Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Submitted by
Jacob Judd
April, 1959
Approved
Table of Contents
Page
'
Preface i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Preface
.
pects. 114 Stiles did move partially in this direction in his two-volume
Civ-1, Political, Professional and Ecclesiastical..,.Record of the County
.2f Kings and the City of Brooklyn, which appeared in 1884. Yet here the
early history of the cqmmunity was compressed, in order to place emphasis
on the important men and industries of the 1880 1 s.
The first treatment of Brooklyn to approximate modern standards was
Ralph F. Weld' s Brooklyn Village 1816-183h, published in 1938. Weld I s
approach is reflected in his contention that "local history is national
tJ.story locally exemplified. n 5 He concerned himself primarily with the
emerging socia.l pattern of early Brooklyn. One further study of Brooklyn,
Harold c. Syrett's City .2. Brooklyn, 1865-1898, a doctoral dissertation,
conforms to standards of twentieth-century historiography. Syrett is
primarily interested in the political life of the community in the decades
following the Civil War.
It will be noted that these two contemporary works leave a signifi
cant period of Brooklyn's history undelineated. These are the early
years of Brooklyn 1 s cityhood - 1834 to 1865. It is the aim of this present
study to contribute tc filling in this lacuna. The years 1834 to 1855 have
been chosen as a workable unit because tPis is the priod between the incor
poration of the city in 1834 and its consolidation with Williamsburgh and
Bushwick, which took effect on January 1, 1855. Research in this period
of Brooklyn's history is handicapped by a lack of official documents. For
homes here.' The Heights, however, did not comprise all of Brooklyn, but
rather only a limited portion of it. It was perhaps the most aristocratic
section, but it was still only a small part of a whole.
The First Ward was strictly residential, except for distilleries,
but the Second Ward which was located northeast of the Heights had more
extensive manufacturing. In 1835, a small cotton factory, a distillery
6
and a brewery were located in this area. Since the Fulton Ferry line
stopped at the shores of the Second Ward, it was very convenient for
commuters to reside in this ward.7 The Third Ward's western boundary
faced the Heights' eastern boundary; therefore, the Third Ward lacked
the view of the Bay and was a bit further removed from the ferry lines.
Because of this geographical disadvantage, the Third Ward was not as
well populated as the surrounding wards.
The busy commercial artery, Fulton Street, flanked the Fourth
Ward on its western boundary. The ward had convenient transportation
connections with the ferry line; it presented shopping ease to those
wishing to make purchases on either Fulton Street or. in New York City;
and offered those engaged in the local retail trade the opportunity to
live close to their shops. These conveniences made the Fourth Ward the
most heavily populated area in Brooklyn in the 1830 1 s and early 1840s.
The United States Navy Yard was located in the Fifth Ward. This
ward was also the manufacturing section of the infant city. In 1835,
one oil mill accounted for $150,000 worth of manufactured goods, two
distilleries together sent forth $183,000 worth of products, and a
glass factory created products valued at $70,000. This manufacturing
center attracted many of the newer inhabitants; therefore, the ward
was a combination of industrial plants and residences.
In size, the Fifth Ward was a dwarf compared to the Sixth Ward.
The Sixth extended from Atlantic Avenue soutmiard to include what is now
called 11 South Brooklyn" and the Erie Basin. In the mid-nineteenth cen
tury, the Atlantic Dry Dock was built in this area. One distillery
carried on its trade in this ward.
The large Seventh Ward was sometimes called "The Wallabout11 since
it contained the Wallabout meadows. In length it extended from a part of
Division Street, the division between Brooklyn and the city of williams
burgh, to Atlantic Avenue on the south. 'I.we rope factories producing
.....
goods worth $152,436 were located here in 1835.
The Eighth Ward was far from small its.el,.. It was chiefly an ag
ricultural area with farms scattered over its immense terJ:tory. Its
northermnost boundary was Atlantic Avenue and its southermnost boundary
was present-day Sixtieth Street. It would have swallowed all of Prospect
Park and Greenwood Cemetery; as they are today, plus an area equal to
both park and cemetery together.
The Ninth Ward was equally as enormous, if not larger. It extended
from the common boundary with the t&..m of Bushwick in the north to present
day East New York Avenue on the south. All of modern-day Eastern Parkway
would have fallen within its borders. It comprised the entire section
now called "Bedford-Stuyvesant" and a major part of what is now known as
"Crown Heights." In addition it extended eastwar1l.y to the border of an
independent community called "East New York.". This entire area had only
173 more persons within its borders than had the Eighth Ward. One can
better grasp the almost complete rural nature of these two sections by
noting that the Eighth Ward's total population in 1835 was 493.9
Although the city of Brooklyn extended over quite a large area as
early as 1835, the majority of the populace could be found in a small
9.
-5-
compact region. The boundaries of this restricted area were the United
States Navy Yard on the northeast Atlantic Avenue on the south, the East
River on the west, and a line a bit beyond present-day Flatbush Avenue on
the east. The rest of Brooklyn's territory consisted primarily of farm
land and woods.
The increasing demands for residences and commercial buildings in
Brooklyn throughout the 1830 1 s and 1840's gave the city some aspects or
a boom town. Buildings were rushed to completion in order to meet the
demands. During the year ending in January, 1836, some 321 residential
buildings were erected or in the process of being constructed. In ad
dition there were 27 shop or factory buildings completed or under con
struction. All the homes were of wood construction, whereas the commercial
buildings. were fabricated of brick.lo
Brokly's growth by the later 1830 1 s already impressed its residents.
Its expansion moved a writer, probably the editor of the, to write
this hymn of praise:
What are we now? - our city covers twelve square miles,
and it has upwards of 30,000 inhabitants. We have
streets regulated, paved and lighted, in amount not
less than thirty ive miles, and among them may be 11
found some of the most splendid avenues in the world o
The writer continued by remarking on the excellence of Brooklyn's
fire, police and watch establishments. He also praised the two city
markets, the three commercia:lbanking establishments and the one savings
bank . He saw no cause for concern in that Brooklyn had no theatre or
opera house and was pleased that it contained "no house of ill-fa."ne to
taint its moral atmosphere." He marveled at the results which had "been
12
and with any other people."
If a person desired to viit Brooklyn in 1834, he would have had to
board the Fulton Street Ferry in New York City. Upon approaching the
Long Island c',ity, he would have noticed the lovely mansions on the Heights,
and at the sa.e time the clutter of homes and warehouses along the water's
13
edge, which one visitor described as "a kind of lower town. 11 This
dichotomy was a reflection on the nature of the community itself which was
both a thriving industrial community ai1d at the same time a developing
suburb of New York City.
Upon arriving at the Ferry House at the foot of Fulton Street in
Brooklyn, the visitor emerged onto a narrow street with rows of low wooden
buildings on both sides. A wide range of establishments could be found
along this main business thoroughfare. Hotels, the shops of booksellers,
upholsterers, tailors and grocers, shoe stores, drug stores, and other
innumerable enterises lined Fulton Street.
14 Walking a little further
on the thoroughfare, he would have seen the vacant site of the projected
City Hall. Dotting the area were wooden shanties in which many indigent
Irish squatters could be found.
The visitor did not need to venture far afield in order to reach the
residential area. The veteran politician., George Hall, estimated that
12. Ibid.
13. Entry of May 23, 1835, Diary of Thomas Chamberlain, New York Public
Library.
14. Brooklyn City Directories, 1834-1836.
-7-
their stead were solid brick buildings which housed the city's banks ., bus-
iness and professional offices, and societies. A great assortment of
retail establishments now faced the avenueo Walking still further, he
would have espied the marble columned facade of the City Hall Surrounding
this edifice was a little park ., occupying the former location of the
squatters 1 shacks which long since had been demolished.
As late as the mid-eentury, Brooklyn's homes were still mainly of
the one-.family variety. Small homes surrounded by a grassy plot could be
found in all directions extending from the city's hub. The streets might
have even appeared more stately as the trees aged and spread .their foliage.
A new development apparent in many residential areas by the fifties was
the rise of multiple dwellings. These were mainly located in the sections
of the city occupied by laborers. Dwellings occupied by three to six
families were found, for example, on .Adams ., Bridge, Front, Water, High.,
1
Jay and Navy streets. 7 The occupants were mainly Irish or Negro. Several
multiple-family units could also be found in the more elegant neighborhoods.
Colonnade Garden on Funnan Street was located amidst the stately homes of
the merchant princes. This structure actually consisted of seven attached
buildings four stories in height. The Colonnade housed the families of
merchants and professional men. Unfortunately, not all the multiple dwel
lings located in Brooklyn were so well kept and comfortable.
A legislative study attested to the crowded conditions in Brooklyn's
multiple dwellings in 1856. When the problem of crowded tenements came to
the attention or the State Legislature in that year, the Legislature or
ganized a Committee to study the situation in New York and Brooklyn. According
to the report, New York City by far had the most pressing problem in regard
to multiple dwellings. There, once fashionable residences had become,
18. State of New York, Report of the Secial Committee on Tenement Houses
_!!!Brooklyn (ilbany, i856), V, No. 199-;-p. 2.
19. .,pp.
3 ffe
-10-
In the Sixth Ward, which had a large share of the multiple dwellings,
there were ninety-nine units, each housing from five to-thirty-six families.
The Report specifically stated that in this ward all the multiple units
containing more than twenty families were constructed of brick. Otherwise
no mention was made of the material of which the buildings were fabricated.
The Report also neglected to list the number of rooms in these large mul
tiple-dwelling unitl!vand the average number of people in each family. The
multiple dwellings in the remaining wards averaged from five to eight fam
20
ilies in each building. All in all, Brooklyn of 1856 was said to have
approximately 650 multiple-dwelling units, as compared to over 13,000 in
dividual units. Of the multiple dwellings, 528 were to be found in the
confines of the first twelve wards. These were the wards which comprised
Brooklyn on the eve of consolidation in 1855. The remaining buildings
comprising the total of this type were in Williamsburgh and Bushwick,
consolidated with Brooklyn by 1856.
In 1857, a Committee investigating modes of construction and sanitary
conditions of the tenement houses in New York and Brooklyn reported that
housing in Brooklyn did not present the picture of degradation and Itj.sery
.....
that prevailed in New York. The Committee asserted that Brooklyn was not
. ' . . . 21
yet afflicted with the tenement 'Rouse system as it existed in New Yorko
Since the older residential wards were comparatively well populated
by the mid-thirties, newer areas were developed during the 1830 1 s and 1840 1 s.
One area which underwent a rapid transformation from rural to urban living
in these years was East Brooklyn, in the Seventh Ward. This community,
which some people called "the City of the Seventh Ward," had begun to de
velop towards the end of 1833. By 1839, it had 1,750 inhabitants and about
400 homes. The area then had some lighted and paved streets, a police and
fire fighting force and several factories. The United States Hospital was
located in this area. The vicinity, in general, gave the appearance of a
thriving community.22
In January, 1847, Walt Whitman, as editor of the Brooiclyn Daily Eagle,
recommended that because of its newness, this area should be made to con
form to the most modern municipal practices. He l-l'l'Ote,, it
has every advantage for being well laid out - and we
should think it a goqd field for the operation of a
law similar to what the New Yorkers now have - and
what they are sorry they didn't have years ago - re
stricting the erection of inflanunable buildings. All
over East Brooklyn - and the streets that intersect
Myrtle avenue wooden tenements form three-fourths cf
the whole number. 23
Whitman also hoped that.Brooklyn would be sufficiently foresighted to build
more public cisterns at once, rather than wait for a large conflagration
to occur. The cisterns were not forthcoming .,
In 1852, the buildings being erected in East Brooklyn were still mainly
of wood, but more brick structures were being built than previously. The
Star advertised the residential opportunities of East Brooklyn in June or
22. Brooklyn Daily Evening Star, July 29, 1839. Formerly called Long
Island Star. The newspaper changed its name in January, 1841 ., when
it became a daily. It will be referred to hereafter as the Star.
- 23. Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Jan. 18, 1847. It will be referred tohereaier
as the Eaglee
-12-
that year:
As a general rule, much taste is displayed in this
part of the city, as to style of architecture; even
the lowest price {:dJ houses are neat in their
design. There are many buildings of all kinds to let
in East Brooklyn, lately finished; so that the poorest
or ri.chest can find in that desirable locality, eyery
thing [one'i/ heart could wish, for a residence. 24
South Brooklyn, a rising industrial center, was another area which
was being rapidly populated in the 1840 1 s. In 1846 the Advertiser,
reported that 15,000 inhabitants had moved into the area within three
years. It was.indicated that whex-eas "Atlantic street, four years ago,
wound it.s way through an extensive cornfield," it was now a busy
2
thoroughfare. 5
To a large extent, the dwellings being built in the new residential
sections were designed primarily to meet the desperate need for housing
brought about by the expansion of population. These buildings, con
structed as multiple dwellings, were regarded as being far from 11 .first
class residences." They were called z.nore imposing in thei outward ap
pearance than in the actual living acconunodations provided within them.
The "gloomy and barnlike 11 appearance of the rooms, remarked a correspondent
26
of the Eagle, could not be altered by any amount of furniture put in them.
The Advertiser also critic:iz,ed the new buildings from the point of
within a very short period as that flourisng portion of our city has,
it necessarily bears an almost repulsively new apearance, and some parts
look as if they were made merely pro tempore. 1127
This kind ;of construction still met with disfavor ,in 1851, when a
writer commented on the erection of small tenements then springing up in
South Brooklyn. 11We noticed a block of buildings, nearly completed, where,
in a space usually occupied by one family, it is intended to put seven or
eight. This is done," he said, "to accommodate persons of limited means."
The writer recommended that those seeking places of residence should move
to the outskirts of the city so that they could at lea.st have 11 good whole-
28
some air."
Despite these adverse comments, the construction of such homes in
South Brooklyn continued at a rapid tempo. This area, according to the
was the fastest growing section in all of Brooklyn in the year 1851.
Star,
The correspondent remarked that the reasons for this growth were the prox
iinity the area had to lower New York and the ease with whih connections
could be made by ferry to New York. "In this part of the city whole.blocks
of brick buildings, nearly comple ted or just commenced, can be seen on
every hand, and yet with all this building, we venture to assert that next
spring there will not be enough dwelling houses to be let to supply the
29
demand "
The Ninth Ward, comprising the area called "Bedford" also underwent
a metamorphosis as the years passed. Whitman wrote of this section: "When
this section of the city becomes occupied it will be the most attractive
part of Brooklyn. Clinton avenue [iic7, from Myrtle to the railroad .,
already presents one of the most agreeable prospects it is possible to
30
conceive." However, no t far from Clinton Avenue could be found an
Irish shantytown huddled in the shadows of Fort Greene, nearby. "Descen
ding Fort Greene ., " Whitman wrote, "one comes amid a colony of squatters,
whose chubby children, and the good-natured brightness of the eyes of
many an Irishwoman, tell plainly enough that you are wending your way
among the shanties of the Emeralders. They are permitted by the owners
here, until the ground shall be wanted, to live rent free, as far as the
1
land is ooncerned."3
North Brooklyn ., also a part o the Ninth Ward, was rapidly being
developed. By the erly 1850 1 s much land previously occupied by farms
began to sprout buildings instead of agricultural products. The !2.:!
Times reported on September 27 ., 1851, that "On Bedford avenue, Letween
Division and Morton streets we notice the erection of a block of fine
houses, as splendid, costly and collllllodious as any to be found in the city,
an evi dence that this section of Brooklyn is to be a favorite one with
2
the wealthier class of the communit,y. 113
Whereas only 321 buildings were erected in Brooklyn in 1835, the
yearly total had increased to 419 in 1842, to 937 in 1844, and for the
combined years of 1848 and 1849 to 2,094. Brick dwellings were now being
constructed in greater numbers than frame structures. This was probably
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter II
3. Census for 1855, p. xxii. /statistical analysis is the work of the autho.!7.
4. See 11 Rateof Population Increase, 1835-55." Table II, P 197.
5. See pp. 60-6.
6 c Census of 1840; 1845; 1850; 185.5, passim.
-19-
In 1840, free Negroes numbered 1,772. They totaled 1,873 in 1845, and
7
2,424 in 1850. In terms of percentages the figures represented 4.6
percent of the entire population in 1840, 3.1 percent in 1845, and 2.3
percent in 1850. Thus while the total number of free Negroes increased
slightly in these years, the percentage of Negro residents in the whole
Brooklyn population actually declined.8
It is less easy to identify the sources of population growth than
to determine the number of persons involved, for reliable data on this
subject are hard to find. One reason for the mounting population was,
of course, natural increase. Although there are records of the total
number of deaths for some of the years in the period 1835 to 1855, the
birth statistics, on the other hand, are meager. Records of the number
of births which occurred during the preceding year can only be found in
the New York State Census reports for 1845 and 1855, and their reliability
is open to question. In 1845, some 1,094 deaths were recorded, and 3,893
9
deaths in 1855. It is to be noted that there was an excess of births
over deaths in both these census years. For 1845, the percentage of births
over deaths was 129.8 but the total increase by birth was only 2.4 percent
of the total population. For 1855, the percentage of births over deaths
was 73.7, but representing only a 1.4 percent increase of the total popu
lation. Deaths for these two years reached only l o B percent in 1845 and
and 1.9 percent in 1855. There are also death records in existence for
several intervening years. In 1847, some 1,777 deaths were noted; and in
1848, an epidemic year, the total reached 2,095. In the fowing year
10
it reached 3,052. In the year 1851, the number of deaths climbed to
11
2,858. Since during these intervening years there was also a continuous
increase in population, it can be said that the annual death rate remained
fairly constant at approximately two percent. Thus the birth increase was
slightly ahead of the mortality rate during this period. However, the
slight advantage in the rate of birth over death cannot account for the
great rise in population.
Another source of Brooklyn's growth was the migration across the river
from New York City. There is clear evidence that many merchants lived in
Brooklyn while transacting their business in New York. These commuters
resided on the Heights or in Brooklyn's rural wards where they lived as
country squires.12 As early as 1855, the chronicler, William H. Smith,
saw as distinctive of Brooklyn the fact that its nocturnal population
13
outnumbered its daytime residents by "tens of thousands." Because of
this unique situation, Brooklyn might be said to have been one of New York
City's first suburbs,with many of the qualities that distinguish the suburb
from the metropolis. Fredrika Bremer, the Swedish novelist, when visiting
Brooklyn in 1849, found it to be a city with "a character of its own."
She found that "Brooklyn is as quiet as New York is bewildering and noisy."
This desired feature, along with beautiful harbor views and tree-lined
streets of the city, she continued, was luring New York merchants to this
cormnunity "where they have their houses and homes."14
In 1845, some 30,949 or 51.9 percent of the total population of Brook
lyn declare.d themselves to have been born in New York State. By 1855, some
88,025 were atives of New York State, or 35.l percent of the total Brooklyn
population.15 Having determined that the naturtl increase through an excess
of births over deaths in Brooklyn did not exceed l to 2 percent, as compared
to the total population, it can therefore be posited that a more important
cause of expansion was an influx from New York City and other portions of
the State.
Persons born in other areas of the United States also moved to Brook
lyn in fairly large numbers. In 1845 some 7,900 residents of Brooklyn had
been born in other parts of the country. Of this number 4,176 caine from
the New England States. By 1855 the number of those coming from the rest
16
of the country amounted to 20,501.
A considerable contribution towards Brooklyn's development resulted
from the movement of population across a body of water larger than either
the East or the Hudson rivers. European countries were the source of
large numbers of emigrants to the Brooklyn shores. Unfortunately, since
Brooklyn was not an original port of entry, there are no yearly statistics
relating to the number of immigrants. The foreign-born population in 1845
was 19,854, or 33 percent of the total population. In 1855 the foreign
born population was 96,724, which represented 47 percent of Broolr.lyn 1 s
17
population. The foreign born were thus making a proportionately greater
contribution to numbers in 1855 than in 1845.
The Census of 1845 enumerates 18,644 persons from "Great Britain or
its possessions." Although no differentiation is made between the British
Isles and other parts of the British Empire, a considerable number of these
people must have come from Ireland. The Census of 1855, however, does list
the countries of origin separately; a.'l'ld if these figures can be trusted,
Ireland was the source of 56,753. Natives of England numbered 12,611 and
. of Wales 338. Considering the rest of the British Empire, natives of
Scotland accounted for 2,598, Canada for some 901, Nova Scotia for 395 and
18
Newfoundland for 144. The figures for 1855 represent totals for the com-
bined cities of Brooklyn and Williamsburgh. It is clear that among the
foreign born in Brooklyn, migrants from the British Isles--especially Ireland-
were predominant.
In 1845 only 797 inhabitants of Brooklyn were listed as natives of
Germany. By 1855 this number had risen to 18,983, but over 7,000 of these
people had been living in Williamsburgh. Another 136 listed their country
of origin as Prussia. Even if those Germans residing in Williamsburgh are
excluded, the rise in the number of Germans in this ten-year period is still
significant.
The number of immigrants from France also increased notably in this
same period. Only 184 natives of France were listed in 1845, but by 18S5
there were 1,005. Other European countries sent small groups to Brooklyn.
Some of these countries were Sweden with 191; Switzerland, 175; Spain, 158;
19
Nori,.ray, 124; Italy, 71; Africa, 12; and Turkey, 1.
Of Brooklyn's foreign-born population, the Irish comprised 58 percent,
the Germans 19 percent, of the total foreign-born in 1855. The British
.msles were third, comprising 13 percent. As was true elsewhere in the
United States, the arrival of Irish in such large numbers led to tension
between the native population and the newcomers, despite the fact that
some Irishmen ha.d:.already acquired fortunes by the 1840's. Among these
wealthy Irishmen were Jeremiah O'Donnell, William Baird, James Collins,
20
Francis O'Brien and Cornelius Heeney.
Cornelius Heeney, the wealthiest of them all, had been a partner of
John Jacob Astor in the fur trade. In 1835, Heeney retired.from business
in New York City and moved from there to an estate of seventeen acres
bounded by the East River and what is now Congress, .Amity and Court streets.
After moving to Brooklyn he devoted himself assiduously to charitable
endeavors. He was particularly active in the Catholic Church, and was
the patron of the first American Cardinal, John Mccloskey. In 1845, he
helped obtain the necessary legislation to incorporate "The Trustees and
. 21
Associates of the Brooklyn Benevolent Society."
The most famous politician of Brooklyn in this period claimed Irish
ancestry. Henry Cruse Murphy, a native Brook:lynite, was a descendant of
an Irish grandfather who emigrated to this country in 1769. His grandmother
was of Dutch ancestry. Thus in him were fused the two ethnic groups which
19. Ibid.
20. Ralph F. Weld ., Brooklyn is America (New York, 1950), passim; John
Lomas and Alfreds. Peace, The Wealthy Men and Women of Brooklyn and
Williamsburgh (Brooklyn, 18ffi, passim. - -
21. William H. Bennett, "Cornelius Heeney, n::The Journal of the American
Irish Historicl Society, XVII (New York, 1918), 215'":23-.-
-24-
22
played such an important role in Brooklyn's development.
