[City documents, 1847-1867]

8

City Document.— No. 5.

REPORT

OF THE

JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE

ON SO MUCH OF

Che Aavor's Address

AS RELATES TO

ANNEXATION.

ROXBURY :
L. B. & O. E. WESTON, PRINTERS, GUILD ROW.
1858.

City of Roxbury.

In Common Covuncit, Feb. 1, 1858.

Orperep, That a Joint Special Committee be appointed, to consider
what action is necessary to take on that portion of the Mayor’s Address,
that has reference to the subject of Annexation.

Committee on the part of the Council—Messrs. Bumstrap, Fow1r and
Jorn Gay.

Passed, and sent up for concurrence.

FRANKLIN WILLIAMS, Clerk.
In Boarp or ALDERMEN, Feb. 8, 1858.

Concurred. And Messrs. PEarson and Browne.u joined.

JOSEPH W. TUCKER, City Clerk.

In Common Covncit, March 15, 1858.

On motion of Mr. Nicnons, Report and Order laid on the table,
and 500 copies ordered to be printed.

FRANKLIN WILLIAMS, Clerk.

In Common COUNCIL, ‘
Roxbury, March 15, 1858.

The Joint Special Committee, to whom was referred an
order “to consider what action is necessary to take, on
that portion of the Mayor’s Address which has reference
to the subject of Annexation,” have attended to the duty

assigned them, and beg leave to

jE JE) 1S) Odes Wie

Tue Mayor, in his Address to the City Council, says,
“The subject of Annexation is one touching the dearest
interests of the people, and one on which the people are
expected to act; and the government are bound to carry
out the wishes of the people, upon any subject of impor-
tance to the community, whenever those wishes are clearly
and- decidedly indicated.” Again, “the small affirmative
majority of those who voted on the question, can hardly be
supposed to warrant any further immediate action on the
part of the City Authorities.”

At the late municipal election, the citizens of Roxbury
decided, by 808 yeas to 762 nays, on the adoption of the
following proposition: “Is it expedient for the City Coun-
cil of Roxbury to petition the Legislature for an act to
annex the City of Roxbury to the City of Boston?”

The subject of Annexation was not much agitated im-

A

mediately prior to the late election, although it has ever
been a question in which the people have manifested a deep
interest, and whenever any publicity has been given to it,
it has not failed to enlist a large number of advocates,
among whom, were many of the most influential of our citi-
zens; and it is reasonable to suppose, that had as much
publicity been given to the subject, as has been usual on
former occasions, the vote would have been much larger:
and although the vote was 526 less than that for May-
or, it was yet a larger one than has ever been cast
at any municipal election, with the exception of the years
1855 and ’57, and it exceeds, by an average majority
of 238 votes, the aggregate number of votes cast for
Mayor for the past six years, as the following statement
will show:

The whole number of votes cast for Mayor in 1852 was 582

1853 1196

1854 1074

1855 1592

1856 = 1453

1857 = -2096
In 1853 the vote on Annexation was 399 nays, 262 yeas.
1857 808 yeas, 762 nays.

In 1853 the citizens voted on the same proposition, and
as will be seen, the result was a negative majority of 137,
and falling short of the vote cast for Mayor for that year
413, being 384 per cent. less than the Mayor’s vote, whilst
during the late election, the number of votes cast on the
question was more than double that cast in 1853; and
whilst the difference between the Mayor’s vote and that
given on Annexation was 526, the loss was only a fraction
over 25 per cent.: thus showing clearly and conclusively
that the question received a large vote, and that the feel-
ings of the citizens were manifested on the subject to a
great extent.

5

The vote for Mayor was unprecedently large, and a
ereater degree of excitement was manifested, by the va-
rious political parties, than has ever entered into any
municipal election, which had a strong tendency to draw
away from the minds of the people, the still greater im-
portance of voting on the question of Annexation, and
this may account for one of the reasons why the vote was
not larger.

The Committee do not deem it within their province to
enter into a discussion of the merits of the question of the
annexation of the City of Roxbury to Boston, as that can
be done more effectually when the Act, authorizing the an-
nexation, shall be placed before the City Council, and the
people, for their acceptance ; — but there is a duty, on the
part of the City Council, to perform in this matter, which,
if they are true to their sworn obligations, they will not
disregard, or remain passive, when the demands of the
people have been so “clearly and decidedly indicated.”
And whilst your Committee fully agree with the sentiments
of the Mayor, “that the government are bound to carry
out the wishes of the people whenever those wishes are
clearly and decidedly indicated ;” they, likewise, as strong-
ly dissent from the conclusion of his Honor, “that the
small affirmative majority of those who voted on the
question, can hardly be supposed to warrant any further
immediate action on the part of the City Authorities :” for,
in adopting this view of the question, the City Council
would disobey the declared and expressed command of the
people, emphatically made known through the ballot box,
and it is not for the City Council to decide, how large
the majority must be, before they will obey the will of
the people.

In view of the case thus presented, your Committee are

6

unanimously of the opinion, that it is the duty of the City
Council to carry out the wishes of the people, and they

would therefore recommend the adoption of the following
order.

For the Committee.

EBEN’R W. BUMSTEAD.

CITY OF ROXBURY.

In Common Councit, March 15, 1858.

ORDERED, That the Mayor be authorized to take such
legal measures as are necessary, to obtain from the Legis-
lature an Act, authorizing the Annexation of the City of
Roxbury to the City of Boston.

Na

my

oe

A aly oto
ata one

ah es