Chapter LIX: Section 88 (8)

A royal commission which lately investigated the situation of
affairs on the Treaty Coast of Newfoundland found that the
coast "is 800 miles in extent, with a permanent population of
13,300, all but 76 of whom are native-born, while the total of
French frequenting the territory during the fishing season
does not exceed 600 men. The French, last year, according to
the official reports furnished to the Admiralty, occupied only
eight cod and nine lobster stations, with a personnel as
above, while their catch of cod was but 18,000 qtls., worth
about 36,000 dollars, and their pack of lobsters about 7,000
cases, of about equal value. And is it not monstrous that, in
order to satisfy vexatious French claims and perpetuate
obsolete treaty claims, the people of the Treaty Coast should
he coerced and victimised, and the development of the whole
colony retarded, as has been the case? The Commissioners
found that, despite the liberal bounties given by France for
fishing on the Treaty Coast, the allowance of 50 francs per
head by the St. Pierre municipality for the same purpose, and
the special appropriation the past two seasons in the French
colonial grant 'for extending operations on the Newfoundland
coast, 4,000 francs,' the number of men frequenting there and
the number of stations operated are steadily declining every
year, and in ten years' time it is doubtful if there would be
a Frenchman on the coast. Still, so powerful is the French
fetish that the shore is tabooed as far as industrial
development is concerned, and the hinterland likewise. No
grant of land can be given there except with the stipulation
that it is subject to French rights. No permanent building can
be erected within half a mile of high-water mark, because the
French claim the strand for drying their fish. No wharves can
be built by which to load minerals, because they will
interfere with the French fishery. (Only last year they
stopped the erection of one which was twenty-two miles from
their nearest station, and Mr. Reid, the railway contractor,
when he wanted to build a wharf at Bay St. George to land
construction materials, had to seize the opportunity of the
French warship in the Bay leaving to coal and renew stores,
and put an army of men to work, who built it in seventeen
days, so that it was completed when the Frenchmen returned.)
{321}
No mineral developments are permitted because they may hamper
the French. Competition on near-by fishing grounds is
prohibited for the same reason. Illicit (?) lobster packers
are hunted like malefactors for disregarding a 'modus vivendi'
as unjust as it is ridiculous. Bait-selling is only possible
by permission of the French and on their terms. The railway
was deflected 120 miles out of its proper course because of
French objection to a terminus on the shore. In fact, fishing
is only pursued with the greatest difficulty, while the land
is closed to agricultural settlement and mining enterprise.
And that, too, in the face of the fact that the French 'army
of occupation' consists of about one vessel, one station, and
about sixty fishermen on every 100 miles of coast, whose
annual catch is worth about 10,000 dollars."

_P. T. McGrath, France in Newfoundland
(Nineteenth Century, January, 1899)._

In 1890, a temporary agreement ("modus vivendi") concerning
the lobster packing and other questions, was arranged between
the British and French governments, which has been extended
from time to time, very much to the dissatisfaction of the
Province. The last extension expired at the end of the year
1900, and the Newfoundlanders showed a strong disposition to
resist any renewal of it. A letter from St. Johns, in
December, 1900, stated the feeling of the colony as follows:
"Last year the term of the 'modus vivendi' was allowed to run
out, and a deadlock, such as now seems inevitable, would
doubtless have been created; but when the end of December came
the reverses in South Africa appealed to our patriotism as the
oldest British colony, and the Legislature unanimously passed
at one sitting a Bill renewing the arrangement for another
year. The colony was unable to afford any more substantial aid
at the time, as her naval reserve had not then been
inaugurated, but this course on her part testified to her
sympathy with the Imperial mother, and her readiness to
relieve her from other difficulties. This year Newfoundland is
taking the bit between her teeth, and the result must be a
complication which, however unwelcome to the Imperial Cabinet,
cannot but have been regarded as inevitable sooner or later.
If our case is as strong as we are led to believe that the
Royal Commission represents it to be, there is certainly good
ground for our insisting upon remedial measures. It must not
be forgotten that the French now keep up less than 15 cod and
lobster stations altogether on the treaty coast, and that
about 550 men is the number they had there last season. As
against this the resident population is nearly 14,000, and the
objections which they urged against the 'modus vivendi' in its
early days apply with equal strength now. These people are
shamefully treated, the colony as a whole is humiliated, and
the recognition of such conditions by England without making
an attempt to get rid of them is a cause of reproach which she
should remove without delay."

Much newspaper discussion of the subject has been going on in
both England and France, with an apparent showing of readiness
on the part of the latter country to bargain with the British
for cessions in West Africa or elsewhere. How much of a price
Great Britain is willing to pay for release from the treaty of
Utrecht is a question the answer to which cannot be forever
postponed.

Despite its reluctance, the Newfoundland Legislature was
prevailed upon, in February, 1901, to pass an Act renewing the
"modus vivendi" for another year. Several members who
supported the measure declared that they did so for the last
time, and only because of an unwillingness to embarrass the
British government during the continuance of the South African
war.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1901.
Change of Government.

Early in the year, Sir Henry McCallum was transferred from the
governorship of Newfoundland to that of Natal, and Sir
Cavendish Boyle was appointed to succeed him.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1897.
Constitutional Amendments.

On the 28th of September, several proposals of constitutional
amendment were voted on in New Jersey. One prohibitory of
gambling was adopted by a small majority. Another, that would
give the suffrage in school elections to women, was rejected
by about 10,000 majority.

NEW SOUTH WALES.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA; and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1894-1895.
The Lexow Investigation of Tammany government.
Election of Mayor Strong.

