History of Brooklyn (New York), 1834-1855: Political and Administrative

. :.i ...
History .2f Brooklyn, 1834-1855: Politieal and

Administrative Aspects.
Submitted by
Jacob Judd
April, 1959
A dissertation in the Department of History submitted

to the faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy at New York University.
Under the supervision of Professor Bayrd Still
Approved
Table of Contents
Page
'
Preface i
Chapter I . Physical Features 1

The 'WardE 2
The Changi..'1g a.ce of Brooklyn 5
.Housing 8
Chapter II Population 17
Increasing Population 18
Negroes 19
Sources of Population 20
Antagonisms Against Foreign-Born 25
Formation of Ethnic Organizations 31
Chapter III Governmental Organization 33
City Charter of 1834 34
Animosity of New York.City to
Charter 34
Position cf Mayor 36
Biograpr.ical Sketches of Mayors 38
Attempts to Revise Charter in 1844 51
Charter Co.,rntion of 1847 53
Charter of 1650 56
The Powexs of the Council 57
Consolidation with Williamsburgh and
Bushwiok 60
Cha.pter IV Politics 67
Early Campaigns 68
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Is Born 69
Campaign Issues 70
Nature of Politics 81
Chapt.er V City Services 85
Market Facilities 85
Street Lighting 89
Fire Protection 94
Police and Watch Departments 101
Hospital Facilities 113
Guarding the Health o:f the Community 117
Chapter VI Water and Sanitation 122
Sanitation 122
Sewage Disposal 127
Drainage 129
Water Supply 130
Chapter VII Streets and Parks
A City Plan 141
Opening, Paving and Repai1"ing Streets J.42
Use of Streets By Railroad Cars 149
The Atlantic Avenue Tunnl 151
The Need for Parks 152
City Park 152
Aborted Plans for a Park on th
Heights 155
Washington Park 156
Chapter VITI Financing the Govermnent 159
Annual Real Estate Valuations 159
Taxation 160
Issuing Bonds 163
The Erection of a City Hall 164
Chapter IX A Tale of Two Cities 172
Ferries on the East River 172
Sovereignty Over the River 18.3
Legal Boundary Lines 185
A Proposal toBuild a Tunnel 187
A Bridge Across the River 188
Consolidation? 189
Appendix
Map or Brooklyn in 1834 194
Map of Brooklyn in 1855 195
Table I Population of Bro9klyn 196
II Rate of Population Increase 197
III ijayors of Brooklyn 198
IV Councilmen of Brooklyn 199
V Mayoralty Elections 212
VI Real Estate Valuations 215
VII Expenditures or Selected City Services 218
VIII Estimated Tax Rates for Selected Years 220
IX Bonds Issued By the City of Brooklyn 221
X Annual Interest Payments on City Bonds 222
Financial Statement for the Following Years:
Table. XI 1834 223
XII 1835 224
XIII 1836 225
XIV 1837 226
xv 1838 227
XV! 1839 228
XVII 1840 230
XVIII 1841 2 33
XIX 1842 235
xx 184.3 238
XXI 1844 241
XXII 1845 245
XXIII 1846 248
XXIV 1847 251
XXV 1848 25 5
XX:VI 1849 258
XXVII 1850 261
XXVIII 1852 264
XXIX 1853 267
XXX 1854 20
..,.,
XXXI 1855 272

Guide to Source Materials 275
Bibliography 276
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Preface
In 1932 a Committee of the .American.Historical Association, under

the chairmanship of Arthur M. Schlesinger, reported on the fields of
research deemed worthy of historical study. Of twenty general subjects
listed, the first was "Urban life and urbanization as a factor in the
development of American civilization."1 American scholars ., following
the advice of the Committee, have turned to the field of urban history
with profitable results, many of which have been pointed out by Blake
McKelvey in an article published in the .American.Historical Review in
2
1952.
Brooklyn, New York, is one of the nation's cities deserving of
historical treatment. Until 1898, it was a city in its own right. Upon
consolidating with Williamsburgh and Bushwick on January 1, 1855 ., .
Brooklyn became the third largest city in the nation. At ihe time of the
1. A Report by the Committee of the American Historical Association - on -

the
Planning of Research {New York, 1932), p. 93.
2. Blake McKelvey, ".American Urban History Today" .American Historical Review,
LVII (July, 1952), 919-29.
ii
Census of 1890 it ranked fourth, with a population of 8o6,343; and even

though it has been a part of greater New York City since 1898, it still
has many qualities of individuality that warrant its study as an urban
unit.
This singularity was recognized at an early date by various chroniclers.
In 1824, Gabriel Furman, a lawyer and native resident, published Notes:
Geographical Historical, Relating To Town.Of Brooklyn. 3 These
Notes were devoted primarily to the colonial history of the area. Next
in sequence crune Benjamin F. Thompson's The History .2 Long Island, pub
lishGd i 1834. This was followed in 1845 by Nathaniel Prime's History
of Long Island 1845. These books dealt with reminiscences, outstanding
events of the revolutionary generation, and genealogy. Using these as a
basis, Henry R. Stiles, a physician, added to the lis his three-volume
History of the City of Brooklyn, published in the years 1867 to 1870.
This was to be the standard work on Brooklyn for more than seventy years.
Stiles's History entailed primarily a chronological narrative interspersed
with biographical sketches of outstanding individuals. His compilation
could be viewed as a calendar of events lacldng in an over-all view and in
interpretation
The work of Stiles and his pedecessors fell short of the standards
of present-day urben historians who contend that if "the nature of the
changes in American urban life is to be clearly comprehended, .American
cit.ies must be studied as living societies in each of their various as-
3. Gabriel Furman, Notes, Geographical .And Historical, Relating To

Of Brooklyn (Brooklyn, 1824). -
iii
.
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
4. Charles Hirschfeld, 11 Ba1timore, 1870-1900: Studies in Social History11

Johns Hopkins University Studies!!! Historical and Political Science,
Series LIX, no. 12, p. 7.
5. Ralph Foster Weld, Brooklyn Village 1816-1834 (New York, 1938), p. viii.
iv
example, no official Common Council records are available outside of the

newspapers until 1853. The fate of these early records has not definitely
been determined, but it is the consensus of Brooklyn officialdom that they
were destroyed in a series of fires. Fortunately for the historian, the
daily newspapers printed the minutes of the meetings. Other official
documents _of the period were systematically destroyed in order to provide
space for more recent records. The officeholders who maintained this
policy should not be condemii.ed, for similar procedures were followed in
many large municipalities.
Brooklyn's problems were not unique during the period 1834 to 1855;
rather they mirrored what was occurring in similar fashion in other urban
areas. Thus it is the aim of this thesis both to help complete the story
of Brooklyn's history and to use the material so as to exhibit the nature
of urban development in the United States in the antebellum period.
Chapter I
The 24,000 or so persons who res.ided in Brooklyn as of 1834 had a

choice or nine wards in which to live. One of these was Brooklyn Heights,
or the First Ward. The Heights had changed rapidly in character during
the first half of the 18oos from a "rural rambling place" to a residen
tial area favored by the wealthier citizens of Brooklyn. The rural
atmosphere of the Heights had practically v anished by 1850. By the late
1800s, only _residents more adva.i;iceciin years could remember the days
when the Heights had "groves of cypress trees," frequented by young lovers
1
who watched "the moonlight upon the bay. 11
Brooklyn Heights, besides being a favorite area for native Brooklyn
ites, also drew a large number of' its residents from New York. Many
well-to-do New York merchants had begu_n, as early as 1819, to move from
2
lower Manhattan to Brooklyn's First Ward. The Heights was-singularly
fortunate in its geography. The locality received its name for its
l. Horatio C. King, Reminiscences of Brooklyn (Brooklyn, 1891), Po 4.

2. Christopher Tunnard and Henry H:-Reed, ft_merican Skyline, (New York,
1955), p. 70.
See maps of Brooklyn Wards, PP 194-95.
-2-
commanding position overlooking the Bay of New Yorko In the mid-1800's,

the Heights was a bluff rising to a height of 5o feet above the water
line, and extending in length a little over half a milee Because of its
view of the Harbor and Bay of New York, it is no wonder that so many
wealthy New Yorkers chose to live in magnificent homes on the Heights
while maintaining their businesses in New York City. The grandeur of
these "stately and elegant residences" was attested to by Alexander

Mackay, an Englishman who visited Brooklynin the late l840s.3 An
example of one of these mansions was the lovely Bowen House on Willow
Street with its large terraced lawns.
4
This socially desirable location also proved to be a favorite home
site for those engaged in maritime trade. A leader 0 the China trade
and President of the New York Chamber of Commerce, Abiel A. Low, dwelt
on the Heights. Several wealthy sea captains, such as Captain Will H.
Low, Captain 11 Nat11 B. PaL,ier, and Captain Samuel Samuels, also maintaind
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
J. Alexander Mackay, The Western World (London, 1849), I, 81.

4. Brooklyn Savings B"aiik, --
Old Brooklyn Heights (New York, 1927), P 20.
5e Ibid., P 16.
6. State of New York, Census .2f 1835 (Albany, 1836), Po 43.
-3-
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.
7. Rufus R. Wilson, Historic

8. State of New York, Census
Lr! Island (New York, 1902), pp. 176-77.
.2.. 835, p., 43.
-4-
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
10. Long Island Star, Jan. 7, 1836.

ll. ., Sept.-r5; 1839.
-6-
accomplished in fifteen years. 11 H e wrote, with somewhat more pride than

testimonial accuracy, It is almost the work of an age in any other city,
11
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-
the majority of residents in 1834 could be found within a radius of three

quarters of a mile around the ferry slip0 15 Trees lined the solitary and
tranquil residential streets, which according to a Spanish visitor, were
16
as quiet as Spanish cemeteries. Other commentators also stressed the
rural atmosphere which pervaded the populated areas. Contemporary prints
and lithographs show one-family homes widely scattered along these tree
shaded streets. Church steeples constituted the highest physical points
in these residential areas.
With the passage of twenty years, the entire scene was changed. The
visitor of the 1850 1 s still had to depend on the ferries for transportation,
but several lines now erlsted. Assuming that the Fulton Ferry was again
used, the passenger now alighted from the Ferry House onto a w.i.de thorough
fare. Omnibuses and cabs awaited to carry him to the residential and
industrial areas which now were spread over some twenty-five square miles.
As the visitor of the fifties walked along Fulton Street, the nature of
the metamorphosis which had occurred became apparent. The majority of the
small wooden buildings of the thirties had-been demolished. Rising.. in
..
.,.,, ..
.. :,.. . ' ,
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
15. Hall, Communication to Common Council j January l, 1855

George
(Brooklyn, 1855), passim. -
16. D. Ramon de la Sagra, Cinco Meses en los Estados - Unidos de la
America del Norte Desde el 20 de Abr:i.Tal
-- 23 - de IB35
de Setie..inbre - -
(Paris, 1836) ., pp ,. 183-8'[:'- -
-8-
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,
17. Brooklyn. Directories.

through the exigencies of time, multiple dwellings. Whole areas of the
city, deteriorating into slums,, were characterized by squalid living
conditions, immorality and a high disease rate The homes were filthy and
lacked adequate ventilation. After describing the housing conditions in
New York in this vein, the Committee said, "The remarks that have been
made with reference to tenement houses in New York, apply with equal force
18
to similar buildings in Brooklyn. 11 They did not, however, comment specif-
ically on the housing conditions which obtained in.Brooklyn.
Unlike the situation in New York, Brooklyn's multiple-dwelling struc
tures were usually built as such and did not become this through conversion.
The Committee listed the number of such dwellings in each of the wards,
along with the number of families in each building and the average ber or
persons in each family. According to the Report, the First Ward, Booklyn
Heights, had fifty multiple-dwelling units which on the average housed from
five to seven families in each. The average number of ?ersons in each
1
family was said to be four. 9
In the Second Ward, fifty-nine multiple units could be found. These
housed on the average fiye to seven families comprising four persons in each
family. The Third Ward had only five multiple units and the Fourth Ward,
nine.teen. The Fifth Ward, however, contained 115 multiple-dwelling units.
The average number of families in each unit still remained between five and
seven. There were several units in this ward which contained twelve to four
teen families. One building, with only l4 rooms: housed twelve families.
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.
20. State of New York Report Special Committee Tenement Houses

!,1l !2!!, Brooklyn (Albany., 1856j, v, No. 199, p. 2.
21. New York State, Renort of the Special Committee on Tenement Houses -
in
Brooklyn {Albany, 1857), III, no. 2"cg. p.l.
-11-
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
view of construction. Referring to the erection of mult.iple dwellings in

South Brooklyn, the Advertiser in 1846 remarked, 11 Sprung into existence
24. Star, June 4, 1852.

25. Brooklyn Daily Advertiser, Oct. 1., 1846.
26. Eagle ., July 21,_1845.
-13-
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
27. Advertiser, Jan. 13, 1846.

28. Star, Aug. 19, 1851.
29. star, Dec. 2, 1852.
-14-
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
30. Eagle, Aug. 19, 1846.

31. Eagle, Aug. 16; 1847e
32. Daily Times, Sept. 27, 1851; , Sept. 30, 1851.
-15-
a result of the better financial conditions prevalent in the country

following the years of hardship brought on by the Panic of 1837 and to
more stringent laws regarding frame structures. Of the new buildings in
3
1848 and 1849, 1,117.were of brick and 749 were frame dwellings. 3
It appears that Brooklyn also resorted to a unique way of increasing
living space. The Englishwoman, Sarah Maury, in 1845, declared that she
witnessed the ::cu.1.,4uus operation of raising a house" in Brooklyn. "The
object was effected not by adding to the top story, but by cutting the
house from the basement story, and after propping it up by building
underneath." She also stated that the inhabitants, wliile the-operation
was being performed, went in and out of the house by means of a ladder.
"When finished we could with difficulty distinguish it from the other
houses."
34
Brooklyn, on the eve of its consolidation with Williamsburgh and

]3ushwick in 1855, had 13,672 dwellings. Of ts number, 488 were of
stone construction, 6,196 were of brick and 8,988 were of frame con
struction. These homes had a total real estate valuation of approximately
3
$57,132,370. 5
Brooklyn showed a marked increase in the number of resideces built
throughout the entire period, 1834 . to 1855. This was a result of the
tremendous increase in population which consistently forced Brooklyn to
greaterefforts in providing adequate housing. The early population of
Brooklyn had hugged the water's edge, but as the influx of newcomers in-
33. Thomas P. Teale, Brookll!! City Directory and .Annual Advertiser -

for
1848-49 (Brooklyn, l84B); PPe 121-22; Eag'i'e; April 19 ., 1649e
34. SarahM. Maury, An Englishwoman in America (London, 1848), p. 224.
-------------
35. Census of the State of New York Tor 1855, (Albany, 1857), pp. 234-35.
-16-
creased, interior sections had to be turned into urban areas. As the

years passed, Brooklyn was losing her rural blush and attaining the
pallor of a modern cityo
Chapter II
From the seventh largest city of the United States in population in

1835, Brooklyn became the third largest in the next twenty years. l Its
population expanded from 24,592 in 1835 to 96,838 in 1850. This fifteen
year period saw an increase of 299 percent. The consolidation with
2
Williamsburgh and Bushwick in 1855, brought the total to 205,250. Sig
nificant as these figures are in themselves, a clearer picture of this
rapid development can be obtained by studying the population figures
during five-year intervals from 1835 to 1855.
The population increase was fairly consistent throughout the entire
period under study. At no time was the gain in any five-year period less
than 45 uercent, and for no five-year period did it exceed 65 percent.
The smallest rate of growth occurred in the years from 1835 to 1840, when
the increase was only,47.7 percent. This probably was a consequence of
the lean years immediately following the Panic of 1837. Yet, in the next
1. Eleventh Census of the United States (Washington, 1895), I, 370.

See "Population of Brooklyn, 11 Table I, p. 196.
2. State .2f Census 1855 (Albany, 1857), p. xxii.
-18-
five-year period, a 64.4 percent gain occurredo Excluding Williamsburgh

and Bushwick in 1855, the rate of growth in the 1850-1855 period was
53.6 percent. If the two newly acquired areas are included then the
increase was 112 percent.3
In the first five-year period, 1835 to 1840, the two wards which
showed the greatest rise in population were the Seventh and Eighth wards,
with an increment of 121 percent and 93.8 percent respectively. In the
last period, 1850 to 1855, the Eighth and Ninth wards moved into the
lead. 4 Because the Sixth and Seventh wards grew so greatly in population,
they were reduced in size in order to equalize the political divisions
of the city. Both were divided in 1850, when a new Tenth Ward was carved
out of the old Sixth Ward and the Seventh Ward was split to make a new
Seventh and an Eleventh Ward. Even this did not prove sufficient; and
therefore, in 1854, the Sixth was further split to make a Twelfth Ward.
5
Thus the city had twelve wards at the time of consolidation in 1855. .
If the population figures are examined according to male and female
inhabitants, it is found that there were more females than males in Brook
lyn throughout the period 1835 to 1855, except for one five-year period,
1840-1845 . This was the half-decade in which Brooklyn saw its greatest
population increase.
Looking at the inhabitants from the point of view of race, the per
centage of Negroes remained small when compared to the total population.
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
7. Census of 1840; 1845; 1850, passim.

8. Sixth Census;-pp. 118-19. This Census enumerates two women slaves and
a child residing in the Eighth Ward. This might possibly be an error
since slavery had been abolished in New York State.
9. Census of 1845; 1855, passim.
-20-
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
10. Star, Jan. 22, 1850.

11. Heaith Officer, Annual Report for 1851 (Brooklyn, 1852), Po 4.
12. See PPo 1-3.
13. William H. Smith, Brooklyn City and Kings County Record (Brooklyn,
1855), Po 12.
-21-
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
14. Adolph s. Benson, ed., America of the Fifties: Letters of Fredrika

Bremer (New York, 1824), -pp. 21-2.-
15. Census or 1845, passim; 1855, pp. 98-104.
16. Ibid.
-22-
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;
17. Ibid., pp. 98-104.

18. Ibid.
-23-
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;
22. Eagle, July 2, 1847.

23. Star, Sept. 8, 1836.
24. Brooklyn Advocate, Oct. 30, 1834.
-
25. Star, Anril 13, 1837.
William H. Peck, owner of several omnibus lines; John Hall, 1.Jhig politician;
26
J. o. Mahoney and H. McNamara, two wealthy Irishmen.
Although Brooklyn residents could show compassion at times, the arrival
of large numbers of Irish indigents elicited the disapproval of some of them.
Many Irishmen of this type, in order to bypass immigration restrictions en
forced at the New York port of entry, would land directly on the Brooklyn
shores. Often these illegal entrants would contact the superintendents of
the poor to make arrangements for financial assistance. The Brooklyn author-
27
ties opposed this pracice.
1 .
The increase of arrivals precipitated a nativist movement by the middle
1830 1 s in Brooklyn as elsewhere.Many native Americans were of the opinion
28
that their rights were being jeopardized by the encroaching :immigrants.
One such nativist was Francis B. Stryker, who helped to organize mass meetings
in the 1830 1 s. At one in 1835, at which he presided, the following reso
lutions were adopted:
Resolved, As a sense of this meeting, that all native
born .Americans are called upon, by the present situation of
our affairs, to band themselves together, without distinctipn
of arty, for the holy and patriotic purpose of rescuing our
civil institutions and librties from the hands of foreigners,
alike ignorant of the genius of our government and incompetent
to its just administration .
Resolved, That the laws respecting the naturalization
of foreigners, and their qualifications fo hol;ng office,
require immediate revision and alteration. 9
The, a Whig paper, warned that the organization of 11 Native American
26. Eagle, Feb. 23, 1847.

27. Ibid., April 17, 1847.
28. Richard J. Purcell and Hev. John Fo Poole, "Political Nativism in
Brooklyn" The Journal cf the American --
Irish Historical Societyi1 XXXII
(New York, 1941), pp. lo-We
29. Star, Aug. 13, 1835.
-26-
Citizens 11 would breed racial animosities. Its editor contended that if

the newcomers were claiming and exercising undue political rights, as the
nativists were charging, then the blame should not be placed directly on
the immigrants themselves, but rather on the natiYe citizens who capitalized
on the foreigners ignorance. t1The poor foreigner on his arrival is beset
by political runners, and told of rights new and wonderful to him, and of
0
privileges which he cannot appreciate. 113 The Irish, the Star pleaded .,
should not be poorly treated and discriminated against; rather they should
be given credit for all they had accomplished.
Another organizer of the "Native Americans 11 was George Hall. Hall was
a perennial joiner of causes both worthy and otherwise. He was an active
Whig politician who was twice elected Mayor with a lapse of 20 years between
terms.. Ifa.11 was the chairman at gatherings of the "Native .-"unerican Demo
crats" during October and November, 1835. This group sought to serve as
"A check to the advancement of Foreigners to the Electoral privilege ., and
to holding office." They also sought "a check to the advancement of Popery
1
in the United States so far as Popery is a political engine. 113 At another
meeting of the rrNative American Democrats, 11 at which Hall served as Pres
ident, it was agreed that the organization request Congress to endorse a
twenty-one year residency period as mandatory for citizenship.32
The long_smoldering antagonism towards the Irish finally erupted in
and
1844. A riot occurred in the neighborhood of Dean, Court,"Wyckoff streets
on the :riight of April 4. The "Native .American Party" had been having a
30. Ibid., Aug. 27, 18)5.

31. Ibid., Nov. 23, 1835.
32. Ibid., April. 1, 1836. Other speakers were Edward Copland, Conklin Brush
and Job.11 Dikeman.
-27-
meeting on Fulton Street, at which the orators were belaboring Brooklyn's

"adopted citizens." Someone informed the assembled throng that the delega
tion from the Sixth Ward might run into trouble on the way home. A group
of armed men then volunteered their services as escorts for the "Sixth
Warders." Other members of this assemblage then.threatened to despoil
several Catholic churches as part of the evening's festivities. Someone
in the crowd hurriedly rushed off to put the Irish on their guard. When
the "Native .Alllericans" came into the''Sixth Ward, they were met by a throng
of fifty to sixty anned men. vJhen lvlayor Sprague reached the scene of the
melee, and urged the "Native Ameriea:ns 11 to disband, he received the answer,
11 No1 nol go talk to the Irish! make them go horoel" His efforts to disperse
the mob were to no avail, and a pitched battle then ensued. Finally, after
extreme efforts by the police, order was restored. To ensure the continuance
0 peace, two militia companies, the Brooklyn Light Guard and the Union
Guards, were called out.33 They stayed at the scene all night, but fortu
nately their services were not requiredJ4
This disturbance caused the Roman Catholic authorities in Brooklyn to
fear for the safety of their places of worship. The Roman Catholic Church
in Court Street requested the Common Council, at a secret session, to send
adequate forces to protect their property "during the existing excitement
in the subject of Foreigners.,;J5 No further disturbances, however, occurred.
Not only were the Irish threatened by the native patriots of Brooklyn;
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
36. Eagle, Sept. 27, 1845.

37. ., April 18, 1846.
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
38. Ibid., April 22, 1846; Advertiser, April 21, 1846.

39. Eagle, April 24:, 1846.
40 .. Ibid.. , May l, 1846 ..
41. -, May 6; Aug. 22, 1846.
-30-
in the period 1850-1855. As part of the nativist movement in Brooklyn,

New York City, and elsewhere, street orators, sanctioned by the nativists,
began to preach hatred of foreigners directing their venom particularly
42
toward Irish Catholics. One such demagogue was Reverend John Beach of
the Primitive Methodist Church on Bridge Street. His meetings attracted
. crowds of nativists from Brooklyn and New York. On May 28, 1854, he spoke
to an assemblage of 600 oersons. A minor fracas occurred when, after the
meeting, a group of nativists marched through Irish territory hoping to
provoke a fight.
43 On the following Sunday, June 4, a group of 150 11 Know
Nothings" from New York assembled at Reverend Beach's church. When Mayor
Lambert ordered them to maintain peace, the group dispersed. As they were
walld..ng to the ferry, they were met by a hail of stones and clubs thrown
by Brooklyri.ites The New Yorkers answered by firing into the crowd. One
person was killed and many were severely wounded before the militia came
and restord order.44
One of the persons most active in inciting opposition to the Irish was
Johns. Orr, an itinerant street evangelist, who gained notoriety as the
Angel Gabriel." He received this title because he wore a long white robe
11
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
42 c Billington, pp. 304-05.

43. Purcell and Poole, pp. 42-47.
44. Eagle, June 4, 1854; Hery R. Stiles, History f City Brooklyn
(Brooklyn, 1869), II, 300-02.
h5. Billington, pp. 304-05.
-31-
to Brooklyn with approximately a thousand of his followers. The Brooklyn

authorities had been alerted, and therefore large numbers of extra police
were placed on duty. This enlarged constabulary was able to maintain order
despite the fact that approximately 101 000 persons gathered to listen to
0rr. 46
Perhaps because of the increase ofEuropean immigrants, with their
strange customs and heritage, the older ethnic groups in Brooklyn began
to emphasize their cultural tradition. In 1848, an. organization called
11 The Sai.nt Nicholas Society of Nassau Island" was founded. Its members
were descendants of the Dutch settlers who came to America before 1786.
The pres.ident of this organization was the venerable Brooklynite, Jeremiah
J"ohnson. The vice-presidents and. stewards represented some of Brooklyn's
elite, such as Adria..r.1 Hegeman, Turiis G. Bergen, Francis B. Stryker, Isaac
47
.Van Anden and Roberti. Lefferts.
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.
-32-
occupations, working as waiters, barbers, farmers, stevedores, coaohmen,

butchers, ropemakrs, sailors, porters, hog drovers, and millanen. One
Negro schoolmaster was noted in the city directories of the period.SO The
largest number however, were listed as laborers. The women were engaged
as whitewashers and washerwomen. Negroes appear to have been accepted in
these pursuits without any animosity. Toleration seemed to rule.
Popular concern for providing wider advantages for Negro residents led
to a general meeting, in December, 1840, at which it was resolved "that a
Committee of three be appointed to confer with the City Authorities of
Brooklyn, and the Supervisors of the County, with the view to the devising
of a plan for the better education and moral culture of the negro popula
tion of this city nd _county. 11 51 Nothing came of this plan. In line with
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.
50. Brooklyn City Directories, 1834 to 1855, passim.