Brooklyn appears to have welcomed the Irish, at least as a labor
force and as recruits for the political parties. Their exploits as out
standing construction workers were recognized for they were praised for
their labors on the canals and railroads, as home builders, and as the men
willing to undertake the menial tasks in the sewers and along the docks.
They were complimented for their physical strength as well as for their
23
fortitude while erforming hard tasks. The political parties were always
eager to win the support of the Irish voters. The Brooklyn Advocate pub
lished an appeal to "the Adopted Irish Citizens of Brooklyn" in 1834, re
questing them to vote for the Democratic candidates in the ensuing state
2
eletion. 4 Some editorial opinion, however, urged the Irish to stay out
of local political affairs. A writer in the urged the Brooklyn Irish
to adopt a motto, "non-interferenc with politics," but .this they did not
25
do.
The Irish immigrants, while barely sustaining themselves and their
families, did not forget their suffering brethren still in their native land.
Many public assemblages were called in order to devise means to help the
11 starving thousands" in Ireland. One such gathering was held on February 26,
1847. On that occasion, the politicmis and leading merchants of Brooklyn
showed their desire to "win friends and influence people" by organizing this
mass meeting. Among the interested parties were Henry c. Murphy, Democratic
politician; Alden J. Spooner, publisher of the Star and Whig politician;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-26-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-27-
33. Henry w. B. Howard, ed., The Eagle ooklyn (Brooklyn, 1893), I., 132;
Eagle, A?ril 5, 1844.
3L.. For a differing account see: Ray Allan Billington, -The Protestant
Crusade (New York, 1938), p. 237.
35. Connnon Council, Reports of the Secret Sessions, May 13, 1844.
-28-
they also had to fear the competition of the German immigrants, who on
occasion represented a cheaper l.abor force. In Brooklyn, as a whole, the
prestige of the Germans was high. Not many Germans had settled in .Brooklyn
in the 1830 1 s and early 1840 1 s. Rather, they congregated in Williamsburgh,
where they had native-language schools, churches and newspapers. According
to an Eagle estimate, there were no more than ten families of German origin
residing in Brooklyn during 1830-1831. However, by 1845, the total.German
population had risen to 3,000 persons. In this year, the Eagle referred
to the Germans as people with characteristics of "honesty, integrity, lib
6
erality. 113 The Irish did not see the Germans in the same light. They held
the Germans to be a threat to their economic position, poor as it already was.
The tension between the Irish and the Germans was demonstrated in an
incident which occurred in 1846. The largest enterprise undertaken in Brook-
lyn in the 1840 1 s was the building of the Atlantic Dock. The firm in charge
of construction, Stranahan, Voorhis and Company, hired a large Irish labor
force. These laborers were paid a pittance while being permitted to live in
a shantytown on the site of the development. In 1846, Stranahan, Voorhis and
Company brought in a good many Germans at lower wages than the Irish, and
also allowed them to live in the shantytown. The result was bloodshed. A
pitched battle occurred early in April, 1846, after which many of the Irish
lost their jobs and homes. It was estimated, however, that at least 200 of
3
them still remained in their shacks. 7 The company at this point asked for
militia protection, since they expected more discord between the rival groups.
They did not have long to wait for the expected trouble. On April 19, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
workman mistaken for one of the German hiring-bosses was fired upon. The
next day a milital'y cordon was thrown around the construction works.
The Irish laborers held a protest meetipg on April 21, whereupon they
were addressed by the Reverend N. O'Donnell, of Sto Paul's Catholic Church
of Brooklyn. He knew, he said, that the workers were receiving only five
shillings a day for a thirteen-hour day, and that from this tpey were ex
pected to feed themselves, their wives and children. Nevertheless, he
warned that they could not take the law into their own hands, even though
the Germans were willing to work longer hours and for half the pay. He
advised the protesters that it was the government's duty to protect the
38
contractors and the newly hired Germans. His speech apparently had very
little effect, f'or a new attack on the German laborers occurred on April 23.
-
The Eae:le termed t.h.is outbreak a "war. "
39
The''..Irish workers then appealed to the Common Council for help. The
Whig-dominated Common Council ., which had just been elected, declared that
. 40
it could not interfere with either labor or management. Finally, the
contractors, in order to bring peace to the Atlantic Dock works, decided
to hire the Germans and Irish according to a atio of 5o-5o, which meant
engaging approximately 250
members of each group. Most of the former mal
1
contents found jobs elsewhere, and peace reigned in Brooklyn again.4
Brooklyn had less trouble with riots and rioters in the first haU of
the 1850 1 s than it had had in the preceding decade. Apparently only one
isolated instance of difficulties among political or ethnic groups occurred
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-30-
45
whenever he spoke, and summoned his followers by blasts on a horn. Where-
ever he spoke, condemning the Irish Catholics, riots were likely to em:,ue.
On Sunday, June 11, he appeared in New York and addressed a throng from the
, steps of City Hall in New York City. He then decided to cross the East River
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-31-
The New nglanders also organized in 1846 as "The New England Society
of Brooklyn." Important figures in this society were Chandler Starr,
8
Cyrus P. Smith and John Greenwood. 4 Other New Englanders of prominent
posiion who had settled in Brooklyn were Alden Spooner, the publisher of
the Star, a descendant of John and Priscilla Alden; George Hall, bsinessman,
who had first settled in New York City; the Graham brothers, who organized
.
9
the white lead industry; and Arthur Tappan, a wealthy New York merchant.!i
Brooklyn's Negro residents were apparently not subject to the criticism
from which European immigrants suffered. The Negroes engaged in varied
46. Ibid.
470 Eagle, March 8, 1848.
48. 'i'6ici:', Dec. 23, 1847.
490 Weld, passim.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-32-
the organizations which were founded by the other ethnic groups, members
of the Negro community in 1845 incorporated the "Brooklyn African Tompkins
Association" to assist indigent.widows and orphans of former members and
to foster 11 The improvement of the members in morals and literature, by
forming a library and other appropriate means. 11 52.
On the whole, its varied nationality and racial ingredients were
able to adjust fairly readily in Brooklyn during the period. Although
evidences of friction did appear on occasion, the necomers lived and
worked without much interference in this rauidly expanding community.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter III
From the point of view or municipal administration the year 1834 saw
the transformation of Brooklyn from village to city. From 1815 to 1834,
the village was governed by a group of five men who,composed the Board
of Trustees. The trustees, in turn, chose the person who was to serve
as president of the village. As complexities of management increased
with the rapid growth of the community, it was realized that the relatively
simple village organization had been outgrown. Therefore, the community
leaders thought that it was expedient for Brooklyn to become a city.
The charter history of Brooklyn reflects, in some measure, the ex
istence of tension between the Long Island city and her neighbor across
the East River. In the opinion of many Brooklynites New York City de
sired to thwart its development in any way possible. The first attempt
to secure incorporation occurred during the 1833 session of the New York
State Legislature. When a bill to grant a city charter to the village of
Brooklyn was first introduced, the Assemblymen from New York City, not
having received any specific instructions, voted in favor of it. The
Senators from New York City, however, had received strict orders to block
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-34-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-35-
.6. Ibid.
7. Star, Jan. 23, 1834.
8 Ibid., Feb. 13, 1834.
9. BrooklY!;l; Advocate, April 10, 1834.
10. Star, July 3, 1834.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-36-
8, 1834 and went into effect the following April 18. According to this
charter the five distrits which had composed the old village of Brooklyn
now became the initial fi'9"e wards of the new city. In addition, the boundary
lines for four new wards were defined. Altogether, Brooklyn, as constituted
by the charter of 1834, contained nine wards.12 Following the provisions
of the charter, each ward was to elect two aldermen annually. These alder-
men, totaling eighteen in all,were to form a Board of Aldermen= This body .,
together with the mayor, comprised the Conon Council.
Members of the Board of Aldermen were to receive no salary for their
civic services; but the mayor was to receive a yearly stipend. The amount
13
of the mayor's salary varied from $1,000 in 1834 to $2,500 in 1854. If
the wide variety of duties required of the mayor is taken into consideration,
then his annual salary can only be viewed as a token payment for services
rendered to the community. Despite this fact, many citizens considered the
yearly stipend to be excessive.
The mayor was annually chosen, first by the a1dermen and later by the
electorate. His duties embraced a wide range of activities. He was the
presiding officer at all meetings of the Common Council, except on those
rare occasions when city business forced him to be elsewhere. This require
ment of officiating did not demand much of his time since the Council
usually met only once a week. However, this was only one of his many pre
scribed activities. In the Courts of Oyer and Ter.miner and General Sessions
he exercised owers enjoyed by a judge of these courts. In addition, as
ll. Common Council, Acts Relating to the City of Brooklyn (Brooklyn, 1836),p. 3.
12. Ibid., pp. 3-5. - .- - -- -
13. Coiiiiiion Council, Secret Sessio,Jan. 9, 1835; Eagle, March 8, 1842.
c37=
chief of the fire wardens, he had to attend all major fires to make.sure
that.the fire department was functioning properly. 1
4 He also served as
the chairman of the commissioners of excise, who regulated the licensing
of taverns and groceries in which liquors and wines were sold. He was
also in charge of the ?Olice force and was expected to read the terms of
the riot act before any mob which threatened to cause trouble. In addition
he was the President of the Board of Health.
15 All in all, the mayor's
duties were such as to give him potentially at least, considerable power.
In line with the prevailing tendency to strengthen the executive,
the charter of 1834 gave the mayor a veto over ordinances adopted by the
Common Council. If he refused to sign an ordinance, he had to state his
reasons in the form of a written opinion. The Common Council, after dis
cussing_ the mayor's reasons for vetoing a measure, could then attempt to
repass the ordinance, and for this only a simple majority vote was required.
Actually, the veto amounted to nothing more than a delaying action. It
appears that the mayors accepted the inevitability of not being able to
accomplish :much through it.s use. 16
Until 1840, the mayor was chosen by the Board of Aldermen, from
among its own members. However, the example of New York .,, where the mayor
was popularly elected after 1834, led to a movement to make Brooklyn's
1
mayor a popularly elected official. 7 This desire also squared with the
prevailing trend to bring more offices under popular controi.18 In
24. Ibid.
25. Stiles, II, 250.
26 0 Star, Sept. 21, 1852.
-40-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-41-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-42-
had been when an article he had written had been accepted by a Philadelphia
magazine.33
Murphy was an avowed disciple of Andrew Jackson, a.."ld all that "Old
Hickory" symbolized. At the Young Men's Convention which assembled at
Herkimer, in 1834, he manifested his political credo by working vigorously
to rid New York State of the monopolies which had been controlling the State's
banking activities. He fought the monopolistic system although it had been
created by Democratic nolitical favoritism. Perhaps because of his open
rebellion at this convention, Murphy was denied elective office for a per
iod of eight years. During these years, he acted as the attorney and
counsel of the corporation of Brooklyn. Finally, on April -12, 1842,.he
was elected mayor. His term of office was distinguished by an attempt to
maintain the city's budget within reasonable limits. To achieve this end
he went so far as to have his own salary cut.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-43-
nation, which was awarded to Franklin Pierce. Five years later, President
Buchanan appointed him as the Minister to the Hague. Murphy remained in
that capacity until he was recalled by Lincoln. He served in the State
Senate from 1861 to 1873. In addition to his legal and political activities,
Murphy interested himself in agitating for the construction of a bridge
between Brooklyn and New York, and pursued something of a literary career.
He was the chief editorial writer of the Brooklyn Advocate, helped to f'ound
the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, and contributed to many periodicals. Murphy also
added to local historiography by translating several works from the Dutch.
35
'i:"nis lawyer, politician, journalist and scholar died on December 1, 1882.
His successor as mayor, in 1843, was another Democrat, Joseph Sprague.
Snrague had been born in Leicester, Massachusetts in 1783, the oldest in a
family consisting of i'ourteen children. Early in life young Joseph lef't his
father's fann for Boston, where he became a clerk. He attempted to estab
lish himself in business as a country merchant, but the venture failed.
Moving to New York in 1809, he entered the wool carding business. He pros
pered quickly and became a wool broker during the War of 1812. In 1819, he
moved to 115 Fulton Street in Brooklyn. Four years later, he helped found
the Long Island.Bank and the Brooklyn Fire Insurance Company. Elected a
member o:f' the Board of Trustees in 1825, he was soon elevated to the presi
dency of the Board, a post which he held from 1827 to 1832. His concern
for imnroving the cleanliness of the streets led him to buy an ox and cart
to be used in dirt removal. In 1833, he was one of the leaders in the
movement as a result of which Brooklyn acquired a charter as a city. In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-44-
the later 1830 1 s Sprague 1 s major efforts were devoted to the Long Island
Insurance Company, which he had helped found. Sprague served only two
years as mayor, but this did not end his ch'ic activities. In 1848, he
helped promote the idea of having Washington Park opened on Fort Greene;
and in 1854, he served on the board which considered the question of con
solidating Brooklyn and Will iamsburgh. A long and active career ended
36
with his death in December, 1854.
In 1845, Sprague was succeeded by another Democrat, Thomas Goin
Talmage, who served as mayor from May, 1845 to May, 1846. A native of
New Jersey, Talmage carried on a flourishing wholesale grocery business
in New York City, after 1823 . 1'rom 1838 to 1840, he was a member of the
New York Common Council and president of the Board of Aldermen. In 1841,
Talmage moved to Brooklyn, where he was soon chosen as an alderman from
the Eighth Ward. He served in that capacity during the legislative year
1842-1843, and he then moved to the Sixth Ward. Here too, he soon wa
chosen to the Council. His popularity, thus demonstrated, led to his
election as mayor in 1845. He served only one term in this office. In
the succeeding year Governor Silas Wright appointed him Judge of the County
Court. Of Talmage's term as mayor, the editor of the Eagle wrote: "No
Mayor ever attended to his duties more assiduously than Mr. Talmage. We
feel warranted in saying, too, that n9 man in Brooklyn has ever had the
interest "sJ of the city more at heart, or strives more to advance them. 1137
In spite of this praise, Talmage expressed some frustration regarding the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-45-
38. Ibid.
39. Stiles, II, 276-77.
40. , Dec. 3, 1835.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-46-
in 1846.
As mayor, Stryker was accused of lacking force in the conduct of the
mayoral office. In 1848, the Eagle accused the mayors of both Brooklyn
and New York of being controlled by small cliques within the Conunon Council.
It called the office of mayor a sham contending that it made no difference
who filled a post with so little power of its om.4
1 Stryker seems to have
furthered the idea that the mayor should not exert authority. In his dealings
with the Board of Aldermen, he would suggest a measure and then request that
the Board take action. For example, in his message to the Board on May 1, 1848,
after mentioning the need for a new office of general superintendent of re
pairs, he remarked: "I make this suggestion to you, as it is one which I deem
of immediate importance - leaving you to act as you shall deem proper."42
Stryker was succeeded in office by another Whig, Edward Copland, who
ser1ed from May, 1849 to May, 1850. A graduate of Columbia College, he earned
a living as a retail grocer in Brooklyn. He had early taken an active interest
in politics, and, in 1832, he was chosen a member of the Village Board of
Trustees . In 1833 he became president of the Board. The following year, his
name was placed in nomination for Congressman on the Whig slate, but he de
clined. A decade later, he was elected as the city clerk of Brooklyn, an
office which he held for several years. During the 1830 1 s he was also the
chairman of the Whig General Committee of Brooklyn. In 1849, Copland was
elected mayor.43 Upon being asked to run again for the same position in 1850,
-
he declined. 44 The Star claimed that Copland's term of office had been marked
izing the Atlantic Dock. He served as a director of the Atlantic Dock Works
during the six-year period, 1840 to 1846. In 1848 .he commissioned the erection
of a grain elevator and several stores. He later became the president of the
Mechanics Bank of Brooklyn. In November, 1850, he was chosen as mayor on the
- Whig ticket. The beneficiary of a revision in the city charter, which gave
the mayor a two-year term, Brush served from January, 1851 to January, 1853.
The Star asserted that his outstanding qualification was "his perfectfamil
iarity with financial affairs." This made him the best possible choice of
the .11 large property interest ["'s J. 11
48
Surveying the events of his first
year in office, Brush declared that Brooklyn had experienced a "gratifying
increase in its population and a steady progress in all the elements of material
prosperity." He congratulated the Common Council upon their earnest labors in
fostering Brooklyn's rapid advancement. 49 He retired from office at the close
of his initial term.
The Democrats were able to elect Brush's successor. He was Edward
Lambert, who was born in New York City, in June, 1813. A self-made man,
Lambert had supported himself from the age of twelve, when hewas left father
less. He worked for an importing firm until 1832; in that year he opened .a
stationery store in Brooklyn. In 1849, the Democrats of the Sixth Ward elected
him as an aldennan. In 1850, when the Sixth W8.rd was divided into two separate
wards, the Sixth and Tenth, he.was again elected, but this t.ime from the.Tenth
Ward. In November, 18.52, he was elected mayor, an office which he filled for
.50
one two-year term. Illness during his second yea:r in office compelled him
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., Jan. 26, 1852.
50. Stiles, II, 297-98.
-49-
to take a leave of absence for a period of a few months, during which time
51
he traveled to 1urope in order to recuperate. When his term expired :in
January, 1855, he retired from politics.
By coincidence, the cycle of mayors from 1834 to 185.5 is completed by
the return to the mayoralty of Brooklyn's first mayor. In 18.55, George Hall
became the first mayor of the newly consolidated municipality comprising what
were formerly the independent communities of Brooklyn, Williamsburgh and Bush
wick. Hall, the perennial campaigner, after waiting a little over twenty years,
was again elected mayor, this time on the Whig tick.et. In his inaugural ad
dress, he remarked that during his earlier term as mayor Brooklyn had comprised
about 20,000 inhabitants living, for the most part, within three-quarters of
a mile of the Fulton Ferry. The city of which he became mayor in 18.55 numbered
upwards of 200,000 persons and ranked as the third largest city in the United
States.
52 He.asserted his pride in being mayor of a city which encompassed
16,000 acres, contained a water front of eight and one-half miles and was
seven and three-quarters miles in width. Within two decades, he said, "hills
have been levelled; valleys and lowlands have been filled up; old landmarks
have disap!)eared; and almost the whole surfa.ce of the City has been completely
changed."
53
In the twenty-one years that elapsed between 1834 and 185.5, Brooklyn had
twelvemayors.54 All but one were native to the United States; the majority
were born in New York. They composed a cross-section of the middle class, in
that nine of these men were engaged in various businesses and trades, two
were lawyers, and one was a farmer. In age they ranged from thirty-one
years to seventy-one; ,.their average age was forty-eight years. The majority
served between one and two terms in office, while two mayors served for three
consecutive terms. The incumbents, as a group, were outstanding citizens of
the community. Most of them had had some previous experience with municipal
government before being chosen mayor. All proved themselves to be honest
and conscientious public servants.
The Board of Aldermen, the legislative branch of Brooklyn's city govern
ment, were elected annually on the second Tuesday in April. According to the
charter, the aldermen were to be responsible for the finances of the city,
regulate wharves and piers, establish rules of procedure for the watchmen and
firemen, issue licenses, serve -as a board of excise, establish building codes
and act as guardians of the city's morals. 55
Brooklyn's aldermen of this period were drawn from the rank and file of
the community and represented a wide variety of occupations and sld.lls. Some
182 men served as aldermen between 1834 and 1854 .Among this group were
nineteen who practiced law The remainder were grocers, farmers, mer?hants,
manufacturers, physicians, milkmen, builders, distillers, and practitioners
of a wide range of other endeavors. The average number of terms in office was
two, although one alderman sat for as long as ten consecutive years. The limited
incun1bency of these public servants contributed to the onservatism of the
municipal goveI'Illllent in Brooklyn. Before a member had acquainted himself' with
many of the problems facing the city, he found his term at an end. Moreover,
55. Common Council, Acts Relating to Brooklyn, pp. 6 ff. See Table IV for
alphabetical listing of aldermen, pp. 199-211.
-51-
these men did not give their undivided attention to administration, since
they had to attend to their private vocations.
Proposals for changes in the city's charter began to be made before
Brooklyn had been ten years a city. As early as 1842, a movement began
within the Common Council for a revision of the charter of 1834. In Feb
ruary.and March of 18h3, the councilmen considered amendments concerning
such questions as the expenses involved in paving Hamilton Avenue, the sale
of property for nonpayment of truces and the collection of taxes in the wards. 5
6
Nothing came of these discussions.
The main argument for charter revision in 1844 was that Brooklyn's charter
was then ten years old. This period allegedly had given the city authorities
an opportunity to observe the strengths and weaknesses of the instrument.
Hence a committee consisting of G. A. Van Wagenen, Theodore Eames, Seth Low
and Henry C. Murphy was appointed by the Council in May, 1844 with a mandate
to condense and edit the existing charter along with all amendatory acts
proposed for adoption by the Counci1. 57 After considering proposed revisions
during the greater part of 1845, the counciLen were ready by November to sub
58
mit what they thought to be a finished product to the State Legislature.
The Council which drafted these revisions was controlled by a Democratic
majority. But the revisions were not fought on a party basis, rather on the
question of who held a political office as against those who did not.
No major chages appeared in the proposed revision. Actually, this
draft amounted to nothing more than a detailed account of the powers already
exercised by the Council. The proposed charter did not alter the functions
of the mayor; rather it only made that office's lack of authority more
obvioUso A correspondent of the Eagle referred to the inequality of power
which existed both in practice and as detailed in the proposed charter when
he wrote that the Connnon Council "has all the power of the city government,
legislative, execuive and judicial, while the mayor, the Chief Magistrate,
the Executive, as some suppose him to be, is a :9er.fect nonentity. 1159
The pronosed document made no revision for testing the citizen's re
action by a poDular referendum. This shortcoming led the Brooklyn Democrats
to adopt a resolution to the effect that "it belongs to the people to confer
power upon the Common Councii and not for the Common Council to suggest the
powers they themselves are to exercise. 1160 The revised charter reached the
State Senate in May, 1846 and was immediately rejected 0
61
the lack of copies of the document for perusal and lastly the legal argument
6
that the Council could not sit as a constittional convention. 3 The Eagle,
several days later facetiously described the newly self-granted authority
of the council as powers extending 11 from emptying sinks up to decisions in
64
chancery. 11
While councilmen were carrying on their secret deliberations, & bill
was presented in the State Assembly on April 14, 1847, for a Brooklyn
Charter Convention. The Eagle supposed that a convention would be called.
