Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) THE FUTURE OF BROOKLYN. THE CITY'S PROMISED GROWTH AND INCREASE, WITH COMMENTS ON THE BUILDING STATISTICS FOR THE YEAR 1888. MESSAGE OF THE HON. ALFRED C. CHAPIN, MAYOR. DECEMBER 13, 1888. MAYOR'S OFFICE, } CITY HALL, BROOKLYN, } December 13, 1888 } _To the Honorable, the Common Council_: GENTLEMEN: In this message I shall attempt a general statement of the condition of the city, and of its building operations. For the purpose of broadly considering the city's present condition and standing among similar communities, the returns of the recent Presidential election furnish valuable data. Presidential elections call out a full vote, and thus afford an indication of the relative growth of the different cities of the country. The following table is believed to correctly state the total number of votes cast in the four leading cities for President at the recent election: Total vote cast in 1888. New York 270,194 Philadelphia 205,747 Brooklyn 148,868 Chicago 123,475 In 1880 the vote of these several cities in the Presidential election bore the following proportion to the population as shown by the census of the same year: Number of population to each voter in 1880: New York 5.87. Philadelphia 4.92. Brooklyn 5.29. Chicago 6.06. The following table contains the population of each city in 1880, and the apparent population at present, basing the estimate upon the vote of this year, and assuming the ratio of population to the numbers of voters to remain the same as in 1880: Population Apparent population in 1880. in 1888. New York, 1,206,299. 1,585,529. Philadelphia, 847,170. 1,014,332. Brooklyn, 566,663. 782,221. Chicago, 503,185. 748,258. The method of reaching this conclusion cannot be called unduly favorable to our city. The difference in the ratio existing between the population and the voters in 1880 in Chicago and in Brooklyn would seem to indicate either that Chicago possessed an unusually large unnaturalized population, or else that it did not poll its full vote. If the unnaturalized population of our own city is larger than it was in 1880, the above estimate may be too small. If the increase of population since 1880 has been one that brought with it a larger proportion of women and children than the increase before 1880, the above estimate is too small. Whether either of these possible modifications should be given serious consideration is a matter of conjecture upon which some light may be thrown by what will be set forth in this communication.