New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-11
MAYOR WTRSTER'S VETO.

The consolidation bill must be rcpassed ny
both branches Of the Legislature before II can
no sent 10 the Governor SO much Is made GER
tain hv Nayor Wursters veto. 1t is confidently
asserted. moreover. by many persons who would
he likely 10 receive in one way or another
truthful intimation of Mayor Strong's action on
the bin that he also has disapprovcd it. and
their assurance warrants the general belief that
he has done So Presumably some members OF
the Legislature will be Influenced by his de-
cision. on whichever side it is given but his re-
lection of the bill in behalf of New-iork Is ap-
noronflv not deemed essential to its defeat nj
Albany 1t certainly ought not to be, for Mayor
Wurster has stated the case for Brooklyn In Il
convincing manner and Brooklyn is entitled to
At least as much consideration as this city. The
fact ought also to be taken into account that
public sentiment in NewIork must be aiiectcd
if not controlled, by the sentiment Of Brooklyn.
We have never been able TO discover evidence
of a strong prevalent desire in the metropolis
for consolidation in the near future. On the
contrary. signs which are usually trustworthy
public utteranccs, private conversation ana
the reflections of popular feeling which come
in various ways from the newspapers-indicate
that our people generally regard the question
with more Indifference, indeed, than is credit
able But whatever vote at this time might
disclose as to the preference Of New York, we
do not believe that a majority OF the people
think II would be proper or desirable TO force
consolidation upon the great city across the
river If there is to be a municipal union. it
ought to be acceptable to n least a substantial
majority of the citizens of every community
concerned.
The fact seems TO us to have been established
long ago that. whether or not New-iork was
we'll aware of what might result from the vote
in 1894 the people Of Brooklyn did not imagine
that ii would be treated as final in any sense.
Moreover. if the commission of inquiry created
in 1890 commonly called the Consolidation Com
mission. so regarded it, then the commission
was disingcruous; for, as Mayor Wur>tcr once
more reminds the Legislature, II ISSUED an OIL
cial announcement and assurance TO the voters
prior To the election. that nothing more than
"a simple expression of opinion the general
| subject of consolidation was to be Obtained,
and that IF every ballot in the city or town were
cast in favor Of consolidation, there would be
mo fnality about it." The honest meaning OF
those expressions was not that the Legislature
would have to take action, an obvious fact OF
which nobody needed TO be told, but that with
| the people themselves would rest the ultimate
| decision as to their municipal future We are
not surprised that multitude OF Brooklyn clti
Zens demand a fuflment OF that virtual pledge
and we cannot think 1t would be wise or proper
10 ignore that common understanding.
| 1t Is not necessary TO review in detail Mayor
| Wurster's clear and forcible summary OF the
arguments against compulsory effacemcnt OF
| Brooklyn which the long discussion OF the SUD
| ioct has produced. The single consideration OF
| good faith is. or ought TO be, conclusive; but
there are many practical objections TO the pend
Ing bill. and the most important OF them con
corning Ncw-York as closely as Brooklyn, has
never been better stated than by Mayor Wursier
when he says: 1T would certainly not be Il
wise and prudent business transaction for Tho
'owner Of valuable piece Of property to sign
| "a contract to sell the same and provide that
'the title should be absolutely transferred Al
"a certain date in the future. for a price and
''upon terms and conditions which should bo
fixed by some third person. over whose acts
'he had no control ! cannot reconcile it with
my ideas of that which should constitute a
"busness administration OF the affairs Of this
'city to consent that her rights property and
franchises shall be disposed Of In similar
| way
1t may be that majority Of the members OF
each house at Albany are capable Of closing thcil
minds to this and every other argument arisin9
out Of the bill ITSELF but even so, 1t Is very
! doubtful if the bill can be repasscd. 1t would
be well If Justice could be done in this matter
without reference to political considerations
but political considerations are sure to be infil
entail at this stage in the proceedings, and thu
probability is that they will operate to MAKE
| Mayor Wurstcr's veto decisive.