The sun., 1892-12-21
THE MAYOR ON CIVIC UNION.
WHAT HE THINKS .fROUT "TfTE
GREATER NEW IORK" -iGITi TfON.

| GRElTER NEW 1ONh -I6IfiIfoN.
| The Question That Now Demands the Attcn.
ton of the Metropolis. He says, IL Not
Union with BROOKLYN, hut the Annexn-
tiOn of Territory TO the North or the CITY.
Mayor Grant consented yesterday to give his
views on tho subject OF tho Greater New York.
which Is being newly agitatPd, especially in
the city OF brooklyn. The Mayor has been
asked frequently OF lato for IN expression Of
opinion. lie examined the subject OF annexa-
ton very closely. with n vicw to sending u
communication to the Legislature last winter
when legislation on tho subject was In PROS
| rert The conclusions hc reached then were
| those he gave expression TO yesterday
"As!ar as Brooklyn Is concerned" the Mayor
| said. II do not regard the question as OF i'm
| mediate and pressing importance. 1t is STILL
| and must for years. remain In tho domain OF
| discussion. Tho demand for II and the annex
alton OF other territory separated from the
| Metropolis by rarid rivers or the broad lay is
| largely or entirely matter of sentimental
sentiment which is crystalli2"d in the name
| that makes the movement in this direction so
| attractive Tho Greater New York.
| "Tounite and cons lidato cummuntles thus
separated in natural divisions Of land is not a
! problom beyond the resources Of modern
| science and engineering. but it involves tho
| construction of immense public works or those
| OF n semi rublic character to provide bridge
| or tunne! means .! communication between
| the districts thus brought into one municipal
| jurisdictions Except for matters of detail con-
! rectea with bridge and tunnel cons tructon
| there aro few questions OF related improve
ments on which tho dovelormcnt OF these
| districts depends The construction Of such
| facilities for communication. then - now. VIII
require Legislative action ut Albany. whether
undertaken as public works or rs enterprises
OF private capital. Provision FOR these facil-
| ties it is thus to lie seen. is not ut ali depend-
| ent upon municipal consolidation. and cannot
be used as an argument for haste. The scpa-
| rate development OF th"se district 3 IS not ham
pered or hindered by delay in administrative
80 many things are t? he considered in re-
for it that rrogres,sva minds nsSnn an, e. many
Gently received some considerable impetus.
are not in the least rremature. trough re-
seems seems to to have received little .considera-
Sn tSns 5 vt ndas is IN nvovsd New ydHs M na
cial position, low lnx rate; gnd material
| wealth make tho marriage II desirable one Tor
any party Of the second part. ihors !. one
feature Of this rrosrsrity that j. j. all one sided;
n "nd ake nans 10 In % Sinking und
900 coo is enjoyed by Sew Iork: y, None OF the
cept that derived from direct taxation.
| There is an aspect Of annexat!on that in my
opinion is OF pressing importance the one
that has to DO With the extension 3t the city
gro growth The reason that i consider Ills Of
ton ot street plan for M nsiderabie district
ssst ss s rss @sa s r.
such improvements. the law proceedings.
the otflciAl action and the hearings required to
weigh con tlictirg interests. all require ogreat
toe soon in a district where thers is 50 m,lrh
the city needs rarticula arly, TO he considered as
com preIensive ana relatei plans. ills can
not lie done i this territory remains under
crtases and the district becomes more .hickIy
settled. Nor can 1t properly and economically
dGne es tns is in
provision for the Irresistible growth Of the city
IN that direction. a further portion OF West.
work Of planning for the development Of, this
district on c99mprehsnrSSiiye I RIInn should he
district named at once and in short time tie
whole, community vii! rear an advantage Tho
velopnent that the wealth of the city will con-
trlbute to. and this will react to the benefit OF
sue Step ani eo
to the advantages. ths disproportion will dis
yer S{ nn4 o The e w
There is another view q this proposition
which, makes it an n absolute duty for the city
Of Ironerty in ysn C9rt!andt; Bronx. anl Pei:
Tho whoe %Gn "dqsn
tin TIN ctss Of Now ' York and Yonkers BrenH
the Wits is 1 and
Far Park '0Sn is s%irss within III. r ,"rr'ory na at
the town OF Felham. The money that wifi Le
expended in improving these he's parks, in addi.
taxable valuation Of the holdings in every di-
ward the city where the increase adds to the
income OF the city n increased taxes. To
penditures in these parks into tie city. and
toprovide for the certain growth OF the ropu-
nnd o the the
towns OF Enst Chester. West Chester. Pelham.
and N. New R9chelie :, ., noss,.. ,,o c
desd Ja p hs Cato TO
tie subject Of theSe parks in t"rms as true to-
in the direction suggested. and tho situation
+ strong Argument arg t in layer M ere OF the annoxa-
The following is an extract from the message
referred to:
ss. s.s Hs t ia %
as sites FOR number OF paris H. WAS step toward the
we ay .To o eSsts ss t. s:" Hn%,ng n, w,hp
ps:s: w%is !. naPas6s ~, .s.r ~ '"n h"''
estimated. Ibei,eve Al about $5o,ooo r.r annum.
The population Of the, district whose an
nexation Is suggested. in 1873. ut the first
State enumeration after ter, tho pas;saGe OF the
nonmiation of Yonkers was 1885. Of West Wt
Chester: $3.50; q last Chester s2a4: Sa4 Of pel
the last State enumeration showed In that dis
trIct population q 7o.i24. Tho population
Of East Chester. ,17.7G3; q Pelham. 2.IN6:
q New Rochelle, nio9G G;s..I The porH!4:
wns 3G,1G4 In 1892 it, was SG,1i7.
The comparative taxable valuations Of the
cities and towns OF Westchcster tina, have been
referred to were as, Lollows:- lonkers. 1880.
$l9,454:aa12: 70 ls.o. - lLTao''i55m; m Esst Chester;
Chester. 1850. s3os5;1Hi; 1890. s$.go5.,;3o:
New Rocheiie. 1880. s2s0O2O5: iS.,o sa.S..1,
~. Totals. 1880. Sco.co4oGo: 1850. S33,1g9,-
"in these figures the city Of NJ. Vernon in
corpornted by Act OF the leg M"gislature OF lS,a.
| taxable valuation Of tie Twenty third and