"On the second Sunday in February 1892 the minister of a
wealthy Presbyterian church, Dr. Charles Parkhurst, startled
his congregation by preaching an outspoken political sermon,
in which he attacked the Tammany administration in most
unmeasured language. 'The mayor and those associated with him
are polluted harpies [he declared]. Under the pretence of
governing this city they are feeding day and night on its
quivering vitals. They are a lying, perjured, rum-soaked, and
libidinous lot. … Every effort to make men respectable,
honest, temperate, and sexually clean is a direct blow between
the eyes of the mayor and his whole gang of lecherous
subordinates, in the sense that while we fight iniquity they
shield and patronise it; while we try to convert criminals
they manufacture them, and they have a hundred dollars
invested in the manufacturing business to every one invested
in converting machinery. … Police and criminals all stand in
with each other. It is simply one solid gang of criminals, one
half in office and the other half out.' This sermon was the
starting point of the new anti-Tammany movement. Dr. Parkhurst
was called before the grand jury to prove his words, but he
was obliged to admit that all he knew was the repeated
accusations that appeared in almost every local newspaper.
Thereupon the grand jury publicly rebuked him, and sent a
formal presentment to the Recorder declaring their
'disapproval and condemnation' of the sermon. Everyone at once
concluded that no more would be heard of Parkhurst in
politics, but they did not know the man. The clergyman called
a couple of detectives to his aid, and personally visited the
lowest resorts, to obtain the necessary evidences of
corruption. A month later he preached a second political
sermon, and this time he took into the pulpit with him a
bundle of affidavits. He repeated and emphasised his former
accusations, and again he was summoned before the grand jury.
This time the result was different. 'The police are either
incompetent or corrupt,' the jury declared, and citizens
generally agreed. …

{322}

"In 1894, the State Senate … appointed a committee, this time
under Senator Lexow, to inquire into New York municipal
affairs. Soon after the committee was appointed Mr. Croker
found it convenient to hastily resign the leadership of
Tammany and go to Europe. The worst accusations of the
bitterest enemies of Crokerism were almost all more than
substantiated by the evidence given before the committee. It
was found that the police were utterly corrupt, that they
extorted blackmail from gambling house keepers, women of ill
fame, saloon keepers, and others, and in return gave them
their protection. Even thieves, in some instances, were found
to be regularly paying their police dues in return for
immunity from arrest. One police justice had to admit that he
received a hundred dollars from a keeper of a disorderly
house. Everywhere that the Lexow Committee probed, or that
other competent critics examined, the same thing was found.
For several years New York had been living under a system of
universal blackmail. Saloon keepers had to pay Tammany to be
allowed to evade the Sunday closing law, merchants to be
granted the simplest conveniences for getting their goods into
their premises. But in the case of Mr. Croker no dishonesty
could be proved. It was known that he had in a few years risen
from a poor man to a millionaire, but in no instance could it be
shown that he had acquired this wealth by corruption. His
friends said he had made his money by horse-racing and real
estate speculation, but unfortunately Mr. Croker did not go
before the witness stand to finally clear up the matter. While
the committee was sitting he remained in Europe.

"The usual storm of indignation followed the 'Lexow' exposure,
and most reputable citizens united once more to overthrow
Tammany. Colonel Strong, a well-known banker, was chosen
reform candidate for mayor, and secured a majority of fifty
thousand. In 1895 he began his administration, and initiated a
vigorous reform movement. The police force was entirely
reorganised; municipal offices were given for merit rather
than political reward; the streets, for the first time in the
memory of the oldest inhabitant, were really kept clean, and
the whole local government was taken out of politics. Mayor
Strong's time of office has not been without its faults, but
among those faults dishonesty has not been one. Rather the
mistake has been to enforce all laws too rigidly, and make too
few allowances for the weaknesses of human nature in a
cosmopolitan resort. Police President Roosevelt's strict
enforcement of the Sunday closing and social purity laws was
only his duty, but yet it cost the reformers many votes.
Although the report of the 'Lexow' Committee did Tammany much
temporary harm, it recovered quickly. After the mayoral defeat
of 1894 it pulled its forces together again, and rallied
around it all the ambitions men who were disappointed in Mayor
Strong's bestowal of his patronage. In the autumn of 1895 it was
able to score a minor victory at the polls, and it carefully
nursed its strength for the election of November 1897. Mr.
Croker, notwithstanding his repeated declarations that he was
'out of politics,' came back to New York, and at once took
over command of his party."

_F. A. McKenzie,
Tammany
(Nineteenth Century, December, 1897)._

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1895.
Consolidation of the Astor, Lenox and Tilden foundations
to form the New York Public Library.

See (in this volume)
LIBRARY, NEW YORK PUBLIC.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1896-1897.
Consolidation of New York, Brooklyn, and neighboring towns,
in the Greater New York.