But, it asked, what would a new charter provide? Would the major deficiencies
of the old charter be remedied? It urged drastic changes so as to provide
for a single tax assessment, the payment of salaries to the councilmen, an
increase in "power" for the mayor and revisions which would result in more
65
parks and a better police system.
On May 10, 1847, the State Legislature authorized a convention, to be
composed of four elected delegates from each ward.
66 The Eagle urged that
6
delegates be elected on a nonpartisan basis. 7 Conforming to this sentiment,
68
the two parties met and nominated an equal number of Democrats and Whigs.
The chaTter convention convened in July, and continued its ,daily delib
erations for over six months. Among the topics discussed were a bicameral
legislature composed of a board of aldermen and a common council, the inaug
uration of a paid fire department, the creation of a separate board of ealth;
the establishra.:mt of a board of education and a general tax for city im-
69
provements. The Eagle thought that despite all the polemics in the
convention very little had actually been accomnlished. On January 11, 1848,
it observed, 11 the prospect of Brooklyn being blessed with a charter, revised,
corrected and improved by the present charter convention, would seem to be
somewhat remote Well was it observed by one of the members at a recent
meeting that the convention had made themselves laughing-stocks to the com
munity by their snail-like proceedings." It took another year before the
charter convention actually prepared the document for presentation to the
State Legislature.
Not until February, 1849, did the Legislature approve the charter adopted
in convention, and then with the important amendment that the citizens of
Brooklyn would have the final voice in the matter. 70 The voters of Brooklyn
now began to examine the proposed document. They found that, in order to
take into account the movement of pouulation, two new wards, the tenth and
eleventh, had been created.71 If the document were approved., certain posit.ions
formerly appointive would now become elective--those of collector of taxes,
street commissioner, members of the board of education, and connnissioners
of excise.
. 72 Perhans the most important change was the proposed creation of
a bicaaral legislature with concurrent powers and a negative check on one
another. In this resect, the charter followed the example of the legislative
branches of New York City and New York State. One body was to be smaller
than the other; voters were to elect one alderman from each ward, whereas
two councilmen would be chosen from each ward.73 The other changes provided
for a single assessment, the election of a chief of olice, and the estab
74
lishment of new boards of education and health.
In February, 1849, before the new charter was submitted to the voters,
the Eagle,reported that animosity was developing towards the charter from
75
persons h_olding polt
1 1ca1 appoin
. t.ments under the exis
ting
Counc11. In
March, the Eagle asserted that the chief opponents of the charter were the
policemen, the road contractors and the city office holders. These groups
were afraid, remarked the Eagle, that the spoils of office wre about to
76
end.
The Eagle anticipated that the general nublic's reaction to the measure
would be one of apathy. As a consequence, it was expected.that the opponents
_of the proposed charter would be able to defeat it when it was presented to
the electorate in the form of a referendum. The Eagle was correct in its
predictions, for the revised charter was defeated by a vote of more than two
. 77
to one on March 13, 1849. The Common Council then prepared a revised docu-
ment, deleting the proposals calling for a bicameral legislature and a public
referendum. The revised charter was then forwarded to the State Legislature
78
in February, 1850. The Common Council relying on public apathy was fairly
certain that this measure would now be adopted. It is clear from the news-
paper accounts that the citizens were not too particularly interested in the
contemplated changes in the charter. The Star asserted that there was no
public reaction to-the latest revisions in the charter when they were announced
79
to the public. At Albany, the proposed.new charter met little opposition,
BO
and was ena:cted into law on April 4, 18.50.
The most important item in the newly adopted charter was the retention
of a unicameral legislature despite the earlier efforts to change it. The
aldermen remained without compensation for their services.81 It was stip
ulated, however, th.t half of the aldermen were to serve as members of the
city cort, for which they were to receive three dollars for each day in
cort. The other half would serve as county supervisors and were to receive
82
a daily payment which would be established at some future time. The charter
also
' retained the provisions
- in regard to elected officers. The former
appointive positions which now became elective included--the collector of
taxes, the street commissioner, the members of the board of education ., the
commissioners of excise, a commissioner of repairs and the chief of police.
8
In addition the fire and police departments underwent administrative reorms. 3
Mayor Edward Copland believed that the newly revised charter was "progressive
. in its tendencies, entirely in accordance ll.'d. th the spirit of the age. 11 Bl,. The
charter of 1850 remained in force for five years until it underwent minor
revisions resulting from the consolidation of Brooklynlollth Williamsburgh and
Bushwick.
again reviewing the matter of the counsellor's fees, reduced the annual
salary to $400. I t was stipulated, at that time, that the duties of the
office would not entail any appearances outside the city, or the handling
of any suits for violations of municipal ordinances. Fees might still be
collected for these services. In effect, it was estimated that the coun
8
sellor would receive between $1,600 and $2,000 for his services. 7
Since the duties of the counsellor and the attorney remained vague, an
ordinance was enacted on May 5, 1845, designating the obligatory task of
each officer. The counsellor was to take charge of all proceedings insti-
tuted by or against the city, to attend the meetings of the Common Council,
and to advise the councilmen on points of law. The attorney was to commence
88
and prosecute all suits for breaches of the.laws of the municipality. This
ordinance did not produce the desired result of ending the practice of paying
fees to these officers. As late as 1849, the Eagle reported that the counsellor,
the attorney and the street commissioner were receiving salaries plus additional
8
fees. 9
The increasing complexity of Brooklyn's bookkeeping problems led even
before 1836 to a movement to create the office of comptroller. Considerations
of economy, after 1837, prevented the authorization of the position for a
time; but w"'ith the return of better financial conditions after 1840, efforts
were renewed to establish the office. During 1841, while the Whigs were in
political control of the Common Council, a Department of Finance was organized
0
under the supervision of a comptroller.9 The comptroller was to be appointed
by the Common Council. He ws to keep a regular set of books using a double entry
system, to separate the costs of city management into those of the various
departments, to audit all accounts against the city, to prepare an annual state-
ment of receipts and disbursements, to take charge of the real estte of the
1
Corporation and to have general supervision over all expenditures.9
The Democrats opposed the office, partly at least because the Whigs had
succeeded where they had failed in creating it. They claimed, also, that it
should be abolished as an economy measure. On May 3, 1842, Mayor Henry Murphy
advised the Board of Aldermen that "it has been thought by many of our citizens
(and I confess myself among the number,) that those duties [.or the comptrolle!7
might be discharged by the Clerk, with the aid.of an assistant, and the present
2
large slary might be saved. 119 Although the Deocrats did not succeed in getting
the office abolished, extra duties were given to the comptroller. In 1844, he
was authorized to collect all assessments, which previously had been paid to the
treasurer.93
The Common Council's wide powers of appointment also extended to officers
who dealt with the city services. Among these were the street:commissioners up to
1850, the health physician, the city inspector, the inspector of lamps, wells and
pumps, the inspector of pavements, the city gaugers, the weighers and measurers
of grain, the inspectors and measurers of charcoal, the ins:pectors of wood, lumber,
carts and sleds, and the sealer of weights and measures. 94
Supplementing the authority of the Common Council over Brooklynites was
the legislative control exercised by a county body, the Board of Supervisors. The
first seven wards annually chose a total of five freeholders to serve on this
Board. The eighth and ninth wards together elected one additional spervisor. The
six-man board, thus elected, handled such matters as the administration of a
county hospital, a mental institution, and a poor house as well as the super
vision of inter-town or village roads. Furthermore, the Common Council and the
Board of Supervisors an."lually met once a year to anprove the city budget for
the coming fiscal year. Once having sanctioned the budget, the supervisors had
no other concern with Brooklyn's finances. Actually, in the period from 1834 to
1855, the Board of Suervisors never refused to approve a city budget. When the
city charter was revised in 1850, the aldermen became members of the Board of
Supervisors. The supervisors attempted to block the invasion of these newcomers
without avail. This change gave the aldermen a greater role in county affairs. 95
The city charter under.lent a final revision in 1855 as a result of.Brooklyn's
consolidation with Williamsburgh and Bushwick. Actually, as early as 1834, the
had predicted that the time was not too distant when Brooklyn and Williams
burgh would merge. It reported that the boundaries between the two oommw:,lities
were growing more and more artificial as streeiB and avenues connected and over
lapped. 96 Discussions of a union at this time were apparently premature, for no
more was said on this subject for a decade. During that time the two communities
continued on separate paths, with Brooklyn far outpacing its neighbor.
In 1845, many citizens of Williamsburgh began advocating a union with
Brooklyn. The larger city merely shrugged off this suggestion. The Eagle advised
the citizens of Williamsburgh that "if we annex anything it will be New York
Annex Williamsburgh, indeed! As well propose to bail out the East River with a
shrirnp-net.11 97 No reason was given for this jocular attitude toward Williamsburgh
overtureso Perhaps Brooklyn thought that the whole project was not really orth
the effort involved. Again in 1848, Williarnsburgh approached Brooklyn on the
question of a merger. The Eagle now contended that "there is no doubt that such
a step would be for the mutual benefit of both places. 9 8 Aside .from these news
paper comments nothing further was done for the moment.
The ra:nid growth of Williamsburgh and its proximity to Brooklyn prompted
action by 1850. In 1840 the village had contained only 5,ooo inhabitants; now
it possessed over 30,800. Its popula.tion, reported the Journal of Commerce .,
was centered. along the shore of the East River. The Journal asserted that although
in all probability Williamsburgh would unite with Brooklyn, this merger would not
necessarily resolve the growing problems inherent in the rapid urban expansion of
the moment. These problems, the Journal contended, would only be resolved when
a great metropolitan area would be formed encompassing all of Manhattan, Brooklyn .,
Williamsburgh, Bushwick, Flatbush and the other small Long Island communities. Only
when these were all united as one 11 bociypolitic and corporate" could the problems
of taxation, water supply, police and fire protection be resolved 0 99
In 1851, Williamsburgh was incorporated as a city. To its sorrow, it found
that the attempt to provide adeqate services led to increased and heavier taxes.
In 1853, Mayor A. J. Berry of Williamsburgh urged the. Williamburgh Common Council
to consider whether it would be to the community's advantage to try to satisfy
the increasing demands on its own or whether overtures should be made to con
1 0
solidate Williamsburgh with Brooklyn. 0 The Brooklyn Common Council showed inter
est by na.ming a committee to meet with representatives, when apointed, of the
communities of Williamsburgh and Bushwick to dicuss consolidation.101 The Star
agreed that consolidation would prove beneficial to Brooklyn in its continuing effort
102
to achieve equality with New Yor.k City. In June, the reiterated its support
for the plan. It said that consolidation nwould give a strength and importance to
the aggregated city, which neither place could separately pretend to. The
public offices being united expenses will be diminished." United, the three
103
communities could "lift each other to the first class of cities. 11
Meanwhile, the groundwork was being laid for legislative approval for
the establishment of a commission on consolidation. The New York Courier
Enquirer reported: 11 The proposed union and consolidation of the three
sister cities goes fon:1ard. Brooklyn is to take Bushwick for its breakfast,
Williamsburgh for its dinner, arid when it goes joyously out, rollicking and
revelling like a fat alderman issuing forth from Snedeors a1c7- it will
104
find itself seized upon and swallowed by New York. 11 On July 18, 18.53,
the New York State Legislature authorized the formation of a commission on
10
consolidation. 5 The connnissioners, under the presidency of Martin Kalbfleisch
106
of Williamsburgh, issued their r'ep ot in October, 185). The articles of
(
agreement drawn by this commission were to be submitted to the voters in the.
respective communities; if these were accepted, the connnissioners were then
to prepare the formal documentto be submitted to the State Legislature.
While the act was being prepared for submittal to the State Legilature,
the Star printed a series of letters to the editor completely antagonistic to
the proposed union. These unsigned letters argued that Brooklyn had nothing
to gain from the consolidation. Brooklyn, according to this writer, did not
need more unused lands; its taxes would not decrease; rather they would in
crease because of the need to pave new streets; a larger body of aldermen
would prove unwieldy;. lastly, it would probably become necessary to move the
107
City Hall to a more centralized location. The Star made no editorial
comment on these letters. It will be remembered, however, that this same
newspaper had previously endorsed consolidation on the basis of obtaining
a more powerful city to fight any future encroachments by New York City.
Mayor Edward Lambert did not use the Star's logic, but he arrived at the
same conclusion when he remarked that when consolidation would occur, Brook
108
lyn would rank as the third largest city in all of the United States.
The Williarnsburgh newspapers appear to have vacillated in their views
concerning consolidation. As early as January, 1849, the Willia.msburgh
Times was quoted as saying that "Brooklyn and 1i'lilliamsburgh can never unite
109
any more than oil and water. 11 In July of 18.53, the Times pictured con
solidation as a "mad project" which.would work to the detriment of Williarns-
llO
burgh." It insisted that all of Brooklyn's tax burdens would now fall
upon William.sburgh's shoulde:rs e
The Williamsburgh Daily Independent Press appeared to be even more
opposed to consolidation than was the Times. It remarked that it feared
the consequences when Williamsburgh would have to beg Brooklyn for an ade
quate water supply.111 By January of the following year, however, the Press
had resi.gned itself to consolidation, for it maintained that the commissioners
from Williamsburgh would work for the best interests of thatcommunity. It is
impossible to get a complete picture of the reaction in Williamsburgh to the
consolidation proposal inasmuch as complete files of the Williamsburgh papers
no longer exist. The same lack of material holds true for Bushwick in that
no files of papers have been kept.
Meeting with no opposition in the State Legislature, the act of con
112
solidation became law on April 17, 1854. The consolidation, however,
was not to take effect until January 1, 1855. With consolidation, the
newly defined city of Brooklyn was divided into eighteen wards. The Board
of Aldermen numbered thirty-six members. This unicameral body, possessing
all of the powers formerly vested in the aldermen of Brqoklyn, remained the
dominant organ of government. The office of mayor remained as weak as it
had been in the original Brooklyn.113
For tax, fire and police purposes, the en;Larged ,city was divided into
two districts. The portion of the city lying to the southwest of Flushing
Avenue was designated the Western District, while the former communities
of Williamsburgh and Bushwick along with the area of rooklyn situated north
east of Flushing Avenue became the Eastern District.114 The fire department
still remained a- volunteer group a,nd no organizational change occurred in
the police department. Thus the two communities of Williamsburgh and Bush
wick were incorporated into the existing political structure of Brooklyn
without major changes in gove'rnment organization and. services.
Walt Whitman sang the praises of the newly consolidated city by stating
that 11 its start need not be clogged by anything embarrassing or lowering.
Its beauty of site, cleanliness and health will never be surpassed by any
_115
ci....y, o1-ct or new.
11
Brooklyn, said Whitman, "may well be the choice and
112. New York State,, Seventy-seventh Session (Albany, 1854), 'PP 829-904.
113. roid.
114. Ibid.
115. Holloway, Uncollected Prose and Poetry, I, 259-64.
-65-
pride of her sons and daughters, and 0 all who are identified with the
. 116
place in any public capacity."
ll6. Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter IV
national political issues into the local election. 1 The Jacksonians could
not publicly answer this assertion for they had no party organ at this
time in Brooklyn. There was only one newspaper of importance in Brooklyn
in the period between 1810 to 1841; it was the Brooklyn Daily Evening
This paper which was strongly Whig in politics, was published and edited
by Alden Spooner. Upon becoming a King's County official in 1841, he made
his two sons, Edwin and George, partners in.the. The paper remained
under the Spooner family control until it was discontinued in 1863.
In the election held in 1835 the Democrats obtained a majority in the
Council. In the following year (1836) the Whigs accused the Democrats of
using the gullible Irish ilm)dgrants and "floaters" in order to capture the
2
election for aldermen. When it became known that the Democrats had won,
the ran the following headline: 11 Native .Americans Defeated - Foreigners
3
Triumphant - Corruption and Bribery Successful - Political Popery ErectUl"
Interesting aspects of this headline are the use of the term Native Americans
applied to the Whigs, the labelling of the Democratic Party as the party of
foreigners and the attempt to associate Irish voters and Catholicism. These
elements were to recur frequently throughout this-period. The Star, later
in the same year, concluded that the campaign had been fought between the
party of "foreign influence" and the party of the patriotic "independent
Americans." It accused the Democrats of having scores of Irishmen na.tur-
. . 4 Those Irishmen who could not be
alized so th;.:,t they could cast votes.
coerced into voting for the Democrats, the reported, were.aided in
for mayor. 14 The election results showed Wadsworth third behind Henry c.
Murphy, Democrat, and Cyrus P. Smith, Whig. The "Liberal Party 11 candidate
this coalition and he was re-elected over George Hall. The control, of
the Common Council, however, now fell into the hands of a combination of
19
1nJhigs and Native Junericans. All attention, for the remainder of the year,
centered on the forthcoming prestdential election. A titanic struggle was
to take place between James K. Polk, Democrat, and Henry Clay, the Whig
candidate. The Liberal or Abolition Party ran James G. Birney. The Dem
ocrats had sufficient strength to win the State for Polk and fo their
candidate for governor, Silas Wright, but in Kings County all Jhig-Native
American candidates were rewarded with larger returns than their opponents.
Clay received a larger return than Polk; the Whig candidate for governor,
Millard Fillmore, won the local campaign over Wright; and the remainder
of the Whig ticket also received pluralities over the Democrats. Even-the
popular Democratic Congressman, Henry Cruse Murphy, succumbed in this Whig
landslide.20 The reason for this lcl Whig victory in the face of State
and national defeat is not easily explained. Suffice to say, however, that
in this merchant dominated community the Democrats possessed a more tenuous
hold on municipal offices than they did in New York City.
In 1845, the-election was fought on local issues rather than national
ones. The 1,Jhl.gs attempted to capture the office of mayor by running George
Hall, who had been the first mayor of Brooklyne Opposing him were Thomas
G. Talmage, Democrat, and William Rockwell, Native .American. The Democrats
elected Talmage along with eleven of the eighteen council members. Analyzing
the results, the Eagle pointed out that the Democrats achieved an increase
19.
20. -
Ibid., April 10, 1844.
Ibid., Nov. 15, 1844.
-73-
of 485 votes over the-ir vote in the local election of 1844, the 1-Jh:igs
gained 36 votes and the Native Americans were 192 votes short of their
21
tota1 in
the previous . election
.
The question of slavery in the territories caused a split in the Dem
ocratic ranks in 1846. Isaac Van Anden, publisher of the Eagle, and Henry
C. Murphy, Democratic politician who had been actively associated with the
Eagle, belonged to that portion of the Democratic Party in New York which
opposed the Wilmot Proviso. On the other hand, the Eagle's new editor,
Walt 1.vhitman, supported the Proviso vigorously. He boasted tt..at to his
knowledge the Eagle "was the very first Democratic paper which alluded to
22
this subject in.a decisive mer. n Editorial control of the Eagle had
passed into Whitman's hands on the death of William B., Marsh in February, 1846.
Some Democrats refused to support the conservative policy adopted by
the leaders of the party, and they therefore organized a so-called 11 No-Party
2
Party. 11 3 These dissenters were joined by disgruntled Whig and Native
Americans. The 11 No-Party 11 group held a rally on March ll, 1846, lihich was
described by the Eagle as a "noisy, tum:u1:,tuous, contradictory, hodge-podge,
good-humored, spiteful, democratic, ,whig. and native meeting. 1124 It was.
agreed at this gathering to support those candid_ates deemed worthy to
hold office,
. regardless of -party a:ffiliation. In this way, Brooklyn would
be able to obtain the services of
. 11
.
the very best men."
25 Their efforts,
however, did not produce any major effects on the elAnt.i nn ?"A.cm 1 +. of that year.
political career we have never seen a victory where the victors were so
generally dissatisfied with the result as our Whig frieds appear to be
with the late contest. 1139 The reason for this supposed sentiment stemmed
from a dispute in 1tig circles over the disposition of the spoils. The
Democrats claimed to be overjoyed to be "getting rid of all the discontented
materials of our party . we have lost the McMurrays, the McWarings, the
McPeirces and the Devlins. 1140 In te same issue, the Eagle accused McMrray
of using large sums of money to defeat the Democratic candidates for council
men in the Second and. Seventh wards. 4
1 They cited no evidence to support
this statement. 42
In December of 1849, the Star censured the local Whig organization
for irres-ponsible pr;:;ctices singling out primary meetings for condemnation.
According to the_, all those who "have lately run the gamut to reach
them, or hazarded their bones to escape from them," could aptly testify as
to their nature. They certainly were not "assemblages for deliberative
discussion, and clear sighted and intelligent action"; rather they were
associated with packing schemes, "introduction of voters from other wards,
43
and exclusion of the proper voters. 11 The newspaper warned that if van
dalism was not soon stamped out, the Whigs would consistently lose future
elections. N immediate changes took place as a result of this warning.
Although the Whigs of Brooklyn condemned the institution of slavery on
moral grounds, they did not endorse abolitionism. In the stirring days of
which had been in control of party patronage within the city for several
years 46
,;,
46. Eagle, March 16, 1849; March 20, 1849; Star, April 10, 1850.
47. Eagle, Oct. 5, 1850.
48. !bide, Oct. 7, 1850.
49. Ibid., Oct. 18, 1850.
So. ill., Nov. 18, 1850.
-80-
that this indicated a trend in the voters' sentiments in regard to the coming
myoralty election of 1852. It therefore urged the Whigs to be cautious in
choosing candidates o 5
1 The newspaper warned the party not to endorse a
"porter-house cliqu, or packed committee nominations." Such endorsement
would certainly bring "defeat and utter annihilation of the Whig party in
this city. 115
2
An honest, intelligent candidate must be found in order to
bring out the non-voters, continued the; otherwise the Whigs were
doomed to failure.
The.same newspaper declared that both parties were guilty of negligence
in not offering candidates worthy of the offices to be filled. Too often,
according to the, the office honors the man rather than the man the
office. The editor declared that more citizens should take an active inter
est in the primaries. Both parties should eliminate packed primaries in
which "drunk:en rowdies make the nominations and elections." He urged that
worthy candidates be offered by both parties in the ensuing election. 53
A number of candidates were willing to seek the Whig nomination for
mayor in the election of 1852. Francis Spinola, Edward Copland, Cyrus P.
