New-York tribune., 1883-06-03

cannot be equally well done if they re-
main two. A change of residence within
a city rarely takes place becanse Of the
provisions of q charter which govern all parts
of it alike, unless practice one part profits at the
expense of the rest.
49, 1t is not who control our water front. whether
they are few many, that commerce cares for-t is
how it Is controlled and badly as it is controlled
under existing laws. think il Is much better than
ii would be if turned over into tho hands of
board and made the prey of La ger and more
concentrated party and political neces-
sites than at present The bad government
of our waterfront due in great measure to a body
of lw and conflict of individual and public
rights, involving numberleSs constitutional ques-
ticns, which would not be changed or affected by
any simple union of the cities. There would only
result a cOncentrat Of difficulties In respect OF
this particular department if the cities were made
one and the capacity of officials to solve them
would surely not be increased by giving them a
harder problem TO solve than they already have.
And right here 1t must be remembered
that charter changes do not increase the capacity of
individuals for government, and increasing the
difficulty of municipal government by bringing
1000 600 of people within single city, is not OF
itself going to secure any higher grade of ability
in our public servants l believe that the adding
together of the voting element OF the two cities will
give us decreased rather than an increased
average of official capacity and character II is
just because of this tendency in growing
cities that their government is peculiarly difficult
The tono Of municipal politics ~ always lowered
directly as the mass Of population increases. have
yet learn of single historical instance where il
has been otherwise. Furthermore tho relations Of
such huge municipality as JOINT New-York aud
u AL l.
full OF danger. There would at once be
two organized parties In the State
a metropolitan and rural party. Either metro
politan polite, would govern the State and thus
produce manifold evils, else the country distri cts
through the medium of the Legislature. would
govern the metropolitan district. In party conven-
uons the same thing would appear; New-York and
Brooklyn would always be massed together by
vir.ue of their common interests. In any event
one party or the other. the metropolitan the
rural, would have TO succumb. | f0resce for many
reasons that the unon OF the cities would prodnco
decentralization OF State politics. party and Official
such has never been known before.
u0.) In my opinion every argument Is against the
union OF the cities, and do not believe that union
will be effected We haven't yet solved the prob
lem of government on the present scale and should
not undertake the task of trying 1t larger
In single departments, as that OF Public Works. for
example, we have heretofore achieved but very poor
rc sults and demonstrated that the public service
not.so much means OF doing public work well and
cnespIy as II Is OF snbsldIZlng an army
OF voters What should we do with
public work il the two cities were made onef The
suggestion that the cities be united springs. think,
out of that too-common error of the belief the
ability OF the Legisatureby the enactment of laws
change the conditions Of social and political life
No error is more common or more radical. for it IS
the conditions of political life which determine the
efficiency oil legislation, and not legislation which
changes these conditions To try 10 solve two
difficult and heretofore unsoved problems IN one,
is dangerous experiment, and do not believe 1t
will be made. Respectfully w. X. GRACE.
Ne,o- York, June 2 1SSJ.