51. Star, Dec:-TI,-rtmb.
52. New York State,, Sixty-eighth Session (Albany, 1846), pp. 242-43.
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
-34-
the measure. Brooklyn complained that the antagonism demonstrated by the

New Yorkers in the Senate had le.ft no time for the village authorities to
. 1
present a case for cityhood before both branches of the State Legislature.
Some influential New Yorkers apparently favored a union of Brocklyn
with New York as early as 1833. New York's Mayor Gideon Lee advised the
Common Council of that city that any move for incorporation by Brooklyn
must be carefully analyzed before being allowed to become a law. He men
tioned the importance of making certain that the proposed charter would
2
not "endanger or contravene the charter rights of the city of New York."
He suggested that, instead of granting Brooklyn a separate city charter,
it might be more feasible to determine whether a mutually satisfactory bill
could be drafted which would encompass a union of the two communities.
Acting on Mayor Lee:s proposal, the New York Common Council in November,
1633, appointed a committee of its own members for the purpose of studying
3 This com
and reporting on the subject of Brooklyn's proposed charter.
mittee, reporting to the Council in January, 1834, recoITllTlended that all
legal measures be taken to prevent Brooklyn from becoming a city.
4 The
report stated: "All history proves the fact that commercial cities are
natural rivals and competitors. Who does not know that wars and calamities
of the most grave character, have grown out of the rivalries and conflicts
5
incident to commerce, in all ages of the civilized world. 11
1. Board of Aldermen of New York, Report -

of - --
the Mayor to -
the Common Council,
October 14, 1833, Document No. 1
2. Ibid. - - -
3. Board of Aldermen of New York, Proceedings (New York, 1834), V, 375.
4. Board of Aldem.en of New York, Proceedings (New York, 1835 ), VI, 101, 122.
5. Brooklyn Advocate Nassau Gazette, Jan. 23, 1834.
-35-
Answering this statement, an editorial n the Brooklyn Advocate asserted

that if this view were to be endorsed one could argue that it was "prejudicial
to this country.that the city of New York should be suffered to exist, when
we have other.cities, as Boston and Philadelphia; because the former is a
natural rival and competitor of these cities; and from this rivalry wars
and other calamities might ensue." The Star asserted that many New York
councilmen apparently expected Brooklyn to be grateful for the opportunity
of uniting with New York. It contended that when Brooklyn refused the offer,
councilmen from the larger city became antagonistic to Brooklyn.7
At this juncture, in January, 1834, both coJTIIi1unities named delegates
to a special committee on incorporation for the purpose of reaching a mutual
understanding in regard to cityhood for the Long Island village. The Brook
lyn delegates reported to the_village trustees in late January, that what
New York really desired was not a political union, but "a surrender to her
of our right of self-government." This right, they said, would never be
yielded by Brooklyn. Despite a petition by New York City to the State
Assembly opposing a city charter for Brooklyn, the desired law was enacted
9
by the State Legislature. Notwithstanding the antagonism between the two
cities engendered by the charter movement, the two communities joined forces
10
in 1834 to celebrate Independence Day.
The act of the New York State Legislature forming the corporation of
"The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Brooklyn" was passed on April
.6. Ibid.
7. Star, Jan. 23, 1834.
8 Ibid., Feb. 13, 1834.
9. BrooklY!;l; Advocate, April 10, 1834.
10. Star, July 3, 1834.
-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
14. Acts, pp. 5 ff.

Commdn Council, -
15. Ibid.
16. Common Council Proceedtngs in, 1834-1855; E!Eile, 1841-1855.
17. Star, Oct. 20, 18360
18. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., .2f Jackson (Boston, 1945), :pp. 401 ff.
-38-
1839, in connection with state-wide balloting on the subject of direct

elections, Kings County voted 4,116 to 12 for the direct election of the
19
mayor. As a result of this overwhelming vote, the Common Council asked
Brooklyn's representatives in the State Legisiature to press for this
20
change. The matter was concluded when a general law was passed in Feb-
ruary, 1840, which covered all communities in New York State and made the
21
mayoralty an office elected by the people.
The city of Brooklyn's first mayor was George Hall, who was born of
Irish pa.rents i.n New York City in 1795. Soon thereafter, Hall's parents
moved to Brooklyn where the future mayor spent the rest of his life. His
22
vocation was the same as his father's, painting and glazing. In 1826, he
was elected a trustee from the third district and six years later., in 133., he
was elevated to the nresidency of the village on a nonpartisan basis. He
was rechosen Village President the following year on a platform of excluding
hogs from the streets and shutting up unlicensed grog dhops. The latter
was one of Hall's favorite projects throughout the years. The Common Council
designate4 Hall as the first mayor on May 20, 1834. The Star contended that
his personal efforts, during his term as mayor, were responsible for trans
forming a city "formerly full of uproar" into a city both "peaceful and
23
attractive. n Although favoring the Whigs in national politics, Hall,
ten years later, campaigned as the Temperance candidate, but he lost. Still
another decade later, he ran for mayor on the "Know-Nothing" t.icket and on
19. Star, Nov. 14, 1839.

209 Ibid., Jan. 16, 18390
21. New York State, Laws, Sixty-Third Session (Albany, 1840), p. 17.
22. Stiles, II, 244-m:-
23. ' Sept. 21, 1852.
-39-
this occasion he was successful. Thus he had the distinction of being

twice chosen mayor, a period of twenty years intervening between terms.
English-born Jonathan Trotter, Brooklyn's second mayor, moved to
New York in 1818. Here he went into business as a 11 morrocco /sic/ dresser."
In 182S, Trotter built a factory to handle leather goods in Brooklyn's Fifth
Ward, and in 1829 he himself moved to Brooklyn. Five years later he became
an alderman from the Fourth Ward. On May 11, 1835, Trotter was appointed
as mayor on a nonpartisan basis; the aldermen reappointed him in May, 1836.
Although chosen without a party label, Trotter later was to hold office as
a Whig. This was also true for bis successor in the mayoralty. In 1840,
he moved to New York City. Here he entered politics and became the Pres-
24
ident of the Board of Assistant Aldermen of New York City in 1852. H _
helped organize the Atlantic Bank of Brooklyn and was its first president.
25
General Jeremiah Johnson, whom Stiles called "Brooklyn'.s first and

foremost citizen," was chosen as the third mayor on a nonpart\san basis. He
served two terms, from May 1, 1837 to May 9, 1839. A direct descendant of
a Dutchman who settled in Gravesend in 1657, General Johnson spent most of
his life on the family farm. At the time of bis incumbency Johnson was over
seventy years old. Having practiced prudence and economy as a way of life,
he tried to instill these qualities into the Common Council. Punctuality
a
was a necessity, and so his official portrait presents him pointing finger
26
at his watch. Before being selected as mayor, Johnson had distinguished
himself in many local governmental offices. As early as 1796, he had been
24. Ibid.
25. Stiles, II, 250.
26 0 Star, Sept. 21, 1852.
-40-
elected a trustee of the Town of Brooklyn. For upwards of thirty years

after 1800, he served as a supervisor for the Tom and Village of Brook
lyn. From 1808 to 1809, he was the representative from Kings County in
27
the State Assembly. During the War of 1812, he was elevated f'ran a
Junior Captain to the rank of Brigadier General. When the war was con
cluded, he was promoted to the rank of Major General.
It was Johnson's fortune to serve as Brooklyn's cnief executive during
and ilnmediately following the Panic of 1837. Political considerations had
occupied Johnson's attentions when he first entered office, especially the
too lenient election laws which favored "sleepers for a night,"--voters
from outside the city who were brought in for the purpose of casting
28
ballots. rlhen he addressed the Common Council a year later, on May 6,
1838, he emphasized that the city's most pressing problems were economic.
Brooklyn, he said, had seen "the golden visions of speculative prosperity"
swept away, to be left with the "blasted harvest of adversity." Johnson
chided the Council on their extravagant behavior in financial matters and
asked them to adhere to strict economy measures. Apparently this did not
29
antagonize the Council, for they immediately chose him for another term.
Johnson was followed in office by another able civil servant, Cyrus
Porter Smith, who served three consecutive terms from Ma:y, 1839 to April ., ,
1842. Smith had oeen born in New Hampshire, in 1800. An industrious youth,
he earned his own way through Dartmouth College, graduating in 1824. In
1827, he was admitted to the bar in Connecticut. During that same year he
27. Stiles, II, 255-61.

28. Star, May 4, 1837.
29. Ibid., May 7, 18380
-41-
moved to Brooklyn. From 1833 to 1835, he served as clerk of the Board of

Trustees, from 1835 to 1839, as corporation counsel. On May 9, 1839, he
was chosen mayor by the Board of Aldermen. With the advent of popular
elections for mayor in 1840, Smith sought the voters' approval as the
Whig candidate. He defeated the Democratic candidate Joseph Sprague,
and thus became Brooklyn's first popularly elected mayor. He was re-
30
e1 ected on Apn. 1 13, 1841, by a siza ty.
ble maJori In the ensuing elec-
tion of April, 1842, he was defeated by Brooklyn's foremost Democratic
31
politician, Henry Cruse Yrurphy, by a majority of 265 votes. Smith's
service to the public was said by the .fil:!:: to have left a "durable impres
sion"on the citizens of Brooklyn. For twenty-one years, he served as
president of the Board of Education. Though a lawyer by occupation, he
helped organize Brooklyn's first gas company and he was the managing
director of the Union Ferry Company after 1855. He also represented Brook
lyn in the State Senate in the years 1856 and 1857.
Henry Cruse.Murphy, who was Brooklyn's mayor from May, 1842 to May :,
1843, was a native Brooklynite, born there in 1810. His father, a skilled
mechanic and millwright, had married into an old Dutch family which had
settled in Princeton, New Jersey. Young Henry graduated from Columbia in
1830, and then went on to study law with Peter Radcliffe. In 1835, Murphy
32 Since about
joined with John A. Lott to create a law firm of their own.
1830, Murphy had been trying his hand at writing. Walt Whitman, then a
lad no more than twelve or thirteen years old, recalled how elated Murphy
30. Stiles, II, 263-65.

31. Ibid., 265-660
32. Dumas Malone, ed, Dictionary of .l\merican Biography (New York, 1934)
XIII, J50;..5l.
-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
In November, 1842, Murphy was elevated to the House of Representatives.

There, he supported a lower tariff the annexation of Texas, abolition of
restrictions on immigration, and donations of the public domain to actual
settlers. Mindf'ul of the interests of his constituents, he actively urged
the United States Navy to build a dry dock to be located in Brooklyn. In
therfovember, 1844 election he met with defeat although he led his local
ticket. In 1846, he participated in the state constitutional convention.
In 1852, he was an active contender for the Democra.tic presidential nomi-
33. Emory Holloway, Uncollected -

Prose -
and Poetry -
of --
Walt Whitman (Garden
City, 1921), II, l-5.
34. Eagle, July 2, 1847.
-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
35. Malone, Dictionary of :American Biography XIII, 350-51.
-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
36. Stiles, II, 270-74.

37. Eagle, May.5, 18460
-45-
performance of the mayoralty. He commented to his successor: 11 If you

are faithful in the enforcement of the laws and ordinances, you will be
censured by that class of citizens who are called to suffer the penalty
of their violation; if on the other hand,oPY want of energy on the part
of your subordinate officers, or from lack of, or defect in the ordinances,
or want of sufficient power vested in you, any of the laws and ordinances
appear to be disregarded, they will (by many) be regarded as your omissions
of duty." He continued, "Whatever may be your assiduity or your integrity
of purpose, of one thing you may rest assured, that by many your good will
be evil spoken During the ?eriod of his incumbency as mayor, Tal-
mage also served as Loan Commissioner of the United States Deposit Fund
for Kings County in 1845. Active in t:ransnort,ation affairs, he was chosen
President of the Broadway Railroad Company of Brooklyn, in 1858, remaining
39
in this office until his death in 1863.
The Whigs succeeded in electing Talmage's successor in 1846 with a
majority of over 1,000 votes. He was Francis B. Stryker, a native Brook
lynite, who was to serve the city for three terms, from May, 1846.to May,
1849. Born in Brooklyn in December, 1811, he received his formal education
at the local academy, Erasmus Hall, after which he entered the trade 0 car
pentry. He joined one of the volunteer fire companies, and by 1835 had
40 Three years later, he was
become a foreman of Engine Company Number J.
elected as sheriff on the Whig ticket. He was still practicing the trade
of a journeyman carpenter when the 'Whigs nominated him for the mayoralty
38. Ibid.
39. Stiles, II, 276-77.
40. , Dec. 3, 1835.
-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
41. Eagle, Feb. 1, 18h8.

42. Ibid., May 2, 1848.
43. Stiles, II, 284e
44. S.tar, March 30, 18.50.
-47-
by "urbanity, dignity, decision, promptitude, energy and most minute and

careful attention to business." It predicted that Brooklyn would soon call
upon Copland again to serve in an elected capacity.45
In 1850, with the election of Samuel Smith:, the tenth mayor of Brooklyn,
the Democrats recaptured control . of the mayoralty. Smith was born in
Huntington, Long Island, on May 26, 1788. At the age of eighteen, he moved
to Brooklyn. He practiced farming from 1809 until 1825 when he turned to
the morelucrative field of real estate. Smith's political career began
when he was chosen a commissioner of highways for the village. From 1827 to
1830 he was an assessor, and in 1831 he became a Justice of the Peace. Elected
as a Democrat, he served as an alderman on several occasions, 1834-1838,
1842-1843, and 1845 ...1846. He served as mayor from May 2, 1850_ to December 31,
6
1850. 4 According to the Star, Smith was sleted as mayor because he was
a "rigorous economist." It was asserted that he had been "diligent in reforming
and correcting abuses" and that he had inspired the confidence of 11 the leading
47
citizens" of .Brooklyn.
Conklin Brush, a Whig, the eleventh mayor of Brooklyn, was another
merchant who had originally lived in New York City. He moved to Brooklyn in
1827, after conducting profitable commercial ventures after the \.J'ar of 1812.
Three years later he was chosen as a trustee of the village, and during 1834-
1835 he served as president of the Board of Aldermen. He was also a member
of the Ferry Commission which lobbied in Albany in 1834 for a south ferry. In
his business activities, Brush was an associate 0f Daniel Richards in organ-
45. Ibid., Auril 11, 1850.

46. Stiles, II, 28789..
-
47. Star, Sept. 21, 1852.
-48-
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
51. Star, March 21, 1854.

52. Stephen M. Ostrander, History .! the City Brooklyn and King's County
(Brooklyn, 1894), II, loils-0.
53. George Hall, Communication to Common Council, January,!, 1855 (Brooklyn,
1855), passim.
54. See Table III, P 198.
-50-
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
56. Eagle, March 7: 1843.

57. Ibid., May l, 1844.
58. Ibid., Nov. 25, 1845.
-52-
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 "city fathers" discussed:further revisions during 1846 and finally

had a fi_nished document ready for submission to the Legislature in February,
1847. A clause providing for the approval or rejection of the charter by a
popular referendum was removed previous to its being sent to the State Legis
lature. The Eagle was of the opinion thatthe councilmen were making a
serious blunder in not allowing for a democratic review of the proposed
measure. 62 Th is led a number of citizens, incensed by the Council's action,
to circulate a petition calling for a constitutional convention The peti
tioners cited as reasons for such a move the callousness of the Council to
democratic principles, the secrecy in which the discussions were carried on,
590 Ibid., Feb. 2, 1846.

6 0.Ibid., April 1, 1846.
61. Ibid., May 15, 1846.
62. Ibid., Feb. 6, 1847 o
-53-
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;
63. Ibid., March 17, 1847.

64. Ibid., March 24, 1847 0
65. Ibid., April 15, 1847.
66. NewYork State, Laws, Seventieth Session (Albany, 1847), pp. 271-72.
67. Eagle, May 25, 11J!i'7:'
680 Ibid., June 8; July 13, 1847.
-54-
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
69. Ibid., Sept. 11, 1847 to Jan. 18, 1848.

70. Ibid., Feb. 12, 1849.
71. Brooklyn Charter Convention, _! Law To Revise And Amend Several Acts
Relating To The City Of BrooklyntBrooklyn, 1'8Ii'S), p. iii.
-
72. Ibid., pp:-iir:iv.
-55-
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-
73s Ibid., P 10.

74.. "nii'd.,
pp .. vii-viii.
75. Eagle, Feb. 26, 1849.
76. ., March 12, 1849.
77. Ibid., March 14, 1849.
78. Star, Feb. 11, 18.50.
-56"'!
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.
79 Ibid., March 26, 1850.

80. New York State, Laws, Seventy-third Session (Albany, 1850), pp. 242-303.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.
83. Toici.; See Chapter v.
84. Star, May 2, 1850.
-57-
Despite popular attempts to curtail the power of the legislative branch,

the new charter gave the Connnon Council as much if not more authority than
it had possessed as a result of the charter of 1834. The effort to intro
duce a bicameral legislature failed because of public apathy and the animosity
. of the appointed office holders. The changes adopted in governmental pro
cedure from 1834 to 1855 were on the whole relatively minor.
The Council, which had successfully obstructed the threat of a bicameral
check, remained the powerful branch of the local.government during the period
1834-1855. This strength was implemented by the many responsibilities and
powers vested in the members of the Council. At the commencement of a leg
islative year, the mayor, _in conf"erence with the majority party in the Council,
would name the members_of the standing committees for the ensuing year. The
aldermen through these committees had control of the everyday activities of
the municinality. There were Standing committees on Streets, Assessments,
Finance, Laws, Accounts, Fire Department, Police, Lamps, Schools, Markets,
Lands and Places, Wells and Pumps, a Hospital, Ferry and Water Rights, Stages
and Weights and Measures. The Common Council also exercised wide appointive
powers. Among those appointed by the.Council were the attorney and the coun
sellor who not only received annual salaries but were cmpensated for each
service they performed.85_ In 1840, the city fathers in an effort to reduce
e>..-penditures established the salary of the attorney at $1,200 which was to be
11 in lieu of all fees whatsoever." The office of counsellor was not affected
'by this ordinance. As a result, the city, after 1840, continued to remunerate
86
its counsellor with fees in addition to a salary. In 1844, the municipality,
85. Eagle, May 3, 1842.

86. -
-58-
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
87e Ibid.,. May 11, 1844.

88. Common Council, Ordinances, pp. 51=2.
89. l, June 30, 1849.
90. ., March 14, 1842.
-,9-
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
91. Common Council, Ordinances (Brooklyn, 18So), pp. 47-50.

92. Eagle, May 3, 18420
93. New York State, Laws, Sixty-seventh Session (Albany, 1844), pp. 305-07.
94. Eagle, May 3, l
-60-
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
95. Star, Feb. 11; 18, 1851.

96. 'fbI'ci., Oct. 2, 1834.
97. Eagle, Oct$ 29, 1845.
-61-
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
98. Ibid., Nov. 28, 18480

99. Md., Oct. 5 ., 1850.
100. s'tar, March 17, 1853e
101. Ibid., March 18, 1853.
102. Ibid., March 19, 1853.
-62-
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
103. Ibid., June 7, 1853.

104. Toid., June 30, 1853.
105. NewYork State, Law.s, Seventy-sixth Session (Albany, 1853), pp. 1057-60.
lo6. ' Oct. 4, 18
-63-
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
107. e, Oct 29; 31, 18.53.

108. Edward Ao Lambert, Annual Message - the Conunon Council (Brooklyn, 1854),
to -
Po .5.
109. Eagle, Jan. 27, 1849.
llO. Star, July 20, 1853.
111. 'w:ITI:iarnsburgh Dai'ly Independent Press, Jan. 28, 1853.
-64-
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.
Chapter IV
It cannot be said that Brooklyn was controlled by one particular

political party in the period frcm 1834 to 18$5. The party actually in
power at any given ime depended upon several factors acting singly or
in concert: Economic conditions, the play of personalities, or purely
local issues could either combine or act separately in bringing one of
the factions to power.
Reference to national parties in local elections began in Brooklyn
with its incorporation as a city. Previously,elections had been run along
non-party lines. With the incorporation of the city, two-party politics
began to appear, but theelectorate fluctuated in allegiance to either Whigs
or Democrats. Considering the period from 1834 to 1854 as a whole, it
appears that the 'Whigs controlled the city legislature for thirteen yars
as compared to six years of Democratic control.
In the first election held under the new city charter in 1834, party
poll tics did not play a dominant role. Many of the candidates for co1mcil
men were supported by both political organizations. The anti-Jacksonian
, however, charged that Jackson's supnorters had attempted to bring

-67-
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
1. Star, May 8, 1834. See "Mayoralty Elections," Table v, ,p. 212.

2. Ibid.,
May 28, 1835.
3. roid., April 14, 1836.
4. fbid., Nov. 14, 1836.
-68-
making their choice by liberal applications of rum. It was admitted,

however, that both parties indulged in the practice of providing free
flowing rum to the "ignorant and flexible. 115 The Democrats dominated
the Council election 1n 1837.
With the adve.n t of hard times fallowing the Panic of 1837, Broo!clyn
vote.rs switched their allegiance to the party that h:ad been out.of power.
They held the Democrats responsible for the economic collapse, and, therefore,
sentiment turned in favor of the Whigs .. This party was to remain in the
ascendancy until 1843.
One of the factors leading to the Panic of 1837 had been the wild
speculation engaged in by the so-called. "pet banks" of President Jakson.
During Van Buren's administration, a plan for a sub-treasury system had
been proposed. This scheme met with tremendous animosity in Congress.
The, in 1838, urged the election of Wfligs and associated Native Amer
icans to local offices as a way of showing Brooklyn's opposition to the
sub-treasury plan. Whether this appeal was the impetus or not ., a coalition
of Whigs a.11d Native Americans resoundingly defeated the Democratic candid
7
ates in the local elections, in 1838.
Brooklyn remained staunchly Whig in sentiment by voting for William
H. Seward for Governor in 1838, for William Henry Harrison for President
in 1840, and for the re-election of Seward in l840e In 1841, the municipal
election was won by the Whigs. Three days before the balloting occurred, a
new newspaper appeared in New York City. It was the York Tribune;
5. -, March 27, 1837.

6. ., April 9, 18)8.
7. ., April 12, 1838.
B. ., Nov. 2, 1840.
-69-
edited by Horace Greeley. It announced the Whig victory in Brooklyn in

these fervid terms:
. "BROOKLYN ELECTION
GLORIOUS WHIG VICTORY111 9
,.,,,
The article itself glowed with exultation. However, the more blase
reported that "Our City Election yesterday was unusually quiet, and void
of excitement." -
The Star explained this state of affairs by alluding to
President Harrison's death, troubled economic conditions and the weather.
Besides, a Whig victory was becoming a routine affair in Brooklyn.
A Democratic newspaper for Brooklyn was the result of an attempt to
revive the Democratic Party in the city. Several prominent Democrats met
in the law office of Lott, Murphy and Vanderbilt. Among those present were
Henry c. Murphy, Isaac Van Anden, Alfred G. Stevens and Judge John Greenwood.
They agreed that Brooklyn's Democrats needed a newspaper of thei own if they
were to revive the party in the city. They at first proposed a campaign
paper which would cease publication at the close of the election. This
plan was later changed, however, when it was realized that the Democrats
should have a permanent party organ. The paper which emerged from this
meeting was the Brooklyn Daily Eagle Kings County Democrat. It was
first published on October 26, 1841. Alfred G. Stevens was named publisher
and Henry c.
Murphy assumed the editorship . The paper was printed by Isaac
10
Van Anden, who in January, 1842, assumed control of the nublication. The
Prospectus proudly announced tl:,.at the newspaper would be 11strictly Democratic. 11
9. New York Tribune, April 14, 1841.

10. Martin H. Weyrauch, ed. 11 The Pictorial Historyo:f Brooklyn" Brooklyn
Daily Eagle 75th Anniversa ( Brooklyn, 1916), p. 17; Hen._ry Wo B. Howard, ed.
Eagle and Brooklyn Brooklyn, 1893), pp. 87-8.
-70-
It was to "uphold the great principle of Equal.Rights,., and oppose fanatical

and crude theories, which may be interpolated in the democratic creed, as
expounded by Jefferson and Jackson ., and other Republicans ofthe same School. 1111
The Eagle immediately entered the political scene by describing the Democratic
. tion
Par ty as the true republican orgam.za the na
in e 12 t.n...
- tion wuether or not
the appearance of the Eagle was the deciding factor, some Democrats were
elected in the county elections of November, 1841.
The issue of separation of church and state entered the political arena
in this contest. It appears that some Catholics in ngs County attempted
to obtain a portion of the school funds, raised by taxation, for the pur-
pose of maintaining parochial schools. The Democrats refused to pledge
their supnort to this scheme whereas the Whigs did not commit themselves.
In the election, the Catholics split away from their. usual support of the
Democrats and voted for the Whig candidates. Even with this added support,
the Whigs did not win the election. The Eagle hailed this as a victory over
13
"Whiggery, Priestcraft and Faction."
By March of 1842, the religious question had been dropped. However,
a new issue now appeared. In addition to the Whig and Democratic tickets,
a third. party made its bid for power. Calling itself the "Abolition" or
11 Li.beral Party," this faction offered George M. Wadsworth as its candidate
for mayor. 14 The election results showed Wadsworth third behind Henry c.
Murphy, Democrat, and Cyrus P. Smith, Whig. The "Liberal Party 11 candidate
ll. Eagle, Dec. 27, 1841.

12. Ibid., Nov. 2, 1841.
13. ma'., Nov. 7, 1841.,
14. Ibid., March 29, 1842.
-71-
received only thirty-nine votes out of a total of 4,777 votes cast.

15 L
addition ., a Democratic majority was swept into alderrnanic of.fice. Other

New York State communities such as New York City and Albany also elected
Democratic candidates. The Whig defeat was probably due to the struggle,
on a national level, for control of the party between John Tyler and
Henry Clay.
National issues were uppermost in the local elections in 1844. The
Democrats claimed to be supporting an "Indepenc;ient Treasury," they were
antagonistic to a nrotective tariff; and they insisted that Congress could
not distribute the public domain. On the local scene they were convinced
. . .
that the Democratic incumbent, Mayor Joseph Sprague, should be re-elected.
The oppostion was lined up behind two parties: the Whigs and the Native
Americans. The Native .American Party had had a considerable following in
New York City after 1837. It owed its origin to opposition to the alliance
of the Democrats with the newly arrived Irish. In New York City, the
Native .Americans, aided by the Whigs, were able, in 1844., to elect their
1
mayoral candidate to office. 7 Their state-wide goal was to obtain a re
vision in the laws so that residence of twenty-one years would be mandatory
18
before naturalization proceedings could be instituted.
In Brooklyn, as in New York City, the Whigs and N ative .Americans united
in 1844 in an effort to defeat the Democratic candidates. The popularity of
the Democratic mayor incumbent, Joseph Sprague, however, was to powerful for
15. Ibid., April 15, 1842.

16. Ibid., March 16, 1844.
17. James Grant Wilson, ed. The Memorial History -
of -
the -
City -
of -
New -
York
(New York, 1893), III, 378":Bo.
18. Eagle, March 28, 1844.
-72-
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.
21. Ibid., April 10, 1845.