Smith and several others offered themselves as candidates. The Democrats
had narrowed their choice to two, Edward Lambert and Henry Kent, both ex
aldermen.54 To the surorise of all, the Whigs nominated a complete "dark
horse" candidate, Peter G. Taylor, a businessman of Brooklyn, not previously
associated with politics.55 The Democrats chose Edward Lambert. Despite
the whig attempt to 11 clean house, 11 the Democratic candidates won a victory
As was the case in the aldermanic contest of 1851, the party out of
power won the majority in the Council elections in 1853. In this instance
it was the Whigs who gained strength at the expense of the incumbent Demo
crats.57 Before the Democrats recovered from this setback, they met another
defeat in that they lost the mayoralty election in December, 1854. The Whigs
resorted to proved ingredients, in that they offered as a candidate the vet
eran campaigner, George Hall. Furthermore, they again combined with the
temperance forces as they had done in 1850. This proved to be a winning
comb.ina tion. 58 The Democrats, capitalizing on the impending consolidation
with Williamsburgh only a fortnight away, chose as their candidate a resi
dent of that area, Martin Kalbfleisch, who was of German origin. Although
he was defeated on this occasion, he later was to rise to political prom
inence in the commuDityo
Previous to tae Panic of 1837, the Democratic organization in Brooklyn
was a loose-knit .party. The candidtes for councilmen were in the main local
merchants and large property holders. Those acting as counciLmen served their
term of office and then left the political scene. It was not until the 1840 1 s
that the Democrats began to act as a party under the leadership of a dominant
group. Henry Cruse Murphy, Judge John Greenwood and Isaac Van Anden were
the leaders in the early 1840 1 s. They had staunchly supported the adminis
trations of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. Although Murphy was elected
to the House of Representatives, while serving a term in office as mayor, he
still directed the Brooklyn Democrats. He and the other local leaders were
63
one foot of territory from the curse of bondage." In line with this
thought, the Brooklyn Democratic Party supported Lewis Cass as their State
and national leader as 01)posed to Martin Van Buren, who, it was thought,
favored the Proviso.
Whitman left the city after his dismissal from the Eagle, early in
1848, but he returned in June, 1848. Rumors immediately began to be circu
lated in the Whig press that a Barnburner or radical Democratic paper would
soon appear under the editorship of Whitman. Some Democratic Free-Soilers
in Brooklyn, led by Judge Samuel E. Johnso, did decide to publish a paper
of their own in opnosition to the Eagle. The Freeman, a weekly, under the
editorship of Whitman, finally made its appearance, but immediately suffered
from a disastrous fire. Orl April 25, 1849, it was revived as a daily and
64
remained a.s,such until September 11, 1849, when it ceased publication forever.
No coy of this paer has remained in existence, as far as is known. Mean
while, in August, 1848, Whitman journeyed to Buffalo to address a Free-Soil
65
Convention wherein he urged the delegates to support Martin Van Buren.
Perhaps this split in the Democratic ranks in Brooklyn helped bring
about lean years which they experienced politically in the city. From 1846
to 1854, the Democrats won control of the office of mayor only twice. They
could readily be called the "out 11 party in local politics during these years.
The v..1hig Party, organized in 1834, was created to oppose "King Andrew"
and the measures which his party advocated. The Whigs supported Henry Clay's
so-called 11 A.'!lerican System," they favored the Bank of th United States, and
were generally antagonistic to the democratic policies of Jackson. In the
63. Ibid.
6h. Stiles, Brooklyn, III, 938.
65. Eagle, Aug. 7, 1848.
-84-
local political sphere, the Whig Party of Brooklyn staunchly followed the
platforms adopted on the State and national levels. They sought a high
protective tariff, hoped to see Webster and Clay in _the :,Jhite House, and
William H. Seward elected as governor. They asserted that they were friendly
towards labor and they were the advocates of honest, economical govermnent.
The leaders of the uarty in Brooklyn were Francis B. Stryker, Alden Spooner
and his son, E. B. Spooner, Francis Spinola, John A. Cross and Cyrus P.
Smith. They campaigned locally on the issues of reduced taxation, at the
same time promising more city services and spartan leadership. These men
were the spokesmen for the middle class in this rising industrial area.
They knew that the features of an economically oriented goverru.nent which
held out the possibility of lowering or at least maintaining the current
rate of assessments would appeal to the merchant interest of Brooklyn. It
is probably this close affiliation between-the conservative Whigs and the
.merchant elemens on all levels of politics which helped make the Whigs
rather than the Democrats the "in" party in Brooklyn during the major part
of the period 1834 to 18.55.
Chapter V
butchers who were licensed by the authorities had the privilege of selling
meat. In ti.me it was realized that these markets, because of their locality,
could not adequately supply all the food needs of a growing community. As
a result, many aspiring retail.butchers decided to challenge the market laws
in the attempt to create outlets other than those established by the munici
pality itself. The authorities would not yield on this matter as they were
of the opinion that the limitations placed on butchers helped to safeguard
the public health.
This was a well intentioned move on the part of the administration to
aid its residents. However, it seemed to have the opposite effect. Ma.y
people began to say that Brooklyn, along with New York, was helping to foster
a "market monopoly." It was alleged that the city was protecting a few
individuals from outside interference in selling meat to the public. Because
of this, it was claimed that the liensed butchers could charge higher prices
than prevailed elsewhere, since the laws of competition were not in operation. 4
The municlpality, in order to assert its position, :fostituted proceedings
against an unlicensed butcher, Edward A. Woolley. Woolley defended himself
by stating that every person had the privilege of entering the calling of his
own choice. He contended, furthermore, that since he did not have to pay the
license fee required of those selling in the uublic markets, he could under
sell his licensed competitors and therefore give added service to the neigh
borhood in which he was located. The city answered that under the terms of
the municipal charter, it had the authority to regulate butchers and designate
.the areas in which meat could be sold as a matter of protecting the health
fresh meat in locations other th&, the public marts. His resolution was
,
immediately adopted. 10 Acting on this resolution the Market Committee re-
ported again in March. They recommended that the sale of fresh meat in
shops be permitted, provided that a license fee of $25 be paid and that a
$250 bond be executed. The Eagle regarded the bond and license amounts as
11
exorbitant insofar as grocers paid only a $5 fee and clerks a $1 fee.
In April, 1844, the city amended the Public Markets Law. The mayor was
now authorized to issue licenses to nersons recommended by the alderman of
the war in which the prospective meat retailer resided. The licensee had
to post a $2SO bond -?nd pay a $25fee. Only such authorized persons could
sell freshly cut meat, but they could not kill or dress any meat on their
premises. They were obliged to furnish their own "scale-beam and weights"
which were to be suspended in a prominent place. What was most important,
the law specified that all meat had to be placed in a "refrigerator, ice
box or cask containing ice or pickle" which had been lined with lead so as
t.o make the container water tight.12
A warning was raised in 1849, that if Brooklyn did not soon construct a
11 large iron market house," the butchers and the public would settle te
matter by spreading small shops throughout the city. "We want a large and
handsome market," said the, "where the country people can be accommodated
13
with their wagons, and full freights of vegetables. 11 Rather than increase
the market facilities, the administration decided to abolish the license fees
for purveyors 0 meat. The Eagle applauded this action of the Common Council
1
as the "commencement of a good work. 11 4 The Council also considered the
possibility of closing the Brooklyn Market, since the municipality was
losing money on its operation. The owners of various stalls in the Brooklyn
Market, learning of these reports, petitioned the Council to increase their
rents twofold if that would defray the cost of maintaining the building.
The request of the petitioners was granted and all rents were immediately
doubled. 15 Finally, in an attempt to settle the issue concerning meat ven-
. M
dors, the Council in 185 2 established a $1 license fee for butchers. Thus
by the end of the period, the principle of licensing butchers throughout the
city had replaced that of a localized market as the only authorized place
where meat could be sold.
Another vexing problem which faced Brooklyn was the matter of street
lighting - Previous to 1832, the municipal government had made no provisions
for lighting the streets. The first publicly financed street lanrps and lamp
posts were erected in 1832. Earlier, citizens at private expense had placed
lamps at various locations in the village, but these were con:pletely inad
equate. The municipally owned lamps used whale and sperm oils as fuels.17
Many Brooklynites complained that these oil lamps were not much of an im-
provement over the former privately owned lamps o Despite such comments, the
Brooklyn authorities, as an economy measure following the Panic of 1837,
18
decided to light only half of the existing street lamps 0 This drastic
action remained in effect until 1838, when all the street lamps were again
1
lighted. 9
The municipality realized that street lamps must be installed through
out the populated area. Therefore, a request was made of the State Legis
lature, in 1839, to enact the necessary legislation enabling Brooklyn to
raise funds for the building and lighting of new lamps and lamp posts. The
necessary funds were to be secured by means of assessments upon lamp districts
20
whose boundaries were to be determined by the Common Council.
Upon assuming office in May, 1842, Mayor Henry C. Murphy revived the
plan of lighting only one side of the main streets as an economy measure.
The heavily traveled arteries such as Fulton, Main, Atlantic and Jackson
streets would be exempted from this restriction. Murphy remarked that
"Persons walking the streets at night c:;i.n pass both ways on the same side;
and the travel of carriages maybe, as it is, confined principally to the
leading thoroughfares which I have named. 1121 In order to supervise the
work of the lamplighters and the conditions of the lamps, he also recommended
that a new office of Inspector of Lps, Wells and Pwnps be created. The
22
Common Council acted immediately to establish this office. Despite the
mayor's recommendation to decrease the nwnber of lighted lamps, they all
remained illuminated.
Mayor Joseph Sprague, the successor to Murphy, advised the aldermen
in 1843, that by this date the annual cost of lighting and maintaining the
lamps had risen to $12,000 yearly. nrt is a matter worth considering," he
said, "whether this item can be diminished, and sufficient light afforded
to the densely inhabited part of the city. 112 3 The aldermen, a year later,
were still contemplating methods by which the street ligh ting expenditures
could be reduced. The Eagle facetiously advised the aldermen that, in view
of the inadequate service provided by the lamps and the lamplighters, it
2
might be just as well to abolish the entire item. 4
In seeking a means of improving service at a reduced cost, the Common
Council in 1846 began debating the merits of gas light. Four years earlier,
a Brooklyn merchant had experiinented with the use of gas in street lamps.
F,.is efforts failed to impress the muJLi...cipal authorities. The idea of using
gas for street lighting purposes caine to the fore in 18h6 when the Brooklyn
Ga.s. :Light Company published its prospectus.
The directorate of the Company consisted of outstanding Brooklyn business
men and civic leaders: Joseph Sprague, former Democratic mayor and founder
of the Long Island Bank; Alden Spooner, proprietor of the Island. and
w'hig poiitician; John Dikeman, lryer; Ralph Malbone, real estate S?eculator;
and Lossee Van Nostrand and 'l\u1.i.s Barkeloo, businessmen and fonner aldermen. 25
The prospectus of the Gas Company urged the adoption of gas for street
lighting as a method of ending night robberies and other. nocturneJ. crimes.
Commerce, too, would benefit from having the stores and streets brilliantly
lighted. Furthermore, gas lamps woulcl have a promotional advantage, since
11 the additional security and comfort H would "induce a larger proportion of
persons from New York to make Brooklyn their residence, and increase the
number of merchants and rich.11ess of' the:;stores,--thus enhancing the value of
the property . 11 26 The Eagle urged the new company to begin operations as
soon as possible, but it counselled that the gas reservoirs should be
located in areas -"sufficiently remote from the business or central part
of the city to prevent its becoming--what the gas reservoirs in New York
unquestionably are--an odios nuisance. 1127
Urgent action on the problem of street lighting was needed, for the
situation had deteriorated to the point where the serio-comic qestion was
asked: "Why are the Brooklyn lamps like young gentlemen of irregular habits?"
28
The answer was supposedly fairly obvious, 11because they're o-ut every night. 11
A special connnittee of the Common Council reported in March, 1848, that
there would be a practical advantage in allowing the Gas Company to lay
pipes in the streets and in authorizing the use of gas for the street lamps.
The Report stated that the oil necessary for lighting a single lamp for
only half a night cost $6.36. Lighting, wicking and filling the lamp added
$3.6h to the cost, making the total cost for one lamp $10. A gas lamp
allowed to burn all night would cost $26, but it was contended that one
gas lamp could renlace three or four oil lamps. Using only one lamp dis
trict as an example, a district containing ninety-eight oil lamps, the
committee stated that the cost would decrease to 530, thereby offering a
saving of $397 to the city. Similar results could be obtained for each
lamp d.istrict.29
The Eagle urged the municipal authorities to take action on the gas
question because each delay was placing Brooklyn further behind such cities
as New York, Philadelphia, Newark and Trenton. The major cause of delay
was the question of whether the Company should be granted an exclusive
30
monopoly for thirty years. . In April, 848, the Select Committee on the
Gas Monopoly offered an amndment to the contract stipulating that at the
end of ten years the city would have the privilege of buying the outstanding
stock in the Gas Company at the then ?urrent market price. The Common
31
Council accepted this suggestion. On April 29, 1848, a contract was
entered into between Brooklyn and the Brooklyn Gas Light Company granting
the Company a ten-year monopoly on supplying gas in the first five wards.
In December, 1848, the Company was reorganized with General R. Nichols
as president. It was announced that ground had been purchased near.Jackson
. . 32
Ferry for the gas works and that construction would soon commence. Mean-
while, another company was formed, under the presidency of Henry Ruggles,
also for the purpose of supplying Brooklyn with gas. Ruggles petitioned
the Common Council for permission to lay pipes, but the Council refused his
plea. The members of the Council went ahead and granted the Brooklyn Gas
33
Light Company the right to lay pipes in the Sixth and Seventh wards. In
March,
. 1849, the same Company received authorization to light the last four
34 The State Legislature, a month later, authorized the
wards of Brooklyn.
erection of lamp posts which would be paid for by assessments. It allowed
the city to assess the costs for erecting such posts in each district and
.5
to collect the funds in the next annual tax.-
The Council's Joint Committee on Gas and Lamps issued a report in 1851,
on the entire question of contracts and costs involved in lighting the streets
with gas. It was reported that for the year ending January 1, 1851, the
municipality had paid $23,517 for oil lamps and $14,172 for gas light. For
the first six months of 1852, Brooklyn expended $10,505 for 2,400 oil lamps
36
and $7,972 for 604 gas lamps. The authors of the report recoITD'llended that
the monopolistic privileges awarded to the Company should be rescinded since
such provios worked solei-ytor the benefit of the Company and to the detriment
3
of the city. 7' It was shown that the Company was charging the community a
higher rat for each 1,000 cubic feet of gas than was being paid by either
New York City or Williamsburgh. By way of defense, the Brooklyn Gas Light
Company announced that as of January, 18.53, fifty miies of gas mains had been
laid at the company's expense. The city, at public expense, had erected
38
1,202 gas lamps..
On the eve of consolidation with Williamsburgh, Brooklyn could boast of
its ninety-five miles of gas pipes and 3,199 public lamps, of which 2,609
9
used gas.3 A beginning had been made in the attempt to provide adequate
street lighting for the citizens of this rapidly expanding community.
Adequate fire urotection for Brooklyn remained a difficult problem
throughout the period. During_these years, the Brooklyn Fire Department was
manned by voiunteers. A paid force was not instituted until 1865, when the
Metropolitan Fire Department was created.ho
36. Common Council, Report of the Joint Committee on Gas and Lamps (Brooklyn,.
1851,) ., p. 4. --- . ---
37. Ibid., P 7A.
38. Star, Jan. 5, 18.53.
39,. George Hall, Communication, passim.
40 0 Joseph Shannon, ed., Manual of the Corporation -
of --
the -
City of --
New --
York
(New York, 1868), pp. 179-87-. - -
-95-
The municipality sun.,...,lied the fire equipment and the engine houses while
the volunteers provided the necessary manpower. As was typical of the day,
the fire department was regarded as giving access to the political ladder for
anyone interested in a future in politics. The engine house sered as a
meeting place for the men of the area. Merit was not the key to advancement
in the department; rather.it was personal popularity e No position was sal
aried, and therefore official rank iri the department.had prestige value only.
In the late 1830's, the highest ranking officer in the department was Chief
Engineer John Du:flo, who was chosen by the foramen of the fire companies.
His popularit,y wc1.s e:nhanced by the fact that. he was the proprietor .of the
famed Duflon's Military Gardens, a popular outdoor.meeting place favored by
those who enjoyed a glass of beer amidst pleast surroundings.
41
In 1838, the Fire Department was composed of ten engine companies, one
42
hook and ladder company and onehose company. Of the ten engine companies,
nine actually were in operation, while Engine Company Five existed only on
paper. The area which the nine were to patrol, however, was confined to the
northeastern corner of the city in a fire district designated by the State
Legislature, thus leaving the Fifth, Stxth, Seventh ., Eighth and Ninth wards
unprotected. Besides the satisfaction derived from serving the cow.rnuni.ty in a
useful capacity, firemen received some special privileges. Upon serving in
the fire department for a period of three to five years, a fireman could be
exempted from any jury and military duty except in a national emergency.h4
A major obstacle confronting the fire department was the almost complete
lack of discipline. Several examples could be cited where the firemen dis
regarded orders upon arriving at a fire. One flagrant refusal to obey orders
occurred in 1843, when Brooklyn witnessed a destructive fire which consumed
twelve wooden structures on Main and Fulton streets. It was reported that
"the flames would probably have been circumscribed within narrower limits, but
for a disobedience of the engineer's orders by one of the fire companies. The
line of water was thus broken, and grea.t confusion ensued."45' Mayor Joseph
Sprague speaking to the Corrunon Council in May, 1843, urged them to take some
action in order to prevent the disturbaiicas that :resulted from engine companies
racing to the scene of a fire. Such behavior, he said, caused heavy damage to
6
the engines and other equipment as well as injury to the men.4 No steps'were
taken, however, to sup"ress such behavior on the part of the v r ... ,-,nteer firemen.
In September 1843, two volunteer firemen were fined for assault and battery as
a result of their attack on an assistant foreman belonging to another fire com
the well being of that class of our youth who male these engine houses a
rendezvous for the commital rsic7 of crime, demands the most rigid enforce-
ment of the law, and if the advice and counsel of parents and guardians are
unavailing for the protection of city property it becomes our duty to
exercise the arm of the law. 1149 Talmage demanded action because the volunteer
firemen and their juvenile adherents had even taken to fighting with the
po1.ice. 50
Presumably the situation had improved by 1846, for the Mayor attested
'to 11the general good conduct of all attached to the fire department; their
determination to free themselves from the odium which has heretofore attached
..
to them and their great promptitude and good order at fires, during the
.
past year." $1 From 1846 to the mid-fifties only intermittent recurrences of
rowdyism marred the generally improved behavior of the fire compar..ies and the
"boys." An affray of a sort not seen in years occurred onthe night of June
20, 1852, when three engine companies, numbers Two, Seven and Nine battled
one another. Soon after, the Common Council requested that the Chief
Engineer of the Fire Del'.'lartment "lock up and take possession" of the head
quarters of Comp:.nies Two and Five. The engine houses were padlocked so
that the volunteers could not stay there or use the engines. Previous to
the June 20 fire, the members of Company Number .Two had appeared at a fire,
but refused to render any assistance. By the end of the year, the Common
Council decided to disband Company Number Two completely, because it was a
2
detriment to the Fire Department as a whole.5
While fighting fires, the firemen had to work against a number of odds.
One spra.g from the fact that most of the buildings in Brooklyn were con
structed of wood. As a result, fire spread rapidly.SJ Moreover, Brooklyn
lacked adequate 1,ater facilities. The public cisterns could not supply
the water needed during a major conflagration and many of the cisterns would
suddenly go dry . Furthermore; the fire apparatus was not the best obtainable
even for that er. 54 .Mayor F . B. Stryker considered the matter so important
that he sent a special message to the Board of Aldermen on September 4, 1848,
dealing with the nroblem. He advocated the use of brick rather than wood
for building materials. He was of the O?inion that this change might deter
the spread of fire from building to building. Stryker also proposed extending
the fire district in which the erection of wooden structures would be pro
hibited. He concluded his remarks with the statement that if a fire should
occur at night and " spread to any considerable extent it is certain that
the supply of water from the cisterns would be found inadequate.11 55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-99-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-100-
a new fire law was enacted which extended the district in which wooden
construction was curtailed. The law also established minimum requirements
concerning the thickness of walls and protection for windows and doorwayso
It also set up standards for the type of masonry to be used. Wooen con
struction was exempted from the nrovisions of this law if the building did
60
not exceed fifteen feet in height. During this year, Brooklyn increased
its fire protection facilities by purchasing engines and sites for new
6
engine houses. 1
By February, 18.52, .the Star thought it necessary to warn the community
that many citizens were finding means of circu.'l'tventing the fire laws. In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-lOl-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-102-
The Eagle asserted that these attacks were politically inspired, because
the News had not been named as a Corporation newspaper. Moreove, it con
tended that there was "no city in the United States, of its size which is
more orderly, or in which less crime is committed than Brooklyn. u67
Despite such assertions upon the part of a Democratic newspaper sup
porting a Democratic city r&'gime, the authorities finally were moved to
some action to curb the burglars. It was advertised that the city wouid
pay $100 for the apprehension and arrest of any person caught entering any
premises at night with the intent to burglarize. 68 In November, a house
was entered and the occu.pa...'lt severely beaten. As a result., the authorities
69
offered a reward of $250 for th apprehension of the criminal involved.
A day later, the urged the citizens to be "on their guard against the
rn:i,dnight prowlers who ... pel',mitted in the most public thoroughfares of
our town to rob the dwellings of our peaceful citizens. I" 70
According to the Eagle, the major causes of the crime wave of 1842
could be traced to the fact that Brooklyn was in close proximity to New York
City. The latter was the 11 great mart to which villany .[sic 7,
foreign and
domestic, resorts," where "dens of vice" could be found.71 Since NewYork
was becoming overcrowded with "accomplished burglars and robbers," the more
industrious of the fraternity were beginning to cross the East River so that
2
they could "commit the grossest outrages upon our citizens., 117 Finally, after
a year's delay, the Eagle was compelled to agree that the city watch offered
79. ., ,2 , ,a1.5
{\ ,. ,_
.n.u
-,
e; ..,_
4-
80. Oct. 7, 1845.
81. Ibid., Dec. 30, 1845.
82. ., Jan. 29,. 1846.
83. ., !I.lay 5, 1846.
