Stated briefly, these plans were to utilize the existing tracks, franchises and rights of the Long Island, in order to establish, by the aid of connecting extensions to be built, unbroken traffic from the extreme north and east of the country to the south and west. The main system of connections was outlined as follows: From Greenville, southwest of the Battery on the New Jersey shore, where the Pennsylvania was developing a great freight terminal for its main line, a car ferry, some three miles in length, was to run to Bay Ridge on the Long Island shore. From there passengers and freight would be taken through Brooklyn, as far as St. James Park, over the lines of the Long Island. Then the franchise of the New York Connecting Railroad Company, giving the right to lay lines from St. James Park to the Borough of Bronx, on the mainland, by means of connecting bridges over Ward's and Randall's islands, would be utilized so as to establish the last link of the chain, and place the New York, New Haven and Hartford, and the New York Central Railroads in direct connection with the Pennsylvania. A subsidiary plan, both for developing the traffic of Long Island proper, and for placing Manhattan Island in easy commuication with the main through system, was to bore a railroad tunnel from the neighborhood of Thirty-fourth Street, in New York, to Brooklyn, and to erect in Brooklyn a large central passenger and freight station. The Rapid Transit Commission, which has in charge the present subway work, had already announced that, as a part of the scheme for rapid transit throughout Greater New York, a tunnel would be built to Brooklyn from the south end of New York to connect in Brooklyn with a branch of the Long Island. These two tunnels, taken in conjunction with the additional New York-Brooklyn bridges planned or under construction by the city authorities, would, it was believed, be of immense value in relieving the congestion of population in New York, and in developing the real estate of Brooklyn and Long Island both for industrial and settlement purposes.

In discussing the plan for bringing the New York Central in direct communication with the Pennsylvania, there was some discussion of erecting a railroad bridge over the North River; this bridge to be used by all railroads having terminals in Hoboken and Jersey City, and a central terminal depot to be built in New York City, to which the Central should have access. Owing to the great engineering and financial difficulties of the plan, no decision in regard to it was announced during the year.

New York Municipal Campaign.-The campaign in New York City which resulted, in the election on November 5, 1901, in the defeat of Tammany Hall and the installation of a Fusionist administration, excited wide comment throughout the entire country. Perhaps no election in any section of the United States of recent years gave rise to so many and to so sensational press dispatches, or was asserted to be of so momentous significance. The reasons for this may be summarized as follows: First, since 1897, when Tammany gained control of Greater New York, practically no effort had been made by it to conciliate public opinion or to disprove the charges, naturally brought against a party in power, that it was working for its own profit and not in the interest of the people; second, since 1900, when Mr. Richard Croker, holding the balance of power at the National Democratic Convention in Kansas City, had cast his ballot in favor of Mr. Bryan and the free-silver wing of the party, a large section of the press had come to regard him as a figure of national importance with large powers of doing harm. Therefore the press was prepared to treat him without mercy in the campaign of 1901, and opportunity for making such treatment_effective and popular Mr. Croker had himself given by his prolonged residence in England; third, the fact that the revised charter of New York (see paragraph Charter Revision) would go into effect at the beginning of the new administration, and under it the governing power would be greatly centralized and the heads of all departments given much more extensive power; fourth, the alleged corrupt condition of the New York police department.

Shaping of the Campaign.-In 1897 the Republican party had declined to unite with the Citizens' Union, who were foremost in opposing Tammany Hall; and for this reason the Tammany Democratic organization, whose normal majority in New York City is hardly less than 100,000, won easily, notwithstanding the fact that practically the entire press of the city advocated the election as mayor of Mr. Seth Low, the Citizens' Union candidate. This Tammany victory and the resultant state of public opinion brought both the Citizens' Union party and the Republicans to a realization of the expediency and desirability of uniting their votes to defeat Tammany. Both, therefore, were willing to make concessions in 1901 and a ticket was made up on which not only the Citizens' Union and Republican parties were represented, but also all other political fragments opposed to Tammany Hall, of which may be mentioned the German Democrats, the Sheehan Democrats, a seceding segment of Tammany Hall, and the Coffey Democrats, representing largely the labor organizations. After a long series of conferences not altogether harmonious these various anti-Tammany bodies nominated for mayor on September 27 Mr. Seth Low, president of Columbia University and twice mayor of Brooklyn. Tammany

NEW YORK MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN.-Mayor Seth Low. Edward M. Shepard.