22. Rogers and Black, Gathering - the Forces, I, 80-4.
of --
23. Eagle, March 12, 1846.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
-74-
The Democrats nominated Thomas G. Talmage, whom they regarded to be

their bst possible choice.26 The Whig nominee was Francis B. Strykel'.,
who, according to the Brooklyn Daily Advertiser, a ;,Jhig paper founded in
27
1844, would work for the "best interest of his native city. 11 The Natives,
the Eagle found, still had enough life to choose a lawyer by the name of
Thomas c. Pih\imey, labeled by the Eagle an, "abolitionist, and a whig of the
28
ral".kest rabidest kind.11 A ,tabulation of the returns of the election held
in Aril found the Whig candidate, Stryker, the victor, in the mayoralty
race. As
for the Common Council, a tie existed, with Whigs and Democrats
2
obtaining nine seats each. 9 Stryker received a majority of over 1 ., 100
votes over Talmage, while Pinckney polled a total of 292 votes.
At the same election the conservatism of Brooklyn was demonstrated as
a majority of the electorate opposed a number of democratic changes in the
state constitution, submitted for their approval in a referendum. Among
the contemplated alterations were popular election of judges, aboliti':)n of
a religious test for witnesses, abolition of long leases for agricultural
land and several other relatively minor changes. Brooklyn voted by a,
0
majority of more than two to one in opposition to these innovations.3 In
a special referendum concerning Negro suffrage, the predominance of the
opposition was even greater. However, desuite the prevailing oppositi,on to
the changes in Brooklyn and New York City, the amendments were carried in the
31
State at large except for the Negro suffrage proposal.
26. Ibid., March 20, 1846.

27. Advertiser, April 13, 1846.
2 8. Eagle, March 25, 1846.
29. roid., April 17, 1846.
30. Md., Nov. 5, 1846.
31. Ibid., Nov. 13, 1846.
-75-
As the mayoral election of 1847 approached, the Eagle accused the

Whigs of relying on "connivances with third parties" such as the Native
Americans or any other party which might prove helpful in order for them
to gain office.32 For their part the Democrats, used the technique of
catering to the prejudices of the Irish whom they hoped to win to. their
side. In line with this strategy, the Democrats circulated stories that
the g cdidate an incumbent mayor, Francis B. Stryker, was an opponent
of the Irish and of the Roman Catholic faith. It was charged that he signed
a statement in 1835 asserting that Roman Catholics were not to be trusted
3
in public office.3 Desnite these appeals to pre,judice, the Dt"'..mocrats were
defeated in the April elections. The Whigs won not only in Brooklyn, but
also in New York City and Williamsburgh.
In 1848, when the conservative New York Democrats proposed Lewis Cass,
an anti-Wilmot man, for President, the opnosing New York faction countered
with Martin Van Buren. Van Anden and Murphy supported Cass, whereas Whitman
was a staunch advocate of the Van Buren cause. This difference of opinion
led to Whitman's departure from the Eagle. The Brooklyn electorate, however,
endorsed the Whig, Zachary Taylor, for the presidency. In January of the
following year, the veteran campaigner George Hall wrote a letter, printed
in the Eagle, in which he said that the time had come for a truly indepen
dent party in local politics. Party favorites when elected, according to
Hall, had to repay the organization by placing many other party members in
office. Both major political groups, Hall wrote, cared more for the spoils
32. Ibid., March 16, 1847.

33. Ibid., April 13, 1847.
-76-
of office than for enlightened rule. "Men should be selected," he said,

11 who have no interest to gain but the interest of the city, and who shall
34
be inaccessable /jic} to party influence o 11 A group of citizens who
endorsed his views then nominated him as the standard bearer for the Inde
pendent Party. If placed in office, this group pledged itself to administer
the city government along the.most economical lines. They also prowised
rigid enforcement of the law and strict performance of duties. 35
The Democrats, attempting to capture the votes of those advocating
the divorce of local and national politics, nominated William Ellsworth,
a Brooklyn business man, who had had no previous connection with Brooklyn
--- . 36
polit.!cs. This move appeared to dissatisfy many Democrats, and, as a
result, splinter factions emerged. One was led by Joseph McMurray and the
other by William N. Clem. On the evening of April 1, 1849, the parent
Democratic organization held a ratification meeting for Ellsworth. Henry
c. Murphy told the a.ssembled party members that the nomination was made
by the unanimous consent of the convention. At this point, according to
the Eagle, a band of Whigs, composed of and led by Irishmen, forced their
way into the hall and "commenced a violent clamor. 1137 The meeting ended
at that point.
With the Democratic Party torn by internal strife, the Whigs were able
38
to elect their slate of candidates, heade by Edward Copland, in April, 1849.
The Democrats consoled themselves with the statement that 11 During our whole
34. Ibid., Jan. 29 ., 1849.

35. Ibid., March 19, 1849.
36. Ibid., March 31., 1849.
37. -, .April 9, 1849.
38. .,April 12, 1849.
-77-
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
39. ., April 12, 1849.

40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Star, Dec. 1., 1849.
-78-
January, 1850, as the nation focussed its attention on t he debate occurring

in the Senate of the United States, the crone forth with an editorial
urging moderation and censuring the abolition movement. The abolitionists,
said the, were "sacrificing all to a moral principle which, at all
events, is only a collateral subject of legitimate constitutional legislation,
and must at all times be made subservient to the general permanence of ex
44
isting political institutions. 11 Although Brooklyn was the_ home of _the
arch-abolitionist, Henry Ward Beecher, the movement as such had no reper
cussions in local politic_s. The political parties of Brooklyn bore the
names of ..::ational organizations, and they reflected the national or sectional
sentiments of each party, but municipal elections, by and large, were fought
on purely local issues. The city election of 1850, was concerned with the
old political stand-by - economy.
The Whigs promised to introduce measures which would reduce taxes, if
they were maintained in office. The electorate, however, swept the Demo
crats back into power in April, 1850. Reviewing the Whig, defeat, the
concluded that the reason for this Democratic victory was that truces had
increased while the Whigs were in office. Moreover, the newly elected Dem
ocratic Mayor Samuel Smith, was a long-time resident of Brooklyn; whereas
J. S. T. Stranahan, the defeated Whig candidate, had resided in Brooklyn for
only ten years. 45 The Whig local organization also appears to have been the
victim of internal disputes. There were two factions within the party, one
led by the former mayor Francis Stryker, and the other by Francis Spinola
an alderman. Stranahan 1 s defeat reduced the prestige of the Stryker group
44. Ibid., Jan. 24, 1850.

45. Ibid. April 10, 1850.
-79-
which had been in control of party patronage within the city for several
years 46
,;,
The Whigs, however, succeeded in winning the mayoralty contest of 1850,

which occurred as a consequence of the revision of the city charter which
provided that a mayor, elected for a two-year term, would take office in
January, 1851. In this contest the Whigs nominated Conklin Brush, the
Stryker candidate, rather than Spinola's choice, Cyrus P. Smith. As the
Eagle remarked, Spinola had been "floored" when Conklin Brush was named
47 The Eagle affirmed, two days later, that another reason
as the candidate.
for naming Brush as the candidate was the fact that he was a leader in the
local temperance movement. The Eagle claimed that the Whigs hoped to per
suade the temperance advocates to supnort this nomination.48 To oppose
Brush, the Democrats nominated a newcomer to nolitics, John Rice, a com
9
mission merchan.4 In explaining the crushing Democratic.defeat, the
Eagle asserted that the true reason for the Whig victory was corruption
at the polls. It charged that voters had been brought into the Third, Fourth,
Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh wards. The editor based this contention
upon the fact that the vote in these wards appeared to indicate population
increases of 19 to 33 percent in the short space of seven months. Since such
a sudden rise could not stem from population shifts, the Eagle concluded that
the only answer must be corruption.5
Despite the presence of a Whig mayor, control of the Council shifted
to the Democrats in the anriual Council election of 1851. The Star thought
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
51. ' Aug. 28, 1852.

52. Ibid.
S3. Ibid., Sept. 9, 1852.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., Oct. 29, 1852.
-81-
in both the county and the city elections of 1852.

56
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
56. Ibid., Nov. 8, 1852.

57. Ibid., Nov. 10, 1853.
58. Ibid., Jan. 19, 1854 ..
-82-
of a conservative nature and they tried to steer a middle course. Since

they were removed from the area of social conflict between the races in
the South, the Brooklyn Democratic organization regarded the slavery question
as out of their sphere. They were, however, active in supporting the War
with Mexico.'9 It was only when the.question of the expansion of slavery
into the newly won territories arose, that dissension appeared in the party
ranks
. As has already been pointed out, one group of Democrats, with Walt
'Whitman as their spokesman, supported the Wilmot Proviso. They urged the
election of a candidate for State Comptroller whose qualification for office
60
was that he supported the Proviso. When the Democrats lost in the State
election of 1847, Whibn.an declared that the reason for the defeat was the
fact that the State Democratic organization had not taken an unequivocal
stand in regard to the Proviso which he deemed to be a "Jeffersonian
ordinance. 1161
After Whitman's removal from the editorship of the Eagle, the paper
printed an editorial expressing the view of the Brooklyn Democratic Party
concerning the Proviso. The writer contended that a great deal of f"Q.ss had
been made in Congress and in the newsuapers over what he believed to be
merely an "instrument of agitation., 11 or a political "foot ball. 1162 It could
have no effect upon the expansion of the "peculiar institution" of slavery,
for this depended on climate not on the Proviso. 11 It is evident then," he
said, 11 that the proviso is a hu.'Jlbug its passage would not, probably, free
59. Rogers and Black, The Gathering of the Forces, I, 8J-4.

60. Eagle, Nov. 2, 184-r:-
61. Ibid., Nov. 4, 1848.
62. Ibid., March 4, 1848 ..
-83-
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
As Brooklyn grew from a community of less than 25,000 to one of

200,000, it struggled with issues inherent in an urban society. One of
the problems in this area was related to the traditional responsibility
of the urban community to insure an adequate food supply.
An ordinance of 1826 had authorized the construction of a public
market for the village of Brooklyn. This structure, completed the fol
lowing year, was knmm. as the James Street Market, although the building
actually faced York Street.1 Stalls were leased to twenty-seven butchers,
two fish mongers and ten women hucksters. The butchers sold their wares
as retail merchants and had the exclusive right to sell meat products in
Brooklyn. They received their supplies from wholesale butchers located at
2
the Bull's Head on the Bowery in New York City.
By 1841, three other markets had been opened, the Eastern Market, the
Center Market and the Atlantic Market. 3 In all these marts, only those
1. Stiles, Kings County, II, 971.

2. Ibid
3. Common Council, Ordinances of Brooklyn (Brooklyn, 1850), PP 121-30.
-86-
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
4. Eagle, Dec. 27, 1842.

-87-
of the residents o The court upheld the authorities.'

The Eagle contended, however, that although the health of the citizens
might be involved, the question of "regulation is unjust in itself, unequal
and oppressive in its effects and calculated to give a fictitious price to
one of the chief necessaries of life." The editorial, on September 2, 1843,
6
expressed opposition to the "market monopoly and to all other monopolies. 11
The Journal of Commerce echoed this view when it spoke cf the "T-Jrants of
Brooklyn" who imposed a $.500 penalty against a person for illegally operating
a butcher shop. The Eagle answered that the appellation "tyrant" was a bit
harsh, since laws, as long as they were operative, should be obeyed.7 In
December, 1843, Alderman William Burbank introduced a series of resolutions
which, in effect, would have removed all control over butchers, on the ground
8
that such regulations were "unjust and impolitic. 11 No action was taken upon,
this proposal.
The Market Committee of the Common Council offered a series of suggestions
in January, 1844, without specifically dealing with the matter of licensing
butchers. They recommended th2.t additional market accommodations be provided
the citizens in the outer wards, and that some provision be made for a change
in the existing laws.9 Petitions began to flood the Common Council urging
the repeal of the existing laws concerning butchers. In answer to these
petitions, Alderman Thomas Gerald offered a resolution asking the Market
Committee to consider the propriety of allowing licensed butchers to sell
5. Star, Jan. 16, 1843.

6. ll5ia. Sept. 2, 1843.
7. Ibid., Oct. 2.5, 1843.
8. Ibid., Dec. 12, 1843.
9e ., Jan. 9, '18J.i4.
-88-
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
10. ., Feb. 20, 1844.

11. Ibid., March 12, 1844.
12. c'oiiiiiion Council, Ordinances, pp. 133-34.
13. , DecG 1, 1849.
-89-
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
14. Eagle, Nov. 19, 1850.

15. Star, March 25, 18510
16. Ibid., riec. 1, 1852.
17. Eagle, May 6, 1843.
18. ' Sept. 28, 1837.
-90-
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
19. Ibid., April 11, 1839.

20. New York State, Laws, Sixty-fourth Session (Albany, 1841), pp. 250-52.
21. Eagle, May 3, 18427
22 . Common Council, Ordinances, pp. 111-12.
.;;;.91-
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
23. Eagle, May 6, 1843.

24. Ioia., Nov. 19, 1844
2S e Thomas P. Teale, Brooklyn City Directory for 1848 (Brooklyn, 1848), passim.
-92-
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
26. Eagle, Jan. 27, 1846.

27. Ibid., Jan.:28, 1846.
28. I'6id., Dec. 15, 1846.
2 9. Ibid., March 17, 1848.
-93-
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.-
30. Ibid., March 4, 1848.

31 Ibid., Anril 25, 1848.
-32. Ibid., Dec. 20, 1848.
33. Ibid.,-Ja,n. 17, 1849.
34. Ibid., March 13, 1849.
35. New York State, Laws, Seventy-second Session, pp. 298-99.
-94-
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

hl. Brooklyn City Directory ., 1837-8 (Brooklyn ., 1837) ., p. 129.

42. A. G. Stevens & WiJ.liam H. Narschalk, Brooklyn Directory (Brooklyn, 1838) .,
pp. 19-20.
LJ. J. Dikeman, Brooklyn City Compendium (Brooklyn, 1870), p. 144.
4h. New York State, ,y-fourth Session. p. 250-52 e -
-96-
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
pany .. 11 The disposition to fight appears to be general among the firemen,.11

remarked the Eagle in reporting these and other similar occurrences.47
Another discipline problem connected with the Fire Department involved
idle juveniles who frequen-t;.ed.the various fire. engine houses. These 11 boys,"
as they were designated by the newspapers, were rambunctious ., boisterous and
spoiling for a fight. The 11 boys 11 usually became involved in the melee which
frequently followed the meeting of two fire companies. Mayor Sprague thought
it a source of regret that 11 the youth of tender age have been invited as
45. Eagle, Jan. 23, 1843.

46. Ibid., May 6, 1843.
47. Ibid., Sept. 12, 1843.
-97-
volunteers' and 'runners', as they are termed--having free access to engine

houses day and night, and on the Sabbath; forming idle and iw.rnoral habits
that may be carried with them through life, productive of false alarms,
rticing, 1 laying for' and running in ., ' as the phrase is L,J engendering
8
quarrels, and resulting in a large expense for repairs. 114
The situation did not iiprove during the remainder of Sprague 1 s term
in office, for in May, 1845, Mayor Thomas G. Talmage asked the Common Council
to take urgent action. He asserted that 11the morals of the community, and
. .
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
48. Ibid., May 7, 1844.

49. Ibid., May 6, 1845.
50. Brooklyn Fire Department, Our Firemen (Brooklyn, 1892), pp. 39-40.
51. Eagle,May 5, 1846.
-98-
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
52. Brooklyn Fire Denartment, Our Firemen, pp. 40-1.

53. Advertiser, Feb. 5, 1846. -
5L.. Eagle May 6 ., 1846.
55. ., Sept. 8, 1848.
-99-
On September 9, 1848, five days after Mayor Stryker delivered this

message, Brooklyn suffered the most devastating fire in its history to that
time. It was reported that 11 in the space of six hours the devouring flames
had swept over eight entire blocks in the densest portion of our city, con
suming about two hundred buildings and turning into the streetsprobably
56
not less than four hundred persons." Buildings in an area covering ten
to twelve acres were completely destroyed, with the damage estimated at a
.million dollars. The fire led to a special meeting of the Common Council
on September 11, at which many suggestions were presented. 57 One was that.
the city conduct a survey regarding the adequacy of the fire protection in
the community, another was the ?roDosal that the fire district in which
further construction of wooden buildings was curtailed, be ex:tended so as
to embrace the area bounded by the East River, Joralemon, Fulton and Wash
ington streets. It was also proposed that Fulton Street be widened, now
that extensive renair work was necessary. By the end of September, the
fire district was enlarged to cover this greater area. Since the law would
not go into effect for three months, fear was expressed that unscrupulous
individuals would take advantage a the threemonth waiting period and con
58
struct wooden buildings on the site of the fire.
Only two years after the 1848 coni'lagration, another destructive fire
occurred. Begiruing with an explosion of saltpeter stored in a warehouse on
Funnan Street, the fire quickly spread to eighteen other buildings. The
59
damage was estimated at half a million dollars. As a result of this fire,
56. Ibid., Sept. 11, 1848.

57. Ibid., Sept. 12, 1848.
58. Ibid., Sept. 26, 1848.
59. Ibid., July 8, 1850.
-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
case of repeated violations, owners of property invariably petitioned the

Common Council for relief from prosecution. It was said that in order to
maintain amicable relations, the Council usually complied with such requests.
The newspaper asserted that s uch a policy was harming the interests of the
62
city as a whole and should be stopped immediately. The firemen, at a
convention, also a dopted resolutions requesting the Council to end this
6
practice. 3
Such attempts to circumvent the fire laws were only additional handi
caps to adequate protection. Failure to enforce the laws, the inefficiency
of the volunteers, inadequate equipment and a shortage of water all acted
in concert to nroduce very poor rotection against fire. The ameliorating
legislation was too meager and came too late. Only a complete revision in
the composition of the fire companies could accomplish the desired end e
60. Star, Sept. 19, 1851.

61. Ibid., Jan. 6, 1852.
62. Ibid., Feb. 16, 1852.
63. Ibid., Feb. 23, 1852.
-lOl-
Brooklyn desperately needed a trained, paid, suuervised :md well equi'pped

department if its residents were to be relieved of the fear of suffering
great calamities from fire.
Police protection was also far from adequate in these years. As of
the 1840's, Brooklyn had a very small force of men employed during the day
to guard the thoroughfares. Approximately twelve to sixteen men who were
appointed by the Council's Police Committee composed the entire constabulary
force during the daytime. At night, from sunset to sunrise, order was the
responsibility of the Watch Department made up of paid watchmen. Those
interested in beco.ing watcP.men petitioned the Common Council for appoint
ment. The Council in turn delegated the power of appointment to the Police
64
Committee of the Common Council.
It was the duy of the watchmen to apprehend and detain persons com
witting offenses during the night and to bring such offenders before a
Justice o.f the Municipal Court the following morning. In additon, upon
discovering a fire, the watchien were to notify the fire wardens and bell
ringers, and awaken the populace by crying "f'ire. 11 For this service th
watch captains were paid $1.37 an evening and watcmnen received 87 cents.
65
In the sUllllTler of 1842, when a gang of burglars roamed the streets, the
citizens who resided on Clinton Avenue thought it necessary to organize a
private police ;force to p;otect their property during the night.66 The
Brooklyn Daily began to attack the Common council and its police force
for its.inability to cope with what it described as an increase of crime.
64. Ibid., Dec. 6, i842.

65. Common Council, Ordinances, pp. 178-82.
66. Eagle, Aug. 16, 1842.
-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
67 ., Ibid., Aug. 16, 1842 ..

68. Ibid., Sept. 21, 1842.
69. Ibid., Nov. 15, 1842.
70. Brooklyn Daily News, Nov. 16, 1842.
7le Eagle, Nov. 16,-rffii2.
72. Ibid,.
-103-
the populace "little or no protection" against crime. It admitted that'.the

watchmen "venture abroad only in couples, and at but short distances from
the watchhouse, in this way avoiding being stolen themselves. 1173
In May of 1844, the councilmen adopted a resolution to appoint thirty
nine additional watchmen to the force so that the entire watch would consist
of fifty-twomen. Mayor Sprague veoed this resolution because it appeared
both too costly and still inadequate to deal with the situation. "It may
not be amiss here to state," he said, "that the .52 Watchmen are /_to b2.,7
divided into a watch of 13 each, to perform their duty alternately during
the night, so t hat a.t no time is the City gt,arded by more than 13 :men.:: 74
Since fifty-two men would cause a great increase in the annual city expen
diture, he advised that only forty-two men should comprise the force. Ten
men on each shift could just as easily send. an alarm in case of fire as
could thirteen. Either number would be equally.inefficient in attempting
to decrease crime in the community. It wa'3 the Mayor's opinion that Brook
lyn actually needed a watch force of at least 240 men to maintain adequate
police protection. Unfortunately, the municipality could not afford this
number. 75
The councilmen brushed aside Mayor Sprague's veto and appointed the
thirty-nine additional watchmen. By the following January, the Eagle
advocated dispensing with the entire Watch Department. It asserted that a
few watchmen placed at the ferries would be as beneficial as the whole
Department proved to be. "Everyone feels that the watch does not and cannot
73. Ibid., Nov. 24, 1843.

74. Ibid., May 29, 1844.
75. Ibid.
-104-
afford protection to their yards and houses, and volunteer patrols or

76
private watchmen are mainly relied upon. 11 The inefficiency of the
watchmen in halting crimes led the Eagle to print headlines such as
"Robbery, and Fortunate Escape of two Watchmen. 1177 One solution advanced
was that the city should organize. a Night Police. Such a force would have
as its object the protection of the citizens against prowlers, thieves and
murderers, leaving to the watchmen the duties of sounding the fire alarm,
responding to calls concerning the disturbances of the peace and detaining
drunkards in the guardhouses until morning.
When Mayor Talmage assumed office in May, 1645, he urged the Common
Council to adopt some new type of police organization. He contended that
11the an.ual expense of the preent system, appears to be nearly $ll,OOO,
for which the city has the active services of 13 men on duty, and 13 men
remain in the watch house, to enjoy repose, except when called into service
8
by some sudden outbreak."7 In time, he produced a plan which asked for
the employment of a chief marshal, at an annual salary of $700, fifteen
police marshals, at annual salaries of $400 each, and 102 watchmen, at a
salary of $120 each. The city would be divided into three districts, each
district containing its own watch house. The policemen were to set the
watch and supervise the men so that none would fall asleep while on duty.
This arrangement would place over fifty men on duty all night, and fifteen
police marshals and nine constables on duty during the daytime. He estimated
the expense of the new system to be $19,440, or an increase of $3,946 over
76. Ibid., Jan. 15, 1845.

77. Ibid., Jan. 16, 1845.
78. Ibid., May 6, 1845.
-105-
current expenditures for the City Watch. 79

By October, nothing had been done concerning Mayor Talmage's plan.
Therefore, some citizens of Brooklyn organized a meeting, under the chair
manship of Joseph Sprague, the former mayor, to "examine the wants of the
, BO
city in relation to the necessity of an effectual night patrol. The
citizens adopted resolutions calling for reports on how a more efficient
police and watch system might be organized. On December 29, the Watch
Committee recommended the adoption of Mayor Talmage's plan. The report,
however, was.laid on the table. 81
In Janua:ty, 1846, the Eagle made it clear why action on the plan had
been delayed. First, the city did not have adequate funds at its disposal
to cover the cost of the new plan.. Second, the construction of new 1iatch
houses would take some time. It was hoped, nevertheless, that the system
would go into operation in the following spring. The Eagle thought that
anticipated revisions in the charter, if accepted, woul give the munici
pality adequate authority to undertake major revisions in the city services.82
Myor Talmage, in May, 1846 :, informed the Common Council that his plan
"now lies upon the table; which I trust may (with some amendment) be adopted
83
arid carried out by those who have been elected for the coming year. 11 The
mayor-elect, Francis B. Stryker, also added his voice to the growing clamor
8
for a revision of the police and watch.systems. 4
J3y_1848,.' there were still so few policemen patroling the streets that
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-
the Brooklyn City Register thought it an obligation to instruct the citizenry

as to where policemen could be found in the evenings. Some policemen, it was
said, would be found at the corner of Court and Butler streets next door to
the Dutch Reformed Church and others would be found at the station house on
.
Court Street. Some could always be iound in the court rooms. 85
In May, 1849, Alderman Rodney Church offered a. plan which would combine
the police,watch and fire departments. He did not elaborate upon ?OW hi!s
system would be organized beyond suggesting that those who were detailed as
watchmen would have police powers and they would also have the powers of
Qt:
calling out the engines and directing the efforts _of the volunteer firemen.vv
Needless to say, his plan was not a_dopted. The au:thori ties did go so far as
to raise the salaries of the men in the watch. Watchmen received an increase
from 87 cents a night to $200 yerly. However, if-a substitute was necessary,
the watchman had to pay his substitute 1.25 a night. Assistant captains'
salaries were raised from.$1.12 1/2 to $1.25 and captains' salaries were
8
raised to $1._i;;o, an increase of $.12 i/2. 7 Despite these increments,. Mayor
Copland in 1850 was of the opinion that the members of the department were
88
still not being remunerated "well and fairly. n
The revision of the city chaer ., enacted by the Legislature in 1850,
provided for a reorganization of the Police and Watch departments to become
effective as of January, 1851. The Department of Police was to consist of a
chief marshal popularly elected for a two-year term, one warden for each ward
also popularly elected for a two-year term, and as many policemen as the
85. Cornwell, p. 133.

86. Eagle, May 18, 1849.
87. Common Council, Ordinances, pp. 182-).
88. ' May 2, 1850.
-107-
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
Brooklyn City Directories, 18511855.

Common Council, An Act to Revise and Amend the Several Acts Relating to
the City! Brootlyn(Brooklyn, 1849), pp. 31-4; ' March 4, 1851.
91. Sta.r, March 11, 1851.
92. Ibid., March 31, 1851.
93. Ibid., June 25, 185le
-108-
1,677 arrests which were predominantly forassault and battery, intoxication,

vagrancy and pet'ty larceny.94 The Star defended the newly created department
by declaring that even though "the system may not yet have matured sufficiently
to render the body as effective as they might be, yet we are inclined to think
their operations have been by no means so discreditable as many would make
it appear. 1195 The article went on to state.that it was true that the de
partment was undermanned and should be increased in strength as soon as
possible.
By January, 1852, there.was criticism of the cost of the. new Police
Department. According to Mayor Tirush, one-fourth of the amount raised by
taxes went to defray the expenses of the Police Department. Many believed,
he said, that "the services rendered by the policemen do not compens_ate for
96
the amount paid. 11 He recommended that "the Aldermen of each ward inves
tigate the conduct of the olicemen within their respective wards, and report
for trial all who do not strictly comply with the rules and regulations."
The remarked that the city should not deal too harshly with members of
the Police Department since that department was understaffed and every man
97
was needed.
Johns. Folk, Brooklyn's Chief of Police, attempted to answer some of
the criticisms of the Department. He contended that since Brooklyn's police
force was in its infancy, time itself would solve some of the problems then
existing. "I am confident that our present system can be rendered as good as
any other, provided proper care be taken that capable and efficient men be
94. Ibid., July 8, 1851.

95. Ibid., Aug. 16, 1851.
96. "'.i'."bid., Jan. 6, 1852.
97. Ibid., Jan. 15, 1852.
-109-
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
98. Ibid., Jan. 23; 1852.

