The Curious Case of the Lighting of the Williamsburg Bridge

Every now and then, while processing a collection, an archivist stumbles into a mystery that just needs to be solved. This is exactly what happened recently to our team cataloguing the Manhattan Building Plans collection at the Municipal Archives. 

The current portion of the ongoing grant-funded project is focused on Lower East Side buildings. An interesting set of 18 plans for Block 318, Lot 10, dating from 1905, depict two city-owned structures along the shore of the East River, under the Williamsburg Bridge anchorage, between Tompkins Street and South Delancey Slip. Both buildings had the same designer, Henry De Berkeley Parsons, but each had a different use and were created for two separate City agencies. In one portion of the plans, the Department of Bridges proposed an electric lighting station for the Williamsburg Bridge, while the other half of the plans were for a Department of Street Cleaning rubbish incinerator.

Façade and exterior view of Incinerator Plant – Designed by Henry De Berkeley Parsons, the incinerator plant included exterior ramps for the rubbish carts and a 250 foot smokestack. Dept. of Buildings Plans, NYC Municipal Archives.

The label included on the architectural drawing that was the start of our mystery. Dept. of Buildings Plans, NYC Municipal Archives.

Archivists processing the architectural plans have many resources to help to identify buildings, confirm locations and unravel the story of a city that is constantly growing, shifting and changing. These include commercially-published Sanborn and Bromley Fire Insurance atlases, Topographic and Property Maps, the Department of Buildings Building Information Search (BIS) website and the Department of Finance Property Information Portal. These resources provided scant information about the two buildings, except to confirm that both were standing in 1911, and by 1921 one of the buildings had been demolished.

Sanborn map c. 1906 showing the Department of Street Cleaning’s incinerator building, the Department of Bridges lighting plant and one of the Department of Education’s temporary school buildings. NYC Municipal Archives.

The next logical stop was a Google search. This led to our first real clue, a January 26, 1905 New York Times story titled, “City Lighting Plant Plans are Approved.” The article stated, “Mayor McClellan announced that within four months he will turn the switch to set in operation the first municipal electric lighting plant in New York City. The plant, which will be experimental, will be located under the Williamsburg Bridge, and will be used to light the bridge itself and the temporary school buildings in the vicinity.” This was a good start, but it also added many more questions to be answered. What was an experimental lighting plant? And were there really schools built directly under the Williamsburg Bridge?

A quick search through the Municipal Archives digital gallery answered the temporary school question. Images taken by Department of Bridges staff photographer Eugene De Salignac and lantern slides in the Board of Education collection show several schools on Delancey Street beneath the overpass with children playing in the street. In total, there were eight small school buildings under the bridge to accommodate the ever-growing population of the Lower East Side.

Williamsburg Bridge showing old school house Delancey Street and Mayin Goerick Street, March 27, 1916. Eugene de Salignac, Dept of Bridges/Plant & Structures Collection.

Williamsburg Bridge showing old school Delancey Street Willell and Shuff Street, March 27, 1916. Eugene de Salignac, Dept of Bridges/Plant & Structures Collection.

PS 98 (e), Manhattan: exterior. Temporary building under the Williamsburg Bridge, May 22, 1906. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

PS 98 (c), Manhattan: exterior. Temporary School #5 under the Williamsburg Bridge, May 22, 1906. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

PS 98 (d), Manhattan: exterior. Temporary building under the Williamsburg Bridge, May 22, 1906. Board of Education Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Having established that there were indeed schools and a lighting plant constructed under the bridge, it was time to find out the real story. City department annual reports in the Municipal Library provide a treasure trove of insightful information. The Department of Street Cleaning Report for Four Years Ending December 31, 1905, provided the missing information.   

The Department of Street Cleaning, precursor to the Department of Sanitation, had many functions designed to maintain sanitary conditions in the City. Street Cleaning men swept streets, cleared snow, collected and separated rubbish, hauled vast quantities of ash and even removed dead animals from the streets. For many years they loaded rubbish onto scows along the waterfront and dumped the contents into the sea. The resulting pollution fouled waters up and down the eastern coastline. 