"The project of uniting the cities of New York, Brooklyn, and
the cities, towns and villages contiguous to the same, into
one great municipality, although long mooted before 1890,
first took definite form in that year, by the passage on May
8th, by the Legislature, of Laws 1890, Chapter 11, entitled
'An Act to create a commission to inquire into the expediency
of consolidating the various municipalities in the State of
New York, occupying the several islands in the harbor of New
York.' …

Pursuant to the provisions of this act, a commission
consisting of the following members was appointed, viz.:
Andrew H. Green, Frederick W. Devoe, John L. Hamilton, J.
Seaver Page of New York; J. S. T. Stranahan, Edward F. Linton,
William D. Veeder of Brooklyn; John H. Brinkerhoff of Queen's
county; George G. Greenfield of Richmond county; Charles P.
McClelland of Westchester county; and Campbell W. Adams, State
Engineer and Surveyor, ex officio, and Albert E. Henschel
acting as secretary. In 1893, the commission presented to the
Legislature a bill providing for the submission of the
question of consolidation to a vote of the residents of the
various municipalities proposed to be united into one city.
The following year the Legislature provided for the referendum
suggested by the commission. … The following vote was cast
upon the question of consolidation in the ensuing election on
November 6, 1894:

for consolidation; against;
New York, 96,938; 59,959;
Kings, 64,744; 64,467;
Queens, 7,712; 4,741;
Richmond, 5,531; 1,505;
Mount Vernon, 873; 1,603;
Eastchester, 374; 260;
Westchester, 620; 621;
Pelham, 261; 153.

At the opening of the Legislature in 1895, the Commission of
Municipal Consolidation Inquiry presented a report with a
proposed bill declaring the entire district before mentioned
(with the exception of the city of Mount Vernon) consolidated
with the city of New York. The bill, however, failed of
passage because of the addition of an amendment of referendum
in the last hours of the session of 1895, too late for further
action. The Legislature, as a result no doubt of this vote on
consolidation, did annex to New York city the towns of
Westchester, Eastchester, Pelham and other parts of
Westchester county.

"Early in January, 1896, the Legislature appointed a joint
sub-committee of the Cities Committees of both Houses to
inquire into the subject of the proposed consolidation and
report March 1, 1806. The committee made a report and
submitted a bill favoring consolidation. The bill as reported
was passed by the Legislature and was submitted to the Mayors
of the cities of New York and Brooklyn, and to the Mayor and
Common Council of Long Island City pursuant to the provisions
of the Constitution.
{323}
The bill was returned to the Legislature without the
acceptance of the cities of New York and Brooklyn. The
Legislature repassed the bill over the vetoes of the Mayors of
New York and Brooklyn, and it became a law May 11, 1896, with
the approval of the Governor. This act (L. 1896, ch. 488) is
entitled, 'An Act consolidating the local governments of the
territory within the city and county of New York, the counties
of Kings and Richmond and Long Island City and the towns of
Newtown, Flushing and Jamaica and part of the town of
Hempstead, in the county of Queens, and providing for the
preparation of bills for enactment into laws for the
government thereof.' … Pursuant to the act of consolidation,
the Governor (Levi P. Morton) appointed on June 9, 1896, the
following members of the commission to draft the proposed
charter, viz.: Seth Low, Benjamin F. Tracy, John F. Dillon,
Ashbel P. Fitch, Stewart L. Woodford, Silas B. Dutcher,
William. C. De Witt, George M. Pinney, Jr., Harrison S. Moore.
Mr. Fitch having resigned from the commission, the Governor
appointed Thomas F. Gilroy in his place. By virtue of the act,
the following gentlemen were members of the commission: Andrew
H. Green, president of the commission appointed by L. 1890,
ch. 311; Campbell W. Adams, State Engineer; Theodore E.
Hancock, Attorney-General; William L. Strong, Mayor of New
York; Frederick W. Wurster, Mayor of Brooklyn; and Patrick
Jerome Gleason, Mayor of Long Island City. The commission
organized on June 25, 1896, appointed Benjamin F. Tracy as
president and George M. Pinney, Jr., as secretary, and named
William C. De Witt, John F. Dillon, Thomas F. Gilroy, Seth
Low, Andrew H. Green, Benjamin F. Tracy, and George M. Pinney,
Jr., as a committee on draft of proposed charter."

_M. Ash,
The Greater New York Charter,
introduction._

The committee submitted a draft charter to the commission on
the 24th of December, with a report in which a fundamental
feature of its plan is thus set forth: "It is clear that the
work of administering all of the Departments over so large a
space of territory, situated on three islands and partly on
the main land, must be subdivided in order to be successfully
done. The draft, therefore, proposes to divide the city into
the five Boroughs which nature and history have already
formed; that is to say:

(1.) Manhattan, which consists of the island of Manhattan and
the outlying islands naturally related to it.

(2.) The Bronx; that is to say, all that part of the present
City of New York lying north of the Harlem, a territory which
comprises two-thirds of the area of the present City of New
York.

(3.) Brooklyn.

(4.) Queens, consisting of that portion of Queens County to
be incorporated into the Greater New York.

(5.) Richmond, that is, Staten Island.

Power is given to the Municipal Assembly to subdivide these
Boroughs still further, in case of need. The Greater New York
will start with these five Boroughs for administrative
purposes. Your Committee have reconstructed the Borough
system, as submitted in the tentative draft, upon lines which
we are of one accord in believing to be a better and more
appropriate development of the plan for the Greater New York.
These lines give to each Borough various boards through which
the prosecution of local improvements may be facilitated
within the limits of small districts, but reserve to the
Municipal Assembly the right to incur indebtedness and to
authorize the making of contracts."

The draft thus prepared was subjected to criticism in the
commission and in public hearings, and, after amendment and
revision, was reported to the Legislature in February, 1897,
as the charter recommended by the Commission for the
consolidated city called "The Greater New York." It received
some amendment and was passed. On submission, as required by
the State constitution, to the mayors of New York and Brooklyn
and the mayor and Common Council of Long Island City, it was
approved in Brooklyn and Long Island City, but returned
without approval by the mayor of New York. The Legislature
then re-enacted the bill, and it was made law, by the
governor's signature, on the 4th of May, 1897.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1897 (September-November).
Election of the first Mayor of Greater New York.