99. Ibid,.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid.
102. Ibid., Aug. 16, 1851.
-110-
rule, he asserted. "We believe that a majority of our.police force en

deavor to do their duty as far as they !mow how, and it is rank injustice
to vilify a whole department because there may be a few connected there-
103
'th who deserve it."
wi
Three months later, the reported that a "gang of ruffians" was

stalking t Ttreets of Brooklyn with complete impunity. While a policeman
was at one end of his beat, a crime could be committed at the other end,
and the culprits would make their escape before the polj_ceman arrived at
the scene. The thought that the situation was so serious that other
wise peaceful citizens might begin to carry weapons or that "Vigilance
Committees" would have to be "organized for personal secur-ity, as has been done
in other cities, and such as now are in actual existence in some of the
104
upper wards of New York City. 11 A crime wave could easily have developed
10
in a city guarded by only 144 rnen. 5
Mayor Edward Lambert,elected in 1853, insisted that refonns in the
Police Department were imperative. He advocated the strengthening of the
olice force, especially in the outer wards, and recommended that no further
d..tsmissals be made from the department. In his opinion a good policeman
should be sound of body, of sober habits, industrious, courageous and
1
capable of reading and writing English. o6 He made no mention of higher
salaries for the men.
The Common Council took no action on these suggestions. Meanwhile, a
group of citizens began circulating a petition which advocated higher pay for
103. Ibid., May 25, 1852.

104. Ibid., Aug. 26, 1852.
105. 'ni'i'd., May 12; 1852.
106. Ibid., Jan. 18, 1853.
-u1..
the policemen. The petition proposed that the salary of a policeman be

raised from $1.37 1/2 a day to $1.50 a day, and that assistant captains
should receive $1.75 a day. "We have taken in consideration the enormous
rents and the high prices of all kinds of provisions, and would most respect
fully ask the above advance of pay to that useful class of -public officers,"
wrote the petitioners, at testing to the inflation of the mid,..1850' s. It was
presumed that higher wages would stimulate greater diligence on the part of
the policemen in performing their duties. Boston, the petition stated, had
increased the sa,laries of policemen to $2 per day, with gratifying results.
Brooklyn should emulate Boston, they declared, and oerhaps then it could
boast of an efficient police force.107
Since no action was taken concerning this situation, Mayor Lambert, in
the following year, requested the Common Council to take account of the need
for salary increments for the men, a larger, uniformed force and a revision
of the methods of appointment. He proposed that aldermen be deprived of the
right to nominate candidates, since he was of the opinion that as long as the,
aldermen were involved in the appointments, they would be made on a political
basis.108 As late as 1854, however, the desired reforms had still not been
achieved; and the Brooklyn Police Department remained politically appointed,
underpaid, understaffed and overworked.
In addition to protecting the citizens' lives and property, the police
were also charged with the obligation of guarding the -public health. En
forcement of the city's health regulations was among the responsibilities of
107. Ibid., Feb. 28, 1853.

108. Edward A. Lambert, Annual Message (Brooklyn, 1854), pp. 5-7.
-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
In 1847, Mayor Stryker recommended the passage of a general ordinance estab

lishing fixed limits in which it would be unlawful to erect buildings for
certain manufacturing purposes. He thought it unfair for the city to allow
certain factories to be.constructed and then declare them illegal by passing
109. Common Council, Ordinances, P 119.

110. Ibid.
111. Ihl.d .. , p. 55.
112. Eagle, Feb. 22, 1842.
113. Ibid., July 26, 1842.
-113-
special ordinances e 114 Brooklyn soon began to pass legislation forcing

new factories producing soap, candles, and products made from bones to be
11
located outside the city limits. 5
The Police Commi.ttee was also empowered to control hogs and hog pens.
The Committee occasionally recorw1ended the removal of various hog pens
located in the populous sections. In June, 1845, the Police Coli1I"ttee
ordered the removal of the hog pens on the east side of Jackson Street
between York and Prospect streets as a public nuisance. The police were
also ex.pected to catch any"hogs, horses and cattle running at large in
116
the streets."
Even after the reorganization of the Police Department in 1851, several

nolicemen were still detailed to act as health wardens. - Four or fivepolice
men were given the task of checking to see whether the city 1 s health ordinances
were being obeyed.117
In addition to the Police Committee, several. other cornnittees, as well
as the Common Council sitting as a unit, dealt with phases of Brooklyn's
health problems. In 183.5, the Council was actively engaged in determining
a likely site for a public burial ground. Although many locations were
examined that year, the Common Council remained undecided on the eventual
1ocat.ion. ll8 Between 1836 and 1839, the municipality opened a public burial
ground on Hampden Street near Portland and Canton streets. This little pub
lic cemetery remained in existence until the late 1850 1 s when the area was
incorporated into the confines of Washington Park.119
114. ., May 4, 1847.

115. Ibid., Oct. 26, 1848.
116. Ibid., June 17, 1845.
117. star, July 26, 1854.
118. Co.mon Council, Secret Sessions, Nov. 23, 1835.
119. Brookltn City Maps, 1839 and 1854. Long Island Historical Society
Coliec ion.
-111+-
The city's lack of nublic hosnital facilities presented a serious

health problem Epidemics periodically swept through the community.
Despite the fact that the weekly health report of January 25, 1836, listed
only one death from smallpox, the reported that "there is undoubtedly
'
very much of the smallpox in this city." 11

' --
Whyn asked the Star "should
120
we not have a public hospital for such cases? 11 Three years later, when
Mayor Cyrus Smith reported that smallpox was raging, there was still no
plac.e to take the victims.121
By the end of 1839, a small private hosital known as the City Hospital
had been established by a group of Brooklyn physicians. The Common Council
reluctantly agreed to aid this enterprise by appropriating the sum of $200
annually to helo defray the expenses of maintenance.122. The Hospital Com
mittee of the Common Council reported in December 184i, that it was the
desire of the Medical Board of the City Hospital to secure more adeaue.te
funds in order to continue the institution.123 In December, 1843, a petition
requesting funds was presented to the State Legislature, but no further action
was taken by the Council.124 Realizing that help must be given to the hos
pital if it were to survive, the Council voted in January, 1844, to appropriate
the sum of $1,200 to help liquidate its debts. This was vetoed by the mayor
on the grounds that this grant could be interpreted as an attempt on the part
of the Council to establish a hospital. Such an enterprise could only be
initiated, according to the mayor's interpretation of the City Charter, by a
duly constituted Board of Health and the majority vote of the freeholders '
120. Star, Jan. 18, 1836.

121. Ibid., Sept. 26, 1839.
122 .. Stiles, County of Kings, II, 925.
123. Eagle, Dec. 28,1841.
124. Ibid., Dec. 28, 1843.
-115-
The Board of Health actually consisted of the members of the Board of

Aldermen. Mayor Sprague further opposed the appropriation for the hospital
because of the charter provisions that the hospital should be a refuge for
those suffering from pestilential diseases, or types of cases that the
present City Hospital refused to admit.
Mayor Sprague, however, urged a hasty revision in the laws, inasmuch
as he agreed that a hosDital was absolutely necessary for the welfare of
12
the citiz. ens. 5 The Common Council nevertheless appropriated the $1,200
over Sprague 1 s veto. The money was to be charged in this manner: $600 to
, 126
+vhe H
4osp1a
. ' l una
.,.,,._ ana v1e . der ...vO t'ne Coningen
. h remain '. .t Fund
Upon being
'
re-elected
- .
in April, 1844, Mayor Sprague continued to stress
the lack of legal ;uthority for the City Hospital.127 H is message to the
Common Council on this subject had the effect of causing that body to dis
continue appropriations for the hospital, which was therefore forced to halt
its services to the community, meager as they were. The citizens of Brook
lyn were new increasingly aroused over the lack of hospital facilities; and
at a meeting of citizens on February 17, 1845, resolutions were adopted to
128
raise $ 2 0,000 privately and to ask the State Legislature for $10,000.
On May 8, 1845, the State Legislature authorized the incorporation of "The
Brooklyn City Hospital. 1112 9 In October, 1846, the trustees purchased a house
on ,Jackson Street opposite Fort Greene for the accommodation of approximately
twenty patients. This was to serve as temporary quarters until funds could
be raised for the erection of . necessary buildings. A.t the same time, the
125. Ibid., Jan. 9, 1844.

126. Ibid.
127 r5Ici., May 7, 1844.
128. Ibid., Feb. 18 ., 184.5.
129. New York State, Laws, Sixty-eighth Session, p. 153.
-116-
associates purchased ground on Raymond Street near Willoughby Street at a

cost of $3,500 for future buildings. 130
Strict rules were adopted concerning admission of patients. No person
suffering from a malady diagnosed as incurable could be .admitted. Also
excluded were those suffering from smallpox, measles, or any other contagious
disease. Those able to pay for their board and maintenance were to pay
1 1
according to their means, while .others would be admitted as indigents. 3
In 1848, when the hospital was still in financial difficulty, another
general meeting was called to obtain funds. A Brooklyn resident, Captain
Charles Hobard, pledged $20,000; while an unnamed benefactor, actually
Augustus Graham, pledged $25,ooc if a like amount could be obtained from
1-:i-:>
other sources. J Then in 1850, the Common Council consented to allot
$2,000 annually for 'the maintenance of the hospital. With the money obtained.,
the Building Committee purchased thirty-seven lots adjoining Fort Greene Q
Grotkd breal.ng ceremonies were held on March 28, 1851 . The main building
was designed to accommodate seventy or eighty patients. 133 The name of
the institution was soon changed to nBrooklyn Hospital," thus removing the
134
cnnotation that it was an institution totally supported by the municipality.
In addition to a hospital partially supnorted by the city, Brooklyn also
had a dispensary. The dispensary began its work in August, 1846, although
it was not incorporated until March, 1850. At first, it was located in the
Jackson house on Hudson Street near Lafayette Street c After the City Hall
130. Cornwell, p. 91.

13lc Ibid., Pe 92e
1320 Eagle, Feb. 2, 1848.
1330 Star ., March 29,. 1851.
134. Stiles, II, 925-26.
-117-
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
135. Ibid., II, 936.

136., Eagle, Feb. 8, 1847.
1370 Ibid., July 26, 1842.
138. Common Council, Ordinances, p. 21.
13 9. ., p. 22.
l40e New York State, Laws, Seventieth Session (Albany, 1847), pp. 147-48.
-118-
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
141. Ibid., p. 54.

142. s:-11.Ost.raJ1der, Brooklyn --
Past --
and Present (Brooklyn, i833), PP 177-78.
J.LJ. Eagle, July 23, 1545.
-119-
In December, Alderman Frederick Lee urged the municipal authorities to adopt

a program of free vaccinations for indigent families o He hoped that it
might stop the spread of the disease. A resolution to this effect was
adopted. 144 As another health precaution, the Eagle sought the erection
of public natatoria. It recommended free bath facilities, despite its
assertion that Brooklyn was a remarkably realthy place because of its "pen
insular situation and the hilly natur of the ground" and because it lacked
breeding -places for disease such as existed in New York City. It contended
that the city would find its public health expenses lessened as a result of
such action. 145 The public natatoria sought by the Eagle were not provided.
In 18h9, Brooklyn, along
.
with. New York-City, suffered from an epidemic
of cholera. It appeared in Brooklyn at the end of May and remained throughout
that entire summer. Some 642 deaths were laid to the disease. Of the total.
who died, L.95 were adults and 147 were children. The Irish and German immi
grants were hardest hit by the scourge. Some 420 foreign born perished from
46
the disease, whereas only 75 natives died. 1 Although all parts of Brooklyn
were affected, four-fifths of the victims came from well defined localities
in the neighborho0d of Hoyt, Bond, Butler and Douglas streets in such densely
ponulated rows of houses as Blake's Buildings, Squire's Buildings and Hall's
Alley. According to Brooklyn's Health Officer, "These localities were in the
neighborhood of low ground and stagnant water or where the filth was abundant,
and were too crowded11 147 C. S. J. Goodrich, the Health Officer, estimating
the total Brooklyn population at 100,000 at the time, came to the conclusion
1.44. Ibid., Dec. 30, 1845.

145. --=-
Ibid., June 16, 1846.
146 Stiles, II, p. 2sc::/
147. ., P 286.
-120-
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
the orders of the authorities on the part of every citizen.11 149

In 1854, Brooklyn suffered another attack from the same disease. This
epidemic proved to be just as costly in lives as he 1849 epidemic. As a
result of this scourge a special hospital was opened in June of 1854 to handle
the cholera victims. This at least kept the disease from spreading still
further. .Again most of the patients were immigrants who lived in filthy hovels
particularly along the East River.l50
Throughout the 1840 1 s and 185 0 1 s the health of Brooklyn was adversely
affected by several factors :cheap dwelling sites were breeding grounds of
disease-;-and, :unfortunately, too many families were forced to congregate in
these areas. furthermore, the sanitary provisions in the municipality were
not adequate, and already poor conditions were aggravated by an insufficient
water su:pnly. For the major nortion of the neriod, Brooklyn really had made
no provisions for the handling of the sick, especially the chronically ill and
those suffering from contagious diseases. By the close of the neriod the
Comi'ilon Council, which was responsible for rnaintair1ing a healthy community,
148. Star, Sept. 20, 181.i9c

149. Ibid., May 2, 1850.
150. Joseph c. rfotchison, F..istory & ObserYations on Asiatic holera in
Brooklyn, New York in 1554 (New York, 1855) .,passim.
-121-
began to realize that the municioa:lity had to provide for the underprivileged
and indigent who became seriously ill.
Chapter VI
A growing concern for community health prompted suggestions that the

city government assume broader responsibilities for the cleanliness of the
streets, the disposal of waste, and the provision of an adequate water
supply. Despite a great deal of discussion of these problems, very little
was actually accomplished before 1855 to remedy the lack of satisfactory
facilities.
Previous to 1831, the village streets were cleaned by a scavenger who
first collected and then carried the refuse away in an ox-cart. The scavenger
was in the employ of the village and the cart was owned by the municipality e
This system was soon outmoded in a rapidly expanding community. In 1831,
the village authorities decided to award an annual contract to an individual
who would provide the neceseary men and equipment for street cleaning pur
poses. This practice continued until 1844.
Mayor Joseph Sprague had remindedthe councilmen, in May, 1843, of the
necessity of providing effective street cleaning procedures if Brooklyn ex
pected to be a place "conducive to health, inviting to strangers, and [ioJ
those who may desire a habitation among us. 111 When, in 1844, he reiterated
l. Eagle, May 6, 18430

-123-
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.
2. Ibid., May 7, 1844

3. l'iiid., May 6, 184$
4. Ibid., May 18, 1847
-
5. 'f6I'd., March l, 18490
-124-
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
6. Star, May 2, 1850.

1. Ibid.
8. Ibid., June 25, 1850.
9. Ibid., April 7, 1851.
10. Ibid., July ll, 1851.
-125-
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
u. Ibid., July 1.5, 1851.

12. Ibici., March 2y 1852.
-
13. Ibid., June 21, 1852.
-126-
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
14. Ibid., Jan. 25, 1853.

15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., Feb. 8, 1853.
-127-
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
.,
cipality was still attempting to find a solution to this health menace.

The lack of an adequate drainage system posed another problem connected
with community health. As early as 1839, John Rolfe, a resident of Brooklyn,
addressed an open letter to Mayor Cyrus P. Smith in which he pointed out that
the streets facing away from the East River drained off toward the center of
the city, resulting in the formation of stagnant pools. He recommended that a
system of leaders.from the streets be connected to large sewers. These
sewers in turn would enter an open drainage canal extending from the Gowanus
meadow to-the Wallabout.21 This solution to the problem lay dormant until
17. ., Sept. 12, 1851 .

-
18. Ibid.
1 9.Ibid., June 1.5, 18.52.
20. Ibid., June 30, 1852.
21. Ibid.' Aug .5, l839e
-128-
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.
22. Eagle, May 3, 1842.

23. Ibid., Jan 28, 1847.
24. Ibid., Feb. l, 1847.
25. Ibid., March 10, 1847.
26. eoiiimon Council, Ordinances, Dec. 6, 1847.
27. -
Star, Jan. 26, 1852.
-129-
A drainage canal was also under consideration in: the forties. In

September, 1847, the Eagle reconunended that the drainings of the city be
deposited in Gowanus meadow. Provision could then be made for flooding the
meadow by allowing water from the bay region to cover the land. As the
tidewaters receded, they would remove the drainings. The paper suggested
that if the meadow could be sufficiently dredged, the resulting recetacle
could be developed into a commercial basin. This could be developed in
"with Gowanus bay, alone, or, by cutting through the isthmus into Wallabout
-
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
28. Eagle, Sept. 27, 1847.

29: Ibid; Dec 4, 1848
JO. Ibid., Feb. 7, 1849.
31. Brookl.yn Standard Union, July 13, 1928.
-130-
1834-1855, to remedy the difficulty, Brooklyn, as late as 1855, still

suffered from the lack of sufficient water for municipal purposes. Several
schemes were proposed, such as sharing the Croton Reservoir with New York
City, constructing a reservoir on Prospect Heights, erecting an aqueduct to
be fed by Long Island streams and, finally, drilling deep wells throughout
Brooklyn. None of these plans came to fruition.
In 1835, Mayor Jonathan Trotter advanced the idea that perhaps Brooklyn
2
might arrange with New York City to share the water from the Groton Ri.ver.3
The suggestion was dropped for a decade. The year 1845 found the expanding
conununity confronted with the immediate problem of securing "pure and whole
some" water. The Eagle reported that a proposal had originated in New York
City to provide Brooklyn with Croton water by laying pipes under the East
River. The water was to be stored in a reservoir on Brooklyn Heights and then
distributed from that location. The Eagle was of the opinion that this plan
would prove impractical over a long span of years, inasmuch as.it appeared that
33
Brooklyn was destined to be a large and populous city in its own right. Ac
cording to the Eagle, the Croton could not adequately supply two growing
communities such as would exist in 1900. The newspaper hinted at the antag
onism between the two cities, when it asserted, "we do not like the idea of
receiving this element through the grace of New York The best course is,
to have no more to do with her, in a corporate capacity, than is absolutely
necessary. 1134
In May, 1845, Mayor Thomas G. Talmage sought to bring the water problem
to the consideration of the Council. He focused his attention on fire fighting
32. Star, Sept. 10, 1835.

33. Eagle, Jan. 28, 1845.
34. Ibid.
-131-
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
themselves, the citizens undertook to guard their property by inauguratin&

fire patrols.which would be prepared to sound the alarm. At a public meeting
held in June ., 1845, a resolution was adopted requesting the officials "to take
immediate measures to secure a suff'icient spply of water. 1137 Fortunately .,
Brooklyn did not suffer from any great conflagration that summer.
"
, ,
In September ., members of the Brooklyn Institute, a private cultural organ-.

ization ., discussed various means of.securing water, such as digging wells and
excavating for springs. These schemes were labeled as i.practical by the
38
Eagle. In order to secure some action, the Eagle joined its political rival .,
the Advertiser, in urging the Council to find a substitute for the outmoded
systei'il of wells "in which is constantly being concentrated the essence of the
conglomerated filth of a dense and increasing population. n39
35. ., May 5, 1845.

36. Ibid., June 10, 1845.
37. Ibid., June 24., 1845.
Ibid., Sept. s, 1845.
38.
39. -
1'6ia.; March 24, 1846.
-132-
The Common Council began discussing a plan in January, 1847, by which

water would be obtained from artesian wells. It was thought that if a well
could be built which would supply 100 gallons a minute, Brooklyn would solve
the water problem. 4
0 In order to test this theory several wells were dug
within the limits of the city. The results proved to be negative.41
A special committee formed to study the water supply problem reported
to the Council in September, 1848. Alderman George Fisk, spokesman for
the group, apprised the councilmen that informal talks had been held with
New York City officials concerning Croton water. Those who had engaged in
these discussions were of the opinion that.New York would not be willing to
share the water derived from this source. Next, the committee studied the
streams and ponds of Long Island. It was reported that sufficient evidence
was before the committee to rule these out as potential sources. They were
of the opinion that the best possible plan would involve constructing wells
"of extraordinary size and depth, and so located as to be always free from
the possibility of injury to the water from tha surrounding country being
built upon or populatd. i,42 It was the committee's intention to purchae
land "somewhere east or south of the line of hills extending north and
south of Mount Prospect including ground for a reservoir at an elevation
fifty feet above that of the tops of the highest dwellings in the city, and
that the water may be conveyed by steam power to the reservoir, and thence
by pipes through every street. rr43
Meanwhile, the municipal authorities returned to digging wells at street
corners. In October, 1848, excavating procedures were being carried out on
40. Ibid., Jan. 20 1 1847.

410 !6ic!., Sept. 11, 1848.
42. "ibid., Sept. 19, 1848.
43. 1'6in.
-133-
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
Reporting on Burden's plan, th water committee declared January,

1849, that they had investigated three different sources of supply. Che..ical
analysis of water samples taken from the Wallabout area, Prospect Hill, and
the Jamaica streams had shown all three samples to be of a good quality and
equal to Croton water. It would be far less expensive, they asserted, to
obtain water from. the Wallabout area than to build an aqueduct from Long
44. Ibid., Oct. 16, 1848.

45. Ibid., Nov. 28, 1848.
-
46. Ibid., Dec. 2, 1848.
-134-
Island. They estimated that a small reservoir could be constructed.on Fort

Greene which would hold an ample. supply of water for fire fighting purposes.
The committee concluded by recommending that the State Legislature be re
quested to grant permission to institute the erection of such a reservoir.47
The Eagle commented that a water supply sufficient only for fire fighting

purposes was not fulfilling the needs of the community. 48
The Common Council then requested the State Legislature to enact a
measure which would include these proposals: the appointment of three water
commissioners and the authorization for Brooklyn to issue bonds n the amount
or $150,000 for the purpose of. creating a water supply adequate for fighting
fires.49 The Legislature did enact such a measure, but the Common Council
never appointed the three water cimdssioners.
. . .
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
47. Ibido, Jan. 9, 1849.

48. Ibid.
49. New York State, Laws, Seventysecond Session, pp. 469-78.
50. -
Star, June 16, l'BsI: .
-135-
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
. .
to analyze water from a typical pump. "Imagine all the accumulations of

filth in a great city--not merely the slops and rottenness thrown in the
streets and by-ways but the numberless privies, cess-pools,.sinks and
gulches and abomination the unnameable and immeasurable dirt that is ever,
ever, ever filtered into the earth .. and which as surely finds its way to
the neighborhood of pwnp-water, and:into pump-water. 1152 This was the deadly
concoction which was "daily ancl hourly taken into our stomachs, our veins,
our blood." Whitman hoped that someday Brooklyn would have "an abundant,
supply of clean, sweet, soft, wholesome water1 0 it is not only anted for
drinking, but for bathing, washing, cooking, sprinkling and cleaning streets
It is wanted to save this half-wooden city from_ruinous.conflagrations."53
In December, 1851, the Common Council sought the services of engineers
- . .
to ascertain the possible sources of wter upon which the city could draw.
Throughout the early part ofDeoember, the citizenry awaited their report.
The :!:!!:surmised that the engineers would concern themselves with the possibil
ity of obtaining water from four sres on Long Island.
54 The report was
presented to the Connnon Council on December 22, 1851 . In the opinion of
William J. Mcpine: one of the engineers: all the projects previously con
sidered were either impracticable or too cost1y.
55 He proposed to collect a
number of streams:o.r water which discharged into Jamaica and Hempstead Bays,
51. Holloway, I, 254-55.

52. Ibid.
53. Toici.
54. Star, Dec. 6, 1851.
55. Common Council, Report of the standing Committee on Water, and Com
munications of w. J. Mcilnine and J. B. Jervis, ineers, - Dntlie'
-
Subject o:f Wer(Bro_oklyn, l.83'21",pp;-3.4.
-136-
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
He estimated that the - entire proj_ect wld cost $3,500., 000.

59 The seoond
. . . .
engineer,_ John B. Jervis, substantially reported the s. e plan 60 The alder
.. -
men who comprised the water committee endorsed the engineers findings.
In June, 1852, Alderman Charles Ma.;rv in stated that $4,28 had been ex
pended on.test borings on the.Long Island streams recommended.by,McAlpine.
t . . .
.. . . .
The Alderman sought authorization topiace gauges in the various streams in

. . . , .. 61
order to record the amount of water flow. Then, in October, the Council in
secret session granted the Committee on Water the authority to-purchase land
for the erection of a reservoir .,62
Mayor Edward Lambert, upon assuming office, in January, 1853, declared
that McAlpine's was the only feasible plan and that he personally endorsed it e
He estimated that the cost or building 'a water supply system'would approxilllate
$23 per capita, whereas New York , a.11.d Boston expended $43 and $55 per -oapita.63
Furthermore, the fire prevention benefits could not be measured in monetary
6
terms. 4 A few day later, Brooklyn was awakened from its lethargy when it.
56. Ibid., PP 5-J.4.

51. Ibid.
58. .I.bid., PP J.4-17.
59. Ibid., pp. 17-20.
60. Ibid., PP 23-4.
61. Stir, June 9, 1852.
62. Comiiion Council , Secret Sessions, Oct. 25, 1852.
63. Jan. 5, 1853.
64.
-137-
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
. . . . .
appropriated $75,000 towards the acuisition of several streaius on Long Is

land.69 On the following day, it was announced that four streams had been
70
procured at a . cost of $57,000. Some small ponds and streams were
. .-
then
.
71
bought later that month. It was then necessary to secure enabling legis-
lation from the State Legislature if these streams were to be used as a
source of water supply. In order to accomplish this, Mayor Lambert personally
traveled to Albany where his endeavors met with success.72 On June 3, the
State Legislature enacted a :masure to "Supply the City of Brooklyn with
Water on73 According to the provisions of the Act, the electorate was to
vote on the Council's plan, which was to be published in the Corporation
65. New York Times, Jan. 7, 1853.