-
84. Ibid.:
-lo6-
Common Council would designate. In actuality, the police force, from 1851
8
to 1855, consisted of 144 men plus 15 officers. 9 The chief marshal was to
supervise the entire department while the wardens would supervise the police
men in the individual wards . The power of anpointment of policemen was to
be held jointly by the mayor, the chief marshal, and the wardens. Nominations
were to be made by the aldermen. The uolicernen were empowered to arrest
violators of the laws and were to act as patrolmen in supervising the night
watch. s a further innovation, the policemen were ordered to wear some
90 Badges, worn on the
insignia to distinguish them as officers of the law.
left breast pocket, were adopted for this purpose. The emblem consisted of
1
a Maltese cross surmounted by the figure of Justice.9
Despite the innovations in police protection there were still complaints
regarding th inadequacy. of the force. In March of i851, the Star deplored
the fact that the southern portion of the Sixth Ward was "totally unprotected
by the police. In this neighborhood, particularly on Van Brunt Street, which
extends to Red Hook Point, many new buildings are in the cottrse of erection:,
and lumber, planks, cement arid other materials, are necessarily exposed to
2
the.prowlers who co:mmit their denredations with impunj_ty. 119 Later that
year, the urged that the force be immediately enlarged because it was
impossible "for so few of them to guarantee a safe protection to our citizens
in the night time. 1193
From January 8, 1851, until June 30, 1851, the Police Department made
any other, provided proper care be taken that capable and efficient men be
selected f'or policemen. 1198 He advocated the selection of 11 good able bodied
men" who would "regard the rules and regulations prescribed for their
government o 11 Folk suggested 11 the propriety of an enti:re change in the mode
of making appointments, and of the investigation of, and the adjudication
upon, complaints preferred against members of the department." 99
Folk hinted that men were being chosen on grounds other than those re
lated to the good of the force, implying that they actually were being chosen
because of their political affiliations. He insisted that "The duties re
quired of a Policeman, if discharged with fidelity, are arduous, and the
qualifications requisite of a eculiar character, are not to be found in
every person who may chance to make an application for appointment on the
. 100
Police. II- Although there were good, able bodied men on the force, lolk
thought, there were also those 11wno should they remain in the Police for
. ,, 101
years, ne;.rer . L,...
wouldiT
, ma.ke good. po1i cemen.
When a complaint was presented to the police chief concerning a member
of the force, it was his obligation to report the case to the mayor. The
mayor and one alderman were to sit in judgment upon the accused. The usual
charges brought against policemen were malingering on duty and maintaining
102
business activities such as owning grocery stores.
A correspondent in the Star was of the opinion that some of the aldermen
anpeared to "seek every opportunity to make random and false assertions it:i
relation to the police of our city .. " Perhaps some men in the Department were
not adequately performing their duties but these were the exceptions not the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-110-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-u1..
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-112-
the Police Committee of the Common Council . One of these concerned the
removal of nuisances. As early as 1835, Brooklyn had enacted ordinances
seeking the removal of certain factories beyond the city's residential
areas. The factories were of the sort which manufactured spirits of tur-
109
pentine, coal-tar and lamp-black. In 1842, the manufacture of such
products was prohibited in the fast growing residential area of the Sixth
Ward. A year later, the operations of bone and grist mills were prohibited
in all of Brooklyn between the months of May and November.110 The police
were t.o enforce these laws.
In 1841, Brooklyn attempted to control the erection of distilleries.
in the populated sections 0 the first six wards, for the reason that such
enterprises caused "noxious and offensive smells. 11 111 The police were soon
called upon to investigate the distillery of Cunningham and-Harris. It was
found that this distillery was 11 offensive and inconvenient to the neighbor
hood and a serious obstruction to their enjoyment. 11 1.12
Slaughter houses also presented a problem. The Police Conmrl.ttee urged
the City Insnector to inspect the slaughterhouses weekly. It was his duty
to acquaint the o..mers of such establishmen.ts with the best method of re
11
moving the blood and offals and of treating this residue with chemicals. 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-113-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-111+-
was completed, the dispensary was moved to the basement of the City Hali.135
Those patients who could not afford private medical care were treated at
the dispensary. It was soon apparent that the majority of patients were
Irish. The Eagle reported that when an Irish workingman became ill, his
whole family would be forced to the verge of starvation. Many such families
could not afford to pay even a few cents for necessary medicines.136
Until 1842, Brooklyn had no morgue facilities, but in that year, the
Common Council adopted a resolution to erect a "Dead House" at an expense
13
not exceeding $250. 7 The establishment of a city morgue was a part of a
concerted effort to tighten control over burials. In 1847 Brooklyn enacted
several ordinances relating to interments within the city lirriits. Bodies
were to be placed a.t least four feet below the surface of the ground on
penalty of a $100 fine for each week during which the body was not buried
according to the law.138 Two years later, the Council further decreed that
no bodies might be removed without first acquiring the consent of the Council
sitting as a Board of Health. Furthermore, no interments were to take place
in any of the first six wards.139
In conjunction with the limitations placed on burials, the city also
thought it necessary to record the vital statistics of the community. The
clerks of the school districts were to record the births, deaths and marriages
taking place in. the respective districts. These records were to be sent to
the town clerk who in turn would send them to the county clerk's office.14
A major health problem facing Brooklyn during these years was the sale
of swill milk. With the decline of farming in the suburbs_, _in the 1840's,
mmers of property began to rent t11eir farms to dair;rrien. These dairymen
built long low stables divided into narrow stalls which accommodated forty
to fifty cows. The cattle were fed hot swill purchased from various dis
tilleries operating in Brooklyn. The cows then produced what was lmown as
"swill milli. 11 Many of these da,.";.J..YJ11cu ..,ere respected members of the community
although their product was a health hazard. One such dairyman, Samuel Bouton,
served as alderman from the Seventh Ward in 1836, 1837, 1842 and 1843. Another
dairyman was "Hamilton, the milkman," who rented a mansion owned by the
Ryers.on family between Hamil ton Street and Washington Avenue. On Flushing
Avenue near Schenck Street, John Jackson and his two sons ran a large dairy
also producing "swill milk."
In an attempt to bring this practice to an end, an ordinance was adopted
in April, 1848, restricting the number of cows which might. be kept in enclos-
ures within _certain limits in the Sixth and Seventh wards. It provided, for
example, that in order to keep six cows the owner had to provide more than one
acre of land. 141 This ordinance, along withthe increasing demand for land
for housing purposes brought an end to the "swill milk" business. 142
Every few years, Brooklyn would be visited by a dangerous scourge of one
type or another. In 1845, smallpox was most prev&lent. In the midst of a
summer heat wave, the average weekly death total doubled as a result of this
. ..
disease e The usual mortality rate was about twenty persons a week, ?Ut in the
14
third week of July, deaths numbered forty, of which twenty-five were children. 3
148
that there was one cholera vi9tim to each 155 residents.
Praising the city for its handling of the epidemic, Mayor Copland in
dicated in his message of May, 1850, some of the measures undertaken by the
city to meet the crisis. He referred to the "prudent expenditure of borrowed
means!:,] rigid cleanliness everywhere--timely medical assistance provided
for the poor a.t the nublic exnenses L'sic 7--constant unremitting attention to
duty on the pary of the health officer--and a ready and willing acquiescence to
0
began to realize that the municioa:lity had to provide for the underprivileged
and indigent who became seriously ill.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter VI
his belief in cleanliness, Brooklyn was divided into small districts for
street cleaning purposes.2 For each of these districts the municipal author
ities entered into contracts with various individuals.
Reporting to the aldermen in May, 1845, Mayor Thomas G. Talmage expressed
satisfaction with the way the newly instituted contract system had been oper
ating during the past year. He urged, however, that recipients of contracts
be more assiduous in their duties. He singled out two main causes of excessive
rubbish in the streets: debris connected with building construction and
spillage resulting from the fact that the cartmen were using vehicles of in-
. 3
adequate size.
It soon became evident that the contract system was not effective. In
1847, a resolution was adopted requesting the authorities to study new plans
for cleaning the streets. Alderman Jesse Smith proposed that the refuse should
be "swept together and removed, by districts of one ward each." He further
suggested that the street inspector and at least one alderman certify that the
task was properly completed before payment would be made.4 Following his pro
posals, the refuse was then gathered into large heaps. The malodorous results
were lampooned by a poem which appeared in the Eagle entitled, "Buried."
"Beneath this heap the inspector .lies,
Tread lightly or his ghost will rise. n5
During the mayoral administraton of Edward Copland, the street cleaning
contracts were strictly enforced. Copland was extremely proud of an accomplish
ment which helped to make Brooklyn one of the cleanest cities in the country.
He asserted that "Few if any cities are cleaner now than ours, or contain
6
within them less to offendo rr Though his campaign had been only partially
successful he contended that the results were worth the effort. He asked
that his successors in office carry out the enforcement of the existing con
tracts, which was. "comparatively a light duty, a work of immense benefit and
long needed; and it will increase our city's fame." 7 In June, 1850, Alderman
R. Church presented a series of resolutions tightening the controls over
those who contracted to clean the streets. He requsted that it be made man
datory that the filth be removed on stipulated days . If the contractors did
not fulfill this requirement, then the alderman of the affected district
. .
could hire men to nerform the task. The expense involved in such an undertaking
would be charged to the contractor. These resolutions were adopted bythe
Council.a
Laxness on the part of the contractors led the Conunon Council again in
1851 to enact a similar measure. Nevertheless, soon after, the reported
9
that the contract system was a failure. twas stated that 11 our streets are
10
in shocking condition just now.'' However, that same month, a resident of
Brooklyn wrote to, the ......,_
Star commending the then current street cleaning methods.
. :
The letter said in part: "the commendable practice of carts going round and
'taking the dirt, when swept up in ,heaps, is now .followed; being a great improve
ment on the old cutom of letting it get trampled down and re-heaped, and re
trampled down tour or five times. Myrtle Avenue in particular, from the City
Hall., to Raymond Street, never began to show such a tidy conuntenance {sic i
as this summer." The correspondent was the soon famous Walt Whitman.u
Emphasis on efficient street cleaning as a factor in community health
was part of the Report of Brooklyn's Health Officer, C. Goodrich, for 1851.
He recommended that an efficient street cleaning system be inaugurated, that
disinfectants be widely used and that the Council provide for the establish
ment of an annual sanitary survey such as exised in New York City . He urged
the municipality to encourage the use of vaccination as a preventive for the
. . 12
spread of smallpox and he recommended the establishment of a city dispensary.
The councilmen did not take immediate action on the Health Officer's
recommendations regarding the streets as well as the other phases of the health
problem . The summer of 1852 found the city streets still in a deplorable state.
Asserting that the contract system was inefficient, the reported, "Many
of the gutters are filled with slopsand vegetable .matter which, with the hot
sun pouring upon it, is enough to breed an epidmic in our nrl:dst. 11 The news
paper asked, "Where are our street cleaners, or scavengers, or whatever name
they may be called by? Where are the Aldermen who have obtained the job for
-
their particular friend?" Unless something was done soon, the Star feared
cholera might strike agcdn.13 Fortunately, it did riot appear that year.
In February, 18.53, during the mayoral administration of Edward Lambert., an
improved system of street cleaning was adopted providing for a municipal street
cleaning force. Lambert contended that if the streets were once cleand, they
could be kept that way. He proposed that Brooklyn be divided into three large
districts. Wards one through five were to comprise the first district ., the
sixth and tenth wards were to become the second district, and the seventh and
eleventh wards, the third district. 14 In bis opinion a force of twelve men
and four horses and carts would be able to clean the first district during
the three warm months of the year. For the remainder of the year, a force
of only four men and two horses and carts would be sufficient. They were to
collect ashes and refuse twice a week under the direction of a foreman who
woul.d be hired to supervise the work. The Mayor estimated the total a.nn,ual
cost at $5,304 for the first district The second district would use eight
men for 235 work days and an additional two men during the warm season. The
cost for the second district would be $4,.365. This amount applied to the -
third district also. He estimated that the annual cost for collecting refuse
would be $14,032. From this sum could be deducted a credit of $2,500, repre
senting the sale of 10,000 loads of manure at twenty-five cents per load.
-
.
This would reduce the net cost to $ll,532. In February, 1853, the Council
.
adopted Lambert's plan.16 This scheme, meager and inefficient as it was, was
followed during the remainder of the period under.study.
Along with the difficulties concerning the collection of street refuse,
Brooklyn faced the problem of locating a suitable site for the dumping of
''.night soil11 deposits. Between_ the years' 1834 and 1855., these waste deposits
were privately removed from the residences in the community. The municipality
stipulated that this refuse had to be removed during the late evening hours
hence the appellation "night soil. 11 No particular locality was established in
which the waste was to be deposited. Lacking nmnicipal supervision, individuals
began to throw the waste along the banks of the East River. The Health Officer's
Report for 1851 singled out for condemnation the practice of dumping waste in
the particular locality of Clinton Street near the East River. This site
became so offensive that the authorities attempted to treat the offal with
chemicals. Lime was poured on the refuse, followed by a covering of fresh
earth. The urged that some permanent remedy for this unhealthful practice
be found. 11 The night soilers," it wrote, "have conveyed large quantities as
manure to various parts of the island, but this mode of consumption can ob
viously meet but a very small portion of the requirements. 1117 Two sloop
owners proposed to carry.the refuse beyond Sandy Hook at a fee of $20 per
18
day. The thought this might prove to be a. feasible plan.
A year later, the councilme still had not determined upon a course of
action. They then appointed a committee to "select, procure and purchase so
much land as may be considered necessary for the purpose of providing a place
19
of deposit of night soil. n Mayor Conklin Brush refused to accept this reso-
lution, objecting to it on the ground that the City Charter did not permit
this delegation or authority to any connnittee. 20 As late as 1855 the muni
.,
1842 when the newly elected Mayor, Henry c. Murphy, brought the question to
the attention of the Common Council. He reported that stagnant pools were
be.ing created in many lowlying areas of the community. If not drained ., these
22
would "produce virulent diseases, if not pestilence. 11
This problem, like so many others, was ignored for a number of years.
Public interest reaakened to this health hazard in 1846-1847 when the Council
commissioned an engineer to draft a report on municipal drainage . At, .first
slighted, th report was later acted upon by the city fathers. 23 Finally, the
authorities ag:reed that the main thoroughfares, including the Fulton Street
business district, needed some type of sewage system. However ., the Fulton
Street merchants were not in agreement with this idea because it would neces
sitate a special assessment. They countered with a proposal of their own which
called for elevating the center of the street. Water, then flowing into side
g11tters, would be carried by gravity to the East River. 24 Surprisingly, the
Eagle supported the petitioners in blocking this allegedly "unnecssry vork."25
However, between March and September, te Eagle reversed its position and
began arguing for an adequate sewerage systeme Later that same year, the
Council authorized the construction of sewers for th major thoroughfares.
Private home owners were to be permitted to attach drains leading to the -common
.. 26
sewers on pa,ment of a iio fee. Sewers were b-ui.lt for Smith, Warren, Hoyt,
27
and Bond streets during 1851. The process of expanding the sewerage system
continued during 1852, 1853 and 1854. By 1855, Brooklyn could boast of its
five miles of common sewers.
-
bay, connected with that also, so as to form a regular navigable canal, with
-the advantages of trade, transport and whaTfage, through the heart of the
"28
Cl.tY
The idea of a drainage canal was again broached in 1848, when the Street
Committee o:f the Comm.on Council recommended that a mile-long canal be con
2
structed to serve for both drainage and conunercial purposes. 9 In February,
1849, the Council peti_tioned the New York Legislature for permis_sion to build
a drainage canal which was expected to drain 1,700 acres of land in the
.
30
southern portion of the community. Small amounts were expended annually by
he municipality during these yea.rs on profiles and reports on canal.a. It
was not until 1867, however, that a commission was established th the author
ity to proceed with the dredging of the Gowanus Canal for shipping.31
The solutions to the problems of providing effective fire control, street
sanitation, sewage disposal and drainage were all predicated upon the assump
tion that Brooklyn had an adequate water supply. Unfortunately, this was not
the case. Despite the fact that many plans were proposed, during the period
and warned the councilmen that an adequate water supply was absolutely neces
sary to insure safety in this respect 35 He reconunended that the municipality
construct more public cisterns. The Council acted by appointing a new water
committee. The Eagle advised the committeemen that an ample supply of water
might be found ort Long Island itself. "We need not build a massive stone
acqueduct l.!ic 7 for the present," it counselled; "but use iron pipes--leaving
the ultimate nature and extent of the permanent structure to be determind in
36
'-"h!,
I+' ,..7.future."
Reactions to New York City's great fire of July, 1845, lent support to
the movement for a more adequate water system. The fire in neighboring New
York caused a great deal of c'oncern in.Brooklyn because the water supply in
the public:cisterns was at a dangerously low point. In order to protect
0
a tract of lowland near the corner of Flushing and Tompkins avenues.. This
water was to be carried to a reservoir located on Fort Greene which would
"yield a supply equal to that of the Croton aqueduct, the whole_expense of
which will be something short of a million dollars."44 This expansive
scheme was soon forgotten. Then, William Burdon, an iron works proprietor,
advanced a plan whereby he would tap the streams on the south side of Long
Island within ten miles of the city. He stated that he had found six sreams,
each capable of yielding 8,000 gallons per minue, which for nine months in
the year could furnish three times that amount. _The Eagle reported th.at
"Mr. B's plan is to dig a basin containing 100,000,000 gallons at the ter
mination of the Jamaica st[1.7eam, build an engine house, put up a condensing
engine of 100 horsepower with pumps to give the water a sufficient elevation."
He further claimed that he could supply seven wards with irater within two
years.45 The water eommitee of the Common Council seemed to be impressed,
'.
for the members journeyed north of Jamaica to study the streams. They were
satisfied that the streams would furnish a sufficient quantity of water,but,
at the saJ)'J.e time, they were concerned over the costsinvolved i constructing
6
an aqueduct some fifteen or wenty miles in length. 4
I
The situation still remained unchanged more than a year later. In June,
151, a resident of Brooklyn posted.the following hwnorous riotice t the pump
lo cated at the corner of Henry and Orange streets:
Great ExcitementlJl
Fun Expected!! 1
The extraordinary efforts of our City Officials to perform
their duties.. accordipg to law, . are universally acknowledged
and apprecia ted, and this Pumtstands a monument of their
zeal(?) and. untiring. energy ?) pro bono publico. It sel
dom requires over 100 strokes to fill an ornary sized
bucket
A contest is expected to take place next Sunday morning,
at 5 oelock, against time, between Biddy McShane and Kath
leen O'Shaughessy. The Mayor and his Coadjutors are.respect-
fully invited to be. ,present.50
Walt Whitman did not take the lack of water so lightheartedly. He asser
ted in June, 1851, that Brooklyn's waer shortage "is enough to put us down
belo-w twenty other places, otherwise evecy way inferior to us. Reader,
have you ever thought what this pump. stuff real is?" He then proceeded
. .
on the south shore of Long Island, and to convey them by a conduit to the
rear of the high lands east of and nearest to the central part of the city.56
The watr_would then ?e.elevated by "mechanical power into a large reservoir
situated on the highest grqund east of the oity ., " and distributed "from thence
by ir-on pipes in the usual manner."$? He delared that his scheme was bsed
on supplying the water needs of a future population-f 250,000. This would
mean that at least ten million gallons of water would be rquired per day.58
'
I
was reported
in
.. ----
the New York Times that a water company organized in Wil-
liamsburgh had purchased several ponds and streams which Brookyn had ex-
65
pected to tap. The soon claimed that the Williamsburgh Water Works
Company was actually composed of a group of speculators who expected Brooklyn
to pay an exorbitant sum for the streams.66
In March, a fire hich occurred in York Street/provided another ol:>ject
lesson in the necessity of acquiring. an adequate water supply. The conflag
ration caused damage estima:ted a.t 50,000. The water supply from the nearest
well proved insufficient and water had to be pumped: from the East River, a
6
distance of five blocks. 7
At this juncture, the municipality realized that it was imperative for
.
them to purchase sources of ater. On May 10, 1853, the,Common Council
. . . . .
When the matter finally came before the electorate ., _the water bill ..was
overwhelmingly defeated. Of a total vote of 7,693, more than 5., 000 votes
were cast against the measure. Only in the Sixth Ward was there_a definite
majority in favor of the plan. Every other ward voteq resoundingly in the
negative.78 Thereupon the Colnlnon Council sought to alter the bill so as to
correct the shortcomings of the defeated measure. It was agreed that the
State Legislature would be requested to ap,rove the following amendments:
the amount to be spent would be limited to $4,000 ., 000; contracts were to be
awarded to the lowest bidder who could prove himself to be a responsible
74. Ibid.
75. Ibid
. 76. star, July 2, 1853.
77. Ibid ., July 11 ., 1853.
78. !fil!., July 12, 1853.
-139-
years. He concluded that the well system was nexpensive and complicated, and
84
in the very.nature of things must be uncertain. n
In October, 1854, Henry Ruggles, spok;esman for a group of private in
vestors, advanced a scheme for supplying the community Tith water This group
So. New York State, Laws, Seventy.seventh Session (Albany, 1854), p._361.
81. Star, June 2, 18
82. Ibid., May 27, 1854.
83. i"bid.
84. Common Council, Documents Submitted !?z. Water Committee, pp. 91-9.
proposed to collect all the water that drained from the hills of Long
Island into a deep trench. This water would then be pumped into reservoirs
to await distribution. In order to carry out this project, the State Legis
lature would be asked to charter a corporation with a capital of $4,0001000
of _which the associaion would subscribe to $3,000,000 and the Common Council
would assume the balance. The municiplity could only appoint one-fourth of
the board of directors, the corporation would be allowed to charge $35 for
each fireplug, the public was; to be charged according to the rate prevailing
in New York City as of 1842 and finally, the corporation would be tax ex
8
empt until a 7 percent annual return on the investmet was made. ' The plan
was not accepted.
Mayor George Hall, upon assuming office for the secO!!!;l time,_urged the
formation of an entirely independent water commission. Brooklyn, he stressed,
86 His words elicited no response
needed an.adequate water supply. quick o
. .
' ..
'
from the Council. It was not until a decade later that the municipality
finally tapped the streams on Long Island for its water supply. Procrastin
ation and a short-sighted attitude again contributed to the backwardness 0
the community in providing adequate services to ita residents.
the widths of streets and sidewalks not particularly mentioned n the ordin
ances. Thus, in 1842, they decided that the sidewalks on Tillary Street
should be four feet wide with sidewalks ten feet in width. 4 An additional
ordinance of July 13, 1840, dealt with the care of sidewalks by property
owners. They were compelled to maintain sidewalks laid out conti@ous.to
their property. If they refused to do so, the authorities could have the
necessary work completed and charged the owners for the costs involved05
Despite these ordinances, the sidewalks remained in a deplorable state.
In January 1843, the Eagle deprecated the fact that no positive law existed
compelling the laying of sidewalks by owners of abutting property. Walldng,
the Eagle reported, was extremely hazardous in the wintertime because of
this lack of unifornrl. ty. "What can be more annoying," it wrote, "than to
walk a few feet upon dry and comfortable flagging, and then, as if to make
the contrast more striking, plunge. ankle-deep in mud'l11 6 Pity the poor
ladies "picking and searching their way along, in the futile attempt to pre
serve dey feet--now perching themselves upon a heap of cabbage stalks and
springing thence upon the stones and bricks deposited by truant schoolboys;
and now, becoming desperate, 1 sposhing 1 trough the thickest of it, to the
utter ruin of their hose and morrocco aic]. n7 Unfortunately, this situation
remained to plague the women for years to come.