The first municipal election in Greater New York excited a
passion of interest that was natural in the city itself, but
extraordinary in the degree and the extent to which it spread,
not only throughout the United States, but widely in the
foreign world. The election was looked upon as the test of a
vastly important experiment in the democratic government of an
enormous city. The charter of the great consolidated
municipality had lodged tremendous, unprecedented power and
responsibility in the office of its mayor. The people were
given an opportunity to determine by a single act of suffrage—
by their choice of a single man—the character of their
government. Would they choose that man, at the beginning of
the new system, in the interest of the corrupting organization
in party politics which had misruled the old city of New York
for years, or would they rise to the grand opportunity
afforded them, and set a strong, free, independently honest
man at the head of their local government. Democracy in
municipal affairs, at least, had never been put on trial so
sharply before. To a great number of the citizens of New York
the duty of the hour was plain, and they promptly set their
hands to it. Many months before the election they began the
organization of a Citizens' Union, in which men of all
political parties, sinking every other difference, should join
for the defeat of Tammany and "Boss" Croker, and for the
election to the mayor's office of the best mayor to be found.
With remarkable unanimity, their thought of the man turned to
Seth Low, President of Columbia University, but one time mayor
of Brooklyn, where his vigor, his firmness and his
independence had been conspicuously proved. An extensive
canvass of the city showed so widely spread a feeling in favor
of Mr. Low that he was named at the beginning of September as
the candidate of the non-partisan Citizens' Union. It was
hoped that the whole opposition to Tammany Hall could be
united in support of Mr. Low, representing as he did no
partisan hostility to any organization in national or state
politics. It was especially hoped and believed that the
Republican party organization would endorse the choice of the
Citizens' Union and make Mr. Low (himself a strong Republican)
its own candidate. By nothing less than a general combination
could the compact forces of Tammany Hall be overcome, and that
fact was well understood.
{324}
It was a fact so plain, indeed, that when the head of the
Republican organization in New York persisted in setting a
party candidate in the field, to divide the opposing voters of
the city, there seemed to be small doubt of the intention with
which it was done. The master politicians of the party were
evidently more willing that the vast powers of the mayoralty,
in the organization of the government of Greater New York,
should be wielded by their prototypes of Tammany than that
they should be given to independent hands. The party was
obedient to them, and General Benjamin F. Tracy was put
forward, by a Republican convention held September 28, in
opposition to Mr. Low. The night previous, another candidate
had appeared, in the person of Mr. Henry George, author of the
economic doctrine of the "single tax," supported ardently by a
large following, especially in the Democratic party. A section
of that party, organized under the name of the United Democracy,
had nominated Mr. George, and his nomination was endorsed a
week later by a great assembly which claimed to represent the
Jeffersonian Democracy of New York. On the 30th of September
the nomination of the Tammany Democracy was given to Judge
Robert A. Van Wyck. Between these four principal candidates,
the result of the election was only put in doubt by some
question as to the strength of the Democratic vote which Mr.
George would draw away from Judge Van Wyck. It was a question
extinguished sadly, three days before the election, by the
sudden death of Mr. George. He had not been in good health,
and the strain of the exciting canvass broke him down. His
followers made a hasty nomination of his son, Henry George,
Jr., in his place; but the personal prestige which might have
carried a large vote with them was lost. Of the triumph of
Tammany there was no longer any doubt, and no surprise was
felt (though abundant grief and anger found expression) when
the returns of the voting on November 2d were announced. Judge
Van Wyck was elected by the ballots of 233,997 citizens, against
151,540 cast for Mr. Low, 102,873 for General Tracy, 21,693
for the younger Mr. George. Tammany would have been beaten if
the Republican vote had gone to Mr. Low. Besides the four
principal candidates here named, there were four other
nominees who received small numbers of votes. Lucien Sanial,
put forward by the Social Democrats, received 14,467; William
T. Wardwell, named by the Prohibitionists, received 1,359;
Patrick J. Gleason and Alfred B. Cruikshank, running with
little more than some personal support, received a few
hundreds of votes each.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1899 (April-December).
The Mazet Investigation.

An investigation of charges against the city government, by a
committee of the Legislature, Mr. Robert Mazet, chairman, was
opened in April, 1899, the examination of witnesses being
conducted by Mr. Frank Moss. The investigation followed lines
much the Same as those pursued by the Lexow committee, in
1894, and revealed much the same foul state of things,
especially in the department of police. But there was
evidently less earnestness in the committee; the probing of
iniquities was fill less thorough, and the whole proceeding
was stopped with suspicious suddenness as soon as it drew near
to prominent members of the party by which it was controlled.
It called fresh attention to the rottenness in municipal
politics, and it led to the creation of a new commission for
the revision of the Greater New York charter; but otherwise it
was most unsatisfactory.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1899-1900.
The Ramapo Water Contract.