66. star, Jan. 21, 1853.
67. Ibid., March 23, 1853.
68. Ibid., May 10, 1853.
69. Tbid ..
70. Ibid., May 11, 1853.
71. Ibid., May 21, 1853.
72. IbicL, June 2, 1853. . .
73. q_ommon Council, Documents and Plans Submit't.e! Water Committee to
.....,,, - , d?I.' -- , ""'
the Coinrnon Counci1 o:f thP (!; +.v l'lf' 'R.,.,.,,..1r, m, r;;_..,.
-138-
newspapers for fifteen dys prior to its presentation to the electorate.74

If the majority rejected it., the Common Council was to prepare a new project
and present it again to the electorate. If a majority approved ., the Common
Council by a majority vote would _appoint five commissioners. Asa means of
obtaining funds for the proposed water works, the city was authorized to
isue an unlimited amount of bonds bearing 6 per cent interest.
75
Opposition soon began to apear to the water pl. A correspondent of

the objected to the lack of provision for supervising the award of con
tracts. Under the lan the Council was not obliged to present the contract
to the lowest bidder, he asserted. 76 The Star assisted in the calling of an
"Anti-Water Plan Meeting., held on July 10 ., at which several speakers ex
pressed their opposition to the project. They contended that the sources
were insufficient because some of the streams tended to become dry beds in
the summer; a high tax rate would be necessary in order to pay for the con
struction; and the water was unfit.for culinary purposes 77 0
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-
person and lastly, six comnd.ssioners were to be appointed by a two-thirds

vote of the Conunon Com1ci1. 79 On April 7, 1854, the State Legislature
adopted the proposed amendments. 80
However, in the referendum held on June 1, the same fate awaited the
water bill as on the previous occasion. Few voters took the trouble to
81
cast ballots and of thoe who did, most were antagonistic to the proposar.
Several factors were responsible for the defeat. For one, the old idea of
supplying. Brooklyn with water by digging huge wells was.again revived.82
It as contended that wells would yield twice the average daily water needs
. 83
for all of Brooklyn at a cost of $1,000,000.. Secondly, the Williamsburgh
Water Woks Company recently had reorganized as the Long Island Water"Works
Company and had bought the ponds and streams best suited for water supply
purposes.
Because many still believed in t.he well system, Johns. Stoddard, City
Surveyor, presented a report to the councilmen, on May 15, 1854, describing
the gret disadvantages of such a plan. He declared that it_ would be impos
sible to procure sufficient water fran a single well, and that at least twenty
wells .would be required. He asserted furthermore, that there was no afeguard
against the
.
.
possibility that this source might run dry after eight or nine
. ,
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.
85. Common Council, Report of! Special Committee Communication 21 Henry

Ruggles to Sup'Oly ,!h! Ci-tjT Water (Brooklyn, 1854), PP 1-10.
Chapter VII
The need for an adequate street system in an urban area is well re

cognized A rapidly expanding community such as Brooklyn in the period
1834 to 1855 could ill afford to allow its street system to develop hap
hazardly. With the growth of the co:mmunitlS population was moving into
sections which had hitherto been devoted to agriculture. If these newly
populated areas were to maintain adequate transportation and communication
contacts with the older portions of the city, it would be necessary to
determine on a street plan.
The need for dwelling sites led fanners on the outskirts of the city
to recognize the tremendous land value their farms now had as building lots.
They, therefore, begA to parcel out land for home sites, but in a rather
haphazard fashion. It was realized that if this trend continued, the streets
as laid out would lack any discernible order.
Soon after obtaining cityhood, the Common Council of Brooklyn appointed
a commission consisting of one member from each ward for the purpose of
preparing a city map. This group had completed its task by December, 1835.
Fram the beginning, the work of the committee was met by antagonism on the
-J.42-
part of those property owners whose holdings would be affected by a re

vision of the street system. In an attempt to reduce the animosity toward
this commission's activities, the Council on January 29; 1835,agreed to
request passage by the State Legislature of a measure creating a three-mem
1
ber board to be appointed by the governor. The objective of this committee
would be to undertake a preliminary survey of the outer wards, prepare a
working map of the area, study street levels, and provide for the filing
2
of all maps of the city in a centralized locality. Such a commission was
authorized for a two-year period by the Legislature in April, 1835. Not
havirig completed its project by 1837, its life was extended for additional
one-year periods in 1837 and 1838. Despite the necessity for such an
undertaking, tne committee and the city plan quietly entered the realm of
oblivion.
The Council, during the years 1834 to 1855, passed a number of ordinances
designed to provide general rules of procedure concerning streets already in
existence. An ordinance of July 1, 1835, defined the width of sidewalks,
using as a criterion the width of the streets. Sidewalks were to range in
width from ten to twenty feet; streets, f'rom forty to one hundred f'eet. 3
Curbstones were to be three and one-half feet long, three inches thick, six-
t.een inches wide and composed of the best gratd.te. The Council could determine
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
l. Star, Feb. 1, 1835.

2. Ibid., Feb. 11 1838.
) Q Brooklyn Ordinances, 1850, p. 1.48.
4. Eagle, March 8, 1842.-
-143-
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
5. Brooklyn Ordinances, 1850, P 159.

6. , Jan. 10, 1843.-
7. 1'61
a. Brooklyn Ordinances, 1850; pp. 114-15.
..141,...
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
9. Eagle, Sept. 21, 1848.

lOo Ibid., Jan. 27, 1846.
11. Ibid., Dec. 6; 1844.
12e Common Counoil 1 Relating to Cit;t Brooklzt! (Brooklyn, 1855), passim.
annually changed for after each municipal election, the mayor would name
ive aldermen to serve on this committee. The constant rotation of its
members hampered the creation 0 a set policy in regard to street projects
by the Street Committee.
The city had to face the problem of paying for the opening of new
streets and the repairing of older ones. Following a procedure adopted in
its village period, Brooklyn assessed those owning property abutting the
projected thoroughfare. The opening of a street required the consent of
a majority of the interested property holders. In 1835, for example,
Brooklyn desired to purchase the Wallabout Bridge and Road from its private
owners in order to allow free access to and from portions of Long Island.
The community could not acquire this property until a majority of those vho
were to be assessed agreed to petition the Council to proceed. Only neces
sity compelled a sufficient number of taxpayers to agree that the munici
pality should make the purchase.13
Other difficulties arose over the question of equitable assessments.
The problem came to the fore in 1839 when it was proposed to open Fulton
Street from the site of the future City Hall to the city line, a distance
of five miles It was planned to levy an equal assessment, although the
land along the way differed greatly in value. Near the heart of the com
munity, land sold for $2,000 to $3,000 per lot, while at the city line, land
could be purchased for $20 to $25 a lot. It was recOJTllllended that if the
entire length of the street were to be opened, the project should be under
taken in sections with the assessments varying according to the section. 14
This solution was adoptedo
13. Star, June ll, 1835.

-
14. Ibid., March 14, 1839.
-146-
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
15. Eagle, Aug. 31, 1847.

16. Ibid., Nov. 15, 1847.
17. c'oiimiittee on Public Improvements, Report (Brooklyn, 1847), pp. 3-7.
-147-
The committee also recommended that a board of assessors be organized.

This group would determine costs and establish the rates of assessment.
They would not have the authority to resolve the amount of awards to be
given to individuals for property used by the city. For this purpose ., a
judge of the County Court was to name several men who would serve as
separate commission.18 This practice was established with the charter of
18500
Street grading, paving and repairing contracts were let out by the
municipality to private contractors. As was usual in such affairs, nepotism,
briberyand even corruption often prevailed. The Eagle charged,- in 1848, that
a Whig-dominated street committee. offered the work on Bedford Avenue and
Paci.fie St,reet to the firm of Roberts and Bradshaw as a reward for their
1
labors during the last municipal electiono 9 -The Whig newspaper, the
Star, reported that two men had entered bids:, Roberts at $4 .59 per .foot and
McNamara at $3.67 per foot. The entire project was to cover 5,154 feet thus
involving a sizable sum. It was asserted that as soon as Roberts had been
awarded the contract, he in turn offer.ed to cede his contract to McNamara
if the laiterwould do the work for $3.40 per foot. This would have given
Roberts a profit of $6,000 for a job he had not even begun. McNamara then
20
offered Roberts $4,750, which was refused. The matter remained unsettled
until the close of the year. In December, a special committee of the Common
Council agreed to award the contract to William Gascoyne at $2.27 per foot
on condition that both Gascoyne and the city each pay Roberts $750 to re
linquish.his claim. The Eagle t s ink practically turned purple w.i.th rage
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
Such a procedure would be feasible, it contended, only.if there were but

0;1e way in_which the task could be carried
, out. The charged that respon
sible contractors did not bother to enter bids because they knew that unethical
men would ofter much lower bids. The result was that the work lasted only for
a short time and then had to be done over.
24
Oftentimes, irresponsible contractors did not bother to adhere to the

letter of their contracts in rgard to material or date of completion e If
a contract was not completed on time, a contractor was liable to a fine of
$25 per day for each day of delay. As it developed, whenever '. a contractor
realized that a contract date had passed, he would throw hi.self at the mercy
of the Common Council. Usually, the Common Council would prove amenable to
the contractor's plea for leniency. The guessed that of all the contracts
awarded by the city "not one in ten of the number are ever carried out to the
---------------
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.
25. Ibid., Nov. 17, l8S2.

26. Ibid.
27. Street Commissioner, ReSort to the Common-Council on Improvements -
in -
the
-
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
29. Ibid., April 25, 1839.

30. Brooklyn Ordinances, - 1850, Ordinance of Nov. 1, 1839, PP U6-l7e
31. Ibid.
32. Eagle, Feb. 21, 1844.
33 . Ibid.
340 Ibid., March 21, 1844.
3.5. Ibid., March 22, 1844.
-151-
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.
the companies pledged to charge the lowest possible fares.42
36. Ibid., March 26, 1844.

37. Brooklyn Ordinances, 1850, pp. 116-17.
38. Eagle, March 30, 1844-.-
39. ., Dec. 5, 1844.
40. Daily Advertiser, May 14, 1845.
41. Brooklyn ordiiiances, 1850, pp. 30-2.
42. , Dec. 13, 1853.
-152-
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.
In 1843, Brooklyn was attempting to induce recovery after suffering the

effects of the Panic of 1837. In an effort to provide work for many idle
hands, it was decided to furnish a corps of men with employment by authorizing
them to bring the park up to grade.47 The money set aside for this purpose was
soon exhausted and again the park was left in an unfinished state. Mayor
43. Ibid., Feb. 12, 1835.

44. Ibid., Feb. 26, 1835.
45. Ibid., March 26, 1835.
46. Ibid., Feb. 16, 1841.
47. _Eagle, April 27, 1843.
-154-
Joseph Sprague briefly mentioned the situationin the course of an address

to the Common Council in May, 1844, when he suggested that the park project
be comp1eted. h8 Acting upon the Mayor's recommendation, a committee counselled
that the munieipality find a contractor who would grade the City Park with
.
earth obtained from the elevation lmown as Fort Greene. 49 Mayor Sprague
vigorously objected to this plan when it was accepted by the aldermen in
August, 1844. To begin with, he thought the City Park needed more land fill
than .could be readily obtained from Fort Greene. Moreover, he doubted that
the work could be completed at a cost of $6,394, which was to be derived from
the sale of city owned property. He was not certain that these land trans
actions would yield a sum sufficient to cover expenses. Lastly, he was aware
that residents of the agricultural Eighth and Ninth wards were opposed to a
park, believing that only the well populated areas of the city would receive
0
benefits from such improvements.5 After a prolonged debate, Spragues
arguments were disregarded, and the original report was readopted. 5
1 The
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
48. Ibid., May 7, 1844.

49. Ibid., Jul.y 23, 18360
..., !bid
5o.
.i..
., Augo 20, 1844.
Ibid
52. Cornwell, Brooklyn City Register, 1848, PP 73-4.
-155-
upon and lost to the citizenry as a park area. 53 No action was taken to secure
this property throughout the 1B30's. In 1842, the idea was revived when a mass
petition was sent to the Common Council by voters who requested the purchase
of land for a park. The Eagle spoke of the acquisition of the Heights site as
"a glorious pro,ject ..-it will do more for Brooklyn than any other measure of
public improvement ever devised.11 54 In 1845, the announcement that the Pier
repont estate was available for purchase led to renewed agitation for a park on
the Heights. As soon as it became lmown that this land could be acquired ,- the
circulation of another petition was started. This proposed that the city pur
chase and lay out the plot known as the Pierrepont estate as a park or square. 55
Henry E. Pierrepont, writing to Henry Stiles in 1863, recalled that his
father, being a civic minded person, had approached the municipality on the pos
sibility that it might desire a strip of land along the waterfront for use as
a public promenade. He owned one-quarter of the total property and he expected
that he could induce the other property holders to sell a portion of their lands
to the municipality. He did receive their consent, but the authorities decided
not to purchase the property. 56 Actually, it was not unt11a century later
that Brookl3 obtained a park on the Heights.
In the mid-1840 1 s a plan was proposed to locate a park to be known
as Washington Park on the Fort Greene elevation in the Seventh Ward. His
torically, Fort Greene had played an important role in the battle or Brook
lyn Heights during the American Revolution. Geographically, it was located
in the center of the growing communit,y and it appeared to many to be
ideal for a park. This locality Was particularly desirable,
53. Star, June 23, 1836.

54. Eagle, June 11, 1842.
55. Ibid., Aug. 4, 1845.
56. Henry E. Pierrepont, Brooklyn Recollections. A. L. s. to Henry Stiles,
Feb. ll, 1836.
-156-
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-
lature would authorize a specific bond issue or a special general tax.'9 In

October, 1846, the aldermen determined
. . to request legislative consent for a
. 6o
special assessment.
A major problem still before the municipal authorities was the question
of how to determine equitably the amount of extra taxes to be borne by.the
property owners of Brooklyn in order to purchase and prepare the site as a
park. Realizing the necessity for some action on this matter, a public
meeting was called early in January, 1847, to discuss the situation. Out
of the meeting there emerged a conunittee whose mandate was to seek an im
partial solution. This body was composed of many distinguished Brooklynites,
such as Henry c.
Murphy, Seth L0t1, Henry E . Pierrepont, John Greenwood,
.
61
Jopathan Trotter and several others. They recommeded that the State
Legislature authorize the appointment of thr_ee commissioners "whose duty
_it shall be to make a just valuation of the land required for Washington
62 These appointees also were to estimate the financial gains de-
Square."
rived by the property owners whose lands abutted the park. These benefits
57. Eale, June ll, 1846.

58. -, July 11, 1846.
59. Ibid.
60. foid., Nov. 10, 1846.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid., Jan. 30, 1847.
-157-
were to be taken into consideration in dei::._ermining the final amount to be

paid for the land. In April, 1847, the State Legislature authorized the
opening of Washington Park on Fort Greene.63 The law directed the Superior
Court of the City of New York to appoint three persons to assess the property
to be acquired. Differences of opinion still prevailed, however, within the
Common Council concerning the manner of acquiring the funds for the purchase
of the land. Some believed that the city as a whole should be assessed for
the park, others that the costs should be met only by the owners of adjoining
property.
Those who opposed the park because of the fear that the 9ity would re
sort to a general assessment gathered at a meeting in January, 1848. They
contended that even though they were generally in favor of the project, they
could not support the plan whereby all the taxpayers in the first seven wards
would be assessed, rather than only those who would immediately benefit from
a park. They claimed that a general assessment was 11 unequal, oppressive,
and contrary to the charter of the city, and ought to be resisted by al.l
64
legal and constitutional measures." The friends of the park, who came from
all areas of the city, then held a meeting of their own. Resolutions were
adoted supporting the concept of a general tax on the seven wards and con
demning all efforts to circumvent the realization of this civic improvement.65
In an attempt to settle the matter, the State Legislature was prevailed
upon by the municipality to enact a new measure in March, 1848, which stip
ulated that all nine wards were to be assessed rather than only the first
seven. Moreover, the city was permitted to issue long-term interest bearing
63. New York State, Laws, Seventieth Session, pp. 135-39.

64. Eagle, Jan. 5, l'S'rar.
65. ., Jan. 14, 1848.
-158-
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
Several factors, resulting from local and national conditions, posed

financial difficulties for Brooklyn during the period 1834 to 1854. On
the municipal level, the rapid growth in population and the expansion 0
residential areas called for increased city expenditures. With its general
disbursements limited to p50,000 annually by the Charter of 1834 the mw"'tlci
pality was frequently compelled to carry the arrears into the following
year's budget or to allocate funds, originally obtained for other purposes,
to help defray the general rising deficit.
The event of national scope which contributed to the municipality's
financial dilemma was the Panic of 1837. In the period of widespread spec
ulation preceding the financial crisis, Brooklyn; like so many other communities,
indulged in grandiose building schemes. The community was carried away by
the exuberance of the age into commencing the constructon of a City Hall of
great magnitude. The Panic of 1837 brought an end to this undertald.ng. The
economic collapse following the Panic caused difficulties for the city govern
ment in view of its real estate speculations and the many contracts it had
entered into on behalf of the aborted City Hall.
-160-
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
1. See Table VI,. 215-17.

2. See Table VIT, W 218-19.
-l6l.-
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
3. Star, Aug. S, 1853.

4. Eagle, May 17, 1842.
5. See Table VIII, p. 220.
6. Eagle, Jan. 17, 1843.
-162-
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;
7. Ibid., March 24, 1842.

8. Ibid., Nov. 13, i845.
9. Ibid., Aug. 18, 1846.
-163-
and, therefore, local assessments continued to be levied.

Friction occasionally arose in local politics based upon charges that
all the wards were not benefiting equally from money raised by taxes. Res
idents of the Eighth and Ninth wards, which were known throughout the period
of 1834 to 1855 as the agricultural wards because of the number of farms in
the area, complained in the 1840 1 s that they had been inequitably taxed.
They objected to being assessed in order to redeem bonds issued to cover the
expenses of street projects beneficial only to the non-agricultural wards.
The matter was placed in the hands of a committee of the Common Council in
1843, but no decision was reached until another committee, organized in 1844,
settled the affair. In April, 1845, this committee decided that the first
seven wards should pay $10,000 to the agricultural wards. This amount was
to be obtained adding the sum to the taxes of the first seven wards in
by
10
the following year. This decision, once accepted, put an end to the
dispute.
Special assessments proved to be a sufficient method for obtaining funds
for local improvements. The annual t?xes, however, could not begin to cover
the yearly city expenditures. Therefore, in order to acquire suffiient funds,
the city issued bonds. In its village days, the municipality had issued stock,
but this practice ceased with its incorporation as a city. The redemption
dates for many issues of stock, however, carried over into the years after
1834. In the period following 1834, bonds were the only indebtedness incurred
ty the municipality. The revenues received from this source were used to
ll annual sums ror th__e amo.n.,1.zat;_on
defray extraordi nary expenses. Beside paying ,-,&.
of the bonds, Brooklyn also had to set aside a sufficient amount to cover the
10. Ibid., May 7, 1845.

ll. SeeTables IX and X, pp. 221-22.
-164-
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
12. See Tables XI to XXX, PP 223-274.

13. Common Council ., Secret SessionMay 28, 1838.
14. Eagle, March 24, 1842.
15. Ostrander, II, 82.
-165-
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
16. Common Council, Secret Sessions, Sept. 7, 1835. .

17. Star, Dec. 31, 1835.
18. Toid., Anril 28, 1836e
19. Y6ici., Aug. 4, 1836.
20. I bid., April 13, 1837.
21. Common Council, Secret Sessions, June 13, 1837.
22. Ibid., Nov. 1, 1837.
23. '.i'6"icf., Nov. 13, 1837.
-166-
to terms so readily. In september, 1838, the Committee on Public Lands

reported that it was their opinion that the firm should be paid $17,445,
plus $699 in interest.24 The oard was not overly enthusiastic about
this plan. At.'a secret session in January, 1839, the aldermen decided to
offer the firm $5,750, reresenting 50 per cent of the value of the rough
marble which the company would be allowed to retain in its own possession. 25
The Council was notified in March, 1839, that the firm had not as yet
assented to aif'J terms. 26 With.the exposed foundation remaining as an
eesore, agitation was heard concerning the completion of the structure.
to study the
In November, 1839, the Board, again in secret session, agreed
costs involved in finishing the City Hall on a less grandiose scale than

originally had been contemplated 27 . Only a short while before, a letter
had appeared in the , . signed "One Who Knows," urging Mayor Cyrus Smith
not to consider plans. for the completion of the edifice. The correspondent
argued that the .construction costs had already reached $179,000 and that at
28
least another $35,000 would be needed oefore the project would be completed.
The issue was not decided at the time, since the Board -put all plans aside
for two years.
In October, 1841, the aldermen, meeting in secret session, agreed to
revive the idea of building a small City Hall and decided to ask arcbitects
29
to submit sketches for such a structure. At the same session, a Select
Committee was appointed to consider and report on this matter. The Committee
completed its task in January, 1842 and the results were printed in pamphlet .
24. ., Sept. 27, 1838.

25. Ibid., Ja... 7, 1839.
26. Ibid., March 25, 1839.
27. Ibid., Nov. 25, 1839.
28. star, Oct. 10, 1839.
29. Common Council, Secret Sessions, Oct. 25, 1841.
-167-
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
32. Eagle, June 3, 1843.

33. Ibid., June 5, 1843.
34. Ibid., May 1, 1844.
35. Aldermen, Secret Sessions, Nov. 11, 1844.
36. ., Dec. 4, 1844.
-169-
another ten years. 37

In May., 1845, the newly elected mayor, Thomas Talmage, informed the
Board that in his opinion the claim of Masterson and Smith could be settled
for a nominal sum if they were granted the marble contract for the new City
8
Hali.3 on the following.day the ,Eagle gave its editorial support t? the
plari o the Democratic Mayor. The newspaper-declared that if the Masterson
and Smith claim could be settled by giving the firm a contract, then the
Mayor had its heartiest s upport. 39 Meanwhile, in the latter part of May,
the State Legislature authorized a $50,000 bond issue for the "discharge
of e:xist:;i.ng lia.bilities II against the_ city a."ld for the "erection of a City
'Han. 114 In September of the same year, the aldermen allocated $150,000
0
for the edifice.4

1
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-
37. Eagle, March 25, 1845.

38. Ibid., May 7, 1845.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., May 23, 1845.
41. Comiiion Council, Secret Sessions, Sept. 11, 1845.
42. Eagle, Nove 12, 1845.
43. , Nov. 25, 1845.
-170-
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;
44. Ibid., May 5, 1846.

45. New York State, Laws, Sixty-ninth Session (Albany, 1846) ., p. 180.
46. Eagle, Jan. 18, I8li7.
47. Cornwell, Brooklyn City Register, pp. 71-2.
...171-
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.
48. Brooklyn Municipal Building Department, History M\uti.cipal Depart

Building Other P-u.blic Buildings !_!! !:! of BrooklYD;
(Brooklyn, 1878), PP 16-11.
Chapter IX
Given the proximity of Brooklyn to New York City it is not surprising

that among the problems of the municipality between 1834 and 1854 were some
that arose out of tension between the two cities. Perhaps because of the
greater size of its neighbor to the westward, pre-Civil War Brooklyn suf
fered from an inferiority complex. Every scheme developed by New York
City which might affect Brooklyn was regarded with apprehensiveness, and
in many instances these suspicions were warranted. Brooklyn particularly
considered itself subservient to New York in regard to ferry and water
rights. Both these problems wel:'e interconnected, since they rested on the
fundamental question of who controlled the water rights and ferries on the
East River
.According to Isabella Bishop 1 an Englishwoman who visited New York in
1854, transport by ferry gave Brooklyn the same relationship to New York
City as did the suburbs of Lambeth and Southwark to London. Many merchants
of New York, she reported, resided in Brooklyn and commuted by means of
ferries. She called them nFloting platforms, moved by; steam, with space
in the middle part for twelve or fourteen carriages, and luxurious covered
-173-
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
lo Isabella L. Be Bishop, The Englishwoman in America (London, 1856), p. 335.

2. Committee on Ferry and 'water Rights, Report -
of November - 1851 (Brooklyn,
17, -
1851) ., p. 4.
3. ' April 16, 1835.
-174-
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-
4. Stiles, Kings County, I, 435-36.

5. Star, Jan. 24, 1839.
60 Ibid.
7. Ccmiiiiittee on Ferry and Water Rights, Report, pp. 4-12.
ileges are reciprocal. Fulton Street in Brooklyn is as much, as
Fulton Street, New York is theirs; and we might with the same propriety
exact tribute from New-York, as to grant it to her. 118
In 1842, the Eagle entered the fray. This newspaper reminded its
readers that they traveled to New York only on terms adopted and controlled
by New York. The rival city, the Eagle asserted, was using the ferries as
a means of enriching that municipality's coffers ., It was urged that Brooklyn
ag.ain seek redress from the State Legislature in regard to the ferries. 9 Two
days later the ardent Democrat, Aldrman Thomas Gerald, offered a resolution
following the type of law advocatd by the Eagle. He requested that the
State Legislature establish an "independent board of Ce>mmissioners" with
power to "designate and appropriate upon just terms the necessary landing
places and wharves," for ferries operating on the East RiverelO The Council
adopted this resolution, but nothing further was done.
The Eagle then ttacked the corporation which operated the ferries. It
argued.that, according to the lease, the ferries were supposedly not to be
run at a profit. If profits accru.ed, they were to be turned back into im
proved equipment or fares were to be lowered. Barring these alternatives,
profits were to be deposited in the treasury of New York C:i,.ty. Contending
that the COI"?oration had realized a profit, the Eagle asked what had happened
to the improved facilities or reduced rates. Moreover, if New York City
could manage the ferries so that the trasury would be enriched then there
really would be no limit to their demands. Under such circumstances New York
11
might use the ferry leases as a mea.Iis of paying for the Croton Aqueduct.
8. Star, Nov. 21, 1839.

9. agle, Jan. 22, 1842.
lOo bid., Jan. 25, 1842.
11. Ibid., Oct. 17, 1843.
-176-
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
12. Ibid., March 20, 1844.

13. Ibid ., May 7, 1844.
14. Thid., May 9, 1844.
-177-
committee of distinguished Brooklynites was sent to Albany. The committee

consisted of John Greenwood, George Wood, William Harris, George Hall, Eban
Merriam, Jonathan Trotter, Alden Spooner, Henry E. Pierrepont, Cyrus Po
Smith, Georges. Howland and Gabriel Furman.15
While they were in Albany, New York City officials were entertaining
several proposals for the ferry franchise. The Uni:-on Ferry Company, the
organization then operating the ferries, made a bid of $25,000; Captain
Cornelius Vanderbilt, acting through an agent, offered $26,133; Rodman
Bowne, through an agent, made a bid of $30,000; and Joht, McIntire, acting
for Jacob Leroy and Henry Pierrepont, offered $30,5oo.16 Leroy and Pier
repont had kept themselves behind the scenes; for no mention was made of
their names when the Eagle announced that the franchise had been awarded
for the vast sum of $30,500.17
Meanwhile, the committee actively engaged in lobbying for an indepen
dent commission found themselves short of funds. As a result, they sought
financial assistance from the Brooklyn treasury. The Common Council did

not grant any monetary aid, but wished the committee the best of luck. 18
Alderman Thomas G. Talmage, in January of 1845, asked the Council to lend
its SU?port to the citizens' committee. In the course of his remarks he
made the interesting observation that, in 1843, New York City had failed
in an attempt to secure permission to levy a tax on non-residents working
or doing business in New York City. Talmage contended that since this
strategem had not succeeded, the city had changed its tactics so that the
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-
tax on non-re&idents was now imposed in the form of an exorbitant price

for the ferry franchise.19
The inhabitants of Brooklyn soon held another mass meeting. At this
meeting it was agreed to send John Greenwood to Albany to continue his
efforts to have the State Legislature create an independent commission.20
It was also resolved that "The act of residing in the city of Brooklyn,
instead of the city of New York, violates no one of the Ten Commandments,
and is innocent in law and in morals; and is not, therefore, a crime which
the municipal authorities of the city of New York should be allowed to
21
visit with a fine and penalty. 11
In Albany, Judge John Greenwood's labors proved fruitful, for the

State Legislature in:May, 1845, authorized the creation of a commission
consisting of three members who would oversee the ferries operating on the
East River. These cormnissioners were to be appointed by the governor and
22 The
could not be residents of New York City or its immediate environs.
Eagle offered its congratulations to all the residents of Long Island for
"the final over throw of that unjust.and utterly idefensible monopoly of
23
the ferries which the city of New York has so long exercised. 11
While the controversy was still going on the Brooklyn ferries were
being operated by the Union Ferry Company. Under the terms of a seven-year
lease, which it had obtained in 1844, the Company was to receive no more
than a seven-percent return on its investment with all surplus capital to
19. Ibid., Jan. 29, 1845.