Williamsburg Bridge Lighting Plant. Annual Report of the Department of Street Cleaning, 1905. NYC Municipal Library. The Department of Bridges Lighting Plant is on the right, while the Department of Bridges Incinerator with its’ ramp and smokestack are on the left.

Department of Street Cleaning workers at the furnaces in the incinerator plant. Annual Report of the Department of Street Cleaning, 1905. NYC Municipal Library.

In 1895, newly-hired Street Cleaning Commissioner Colonel George E. Waring brought the department into the modern age. Almost immediately, Waring banned large-scale ocean dumping and instituted a recycling system. Ashes were taken to landfills, while animal wastes were rendered for fertilizer. Rubbish including rags, paper, and other recyclable goods were further separated into items that could be sold for profit. By 1902, whatever couldn’t be recycled was burned in several new municipal incinerators. The 47th Street incinerator had a small electrical plant capable of creating enough electricity to light the Department’s stables as well as docks and piers in the neighborhood.  

Sorting – The incinerator plant was fitted with with a large sorting ramp where workers separated garbage from materials that could be sold for a profit. Annual Report of the Department of Street Cleaning, 1905. NYC Municipal Library.

Williamsburg Bridge from roof of Grand Street long focus, June 19, 1911. Eugene de Salignac, Dept of Bridges/Plant & Structures Collection. The smokestack visible in front of the bridge was built to bring the smoke above and away from the bridge.

Finally, by 1905, enough trials had been carried out, and it was time to prove the concept of creating enough electrical power by burning garbage on a large scale. This brings us to our original architectural plans. The two buildings were elegantly rendered with simple facades. The Department of Street Cleaning building incinerator plans included details such as the ramps used to bring rubbish into the building as well as the 40-foot sorting machine that was used to separate recyclable materials from the garbage that would be burned. The plans also show that one side of the building would be adjacent to the Delancy Slip for easy extraction of rubbish coming in via scows on the East River. A 250-foot smokestack standing nearly 75 feet above the Williamsburg Bridge would carry smoke away from bridge traffic. The Department of Bridges building was fitted with access to two boilers that were connected to electrical generating equipment on the first floor and a storage battery on the second.  

Plan for smokestack, Williamsburg Bridge Incinerator. Dept. of Buildings Plans, NYC Municipal Archives.

On November 31, 1905, a New York Times headline read, “The Mayor Starts New City Light Plant – The New Bridge All Aglow” after Mayor McClellan pulled down a copper switch to illuminate the 2793 foot span with electricity made by burning the City’s garbage. (In truth, the bridge was not fully illuminated until January 1906.)  

The Engineering Record, from November 11, 1905, stated “The first attempt on a large scale in this country to utilize the electricity made available by burning rubbish has begun.” It was hoped that the $90,000 plant would not only pay for itself but would also save the city $12,000 per year in annual lighting costs. While initial reports claimed that the experiment was a success, it would be short lived. 

The first hint that something was amiss was the absence of information about the experimental plan in the Department of Bridges reports. The only notation came in a single line in the 1906 Annual Report about the use of the land under the bridge: “the greater portion of the land between East and Tompkins Streets has been given over to the use of the Street Cleaning Department, for a rubbish incinerator, and to the construction of an electric light plant for the bridge.” In addition, the 1906 Street Cleaning report did not mention the project, although they had dedicated nearly 30 pages to the experiment the previous year. 

Answers came in a letter to the Mayor from the Street Cleaning Commissioner Macdonough Craven, dated January 23, 1907. Craven spelled out the problems of the project. It seems that when devising his plan, Henry De Berkeley Parsons had not accounted for the difference in electrical usage during the long spring and summer days, versus the darker winter and fall period. The Street Cleaning department discovered it needed to burn more than 1,100 tons of coal to compensate, which appeared to have been an unexpected cost. After one year of operation, the department experienced a net loss of $19,621.  

