0 0 H 4 7 0 0 E-4 0

i "I

z 4 0 0 7

E-4

0 A POLITICAL PROCESS OF URBAN GROWTH: CONSOLIDATION OF THE SOUTH SIDE WITH THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 1872

BY BERNARD J. SAUERS'

T HIS is a study of urban growth through the political process of consolidation. The region studied consisted of eleven boroughs on the south side of the Monongahela River, an area of 4.20 square miles, with a population of 38,685. According to Kenneth T. Jackson, annexation and consolidation constitute different processes. Consolidation is the absorbing of one municipal government by another, while annexation is the absorbing of unincorporated land next to the city.' Jack- son states that much of the urban growth in the nineteenth century occurred when cities reached out and swallowed up adjunct areas. Kingsley Davis, however, states that annexation is not an important factor in the study of urban demography. Ac- cording to Davis, the expansion of boundaries by political annexation tended to approximate the physical spread of the city; thus, the city changed its political boundaries to encompass the new areas of growth.' This paper, following Jackson's approach, argues that Pittsburgh grew in the nineteenth century because it forcefully consolidated adjunct areas which were already in- corporated boroughs. Mid-nineteenth century Pittsburgh witnessed a change in its demographic pattern with the development of rail transportation and the building of an improved system of intracity travel. High population densities in the city caused the greatest rate of population growth to occur on the urban periphery. The growth in population and industry caused Pittsburgh businessmen and other civic boosters to attempt to consolidate these areas with

'The author is Chairman of the Department of History, Shady Side Academy, Pittsburgh, Pa. l Kenneth T. Jackson, "The Significance of Annexation in the Nineteenth Century" (Paper presented to the American Historical Association, De- cember 28, 1970), 5. 2Ibid., 131-132. 265 266 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

Pittsburgh. The process of consolidation was not unique to the Pittsburgh area. During the years from 1850 to 1860, 75 percent of the fifty principal cities in the United States consolidated territory.' Pittsburgh civic leaders were concerned with the growth of rival cities, as compared to the lack of growth in Pittsburgh. Civic boosters, businessmen, and newspapermen, prime motiva- tors behind the consolidation movement, argued that larger cities attracted more people and new industries. 4 The newspapermen played a major role as they promoted the image of Pittsburgh as a city of dynamic growth. The businessmen of the area supported the papers, and the decisions of the boosters influenced the politics of consolidation.' In 1872 the eleven boroughs located on the south side of the Monongahela River consolidated with the city of Pittsburgh. This 4.20 square-mile area was located at the foot of the escarp- ment along the river plain. The south side underwent intensive industrial development between 1850 and 1870, and much of the pattern of development was established by the time consolidation took place. During the westward movement of the post-Revolutionary War period, the low plain along the banks of the Monongahela River attracted new settlers and new development. As early as 1797, a glass factory owned by O'Hara and Craig began producing plate glass for the westward moving pioneers. By 1807 the value of the glass manufactured was $18,000, and by 1860 there was $30,000 worth of flint glass produced with another $40,000 in bottles and windows.' The south side was a dynamic area, growing in industry and population. A comparison between the population growth of the two largest boroughs on the south side, Birmingham and East Birmingham, and the city of Pittsburgh, for the time period of 1850 to 1860, reveals a changing demographic pattern. In the de- cade of the 1850s East Birmingham's population increased 110

SJames Holmberg, "The Process of Growth in the Nineteenth Century Community: Pittsburgh 1850-1890" (Unpublished paper, Universitv of Pittsburgh, 1971), 4. 'Jackson, "The Significance of Annexation," 5. 'The Pittsburgh Gazette, July 29, 1876. 6George H. Thurston, Allegheny County's Hundred Years (Pittsburgh, 1888), 190. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 267

percent and Birmingham grew 62 percent while Pittsburgh increased only 5.1 percent. Pittsburgh had the smallest percentage of population increase in Allegheny County. The 1870 statistics for the south side indicate that the population of the eleven boroughs was 38,685. The south side had a minimal number of blacks, but it did have a higher percentage of people with a foreign background than did the city of Pittsburgh. 268 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

The south side experienced twenty years of industrial growth prior to the consolidation of 1872. In 1872 the Pittsburgh area had thirty-six glass factories which produced half of the glass in the United States and employed 4,259 people. The glass factories had a capital investment of $4,660,880 which produced products worth $5,832,492.7 In 1872, twenty-six of the thirty-six glass factories were located in the boroughs of Birmingham and East Birmingham on the south side of the Monongahela River. These two boroughs represented only a part of the industrial area consolidated that year. The population increase and the industrial development not only gave the south side a particular sense of community, but it also made the area desirable to Pittsburgh's civic boosters who wanted to expand the city boundaries. A comparison of the population growth of Pittsburgh with Cincinnati and St. Louis from 1800 to 1850 reveals that Pittsburgh, which had earlier advantages in population growth, soon lost its top position to rivals down the Ohio2` Concerned over the city's possible stagnation, the civic boosters observed rapid population growth in the peripheral regions. Although the population for Pittsburgh for the years 1850 to 1860 increased only 5.6 percent, the eight boroughs bordering the city increased by 18,779 people, or 82 percent. The glass industry increased its production 400 percent between 1840 and 1857." The iron and steel industry in Allegheny County increased its blast furnaces by eleven between 1850 and 1876, and the number of rolling mills more than doubled.," None of these statistics indicates stagnation for the Pittsburgh region. They do indicate a changing pattern of growth (see table 1). The oldest wards of the city, wards 1-4, had a population density of 66.9 people per acre in 1850; ward 5 recorded 74.6. Downtown