20. Ibid.," Feb. 25, 1845.
21. Ibid.
220 NeviYork State Legislature, Laws, Sixty-eighth Session (Albany, 1845)
pp. 422-24.
23. Eagle, May 15, 1845.
-179-
be re-invested in new equipment.24 Although they invested $50,000 in

improved ferry landings, spent a large amount for new boats and reduced
the passenger fare to one penny, the Company still made a large enough
profit to declare an extra dividend of twenty-five percent upon the expir
2
ation of the lease. 5
Meanwhile, the Union Ferry Company appointed a number of intarested
stockholders to apply to the newly authorized Ferry Commission for per
mission to inaugurate ferry service from the foot of Wall Street to Brook
lyn Heights. This group was granted a license in 1848, to operate the.
Fulton, South, Wall Street, and Hamilton Avenue ferries. These stock
holders were then officially designated as the licensees. In an attempt
to gain recognition for their newly acquired lease, these men notified New
York City tht they were the only authorized group in the eyes of the Oom
nd.ssion. New York City officials in answer to this assertion, immediately
applied for an injunction to halt the new lease from taking effect. Before
the case could reach the courts, however, the les.sees, Leroy and Pierrepont,
requested New York 9 renew the seven-year franchise of the Union Ferry
. 26
. their own names.
C ompany in
It was extremely important for Brooklynites to have the matter of the
ferry charter settled as soon as possible for
.
the municipality would have
'
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
24. Committee on Ferry and Water Rights, Report, pp. 4-12

. 25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
-180-
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
27. Eagle, March 24, 1848.

28. Star, Oct. 23, 1849.
29. Thi<f.
30. Eagle, Oct. 30, 1850.
-181-
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-
missioners established by legislative fiat, or the municipal corporation

of New York? The plaintiffs claimed that the authority to confer a ferry
charter was of a political nature which the State had the right to grant
or deny o any lesser body. The State, said the plaintiffs, had destroyed
New York: Cityt s power to grant charters when the Legislature pa.ssed the
Act of 1845 establishing a Ferry Commission. 35 The attorney$for New York
City, John Van Buren and Henry E. Davis, argued that the power to confer
ferry charters was irrevocable. Therefore, the Act of 1845 did not rescind
New York City's right to issue a new lease to the Brooklyn Union Ferry Com
pany.36 Judge Seward Barculo, in his decision, held that the Act of 1845
was constitutional, but it did not effect any ferries already in existence.
He therefore removed the injunction and thereby aliowed New York City to
.
grant a renewal of the ferry franchise to the Brooklyn Union Ferry Company. 37
The consequence of this decision was to make the Act .of 1845 a nullity. The
power to grant ferry franchises remained with New York City.
This still left Brooklyn without the Montague Ferry which it needed and
desired. Following Judge Barculo's reasoning, Brooklynites contended that
since the Montague Ferry was a new line it would not fall within the purview
of New York City's authority over ferry franchises. 38 During 1851, enough
support for the idea was found in the Brooklyn. Common Council for that body
to agree to unertake the financial expenses involved in bringing the matter
of the Montague Ferry into court. 39 Judge Nicholas Roosevelt, presiding at
this case, held that New York City ha a vested interest in the established
35. Star, Jan. 22, 1851.

36. Ibid.
3i. 7oid., Feb. 12, 1851.
38. Ibid., Feb. 19, 1851.
39. 'coniiiion Council, Secret SessionMarch 1, 18520
-183-
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
of a Montague or Wall Street Ferry. This ferry was originally operated by

a group other than the Brooklyn Union Ferry Company. However, when this
line experienced financial difficulties along with the other independent
ferries (the Gouverneur,Catharine and Roosevelt Street ferries), the
Union Ferry Company stepped in and purchased these ferry lines. Thereupon,
on November 10, 1854, a new corporation was born,the Union Ferry Comp
of Brooklyn which operated all seven ferries running between New York and
1
Brooklyn. 4
Thus the long and complicated maneuveringsconcerning the ferry fran-
. chises were partia.lly resolved. Brooklyn had at last achieved a net.work
of ferries serving all parts of the community; New York City, however,still
retained the right to grant ferry leases. This authority, based on tne
Dongan and Cornbury charters, and not denied by the courts, kept Brooklyn
frustrated in its desire to achieve equal status in regard to control of
ferries on the East River. It continued to leave the Long Island city in
a position of inferiority with respect to New York. A further, and related,
cause of tension between Brooklyn and New York City was the question of
boundary limits and sovereignty over the East River. The legal question of
boundary limits actually was the key to New York City's stand on the ferry
issue. According to the Dogan and Cornbury charters,New York's boundary
extended to the land hetween high and low water marks off Long Island, then
40. Stiles,Kings Count I, 437.

Historical Sketch of the Fulton Ferry And
41. :enry E. Pierrepont:,
Associated Ferries By ! Di.rectQr (Brooklyn, 1879) ., pp. 67-9.
-184-
.
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
52e Eagle, Feb. 21, 1843.

53. Ibid., March 21, 1843.
54. Ibid., March l9; March 24, 1846.
55. Star, March 15, 1850.
56. Ibid.
-187-
assemblage on the subject of New York's past efforts at securing a tax

on non-resiAents. He said that in previous instances, when New York had
presented such proposals to the State Legislature, the rural members of
that body had voted against them. They did this, Spooner said, because
they feared that New York City would tax goods sent from the hinterlands
for sale in the city or abroad. Now, however, New York had quieted this
f.ear by stipulating that all goods sent to factors and agents in New York

to be sold would be exempted.57 The new tax -plan, therefore, appeared to
be aimed exclusively at taxing Brooklyn residents who carried on their
business in New York.
The citizen group adopted a series of resolutions which held that
Brooklyn had the exclusive right to tax the personal property of its res
idents and asserted that the residents of Brooklyn who did buiness in
New York paid their full share of real estate taxeson property in that
city. 5 -
8 A writer in the Star contended that what New York sought was
"Taxation without Representation." He reminded the readers that -"the

principle of the main feature of these bills is precisely that which led
our forefathers to the fields 0 honor in the days of Seventy-Six: n59 For
tunately, a repetition of the events of 1776 did not come to pass, for the
Legislature again refused-New York's plea.
Despite the unresolved antagonism between the two cities, proposals
were also current which foreshadowed loser ties between the two communities.
These had to do with plans to provide better connections between the two.
, As early as 1846, it was proposed that a tunnel be built underneath the
57. Ibid., March 19, 1850.

58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
-188-
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
Tribune aroused popular interest in a bridge. The Tribune contendeu.

that the existing ferries were not adequate to handle the crowds which crossed
daily beween the two cities. The editor's solution was "a BRIDGE, built
from some high point in New York to another in Brooklyn--thus pennitting
vessels of every kind to pass freely under at all times, and affording
63
passage to a steady stream of vehicles and pedestrians. 11 The was
of an opposite mind regarding the efficacy of such a structure. It pre
dicted that from "a pecuniary point of view the bridge would be a gigantic
failure, like the Thames Tunnel Its aerial galleries would b deserted,
while the comfortable and well-warmed seats of the fine steam ferry boats
64
would be filled to over flowing."
60. Daily Advertiser, Jan. 22, 1846.

61. star, Nov. 5, 1835.
62. !bid., Aug. 7, 1837.
63. Ibid., Oct. 27, 1849.
64. Ibid.
-189-
In November, 1849, the Tribune advanced a plan for a tunnel illuminated

by gas and carrying not_only telegraphic wires but water from the Croton
- 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
65. Ibid., Nov. 19, 1849.

66. Ibid., Jan. 2, 1850.
67. Ibid., Jan. 2, 1834.
68. Eagle, Sept. 22, 1848.
-190-
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,
69. Ibid., Nov. 28, 1848.

10. Ibid., Dec. 13, 1848.
71 Ibid., Jan. 18, 1849.
72. . Ibid.
73. Star, March 20, 1850.
-
740 Ibid., April. 11,- 1850.
-191.-
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
7. Eagle, Dec. 18, 1850.

76. , March 27, 1851.
77 .. Ibid.
78. Ibid.
79. Ibid., March 28, 1es1.
-192-
Similar vies were expressed by William c. Betts, a citizen of Brooklyn,

in a pamphlet privately printed in 18$4. ostensibly advocating a system of
wells as a source of water for the community, Betts launched into a long
harangue as to the reasons why Brooklyn should not unite with New York.
He said that New York acted towards Brooklyn "as John Bull did towards the
colonies. 11 80 Furthermore, if a union did take place, New York would be
certain to maintain a dominant attitude toward what once -was Brookly-.n. His
views were summed up in this odd bit of rhyme.
That Brooklyn, like ancient Poland, should be classed
.Among the things that were,
Being swallowed up by the great Russian-like-Bear
On the side of the East River, just over there,
Would be really and truly too unbearable for the citizens
of Brooklyn to bear. 81
Although the majority of residents of Brooklyn did not take as extreme

a stand on the question of union as did Betts, it could be said that
Brooklyn's sentiment was far from f avorable to consolidation in the years
1834 to 1855. Consequently, Brooklyn continued as a separate and proud
municipality until its eventual absorption into New York City in 1898.
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
-194 ..
Brooklyn, 183l
- qs f
1 4. '9
-195-
Brooklyn, 1855
-196-
Table I
POPULATION OF BROOKLYN, 1835-18551
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
,,. ;-.,-
10 ll ., 782 21., 749

11 12,421 22,213
12 6,990
Total 24,529 36,233 59,574 96,838 148,774
1. State of New York ., Census .2! 1855 (Albany, 1857) ., -p. xxii.
2. The total for the amalgamated city was 205,250.
-197-
Table II
RATE OF POPULATION INCREASE IN FIVE YEAR PERIODS1

(Figures shown are percentages)
Wards 1835-1840 1840-184.5 1845-1850 1850-18.55

1 41.0 11.5.o 31.l 6.2
2 16 .5 2 6.7 35.5 - -11.6
3 38.7 54.5 44.o 1. 7
4 19.2 29.1 24.8 11.3
5 64.4 2 7.0 45o2 19.5
2
6 88.9 163.0 u8.o 7 2 .5
72 12 1.0 12 0.0 188.0 54.o
8 93.8 4.5 .o 88.o 106.0
9 58.2 70.4 71.8 180.0
Total Ciy
increase 47.7 6h04 62., 53.6
1. Statistical analysis based on population figures as reported in the

Census returns for the respective years.
2. For purposes of comparison, new wards are treated as part of the wards
from which they originated. For example, the Tenth Ward is part of the
Sixth Ward and the Eleventh Ward is part of the Seventh Ward.
3. This refers specifically to Brooklyn without Williamsburgh and Bushwicko
Table III
THE MAYORS OF BROOKLYN
Terms Party Place
Name of Mayor in Office Affiliation Age Occupation of Birth
Geo. Hall
-* Whig
1 .. 1 39 Painter and glazier N.Y.C.
C
0
2. Jonathan Trotter 2 Nonpartisan 38 Leather goods England "ui

Cf)
.E
I...
_'). Jere. Johnson 2 Nonpartisan 71 Farmer Long Island Q)

Q.
"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
I 9. Edw. Copland 1 Whig 56 Retail grocer Brooklyn Q.
'
CD
r-1

I...
10. Samuel Smith Dem. 62 Farmer & Real Estate Oper. Huntington, L.I.
Q)
I 1 .c
t:
:::J
11. Conklin Brush J. Whig 56 Merchant N.Y.C.

LL
...:
Q)
12. Edw. Lambert 1 Retail Merchant N.Y.C.

C
Dem. 40 $
0
E
13. Geo. Hall* 1 Know-Nothing 60 Ol
c
>,
Average 1.5 48.5

Q.
0
(.)
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 -
THE COUNCILMEN OF BROOKLYN, 1834-18551

Name of Councilman Ward :>_-/-Party *
Term in Office Occupation
Charles Addoms 6 Native American 1844-1845 NY. Merchant
David Anderson 2 Democrat 183.5-1836 Stone Cutter
David F. Atwater . Whig 1847-1848 Physician
John A. Baker 4 Whig 1840-1841
1841-1842 Merchant
Tunis s. Barkeloo Democrat 1836-1837
1837-1838 Grocer
Daniel P. Barnard 3 Whig 1854
1855 Lawyer
Abraham B. Baylis 10 Whig 1852
1853 N.Y. Broker
Gilbert c. Baylis Democrat 1840-1841 Constable
Cornelius Bennett, Jr. 8 Democrat 1845-1846 Farmer
Arthur w. Benson 3 Whig 1848-1849 N.Y. Merchant
Johns. Bergen 8 Democrat 1834-1835
1835-1836
1836-1837 Grocer
John V. Bergen 8 Democrat 1850
18.51 Grocer
Martenus Bergen 8 Democrat 1835-1836
1836-1837
T
1837-1838
1838-1839
1839-1840
1840-1841 Farmer
1841-1842
1842-1843
1843-1844
1844-1845
1. Brooklyn Directories, 1834-1856.

*UP to 1850, a council year ran from April to April. After 1850, a council
year coincided with the calendar year. Also after 1850, aldermen were
elected for two-year terms rather than the anp.ual term which obtained until
18.50.
-200-
Name of Councilman Ward Party Tenn in Office Occupation

Peter Bergen 8 Democrat 1846-1847
1847-1848 Florist
Charles c. Betts 9 Whig 1839-1840
1840-1841
1841-1842 Real Estate
Henry Boerum 9 Whig 1843-1844
1844-1845 Farmer
William M. Boerum 7 Whig 1849-1850 Asst. city clerk
David A. Bokee 3 Whig 1840-1841
1841-1842
1842-1843
1845-1846
1846-1847
1847-1848 Merchant
Samuel Booth 4 Whig 1851
1852
1853
1854 Builder
Samuel Bouton 7 Democrat 1836-1837
1837-1838
1842-1843
1843-1844 Milkman
Hamilton B. Bradshaw 6 Whig 1847-1848 Contractor
Roswell c. Brainard 2 Democrat 1853
1854 Lawyer
Erastus F. Brigham 4 Whig 1843-1844 N.Y. Merchant
Thomas Brooks 1 Whig 1851 Owner of Cab-
1852 inet Warehouse
Conklin Brush 1 whig 1834-1835
1850
1851 Merchant
Charles Eo Bulkeley 3 Whig 1836-1837 Dry goods
1837-1838 Merchant and
1838-1839 Insurance agent
Elisha Burbank 8 Whig 1849-1850 Morocco
Manufacturer
-201-
Name of Councilman Ward Party Term in Office Occupation

William Burbank 8 Democrat 1840-1841
1841-1842
1843-1844
1845-1846 Morocco
1846-1847 Manufacutrer
Howard c. Cady 1 Whig 1848-1849 Lawyer
William H. Campbell 9 Democrat 1845-1846
1854 Farmer
Nelson G. Carman 4 Whig 18h8-1849 Butcher
Rodney s. Church 5 Democrat 1849-1850
1850
1851 Lawyer
James B. Clarke 4 Whig 1840-1841 Lawyer
John Cochran 7 Whig 1846-1847
1847-1848
18481849 Fur Factory
Peter c. Cornell 3 Whig . 1843-1844
Ephraim Corning 4 Tnig 1839-1840 Lawyer
Edward Corning 1 Whig 1846-1847
1847-18h8
1850
1851 N.Y. Merchant
Abraham Crist 4 Whig 1844-1845
184.5-1846 Lawyer
John A. Cross 7 ltHlig 1838-1839
1839-1840
1840-1841
1841-1842
1846-1847 Distiller
George D. Cunningham 2 Bipartisan 1834-183.5 Distiller
Alexander H. Dana 5 W1.g 1841-1842 Lawyer
John A. Dayton 11 Democrat 1853 Real Estate
1854 Agent
-202-
. Name of Councilman Ward .. Party Term in Office Occupation

Charles A. Denike 12 Democrat 1850
1851 County Clerk
Thomas s. Denike Democrat 1842-1843
1843-1844 Builder
John s. Devlin 2 Democrat 1847-1848 Lieutenant,
u.s.M.c.
John Dimon 3 Whig 1842-1843
1844-1845 Builder
Isaac N. Dolbear 5 Democrat 1845-1846 Grocer
Ethan Eastabrook 5 Democrat 1836-1837 Clerk,
1837-1838 U.S. Navy Yard
Martin Evans 7 Democrat 1R52
1853 Druggist
Thomas Ho Faron 5 Democrat 1847-1848 Engineer
George B. Fisk 9 1'vhig 1838-1839
1839-1840
1840-1841
1841-1842
1842-1843
1847-1848 Railroad
1848-1849 Agent
David Fithian 10 Democrat 1850
1851 Sash Maker
Charles c. Fowler 4 Whig 1844-1845

1845-1846
1846-1847
1852
1853
1854 Oil and Candle
1855 Mamifacturer
Gabriel Furman 1 Whig 1834-1835
18351836 Lawyer
-203 ..
Name of Councilman Ward Party Tenn in Office Occupation

Thomas J. Gerald 5 Democrat 1841-1842
1842-1843
1843-1844
1844-1845
1845-1846
1846-1847
1850
1851 Grocer
Samuel Graham 7 Democrat 1853
1854 Builder
Williar :,T. Green

0
1 Whig 1852
1853
1854
1855 Warehouses
Willia'n A. Greene 3 Whig 1843-184).i Lawyer
George Hall 3 Whig 1837-1838 Paint.er and
Democrat 1s4s-1s1.t9 Glazier:<
William M. Harris 2 Democrat 1841-1842
1842-1843 Distiller
Samuel Hart /
r'
Democrat 1838-1839
1839-1840 Naval
1840-1841 Constructor
Henry Harteau 11 Democrat 1852
18.53 Stone Yard
Lemuel Hawxhurst Democrat 1849-1850
1850
1851
1852
1853 Marketman
Stephen '-i"":nes 7 Democrat 1834-1835
1835-1836
18.'.361837 Builder
James Hazlett 4 Whig 1842-1843 Furrier
Adrian Hegeman 4 Bipartisan 1834-1835 Stationer
John H. Hicks 2 Bipartisan 1834-1835' Grocer
-204-
Name of Councilman Ward Party Term in O ffice Occupation

Elisha W. Hinman 3 \Tr.ig l81.i9-18.5o
10 1853 Oil
18.54 Merchant
Hora.tic N. Holt 1 Whig 1853
18% M.Y. Merchant
Charles Hooper 11 Democrat 1854
1855 Gold Leaf
Fisher How 1 Whig 1837-1838
1838-1839
1839-1840
1844-1845 N. Y. t-ferchant
Georges. Howland 4 Whig 1838-1839
1839-1840 3uilder
Thomas D. Hudson 7 Democrat 1850 Stage
1851 Proprietor
Frederick R. Hulbert 5 Democrat 1848-1849 Inspector
Jarnes Hu.mphrey 1 Whig 1844-1845
1845-1846
1846-1847 Lawyer
William Eun ter, Jr. 4 Democrat 1838-1839 Carpenter
Seymour L. Husted 7 Native American 1844-1845
Whig 1847-1848
1848-1849
1851
1852 Distiller
James N. Hyde l Native .American 1835-1836
1836-1837
Charles A. Jackson 6 Democrat 1842-1843
1843-1844 Lawyer
Stephen C. Jackson 7 Democrat 1854
1855 Clerk
Barnet Johnson 7 Whig 1838-1839
1839-1840
1840-1841
1841-1842 Farmer
-205-

Teunis Johnson 9 Democrat 1838-1839 Coal Dealer
Melville Kelsey 9 Whig 1843-1844 Oilcloth
Manufacturer
Henry A. Kent 8 Whig 1851
1852 Farmer
Edward Lambert ,,
0 Democrat. 1849-1850
10 1850
1851 N.Y. Stationer
John Lawrence 3 Democrat 1835-1836 U.S. Store-

keeper
Frederick A. Lee l Whig 1845-18h6 N.Y. Merchant
tTohn Leech 5 wm.g 1851
1852 Stone Yard
Rem Lefferts 0 Whig 18l.9-1850
1850 Exchange
1851 Broker
Electus B. Litchfield 6 Democrat 1850
1851 N.Y. Merchant
Seth Low 4 Whig 1841-1842
1842-1843
1843-1844 N.Y. Merchant
Thomas R. Lush 11 wnig 1851
1852 Broker
Abijah :Mann, Jr. 6 Independent 1846-1847 Lawyer
Joshua S. March 3 Whig 1839-1840
1840-1841 Lawyer
Charles R. Marvin 3 t'V1U.g 1851
1852
1853 N.Y. Broker
u.s.M.c.
.. h!
Edward Macomber 7 Democrat 1845-1846

William McDonald 1 Whig 184 7-18).i8
1848-1849
1849-1850 Cooperage
..,,206-

Joh.11. McIntyre .6 Na ti ve American 1845-1846 Contractor
lYiartin R. Meeker 0
/ Democrat 1845-1846 Farmer
Eli :Merrill 3 Whig 1853
1854 Merchant
Elisha B. Morrell 2 '.,,Jhig 1849-1850
1854
1855 Grocer
Frederick Morris 5 Democrat 1851
1852 Physician
Patrick H. Morris 5 Democrat 1853
1854 Physician
Peter Morton 1 Whig 1840-1841
1841-1842
1842-1843
1843-1844 Merchant
Joseph Moser 4 Democrat 1834-1835
1836-1837 Builder
William M. :Muchmore 7 Whig 1849-1850
1850
1851 Goal Dealer
Thomas Mulligan 6 Democrat 1854 Fleur and Seed
1855 Merchant
James M. Neely 2 Democrat 1851
1852
1853 Wholesale Wine
1854 and Liquor
Samuel Oakley 1 '..vhig 1839-lSho Merchant
Isaac Odell 4 Democrat 1835-1836 Carpenter
Joseph Oliver 9 Democrat 1853
1854 Milkman
Albert H. Osborne 7 Democrat 1842-1843
18L3-184L
1844-1845 Real Estate
1845-1846 Agent
-207-
Name of Counc ilman Ward Party Term in Office Occupation

Howard Pearsall 6 Democrat 1836-1837
Fo T. Peet 1 Wbig 1849-1850
185::i
1851 Merchant
Edward Pell 2 Democrat 1848-1849
1850
1851 City Gauger
Joseph A. Perry 6 Whig 1838-1839
1839-1840
1840-1841 Merchant
Theodore Polhemus 4 Whig 1834-1835 Farmer
Samuels. Powell 2 Democrat 1845-1846 Merchant Tailor
William Powers 2 Whig 1834-183.5
1835-1836 Farmer
Benjamin R. Prince Democrat 1834-1835 Lumber
183.5-1836 Merchant
Montgomery Queen 9 Whig 1852 Stage
1853 Proprietor
Francis G. Quevedo 5 Democrat 1854 Commissioner of
1855 Deeds
Jesse Read 3 Whig 1850
1851 N.Y. Merchant
Thomas A. Redding 9 Whig 1844-1845
Indep. Dem. 1846-1847
1847-1848
1848-1849
1849-1850
18.50
1851 (Farmer ?).
Moses Reeve 4 Whig 1837-1838 Carpenter
Hamilton Reeves 8 Whig 1848-1849 Lumber Merchant
Philip Reid 9 Democrat 1842-1843 Farmer
George Remsen 6 Democrat 1853
1854 Li very Stable
-208-

John Rice 6 Democrat 1849-1850
1850
1851
1852
1853 N.Y. Merchant
Daniel Richards 6 Whig 1848-1849 N.Y. Merchant
\farren Richmond 2 Native American 1841!-1845 Grocer
Samuel T. Roberts 9 Democrat 1846-1847 Hotel Owner
William Rockwell 4 Whig 1850
1851 Lawyer
Jonathan Rogers 2 Democrat 1836-1837
1837-1838
1838-1839
1839-1840
1840-1841
1841-1842
1846-1847 Master Joiner
Joshua Rogers Democrat 1836-1837
1837-1838
... f'\ ... n "'n-
.LO)O-.LO)
1839-1840
1840-1841 Coal Yard Owner
Henry Russell 4 Whig 1837-1838 N.Y. Merchant
John s. Ryder 9 Whig 1851
1852 Butcher
Martin Ryerson 7 Democrat 1850
1851 N.Y. Merchant
Clarence D. S ackett ? Democrat 1834-1835 Lawyer
Jacob d. Schultz 5 Democrat 1848-1849 Auctioneer
George L. Shaw 5 Democrat 1844-1845 Clock Manufac-
turer
Issac Si."Tlonson 10 Whig 1854
1855 C ontractor
John Skillman 3 i'.Jhig 1844-1845 Banker
Cyrus P. Smith 3 Whig 1847-1848 Lawyer
-209-

Issac H. Smith l Whig 18.51
1852 N.Y. Merchant
Jesse c. Smith 3 Whig 184.5-1846
1846.;.1847': Lawyer
Moses Smith 9 Democrat 1834-1835
1836-1837
1837-1838 Farmer
Samuel Smith 6 Whig 1834-1835
1835-1836
1836-1837
1837-1838
Democrat 1842-1843
1843-181..i.4 Farmer and
184.5-1846 Contractor
Jeremiah V. Spader 7 Whig 1837-1838 N. Y. Hardware
Dealer
Francis Spies 4 Whig 1849-1850 Merchant
Francis B. Spinola 2 Whig 1847-1848
1849-18.50
1850
1851 Harbor Master
John Stansbury Democrat 1846-1847
1847-1848 Carpenter
Asa Stebbins 6 Whig 1846-1847 Architect
George H. Stilwell 2 Democrat 1845-1846
1846-1847
1851
18.52 Grocer
F. s. Stranahan 6 Whig 1847-1848 Carpenter
Moses Suydam 9 Democrat 1836-1837
1837-1838 Farmer
Thomas G. Talmage 8 Democrat 1842-1843 Farmer and
6 1844-1845 N.Y. Merchant
Charles J. Taylor 6 Whig 1840-1841 Fur F.actory
Jeremiah H. Taylor 3 Whig 1838-1840 Merchant
-210-
Name of Councilman T'ifard Party Term in Office Occupation