In August, 1899, Bird S. Coler, Controller of the City,
exposed a gigantic scheme of plunder involved in a contract
with the Ramapo Water Company, which Tammany officials,
assisted, it was said, by some interested Republicans, were
attempting to crowd through the Board of Public Improvements.
The contract would have bound the city for forty years to pay
to the Ramapo Company $70 per million gallons for 200,000,000
gallons of water daily. In his Message to the State
Legislature, January 2, 1901, Governor Odell thus referred to
the matter: "Under chapter 985 of the laws of 1895, as
amended, the Ramapo Water Company was given the power of
condemnation for the purpose of securing to it the water and
lands necessary for its purposes. During the year 1899 an
attempt was made to enter into a contract with this company by
the municipal board empowered to make such contracts. This
proposition, when presented to the citizens of New York, was
severely criticised by them, and the question of continued
municipal ownership of their water supply was thus brought to
their attention. The Legislature of 1900 enacted a law which
made the consummation of such a contract impossible without
the unanimous consent of those empowered to make such
contract. The ownership of water rights sufficient to provide
the city of New York with an ample supply of pure and
wholesome water should be entirely under the control and
direction of the municipality." Action on the subject was
taken by the Legislature, which, in March, repealed the Act of
1895, thus stripping the Ramapo Company of its extraordinary
powers.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900 (January-September).
The Rapid Transit Tunnel Contract.
Projected Tunnel to Brooklyn.

"The great project of underground rapid transit is now an
assured thing. A few months ago the prospect seemed very dark.
It is true that the rapid transit commissioners, a very able
and upright body of men, with the invaluable aid of a
distinguished engineer, Mr. Parsons, had a good while ago
decided on the route and the plans; but the way seemed blocked
by a series of semi-political and semi-legal difficulties. …
Suddenly these difficulties began to disappear. … The
financial plan adopted was that the city should provide the
money which a contractor would expend in building the road,
the contractor following the plans furnished by the city,
submitting to municipal inspection, and agreeing upon his part
to pay the interest on the bonds sold by the city to obtain
the money, and also to pay enough into a sinking fund to
provide for the ultimate redemption of the bonds. Bids were
called for on November 15, to be opened on January 15. … It
turned out that two well-known contractors were the only
bidders, and the award was given to Mr. John B. McDonald. His
bid was $35,000,000. The theory of this contract is that the
road is to be the property of the city, leased for fifty years
to the contractor, who is to pay a rental that will be large
enough so that the taxpayers will not have expended a penny. …
{325}
The main trunk line will start at the post-office (City Hall
Square) on the south and proceed northward along the spine of
Manhattan Island, following the general direction of Broadway
to Kingsbridge, a distance from the point of beginning of
twelve or thirteen miles. Near the upper end of Central Park,
at a distance of six or seven miles from the point of
beginning, a branch of the tunnel road will take a
northeasterly direction, terminating at Bronx Park, which is
about the same distance north as Kingsbridge, but several
miles further east. The road will have four tracks for six
miles of main line, two of which will be used for local trains
and two for express trains."

_American Review of Reviews,
February, 1900._

Work on the great undertaking was begun promptly, and had made
great progress within the first twelve months.

In September, 1900, preliminary steps were taken toward the
construction of a connecting tunnel, under the East River, to
Brooklyn, and through the congested districts of the latter
borough. "At least three years will be necessary for the
preliminary work and actual construction before trains are
running. … Tentative estimates have been made, and these are
said to be from $8,000,000 to $10,000,000. … The route as
contemplated … starts in connection with the Manhattan
proposed tunnel at a point at or near the intersection of
Broadway and Park Row; thence under Broadway and Bowling Green
to Whitehall Street; under Whitehall Street to South Street;
thence under South Street to the East River, and under the
river, striking the Brooklyn shore at a point in Joralemon
Street between the East River and Furman Street, under
Joralemon Street to Fulton Street, to the Borough Hall, out
Fulton Street to Flatbush Avenue, and under this thoroughfare
to the railroad station. On the New York side the route
includes a loop to be built whose debouching point shall lie
between Bowling Green and Exchange Place in Broadway, running
under Broadway to Bowling Green, and thence under Bowling
Green to State Street, to and under Battery Park to Whitehall
Street, thence returning under Whitehall Street and Battery
Park to State Street and to Broadway. The construction calls
for two tracks, and avoids all grade crossings, each track to
have a separate tubular tunnel."

_New York Times,
September 28, 1900._

On the 25th of January, 1901, announcement was published that
the Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners had adopted a
resolution definitely providing for the extension of the Rapid
Transit Railroad to Brooklyn. The original plan of route in
Brooklyn had been chosen. The only change made was in
Manhattan. The trains would be run through State St. instead
of Whitehall, as formerly planned, with a loop at the Battery
for Manhattan trains.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900 (April-May).
Ecumenical Conference on Missions.

See (in this volume)
MISSIONS.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900 (June).
Great fire at the Hoboken piers.

See (in this volume)
HOBOKEN.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900-1901.
Revision of the charter.

Carefully as the Greater New York charter had been drawn, it
proved unsatisfactory in the working, in various respects, and
a commission to revise it was appointed in 1900. The report of
the commission was submitted to the Governor on the 1st of
December, and transmitted, with his approval, to the
Legislature in the following month. In the hands of the
Legislature, the bill embodying the revised charter underwent
considerable amendment, very much, it would seem, to its
detriment. It was passed by the Senate on the 3d of April and
by the Assembly on the 4th, and went to the Mayor of New York
for the submission to his judgment which the State
Constitution of New York requires. Some of the more important
changes in the charter made by the revision, as passed, are
the shortening of the mayor's term of office from four years
(which the revision commission had advised retaining) to two
years, with eligibility for re-election (which the commission
had advised against); an increase of the administrative powers
of the presidents of boroughs; abolition of the municipal
Council and creation of a Board of Aldermen of 73 members;
reorganization of various departments of the municipal
administration.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1901 (March).
Offered gift of $5,200,000 to the Public Library
by Andrew Carnegie.

See (in this volume)
LIBRARY, NEW YORK PUBLIC.

NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1894.
The revised Constitution.

See (in this volume)
CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK.

NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1896-1897.
Passage of the Raines Liquor Law.

An Act for the regulation of the liquor traffic, which was and
is the subject of much controversy, was passed in March, 1896,
by the Legislature of the State of New York. From its author,
Senator John Raines, it has borne the name of the Raines Law.
It heavily increased the tax on the selling of liquor, raising
it to $800 on common "saloons" in the city of New York; to $650
in Brooklyn; to $500 in other cities having more than 50,000
and not more than 500,000 inhabitants; and to rates in lesser
cities and towns which ranged from 8100 to $350. It forbade
the licensing of any liquor shop within 200 feet of a
schoolhouse or a church, and also forbade the opening of any
new shop of that character in a residence district without
consent of two-thirds of the property owners. It prohibited
the sale of liquor on Sundays, except in hotels and clubs; but
this provision furnished a means of evasion which was speedily
brought into use. "Raines hotels" and "Raines Clubs," as they
were called, sprang into existence everywhere, sufficiently
answering the requirements of the law to escape its penalties.
These and other defects were considerably remedied by
amendments of the Act in April, 1897. It survived a powerful
attack in the Legislature at that time, the whole strength of
the leading cities in the State being brought against the law.
The country districts were generally united in supporting it,
partly on principle, and partly because of the extent to which
it lightened the burdens of taxation. By apportioning
two-thirds of the enormous revenue raised under the Act to the
towns, counties and cities in which it is collected, and
one-third to the state treasury, the Raines Law fortified
itself strongly in more than the moral sentiment of the
people. Under the Raines Law all local excise boards are
abolished, and the whole licensing and regulating of the
liquor traffic is placed under the supervision of a State
commissioner.

NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1897.
The Black Civil Service Law.

See (in this volume)
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1897-1899.

{326}

NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1898.
Primary Election Law.

An Act which aims to make the political party caucus for
nominating candidates, and for choosing delegates to
nominating conventions, a "primary election," conducted under
strict regulations of law and guarded by registration, was
passed by the New York State Legislature and signed by the
Governor March 23, 1898.

NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1899.
New Civil Service Enactment.

See (in this volume)
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1897-1899.

NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1899 (May).
Taxation of public franchises.

A measure of great importance, introducing a new and eminently
just principle in taxation, was carried through the
Legislature of New York in May, by the energetic influence of
Governor Roosevelt. Recommended by the Governor in a special
message on the 27th of March and passed in an unsatisfactory
form, a bill to provide for the taxing of public franchises
which did not promise successful working was being left on his
hands when the Legislature adjourned. He promptly called a
special session and renewed to it his urgent recommendations.
"I recommend," he said, "the enactment of a law which shall
tax all these franchises as realty, which shall provide for
the assessment of the tax by the Board of State Tax
Commissioners, and which shall further provide that from the
tax thus levied for the benefit of each locality, there shall
be deducted the tax as now paid by the corporation in
question. Furthermore, as the time for assessing the largest
and wealthiest corporations, those of New York and Buffalo,
has passed for this year, and as it will be preferable not to
have the small country corporations taxed before the larger
corporations of the city are taxed, I suggest that the
operations of the law be deferred until October 1, of this
year."

Within a few days, the desired bill was passed by both Houses
of the Legislature, signed by the Governor and became a law.
The public franchises to which it relates are defined in its
first section, as follows:

"The terms 'land,' 'real estate,' and 'real property,' as used
in this chapter, include the land itself above and under
water, all buildings and other articles and structures,
substructures, and superstructures, erected upon, under or
above, or affixed to the same; all wharves and piers,
including the value of the right to collect wharfage, cranage,
or dockage thereon; all bridges, all telegraph lines, wires,
poles, and appurtenances; all supports and inclosures for
electrical conductors and other appurtenances upon, above, and
underground; all surface, underground, or elevated railroads,
including the value of all franchises, rights, or permission
to construct, maintain, or operate the same in, under, above,
on, or through streets, highways, or public places; all
railroad structures, substructures, and superstructures,
tracks, and the iron thereon, branches, switches, and other
fixtures permitted or authorized to be made, laid, or placed
on, upon, above, or under any public or private road, street,
or grounds; all mains, pipes, and tanks laid or placed in,
upon, above, or under any public or private street or place
for conducting steam, heat, water, oil, electricity, or any
property, substance or product capable of transportation or
conveyance therein, or that is protected thereby, including
the value of all franchises, rights, authority, or permission
to construct, maintain, or operate in, under, above, upon, or
through any streets, highways, or public places, any mains,
pipes, tanks, conduits, or wires, with their appurtenances,
for conducting water, steam, heat, light, power, gas, oil, or
other substance, or electricity for telegraphic, telephonic,
or other purposes; all trees and underwood growing upon land,
and all mines, minerals, quarries, and fossils in and under
the same, except mines belonging to the state. A franchise,
right, authority, or permission, specified in this
subdivision, shall, for the purpose of taxation, be known as a
special franchise. A special franchise shall be deemed to
include the value of the tangible property of a person,
co-partnership, association, or corporation, situated in,
upon, under, or above any street, highway, public place, or
public waters in connection with the special franchise. The
tangible property so included shall be taxed as a part of the
special franchise."

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY:
The Hall of Fame for Great Americans.

See (in this volume)
HALL OF FAME.

----------NEW ZEALAND: Start--------

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1891-1900.
Democratic experiments.
Labor laws and the land system.
Compulsory industrial arbitration and its working.