'Pennsylvania, Bureau of Industrial Statistics, Annual Report 1872-1873 (Harrisburg, 1874), 51. ' U. S., Census Office, A Compendium of the 7th Census, 1850, by J. D. B. DeBow (Washington, 1854), 192. For the early rivalry among these cities see Richard Wade, The Urban Frontier: Pioneer Life in Early Pitts- burgh, Cincinnati, Lexington, Louisville, and St. Louis (1959, reprint, Chicago, 1964). 'William J. Bening, "The Glass Industry of Western Pennsylvania, 1797- 1860" (Master's Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1936), 115. " James Swank, Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1878), 105. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 269

TABLE 1

CHANGES IN POPULATION DENSITY PITTSBURGH 1850-1860 (People per acre)

1850 Density 1860 Density Ward 1-4 320 Acres 21,439 66.9 20,758 64.8 Ward 5 110 Acres 8,211 74.6 8,734 79.4 Annexed 1837 Ward 6-9 700 Acres 16,951 24.2 19,735 28 Annexed 1845-46

Total 1,130 Acres 46,601 41.2 49,217 43.6

Taken from U. S. Census Office, 7th and 8th Census 1860-1860 (Wash- ington, D. C., 1861).

Pittsburgh had a dense population. The housing, constructed before the use of structural steel, consisted of rowhouses and low one- and two-story buildings built of wood, brick, and stone. The areas of least density, wards 6, 7, 8, and 9, were the outlying wards that had been annexed in 1845-1846. The density of the population in the downtown wards and the development in the outlying, sparsely populated regions indicate that growth, not stagnation, took place. By 1850 the city of Pittsburgh occupied most of the low river plain, and its population had spread outwards from the center of the city into the hill area. Fertile lowland accessible by both ferryboat and bridge lay just across the Monongahela and Alle- gheny rivers. Into these areas came people and industry. The civic leaders of Pittsburgh observed these demographic trends and attempted to bring about consolidation. The consolidation of Philadelphia in 1854 provided a major stimulus for the city of Pittsburgh to attempt the same action. With one political act, Philadelphia added 127 square miles. In terms of area, it became the largest city in the world. Pittsburgh eyed Philadelphia's new position with envy, and the Philadelphia press had a comment for Pittsburgh. In December, 1853, The North American stated that consolidation required more effort than Pittsburgh seemed inclined to make. It claimed that Pitts- 270 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY burghers neglected to take the steps necessary to secure for their city the importance to which it was entitled."1 Pittsburgh civic leaders wanted to consolidate a large region including Allegheny City and nine other boroughs, four of which were on the south side. Consolidation involved a population of nearly 40,000. This addition would provide Pittsburgh with new status among American cities and new wealth in the form of an expanded tax base. Table two indicates how the proposed consolidation would have affected Pittsburgh's population and tax base."2

TABLE 2 PITTSBURGH CONSOLIDATED 1850 PITTSBURGH Population 46,601 84,108 Percent of County Population 27.5% 44.7% County Tax Assessment $31,182 $48,567 Percent of Total County Tax Assessment 39.7% 61.7%

The Pittsburgh newspapers played a major role in gaining support for a bigger and better city. Early in 1850 the Pittsburgh Gazette asked for free bridges across the rivers. It argued that with free bridges there would be little opposition to consolidation.' The opposition to toll bridges arose over costs that pro- hibited free movement of people and goods, which in fact made the rivers barriers to geographical and political unity. The Daily Morning Post, in an editorial by its owner, argued in support of consolidation. He said that the two large cities and eight popu- lous boroughs occupied an area within two and one-half miles of the courthouse. Economically and geographically the area func- tioned as a single community. Consolidation would tie the area together, making services to the community simpler and possibly cheaper.14 The same editorial presented the typical booster argument for the larger city:

" Sarah H. Killikelly, The History of Pittsburgh: Its Rise and Progress (Pittsburgh, 1906), 196. " Douglas Brown, "Local Competition and Internal Improvement" (Un- published paper, University of Pittsburgh, 1971), 6. "The Pittsburgh Gazette, September 10, 1850. " The Daily Morning Post, Pittsburgh, March 31, 1854. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 271