Peter G. Taylor 4 Whig 1846-1847
1847-1848
1848-1849
1849-1850
1850
1851 N.Y. Merchant
William Thompson 1 Whig 1835-1836
1836-1837
1838-1839 N.Y. Merchant
Richard W., Thorne 2 Democra.t 18.36-1837
1837-1838
1838-1839
1839-1840
1840-1841 Owner Hay
18LJ-1844 Press
Jonathan Trotter. 4 Bipartisan 1834-1835 Manufacturer of
Rubber goods
William Udall 5 Democrat 1834-183S Paint
1835-1836 Manufacturer
James E. Underhill 6 1837-1838
1838-1839
1839-1840 Builder
John E. Van Antwerp 9 wlrl.g 1835-1836 Auctioneer
Losee Van Nostrand 4 Whig 1835-1836 Leather Store
Daniel Van Voor.his 11 Democrat 1850
1851 Postmaster
Gerrit G. Van Wagenen 1 Whig 1841-1842
1842-1843
1843-1844 Lawyer
James Walters 3 Native American 1835-1836
1836-1837 Coachmaker
Benjamin F. Wardwell 3 Whig 1848-1849
1849-1850 N.Y. Merchant-
Willet Weeks 2 Native 1\merican 1844-1845 Grocer
Frederick R. West 2 Whig 1843-1844 Street Insector
-211-

John Wheelwright 3 Whig 1841-1842 Merchant
Henry White 6 Whig 1848-1849 Builder
John Williams 10 Whig 1851
1852 Grocer
Joseph Wilson 8 Democrat 1848-1849
1849-18.50
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855 Monument Works
Robert Wilson 9 Whig 1834-1835
1835-1836 Farmer
.Amasa Wright 3 Whig 1838-1839 N.Y. Merchant
John Wright, Jr. 1 Native American 1836-1837
lnJhig 1837-1838 Merchant
Peter Wyckoff, Jr. 8 Democrat 1838-1839
1839-1840
1844-1845
1847-1849 Farmer
Peter Wyckoff 8 Democrat 1853
1854 Assessor
-212-
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
Jonathan Trotter Council May 11,1835 May ll,1835

Appointed
Re-appointed May 2,18.36 May 1,1837
Jeremiah Johnson Council May 1,1837 r,1ay 1,1837

Appointed
Re-appointed Ap:ril 18,1838 May 9,1839
Cyrus P. Smith Council May 9 ., 1839 May 9,1839

Appointed
Cyrus P. Smith vfllig 2236 April 14,1840

Joseph Sprague Dem. 2,047
Cyrus P. Smith Whig * April 13,18J.il May 2,1842

R. v.w. Thorne Dem.
Henry c. Murphy Dem. 2,486 April 12,1842 May 2,1842 May 5,1843
Cyrus P. Smith Whig 2,252
Joseph Sprague Dem. 2,847 April 11,1843 May 5,1843

David Bokee Whig 2,536
*No official. election returns publishedo
. -213-
Party Date of Assumed Left

Candidates .Affil. Vote Election Office Office
JosephSprague Dem. 2,559 April 9,1844 May 7,1845
Geo. Hall Whig 1,966
Wm. Rockwell Nat.A.mer. 1 ., 723
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
Francis B. Stryker Whig 3,891 April 14,1846 May 4,1846

Thomas Talmage Dem. 2,741
Thos.O,Pinckney Nat, 292
Fran cis B. Stryker Whig 4,529 April 13,1847

Thomas Gerald Dem. 2,989
Fran cis B. Stryker 'Whig 4,593 April 11,1848 April 23,18l

Wm. Jenkins Dem. 3,436
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
-214-
Party Date of Assumed Left

Candidates Affil. Vote Election Office Office
Edward Lambert Dem. 7 ., 926 Nov. 2 ., 1852 Jan. 3 11853 Jan. 1,1855
P.G.Taylor Whig 6 ., 171
George Hall Whig 12 ., 131 Nov. 7,1854 Jan. l .,1855

Martin Kalb- Dem. 9 .,107
fieisch
-215-
Table VI
REAL ESTATE VALUATIONS UPON WHICH ASSESSMENTS \JERE BASED

IN DOLLARS
Ward 1834 1837* 1838 1839 1840

r. f
1 2,352,999 2 ., 369,265 2,294 ., 550
2 2,457,710 2 ., 059,354 2,273,964
3 3,589 ., 700 3,633 ., 6o0 3,726 ., 500
4 2., 136 ., 061 2., 200., 595 2 ., 581 ., 150
5 1,356,775 1,205 ., 275 1 ., .508,840
6 5,083.,695 5;0?8 ., 055 5,161,610
7 3,184,892 3,074,760 2,890., 355
8 886 ., 429 872., 205 834,960
9 12040,2 680 12 1152970 12026,2051
Total 22 ., 106., 911 21 ., 636 ., 079 22., 287 .,980
*Previous to 1838 ., valuations were listed in the aggregate rather than

separately for each ward.
1834 $15,642,290
1835 26,390,151
1836 32,428,942
1837 26,89.5,074
-216-
Ward 1842* 184.3 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848* 1849

l 2,257,092 2,3.37,300 2,602,625 3,348,425 3,495,550
2 1 ., 801,930 1;908,120 1,989,765 3,277,369 3.,337., 504
.3 3,169,240 3,457,125 3,732,250 4,967,325 5 ., 289,025
4 2,448,210 2,597,205 2,739,195 3,471,990 3,621,540
5 1,283,559 1,532,891 i,632,900 1,743,615 1,779,375
6 4,342,301 4,628,655 5,025,725 5,658,645 6,998,390
7 2,399,829 2,587,810 2,784,105 3,040,300 3,.338 ,358
8 510,217 536,925 566,494 6.54,141 771,527
9 676,215 681,332 706,688 771,803 747,207
10
11
Total 18.888.
- ... 592 20.261.
.. ... 363. 21.116.
. .... --
- .... 3- 29.- 36a.u16
- 98 5 26.933.61
*Valuations or these years could not be found.

-217-
. 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
*Va1uations for this year could not be found.

Table VII
EXPENDITURES FOR SELECTED CITY SERVICES FROM 1834 TO 18.541

IN DOLW1->
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
' - January 1 ., 1851 to :::J

1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 May 1850 to December 1850 August 312 18.51 "O
0
a.
I...
<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
Police (Day) 200 74 39 207 162 167 62., 453

...:
<l.l
-
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
Cisterns 6JO 1.,801 2,176 3.,87!.._3.,483 1.,375 - '+-

0
C
.Q
en
1. Compiled from the daily newspapers and financial reports. en
.E
-
I...
<l.l
a.
..c
-
"O
<l.l
(.)
:::J
"O
0
a.
I...
<l.l
0:::
September1851 August 1852 to August 1853 to August 1854 'to
Accounts to Aust 1852 Aust 1853 Aust 1854 Se;etember 1855
Fire Department 29,927 19,300 37., 542 51,1114

C
0
'ui
Cf)
Watch .E
I...
Q)
Cl..
Police 85., Boo 81,176. 83., 233 133,670 "50
Street cleaning 18., 449 23., 798

11 ., 838 18 ., 880
"'O
Street lighting 31 ., 742 38,969 42,405 38,521 2
;.e
e
..c
Gas lamps and posts 2., 906 2,395 Cl..
C
Water supply 34., 614 23., 328 0
t5:::J
e
"'O
Cisterns 4,672
Cl..

I...
N Q)
8 ..c
t:
:::J
LL
...:
Q)
C
$
0
E
Ol
c
>,
Cl..
0
(.)
Q)

'+-
0
C
0
'ui
Cf)
.E
I...
Q)
Cl..

"'O
Q)
(.)
:::J
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.
-221-
Table IX
BONDS ISSUED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN FROM 1834 TO 18541
Year Issued Date of Maturity Amount

1835 July 1, 1855 $200,000
1837 July 1, 1857 100,000
1838 July 1, 1858 200,000
1843 (For existing debts) January 1, 1863 50., 000
1846/7 (For City Hall) January 1, 1856-1860 50,000
1847-1849 (City Hall) January 1, 1861-18 70 100,000
1847/8 (Hamilton Avenue Opening) January 1, 1858 18,000
1848/9 and 1851 (Washington Park
Loan) January 1, 1869 121,000
. 1849 ( :b"'or City Hall) Janu.ary 1, 1872-1876 ,o,ooo
J..850 (For existing debts)
1850 (City Hall) January 1, 1875 1,,000
1851/2 (For current expenses) July 1, 1871 150,000
1853 (For Water Supply) July 1 ., 1873 55,ooo
$1,184,540
1. E.Estabrook, Financial Report of the Comptroller -

of the City -
of
Brooklyn (Brooklyn ., 18.54), P 43:- - -
-222-
Table X
ANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENTS ON CITY BONDS1
Bond Issue of: Annual Interest

_1835 $12 ., 000
1837 6., 000
1838-1843 12,000
1845 3,000
1846/7 3000
1847/8 1,000
1847-1849 6,000
1849 2 ., 000
1850 4,500
1850 200
1851/2 2 ., 000
1848/9 and 1851 7,202
$58,902
lo , July 17, 1854e
-223-
Table XI
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 18341

Receipts
Amount raised by tax $ 18 ., 050
Received from assessments 77 ., 501
Loans and balance on hand 17 ., 378
Total Receipts $113,032
Expenditures
Interest on stocks $ 630
Municipal Court 1 ., 542

Public Market 224
Salaries 156
Contingent account 9,419
Wells and pumps repaired 629
Watch account 2., 397
Board of Health 1 ., 383
Lighting streets 5., 204
Notes to Long Island Bank 8,500
Real estate 211
Fi.fth Ward Market 1 ., 1.55
Streets, wells and pumps 77,604
Total Expenditures $110,528
Unexpended balance for 1834 2., 504
1. , March 26., 1835 .,

-224-
Table XII
2
FINANCIAL STATEI:'.IENT FOR 1835
Selected City Expenses

Fire Department $ 4., 888
Board of Health 745
Watch 3,732
Police 3,851
Street, cleaning 5., 084
Street lighting 9 ., 692
Salaries 4., 062
Public cisterns 169
Repair of wells and pumps 694

Opening ., grading and repaving of streets .,
wells and pumps 814., 506
2. ., April 4, 1836.
-22.5-
Table XIII
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1836 3
Selected City Expenses

Fire Department $ 7,340
Board o:f Health 315
Watch 7,835
,Police 1,462
Street cleaning 7,159
Street lighting 9,366
Salaries 4,262
Cisterns 722
Repair of wells and pumps 1,340

City map 5,ooo
3. ., March 27, 1837.
-226-
Table XIV
4
The City of Brooklyn Owes

For Village stock (redeemable in 1840) $ 20 ,000
For City Loan (redeemable in 1845) 200,000
For City Loan 100 ., 000
$320 ., 000
Amount borrowed from banks 27,000
Warrants dravm and in hands of the Treasurer 4,608
Amount due to sundries 4J.,h38
$393,546
Deduct
Balance cash on hand September 1 $1,519
Advances on streets 32,404
Advances on streets 801
$34,734
358,822
-227-
Table XV
.5
Selected City E3eenses
Fire Department $ 9,680

Board of Health 195
Watch 9,199
Police 3,891
Salaries 5,109
Cisterns None
Repair of -wells and pumps 1,366

City map 21., 050
Interest on loan 22,065
5. April 11, 1839e
-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-
Interest on village stock 1 ., 200

Interest on city loan 21 ., 1,0
Interest on temporary loans 2 ., 021
Laying out and plotting city streets 4 ., 469
Lighting streets ll ., 323
Municipal Court 3., 591
Police Account 4 ., 182
Public Cisterns 605
Public Pound 123
Salaries 5 ., 150
Watch Account 8., 666
Repairs on well and pumps 1., 072
Repairs to real estate 2,656
Bills payable 46,270
Bonds payable 385
Advances on streets 57,945
Advances for wells and pumps 1 ., 240
Contingent Account 3 ., 618
Repairing streets 2,665
Public Markets 506
Total Expenditures $195 .,534
-230-
Table XVII
7
FINANCJ.AL STA'.I'El'IBNT FOR 1840
Receipts
Amount in treasury on March 1, 1840 $ 12,502
Market fees 2,632
Received balance of truces for 1839 8,007
Taxes for 1840 74,538

Municipal court fees 1., 137
Fines 314
Vaults 31
Hospital account l,t 200
Advertising 4,657
Maps 17
For opening, paving and regu].ating streets 80,523
For wells and pumps 1,500
Temporary loans, of which $27,000 is a renewal

of a former loan 55., 500
Real estate 4., 965
From C. Lo Franklin for rent 61
Total Receipts $247 .,584
Expenditures
Temporary loans repaid $ 60,,500
Atlantic market 885
7.. ., March 1 ., lBW.o
-231-
Centre market 613

City park 453
Real estate 1,085
Bonds to Mo Martin 618
Payments on streets 74559
Payments for wells and pumps 1., 278
Advertising 2,895
Contingent 5,310
Hospital account 700
Interest on village stock 1,200
Interest on city loans 27,065
Interest on temporary loans 1., 219
City map 3,614
Municipal court 2., 465
Police 5,495
Watch B ., 683
Public market 2 ., 448

Street repairing 2,980
Salaries 6,305
Sinking fund 10,000
Repairs of wells and pumps 1., 528
Public cisterns 433
-232-
Henry Street opening -- old account 373

Total Expenditures $237' 752
Unexpended balance 9 ., 832
-233-
Table XVIII
FINANCIAL STAT.EMENT FOR 18418

Receipts
Balance on hand March 1, 1841 $ 9,832
Tax receipts for 1840 869
Tax receipts for 18U 74., 398

Fees and fines 7 ., 313
Real estate 5,593
City loan 4., ooo
Assessments for streets 65., 551
Assessments for lamps and posts 193
Assessments for wells and pumps 3,382
Total Receipts 228., 338
Expenditures
Advertising and printing $ 1 ., 976
Contingent B ., 093
Hospital 828
Interest account 1,044
Interest on village stock 915
Interest on city loan 27 ., 240
8. Eagle, March 24, 1842 ..
-234-
Municipal court 2 ., 393

Public cisterns 183
Police 1., 395
Watch 8 ., 413
Markets 1 ., 725
Public pound 5
Repairing of streets and'roads 2 ., 116
Salaries 7 ., 096
Special sessions 3 ., 889
Repairing o! wells and pumps 1., 173
Bonds to M. Martin 593
Village stock 10 ., 500
City Hall ., balance due s. Haynes 2 ., 302
Nassau Street grading opposite the City Park 1 ., 082
Real Estate 1., 717
Bills payable 44., 857
Opening., grading and paving streets 64., 244
Wells and pump 3., 097
Lamp posts 81
Total Expenditures $213., 774
Unexpended balance 14., 564
-23.5-
Table XIX
FINANCIAL STATfil'IENT FOR 1842 9

Receipts
Balance on hand on March 1, 1842 <!i'
I' 12,877
Received balance of taxes for 1841 6,602
Received tax payments for 1842 75,922
From Public Markets for rents 2,211
Municipal Court fines, fees 1,450

Justices of Snecial Sessions for fines 16
Fire Department 114
Hospital accounts 1,494
Pernu ts for vaults 124
Advertising account 25
Repairing streets account 8
Police account 424
Contingent account 2,295'.'
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.
-236-
Assessments for opening streets and avenues 83,519

Assessments for :regulating, -paving and turnpiking
streets 50,468
Assessments for wells and numps 1,891
Assessments for larnns ::md c:,osts 2,992
Assessments for nublic cisterns 180
Assessments for grading City Park 8,864
Total Receipts
Expenditures
Advertising Account $ 2,673
Contingent Account 5,536
Fire Department 4, 2.58
Hospital Account 1,123
Contingent Interest 3,309
Interest on City loan 27,420
Municipal Court Account 2,053
Police Account 835
Public Pound Account 364
Public Markets 2,o67
Street repair 2,900
Salaries 7,361
Special Sessions .4,564
Sinking Fund 10,000
-237-
Watch 9,596
Well and pump repairs 810
Real estate 23,452
Bills payable 17,350
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
Unexpended Balance 18,856
-238-
Table XX
lO
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
Advertising 1,539
Street cleaning 85
Hunicipal court
Street repairing 39
Vaults and cisterns 93
For regulating and paving streets. hl,867
Opening streets 38,577
Real estate 976
10., Ibid., March 27, 1844.
-239-
City loan 18,000

City loan of 1843 37,500
Existing liabilities 44
Advance on individual accounts 15,000
Total Receipts ii288,062
Expenditures
Special Sessions 4,520
Contingent Fund 6,694
Interest on city loan 30,020
Interest on loan of 1843 1,310
Interest on contingent account 832
Salaries 6,239
Watch 9,433
Public markets 1,023
Public pound 34
Well and pwnp repairs 925
Police 777
Advertising 3,989
Municipal Court 2,179
Sinking Fund 5,ooo
Regulating and pa ving streets 42,831
Opening streets
Real estate 5,6o6
Existing liabilities 39,295
Bonds payable to M. Martin 98
Advances on individual accounts 31,000
Tempora!"J loans 8,000
Unexpended Balance n,296
-241-
Table XXI

Receints
Balance on hand as of March 1 , 1844 $11,315
Balance of taxes for 1843 1,788
Tax receipts for 1844 83,42.5
Police 500
Cleaning streets 2,215
Street repairs 1,710
Watch 8,000
Salaries 6,oo.5
Interest on city l oan 28,935
Interest, contingent 1,925
Interest on loan 1843 3,036
Assessments on city property 100;
Sinking fund 5,ooo
Opening streets 20,421
Regulating and paving streets 50,891
11. ., March 27, 1845.
-242-
. Fina.ndal Statement for 1844, continued

Expenditures
Police 122
Watch 10,727
Salaries 6,667
Well and pump repai rs 1,220
Interest on city loan ; 3 0,000
Interest, contingent 877
Interest on loan, 1843 2,650
Assessments on city property 1,730
Sirtting Fur1d ;),vvv
,-.I "'"'"
Street openings 20,225

Street regulating and paving 49,945
Advertising account 3, 315
Hosnital account 1,710
Lamps and posts 728
Bonds payable 222
-243-

Existing liabilities, 1843 4,347
Real estate 3,860
-244-
Advertising 3,465
Lamps and posts 909
City loan of 1843 1,500
Real estate 3,358
12
$327,777
12. Apparently, the Finance Committee resorted to an accounting subter

fuge in listing the same source of income under separate headings.
The SWT1 of $83,425' was cited as the income from taxation for the
year 1844. Then the Report lists other sources of revenue as Fire
Department, $6,0o6; Police, $500; etc. These amounts were not de
rived from additional sources of income,,bu'\; were the sums appropri
ated for the use of each department from the tax receipts. By this
means they increased the supposed receipts twofold by first stating
an amount received for taxes and then separately itemizing each
depa.rtmentalappropriation as individual sources o.f revenue. Mayor
Thomas G. Talmage admitted in May, 1845 that the city was actually
overdrawn some $74,000 in its accounts. He requested immediate
relief legislation from the State so that Brooklyn might increase
its taxation income. /Eagle, May 19, 1845,:.7
-245-
Table XXII
13
Receipts
Cash on hand March 1, 1 845 <i
,P 7,929
Balance of taxes, 1844 675
Taxes of 1845 83,154
Municipal Court 2, 117
Police 200
Fire Department 5,ooo
Watch 10,000
Sala...'l"i.es r:' Onn
.;,vvu

Well and pump repairs 1,020
Interest on city bonds 30,000
Interest on city bonds, 1843 3,000
Interest on city bonds, 1845 100
Assessment on City Park 1,162
13. ., March 31, 1846 .,
-246-
Sinking Fund 5,ooo

Advertising account 1,768
Public cisterns 696
Real estate 13,128
Interest account 975
City loan, 1843 5,ooo
Eastern Ma rket 680
Street repairs, Eighth and Ninth wards 350
Well and pump repairs, Eighth :and Ninth wards 50
Temporary loan, 1845 10,000
Expenditures
Taxes of 1845 $95,252
Police 200

Regulating a nd paving streets 45,311
-247-

Watch 9,050
Salaries 6,631
Interest on city bonds, 1843 3,000
Assessment on City Park 1,162
Sinking Fund s,ooo
Advertising account 3 ,. 379
Public cisterns 670
Hospital account 25
Real estate 5,964
Pu.blic pound 159
Existing liabilities, 1843: 344
Assessment on city property 223
Sinking Fund 7,218
Street repairs, Eighth and Ninth wards 350
New City Hall 9,084
Cash remaining in Treasury 1,883
-248-
Table XXIII
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR l846 l4
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
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
14. ., April 1., 1847.
-249-
Public cisterns 1,878

Lamps and posts 1., 859
Certificate account 551 000
City Park grading 15
Real Estate 2 ., 456
City Bonds ., .1845 37 ., 000
City Bonds., 1846 500
Repairs of r oads, 8th & 9th wards 750
Repairs of wells., pumps., 8th & 9th wards 50
Map 3 ward 800
Map 5th ward 400
Map 7th ward 1,000
Trustees Common Schools 5,ooo
New City Hall 430
Total Receipts $453 ., 504
Expenditures
$ 5i5
Taxes, 1846 119,696
Municipal Court 2 ., 234
Police 74
Opening streets 25 .,.569
Regulating and paving streets 67 ., 932
Cleaning streets 5,.500

Repairing streets 3 ., 362
-250-
Lighting streets 15,400

Watch l0., 683
Salaries 6,361
Contingent 12,140
Repairs .of wells and pumps 1,592
Sinking Fund 5,ooo
Advertising 4,841
Wells and pumps 2,.500
Lamps and posts l,714
Public Pound 4
Certificate. account 55,ooo
Real Estate 1,405
New- City Hall 44,609
Existing Liabilities, 1843 1,364
Repairs of roads, 8th and 9th wards 798
Repair of wells, pumps, 8th and 9th wards 1
Map 3 ward 800
Gowa.rTu.s Bay Canal 310
Cash in Treasury, March l, 1847 8,718
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
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
15 .,Aprill, 18480
-252-
Lamps and posts 1., 002

Interest on contingent account 1,202
Expenses for City convention 1,000

Certificates 71 ., 000
City bonds, 1845 3,000
City bonds, 1846 63 ., 000
City bonds 1 1848 L1J 11,000
Real Estate 3,183
Road repairs in Ei ghth and Ninth wards 1., 000
Well and pump repairs in Eighth and Ninth wards 50
Ward maps 3,900
----
Expenditures
Tax receipts for 1845 and 1846 $ 17
Expense of common schools 5,ooo
Tax. receipts tor 1847 126,600
Special sesions ll,813
Municipal court 1 ., 8 38
Police 39
Street regulating and pa 89,548
Street cleaning 6 ,9 7 1
Fire Departi11ent 8,316
Watch 15,12
PLEASE NOTE
PAGE 253
Seems to be lacki..11.g in page
numbering only Q
University 1,r; crofilm.s, Inc.
-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
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
Ward maps 1 ., 610
Gowanus Bay Canal 269
Cash in Treasury, March 1, 1848 17 ., 387
Total Expenditures $547 ., 941
-255-
Table XXV
16
Receipts
Cash on hand March 1., 1848 $17,387.
Taxes of 1848 l.58,171
Special Sessions 7,707.
Police 200
Opening streets and Washington Park 24,469
Street clear.ing 6,000
Street repairing 5,ooo
Watch 16,000
Salaries 8 ., 500
Contingent 11,193.
Interest on c-ity bonds 52 ., 667
Sinldng Fund 12,877
Advertising 1,679
l.6. Comptroller's Office, Report (Brooklyn, 1849), p. 3.

-256-

Lamps and posts 764
Interest on contingent account l,ll9
Certificates 70.,4 69
City bonds, 1846 36,500
City bonds, 848 1;000
City bonds for Washington Park 119,000
Real estate 2,328
Ward maps 2,600
TotalRecei.pts ft58,188
Expenditures
Taxes of 1848 $158,171
Municipal Court l,641
Police 207
Street openings.and opening Washington Park 122,279
Street regulating and pav_:I.ng 1.51,972
Street cle&J."1:tng ., 000
i,uuv

Fire Dep:i.rtment 15,569
Watch 16,443
Salarles 10,402


-257-
. Sinking Fund 12,877

Advertising .. 2,619
Public markets' 2 ., 229
Wells and pumps 2 ., 681

Public cisterns '3,874
Lamps and posts 620
Certificates 70 ., 469
Real estate 38 ., 460
Road repairs in Eighth and Ninth wards 995
-
. '
Ward maps 2 ., 050

Profiles and drainage (Work on Flushing Gate at
Wallabout Creek) 1,617
Cash in Treasury., March l, 1849 26 ., 263
-258-
Table XXVI
1
FINANCIAL STATEMENT.FOR 1849 7
Receipts
Cash on hand, March 1, 1850 $26,263
Taxes for 1849 190,791
Municipal Court 361
Opening streets and Washington Park 35,136
street regulating and paving 132,898
Watch 20,000
Salaries 10 ., 999
Contingent 6,905
Well am plL repairs 1,228
Sinking Fund 12,877
Advertising 2,651
Lamps and pests 2., 481
17. star, March 29, 1850.

-259-
lnterest on contingent account 1,577

Certificates 101,000
Bonds, 1848, Washington Park 1,000
Loan, 1849, City Hall 50,000
Real estate 4,424
Ward maps 50
Gas lamp posts 1,000
City court 4,629
Expenditures
Taxes for 1849 $190,791
Specia.1 Se ssions 13,810
Municipal Court 457
Police 162
Opening streets and Washington Paik 41,268
Street regulating and paving 139 1 618
Street cleaning 10,s1s
Street repairing 4;870
Watch 17,748
Salaries 13,072
Contingent 21,243
Assessments on c.ity property 2,288
-260-
City court 3,ll.i2

Sinking Fund 12,877
Advertising 3,273
Public markets 1., 703
Wells and pumps 4., 426
Lamps and posts 2 ., 417
Real estate 54,659
Road repairs in Eighth and Ninth wards l., 124
Ward maps l,850
Profiles and drainage 2.,63
Gas lamp posts 6 ., 001
Cash in Treasury ., March l ., 1850 155
Total Expenditures $757 ., 544
-261-
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
Salaries 10,600
Contingent interest 1,006
Sinking Fund 20,377
Assessments on city prope:r;ty 5,217

Watch 20,000
Street regulating and paving 97,87.5
Lamps and posts 2,o65
Map of Tenth Ward l.50
18. ., Oct.,l.4 ., 1851.