in the meantime, on October 3, nominated for mayor Mr. Edward M. Shepard, an independent Democrat, and in 1897 a pronounced supporter of Mr. Seth Low and the Citizens' Union. In accepting the Tammany nomination Mr. Shepard, whose integrity and ability were well recognized, stated that he would in no wise be bound to his Tammany associates in the conduct of his office; but would conduct it as he personally saw fit in the interests of the people and tax-payers of the city. The press then urged Mr. Shepard to state plainly whether he would if elected remove Mr. Devery from office as deputy police commissioner. This, however, Mr. Shepard refused to do, claiming that any pre-election pledges to gain votes were in violation of the constitution of the State. This logic appeared to the press too fine-spun for the usages of practical life, and, whereas the support of some powerful papers might have been won by a pledge on Mr. Shepard's part to remove Mr. Devery, the result of his refusal was that the entire press turned against him and pointed out that, no matter how great Mr. Shepard's virtue and ability, he would be unable under the revised charter of Greater New York to effect any considerable administrative reform on account of the other nominees on the ticket, who were Tammany men throughout. For, as mayor, Mr. Shepard might indeed remove the heads of nearly all city departments; but the elective officials he could not affect. But under the new charter the governing power of New York is virtually centralized in eight of these elective officials, of whom the mayor is one, and who constitute together the Board of Estimate and Apportionment (see paragraph Charter Revision). In this board, controlling a budget of over $100,000,000 a year, the mayor has three votes out of a total of sixteen, while over the acts of the other seven officials, either in their individual or collective capacity, he has no jurisdiction. But from what might be termed the criminal, as distinguished from the civil, side of the city administration, Mr. Shepard's position was stated by the press to be even more untenable than from the civil side. For to that class, larger in New York than elsewhere in the western world, who live by their wits or the vices of their fellows, the districtattorney represents the law and the whole law, and his complaisance or severity gauges the measure of their prosperity. But over the acts of the Tammany nominee for district-attorney, Mr. Shepard would have no control, and without that official's assistance and initiative, police corruption and other and worse evils, bitterly complained of by the press, could not be cured. The press having by arguments similar to those outlined above, denied Mr. Shepard's individual power for good, concentrated attention upon the three most prominent of Tammany's representatives. The first of these was Mr. Robert A. Van Wyck, the mayor, who had been nominated by Tammany as a justice of the Supreme Court. Whatever the executive merits of Mr. Van Wyck-and partisanship ran so high that it was difficult to judge them correctly-it was at least generally conceded that he had not given evidence of an unbiased frame of mind while in office or of administrative efficiency, and that he was not fitted for a judicial office. The second point of attack of the Fusion press was against Mr. William S. Devery, who was virtually acting as chief of police and whose appointment by Tammany had balked the act of the legislature (see paragraph New York City Police Department) in abolishing the office of chief of police. As stated by Mr. Edward M. Shepard in the Atlantic Monthly, "With a singular fatuity, under skillful goading by the press, he indulged, until the eve of the election, in crude utterances which strengthened the impression of his abuses and operations. His very energy that most useful single quality, after honesty, in the head of a police force-seemed to possess a baleful fury, exquisitely disturbing to every person intelligently concerned for Democratic success.' The third and perhaps most effective attack made by the press was upon Mr. Richard Croker, the leader of Tammany Hall since 1886. "In cartoons and in the virile and unweariedly continuous work of reporters and editorial writers alike, they held him up as a heavy, brutal, dull, insolent, corrupt, tyrannical, reckless, unreasoning, absentee political boss." The attack was effective. Besides these three persons chiefly attacked, exposures of Tammany mal-administration followed each other rapidly throughout the summer; and yet with all the exposures no fiscal corruption of magnitude was proven in any of the city departments, while exorbitant salaries, useless offices, and contracts awarded by favoritism were the worst harms alleged.

A curious feature of the campaign was that the sympathy of the press was so enlisted in favor of the Fusionists that except by means of paid advertisements Tammany could hardly obtain space, much less fair treatment for such arguments as it had to offer. That there were ample grounds for the criticism of Tammany is evident; that the attitude of the press, taken as a whole, was partisan to the verge of hysteria, is perhaps not unjustly inferred from the reflected glow in England of New York opinion, as appearing, for example, in the most conservative of journals, the London Times. "It is no exaggeration,” said this paper on October 25, “to say that New York is now as unsafe as was a western mining town a generation ago." "Shopkeepers, especially on the East Side, are in a state bordering on panic, while citizens out at night walk on secluded streets literally at the risk of their lives." And

again in an editorial on November 7 the Times referred to Tammany as beyond dispute "the most corrupt, brutal, and demoralizing organization that can be found in the civilized world, with perhaps the exception of the Mafia and the Camorra." With statements no less strong than these constantly expressed in New York, it was to be expected that the arguments of Tammany, even when valid, would be swamped in denunciation. Yet two of these arguments were not entirely negligible.