Letter to Mayor McClellan from Street Cleaning Commissioner Macdonough Craven, dated January 23, 1907. Craven wrote to explain the disappointing results from the experiment of lighting the bridge by burnings the City’s rubbish. Mayors Papers, NYC Municipal Archives.

On the other hand, Craven reported that the Department of Bridges had a net gain of $19,617 for the same period compared to what they would have to pay for the Edison Electric Light Company to supply the power. Craven proposed a solution to the mayor - “All the forgoing has led me to the following conclusion: that because of the large benefit on the part of the Department of Bridges, the entire plant be turned over to them, this Department merely furnishing the paper and rubbish, the heat from which they can use to augment that produced by coal.” 

The final news of the demise of the lighting experiment came in two short 1907 reports. In the first, the Department of Street Cleaning stated that incineration should only be used as a method of disposing of rubbish and not as a power source for the city. In the second the Department of Bridges stated that “the Bridge Lighting Sation opened on November 30, 1905, by Mayor McClellan. Light and power for the bridge was furnished until April 30, 1907, when the station was shut down, current being obtained from the Edison Company.” 

And with that, our facinating mystery of lighting the Williamsburg Bridge was solved.

Recovering Women’s Names in DORIS’ Digital Collections

Have you ever encountered a photograph on the Municipal Archives digital collections platform, where a woman is only identified by her husband’s name or her title, such as Mrs. Julius Ochs Adler or First Lady of Republic of Upper Volta? By many standards, this practice is considered outdated and it limits access for researchers. Additionally, this practice centers Western naming standards, where it is more common for women to take their husband’s last names.

Wife [Eva Sámano de López Mateos] and Daughter [Eva/Avecita Leonor López Mateos Sámano] of Mexican President Adolfo Lopez Mateos. Mayor Robert F. Wagner Collections. NYC Municipal Archives. 

As part of larger diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, the Department of Records and Information Services (DORIS) is embarking on a project to recover women’s names and engage with NYC communities. The first Research-a-thon to Recover Women’s Names coincided with Women’s History Month. It was held earlier this week with participants zooming in from all over the United States. Twelve volunteers and three staff members used a variety of genealogical and primary resources such as census data, marriage announcements, and obituaries to help remediate 64 photograph descriptions.  

One example is highlighted by participant Taryn Brymn, who also volunteers as an interviewer for the Neighborhood Stories Project. In a photograph from the Mayor Robert Wagner collection, Taryn was able to identify two women, the wife and daughter of President Adolfo Lopez Mateos, as Eva Sámano de López Mateos [nee. Bishop] and Eva/Avecita Leonor López Mateos Sámano. Traditionally, Hispanic women do not always take the surname of their husband and if they did, they might add “de” between the maiden name and husband’s name, as Eva Sámano did.

Eva Sámano is Dead at 71. January 9, 1984. The New York Times.

Taryn was able to locate Eva Sámano’s name and some of her accomplishments, such as the founding of the National Institute for Infants, in her New York Times obituary. 

Taryn initially drew limited results for Sámano and Lopez Mateo’s daughter, but then she did a little more digging in Spanish with the search term, “Eva samano de lopez mateos y su hija.” This search yielded many more results. Taryn discovered the nickname of the President and First Lady’s daughter was Avecita or Ave through images from National Institute of Anthropology and History of Mexico (INAH).  

Another resource used by participants was find a grave, a community-sourced website of over 238 million death memorials. Here, Taryn was able to confirm the name of President Adolfo Lopez Mateos and Eva Sámano’s daughter was Eva Leonor “Avecita” López-Mateos Sámano.  

Eva Leonor “Avecita” López-Mateos Sámano. Find a Grave.