Manufacturing, skills, enterprise, and capital are attracted to large cities. People take the census return as evidence of the amount of population, business wealth, and growth of Pittsburgh. Judging from our present census returns we must be greatly underrated by people at a distance. Pittsburghers who have traveled over the country are fully aware of such a fact.'5

The Pittsburgh Gazette on April 7, 1854, also carried an editorial supporting the consolidation attempt. The same principle which justified the annexations of 1837, 1845, and 1846 applied to the addition of Allegheny City and the nine boroughs. The location of the territories across the rivers made no difference. The paper stated, "The rivers do not change the oneness of our interest as a community, nor do they interfere with the practica- bility of a faithful administration of city laws.""6 The paper favored free bridges over both rivers as part of the price of consolidation. The Pittsburgh Gazette observed that population growth in the outlying regions created communities whose interests were inter- locked with the city. The Pittsburgh Gazette and The Daily Morning Post argued that the increased size of the city would help Pittsburgh to occupy a proper position among American cities."' The Daily Commercial Journal was the only paper against consolidation. The journal editorialized, "We have little to say except to express doubt whether any considerable number of our citizens wish such interference with the present organization of our cities and boroughs."' Its position on the issue caused much agitation among the boosters. Finally, on April 8, 1854, The Daily Commercial Journal concluded that there seemed no good reason to support the consolidation movement; "the argument of a new Pittsburgh of 100,000 was a frivolous argument."") In early April, 1854, a consolidation act was submitted in secrecy to the state legislature in Harrisburg. The action came as a surprise to the citizens of the south side. The Pittsburgh Gazette reported a town meeting held in Birmingham in reaction to the

'3Ibid. '0Ibid. The Pittsburgh Gazette, April 7, 1854. The Daily Commercial Journal, Pittsburgh, April 8, 1854. Ibid. 272 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY proposed consolidation. Mr. George Appleton submitted a resolution stating the borough of Birmingham did not want consolidation with the city of Pittsburgh. Appleton's resolution passed; it condemned those individuals of Pittsburgh and the south side who were promoting their personal interest over the general good of the community.2 " The Daily Morning Post on April 10, 1854, carried an editorial which reversed its earlier position. It argued that there should not be a forced consolidation; the amen- ity of a city of 100,000 was not justification for consolidation. The editorial suggested that the consolidationists had been emo- tionally caught up in the Philadelphia plan and had extended consolidation to unreasonable limits.21 Strong booster support of consolidation by most newspapers ebbed, although there is little evidence of organized opposition. An occasional letter of opposition raised objections to assuming Pittsburgh debts. A Daily Morning Post editorial on March 3, 1854, stated that it would be the large property holders in the boroughs who would stop consolidation because of their fear of debts and taxation.-" The bill to consolidate the boroughs lacked political support and was defeated. The problem of municipal debt may have generated the force which defeated the bill in Harrisburg. Investigation into the municipal debt reveals inter- esting evidence.22 (See table 3.)

TABLE 3 MUNICIPAL DEBT 1850 Non-Railway Railway Pittsburgh $1,136,624 $1,800,000 Allegheny 500,000 400,000 Boroughs (9) 50,000

Total $1,686,624 $2,200,000

If consolidation had taken place, the total debt, railway and non-railway, would have equaled $3,886,624. Allegheny City and the nine boroughs which comprised the consolidated area would

2'The Pittsburgh Gazette, April 6, 1854. ! The Daily Morning Post, April 10, 1854. " Ibid., March 31, 1854. " Erasmus Wilson, Standard History of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Chi- cago, 1898), 275. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 273 contribute $950,000, while Pittsburgh's contribution to the total debt equaled $2,936,624. If consolidation had taken place, Alle- gheny City and the nine boroughs would have been burdened with a portion of Pittsburgh's debt. The problem of debt grew to such proportions that the Supreme Court ordered the commis- sioners to raise the taxes to pay the railroad debt. The commis- sioners refused to levy the necessary taxes and were jailed for a short time.24 Although the consolidation attempt of 1854 was a failure, the city consolidated a very large area in 1867-1868. Consolidation created eleven new wards from the townships of Pitt, Oakland, Collins, Lawrenceville, Liberty, and Peebles. In size it was the largest consolidation to take place (see map 1). This region had undergone rapid population growth, increasing by 64 percent between 1860 and 1870.'5 In the early 1870s the city of Pittsburgh instituted municipal reform. It created its first paid fire department, expanded its park system, and contracted for an updated water system. The reforms were necessary, but they added to the burden of municipal debt. The civic leaders of Pittsburgh knew these services could benefit the south side; they also viewed the industries of the south side as a necessary tax base to assist in the funding of the projects. The south side escaped consolidation attempts in the 1850s and 1860s, but the political scenario would be repeated again in 1872. In the twenty-year period from 1850 to 1870 a change took place in the philosophy of the state legislators, who by 1872 had accepted the principle of forced annexation. The leaders of state government believed that no small territory should be allowed to retard the development of a metropolitan area. Thus, they passed a legislative act that forced the south side into the city of Pittsburgh. During the twenty-year period between 1850 and 1870, the south side demonstrated great industrial and demographic change. Two boroughs, Birmingham and East Birmingham, experienced the greatest change. They occupied the lowland plain of the Monongahela River, an area well situated for industrial growth. The population of these two boroughs increased by 338