After 1843 1 inspectors of pavements who were appointed by the Council
were responsible for the condition of the streets and pavements. It was
their duty to ir.sp.ect all curbs, gutters ., crosswalks and pavements while in
the process of construction. They received remuneration according to tbe
number of yards of pavement inspected. Until May, 1843, the fee was two
cents per yard, and afterwards it was a penny done-half a yard.8 Needless
expense sometimes resulted from poor supervision over the street projects by
the city inspectors. Fulton Street, as originally laid out, was to be sixty
six feet wide. Over the years, merchants had continually encroached on the
thoroughfare's width by building beyond the legal limit .After the disas
trous fire of 1848, it was discovered that Fulton Street was then onl;y
fifty feet wide. In order to restore Fulton Street to its original dimension,
the municipality had t6 repurchase land it once had possessed.9
The reports of the inspectors give a clue to the condition of some
streets. An inspector called some spots "man traps," asserting that the
holes in some areas were large enough for men to fall into.10
Stone was the customary material.for paving streets in this period. In
1844, Brooklyn, like several other Amen.can cities, experimented with wood,
but apparently without satisfactory results. "In New York, they have been
compelled to return to the old fashioned paving stones," the Eagle reported,
"and in Philadelphia the same reformation backwards is now going on. Our
own city was compelled to retrace her steps in the matter quite reent1y.11
The Street Committee of the Common Council had the responsibility of
making recommendations concerning street construction to the municipal legis
lature. If the Council authorized such street construction it was then the
duty of the.comrr.ittee to supernse the project. The street conmli.ssioner, who
was appointed by the Council until 1850 and who was under the supervision of
the Committee, handled the necessary details of obtaining estima.tes and main
taining records of street construction. The Committee also supervised the
activities of the inspectors of pavements. The composition of this body
The regrading of streets also caused concern among the local taxpayers 0
When a street needed to be repaired, a general assessment would be declared
upon the entire cityo However, when it became necessary to regrade a street
only a local assessment would be declared. Property owners asserted that
oftentimes they would have to pay for an "'improvement' which nearly ruins
their property, and benefits no one but the public who travel the streets,
and who are not ctarged one cent therefor 0 11
5
1
Differences of opinion over
such policies led to litigation. It was estimated that the cost of opening
streets, exclusive of grading and paving expenses, amounted to $2 ., 567 ., 800
in the period 1834 to 1847. Of this sum, $94,256 was spent for legal fees
alone. In the thirteen-year period 1834 to 1847, the annual legal expenses
16
for opening streets averaged $7,250. No estimate was attempted for the
fees involved in street grading and repairing. Presumably, however, the sum
was fairly large.
In the Brooklyn charter convention of 1847.a committee was appointed to
investigate and make recommendations concerning the assessment issue. The
committee hald that the Common Council should continue to maintain its author
ity over the opening, grading and paving of streets c3:nd parks. In the matter
_
of street openings, however, the committee recommended that the municipa1
legislature be required to fulfill certain prerequisites. First, the Council
was to advertise in at least two newspapers for thirty days before conducting
hearings. Second, a majority of those who would be assessed had to agree to
the proposed street opening. If a majority opposed the plan before the expir
ation of the thirty-day period, then the scheme was to be abandonect. 17 No
work was to be undertaken unless provided for in the annual budget except in
case of fire, flood or other natural calamities
18. Ibid.
19.. Eagle, May 3, 1848.
20. Star, May 18, 1848.
over what it considered as an outright gift to Roberts.21
The system of letting contracts for street construction raised many
problems. As Mayor Copland aptly remarked ., "This subject always to a greater
or less extent agitates the Common Council. In public works the giving out
of contracts is a subject involving difficulties. All parties cannot be
22
satisfied. 11 He declared that all any council could be expected to do was
to handle such matters with the utmost discretion. Difficuities often sprang
from the practice of awarding the contract to the lowest bidder irrespective
of bis qualifications and experience. "The idea evidently is," remarked the
- 23
'
Star., "that the cheaper the work can be done the better it is for the city."
I
---------------
21. Eagle, Dec.:13, 1848.
22. Star, May 2, 1850.
23. Ibid., Jan. 17, 1852.
24. Ibid.
-149-
letter. n25 The Brooklyn councilman were so lenient that they even awarded
contracts to ccntractors who at the same time were delinquent in .fulfilling
earlier commitments. Such a case appeared in l8S2, when a contractor named
Jeremiah O'Donnell was pe:nn:i.tted to repair Clermont Avenue while he was in
arrears on his contract for work on Washington Park.26 Like other municipal
ities, Brooklyn struggled along w.i.th the evils of the contract system since
it had no other alternative.
The growth of Brooklyn iri: the short period from 18$1 to 1854 is re
flected in the number of streets opened, graded and paved. Streets opened
in this period totalled 133,27 feet, with 192,682 feet being graded and
paved. 27 For this work, Brooklyn sper1t' $318_,000 for street openings and
$783,239 for grading and paving. Political favoritism probably figured in
the award of contracts; but it is significant to note that oniy one instance
of fraud in this regard was reported by the Brooklyn newspapers during the
entire period.
The use of the streets by the locomotives of the Long Island Railroad
posed a problem to the municipality. Trains traversed Atlantic Avenue after
1836 so as to reach the terminal which was located in t he heart of the city.
At first, the Company was permitted to use horses only in drawing the cars
through the streets of the city. Soon after the line began operating, however,
the authorities decided to allow steam engines to enter the city if their
28
speed was confined to six miles per hour. This arrangement appeared to be
satisfactory until accidents occurred in 1839 in which two youths were killed.
-
o:f Brooklyn from l Si -
tol'S
- (Brooklyn, i855T; Po 4.,
28. gity ,Aprli 21, 1'83o.' -
-150-
The matter was then brought before the Common Council for renewed consid-.
eration.29 The aldermen determined to place more restrictions on the use
of steam locomotives in the center of the community. The speed limit was
again limited to six miles an hour and it was further stipulated that the
use of locomotives would be prohibited between the hours of sunset and sun
rise. Also, the engine was to be equipped with an attachment "calculated
to take up any object or person lying or being upon. th said railroad." 30
The train had to sound a warning when it approached a crosing and ring a
bell when traveling between Clinton and Atlantic avenues.31
In 1834 the owners of property on Atlantic Avenue requested the Common
Council to discontinue the use of locomotives on that thoroughfare. While
debating the merits of this petition, the aldermen received a request from
the Railroad asking permission to build a tunnel under Atlantic Avenue.32
The Street Committee of the Council reported favorably on this petition
and appended to their report a model ordinance authorizing the wok. 33 Pub
lic hearings on this subject were begun in March, 1844.
34 The rgument
presented against this project was that citizens living at th ends .of the
tunnel would be forced to use a circuitous I:OUte in order to cross the avenue.
Counsel for the Railroad admitted this point, but he asserted that the bene-
fits derived from a.. turu1el far cutweighsd the r..inor discOiill'orts. Fu.rlhermore,
the Company had the right to build a tunnel on land it already owned. 3'
After considerable discussion, the Council approved the project with the
stipulation that the Long Island Railroad must restore the appearance of the
streets as they were before the construction commenced.36 The official decree
3
authorizing the plan was dated March 29, 1844. 7 The Company posted a bond
of $50,000 with,the municipality the;eby showing intent to abide by the rules
8
established by the Councii.3 The tunnel, opened with appropriate fanfare
in December, 1844, was 2,600 feet in length, with an arch of 1,813 feet and
walls 21 inches thick.39 Iron guard rails were constructed at the tunnel
. 40
openings and fences were in place by May, 1845.
The Common Council had wide powers in regard to public transportation.
That body could license and regulate hackney coaches, carriages and stage
coaches.41 In relation to the hackney coachs, the Counci through the
Police Committee licensed both driyers and vehicles, and established hack
stands through.out the city. With the introduction of horsecars: in 1854,
they too came within the jurisdiction of the Council. In 1853, a long de
bate had ensued in the Council.concerning the terms of the franchisesto be
awarded to those transportation lies which were about to bring trolleys to
Brooklyn. In December of that year, the Council in the interest of public
service decided to grant the franchises to those firms which already operated
omnibus lines in the city. The compnies received attractive terms from the
mu..>'licipility, for no fee was attached to these franchises. On
""... +._l-,.,.; . -,
......._........... . pa"'"t.
In this instance the Council had acted in the best interest of the
community, but the same cannot be said for its actions concerning the street
plan. Any project concerning street planning would have produced animosity
towards the councilmen from real estate interests. Rather than risk this,
the city authorities allowed the work of the State-appointed Street Committee
to come to nothing.
Also in this period, laxity on the part of the appointed officials led to
slipshod street construction by the ccmtractors. Furthermore, members of the
Council, swayed by political considerations, overlooked the inadequacies of
many street contractors. As a result, the streets were in constant need of
repair.
The rapid metamorphosis c>f Brooklyn from a rural to an urban community
created a need for parks. Civic leaders recognized the desirability of main
taining open arms in an age.when agricultural lands ere quickly being
. converted into homesites. Pa.rks were considered to be necessary as "ventil
. ators in purifying the air, n as. places where the youths of a community could
exercise, where residents of all pges could stroll, and where civil and
military parades could take place.
There were no parks in Brooklyn in 1834, but by 1855 the municipality
could boast of two public parks. The first was the City Park, opened in
i835. The idea for its inception came in this manner. In February of that
year, a group of real estate owners in the Wallabout area petitioned the
Counc.il for permission to fill in the lowlying regions contiguous to their
property. At the instigation of Alderma.., c. D. Sackett, who owned property
in the Wallabout area, the Council began to discuss plans concerning the
acquisition of the land in question, the filling in of the Wallabout low
lands and the preparation of the site as a park. The Council appoined a
-153-
committee of three consisting of Sackett and two other members to study and
report on this matter e
43 The committee.reported in February that the park
project was an estimable one in that it would remove an eyesore, serve as a
health benefit to the neighborhood, help stimulate residential growth, and
provide relaxation and exercise for its users.44 A month later, the Council
authorized the purchase of the site by the city.
45 When opened in 1835,. the
City Park comprised an area of seven acres bounded by Park and Flushing
avenues and Navy and Park streets in the Seventh Ward. The site was filled
with creeks and marshlands. In 1841 ., it was described as a "low and wet
piece of ground," which "has been repeatedly declared a public nuisance, and
is offensive to all the neighborhood. 1146: As originally laid out, the park
was to haveoeen graded to the level of the adjacent streets. It developed .,
however, that these streets had temporary rather than permanent grades. The
park was brought up to the surrounding temporary level with work ceasing at
that point. Tlfuen the streets were permanently graded ., it was found that an
additional three feet of earth was required in order to bring the park up to
the_ surrounding level. This, of course, meant a large capital outlay- qy
. the commUPity.
process of removing land fill from Fort Greene and transporting it to the
City Park was then begun. This undertaking was still not completed four years
later.
52 The park, which remained in an unfinished state, was never held in
esteem by the community. The nature of the area, llying and constantly
damp, precluded its ever being a favorite recreational site
In the 1830 1 s a movement had already begun to keep a portion of Brooklyn
Heights free from residential development. The municipal authorities were
urged to purchase the property in question before the entire section was built
the Eagle asserted, because it would provide a recreational site for workers
who could not afford pretentious homes on the Heights. 57
Alderman Jesse Smith reported in July, 1846, that the proposed area
contained 360 lots of which 32 belonged to the municipality. The remainder,
he declared, could be purchased from the private owners for approximately
$84,000.
58 The Common Council agreed to acquire the land if the State Legis-
bonds to meet park costs. Finally, those who.had been assessed for the
creation of the City Park in 1835 were to receive special consideration. 66
Once this measure was adopted by the Legislature, work was begun to prepare
the area . Before a year had elapsed, the 33-acre park began to be regarded
with great civic pride.
Thus by 1855, Washington and City Park were available to the residents
of Brooklyn. They were not large, but they helped to fulfill some of the
recreational and social needs of the increasingly congested community. Of
the two, Washington Park remains in existence to the present day, whereas
the marshland nature of the City Park forced its closing in the Civil War
period.
-
66. New York State, Laws, pp. 200-0l
.
Chapter VIlI
When Brooklyn was finally able to emerge from the economic morass it
saddled itself with other huge debts in its second attempt at constructing
a municipal building. Brooklyn, theefore, was never free of financil
problems throughout the period from 1834 to 1855. The local authorities
t hought they could resolve their inunedia-te economic difficulties by defer
ring the poblem of repaying the loans to future generations of Brooklynites.
Real estate taxation was the primary method by which the municipality
received revenue for governmental expenses. Annualiy, the real estate in
each ward was re-evaluated in order to.provide a basis for the rate of
. ,1
taxation;, These yearly real estate valuations serve as a key to the eco-
nomic condition of the community. The years 1834 to 1837 enom-passed a
.,
period in which speculation was rampant throughout the nation. By consulting
Table VI, it can be seen that the inflated valuation qf $32,000,000 for 1836,
the last peak year before the Panic of 1837, was not again equalled until
1851, when real estate values, :in Brooklyn were estimated at $40,2421 000.
Table VI also draws attention to the fact that real estate valuations re-
. '
mained fairly constant in the years 1839 to 1844. From 1844 to 1854, there
was a continuous trend.in the direction of increased estimates.
While real estate valuations were reflecting the economic conditions
prevalent in the city and in the nation, there was an increasing need of
funds for city services. The expanding city needed additional watchmen and
eventually a modernized police force, more and improved street lamps, public
cisterns, an adequate water supply, added compensation for the city officials
and more and better equipped fire houses.2 These services had to be provided
during years of privation and years of plenty. This called for an ever
increasing outlay of funds on the part of the mur.._icipal government. The
inevitable result was a rising rate of taxation during the years.
In 1838, Brooklyn sought to procure a sum of.$112,817 by taxation$
Five years later, the amount had increased to $159,189 and in another five
years, it rose to $.Jo6,138. By 18.50, the municipality expected to raise
.$411,044. Taxation did not fall equally upon all the residents of Brooklyn.
The expenses connected with maintaining the fire department, lamp lighting,
street cleaning and providing watchmen devolved only upon the first seven
wards. Educational expenses were apportioned among the school districts.
All the wards were taxed for expenditures relating to general purposes, that
is, for the maintenance of a court of special sessions and for the Sinking
Fund. This Fund was an accounting device by which the authorities annually
held in reserve a stipulated amount received from taxes for the purpose of
defraying a portion of the community's debts of former years.4
If the property owners of Brooklyn had been liable only for the annual
municipal requirements, they would have been satisfied, but there were many
other governmental obligations for which they were also assessed. 5 New York
State levied a tax on Brooklyn property. In 1834, this tax en real property
. 6
amounted to one mill on the dollar. The Kings County also imposed a tax
on property in order to provide for community services such as a hospital
and an institution for the insane.
Brooklyn took pride in the fact that despite the rising cost of city
services, the tax rate was kept below that of New York City. The Eagle
estimated that, for the year 1843, Brooklyn residents would pay six dollars
on each $1,000 assessment, whereas New York City residents would pay eight
7
dollars.
In November, 1845, the New York Journal .2f Commerce commented upon the
debts of Brooklyn. It said in effect that the tax rate in Brooklyn was rapidly
approaching that of New York and that in time it would probably climb even
higher. The Eagle answered this article by advising its readers that the
increasing population demanded more governmental expenditures. The improved
services would in the long run be conducive to making Brooklyn a better place
8
in which to live.
In addition to local, county and state taxes, Brooklyn residents also
were assessed for local improvements. As has already been pointed out, the
expense of opening and grading streets was borne by the residents whose
property would benefit most from such improvements. At the State Constitu
tional Convention of 1846, Henry Cruse Murphy, delegate from Brooklyn,
introduced a proposal to the effect that municipalities be authorized to
levy general rather than local assessments upon an entire city. A letter,
appearing in the Eagle and supporting Murphy's stand, stated that general
assessments would actually prove to be an economy measure o Under uch a plan
necessary work would not be delayed and since the city could follow the old
adage "a stiwh in time, 11 the strets would be kept in repair at less cost.
The correspondent asserted that people desired one annual tax levy in lieu of
separate 1otices for each improvem.ent.9 Murphy's proposition was not accepted;
of the bonds, Brooklyn also had to set aside a sufficient amount to cover the
interest on the bonds. As long as there were not too many bond issues,
these annual interest payments could be met without much hardship. However,
once one bond issue began to mourit upon another, the annual interest payments
became a great burden upon the city. In 1835, only one bond issue was out
standing and this necessitated interest payments of only $12,000 annually
12
. :sy 1854, however, the annual interest payments had climbed to $58,902.
In order to acquire revenue f or the interest payments, Brooklyn found
it necessary to float short term loans.from local banks and investment con
cerns. The municipal authorities paid from four to six per cent interest on
these loans.13 Thus, Brooklyn, according to the proverb ., was "borrowing from
Peter to pay Paul." The problem was resolved by establishing a Sinld.ng Fund
in 1838, in connection with which $5,000 was annually set aside for the pur
hase of outstanding city bonds. As more bonds were purchased by the munici
pality, the annual interest payments on these issues would be returned to the
city's reasury. It was anticipated that by maintaining the Sinking Fund for
approximately thirty years, Brooklyn could eventually relieve the financial
dilemma aggravated by the growing interest payments.i4
A major undertaking, which helped create the necessity for more and more
bond issues, was the project to construct a city hall. As early as July, 1834,
the "city fathers" had resolved to raise $50,000 for the purchase of land upon
Which to erect a structure. It was agreed that the best location would be
the junction of Fulton, Court and Joralemon streets.15 .At a secret session
_of the Common Council in September, 1835, the architects, c. Pollard and
G. Joh..son, were awarded $300 for their plans for a city hall. A second prize
16
or. $200 went to Gamaliel King. In December of the same year, the Com
mittee on Public Lands of the Common Council reported that they had
received two estimates, one of $465,000 and the other, $480,000, for a
finished building. The Committee thought that the larger amount was
ample.and contracts were awarded on this basis.17 Four months later,
18
Brooklyn celebrated the laying of the. cornerstone of the City Hall.
Since the construction was to take some time, the authorities needed al
ternative office space to carry on the necessary governmental activities.
The city then purchased the Apprentices' Library Building, added a struc
ture on the rear and renamed it te City Buildings.19
The financial crisis of 1837 necessitated a change in Brooklyn's
plans. On April 10, 1837, Alderman Jonathan Rogers introduced a resolution
to the effect that as an econ9my measure all work on the building cease
20
J.rnmecu.a
- t. e ly. The Council, meeting in secret session in June, agreed to
suspend all operations. At the same time it was decided that the munici
pality should enter into negotiations with the firm of Masterson.and
21
Smith concerning the city 1 s abrogatiqn of a contract for marble. Later
in the year, the municipality entered upon a series of negotiations, on:
cluded in
November, 1837, in regard to the contract it had with Stephen
Haynes as Superintendent of City Hall construction.22 The agreement
stipulated that if work was resumed, he would. be re-hired.23
The city and the firm of 1a.sterson and Sm:i th, however, did not agree
form. The members thought that circumstances now necessitated either the
.completion of the building which had been started or the erection of a
smaller edifice on the same site. It was indicated that the structure
would provide adequate office and storage space as well as rooms for the
courts .Another factor which could not be overlooked was the actual and
potential increase in BrooklYI?,'s population. Not only would a magnificent
City Hall enhance the prestige of the city in the eyesof its own inhabi
tants, but it would also act as a lure to prospective residents from New
York City. The Hall would have tremendous prestige value.
The new plans called for a structure of white marble, 150 feet in
length and 75 feet in width, rising two stories in height. As one approached
from the north on Fulton Street its appearance would resemble that of the
southern facade of New York's City Hall. The ColllITlittee deemed $60,000
sufficient to complete the task, since they proposed using the materials
abandoned in the first attempt at building such a structure. Furthermore,
the municipality recently had authorized the sale of a parcel of land on
Water Street. It had originally purchased this land using funds which had
been appropriated for the erection of a municipal building. The least the
authorities could now do, according to the Committee, would be to apply the
proceeds of the sale to the cost of the new edifice.30
On September 13, 1842, the Board of Aldermen agreed that the gity could
. 31
afford $75.,000 to complete the construction of a City Hall.
The subject apparently lay dormant for a period of nine months until
the claims of Masterson and Smith against the municipality again became
critical. The firm had finally resorted to the courts in an attempt to
30. Select Committee on City Hall, Report (Brooklyn, 1842), unnumbered pages.
31. Aldermen, Secret Sessions, Sept. 13, 1842.
-168-
resolve their unsettled claim. In June of 1843, Circuit Court Judge Kent
ruled that Brooklyn had broken the contract and that the plaintiffs could
collect damages sufficient to cover the losses sustained. He adjudged that
32
the municipality had to pay the firm a sum of d?72,999. The Eagle contended
that although the verdict must be considered in sir.let conformity with the law,
it did no approach "within a hundred miles of justice. 1133
In May, 1844, Mayor Sprague confessed to being at a loss with regard to
final plans concerning the City Hall. In his opinion, the municipality had
several choices in resolving the problem. It could complete one section and
. demolish the remaining foundation; roof over the foundation and convert it
into a city barracks; or remove the entire foundation and then commence
building anew. Speald..ng to the aldermen, he labeled the problem a "grave
subject, which, I confess, I am unable to solve, and therefore submit the
34
matter o your
.
superior wisdom."
.
At a secret Board session in November,
1844, it was decided to ask Gamaliel King and Henry Armstead to submit plans
for a new City Hal1.35 Shortly. thereafter, the aldermen limited the cost of
the construction to $100,000 and accepted the design proposed by Gamaliel
6
King.3 In March, the Eagle reported that the city had attempted to obtain
funds for construction by the sale of municipal property. However, according
to the editor, vecy little money had been raised, and now the councilmen
did not know how to proceed. He advocated extreme caution in future actions
concerning the building in view 0 the costly consequences of the earlier
attempt. He urged the use of the present City Buildings for at least
In November, the Eagle revealed why the Board had begun to consider
-plans and estimates during the preceding months. The case of "Masterson and
Smith versus the City of Brooklyn" was scheduled to be heard on November 12,
and the authorities were evidently endeavoring to prepare new contracts in an
2
ef'.fort to forestall further litigation.4 The Special Committee on the City
Hall reported a short time later that contracts had been signed with several
firms. Masterson and Smith were awarded a contract fr mrble totalling
$91,240, .plus a payment of $8,760 for the relinquishment of their old cla.iln.