This project was inspired by similar initiatives at  the Seattle Municipal Archives, Chicago History Museum, and Columbia University Libraries. While this project does provide researchers with more access points and clarity by updating photograph descriptions, it is important to acknowledge some of the drawbacks. The legacy of record-keeping means that the project may continue to increase access to women who already had a level of visibility in society such as wealthy, white women or wives of officials.

There is also an unknown factor regarding how these women preferred to identify. Perhaps, some of these women liked being introduced by their husband’s full names and others might not have wanted Mrs. in their title at all. Either way the DEIA initiatives at DORIS will continue to explore other opportunities to provide broader access to the Municipal Archives collections, highlight underrepresented communities in our collections, and garner participation from surrounding communities. 

 Thank you to all the staff members and volunteers who made this event possible! 

The New York City Civil War Draft Riot Claims Collection

The Municipal Archives holds numerous of collections relating to the city’s role in the American Civil War. Many relate to the fraught topic of service in the military, an issue that simmered at the intersection of immigration and racism, finally boiling over in New York in July 1863. Archives collections document military recruiting efforts, aid for families of volunteer soldiers, and the explosive issue of paying substitutes to be soldiers. The Draft Riot Claims collection has garnered particular interest from scholars. To explain the importance of this collection, some background is in order.

New York and the Civil War 

When it comes to the Civil War, New York City presents a Jekyll and Hyde personality to the historian. On one hand, New York (Manhattan, to be precise, because the boroughs weren’t amalgamated until 1898 and Brooklyn’s attitude towards the war differed from Manhattan’s) was the site of Abraham Lincoln’s legendary February 1860 Cooper Union speech, which propelled him to national prominence as a potential presidential candidate. Moreover, Manhattan rapidly assembled an army regiment composed of firefighters in response to President Lincoln’s call for troops to protect Washington DC immediately after the fall of Fort Sumter in April 1861. But New York City was also the “City of Sedition,” in the phrase of historian John Strausbaugh. It voted decisively—twice—in favor of Lincoln’s opponent, and on the day of Lincoln’s inauguration Mayor Fernando Wood declined to allow the American flag to be flown over City Hall. Much worse was to come. In July 1863 Manhattan was the site of what is still the worst spasm of urban domestic violence in American history—the New York City Draft Riots.

The Colored Orphan Asylum, Fifth Avenue between 43rd and 44th Streets, Valentine’s Manual, 1864. NYC Municipal Library.

1863: the Critical Year  

The Union Army was in trouble in mid-1863. After two years of battlefield failure, the two-year tour of duty for large numbers of volunteers was coming to an end. Confederate commander Robert E. Lee, knowing the industrial superiority of the Union was something his generals and their troops could not overcome in the long term, made the decision to invade the North. Lee hoped to win a decisive military victory and convince the Union to enter peace negotiations. The Confederate army entered Pennsylvania in June and drew not just Federal troops but the militias from several nearby states, including nearly 16,000 from New York (1).

In March 1863, Congress passed the first national conscription law in American history to replenish the army. Mandatory military service was not popular anywhere, but in New York City there was an especially powerful reaction to the prospect of a draft. When Lincoln made his momentous decision to release the Emancipation Proclamation in early 1863, it confirmed that the goal of the conflict was eliminating the institution of slavery, not merely preserving the Union as Lincoln had previously insisted. Irish immigrants in New York City feared that emancipation would result in Black workers migrating to the North and competing with them for jobs. Their concern was not unfounded. In the months immediately prior to the implementation of the new draft law, Black workers had been hired to replace Irish longshoremen who had struck for higher wages (2).

In the early 1860s, Irish New Yorkers, who represented around a quarter of the city’s population (3), were overwhelmingly working class. The Tammany Hall political machine courted the Irish vote, and the city elected a Democrat mayor despite New York State overall voting Republican in the 1860 presidential election. This created a highly combustible mix, with many local politicians openly hostile to the war, which had become a dreadful source of carnage. The new draft law had an enormous loophole allowing those with $300 to buy their way out of service—an amount out of reach for the working class—and when posters went up in July announcing the conscription process, the city exploded.    