2Killikelly, History of Pittsburgh, 210. '5 lHolmberg, "Process of Growth," 3. 274 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY percent between 1850 and 1870. The two boroughs encompassed nearly one-half of the population of the south side and emerged as leaders in the anti-consolidation movement.26 East Birmingham's industry developed at a phenomenal rate from 1852 to 1872. The number of glass factories increased from four to eleven. In iron and related industries, similar growth occurred. In 1852 only one iron producing factory existed in East Birmingham. By 1872 machine shops, planing mills, foundries, and eight factories related to the iron industry were in operation. New services were necessary for the increasing population; the map of 1872 shows the establishment of two gasworks, a sawmill, and three lumberyards.; The growth of the south side, compared to the city of Pittsburgh, caused the consolidation movement to gain strength in the twenty-year period. Birmingham achieved an even greater degree of development than East Birmingham. The greatest change took place in the industrial area. The six glass factories in 1852 increased to six- teen by 1872. In addition to iron and glass industries, Birming- ham had a coach factory, a market house, and a lumberyard.2 This growth took place in spite of a serious fire in the winter of 1854 which destroyed over seventy buildings, including a major glass factory.211 The dynamic growth of Birmingham and East Birmingham was a causal factor in the process of political change. The civic leaders of Pittsburgh, caught between municipal debts and economic stagnation, wanted to consolidate the city and the south side. The majority of the people of the south side were opposed to such a move. The means by which Pittsburgh gained control of the south side lies in the records of the state legislature. On May 10, 1871, the state legislature passed a law stating that Pittsburgh could annex adjacent areas under the following condi- tions: 1. A petition of at least three-fifths of the taxable in- habitants must be provided.

21U. S. Census, 7th, 8th, and 9th. 2'Two maps were analyzed to determine the degree of growth. See R. E. McGowan, Map of the Cities of Pittsburgh, Allegheny and Boroughs of Birmingham, Fast Birmingham, South Pittsburgh and Temperanceville (Pittsburgh, 1852); Atlas of the Cities of Pittsburgh, Allegheny, and the Adjoining Boroughs (Philadelphia, 1872). 20 Ibid. SThe Daily Commercial Journal, March 27, 1854. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 275

2. The voters of said boroughs would vote in a special election, of which a majority of votes must be in favor of the action.30

In 1872, however, a supplement to that law stated that the boroughs of the south side were annexed to the city of Pittsburgh and made a part thereof.31 Several factors caused the legislature to change its position in the space of a year. Early in 1872 the booster press of Pittsburgh, a continuous supporter of consolidation, renewed the issue. The Daily Post editorialized:

We are of the opinion that it is a question of time as to when the south side citizens will see the propriety and importance of consolidation with Pittsburgh. The advantages they could accrue in the matters of gas, police and sanitary regulation are so manifest as to hardly need elaboration.32

The East Birmingham council met on January 18, 1872, to consider the question of consolidation. Councilman Atterbury moved that a ticket give the citizen a choice of three alternatives: (1) annexation with Pittsburgh, (2) a south side consolidation into one municipal government, or (3) a vote against consolidation. The council discussed the motion vigorously and only defeated it by the casting vote of the chair.'; As a result of the East Birmingham meeting, two other boroughs agreed to have an election on January 27, 1872, for the consolidation of the three boroughs, creating South Side City. The proposed consolidation was defeated.34 The vote against consolidation as a city decided part of the issue, but pressure for consolidation with Pittsburgh still re- mained. The Daily Post commented, "Our friends over the river had now better try their hand at voting for consolidation direct with Pittsburgh."3 5 At the East Birmingham council meeting of

'0W. W. Thompson, A Digest of the Acts of Assemblies and General Ordinances of the City of Pittsburgh 1804-1886 (Harrisburg, 1887), 76. "31Pennsylvania, Laws of the General Assembly of the State of Pennsyl- vania (Harrisburg, 1872), 743. 12 The Daily Morning Post, January 22, 1872. "ibid., January 19, 1872. 's Ibid., January 29, 1872. "Ibid. 276; PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

