"Resolved, That the senators from the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth districts, are hereby appointed a committee to consider the subject of a union of the cities of New-York and Brooklyn, and the village of Williamsburgh, under one city government, and that said committee be instructed to report thereon to the Senate at an early day of the next session of the Legislature,"

REPORTS:

That they have had the subject under consideration but have concluded not to recommend legislative action thereon at the present session. Soon after the adjournment of the Legislature of 1850, the common council of each of the cities of New-York and Brooklyn, and the trustees of the village of Williamsburgh, severally appointed committees of their body to confer together and deliberate upon the subject embraced in the foregoing resolution. These committees have had many meetings at which the proposed union has been discussed, but they have failed to agree upon or recommend any plan under which these several localities can be united under one municipal government.

Situated as these localities are, with the skirts of the city of Brooklyn verging upon the village of Williamsburgh, and soon to be joined together, while New-York is divided from both by the narrow river that furnishes a harbor for the shipping of both, all of them are united and blended together in their social, domestic and business relations; it would, therefore, seem to be apparent to all that the true interests of these places would be greatly promoted by uniting them under a common government.

By this union the many questions that would tend to disturb the peace and well being of both would be terminated. It is a well known fact, there has existed for many years a controversy between the citizens of New-York and Brooklyn, arising out of the claim of New-York to exercise jurisdiction over the waters of the East River to high water mark on the Brooklyn shore, and the New-York city government claims that their city limits and boundaries extend to that high water mark. New-York also claims the exclusive control of all ferry franchises between the two cities, together with the right to license, regulate or totally, prohibit the use of the common highway of both. Many vexatious questions arise under our law of as

:

sessments between the two cities, in consequence of individuals residing in Brooklyn and doing business in New-York. Most of these exclusive privileges now claimed by New-York, have been, and will continue to be resisted by Brooklyn, if the two cities remain under separate local governments. These controversies will lead to useless expenditures of money, and produce animosity, jealousy and alienation of feeling, instead of that fraternal sympathy and union which their close contiguity, their commingled relations and blended interests imperatively require for the benefit of their people.

The city of Brooklyn insists that the East River being an arm of the sea, where the tide ebbs and flows, is by the laws of nations a natural highway, common, of right, to all the people of the State, as is the air that we inhale. That there is no just or equitable principle by which the claim of New-York to the exclusive jurisdiction or use of its waters can be sustained, and that all attempts on the part of New-York to make that river a source of revenue to the injury of the people of Brooklyn, ought to be and must be resisted.

The location of these cities, and the jurisdiction claimed by NewYork, presents a state of things which it is believed can seldom be found elsewere to exist. That is the fact that two city governments exist, the one commencing its limits where the boundaries of the other ends. How inevitable then that two separate municipal governments can never exist in such close proximity without quarrels and interminable dissensions.

But let them be united under one municipal government, as they are united by a community of interest, and a singleness of destiny, and all these fruitful sources of discontent and difficulty are avoided and forever removed. Instead of striving to overreach each other in their city councils or in the legislative halls, the generous strife would be directed for the common good of all, and the beneficial results would be felt and acknowledged by all classes and conditions of

men.

When these localities shall be united in one common bond of union their prosperity must be increased. With a population now numbering about 700,000, it is difficult to conceive the extent of their future grandeur or to assign limits to their numbers and power in future years. But while the committee are fully convinced of the

very great importance of the union to the people themselves, they abstain from recommending legislative action. Unions, whether they relate to individuals, cities or states, if they would have them result in the happiness and well being of the united, must spring from the parties most immediately concerned. They are never aided by the persuasion or arguments of interested friends or the enforcement of law. However much, therefore, we regard this contemplated union with approval and favor, the committee feel constrained to leave the subject in the hands of the corporate authorities of the places concerned. While they feel strongly and deeply the great benefits that must flow to all from the union proposed, if it can be fairly consumated they will neither "forbid the banns" nor attempt to recommend a union coerced by authority of law.

JOHN A. CROSS.

No. 75.

IN SENATE, JUNE 10, 1851.

GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE.

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the Assembly:

The abrupt termination of the recent annual session of the Legislature, imposed upon me the responsibility of convening the two Houses in extra session, and of ordering special elections to fill the vacancies created by the resignation of members.

While I felt reluctant to burthen the treasury with an extraordinary expenditure, and to subject you to the inconvenience of re-assembling at the Capital at this unusual season, the condition of the public business at the time of your adjournment in April, was such as to render further legislation indispensable to the ordinary administration of the Government; and in this posture of affairs, a sense of duty constrained me to act with promptness in adopting the only mode of proceeding which seemed adequate to the occasion.

The annual appropriation bills and many general measures affecting the public welfare, which were left unfinished, should receive final action as early as practicable; and in the discharge of this duty, your own wishes, no less than the interests of your constituents, will prompt the utmost dispatch which you may deem consistent with prudent and judicious deliberation.

[Senate, No. 75.]

1

[u.n.]

It is a subject of gratifying reflection, that, in the elections recently held, so large a portion of the people of the State, rising above all party divisions, should have proclaimed their adherence to the vital principle of our institutions, which clothes a constitutional majority with the power to decide public questions and control the action of our representative bodies. The temporary prostration of the legislative power, by the secession of a minority, was an event which could hardly fail to produce a deep impression upon the public mind.

A proceeding of this character has never before occurred since the formation of a republican government in this State. It was not the first time in the course of our State and national progress that wide differences of opinion had arisen in our legislative bodies respecting the expediency of public measures and the legitimate construction of constitutional provisions. But hitherto, in seasons of high popular excitement, when the violence of party spirit seemed to defy control, and when political divisions were mòst equally balanced, the encounters of debate have ceased, and the gravest conflicts of opinion have yielded to the deliberate judgment of the majority. The diversities of sentiment which arise in the administration of a popular system, are to be viewed as a necessary incident of self-government. Our past experience has shown that the utmost freedom of discussion is not inconsistent with the restraints of the Constitution, and that the controversies produced by opposing views of public questions are not hostile to the stability of democratic institutions. The cheerful acquiescence of the whole people in the ascertained will of the majority, has ever constituted the brightest feature of our history, furnishing indisputable proof of the wisdom of our republican theory, and the capacity of our citizens for the exercise of political responsibility. This principle of submission to the voice of the majority, expressed through the forms of the Constitution, is fundamental and organic; and pervades and animates our admirable system of regulated liberty, and constitutes our only shield against the disorders of faction. Its practical recognition has thus far happily distinguised our country from those ill-fated democracies, ancient and modern, which have sunk beneath the violence of popular strife and insubordination.