"I have been a studious observer of every phase of social life
and legislative change that has taken place in this colony
during the past seven years," wrote U. S. Consul Connolly, at
Auckland, in July, 1896. "I arrived at the very beginning of
the experimental era—and it is no misnomer to call much of the
legislation of the past few years experimental in the truest
sense [see, also (in this volume), AUSTRALIA: RECENT
EXTENSIONS OF DEMOCRACY]. But while it is so, there is a most
gratifying feature which compensates for the violence done to
the feelings of those whose motto has been 'let us permit
matters to remain as they are, they suit us well enough.' That
the legislative innovations of the immediate past have shocked
the sensibilities of a large number of prominent and
well-to-do colonists is unquestionably true, but, at the same
time, as against any inconvenience they may have experienced
on this account, there is the fact of increased prosperity in
nearly every branch of trade and industrial life throughout
the country, farm products are fetching satisfactory prices,
manufacturing industries are running full time and paying good
wages and fair interest on the capital invested, labor is
remuneratively employed, interest on money has fallen from 6
and 7 per cent to 4 and 5 per cent (this of itself, is
sufficient to prove that money is abundant). Millions of
English capital are flowing in for the development of the gold
fields of the colony, and the credit of the country at no
period of its history stood so high on the English market as
it does to-day.
{327}
I may also mention that, through the genuine encouragement
given by the Government to the small-farmer class, the waste
lands of the country are being rapidly taken up wherever land
is found suitable for farming or grazing purposes.
Notwithstanding the admitted prosperity of the colony and the
fact that the Government have had a substantial surplus over
expenditure now for a number of years, the national debt
continues to increase. But the increased indebtedness is not
of the usual character, for the reason that the country has
security for nearly all the money borrowed in recent years.
Money had to be borrowed under Government guaranty to save the
Bank of New Zealand from closing its doors. This was done to
avert financial disaster. …

"Money has been borrowed to purchase large estates for the
purposes of settlement. Those who take up land under this
system, as already stated, pay an annual rental sufficient to
cover the interest on the purchase money and the cost of
administration. The land is always vested in the Government
and this must be regarded as a good asset. One million and a
Half sterling was borrowed last year in England at 3 per cent
per annum. This £1,500,000 loan is called the ' advances to
settlers loan.' This money is lent out to farmers at 4 per
cent per annum. … I need scarcely add that the large
landholders, the mortgage companies, and the money lenders
generally did not favor this kind of legislation, particularly
the cheap advances to settlers, but their opposition was utterly
futile. With the advent of the one-man-one-vote and the
extension of the franchise to women, the power of corporate
wealth in this country appears to have been irrevocably
destroyed. Whether this be for good or evil, I am not, of
course, in a position to say. I can say, however, that no ill
effects of the change are apparent up to the present; on the
contrary, the country is more prosperous and at least as
honestly and as economically administered as it was under the
old régime.

"To say that this country is, in my opinion, more truly
democratic than any country in the world would be merely
stating a simple truth; and to say that the present Government
is a workingman's Government is equally true. A great deal of
the legislation of recent years, however, is in advance of the
requirements and ideas of the people, with the result that
some of it has proved to be annoying and irksome to many. This
is especially true of some of the labor laws. The Government
are honestly endeavoring to place the masses in possession of
their legitimate rights with as little friction as possible,
and at the same time with due regard to vested interests and
the propriety of things generally. But while struggling thus
with the duties and responsibilities of their official
positions, the members of the Ministry are torn asunder by the
clamorous and impracticable demands of the unreasonable and
irresponsible. The sympathies of the Government are
unmistakably with the people, but the honor, the dignity, and
the welfare of the country will not permit them to depart from
a course too inconsistent with the sense of obligation, fair
dealing, integrity, and responsibility which are the admitted
characteristics and duty of all civilized governments. The
great danger at the present moment is too much legislation in
one direction. This is the one thing wherein the Government
find it really hard to resist the demands of organized labor.
There is, however, a very gratifying disposition manifesting
itself among the more reasonable members of the labor
societies to let well enough alone for the present—a
disposition it is much to be hoped may extend throughout the
whole body of the workers. If not, I have no hesitation in
predicting a serious revulsion of public sentiment and
sympathy within the next few years."

_United States Consular Reports,
January, 1897, page 35._

"Australian experience seems in many ways to prove the value
of our system of written constitutions, to be construed and
enforced by the courts. The effect on the minds of
ill-informed legislators of the knowledge that they can do
anything for which they can get a majority, is naturally to
beget extravagance and an overweening sense of power, and lead
to excessive experimentation. … It is in devices for the
protection of labor that most of this experimentation occurs.
New Zealand affords the best example of it. It provides
elaborate legal protection for the eight-hour day. A workman
cannot consent to work overtime without extra pay. The state
sees that he gets the extra pay. It looks closely after the
condition of women and children in the factories. It sees that
servant girls are not overcharged by the registry offices for
getting them places. It prescribes one half-holiday a week for
all persons employed in stores and offices, and sees that they
take it. It will not allow even a shopkeeper who has no
employees to dispense with his half-holiday; because if he
does not take it, his competition will injure those who do.
The 'labor department' of the government has an army of
inspectors, who keep a close watch on stores and factories,
and prosecute violations of the law which they themselves
discover. They do not wait for complaints; they ferret out
infractions, so that the laborer may not have to prejudice
himself by making charges. The department publishes a
'journal' once a month, which gives detailed reports of the
condition of the labor market in all parts of the colony, and
of the prosecutions which have taken place anywhere of
employers who have violated the law. It provides insurance for
old age and early death, and guarantees every policy. It gives
larger policies for lower premiums than any of the private
offices, and depreciates the private offices in its documents.
It distributes the profits of its business as bonuses among the
policy-holders, and keeps a separate account for teetotalers,
so that they may get special advantages from their abstinence.
The 'journal' is, in fact, in a certain sense a labor manual,
in which everything pertaining to the comfort of labor is
freely discussed. The poor accommodation provided for servants
in hotels and restaurants is deplored, and so is the
difficulty which middle-aged men have in finding employment.
More attention to the morals and manners of nursemaids is
recommended. All the little dodges of employers are exposed
and punished. If they keep the factory door fastened, they are
fined. If housekeepers pretend that their servants are
lodgers, and therefore not liable to a compulsory
half-holiday, they are fined. If manufacturers are caught
allowing girls to take their meals in a workshop, they are
fined.