February, 1872, Councilman Atterbury moved that an election be held to determine the consolidation question. The date se- lected was March 16, 1872, with six boroughs taking part in the election. The total vote represented a defeat for consolidation, although three boroughs, Ormsby, Monongahela, and Mt. Washington, voted in favor of consolidation. Birmingham and East Birming- ham, representing nearly one-half of the population of the south side, emerged as leaders in opposition. Many south siders believed that the issue of consolidation was over. However, on March 27, 1872, with the rules suspended and with no debate, a supplement to the Annexation Bill of 1868 passed both houses of the state legislature. Burgess Dressell of East Birmingham called a meeting of the anti-consolidationists in an attempt to stop the legislative act that needed the governor's signature. Burgess Salisbury spoke to the group reminding them that the Pittsburgh budget was over $800,000, including interest costs of $170,000. Salisbury reminded -the people that they would have to pay taxes to cover the municipal debt which included a $5,000,000 waterworks and a proposed new park costing $1,500.- 000.36 A motion was made that the councils of East Birmingham and Birmingham appoint a committee to go to Harrisburg to op- pose the bill. The resolution adopted at that meeting, and carried by the delegation to Governor Geary, stated that the people of the south side were opposed to the manner in which the Consoli- dation Act was rushed through the legislature under the suspen- sion of rules. The petition, with 700 names, requested the gover- nor to veto the bill. The delegation failed, and Governor Geary signed the bill into law on April 2, 1872. The passage of the Consolidation Act demonstrated the political power of the "state machine." The bill was introduced into the senate with all rules suspended; it was read three times without debate and approved unanimously.37 A study of the key legislators involved provides insight into the passage of the Con- solidation Act. The bill was managed in the senate 'by Republican Senators James Graham and Miles Humphreys. Graham had been president of Allegheny Savings Bank for

6Ibid., April 1, 1872. "7 Pennsylvania, Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania, Session of 1872 (Harrisburg, 1872), 985. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 277 fifteen years before going to the state legislature. He had been both a school director and a director of the poor in Allegheny County for nine years. Graham also served on Allegheny City Council and as high sheriff of Allegheny County. He was elected to the senate in 1862 and in 1867 was chosen speaker. In 1869 Senator Graham presided over the Republican state convention held in Philadelphia which nominated General Geary for gover- nor. He was also a state delegate to the national convention which chose Grant as the Republican nominee. In 1870 Graham was appointed chairman of the finance committee, a position of power and influence.3s Senator Humphreys, who had been a steel mill worker, was a strong advocate of trade unions and labor reform. Humphreys, before becoming active in politics, held the presidency of the Workingman's Association of Pittsburgh for many years. He directed a newspaper company in Pittsburgh from 1867 to 1868. Elected to the state legislature in 1868, Humphreys did not seem to have the same political influence in the party or the government as Senator Graham. Senator Humphreys was appointed fire chief of Pittsburgh when he failed to return to the senate.. James Taylor, of Pittsburgh's first district, handled the bill in the state house of representatives. The bill to supplement the Annexation Act of 1868 introduced by Taylor was handled in the house in the same manner as it had been handled in the senate. There is little biographical information on James Taylor, and nothing could be found indicating his association with any particular interest group, or that he received any personal benefits for his handling of the bill in the state house of representatives. 4" The legislature supplemented the Consolidation Act of 1868 because it had the backing of the newspaper editors, the Pitts- burgh political machine, businessmen, and members of the board of trade. The strongest opposition came from the regions that would be consolidated. Analysis of the opposition reveals that the issue was not divided between political parties or socio-economic groups. The leadership of the opposition had the same socio-

" The Biographical Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania of the Nineteenth Cen- tury (Philadelphia, 1874), 391. "2Ibid., 394. 40Pennsylvania, Journal of the House of Representatives of the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, Session of 1872 (Harrisburg, 1872), 904. 278 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY economic background as the consolidationists. The differences centered in their geographical location and their desire to remain autonomous. In 1868, an anti-consolidation pamphlet argued that consolidation would result in higher tax rates, loss of local autonomy, and loss of government efficiency."' The tract, signed by sixty-two men, provides insight into the nature of the opposition. Many of the signatures were from Allegheny City; however, some came from Sharpsburg, Millvale, the south side, and the city of Pitts- burgh. Thus, they represented a wide geographic area. The anti- consolidationists primarily represented the middle and lower middle class. All were property owners; the working class was not represented (see table 4). General William Robinson from Allegheny and William Mc- Cullough Darlington from Sharpsburg, two men of substantial influence and power, signed the protest. The Robinson estate comprised wards 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Allegheny City.4 2 Robinson mortgaged his property and developed the Ohio-Pennsylvania Railroad, the first railroad to cross the western boundary of Pennsylvania. He was president of the Exchange Bank of Pitts- burgh, a member of the Pennsylvania State Legislature, and the first mayor of Allegheny City. Robinson represented a source of power and wealth for the anti-consolidationists. The only other anti-consolidationist of such prominence was William Darlington. Son of a prominent Pittsburgh family, William Darlington lived at his home "Guyasuta" near Sharpsburg. After being ad- mitted to the bar of Allegheny in 1837, Darlington practiced real estate law. He 'held no public office but was intensely inter- ested in reform movements that he thought would improve the moral and social fabric of the community.4" However, social prominence in Pittsburgh was inconsequential when matched against the power of the consolidationists who controlled the state legislature. Darlington and Robinson represented the wealthier anti-consolidationists, but the majority of people who opposed the con- "41General William Robinson, "Consolidation: An Address to the Citizens of Allegheny City and Vicinity Against Consolidation With the City of Pittsburgh" (Pittsburgh, 1872). 'People's Monthly, I (November, 1871), 96. 43George T. Fleming, ed., Pittsburgh and Environs (New York, 1922), IV, 161. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 279

