New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-01-18
GREATER NETWORK HEARING.

ARGUMENTS URGED IN FAVOR OF THE TWO
SCHEMES OF OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
FEAR OF CHICAGO
Albany. Jan 1.-THE Cities Committees OF the two
Houses gave a hearing this afternoon In the Senate
Chamber on the Cantor and Reynolds Greater
New-York bills. Senator Cantor introduced the
Commission bill providing for submitting to a vote
of the citizens OF the localities affected the question
Of consolidating all the territory about the mouth
of the Hudson into one municipality. while the
Reynolds bill provides for the consolidation OF New
York City and Brooklyn only. with uniform
system Of taxation.
There were present Andrew II Green and Edward
F. Linton. of the Greater New-York Commission
and the following from the Brooklyn Consolidation
League: f. c. Graves. F. NJ. Grout. James Matthews,
Ross Parker. Sanders Shanks. Or. f. p. Coombs and
A. G. ShenstOne.
Mr.. Green gave account OF the appointment or
the commission which appointed In 1890 The
commissioners after extending inquiry were unan-
nous in favor of the bill. The vote TO be taken
would be merely advisory to the Legislature which
would be called upon to frame the terms of con-
soidation. Mr.. Green opposed the Reynolds Dill.
f. NJ Grout speaking FOR the Consolidation
League of Brooklyn said he disliked to antagonize
Mr. Green. to whom he gave the credit OF origlnat-
ing the Greater NewYork idea. but the question OF
taxation he thought. should be settled at the start
and not left to a succeeding Legislature. Consoli-
TO the tax rate of New-York City that 1t could
never be accomplished The Brooklyn League had
given to the consolidation project all the strength
that It had. The joining of NewYork and BrooNyn
would add only very small sum to New fTk
rate. while II would reduce the Brooklyn rate. This
reduction would be only just. as New-Yorks taxes
largely paid by citizens OF Brooklyn. who Ola
business there. II Brooklyn could be secured the
other localities would come in when they were
wanted. Brooklyn could not be secured without
assurance Of advantage to herself, such az
would be secured by an equal tax rate.
Of no IdaRno
that the league had in year secured 2l0OO mem
bers in brooklyn pledged to vote end work ior
consolidation. The consolidation of New York and
Brooklyn would raise the tax rate Of New-fork
temporarily from 81 50 to 81 % per 500. Chicago
fact. II New York should lose its prestige as the
greatest city OF the country. ii would lost its busi
ness TO the extent of $o"o'oO year, which would
be many times greater than the increased tax
would be- AS matter Of fact Chicago was grow
ing faster than New-York City. but not faster
than the consolidation area. Brooklyn did not ask
New-YOrk to assume a dollars worth of her bonded
Indebtedness.
Edward F. Linton of the Commission. said that
the Commissioners based their advocacy OF the dea
much broader grounds than competition with
Chicago Substantial and needed Improvements
would follow consolidation. The people of Brooklyn
had defeated the representatives who opposed the
the Commission plan in Brooklyn sufficient 10 defeat
II.
Jesse G. johnson urged the Consolidation Leagues
bill
Senator Cantor remarked that the sentiment in
favor of annexation came from brooklyn, where
real estate values would be increased one-third In
value by 1t. New-YOr not afraid that Chicago
would outstrip her either In population or wealth
II unfair of Brooklyn to attempt 10 bind New
York beforehand. Both cities would derive edvan-
tages from consolidation. but Brooklyn would re-
ceive the greater.
The hearing was then adjourned. The Committee
took action on the bi.ls.