{328}

"As far as I can make out, too, without visiting the country,
there is as yet no sign of reaction against this minute
paternal care of the laborer. The tendency to use the powers
of the government chiefly for the promotion of the comfort of
the working classes, whether in the matter of land settlement,
education, or employment, seems to undergo no diminution. The
only thing which has ceased, or slackened, is the borrowing of
money for improvements. The results of this borrowing have
been so disastrous that the present generation, at least, will
hardly try that experiment again."

_E. L. Godkin,
The Australian Democracy
(Atlantic Monthly, March, 1898)._

NEW ZEALAND:
Labor Laws.
Compulsory industrial arbitration.

"There is not in any other country in the world a more
valuable or more enlightened body of Labour laws than those
now upon the statute book of this progressive colony. They
cover almost every risk to life, limb, health, and interest of
the industrial classes. They send the law, as it were,
everywhere a worker is employed for daily wages to fling the
shield of the state over him or her in the labour of
livelihood. The bare enumeration of these laws will indicate
the far-reaching ground they cover:—The Coal Mines Act, the
Master and Apprentices Act, the Conspiracy Law Amendment Act,
the Trade Union Act, the Servant's Registry Offices Act (for
the protection of servant girls against the risks of dishonest
offices of that kind), Contractors and Workmen's Lien Act,
three amended Employer's Liability Acts, three amended
Shipping and Seamen's Acts, two Shops and Shop-assistants
Acts, the Factories Act, and the Industrial Conciliation and
Arbitration Act of 1894. … The Industrial Conciliation and
Arbitration Act, passed in 1894 … has attracted much attention
outside New Zealand. An Act with a similar purpose, but
permissive in its operations, was passed … in the New South
Wales Legislature in 1892. It was limited in duration to four
years, and was not a success. The New Zealand bill was more
skilfully drawn, and, possessing the element of a gentle
compulsion, has so far achieved its aim. The Act begins by
inviting all parties to join 'in lawful association for the
purpose of protecting or furthering the interests of employers
or workmen in, or in connection with, any industry in the
colony.' Such parties as accept the legal invitation are
allowed to register themselves as 'an industrial union,' and
this step once taken they are enticed on through a network of
solicitations, provisions, and safeguards, until they find
themselves, almost without knowing it, agreeing to everything
that follows. Trades Unions, or any other labour organization,
or any combination of employers, can register as individual
bodies without a mixed association of workers and employers.
Once registered, they are in the network of arbitration:—'The
effect of registration shall be to render the industrial
union, and all persons who may be members of any society or
trade union, so registered as an industrial union at the time
of registration, or who after such registration may become
members of any society or trade union so registered, subject
to the jurisdiction by this Act given to a Board and the Court
respectively, and liable to all the provisions of this Act,
and all such persons shall be bound by the rules of the
industrial union during the continuance of the membership.' …
'Every industrial agreement duly made and executed shall be
binding on the parties thereto, and on every person who at any
time during the term of such agreement is a member of any
industrial union, trade union, or association party thereto,
and on every employer who shall in the prescribed manner
signify to the Registrar of the Supreme Court where such
agreement is filed concurrence therein, and every such
employer shall be entitled to the benefit thereof, and be
deemed to be a party thereto.' … 'In and for every district
there shall be established a Board of Conciliation, to have
jurisdiction for the settlement of industrial disputes
occurring in such district, which may be referred to it by one
or more of the parties to an industrial dispute, or by
industrial agreement.' … 'Every Board shall consist of such
equal number of persons as the Governor may determine, being
not more than six nor less than four persons, who shall be
chosen by the industrial unions of employers and of workmen in
the industrial district respectively, such unions voting
separately, and electing an equal number of such members.' …
Should this body itself be unable to come to a satisfactory
decision it may refer the matter in question to a small
committee of its members fairly representing each side. If a
settlement or reconciliation be unattainable in this way,
either party to the dispute can appeal to the Court of
Arbitration, which is constituted as follows:—'There shall be
one Court of Arbitration for the whole colony for the
settlement of industrial disputes pursuant to this Act. … The
Court shall consist of three members to be appointed by the
Governor, one to be so appointed on the recommendation of the
councils or a majority of the councils of the industrial
associations of workmen in the colony, and one to be so
appointed on the recommendation of the councils or a majority
of the councils of the industrial associations of employers of
the colony.' … 'No recommendation shall be made as to the
third member, who shall be a Judge of the Supreme Court, and
shall be appointed from time to time by the Governor, and
shall be President of the Court.'"

_M. Davitt,
Life and Progress in Australasia,
chapter 68._