TABLE 4

ANTI-CONSOLIDATIONISTS WHO SIGNED THE 1968 PAMPHLET THEIR LOCATION AND PROFESSION General William Robinson Allegheny Gentleman Sam Riddle Allegheny Exec. Pgh. Paper Co. George Bothwell Allegheny Contractor John Taggart Allegheny Leather tanner J. B. Ingham Allegheny Planing Mill William Darlington Guyasuta Lawyer Joseph Kirkpatrick Allegheny Oil dealer John Sampson Allegheny Gentleman William Dilworth, Jr. Pittsburgh Lumber merchant C. B. Herron Allegheny Spang, Chalfant Co. J. C. Lewis Sharpsburg Lewis Barley, Dalzell & Co. Henry Irwin Allegheny Pres. Ben Franklin Ins. Co. James Patton, Jr. Allegheny Gas Meter Mfg. H. P. Schwartz Allegheny Druggist S. H. Geyer Allegheny Attorney J. W. Hall Allegheny Attorney James Lockhart Allegheny Grocer J. H. Sewell Allegheny Attorney Christian Gerb Allegheny Saloon owner J. C. Patterson Allegheny Contractor Leonard Walter Allegheny Pres. Pennsylvania Ins. Co. A. Patterson Allegheny Lumber merchant Gottlieb Wetlach Allegheny Tannery John Williams Millvale Supt. Millvale Iron Works J. H. Gibson Sharpsburg Manufacturing L. W. Lewis Sharpsburg Manufacturing William Noble South Pittsburgh Upholsterers George Brawdy Sharpsburg Sand and Coal dealer Taken from William Robinson, "Consolidation: An Address to the Citi- zens of Allegheny City and Vicinity Against Consolidation With the City of Pittsburgh" (Pittsburgh, 1872). solidation movement were lower middle class. It was not the laborer who sweated in the mills who protested consolidation. The anti-consolidationists were a group of small businessmen who owned property and felt threatened by the Pittsburgh tax structure. Pittsburgh's tax rate of twenty-one mills, which had quadrupled in six years, frightened the taxpayer of the boroughs where taxes averaged ten to twelve mills.44 The anti-consolidationists represented the political power of

"Robinson, "Consolidation," 5. 280 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY the boroughs. The loss of political autonomy meant loss of control over the destiny of their respective boroughs. It represented a direct threat to those men who had the greatest economic investment in the community (see table 5).

TABLE 5 ANTI-CONSOLIDATION COUNCIL MEMBERS East Birmingham Birmingham John Eiterniller Leather Store Frank Zieful -- Grocer J. Felker Coal Merchant Jacob Swanson Tinner John Fox Tavern Owner Dr. James Kerr Physician J. Atterbury Glass Factory J. Conway Grain Merchant J. Kemler Jeweler George Duncan, McKnight Foundry F. L. Ihmsen Attorney Michael Wood Plunkett Glass Conrade Fischer Brick Maker William Doyle Doyle Glass Matthew Pate Tinner Burgess Bressel Coal Boat Maker Taken from Directory for the City of Pittsburgh, 1872.

With the issue of consolidation settled, the actual transfer of power posed the next problem. The consolidation act stated that the common council should appoint a commission on apportion- ment and division of wards. One person from each ward and borough involved made up the commission. The city took action to reapportion both councils of city government, resulting in conflict and confusion over the representation of the new south side wards. The city council agreed that the south side would elect its representation to city council in October, 1872; these representatives, elected in the old precincts, would hold office until December, 1874. The consolidation agreement stated that the election in 1874 would allot common council representation for every 746-resident taxables, thus south side representation would be reduced by six members (see table 6). The city was not to have jurisdiction over the territory to be annexed until after the borough representatives were elected to the city council in October. The existing councils for the boroughs had until the end of the year to finish all of their business. On January 1, 1873, all of their powers would cease, and the city of Pittsburgh would assume jurisdiction.4'

"The Pittsburgh Gazette, August 10, 1872. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 281

TABLE 6 REAPPORTIONMENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHOWING THE EFFECT UPON SOUTH SIDE REPRESENTATION Number Representatives of Boroughs Taxables 1872 1874 Ormsby 477 1 1 East Birmingham 745 2 1 1st Precinct East Birmingham 1378 3 2 2nd Precinct St. Clair 823 2 1 Birmingham 913 2 1 1st Precinct Birmingham 840 2 1 2nd Precinct South Pittsburgh 760 2 1 Allentown 243 1 1 Mt. Washington 278 1 1 Monongahela 294 1 1 West Pittsburgh 606 1 1 Union 276 1 1 Temperanceville 405 1 1

20 14 Taken from The Pittsburgh Daily Gazette, July 18, 1872.

