New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-23


were to work If the bill was passed IN It's presen.
form It would say clearly capital that did NOT
need TO come to New-York. Ii had been clearly
proved that within few months IL hdo peo'
almost impossible for New-York 10 sell It's pohus a'
oldtime prices Now this was due to only one th'hs'
and that was the uncertainty of the people as W
what taxa tQp would be under the new charter. inc
passage of the bill before this House meant tho
decrease in value of real In the city OF New
York.
g.. CUT oFF=BY. THE SPEAKER 800
George w Wilson OF Kings said ali the members
had come to the chamber prepared TO Vo'e ." -"
question Of Greater New-York. Annexation "o'
he continued come about some time put IL was u''
Just to combine the cities now without GIVING ING
people chance to say what kind OF a char'e' s"'
rule them The city Of Brooklyn did not come 10
the Legislature as a pauper; It did not peg
1.-THE gentleman's time has expired SAID 'he
Speaker as he recognized Mr.. Aus'iI cha4'in" -
the Cities Committee. Mr.. Austin oeciafe" ''".
the MAYORS who had disapproved the Dill hao no.
e.ra,,,IIv looked into the question. They had sid
that the bill was not in the interest OF the people,
when II was the best that could be enac'eu' nv
argument had been made that the peope "eiV ~
have something forced upon them In the way o'
charter. This not so. for consoEdauo" W.
not be a fac. until after the char'er "a' ~
adopted by the Legislature =,
Mr. Brennan hoped that the measure "oui' NO.
pass 1t seemed incredible. he eaid tnat VI" =
isIature would pass bill that was against "e
will Of the people and in opposition 10 nome Iu'e
Tho Navore OF New-Yo-k and Brooklyn anu nc
himself Mr.. Waldo OF Kings SAID. oia no' opp"s
consolidation but did disapprove OF the Din as d,
present before the House. 1t was against the VIII
Of the people. ..- .,o
Mr. Ebbetts said he was surprised 'i'a' .n
Mayors of two large cities should d.sappfoVe o'',
which was so full Of interest to the pi0pie ~
pointed to their welfare II was 10 DE- US
that politics had crept into the consideration oi ~
mighty and important measure Al WI 49,,
who. ran against Mayor Wurster, OF brook''"' "
been elected, the House would have hao d" aP
proval instead OF a disapproval. OF the measure
undsr confederation One-half the present members
~ m. House and all the Senators would return
next wear and they and me Governor couid o.
trusted 10 select and name commissioners VINO wouu
draw a charter suitable for the people
In a few words AR Perkins. OF Kings opposed
ne bill Mr.. Hi. of Erie Joined hands with MI
Serk;ns IN advocating the death Of ~ measure.
He said r. was unreasonable that a Greater New
york should govern the entire State, as 1t Womb
II the bill became law.
MURPHY CHANGES HIS MIND.
Mr. Murphy said it was his duty to vote 1or tue
bill He had moi always thought this way ana. IN
fact, he had once voted against the measure o..'.
he had ascertained that the people in MS dlS'Flc'
favored the bill The commission would surely d
made up OF reputable men.
Mr. Robbins said that he would not DEBATE Inc
various arguments for and against CONSERVATION,
but would make an appeal to the cofnnon-sehse anu
sober Judgment of the House not to pass the Dill.
The question not that of consolidation out 'he
matter of passing over the heads of the Mayors a
bill which had been. disapproved by them what
spectacle II was to have the bill passed~anh go upon
the books as passed with the disapproVai oi
the cities Interested The bill was TO pass, "heii
millions OF people in New-York ard Brooklyn op-
rosed II and only the local authorities of the small
est city affected, Lcng Island City. approved H.
Mr.. Robbins declared that he had received letters
from prominent people opposing the BILL PROMINENT
people not office seekers or politicians opposed 'ne
bill and said that II a private ana a puphc
wrong There never had been a vote by Brooklyn
approving the bill
The people had never passed upon the proposi'io"'
suggested by the bill before the House Inc same
question had not come into the matter at all The
question that had been submitted to the people was
for consolidation against constellation me
question before the House consolidation
regardless OF the terms and condluohs upon
which consolidation should be accomplished Inc
question when submitted to the people had NOT been
understood at all. The members were voting with a
'hope" that. everything would be all right The con-
soldation as now proposed, was an outrage against
home rule In closing his speech M. Robbins plead
ed with all those whose conscences dictated against
the bill to vote as their manhood led them.
O'GRADY CLOSES THE DEBATE.
Mr.. O'Grady the Republican leader. said that dur
discussion
put forth any new argument against Greater New
York There had been none, but the minority leader
had interposed the old argument that New-York had
been unable to sell its bonds because of the threat
ened consolidation. This was not So as every one
knew that controer Fitch had held that the cause
of NETWORKS failure TO sell its bonds at od- II, tne
Rhe ere Was, Continued Mi oGrady nothing to feal
Hi. Of Of Erie. was inconsistent IL his argumen
against the bill for just sSrs measure nv a on M
Mayor Wurster had been for consolidation before
his election, and he ought still 10 be. Mr.. OGrad!
read a petition from merchants. bankers and clubs
ser Il mr. MsyGr GRADY prose @fq the that
Legislature would not create any Greater Ne s~,
York Commi miss So tnis year. Du' "ou''
o'clock Mr. oGrady moved the previous a;,s qne Is
Mayors Strong and Wurster
AN EXCITING OCCASION.
The scene during the taking of the vote was a
exciting and interesting as any that has taken pac
in the lower house for several years. As each vot
was recorded. 1t seemed. even after the roll wa
half finished. that the measure would meet with de
feat. On the desks of most of the members wa
a SvfGh ne vote a Which Ms to f
Nsw-York was to be made fact IT, ms yssf wb
with the majority leader was yitaly intereste
in the measure was apparent, ana oeore o ns V D
those who had promised 70 vote Ior IL u,b So Uo,
was Mr. Babcock. Of Cheutauqua. he SAID that
had tried time after time 10 obtain recognition irof
the chair but 1t had been impossible. The gov
eminent Of the city Of Brooklyn was estabshe
and II should not be removed and for this reason
voted in the negative ,,,
Messrs Barth Costello and Cromwell explained
a few words why they opposed the bill their rec
sons being that their constituents did not wal
them to vote for It, -, ,,. -. =,
Mr. Forester greeted with laughter when ,
took the explain why he voted Tor me ID
and not against the measure, as ne had neretoIor
He had he said fought against consolidation
and out of the house, In doing this he had believe
that he was doing his duty and carrying out u
viii of his constituents He now believed that n
Constituents did want Greater ew-York. and tht
IN voting for the bill he was consistent.
So AZ Gnider. Democrat. of Brooklyn, said he a!