Claim made by Ann Garvey for the death of her husband during the riots. Draft Riot Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

The Draft Riots and Draft Riot Claims  

The first week of July 1863 was a turning point for the military prospects of the Union. The titanic battle at Gettysburg resulted in a decisive victory for the North, driven more by battlefield heroics than inspired generalship. After Gettysburg, Lee never again threatened the North. Immediately after Gettysburg’s conclusion, Grant’s siege of Vicksburg succeeded on July 4, ensuring Union control of the Mississippi and launching Grant’s rise to eventual command of all Union armies.  Although the victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were front-page stories in New York newspapers, they neither portended a near-term end to the war nor eliminated plans for the draft. Although an initial drawing of names took place without incident on July 11, the resumption of the draft on July 13 was disrupted by an outburst of violence. The ensuing three days saw arson, looting, and widespread violence. Thousands of rioters roved through the streets from Lower Manhattan to Harlem, concentrating their fury on Blacks, on police who attempted to quell the violence, and on anyone they associated with abolition or pro-Union sentiments. Armories, factories, shops, newspaper offices, churches, and police stations were attacked, as were private dwellings.

In one of the riot’s most notorious acts the Colored Orphan Asylum on Fifth Avenue was destroyed by arsonists, although more than 200 children escaped. With the police outnumbered and the majority of the city’s militia sent to Gettysburg, the city was, in the words of one historian, in a state of “utter anarchy.” (4) Toward the end of the third day of riots, army and militia units arrived in Manhattan. When 4,000 troops marched through the city on July 16, the riots quickly ended. The death toll from the riots has been debated for 160 years—119 has often been cited, but numbers ten times larger have been proposed. The violence against Black New Yorkers was especially horrific, although studies have concluded that most riot deaths were rioters, killed by police or the army.   

Claim of Frederick Johnson. Draft Riot Collection, 1863. NYC Municipal Archives

Inventory list in claim of Frederick Johnson, 1863. Draft Riot Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

The City’s Response and the Draft Riot Claims Collection  

In the aftermath of the violence, city officials and some merchants and wealthy citizens responded to the riots in unexpectedly impressive ways. Rioters were identified, arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison--although many additional Grand Jury indictments were never pursued. A few police officers were brought before the Board of Police Commissioners on charges of dereliction of duty during the riots. These included one Sergeant Jones, whose trial—and newspaper coverage of it—produced an early use of the concept and phrase “equal protection under the law,” to be codified in 1868 in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. (5) A committee of merchants raised $40,000 and distributed it to Black families, an effort in private philanthropy that was independent of official efforts. The City Council and Board of Supervisors authorized up to $2 million to cover the $300 commutation fee for “firemen, policemen, member of the militia, or indigent New Yorker who could prove that his induction into the army would cause hardship to his family,” a remarkable provision that historian Adrian Cook noted could have prevented the draft riots in the first place. (6) Finally, the city and state authorized $2 million in bonds to reimburse claimants for losses incurred during the riots. Claims began to flood into City Comptroller Matthew T. Brennan’s office just ten days after the riots. They were reviewed by insurance examiners, then scrutinized painstakingly by a Special Committee on Draft Riot Claims appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

The Special Committee performed its work by meeting claimants in person, questioning them directly about their experiences. The documentation of the Special Committee’s work constitutes the Draft Riot files held at the Municipal Archives. Most of the Draft Riot Claim files were thought to be lost before hundreds were discovered in 2019 in a Brooklyn warehouse. The recommendations of the Special Committee—subject to a vote of the Board of Supervisors—resulted in payments of more than $970,000, (7) equivalent to $24 million today. (8)