The official ceremony that marked the end of a long struggle and the beginning of a new era took place on November 4, 1872. According to a previously arranged program, members from the south side boroughs -met at one end of the Monongahela Bridge with members of city council at the other end. With the band playing, the two groups marched to the center of the structure which spanned the figurative "bloody chasm" of opposition to consolidation. In the speeches that followed, politicians from both Pittsburgh and the south side reminded each other of their con- tributions in the interests of consolidation. W. H. Oliver, president' of common council, in his "Address of Welcome," said:

but you came to us of your own will, with thirteen boroughs, comprising a population nearly as large as Pitts- burgh was eight years ago, and presenting no portion- less part in the municipal wedding. The wealth of the 282 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

boroughs of the South Side it would be impossible to cal- culate. From Ormsby to Temperanceville it is a solid mass of manufactures. Your glass works are numbered by the fifties and your rolling mills by the dozen. More than that, you come to us free from debt, in an extraordinary and enviable condition, and one in which I wish that we were. We welcome you to all we own-to our fire department, which we think is excelled by none in the country; we welcome you to our Board of Health, to our municipal building, and to our new water works, which I trust will have a capacity to supply you all.... John Adams, councilman from the south side, offered "The Re- sponse.

We come representing a population of over 30,000, most of whom have earned their own homes, or hewn their own fortunes by honest toil. The annual product of our factories exceeds $40,000,000 and we pay in wages $10,000,000 annually. We manufacture one-half of all the glass consumed in the country, and our iron produce is immense. We anticipate a still further increase in both glass and iron, and in a few years we expect to cover our hill tops with a dense population. All we ask now, under consolidation, is a fair chance; and we hope to so expand and prosper as to make the South Side wards a valuable portion of the city...

Although the legislative act of consolidation was finalized, merging the two regions raised the problem of debt settlement. Each of the boroughs had issued long-term bonds for civic improvement, and consolidation transferred the responsibility for these bonds to the city of Pittsburgh. This debt was partially compensated for by borough municipal property such as wharves, market houses, city halls, poorhouses, and fire stations, all of which the city assumed. The boroughs received credit for the assessed value of their property. The special tax rate was calculated on the amount the borough owed the city after the value of the municipal property was subtracted from the debts owed.'7 The commission's report on south side indebtedness reveals some of the problems of consolidation. Difficulties arose concern-

"46The Municipal Record (Pittsburgh, 1872), 109. 47 R. J. McGowan, Controller's Report of the City of Pittsburgh 1871-1881 (Pittsburgh, 1881), 8. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 283 ing problems of specific boroughs. In East Birmingham a conflict took place involving the ownership of the Monongahela wharves. If the wharves belonged to East Birmingham, and that borough received credit for them, the indebtedness of wards 25 and 26 would be paid in twenty-five years. Without credit for the wharves, their indebtedness would continue for thirty- five years.48 The commission's first report was filed in April, 1873. A heavy tax was imposed upon the south side boroughs. The taxes were inequitable to a community that had brought a rich industrial base into the city of Pittsburgh. A special tax, in addition to the regular taxes, was calculated 'to be in effect for twenty-five years at a rate of five to fifteen mills. The people of the south side protested and obtained a new commission to study the situation. The commission filed a revised report in January, 1874, which reduced the tax burden in all south side boroughs. The revision, based on an increased valuation of the south side property, increased the value by a ratio of six to one.49 The south side struggled for a re-evaluation to lower separate indebtedness. The increased valuation of property reduced the debt to the city of Pittsburgh, and all future taxes would be calculated on this new base. The revision of the committee report and the reduction of the tax burden represented only the first of other manipulations with south side indebtedness. The indebtedness decreased slowly until the appointment of a new city controller, W. C. McCarthy, in 1879. McCarthy's appointment brought further reconsideration and a drastic debt reduction (see table 7).

TABLE 7 SOUTH SIDE INDEBTEDNESS 1874-1879 1874 398,784.54 1875 372,819.06 1876 339,814.19 1877 305,553.14 1878 First term of W. C. McCarthy-No report filed 1879 179,495.36 Taken from Controller's Report of the City of Pittsburgh 1871-1881. "48Ibid., 1873 Report, 70. " Ibid., 1874 Report, 125. 284 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