The first was that many of the evils complained of in the city's administration were directly attributable to the Republican State legislature at Albany; that the legislature dictated the salaries of municipal employees, spent by proxy 83 per cent. of the city's hundred-million-dollar annual budget, planked down laws on the city like "so many pounds of beef," and ever by discriminative election and other laws bore in mind that one part of the city was Democratic and the other Republican. Experts in municipal government had for many years besought the legislature to let New York govern itself; but if now a Fusionist administration closely allied with, if not dominated by, the Republican party was to be put into power, matters in this direction would be worse than before. The other Tammany argument was that experience had shown that the Democratic organization, whatever form it took, could not permanently be kept out of power in New York City; nor could any combination of rival parties be devised with enough organic coherence to hang together for more than two or three years at a time. And since the Tammany candidate for mayor was a man of admitted ability and integrity, the desired reformation of Tammany would be accomplished, or at least gotten well under way with his election.

Toward the end of the campaign these arguments of Tammany posted up everywhere as advertising placards appeared, as was stated on good authority, to be winning place against the entire press of the city. But at this juncture the most spectacular feature of the campaign took place; this was a series of speeches delivered by Justice William Travers Jerome, the nominee on the Fusion ticket for district-attorney. Without mincing words and with a fearlessness which once or twice came near alienating some of the elements of his own party, he gave what purported to be a series of illuminated illustrations of the truth of Bishop Potter's accusations against the New York City police department. Both among the better class of people and in the crowded East Side tenement districts he sounded this single note, which became the focus of the campaign and probably contributed more largely than any other single factor to turn the balances of the election against Tammany, The election resulted in giving to the Fusionists every important office in the city of Greater New York. See preceding paragraphs Charter Revision and New York City Police Department; also the article MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

Municipal Elections. The total vote for Mr. Seth Low, as mayor of Greater New York, was 296,050, and for Mr. Edward M. Shepard, 265,940, thus giving Mr. Low a plurality of 30,110. All other offices of importance on the general municipal_ticket also went to the Fusion party; these included: Comptroller, Edward M. Grout; president of the board of aldermen, Charles V. Fornes; district-attorney, William T. Jerome; four justices of the Supreme Court; the president of the Borough of Manhattan, Jacob A. Cantor; the president of the Borough of Brooklyn, J. E. Swanstrom, and president of the Borough of Richmond, G. Cromwell. The elected president of the Borough of Queens was J. Cassidy (Dem.), and the president of the Borough of Bronx, Mr. Haffen (Dem.).

State Elections.-At the elections held on November 5, nine judges of the Supreme Court were chosen, four of whom were for New York City. The judges elected were as follows: From New York City, Morgan J. O'Brien, James A. Blanchard, John Proctor Clarke, and Samuel Greenbaum, all of whom were on the Fusionist ticket. Outside of New York there were elected Aaron V. S. Cochrane (Rep.), E. A. Spencer (Rep.), Garrett A. Forbes (Rep.), Charles E. Parker (Rep.), and William H. Adams (Rep.). There were also elected two State Senators to fill vacancies caused by death, as well as all members of the State Assembly. As a result of this election, the State legislature of 1902 will be represented as follows: In the Senate, 35 Republicans and 15 Democrats, and in the Assembly, 106 Republicans, 42 Democrats and 2 Independent Democrats. An amendment to section 18 of article 3 of the constitution was adopted by a vote of 354,881 against 309,245, taking away from the legislature all authority to pass special acts exempting property from taxation. This amendment, however, will not act to tax property at present exempted.

State Officers-Elected in November, 1900, for two years: Governor, Benj. B. Odell, Jr., Republican, took office January 1, 1901; lieutenant-governor, Timothy L. Woodruff; secretary of state, J. T. McDonough; treasurer, John P. Jaeckel; engineer and surveyor, Edward A. Bond; attorney-general, John C. Davies; comptroller, E. C. Knight; insurance commissioner, term three years, ending February 11, 1903, Francis Hendricks; superintendent of public instruction, Charles R. Skinner; superintendent of banking department, F. D. Kilburn; superintendent of State prisons, C. V. Collins; superintendent of public works, J. N. Partridge.