Although the great bulk of claim reimbursement dollars were distributed to White property owners and businesses, the Special Committee publicly committed itself to prioritizing the review of Black claimants given the degree of suffering and need that resulted from their losses in the riots. This was in fact done, assisted by support from the Police Department-actions that legal scholar Andrew Lanham characterized as “a remarkable degree of race-conscious remedies for the time.” (9) Still, because Black New Yorkers were overwhelmingly poor, the sum of their claims amounted to less than $20,000, barely 1% of the claims by Whites. (10) Overall, Black riot claim compensation was “negligible,” in the opinion of historian Barnet Schechter.(11)  

Claim made by Maria Barnes, teacher at the Colored Orphan Asylum. Draft Riot Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

The Municipal Archives collection of Draft Riot Claims offers historians a variety of insights into this important historical event and into the lives of mid-19th century New Yorkers. Ann Garvey requested compensation for the death of her husband Patrick, “caused by a gun-shot wound inflicted upon his body…while the said Patrick was peacably [sic] attending to his usual business avocations” (the claim was denied). At one end of the economic spectrum, attorney Abram Wakeman, New York’s postmaster and a friend of Abraham Lincoln, listed hundreds of books from a lost library that he estimated at more than 2,000 volumes. His claim’s list of possessions ran to more than 700 lines on 32 pages. In contrast, Black claimants such as Frederick Johnson listed their lost possessions on just a couple of dozen lines. Despite their modest size, the requests made by Black claimants were treated with casual contempt by examiner Frederick R. Lee, who wrote of Anna Addison’s claim, “the jewellery [sic] of Negroes is invariably nothing but gilt.” 

Such insights may emerge when an archival collection is examined closely: what may have been created for one purpose will reward the historian for other reasons. In the case of the Draft Riot Claims collection, the documents provide not only the poignant descriptions of lives and possessions lost through violence but also evidence of social and political themes: how “ordinary black women were profoundly committed to respectability during and following the Civil War;” (12) an insistence by claimants on assertions of the emotional as well as financial value of lost objects that “drew on the material history of their possessions;” (13) and “a remarkable degree of race-conscious remedies [that] offers an intriguing prehistory on the strategic use of administrative agencies to advance civil rights claims in the twentieth century.” (14)

The Draft Riot Claims Collection has been recently inventoried.  Visit CollectionGuides

 for further information.

 Mr. Robert Garber is an intern in the Municipal Archives.

The New Colored Orphan Asylum, Tenth Avenue and 143rd Street, Manhattan. Valentine’s Manual, 1870. NYC Municipal Library.

Sources 

1.      Strausbaugh, John. 2016. City of Sedition: The History of New York City During the Civil War.  Hachette, page 267.  

2.      Albon P. Man Jr. 1950. The Irish in New York in the Early Eighteen-Sixties. Irish Historical Studies 7(26): 88-89; “The Right to Work”, Daily News 14 April 1863 page 4. 

3.      nyirishhistory.us/wp-content/uploads/NYIHR_V19_01-The-New-York-Irish-In-The-1850sLocked-In-By-Poverty.pdf  

4.      Strausbaugh, page 272.  

5.      Lanham, Andrew J. 2023. “Protection for Every Class of Citizens”: The New York City Draft Riots of 1863, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Government’s Duty to Protect Civil Rights.  UC Irvine Law Review 13(4): 1067-1118  

6.      Cook, Adrian. 1974. The Armies of the Streets: The New York City Draft Riots of 1863. The University Press of Kentucky, page 174.  

7.      [Brennan, Matthew T.] Communication from the Comptroller, Relative to Expenditures and Receipts of the County of New York, on Account of the Damage by Riots of 1863.  Document No. 13, Board of Supervisors.  Volumes I-IV. [Note: all four volumes are in the library of the NewYork Historical Society; volume II is also online at https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/45fd8ea0-cb9c-0130-ab53-58d385a7bbd0/book].  $970,000 represents totals from vol I page 66 and vol II page 61.  