The sudden debt reduction is explained in part by McCarthy's investigation into corruption in the city treasury. In the city controller's report of 1879, McCarthy revealed that a non-existent debt of $9,417 had been charged to the borough of East Bir- mingham. He also revealed assets of $5,406 that had never been accredited to East Birmingham. The money had been deposited in the general treasury with no credit recorded for the borough. McCarthy's first report to the people of Pittsburgh called for action against the corruption of the city treasurer. McCarthy stated that large sums of money had gone to the city treasurer with no reports or receipts filed with his office. The city controller reported the deficiency in the city treasury to the city council and called for an investigation. The investigation never took place. The council accepted verbal statements from the treasurer and his chief clerk and passed a resolution exonerat- ing them from the charge of corruption. Angry over the city council's exoneration of the city treasurer, McCarthy made his charges public in his 1879 report" No record could be found concerning further adjustments after the city controller's efforts of 1879. The warnings of the anti-consolidationists materialized. Regardless of the large in- dustrialized tax base, the citizens of the south side continued to pay a special tax in addition to the regular taxes paid by the citizens of Pittsburgh. East Birmingham and Temperanceville continued to pay the special tax into the twentieth century. The annexation of the south side represented only one in a series of similar political dramas involving regions demonstrat- ing rapid growth. Allegheny City met a similar fate in 1907 as Pittsburgh continued to expand. Without consolidation, great cities would not exist in the United States. Only New York City would have reached a population of one million."2 Pittsburgh's growth in the nineteenth century represented the same national pattern. An analysis of Pittsburgh's population growth from 1850 to 1890 shows the impact of consolidation upon city growth patterns (see table 8).

' W. C. McCarthy, Controller's Report of Pittsburgh 1879 (Pitts- burgh, 1879), 8. 5 Ibid., 11. Jackson, Significance of Annexation, 5. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 285

cl)VC" ~ -t 00

00 ,Id0 00 00 --I 0) -4 ~c

O. .c.

-0)

0 0)0Z 0) Q

0.0 0 ) ) 8&-. C~ Cli Cl ot 0 (C 00 Co z 0)9 -000 0 00. in 00 Cto 00 0 0z E-4 0 0- C6 00 10t E- 10 r 0 00 1 0) ' XM !o 0 00 S-Q) H u

-t 0O ol 0° 0

'g'

4C- t-4~0C 0

0- . 0 '0 -4

- 0 's Q.

c 4- Ir 0) o Go OD00 cd -~ - 0- - 286 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

Population growth in the consolidated areas always exceeded that of the city at the time of consolidation. If Pittsburgh had not annexed after 1850, the population of 1890 would have been 67,543. Pittsburgh and the south side would have been equal in population. The growth of Pittsburgh in the last half of the nineteenth century did not occur through natural increase or migration; it was the result of the political process of consolidation. Civic minded businessmen wanted Pittsburgh to be a great American city. The boosters played a major role in the success- ful drive for consolidation. In its arguments for consolidation, the booster press continually lamented the size of Pittsburgh in comparison to other American cities. They argued that people and industries were attracted to large cities-cities that were dynamic and growing. The boosters believed that Pittsburgh would be- come a great city when its political boundaries encompassed the populated, surrounding region. The changing nature of the community in the 1870s necessi- tated reorganization of municipal services. The increasing population density and the rapidly expanding suburban regions caused a strain on the capacities of the existing police and fire services. The boosters argued that efficiency could come through the use of a single police and fire department, as compared to the many, loosely organized volunteer groups. Thus, Pitts- burgh's civic leaders attempted to convince the surrounding regions to take advantage of the public services brought by consolidation. Jackson, in his study of nineteenth century consolidation, de- scribes the relationship of the city to the surrounding region as "urban imperialism."' Jackson contends that American cities consolidated to control the economic structure of the surrounding regions. The consolidation of the south side provides evidence to support Jackson's thesis. The south side felt the power of the Pittsburgh political machine working through the state machine as Pittsburgh forced annexation. The population growth and industrial development of the south side added a whole new tax base to subsidize Pittsburgh's costly civic improvements. The people of the south side were burdened with a special tax

'Jackson, Significance of Annexation, 14. URBAN GROWTH AND PITTSBURGH, 1872 287 that some boroughs paid into the twentieth century. Through protest and action, the south side narrowly escaped being ex- ploited by a most unreasonable debt. Pittsburgh, like other nineteenth-century American cities, strengthened herself at the ex- pense of the adjoining suburban regions. Currently Pittsburgh faces many of the same problems it con- fronted in 1872. Demographic change continues as people flee the city for the suburbs. Industrial decentralization takes place as industries either leave the area entirely or move into populated suburbs. To relieve the plight of Pittsburgh, a metropolitan form of government has been suggested, but it has constantly been rejected since 1920. Despite parallels with earlier times, however, a basic political factor has changed. In 1872 the economic and political power of Allegheny County resided in the city of Pittsburgh. The political elite carried enough power to pass legislation necessary to force consolidation. The demographic shift of the twentieth century caused basic realignment of economic and political power, most of which has shifted to suburbia. In 1872 the city consolidated to survive. Political con- ditions allowed consolidation, and Pittsburgh moved forward. Today growth and prosperity are denied the city because it no longer has the political power necessary to force the needed change.