Other contracts amounting to $46,445 were made for masonry, carpentry and
iron work.43
Mayor Talmage, upon retiring from off;ice in May, 1846, held the settle-
ment of the Masterson and Smith clai.rn to be one of the primary achievements of
his service as mayor. He indicated that the entire cost of construction would
be only twice the sum which the municipality would ha11e had to pay the company
as a result of the abrogation of the first contract. Now Brooklyn would have
its City Hall and the marble contractors were placated,.as well o JJi Four days
later, the State Legislature authorized a bond issue of $100,000 to.cover
part of the costs of construction. The principal was to be paid begi1;ming in
1861 and no later than 1870.45
Walt Whitman, writing in the Eagle in January, 1847, remarked that the
new City Hall "is progressing finely. _ and stately
Its clean whi.te walls,
. . 46
look, will add to the pleasantness of that section of Brooklyn." The
Brooklyn City Register of 1848 estimated that the cost of the new edifice
would be $200 7 000 and that the building would be completed that year. 47
The City Hall was finally finished in 1849, during the administration
of Mayor F. B. Stryker. Built according to the Ionic style, it was situated
on a plot of ground about three-quarters of an acre in size. The edifice was
162 feet in length and 102 feet in width. The exterior was covered with
Westchester County marble and the front portico was supported by six Ionic
columns. For this building, Brooklyn had raised $715,000 by issuing onds
which were to be redeemed between the years 1855 and 1875. The total of
$715,000 can be itemized as follows: $52,909, the purchase price of the
land; $8,760 the sum paid Masterson and Smith to relinquish their claim;
and $521,746 for construction costs. 48 It can readily be seen that con
struction expenses far exceeded the Council's estimates.
Although both major political parties campaigned on the platform of
maintaining and even reducing assessments, tax rates steadily increased
througout the period 1834 to 1855 . Higher tax levies and additional bond
issues were inevitable as long as Brooklyn sought to increase and improve
its municipal services. Furthermore, the community was of. the opin-i on t:hat
a municipal building was essential both for the facilities it would provide
and for prestige. Construction of this sort necessitated a large capital
investment. Thus i.Iliproved services, combined with the erection of a City
Hall, brought increased taxation upon the municipality.
apartments, heated with steam-pipes on either side ., " which plied "to and
fro every five minutes at the small charge of one halfpenny a passenger. n1
Legal authority over these so-called "floating platforms" or :ferries
had a long and involved history. New York City contended that on the basis
of the Cornbury and Donga.n charters it had the prerogative to license and
establish ferries across the East River. New Yorkers further claimed that
these charters gave them exclusive authority over the River to low water
mark on the Brooklyn side. Using this power, New York in 1814, granted
Robert Fulton and William Cutting a twenty-five year lease to operate.a
single ferry between New York and Brooklyn. The contract guaranteed the
partners that no other ferry would be allowed to operate south of Catherine
Street.2 No problems arose over this charter until 1835.
On the eve of incorporation as a city 7 the area called South Brooklyn
was rapidly expanding in population and in manufacturing. According to the
provisions of the fercy charter, this section could not be serviced by a
ferry but had to depend on the Fulton line. In order to secure a new
ferry and break the Fulton mon.opoly in intrastate waters, Brooklyn urged
the State Legislature to rescind the power New York possessed over the East
River. It was advocated that an independent State Commission be established
with th right to authorize and license ferries between the two cities. When
the bill establishing this Commission passed the lower house of the State
Legislature, the informed all Brooklynites that they should feel
"gratified" over this victory in the struggle of "New York versus Brooklyn.; 3
The measure was on the verge of being accepted by the State Senate when
New York City dramatically announced that it would establish a South
Ferry. This, of course, proyed to be the death knell for the bill advoca
ting a regulatory body under State auspices.
The original operat'os, Fulton and Cutting, had both died by 1821.
Control of the company then passed into the hands of David Leavitt and
Silas Butler, along with Cutting's widow. This trio !!laintained control
until 1836, when financial difficulties forced them to sell. At this point,
a group of Brooklyn citizens bought the entire stock of the Fulton company,
which was expected to yield a constant seven percent dividend. Unfortunately
the stock did.not live up to its expectations; for by 1839, not only had
dividend payments ceased, but the original investment had depreciated until
it was worth only sixty-eight cents on the dollar.4 Meanwhile, the lease
of the South.Ferry, organized in 1836, was about to expire. The directors
of this enterprise hoped to unite with the Fulton Ferry under one manage-
ment, as they, too, wre in finaucial difficulty. Many municipal officials
were found to be amenable to this plan of union. Accordingly, resolutions
were introduced in the Brooklyn Common Council meeting of January 23, 1839,
to the effect that both companies should be reorganized as a single.unit .5
6
One alderman went so far as to advocate municipal management of the ferries.
New York City then granted the ferry companies permission to reorganize upon
their acceptance of a five-year contract and of payment to the city of an.annual
fee of $12,0007 This sum was regarded by many as Brooklyn's annual payment
of "tribute" to the larger city. The Str remarked, "Our duties and priv-
If New York had the authority to levy tribute from Brooklyn for its use of
the East River then, the Eagle continued, New York might just as well erect
toll gates on either the Bloomingdale Road or Third Avenue.12 The corpor
ation operating the ferries was, however, not interested in the Eagle's
theoretical suppositions; rather it was oncerned with the practical task
of remaining in operation. Therefore, j_t offered New York anannual fee
of $20,000 for the franchise.
Apparently this sum was not sufficient, in the opinion of- the New York
councilmen, and so on May 6, 1844, they decided to advertise for bids to.
operate the Brooklyn ferries The Eagle contended that the Long Island
city was now "entirely at the mercy of the mammoth city which.lies opposite
to us, the narrow views and selfish interests of whose up-town landholders
induce them to throw every obstacle which theycan in the way of our growtli. n13
It therefore urged the revival of the idea of establishing .an "Independent
Board of Commissioners" with the authority to license ferries.
This issue became the object of a great publi'c meeting, held on May B,
1844. The citizens adopted a resolution introduced by Judge John Greenwood.
It asserted that the East River "ought to be and is, of right, as free to all,
as the air and light of heaven; and that as Ferries constitute the most con
venient mode of rendering it subservient to the public accommodation, every
facility ought to be extended for their establishment and maintenance. n 14 It
went on to say that the authority New York possessed to establish ferries was
not a power delegated to the city as a public trust. The meeting resolved to
present Brooklyn's arguments before the State Legislature. To this end, a
15. /_Herrry Pierrepon,:!l, Remarks Report _2! the Committee of The Common
Council of Brooklyn 2!! Ferry Water. Rights(Brooklyn ., lBil};J)p. 3-23.
16. roid. ..
17. Eagle, May 11, 1844.
18. ., Dec. 10, 1844.
-178-
suffered from any cessation of service. The Eagle reflected the city's de
pendence on the ferries in quoting an editorial from another newspaper, which
asserted that other cities could devote themselves to improving transportation
facilities by building railroads and main avenues. It pointed out that
bridges could never "span the North and East rivers, so as to connect Long
Island, the Jersey shore and Staten Island." Thus New York and Brooklyn
.
27
must "depend on good ferries."
Some New Yorkers opposed improving ferry connections because it might
induce people to move out of Manhattan. The York Sun in October, 1849,
deplored th talk of a new ferry to. Brooklyn fQr .the reason that this would
mean increased emigration to the suburban areas. The hoped that means
would be found to lessen "the inducements for the desertion of our Ow'"ll city
. 28 The Star warned its readers that Brooklyn must
by its men of wealth."
not let such sentiments win support in the State Legislature. Brooklyn "must
have the spirit of an equal, and not that of an abject petitioner and trib
utary to New York! ,.29
On the eve of the expiration of the lease of the Brooklyn Union Ferry
Company, a group of citizens of Brooklyn petitioned the Common Council of
New York to pennit the establishment of a new ferry. equidistant between the
Fulton and South ferries. These petitioners apparently did not particularly
care who received the franchise as long as the new ferry was authorized.O
In their opinion the interest of both communities would be served by the
additional ferry facility. "Residents in Brooklyn occupy stores in the city
of New York, in great numbers, .and pay a g;reat amount of rent; a population
of nearly one hundred thousand people purchase all they1 eat., and drink and
wear, directly or indirectly, in the city of New York," t)ley wrote. They also
urged New York to.realize that nthe resident families of the lower wards of
New York need this additional outlet to the country which will be especially
useful after the grading of Washington Park in Brooklyn which Park will
be about one mile from New York ., if the Ferry be esta.blished., 1131
Heney E. Pierrepont ., in an open letter to the public, attempted to
anm-rer the assertion that the Union Ferry Company was hampering the reali-
zation of the proposed new ferry line.between Wall and Mcntag-e streetso
He pointed out that, under the terms of the current lease, the Union Ferry
Company could not establish any new lines; it could only lend capital for
such facilities. Thus, although the Company believed that a new ferry was
urgently needed, it could do nothing to improve the situation.32
Pierrepont also renorted that New York had received several attractive
offers for the ferry franchise which was about to expire. Bids had been
received from the partnershi of Maynard, George Law and M. o. Roberts,
from the Union Ferry .and from an investment group headed by Henry c. Murphy .,
E. J. Bartow, and Thomas G. Talmage. Although the two investment groups
had outbid the Union Ferry Company, the Company was granted a renewal of
its lease.33 Immecately, the licensees recognized by the Ferry Commissioners
in 1848 instituted a stockholders suit against the management of the Union
4
Ferry Company and New York City in order to prevent delivery of the new lease.3
The case was tried in the state Supreme Court - Special Term in January,
1851. The group recognized by the Ferry Commissioners argued that the Union
Ferry Company reneged on establishing a new Montague Ferry after such a
ferry line had been sanctioned by te State authorities. Furthermore, they
argued that the paramount issue of the case was a constitutional one. Which
body constituted the supreme authority over Ferry charters: the Ferry Com-
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., Dec. 6, 1850.
33. ?He"9nry E. Pierreporg Remarks, PP 22-3e
34. e
-182-
ferries. His decision did not settle the matter one way or the other. 40
New York City then bowed to the inevitable and permitted the establishment
.
42
called Nassau Island. If New York held fast to its claim of lands between
high and low water marks, then it would have unrestrained sovereignty over
the East River.
Brooklyn became aroused .over the issue whenever the ferry franchise was
about to be or ,just had been renewed. In 1840, at a secret session, the
Council appointed a committee to meet with a similar committee from New York
City for the nuroose of adjustig the water i;nes.43 NotP.ing came of thase
meetings. Then in 1842, the Eagle urged that measures be taken to equalize
the Brooklyn boundary line at the center of the East River.44 Aldennan
Thomas Gerald followed this plea by introducing a resolution to the effect
that the State.Legislature should revise Brooklyns boundary, making it the
center of the East River.45
The issue lay dormant for five years until 1847, when the Eagle again
issued a plea for action. The paper contended that New . York's
. claim to the
land between high and low water marks sprang from a misinterpretation of
that city_s early charters. According to the Eagle, Brooklyn had an exclusive
6
right to the land immediately offshore.4 A year later, Mayor F. B. Stryker
held that it was difficult to see any good reason why both cities might not
have concurrent jurisdiction over the river between the cities, but that if
this were deemed improper, jurisdiction , would be divided by the middle or
the river.4 7 Such a move wo12ld benefit not only Brooklyn, but also New York.
Strykerexpresseci his views in saying, "the.true interest and well being of
42. Jerrold Seymann, Colonial Charter51Patents And Grants (New York, 1939),
. pp. 216-36; 241-47.
' -.-
43 e COI11I:1on Council, Secret Session April 6, 1840 0
44. Eagle, Jan. 22, 1842.
45. ., Jan. 25, 1842
46. Ibid., July 21, 1847.
-
47. Ibid., Sept. 8, 1848.
-185-
one is in no small degree dependent upon the promotion of the other, and
it becomes the authorities of both cities to pursue such measures as will
8
result in mutual harmony and good feeling. 114
Again the matter was dropped for a short time until the question of
ferries again came to the fore. In January, 1853, the revived the
legal discussion of the boundary.49 Once more it proved of no avail, for
New York continued to hold the power of granting ferry francbises.
Brooklyn suffered another grievance stemming from the matter of boundary
or water rights. On the basis of New York's claim to the land lying between
big and low water marks, that city was in a position to charge rents to
0
ovmers of Brooklyn property, or contiguous to it. 5 As Brooklyn grew in
size, this disputed land began to increase in value.because of its poen
tiality as sites for docks, wharves and piers. The Atlantic Dock Company
of Brooklyn was obliged to pay New York City a large Sum for water rights
before it could begin its operations. Private individuals who had estates
.fronting on the East River, such as Henry Pierrepont, Frederick Griffing
and John A. Cross, paid $5,000 to $15,000 for the water rights on the river
51
frontages of their estates. Brooklyn's legalistic arguments to the .con
trary, the courts in hearing the issues arising from the ferry problem did
not resolve the matter of the disputed boundary and land claims. Therefore,
New York continued to receive quit rents for the water rights off the shore
of Brooklyn.
Aside from the issue involved in the ferry and water rights disputes,
a major source of irritation to Brooklyn was the repeated attempts on the
48. Ibid.
49. 'star, Jan. 14, 1853.
So. Eagle, ..Tune 29, 1847
.51. , Jan. 14, 1853.
-186-
part of New York City to tax non-residents. New York first sought to pro
mote this scheme in the state Legislature in 1843. It was proposed that
New York be empowered to tax the personal property of all non-residents
engaged in business in that city. Brooklyn, of course, immediately became
alarr.ied over this scheme and hastily dispatched Mayor Joseph Sprague to
Albany to plead Brooklyn's case.'2 Sprague was able to report, a month
later, that his trip had been successful; the proposal was not reported
out of committee.53
A similar suggestion was made in 1846, with the same result.54 In 1850,
when the ferry question was before the public, New York revived its proposal
to tax residents of Brooklyn who worked in New York City . Unlike their
earlier behavior the Brooklyn newspapers reacted vigorously in 1850. The
reason for this is not clear. Perhaps they believed that the State Legisla
ture was in a more receptive mood for such a plan. At any rate, the
warned its readers that they must "awake" or they would find "the debts
.and taxes of New York City" added to their other burdens.'5 According to
the writer, the growth of Brooklyn had long been 11 a grievous thorn to the
wealthy landholders of New York; and they look on all who live here as traitors
and fugitives, whom they intend to reclaim, and tax to the uttermost u.56
It was urged that a public meeting be called immediately to plan a course of
action.
This meeting took place on March 18, 1850, when a large group of
Brooklynites gathered at the City Hall. Alden J. Spooner addressed the
East River. The Daily Advertiser announced in January, 1846, that some of
Brooklyn's "wealthiest citizens" were 11agitating the subject of a tunnel
60
under the East River. 11 No further mention of this project appeared in
the newspapers. What was more persistently advocated was a bridge. As
early as 183.5, the Common Covricil adopted a resolution calling for a study
"relative to the expediency and probabl expense of erecting one or more
bridges between the cities of Brooklyn and New York," and for collecting
"such general information as to plans and models" as might prove useful 61 0
The topic was again revived in 1837, when Roswell Graves, Jr. advanced a
plan for an iron suspension bridge which would cross Blackwell's Island
62
and reach a terminus in what is now Long Island City.
The project was pushed aside for over a decade until 1849, when the
- 6
Aqueduct. The Star again answered that the ferries were cheaner. 5 Although
Brooklyn apparently did not think too much of these ideas at the time, New
York did. A public lecture was held at Clinton Hal in New York City in
January, 1850, at which Charles w. Burton spoke on the subject of uniting
the two cities by means of a bridge or a tunnel -
The Star remarked that the
11 New Yorkers are extremely anxious to take us into their embrace. We are
old and strong enough to look out for ourselves, and so long as we can keep
66
well regulated and expeditious ferries we are satisfied. 11 Nothing was to
come of these schemes until the Brooklyn Bridge, completed in 1883, directly
linked the two communities.
Although they were not widely endorsd, some suggestions were made
during this period looking toward the union of New York and Brooklyn. During
the village years, the asserted, sentiments.were expressed by many or
the wealthy citizens for a union with New York. However, as soon as Brooklyn
6
became incorporated as a city, support for this notion waned. 7
Throughout this peiod, the remained antagonistic to any plan of
union with New York, whereas the Eagle on occasion advocated such a move.
According to the Eagle, such a consolidation with New York would solve the
. 68
problems relating to water and ferry rights . In 1848, the New York Common
Council went so far as to discuss whether it would be expedient to appoint a
special committee to confer with a similar body from Brooklyn on the question
of a "union of the two cities under one charter and one government." The
69
resolution was laid on the table. The Brooklyn Common Council then took
exactly the same action with a similar result.70
After the Herald, on January 15, 1849, carried an editorial
urging t_he consolidation of the two cities, the Eagle printed the views of
a Brooklyn resident in opposition to the proposal. The writer remarked
that many persons had moved to Brooklyn in order to escape from the "enor
mous taxation of New York. It is this," he said, "that has built Brooklyn
up to what it is, by the comparative cheapness of her rents. 1171 He contendd
that it was inexpedient for Brooklyn to join New York since her contiguity
2
to that city would always remain unchangect.7 A yea:r later, a correspondent
to the advocated union on the grounds that Brooklyn could then share
the Croton water. He was of the opinion that this could be easily accomplished.73
The Star responded by cautioning its readers that, although such a move might
bring Croton water to Brooklyn, the city ought not to lose its independence.
It wrote, "We lmow in half a century we shall possess the majority of inhabi
tants, that will live here at large instead of being cribbed, cabined and
confined on the island, and we can bide our time." 74 While the discussion
continued in the newspapers, a committee made up of aldermen from both Broeklyn
and New York was holding meetings to consider the question of consolidation.
The committee was organized following the suggestion of John A. Cross in the
State Senate to the effect that consolidation would be of benefit to both
communities. The Eagle asserted that many New Yorkers were beginning to be
Lieve that both cities were on the verge of un:i.ting, but the Eagle warned,
11 Don' t jump at conclusions. Old Gotham has-"a powerful maw, and would
doubtless like to swallow us at a mouthful; but we feel a 1 le6tle' too big
to yield our independence without an ample quid quo. 1175 The meetings
continued in a desultory fashion and then adJourned .
The viewed the moves toward consolidatio as a corollary of New
York's attemts to dominate its neighbor as it had with respect to the con
trol of the East, River. According to the, New York "from the earliest
times has taken pleasure in intimating that her charter held us in a
subjugated and tributary condition. 1176 Brooklyn had submitted to these
"illegal" assumptions by New York because the "weaker body is unwilling to
contend with the stroriger. u77 For this reason, Brooklyn would continue to
pay quit rents on lands lying between high and low water marks, and the
ferries would be chartered according to the whim of the larger city. It,
however, urged Brooklyn to fight back; for it was eligible for recognition
as a city in its 01,m right. It was the "seventh city in the Union, and the
second in the state:," and there was no "assignable limit" to the increase in
.population. "It is a fact admitted by all intelligent obserYers, 11 wrote the
editor, "that in a lapse of time not far distant, the greater amount of pop
8
ulation will occupy this side of the East River .,n7 All Brooklyn need do was
wait until her opulation outstripped thAt of New York. According to the
Star, 11any union with New York [wasJ simply impossible, ar1y measures of
policy should proceed upon the ide a of independence. We should seek all
things which will enhance our local importance, and render residence amongst
us attractive and desirable. 1179
80. [William C. Betts], An Examination Of The Report <uf The -vJater Cormnittee
..... -
By One or The PeopletNew York, 1858, --;J":"L..
61. Icier.; p.6-. -
Appendix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-194 ..
Brooklyn, 183l
- qs f
1 4. '9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-195-
Brooklyn, 1855
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-196-
Table I
Years
Brooklyn 2
Wards 1835 1840 1845 1850 1855
l 1,523 2., 148 4 ., 622 6,062 6 ., 441
2 4,674 5., 447 6,903 9 ., 357 8 ., 383
3 2,764 3,834 5,936 8,749 8,900
.4 5,724 6,827 8 ., 819 11,032 12,282
5 4,510 7,l.il5 9 ., 419 13,682 16,352
6 2 ., 139 4,043 10,651 11,536 18,l.i90
7 2,0 42 4,521 9,958 6,371 12,523
8 487 944 1,369 2,585 5,318
9 666 1!' 054 1,897 3$261 q_, ':l':l
,,. ;-.,-
1. State of New York ., Census .2! 1855 (Albany, 1857) ., -p. xxii.
2. The total for the amalgamated city was 205,250.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-197-
Table II
.E
I...
"5
4. Cyrus Smith 3 tfuig. 39 Lawyer New Hampshire 0
-
5. H. C. Murphy 1 D:lm 31 Lawyer Brooklyn "O
2
6 .. Jos. Sprague 2 D::em. 60 Wool Broker&. Entrepreneur Massachusetts .c
e
7. Thos. G. Talmage 44
Q.
1 Dem. Businessman New Jersey C
0
t5
8. Francis B. Stryker 3 Whig 35 Carpenter Brooklyn :::J
e
"O
'
CD
r-1
I...
10. Samuel Smith Dem. 62 Farmer & Real Estate Oper. Huntington, L.I.
Q)
I 1 .c
t:
:::J
...:
Q)
E
13. Geo. Hall* 1 Know-Nothing 60 Ol
c
>,
Q)
'+-
0
*Treated as two separate individuals because of the long span between terms.
C
0
"ui
Cf)
.E
I...
Q)
Q.
-
"O
Q)
(.)
:::J
e
"O
Q.
Q)
0:::
-199..:
Table IV -
1837-1838
1838-1839
1839-1840
1840-1841 Farmer
1841-1842
1842-1843
1843-1844
1844-1845
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-203 ..
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-204-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-205-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-207-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-209-
Table v.
MAYORALTY ELECTIONS
Party Date of Assumed Le.ft
Candidates Affil. Vote Election Office Office
George Hall Council May 20,1834 May 20,1834 I1ay 11,1835
Appointed
Henry c. Murphy Dem. 2,486 April 12,1842 May 2,1842 May 5,1843
Cyrus P. Smith Whig 2,252
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
. -213-
Thomas Talmage Dem. 3,197 April 8,1845 May 5,184.5 May 4,1846
Geo. Hall Whig 2,026
Wm. Rockwell Nat.Amer. 1,540
Edward Copland Whig 3,676 April 11,1849 April 23,1849 April 29,18!
