New-York tribune., 1900-05-27
THE BOROTGH SYSTEM.

The publ;c debate on the revision of the char
for wisely encouraged by the Commission. Is
beginning with the borough system, and II is
probable for obvious reasons that no other feat-
IRE of our municipal government VIII De so
warmly discussed as this. 1t seems to be gen
orally admitted at the outset that the charter
provisions which were intended to preserve to
a certain extent the civic identity of the various
geographical divisions of the city should not be
retained in their present form, but there is IA
radical difference of opinion to the manner
in which they ought to be changed. We have
gathered the impression that in Manhattan there
is strong disposition on the part of most or
those who have discussed the matter at all TO
urge that the bOroughs except as geographical
designa tions should be abolished whereas else
where an opposite desire is believed to prevail
At the meeting in Brooklyn tomorrow evening
it is expected that the Commission will hear
little besides earnest pleas for large increase
of local authority The Brooklyn Eagle rep
resenting this sentiment, says: Every one
knows that we got along pretty well when we
managed our own affairs, and we do not be-
''lieve that there many people in Brooklyn
'who think that we should find it impossible to
manage them pretty well again if a charter
amendment should be passed limiting the
authority of the central officials to a super
''visOry and allowing us to take charge or
.'our streets, building our own schoolhouses
''and paying our own teachers with our proper
''tionate share of the public funds.
1t is possible to feel considerable sympathy
with this view of the case, inasmuch as when
the original. tentative vote on the question was
taken there only minute majority for
consolidation in Brooklyn, and there is reason
to believe that the opposition soon became
a large majority. Subsequently the hostility
10 nd II has not haan jyp1
in an aggressive form of late but nobody can
doubt that strong local feeling exists beyond
the East River which the operations of Tam
many administration have powerfully tended to
increase The existence of this sentiment does
not, however necessarily mean that it deserves
TO be fOstered by the law. 1t is interesting to
contrast with the views expressed by The
Eagle" the opinions set forth on the same sub
ject by the trainers of the charter in their
report to the Legislature of 1897. They said,
to paraphraSe their language only slightly, that
il was impossible for the Commission to accept
the proposition strongly urged from one local
ity-doubtless meaning Brooklyn-that every
borough should elect its own Commissioner.
who should have control of and be responsible
for all public work within its limits; that this
would be dsintegration rather than consolida-
ton; that it would deprive all parts of the city
of anything like unity of development and
would in effect, destroy whatever advantage
was TO be expected from skilled oversight and
control.
The argument well stated, and perhaps
it was antecedently probable that events would
sustain it. We not prepared to say that the
Commissions cheerful forecast would have been
refuted if political folly and treachery had not
succeeded in turning the new city to Tam
many Hall. But as things are our fellow citi-
nf -yn aI,y ho for
wishing that they had more authority the
money they contribute to public purposes. On
the other hand, if they intend seriously to
demand from the Revision Commission large
measure of local autonomy for themselves and
their brethren of Queens, Richmond and The
Bronx. they must expect to encounter the objec-
tion that the present machinery of borough gov
ernment is enormously expensive, and be pre-
pared TO show that if it We're elevated from a
sham into condition of real power it would
do the work better for less money. One fact
seems to us to be emerging into public view and
taking firm hold of the public mind, and that is
that the present cost of their municipal govern
cannot afford to carry indefinitely; that it ham,
pers and discourages the great majority, puts
them at serious disadvantage in comparison
with other commercial centres and must by
some means be reduced. AS we have said be-
fore, this is the fundamental problem with
which the Revision Commission is required to
grapple.