8.      https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1863?amount=970000  

9.      Lanham, page 1103.  

10.  Schechter, Barnet. 2005. The Devil’s Own Work: The Civil War Draft Riots and the Fight to Reconstruct America.  Walker & Co, page 250.  

11.  Schechter, op. cit.  

12.  Dabel, Jane E. and Marissa Jenrich. 2017. Co-Opting Respectability: African American Women and Economic Redress in New York City, 1860-1910. J. Urban History 43(2): 312-331.  

13.  Cohen, Joanna. 2022. Reckoning with the Riots: Property, Belongings, and the Challenge to Value in Civil War America.  J. American History 109(1): 68-89.  

14.  Lanham, page 1103. 

“Hi-ya Dev!” New York City Welcomes Native Son Eamon de Valera

“Eamon de Valera, former Prime Minister of Eire, returned today to the city of his birth, arriving at LaGuardia Field from Shannon aboard the American Overseas airliner London Mercury at 4:58 a.m.” (The New York Post, March 8, 1948.) Born in New York City in 1882, the Irish leader devoted his life to the cause of Irish unification. In March 1948, he embarked on a two-week tour of the United States. His first stop was his hometown, New York City. City Greeter Grover Whalen’s records, and the subject files of Mayor William O’Dwyer, document de Valera’s two-day sojourn in the city.

Frank Aiken, Acting Mayor Vincent Impellitteri, Eamon de Valera, City Hall, March 9, 1948. Grover Whalen- Mayor’s Reception Committee Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

On his first day, an ailing Mayor O’Dwyer hosted de Valera at a private meeting in Gracie Mansion. The following day the city feted the Irish leader with a ticker-tape parade and a gala luncheon at the Waldorf Astoria. The “Official Program and Time Table,” in Whalen’s files, prepared by the Mayor’s Reception Committee, lays out the day’s itinerary. It would begin with a motorcade to convey the official party from the Waldorf Astoria Hotel to the Bowling Green for the start of the parade at 10:45, and conclude at 11:45 with the departure to the Waldorf for a gala luncheon.

Newspaper “clippings” in Whalen’s records provide a colorful description of the day. The New York Times reported the crowds greeted the statemen, popular with the city’s large Irish-American population, with “Hi-ya, Dev!” as his open car passed beneath a shower of ticker tape and torn paper. In the City Council Chamber, Grover Whelan introduced de Valera as a “. . . boy from Manhattan who made good overseas.” Acting Mayor Vincent Impellitteri made de Valera a honorary citizen and presented him with a scroll.  

The Times story added that “Irish-born Mayor O’Dwyer, now resting at his home under doctor’s orders,” was “forced to listen to the ceremonies over the radio.” Setting aside the rather odd word-choice, “forced,” For the Record readers can also listen to an audio recording of the ceremony, thanks to the city’s broadcast station WNYC. Celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, WNYC microphones captured the voices of presidents, dignitaries, world leaders, artistic revolutionaries, musical geniuses, luminaries of the literati, and cultural icons. The WNYC series in the Municipal Archives is the largest non-commercial collection of archival audio recordings and ephemera from an individual radio broadcaster.   

Every account of de Valera’s visit noted his birth in New York City. When asked by a reporter if he was going to visit his old home in Brooklyn, he smilingly replied: “My home was not in Brooklyn. I’m a Manhattan man.” (New York Sun, March 8, 1948.) 

Eamon de Valera, Council Chamber, City Hall, March 9, 1948. Grover Whalen- Mayor’s Reception Committee Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

Would there be a birth certificate in the Municipal Archives’ Historical Vital records collection (HVR), and would it confirm his birthplace? The search provides a good example of how to use the HVR portal. In this instance, given that the birth certificate number was not known, it was necessary to use the name search function. Entering “de Valera,” into the name search box, along with the date “1882,” and place “Manhattan” resulted in “no record.” Although it was certainly possible that his birth had not been reported to the civil office (not uncommon at that time), a further try in the HVR, this time without the space between de and Valera, produced the desired result.   

