATE, SHE WOULD RECEIVE THE
FOLLOWING     ASSETS, OVER AND       ABOVE BROOKLYN'S DEBT OF
$62,000,000, VIZ.:
Estimated value.
Water works and reservoirs.....................................  $20,294,000
Prospect park and East Side lands......................... 15,510,000
(a) Other parks...........................................  3,160,493
School houses...................................   8,500,000
(b) Fire department-houses, horses and equipment...............  1,659,700
(c) Police department-houses, horses and equipment. ---... ----..  1,288,100
Public market..................................................  2,000,000
Brcoklyn bridge (cost to Brooklyn)................................ 15,845,431
Real estate (bought in under arrears act)....................   471,079
Arrears of taxes and water rates................................... 3,561,222
(d) City buildings and other property........................ 2,767,000
(e) Uncollected general assessments................          364,376
(f) Uncollected special assessments.............................  779,537
Penitentiary and county buildings, Flatbush -—.. ---...-........
0    4,000,000
Kings park (St. Johnland) —.. —.. ---.....................)...
(g) Special assessments not yet levied..........................  1,899,000
(h) County buildings, Brooklyn —... ---....-......-........   1,701,815
(i) Armories...................................................  2,773,617
Parade grounds, Kings county........ —............-.....    175,000
$86,750,370
Brooklyn, county and town debt, net. ----. ----  ------—. 62,000,000
Surplus assets, over liabilities....-............. ----  $24,750,370
ESTIMATED VALUE OF BROOKLYN'S ASSETS, JANUARY 1, 1895.
(See table above.)


(a)  Other parks:
City park, 72 acres.....................................
Tompkins, 7& acres...........................................
Carroll, 1 8-10 acres..............................
Washington, 30 1-16 acres...................................
Winthrop, 71/2 acres.............................
Bushwick, 27th ward...............................
Sunset, 14t acres, 8th ward.......................
Ridgewood, 45 acres, 26th ward...............................
Bedford, 24th ward...................................
Twelfth Ward park..........................................
tRepresented by present bonded indebtedness of $15,946,000.
[Senate, No. 44.]              84


$150,000 00
250,000 00
390,000 00
1,500,000 00
133,678 00
105,308 00
164,604 00
184,025 00
150,133 00
132,745 00
$3,1f0,493 00




666


[SENATE,


(b) Fire department:
Real estate and houses.......................................  $783,900 00
Horses, engines, fire boats, telegraph, etc......................  675,800 00
Firemen's insurance fund, mortgages and cash.........200,000 00
$1,659,700 00
(c) Police department:
Real estate and station houses......-........................... $1,099,000 00
Horses, police boat, patrol and telegraph......................  127,100 00
Police pension fund, bond and cash........................  62,000 00
$1,288,100 00
(d) City buildings and other property:
City hall and grounds, 1/2 acres...............................  $700,000 00
Municipal building........................-...-.........  280,000 00
Municipal building, additional site....................   265,000 00
Truant home and school, Jamaica road...................     75,000 00
Kent avenue basin improvement.............................      464,000 00
Wallabout Bay improvement.-................................    913,000 00
Court of Special Sessions, Myrtle and Vanderbilt avenues.-...    35,000 00
Plot of ground, First avenue, 43d and 44th streets............   35,000 00
$2,767,000 00
(e) Uncollected general assessments:
November 30, 1894.
Gas lamps and posts..............................       $3,667 75
Grading and paving..-......................................  285,092 45
Repaving....................................................    40,579  34
Sewer........................................................  31,705  99
Opening and widening. ----.......-....-...-............     3,330 74
$364,376 27
(f) Uncollected special assessments:
November 30, 1894.
Prospect park, twenty-two yearly instalments...............     $736,780 00
Widening North Second street-................................   42,757 18
$779,537 18
(g) Special assessments not yet levied, for which bonds have
been issued:
Eighth ward improvement....................................    $650,000 00
Twenty-sixth and adjacent wards, sewers..................    999,000 00
Sewerage fund bonds, act of 1892........................    250,000 00
$1,899,000 00




No. 44.]


667


(h) County buildings, Brooklyn:
Court house-land and building...............................  $543,746 13
Hall of Records-land and building...........................  787,210 61
Jail-land and building......................................  370,858 12
$1,701,814 86
(i) Armories:
13th Regiment old armory-site and building..................  $183,617 15
13th Regiment new armory-site and building................  700,000 00
14th Regiment new armory-site and building.................  650,000 00
23d Regiment new armory-site and building..................  650,650 00
32d Regiment old armory-site and building..................  140,000 00
47th Regiment new armory-site and building.................  180,000 00
47th Regiment, Co. "I," Greenpoint armory...................  10,000 00
47th Regiment old armory hall, North Second street.-..........  50,000 00
3d Battery, old armory, 23d Regiment.........................  160,000 00
3d Battery, old armory, Dean street...........................  50,000 00
$2,773,617 15


IN 1895 THE INTEREST ON BROOKLYN, COUNTY AND TOWN DEBT IS
AS FOLLOWS:


Principal.
City-Net debt................................ $50,184,000 00
County.....-.......7......................   7,641,216 00
Flatbush..-................................   987,000 00
New Utrecht............-...................       1,077,447 94
Gravesend-................................ 1,825,083 02
Flatlands......................... —...-..           43,984 64
$61,758,731 00


Interest.
t$1,409,934 83
363,297 35
say 48,350 00
say 53,872 40
say 91,254 15
say  2,189 23
$1,968,897 96


$ While the net debt of Brooklyn is relatively much greater than New York, it is to be
noticed that in Brooklyn, including the county towns, the interest charge raised by taxation
for 1895 is a little less than $2,000,000 while the interest charge similarly raised in New York is
about $5,000,000, which is exclusive of the amount payable from the Sinking Fund, say $2,000,000 more. In Brooklyn the water revenue, amounting to $1,813,000 in 1894, pays the interest
on the water debt of $15,946,000, amounting to $722,000 in 1894, whereas in New York the water
revenue, say $3,500,000 annually, is credited direct to the Sinking Fund, for the payment of
interest on all city debt.




I
















a,




UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
I Ifll011iE1111111 11 1111111
39015047649168
^-^        j- [v  n. —i,.-,




I                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I