-262-

Advertising 7,176
Real estate, Fort Greene 20
Public cisterns 477
Interest on Washington Park bonds 7,292
Contingent 8,918
Gas lamp posts 1,985
Bonds of 1850 (existing liabilities) 10,000

Expenditures
Tax of 1850 $227,626
Police 167
Street repai1s 6,651
Well and pump repairs . 1,841
Interet on city bonds 51,360
sla.!'ies 9 ., 370
Certificate 114,000
Existing l.tabilities, 1843 59
Assessments on city property J.4., 562
Surplus and dificiency 779
Street repairs, Eighth and Ninth wards 8 43
New City Hall ,. 3,408
-263-
Map of Sixth Ward 200

Map of Seventh Ward 1,500
Street cleaning 6,843.
Watch 16,834
Street regulating and pa"Ving 89,596
Street lighting 2?,063
Advertising 2,429
Wells and pumps l,882
Interest on Washington Park bonds 1,200
Washington Park opening 597
Profiles and drainage l,677
Contingent 16,393
Gas lamp posts 743
City Court 16
Cash in Treasury, Jan. l, 1851 -18 ., 263
-264-
Table XXVIII
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR

1
SEPTEMBER 1 18.51 TO AUGUST 31,1852 9
.,
Receipts
Cash on hand, Sept. 1, 1651 $ l.,643
City tax 388,564
Gas lamp posts l.,137
City bonds 40,000
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
Salaries --1.17
-
Sinking Fund 30 ., 677
Public markets 2,66o

Contingent 63,389
Advertising 3,562
Contingent interest J.4., 268
Police and Justice courts 8,534
Police 77,737
19. 5le, Oct. 13, 1852.

26.5-
Street cleaning u,5oo

Street repairs 10.,000
Well and pump repairs 2.,500
Certificate 50., 000
Real estate sales 2,950

Real estate investment 10.,074
Map of Fourth Ward 50
Map of Foh Ward 375
Police in Eighth and Ninth wards 2,850
City Hospital 2.,000
Profiles d drainage in Eighth and Tenth wards 4.,ooo
Expenditures
City Tax $388,564
Washington Park opening 291
. Interest on city bonds 60., 282
L-itarest on Washington Park

Map of Seventh Ward 100
Map of Sixth Ward 300
Map of Tenth Ward 1,0
Fire Department 29 p 927
Salaries 33,280
Sinldng Fund 30 ., 677
..266-
Contingent 18.,037
Advertising 4.,680
Police and Justice courts 7,16
Police 82,228
Cleaning streets ll., 836
Certificate 90,000
Real estate sales 1,.578

Police in Eighth and Ninth wars 2,572
City Hospital 2,000
Profiles and drainage in Eighth and Tenth wards 4,ooo
Water 4,672
Cash in Treasury, Sept. l, 1852 37,709
Total Expenditures $886,!69
-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
20. ' Oct. 17, 1853.

-268-
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
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR

21
ENDING AUGUST 1, 1854
Receipts
Cash on hand, September 1 ., 1853 $20,754

Assessments on city property 1 ., 022
Gas lamp posts
City bonds (Water stock) 21 ., 000
Inte?"est on;.city. bondsr 60 ., 480
Intereston Washington Park bonds 7,292
Interest on water loan bonds 3,300
Street lighting 45 ., ooo
Fire Department 38,91,k
Salaries - .34,082
Sinking Fund 33,427
Cntir.gent
Advertising 8 ., 785
Police 77,737
Stref'+, cleaning 23,172
21. Office of the Comptroller. Financial Report - for - -Year Ending

the -
1st August, 1854 ( Brookl y n, 1554 ), P 8.
.270..,.
Real estate, sales in 1851 2o6

City Hospital 2,000
Water account 623
Police, Eighth Ward 1,800
Police, Ninth Ward 3,597
Street grading, Ninth Ward 3,o,o
Street grading, Eighth Ward 2,;372
Street grading, Seventh Ward 672
Street cleaning, Eighth Ward 416
Police and Justice's courts 6,1,2
Street cleaning, Ninth Ward 333
Street grading, Sixth War-d 600
Board of Health 6 ., 605
Total Receipts 3530,561
Expenditures
Assessments on city property $ 886
Gas lamp_posts 2,395
I11terest on,city bonds 60,480
Interest on Washing ton Park bonds 7,92
Interest, on water loan bonds 3,300
Street lighting 42,40.5
Fire Denartment 37,.542
Salaries 32,246
Sinking Fund 33,427
Public :markets 2,083
Contingent . o"o., ,..,..,54
-271-
Advertising 8,6n
Police 78,542
Street ,cleaning ,23 ., 210
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
Total Expenditure $530,581

-27 2-
Table XXXI
FIMANCIAL STATEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING

SEPTEMBER 1, 1855
For the Consolidated cities of Brooklyn, Williamsburgh
and Bushwick22
ReceiEts
Cash on hand, January l, 1855 $140,972
For current expenses 161,000
For Williamsburgh debts 150,000
For school expenses 44,200
Real estate sales 47

Contingent 4,808
Advertising 4,125
Water account 450
Police and Justice's courts 3,577
Fire Department 131
Brooklyn, prior to 1855 135,241
Late City of Williamsburgh 74,031
Late Town of Bushwick 3,186
Part of assets of Town of Bushwick 2,296
th"" ,.,.........+....11 ...,.,. li'-i 'l"l<>nt"; ol R,:,-nn.,.+.

f"\.P.P ......
VJ.J. .....v,-;,
,...p
"" .a.\:ii> V'V.l:f&WV""...._....... , f'n-ro Vt:>t:t.,. RnrH na
-.r;:;-- - ---
.. ---w--
--- ----y
September_!., 1855- (Brooklyn ., 1855), PP 27-9.- -
-27.3-
Expenditures
Paid on account of Paid
Brooklyn prior to Paid on account current
1855 of Williamsburgh expenses
City bonds 126,400

Public markets 20 3,113
Contingent 9 ., 180 54., 703 1 2.,24.5
Contingent interest
Advertising 310 10., 264
Police and Justices' Courts 32 3,809
Fire Department 12;043 9,744 29,357
Assessment on City Property 70 216 122
Board of Hea,lth 87
Street Cleaning 9 18,870
Inter.est on City bonds 31,890
Interest on Washington Park
Bonds l0,778 3,646
Street ligll.ting 4,589 33,932
Polic;e. 536 ,3,504 129 ., 630
10,744
Well and pump repairs 1,876 4,678
Salaries 25 37,92$
Police 8th Ward 3,504
Police 9th Ward 60
Adjusted claims 13,062
General fund warrants 28 ., 139 :-
School fund warrants 2,623
-274-
Paid on account of -Paid

Brooklyn prior to Paid on acco11nt current
18.$'5 of Williamsburgh _!xpenses
City tax 10
Totals 32,457 249,169 330,33.3

Paid on account
of Bushwick, $812.
Total Expenditures for all accounts 612,771
-275-
A Guide to Source Materials
A history of the city of Brooklyn could not be written without con

sulting the extensive collections of the Long Island Historical Society.
This organization has the most complete file of Brooklyn newspapers for
the -pei'iod. Furthermore, a large body of reports of the various committees
can be found there. Not to be overlooked are the scrap-books and clipping
files.
In order to trace the development of the Common Council one must turn
to the newspapers since the early printed records of that body have vanished.
Both the and the Eagle after 1841, published the minutes of the Council.
Copies of legislation and mayoral addresses are also to be found in the
pages of the newspaers.
The Grand Army Plaza branch of the Brooklyn Public Library also has
a useful collection of material. Recently, it has been named as the
official depository for files of the now defunct Brooklyn Eagle.
Much painstaking and time consuming work is necessary for anyone inter
ested in using the official records kept in the Kings County Hall of Records.
Material has been stored in rather a hit or miss fashion. The County only
recently became aware of the necessity of preserving early documents. Here
to.fore, the practice had been the wholesale des_truction of material with
historical value.
Bibliography
Articles and Pamphlets
/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.
Bennett, Wm. Harper. 11 Some pre-Civil War Irish Militiamen of Brooklyn,

New York." Journal - of -
the .American Irish Historical Society, XXI
(1922), 172-80.
Bennett, William H. "Cornelius Heeney." The Journal - of -
the .American Irish
Histoical Socie..:!?,l, XVII . (1918),, _ .?15-23.
ffiett, William c;J Examination f the Report !Water pommittee
- People. New York; ]]'54.
Hollo:ray, Emory. "More Light ori'Whitman. 11 American Mercury, I. (February,
1924), 183-89.
Huntington, Edna. Marriages and Deaths f!:.2!!! Miscellaneous Newspapers
lished in Brooklyn from 1600-1886 in the Possession - of -
the Long Island
Historical Society.ooklyn, 1939: -:-
Hutchison, Josph c.'. Histo and Observations .2!! Asiatic Cholera!!! BrooklY!!,
---
New York in 1854. Newr, ork, 1855.
T-1,,,.----
uv.1..uovu, T- ... --..:-1,,,.
Uv.l. '<:.UU.Cl.J. 1) ___ ,., _ ..,: ___ -.P f'\,...:I "0--- n--W:,:!--.L-
-- -
'!""'-....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
{smith, I. P...J Statement of Facts Answer To the Reply !. Union Ferry

Companl Brooklyn, IB52. . .. ._ ..
-277-
Union Ferry Company. Lease .2f Fulton, South, Hamilton Avenue

Ferries; Articles of Association, and - 2. Union
Ferry Company. 19p. Brooklyn, 1852.
Ward, Samuel Dexter . "Diary." The New-York Historical Society Quarterly
Bulletin, XXI (July, 1937), l.11-17.--
Wood, George. Opinion !2!! -2 Extent and Character of Title of the
City of New York ,. to the Land L:ving B etween High and L Water,
,!! the Brooklyn of River. New York, 1843.
zunder, Theodore A. "William B. Marsh--The First Edi tor of the Brooklyn
Daily Eagle. 11 American Collector, IV (August, 1933), 93-5.
Books
Abelow, Samuel P. History!_ BrooklYJl Jewry. Brooklyn, 1937.

Allen, Gay ylilson. Solitary Singer. New York, 19.55.
/J.non7 Half-Century's Progress .City of Brooklyn. New York., 1886.
/J.nonJ .Summary, Historical, Geogra'.)hiCal View of c:i.ty .2f York
Notices of Brooklyn. New York, JJ3'3?).
.
Armbruster, E. L. Eastern Distrit !?. Brooklyn. New York, 1912.
Bailey, J. T. Historical Sketch of the City of Brooklyn -
and Neighborhood.
Brooklyn, 1840. . . ---
Bangs, c. R. Reminiscences! New Utrecht_ and Gowanus. Brooklyn, 1912.

Barns, S. Ce Wallabout the Wallabouters. New York, 1888.
Billington, Ray Allan. rotestant Crusade. New York, 1938.
Brooklynsavings Bank Old Brookiyn Heights. Brooklyn, 1827-1927 .
BrooklynTrust Company. Historic Brooklyn. Brooklyn, 1941.
Brovm, Henry c., ed. Valentine I s Manual !?. City ! New York for 1916/17.
New York, 1916.
Callender, James H. Yesterdais Brooklyn Heights New Yor, 1927.
Corby, J. ,!!!! Section .2f Brooklyn.$ Brooklyn, 1939.
Custer,
E. A. ! Synoptical Histo Towns Kings County 1525
Modern Times. New York, 188:?:
-278-
Department, Brooklyn Fire. Firemen Brooklyn, 1892.

Disturnell, John. New York!!, _!1 Was ll,...Including Brooklyn. New York,
1876.
Edwards, Richard, ed. !!! Historical and Descriptive Revit3w of CitY of
Brooklyn Her Manu.facturing Mercantile Industries, Includi
. Sketches of Leading Public - Private Citisens. New York, l 83.
Fales ., w. E. s. Brooklyn's Guardi.aris. Brooklyn, 1887.

Field, T. w. Historic Antiquarian Scenes ?:!l Brooklyn. Brooklyn, 1868.
Floyd...Joes, T. ---- __
Backward Glances.
___._ New York, 1914.
Higgins, C. M. South Brooklyn and Gowanus in Histo ry. Broolyn, 1911.

Holloway, Thtory,. ed., Uncollected Prose Poetry!: Whitman. 2 vols.
New: York, 1921.
Howard, Henry w. B., ed. The Eagle Brooklyri. 2 vols. Brooklyn, 1839.
Kernan, J. Frank. Reminiscences of the Old Fire Laddies and Volunteer

Fire
-
Departments of York - Brooklyn:- York, 188
King, H. c. Reminiscences of Broklyno Brooklyn , 1891.
Langstaff, B. Meredith. Brooklyn Hei ghts; Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.
. Brooklyri.t 1937.
Lomas, John and Peace, A. s. Wealthy -of 13rooklyn Williams
burgh. Brooklyn, 1847.
Malone, Dumas, edo Dictionary.! American Biography, 21 vols. New York, 1934.
Nevins, Allan and Thomas, Milton H. eds. The Diary of George Templeton
Strong. 4 vols. New York, 1952.
Ostrander, Stephen M. History of the City of Brooklyn a."'.ld King's County.

2 vols. Brooklyn, 1894. - -- -- -
Overton, Jacqueline. Long Island's Story. New York, 1929.
_Lpierrepont, H. EJ Pi.istorical Sketch of the Fulton Ferry and its Asociated
Ferries, by DiTector. Brooklyn, 1'8'79.
Powell, L P. Historic To1-ms of the Middle States. New York, 1899.
-279-
Prim e , Nathaniel. History of Long Isla nd 18450 Brooklyn, 1845.

Rogers, Cleveland and Black, John, eds. The Gathering of the Forces. 2 vols.
New York , 1920.
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. Age of Jackson. Boston, 1945.
Scisco, Louis Dow. . Pol i ti cal Nativism in New York State. Colu.111bia Univ
ersity Studies!!! History, Economics, andl5iiblic ' XIII, no. 2.
New York, 1901.
Seymann, Jerrold. Colonial Charters, Patents Gran ts. New York, .1939.
Stein, Emanuel. "The Housing Problem in the City of New York." 3 vols
. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York Univ ersity. 1933.
Stiles, Henry R. History of - City of Brooklyn. 3 vols. Brooklyn, 1867-70.
ed. The Civil, Political; Professional and Ecclesias tical
History and Commercial and Industrial Record of.the Count
of Kings
the City of Brooklyn, New. 2 vols. New!ork, l 84.
The City of Br ooklyn New York,_ 1871.
Stokes, I. N. Phelps. The Iconography of Manhat_tan Island. 6 vols. New
York, 1928.
Syrett, H. c. City .2f Brooklyn l865;.,98. New York, 1944.

Thompson, Benjamin F. History of Long Island; its Discovery
Settlement Present.: 2 vols. New York,1843.
Tunnard, Christopher and R eed, HenryH. American Skyline. New York, 1955.
Walker, James Blaine. Old-time.rery Boats Brooklyn r New Y ork, 1923.
Weld, Raloh Foster. Brooklyn i .America. New York, 1950.
_Brooklyn:Vil1age, 1816-1834. New York, 1938.
Our Brooklyn. Brooklyn, 1940.
Wexelstein, Leon. Building up Greater Brooklyn. Brooklyn, 1925.
Weyrauch, Martin H., ed. "The Picto rial History of Brooklyn. r. Brooklyn
Dail Eagle 75th An.l'liversary. Brooklyn, 1916.
y
Williams, Edwin, ed. - It Is, 5 vols. New York, 1833-1839.
Wilson, James Grant, ed. The Memorial History
the ---
of -
- of -
City - New -
York,
3 vols e . New York, 1893 0
..280-
Wilson, Rufus Ri, Historic Long Island. New York, 1902.
-----
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-
H, :!=?.. and W. J. Hearne 1849-50 Brooklyn.Directory

Yearly Advertiser
H. R. and w. J. Hearne 1850-51 Hearnes Brooklyn City
Directo!:l
Ho R. and w. J. Hearne 1851-52 Hearnes' Brooklyn City
Directory
H R. and w. J. Hearne 1852-53 Hearnes Brooklyn City
Directory
H. R. and W. J. Hearne 1853-54 Hearnes Brooklyn_City
Directory
H. R,. and w. J. Hea.rne 185455 Hearnes' Brooklyn City
Directory
William Smith . 1a54..;55 Smith's Brooklyn City
Directory
Willian1 Smith 1855..;56 Smith's Brooklyn -
City
Directory
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).
New York Board of Aldermen. Proceedings. 21 vols. New York, 1834-1855.
New York Board of Alde!'men. Reoort !; Mayor to !!!_ Common Council,

October,14, 1833, Doc. no. 30.
{.Talmage, Thomas a;J Ferg Committee 2f . Board Aldermen ,2!
the Common Council of the City of New York e Dec. 20, 1843. Brooklyn,
. !843. .------
Brooklyn C harter Charter Conventions
Brooklyn Common Council. Charter :2f_ City ,2! Brooklyn, -
of the State of New York, Relating Particularly to Said City Added
an Appendix, Con'tainingthe Charters, .StatisticInfomation, Etc.
Old
Brooklyn, 1841.
City Charter ConventionG Rules f Order- ., .! MeJiibers Standing
Committees. 1847.
City Charter Convention Committee on Public Improvements, Assessments,
Etc. Report. Brooklyn, 1847.
City Charter Convention, Committee on the Relations of the City, Etc.
Brooklyn, 1847.
Convention, Brooklyn Charter. A Law to Revise and Amend the Several -
Acts
Relating !2 City of Brookiyn:- Brooklyn, 1848. -
City Charter Convention. Reports of Committees, Rules! Convention.
Brooklyn 1848.
City Charter Convention, Committee on City Officers, Their Powers, Duties
and Compensations. Report. Brooklyn, 1848.
City Charter Convention, COliimittee-on Taxes and Assessments. Report. 1848 0
-283-
City C harter Convention. Protest of Delegates From the 8th and 9th Wards,
Report of Select ConunitteeThereon. Brooklyn,. Imi8:- -
Brooklyn Common Council. Proceedings.

Board of .Aldennen. Proceedings, 1854. Brooklyn, 1855.
Secret Sessions .2f the Board !f Aldermen, 1835-1860. Hall of Records Vault
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
Conunon Council. Procedings Commission Consolidate Brooklyn, Williams-

burgh,. Bushwick. Brook,lyn, 1853.
General Plan, For the Union and Consolidation of the Cities of Brooklyn and
Williamsburgh, and the Town: of Bushwick, oneMunicipa.L 'Corporation,To
be Called the City klyn, passed July 13, 1853e Brooklyn, 1653.
Ferries
Common Council, Connnittee on Ferry and Water Rights. Report. 62 p.
(Doc. no. 12). Brooklyn, 1849.
Conunon Council, Committee on Ferry and Water Rights. Report, November !1, 1851.
Brooklyn, 1851.
Common Council, Committee on Fe!Ty and Water Rights. Statement of Facts
Answer Reoly . Union ierry Company, Relation
Report of the Committee, and to the ttack on the Chairmanof
-- that
CommitteeoBrooklyn, 18 - --
Finance
Common Council, Special Committee on Finances, Etc. Report. Brooklyn, 1838.
-284-
Comptroller f}ergen, Peter,J Reports 1841-1850. Brooklyn, 1850.

Comptroller. Reports ! Receipts Expenditures For 1847-1850. Brooklyn
1847-9L,
Comptroller 0 Financial Reports for.1849 1850.' 2 vols. Brooklyn, n. d.
Comptroller. Financial Renort 1848. Brooklyn, 1849.
Comptroller. Financia.l Renort for 1853. Brooklyn, .1853.
Department
Chief Engineer of Fire.Department ,Lcharles c. Talbot? Report of the
Department .2f Eastern District of, Brooklyn. Brooklyn., IS'-""
Chief Engineer of Fire Department /Israel D. Velsr;J Report of the
Department of the Western District! Brooklyn. Brooklyn,-Y8K
Brooklyn FireDeparvlllent. Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Trustees
of the Brookl Fire Department, from December 15, 1848 t Jurie B, 1854.
134 pp. ms. LPackage no. 8'i7 Kings County Hall of Records.
Health
Board of Health. Annual Reports. Brooklyn, 1851, 1852, 1854.
Health Officer. [!i. Wendell;/ .Annual Report for 1851. BrooklYJ;l, l8S2.
Health Officer. /Ji. Wendell.J Annual Report for 18.52. Brooklyn, 18.53.
Lighting
Common ..C011Ilcil.. Report :. ot the Joint Cornmittee !!_ Q!!_ - Lamps. Brooklyn
1851.
Joint Gommittee on Gas and Lamps. Report of the Joint Committee on Gas and
Lamps Concerr..ing the Contracts .2! theGity of Brooklyn withtlie- -
Brooklyn Gas Light Company. Brooklyn,l.
Mayors
Brush, Conklin. Address. Brooklyn ., 1851.

Brush, Conklin. Address. Brooklyn, 1852.
Copeland, Ed. Remarks .2!: Taking Chair As Mayor. Brooklyn, 1849.
F.all; George .. Cow..muri..icatio .:!: Conunon Council, January ,!, 185.5= Brooklyn., 1855 .1
-285-
Lambert; Edward A. Communication. Brooklyn., 1853.

Lambert, Edward A. Communication. Brooklyn, 1854.
Lambert > Edward A. imnual Message. Brooklyn, 1854.
Talmage, Thomas Goin. Inau5ural Address of Thomas G. Talmage Esa. on Assuming
Office .2f Mayor of City of Brooklyn, May 1645. Brooklyn, New
York, 1845.
Parks
Common Council. Copy of the Renart! the Commissioners Appointed e1
for the()pening
Provide - - of Washington .2!! , Green. Brooklyn,
1847.
Police
Common Council, Special Committee on Petition of the City Police For
Increase of Salary. Report. Brooklyn, 1853 .
Chief of-Police. Report. Brooklyn, 18Sh.
Streets
Committeeon Public Improvements, Assessraents. Report. Brooklyn, 1847 e
Street Commissioner. /J..
T. Lawrence..!/7 Report to Common Council
Improvements the Citl'; _,2! Brooklyn 18'>1 1855. Brooklyn, 1855.
_
Transportation
C01mnon Council, Special Committee on Long Island Railroad. Report. Brooklyn,
, Cr',
..LU;:7.1.e
Common Council, Railroad Committee. Report upon Subject ,2! City

Railroads. Brooklyn, 1853.
Conunon Council, Railroad Committee. Minority Report 1853. Brooklyn, 1853.
Law Committee. Report on Railroads Bonci3 of the Brooklyn City --Railroad
Company. Brooklynl854.
Water Rights
"Brooklyn Water Line" (a collection of re-norts, etc. on the water lines of
New York and Brooklyn harbors. Collected by H. E. Pierrepont. In
Long Island Historical Society.)
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
Brooklyn Daily Advertiser, 1845-1855.

Brooklyn Dail;y Eagle, 1841-18.5.5.
Brooklyn Evening Star (formerly Long Island Star), 1834-185.5.
New York Post, 1834-1855
. Times, 1851-18.55.
New Tribune, 1841-1855.
Williamsburgh Democrat, scattered.
-287-
Private Collections
Long Island Historical Society

Pamphlets
Scrap-books
Travel Accounts
New York, 1924.

---------
Benson, Adolph S., ed. America of the Fifties: Letters of Fredrika Bremer.
Bishop, Isabella L. B. The Englishwoman in ica. London, 1856.

Bremer, Frederika. Homes .2f the World, 3 vols. London, 1853.
Cowley, Elizabeth, ed. .American Diaries of Richard Cobden. Princeton, 1952.
Hull, Mrs. F elton. --
Life in America. London, l8J8.
Mackay, Alexander. Western World . 2 vols. London, 1849.

Maury, Sarah M. Englishwoman in America. London, 1848.
Prentice, Archibald. !, United States London, 1849.
Sagra, D. Ramon de la. Cinco Meses en los Estados - Unidos de la America
del Norte Desde _tl Abril al 23 de Setiembre 1835.-Paris, 1836.

History of Brooklyn (New York), 1834-1855: Political and Administrative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Brooklyn (New York), 1834-1855: Political and Administrative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

. :.i ...

History .2f Brooklyn, 1834-1855: Politieal and

A dissertation in the Department of History submitted

Under the supervision of Professor Bayrd Still

Chapter I . Physical Features 1

XXXI 1855 272

In 1932 a Committee of the .American.Historical Association, under

1. A Report by the Committee of the American Historical Association - on -

Census of 1890 it ranked fourth, with a population of 8o6,343; and even

3. Gabriel Furman, Notes, Geographical .And Historical, Relating To

4. Charles Hirschfeld, 11 Ba1timore, 1870-1900: Studies in Social History11

example, no official Common Council records are available outside of the

The 24,000 or so persons who res.ided in Brooklyn as of 1834 had a

l. Horatio C. King, Reminiscences of Brooklyn (Brooklyn, 1891), Po 4.

commanding position overlooking the Bay of New Yorko In the mid-1800's,

these "stately and elegant residences" was attested to by Alexander

J. Alexander Mackay, The Western World (London, 1849), I, 81.

7. Rufus R. Wilson, Historic

10. Long Island Star, Jan. 7, 1836.

accomplished in fifteen years. 11 H e wrote, with somewhat more pride than

the majority of residents in 1834 could be found within a radius of three

15. Hall, Communication to Common Council j January l, 1855

17. Brooklyn. Directories.

20. State of New York Report Special Committee Tenement Houses

view of construction. Referring to the erection of mult.iple dwellings in

24. Star, June 4, 1852.

27. Advertiser, Jan. 13, 1846.

30. Eagle, Aug. 19, 1846.

a result of the better financial conditions prevalent in the country

Brooklyn, on the eve of its consolidation with Williamsburgh and

33. Thomas P. Teale, Brookll!! City Directory and .Annual Advertiser -

creased, interior sections had to be turned into urban areas. As the

From the seventh largest city of the United States in population in

1. Eleventh Census of the United States (Washington, 1895), I, 370.

five-year period, a 64.4 percent gain occurredo Excluding Williamsburgh

7. Census of 1840; 1845; 1850, passim.

10. Star, Jan. 22, 1850.

14. Adolph s. Benson, ed., America of the Fifties: Letters of Fredrika

17. Ibid., pp. 98-104.

22. Eagle, July 2, 1847.

26. Eagle, Feb. 23, 1847.

Citizens 11 would breed racial animosities. Its editor contended that if

30. Ibid., Aug. 27, 18)5.

meeting on Fulton Street, at which the orators were belaboring Brooklyn's

36. Eagle, Sept. 27, 1845.

38. Ibid., April 22, 1846; Advertiser, April 21, 1846.

in the period 1850-1855. As part of the nativist movement in Brooklyn,

42 c Billington, pp. 304-05.

to Brooklyn with approximately a thousand of his followers. The Brooklyn

occupations, working as waiters, barbers, farmers, stevedores, coaohmen,

50. Brooklyn City Directories, 1834 to 1855, passim.

the measure. Brooklyn complained that the antagonism demonstrated by the

1. Board of Aldermen of New York, Report -

Answering this statement, an editorial n the Brooklyn Advocate asserted

14. Acts, pp. 5 ff.

1839, in connection with state-wide balloting on the subject of direct

19. Star, Nov. 14, 1839.

this occasion he was successful. Thus he had the distinction of being

General Jeremiah Johnson, whom Stiles called "Brooklyn'.s first and

elected a trustee of the Town of Brooklyn. For upwards of thirty years

27. Stiles, II, 255-61.

moved to Brooklyn. From 1833 to 1835, he served as clerk of the Board of

30. Stiles, II, 263-65.