Wm. Ellsworth Dem. 2,550
Geo. Hall Indep. 1,601
Samuel Smith llem. 4,488 April 9,1850 April 29,1850 Jan. 1,1851
J.s.stranahan Whig 4,110
Conklin Brush 'Whig 4,220 Nov. 8,1850 Jan. 1,1851 Jan. 3,1853
John Rice Demo .3,937
Geo. Hall Indep. 1,991
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-214-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-215-
Table VI
. 1
Ward 1850 1851 1852 853* 1854
1 3 ., 102 ., 330 3 ., 318 ., 265 4,242,100 4,685,551
2 2 ., 359 ., 455 2 ., 629., 270 2,572,850 2 ., 851 ., 833
3 5,085,425 5 ., 423 ., 993 6,063,200 7,151,230
4 3,433,175 3,689,290 4,105,350 4,580,522
5 2 ., 019 ., 050 2,249,763 2,339 ., 825 2 ., 598,0.53
6 5,504., 990 7,266,053 8 ., 881., 924 12,275,789
7 2., 493 ., 862 4,064,184 4 ., 887., 231 6,549,526
8 :-809 ., 537 1 ., 196., 190 2,243,765 3 ., 022 ., 532
9 1,064,921 1 ., 864 ., 475 2,965,784 5,156,415
10 3,302., 846 4,093., 873 5,830,300 8 ., 211,735
11 .322992120 42 L462 814 527692805 L.5812931
Total 32,0l0,7ll 40,242,170 49,902,134 64 ., 665., ll7
Accounts 1834 1835 __ 1836 1831'. 1838 1839 1840 . 181.il 1842 1843 1844 C:
.Q
en
en
Fire Department 1., 461 4,888 9 ., 680 8 ., 456 4,170 4., 875 4,258 3,380 6 ., 166 .E
-
I...
<l.l
a.
Watch 2., 397 3,132 9 ., 199 8 ., 666 ;8 ., 683 8., liJ.3 9 ., .596 9 ., 433 10., 727
-
:::J
0
..c
Police (Day) 3 ., 851 _3,891 4 ., 182 .5,495 1,395 835 777 1 ., 122 -
Street cleaning 5 ., 084 7 ., 159 ;2.,039 1 ., 504 J:,603 1., 809 1,691 1,989 2 ., 244 -
"O
<l.l
:c
..c
Street lighting .5., 204 9,692 9 ., 366 10,932 11., 323 .. 9,458 10., 076 11., 657 10., 740 15 ., 513 e
a.
C
Cisterns 722 60,5 - JJ)_. 18- 180 u
0
<l.l
N
t
Fire Department .5 ., 708 .5., 291 8 ., 316 15., 569 17., 60.5 13 ., 142 14,479 I...
I...
<l.l
..c
Watch 9., 050 10., 683 15 ., 212 18., hlt:3 17., 748 16., 834 3 ., 351
t:
:::J
LL
-
C
Street cleaning 4,200 5,500 6., 971 7,888 10., 875 6., 843 5., 732 0
..c
0)
Street lighting 13 ., 564 15., 400 18 ., 102 24., 401 24., 168 22,063 23 ., 701
.::::
>,
a.
-
0
1., 714 6., 001 743
(.)
Gas lamps and posts <l.l
..c
<l.l
0:::
September1851 August 1852 to August 1853 to August 1854 'to
Accounts to Aust 1852 Aust 1853 Aust 1854 Se;etember 1855
e
"'O
Cl..
Q)
0:::
-220-
Table VIII
?
ESTJllJ.ATED TAX RA.TES FOR SELECTED YEARS
IN THOOSANDTHS OF A DOLLAR
Year Rate
1834 .0063
1835 .03h.
1836 .023
:;t.838 .0051
1839 .0066
1840 .0060
1843 c0084
1844 .0086
1845 .0075
1846 .0084
1847 .0085
1850 .012
*The tax records, like so many other official documents for the period
under study, have long since ceased to exist. Therefore, it becomes
necessary to base a tax estimate on the real estate valuations for a
given year and the amount sought to be raised by taxation. wnen one
of these figures is lacking, it then becomes impossible to estimate
the ta. rate for that year.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-221-
Table IX
$1,184,540
Table X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-223-
Table XI
Expenditures
Interest on stocks $ 630
Table XII
2
FINANCIAL STATEI:'.IENT FOR 1835
2. ., April 4, 1836.
-22.5-
Table XIII
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-226-
Table XIV
4
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1837
358,822
-227-
Table XV
.5
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1838
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-228-
Table XVI
6
FINA.lCIAL STAT.EI1ENT FOR 1839
Receipts
.A.mount in City Treasury as of February 28, 1840 $ 7,898
Received for taxes for 1839 75,993
Received balance of truces for 1838 7,427
Marke.t fees 1,344
Municipal Court fees 1,3 63
Fines 294
H. F. Franklin for rent 68
For vaults 51
.For opening, paving and regulating streets 60,939
For wells and pumps 1,277
Proceeds of temporary loans 36,356-
From real estate 3,078
Bonds payable on city loan 7,000
Bills payable 5,ooo
Total ReceipJlis $208,091
Exoenditures
Advertising and printing $ 782
Cleaning streets 1,504
Fire Department 8,456
6. ., April 2, 1840 ,
-229-
Table XVII
7
FINANCJ.AL STA'.I'El'IBNT FOR 1840
Receipts
Amount in treasury on March 1, 1840 $ 12,502
Expenditures
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-231-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-232-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-233-
Table XVIII
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-234-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-23.5-
Table XIX
Salaries 60
Interest on city loan account 23
Temporary loans 13,000
Bills payable 5,ooo
Certificate account 37,000
Bonds payable, city loan 26,000
Real estate 7,429
9. --
Ibide, March 30, 1843.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-236-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-237-
Watch 9,596
Well and pump repairs 810
Real estate 23,452
Bills payable 17,350
Temporary loans 13,000
Certificate Account 21,000
Bonds payable to M. Martin 677
Advance payments on individual accounts 967.
For opening streets and avenues 85,793
For regulating, paving and turnpiking streets 47,581
Wells and pumps 2,298
Lamps and posts 2,953
Public cisterns 180
City Park grading 8,659
Total Expenditures $323,171
Unexpended Balance 18,856
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-238-
Table XX
lO
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1843
Receipts
Balance on hand, March 1, 1843 $ 18,8.56
Balance of tax receipts for 1842 3,578
Tax l'eceipts for 1843 81,212
Special Sessions 640
Contingent Fund 4,077
Interest on city loan 2,465
Interest on contingent account 215
Salaries so
Public market receipts 2,010
Well and pump repairs 8
Advertising 1,539
Street cleaning 85
Hospital account 300
Hunicipal court
Street repairing 39
Vaults and cisterns 93
For regulating and paving streets. hl,867
Opening streets 38,577
Wells and pumps 2,775
Lamps and posts 1,099
Real estate 976
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-239-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Municipal Court 2,179
Sinking Fund 5,ooo
Street repairing 6,229
Regulating and pa ving streets 42,831
Opening streets
Wells and pumps 1,285
Lamps and posts 1,166
Real estate 5,6o6
Existing liabilities 39,295
City Park grading 7,472
Bonds payable to M. Martin 98
Advances on individual accounts 31,000
Tempora!"J loans 8,000
Total Expenditures $276,766
Unexpended Balance n,296
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-241-
Table XXI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-242-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-243-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-244-
Advertising 3,465
Public markets 1,748
Wells and pumps 1,853
Lamps and posts 909
Certificate account 38,000
City Park grading 11,062
City loan of 1843 1,500
Real estate 3,358
12
$327,777
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-245-
Table XXII
13
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1845
Receipts
Cash on hand March 1, 1 845 <i
,P 7,929
Balance of taxes, 1844 675
Taxes of 1845 83,154
Special Sessions 5,604
Municipal Court 2, 117
Police 200
Street openings 22,999
Street regulating and paving 44,659
Street cleaning 4,102
Street repairing 2,300
Street lighting 15,025
Fire Department 5,ooo
Watch 10,000
Sala...'l"i.es r:' Onn
.;,vvu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-246-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-247-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-248-
Table XXIII
Receipts
Cash in Treasury, March l, 1846 $ l ., 883
Truces for 1846 ll8,2!i4
Special Sessions 5 ., 600
Municipal Court 2., 141
Police 200
Opening streets 29., 678
Regulating and paving streets 72,031
Street cleaning 4 ., 565
Street repairing 2.500
Street lighting 16,003
F.i.re department 8,500
Watch 10,000
Salaries 6 ., 5'00
Contingent 18,276
Repairs of wells and pumps 1 ., 812
Interest on city bonds 36 ., 679
Assessments on city property 101.
Sinking .fund 5,oao
Advertising 2,u,
Public markets 2 ., 160
Wells and pumps 2 ., 219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-249-
$ 5i5
Taxes, 1846 119,696
Special Sessions 7,230
Municipal Court 2 ., 234
Police 74
Opening streets 25 .,.569
Regulating and paving streets 67 ., 932
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-250-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table XXIV
1
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1847 '
Receipts
Balance on hand, March 1, 1847 8., 718
Tax receipts from 1845 and 1846 14,141
Tax receipts for 1847 l26,6oO
Special sessions 5 ., 152
Municipal court 1 ., 898
Police 200
street openings 34 ., 854
Street regulating and paving 67 ., .300
street cleaning 6., 065
Street repairing 3,500
Street lighting 16 ., 007
Fire Department 6 ., 797
Watch 16,200
Salaries 7500
Contingent 12 ., 612
Well and pump repairs 1., 800
Interest on ,c.t.ty bonds 39,695
Sinking fund 5., ooo
Advertising 2,001
Public markets l,652
Wells and pumps 2,5:t.5
Public cisterns 2,392
15 .,Aprill, 18480
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-252-
numbering only Q
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-254-
Salaries 6 ., 514
Contingent 13;362
Well and pump repairs 1., 908
Interest on 'City bonds 37 ., 980
Assessments on city property 20S
Sinking Fund 5., ooo
Advertising 1,877
Public markets 2,161
Wells and pumps 2,244
Public cisterns 2,176
Lamps and posts 893
Interest on contingent account 85 5
City Park grading . 764
Expenses.city convention 1 ., 000
Certificates 71., 000
Real estate [Payment on City Halb7 .58,101
Road repairs in Eighth and Ninth wards 1., 017
Well and pump repairs in Eighth and Ninth wards 32
Ward maps 1 ., 610
Gowanus Bay Canal 269
Cash in Treasury, March 1, 1848 17 ., 387
Total Expenditures $547 ., 941
-255-
Table XXV
16
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1848
Receipts
Cash on hand March 1., 1848 $17,387.
Taxes of 1848 l.58,171
Special Sessions 7,707.
Municipal Court 2,022
Police 200
Opening streets and Washington Park 24,469
Street regulating and paving 152,504
Street clear.ing 6,000
Street repairing 5,ooo
Street lighting 22,000
Fire Department 10,001
Watch 16,000
Salaries 8 ., 500
Contingent 11,193.
Well and pump repairs 2,000
Interest on c-ity bonds 52 ., 667
Assessments on city property 2,822
Sinldng Fund 12,877
Advertising 1,679
Public markets 2 ., 659
Wells and pumps 3,587
Table XXVI
1
FINANCIAL STATEMENT.FOR 1849 7
Receipts
Cash on hand, March 1, 1850 $26,263
Taxes for 1849 190,791
Special Sessions 14,508
Municipal Court 361
Opening streets and Washington Park 35,136
street regulating and paving 132,898
Street cleaning 8,000
Street repairing 5,500
Street lighting 25,000
Fire Department 13,530
Watch 20,000
Salaries 10 ., 999
Contingent 6,905
Well am plL repairs 1,228
Interest on city bonds 54,242
Assessments on city property 12,992
Sinking Fund 12,877
Advertising 2,651
Public markets 3,121
Wells and pumps 4,089
Public cisterns 3,686
Lamps and pests 2., 481
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-260-
Table XXVII
18
FINANCI.AL STATEMENT FOR 1850
Receipts
Cash on hand, May l, 1850 $ 8,176
Tax of 1850 181,892
Street repairs 5,,oo
Real estate, 'South Ferry 600
Well and pu,mp repairs 1,320
Interest on city bonds 51,622
Salaries 10,600
Contingent interest 1,006
Interest on village stock 655
Sinking Fund 20,377
Certificates 114,000
Assessments on city prope:r;ty 5,217
Street openings 18,246
Table XXVIII
Receipts
Cash on hand, Sept. 1, 1651 $ l.,643
City tax 388,564
Assessments on city property 3,527
Gas lamp posts l.,137
City bonds 40,000
Interest on city bonds 60,480
Interest on Washington Park 7,292
Map of Seventh Ward 350
Map of Sixth Ward 1;0
Map of Tenth Ward 150
Street lighting 45,ooo
Fire Department 15,647
Salaries --1.17
-
Contingent 18.,037
Advertising 4.,680
Contingent interest 8,603
Police and Justice courts 7,16
Police 82,228
Cleaning streets ll., 836
Street repairs 8,243
Well and pump repairs 4,741
Certificate 90,000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-267-
Table XXIX
FilfANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 1853
General Statement of Receipts and Expenditures on all Accounts from
September 1, 1852, to August 31, 1853, including Tax.Appropriations
20
and Transfers
Paid Paid
Former Current Paid
Received Debt Expenditure Total
Cash in Treasury September 1, 1852 37,709
Assessments oncity property l,.500 1 ., 353 1 ., 353
Gas lamp posts 2,9o6 2,9o6 2,9o6
City bonds 28,000
Interest on city bonds 60,480 60,480 60,480
Interest on Washington Park bonds 7,292 7,292. 7,292
Map Fifth Ward 100 70()' 100 800
Lighting streets 40,000 6,135 32,835 38,969
Fire Department 21,795 3,380 15,420 19,300
Salaries 32,400 32;236 32 ! 236
Sinking Fund 30,677 30,677 30,677
Public markets 2,442 593 1,743 2,342
Advertising 5,749 670 4 ., 510 5,181
Contingent i nterest 5,4o6 l., 177 1,177
Police and Justice courts 7,159 494 6 ., 641 7,135
Police Department 79,037 l,254 75., 426 76,680
Cleaning streets 16,895 1,170 17,153 18,324
Paid Paid
Former Current Paid
Received Debt Expenditure Total
Repairing streets 5,ooo 2,846 6,284 9,130
Repairing wells and pumps 5,519 1,497 . 4,993 6,490
Real estate sales of 1851 1,910 731 731
Eighth and Ninth Ward Police 5 52
2
.,,City Hospital 2,000 2_,000 2,000
Water 9,921 34l; 34,272 24,614
Contingent 81,229 4,.326 uo,994 _ 115,320
Common schools 70,500 70,500 10,,00
Police Eighth Ward 1,94.3 318 1 ., 41.ih ::t,762
Police Ninth Ward 2,750 527 2,201 ,734
Second Ward Map 1,000
Ninth Ward grades 2 ., 500 2,500 2,500
Eigttth Ward grades 3,093 1,593 1,593
Seventh Ward grades 4,261 4,261 4,261
Cleaning streets Eighth Ward 125 125 125
Cash in Treasury September l, 1853 20,754
577 ., 422 24 ., 811 531 ., 856 577,422
-269-
Table XXX
Advertising 8,6n
Contingent interest 7,966
Police 78,542
Street ,cleaning ,23 ., 210
Street repairing 13,898
Well and pump repairs 6,4.55
City Hospital. 2,000
Water account. 23,328
Police, Eighth Ward 1,832
Police, Ninth Ward 2,859
Street grading, Ninth Wari 3,671
Eighth Ward 3,872
Seventh Ward 672
Street cleaning, Eighth Ward 255
Police and Justice's courts 5,053
Street cleaning, Ninth Ward 333
Street grading, Sixth Ward 600
Board of Health 3,043
Certificates on hand 16,500
Cash in Treasury llij 270
Table XXXI
ReceiEts
Cash on hand, January l, 1855 $140,972
For current expenses 161,000
For Williamsburgh debts 150,000
For school expenses 44,200
Expenditures
Paid on account of Paid
Brooklyn prior to Paid on account current
1855 of Williamsburgh expenses
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-274-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-275-
/Anon.7 New-York and Long Island Ferry Bill; B1rief Argument on Behalf of
- theTpPircants: Brooklin, 1945. - - -
[J,non;J Remarks the Report of the Committee .2f the Common Council.!
. Brooklyn Ferry and. Water Rihts. Brooklyn, 1851.
-- -
'!""'-....J ,n1.,_,3._
.. t.C;IJV......'0... VJ.VU.:>. V.L C v..,.u. .1.LVd.U.:>' nc.:,..a..,... ut.,;:, d.U.U .!.UC..L.I.'
.,. Q----r--:..1-..t
__ _
\,;\,;l.l.pc:1v..LVU.
Brooklyn, 1894. . --
Light Company, Brooklyn Gas. Rules and Regulations of the Brooklyn Light
Company for the Introduct,ion !: Gas. Brooklyn, 18W.
Ostrander, Stephen M. Brooklyn, Present. Brooklyn, 1883.
Pierrepont, Henry E. "Brooklyn Rec>llections." A letter to Dr. Henry R.
Stiles, February 11, 1863. Long Island Historical Society Collection.
{.Pierrepont, Henry E.J Remarks Report the Committee of the Common
Council of Brooklyn Fer:ry: Water Rights Brooklyn, 1851.
Purcell, Richard J. and Poole, Rev. John F. "Political Nativism in Brooklyn."
Journal the American Irish)li.storical Society, XU:..II (:j.941) ., l0-.56
Books
Howard, Henry w. B., ed. The Eagle Brooklyri. 2 vols. Brooklyn, 1839.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-279-
-----
Compendiums -
and -----
Directories
Compiler Year Title
Nicholas and Delaree 1833-34 Brooklyn Directory
A. Spooner and w. Bigelow 1834-35 Brooklyn Directory
Lewis Nichols 1835-36 Brookn Directory
Lewis Nichols 1836-37 Brooklyn Director,
Brooklyn Directory
Alfred G. Stevens and
Win. H. Marschalk 1838-39 Brooklyn Directory
Henry L. Ogden 1839-40 Brooklyn Directory
T and J. w. Leslie and Broo!4m . Directory
w. F. Chirchester ' 1840-41 Yearll Advertiser
T. and J. w. Leslie 1841-42 Brooklyn Alphabetical.:.!!'.:! Street
Directory andYearll Advertiser
J E. and J. K. Webb and Brooklyn Alphabetical and Street
w. J. Hearne 1842-43 Directory Yearly Advertiser
W. Leslie and Henry R. Brooklyn Alphabetical and Street
and'W J. Hearne 1843-44 Directory . Yearly Advertiser
H. R. and w. J. Hearne Broo.lyn Alphabetical and Street
and E. Van Nostrand 1844-45 Directory and.Yearly Advertiser
H. R. and W. J. Hearne 1845-46 Brooklyn Alphabetical and Street
Directory and Yearll Advertiser
lV. J. Hearne and and
Brooklyn Directory -
E. Van Nostrand 1846-47 Yearly Advertiser
We J. Hearne and J.E. Brooklyn Directory -
and
Webb 1847-48 Yearly Advertiser
H. E. and w. J. Hearne 1848-49 rooklyn Directory and
Yearly Advertiser
Thomas P. Teale 1848-49 Brooklyn City Directory -and
Annual Advertiser .. . .
-281-
Government Documents
Federal
Bureauof the Census. Eleventh Census. Washington, D. c., 1895.
--
New York State
Census of 1835. Albany, 1836 .
Census of 1845. Albany J..846.
Census of 1855. Albany, 1857.
New York State Assembly. Communication to the Legislature From the.Minority
of the Committee Appointed to Forward aCopy of the Proposed --
New Charter
for the City of Brooklyn. Albany, 1849.-- -- --
New York State Board of Commissioners. Proposed Act to Incorporate the
Cities of Brooklyn and Williamsburgh, and the Town of Bushwick, into
Municipal Gover'iiiiient, To Be Known and Calledthe City of Brookiyn.
Williamsburgh, 1654.
New York State Legislature. Laws. 21 vols. Albany, 1834-1855.
New York State Legislature. An Act to Consolidate and .Amend the Act Entitled
itAn Act to Incorporate the Cityof Brooklyn, Passed April6,]JJ34u and
- - -
the_ous Amendator:vThereof .. ltba.ny, 1846.
-282-
New York State Legislature. Report .2f the Special Committee on Tenement
Houses in - and Brooklyn. Albany, 17.
New York State Legislature. Report of the Committee on the Public Health,
Medical Colleges and Social Relations to the Condition of Tenement
Houses in Cities !_ New York Brooklyn. Albany,1867.
Cit:z
{Jiayemeyer, W. F.J Communication the Mayor,,!!! Reference
and Brooklyn Ferries. New York, 'IB48 (New York City Board of Aldermen.
Doc.no': 19. 1848).
New York City Board of Aldermen, Ferry-Committeee Additional Report ,2!
Ferry Committae, !!! Favor .2.f Leasing Fulton and South Ferries,
March 11, 18t"i4: pp. 1155.;;.oo lDoc. no. o3).
City C harter Convention. Protest of Delegates From the 8th and 9th Wards,
Report of Select ConunitteeThereon. Brooklyn,. Imi8:- -
Index to Report of Committees From May -l, 1843 to 25, 1849. /J,i.ngs
Co1.U1ty Hallof Record -
Canals Drainage
Brooklyn Common Council. Street Committee. Major Douglass' Report on the
Drainage and Qraduation of That Part of Brooklyn -
Over -
and Adjacent
to Gowanus Meadows. Brooklyn, 1am. .
City and Public Buildings
Common Cou.cil, Select Committee on City Hall. Report. Brooklyn, 1842.
Common Council. Proceedings.!!! Connect with New City Armory. Brooklyn, 1854.
Conunon Council. History.! the Municipal Department Building and Other
Public Buildings _!!! City _f Brooklyn., Brooklyn, 1878.
Consolidation
Water Supply
Stryker, F., B. Address Furnishing the City Water. Brooklyn, 1848.
a286-
Common Council. Report .2 the Standing Connnittee .2!! Water, and Communications
of Wo Jo McAlpine and J.B. Jervis, Engineers, - On -
the Subject -
of Water.
Brooklyn, 1852. - -
Burnett, Ward B. Report ! Water Committee 2f Common Council of
City Brooklyn, Proposed the Introduction of Water.
Brooklyn, 1554.
Common Council, Special Committee on Alleged Aiterations in the Water Bill.
Report. 1853.
Common Council, Special Committee. Report on Communication of Henry Ruggles
Supply the City Water. Brooklyn, 1854. -
Common Council. Report of a Sl?eci.al Committee on Communications of Heney
Ruggles to Supply the City with Water. Br9oklyn, 1854.
Common Council. Documents Plans Submitted the Water Committee to
Common Council of the City of Brooklyn. Brooklyn, 18.54.
Water Commissioners. Renert of Johns. Stoddard, City Surveyor, on the
Subject -
of Supnlying Brooklyiiwith
- Water ---
By tiiewell System-Brooklyn,
1854.
Commissioner of Water Werks. History Description of the Water Supply.
Brooklyn, 1896.
Common Council Ordinances
Cady, Howard c., ed. Ordinances of City! Brooklyn. Brooklyn, 1850.
Dikeman; John, Jro The Brooklyn Compendium. Brooklyn, 1870.
Common ColliCil : Act to Revlse and Amend the Several -
Acts Relating -
to -
the
City Brooklyn. Brooklyn,-rfili9. - .
Newspapers
Private Collections
Travel Accounts