In fact, it brought up two certificates. It appears that de Valera’s original 1882 birth certificate had been “corrected” in 1910, and both remained on file at the Department of Health. The most significant amendment was de Valera’s first name. On the 1882 certificate, his name was recorded as “George.” In 1910 it was corrected to “Edward.” Otherwise, the information recorded on each certificate is similar: his father was Spanish-born artist Vivion de Valera, and mother was Ireland-born Kate (or Catherine) Coll. He was their first child. Somewhat unusual for the time period, de Valera was born in a hospital, the Nursery & Child’s Hospital. The 1910 corrected certificate also includes the parents’ residence, 61 East 41st Street in Manhattan. Published accounts of de Valera’s life state that his family moved to Ireland in 1884.

Birth certificate, Manhattan, 352241, 1882. Historical Vital Records collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

Birth certificate, Manhattan, 352241 (corrected)1882. Historical Vital Records collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

Returning to the documents in Mayor O’Dwyer’s subject file folder reveals correspondence about an unfortunate breach of protocol during the de Valera reception. It began with a letter dated March 10, 1948, to Mayor O’Dwyer, from Michael Francis Doyle, a member of the Permanent Court of International Arbitration at the Hague. In the letter marked “Personal,” Doyle wrote: “The Honorable James E. Murray, United States Senator from Montana, and representing unofficially members of the United States Senate, came to New York for the purpose of extending a welcome to Eamon de Valera.… Senator Murray, as you know, was a most devoted leader in the Irish cause.” The letter went on to describe a series of mishaps, including the Senator’s placement in the last car of the motorcade which led to his late arrival at City Hall. Consequently, “he was obliged to remain on the pavement with the other thousands outside and listened to the proceedings there.” This was compounded by the fact that when he arrived at the Waldorf for the luncheon, he discovered his name was not on the guest list. Doyle wrote: “We, therefore left. Senator Murray had luncheon elsewhere with a friend.” Oh.  

Eamon de Valera (left), Grover Whalen (center) arrive at City Hall, March 9, 1948. Mayor’s Reception Committee Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

Mayor O’Dwyer’s Executive Secretary, William J Donoghue quickly replied that he would inform the Mayor of the “unfortunate events.” Donoghue followed-up with a letter to the Senator, dated March 22, “to extend our apologies.” The letter added that “... because of the brief time that was allowed for the preparation of the reception and the failure of one or more of Mr. Whalen’s aides to fully appreciate your high office,” had resulted in the discourtesies. Senator Murray’s gracious reply, dated March 25 is also in the file: “I am distressed to learn that the Mayor, Mr. Whalen, or anyone else feels that I may have suffered any lack of courtesy on the occasion of the de Valera reception in New York.” He continued: “I know I would have been welcome at the luncheon if I had made my presence know. My failure to take part in all of the activities was due to my own oversight.”

And finally, the file also includes de Valera’s thank you to Mayor O’Dwyer, written upon his return to Ireland on April 13, expressing his “very deep appreciation” for his visit to New York.    

Letter from Eamon de Valera to Mayor William O’Dwyer, April 13, 1948. Mayor William O’Dwyer collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

Eamon de Valera led the Irish government between 1932 and 1937. After drafting the constitution in 1937, he served three terms as prime minister and two as president of the Irish Republic.  De Valera died in 1975, with the cause to which he devoted his life still elusive.

The Times story ended with an account of de Valera’s itinerary subsequent to his visit in New York. The following day he planned to “pay his respects to President Truman” in Washington D.C. after flying to Oklahoma, he will “then go on to the West Coast, where he will be the honored guest in San Francisco at the St. Patrick’s Day ceremonies.”

Advance forecasts for St. Patrick’s Day 2024 in New York are good; no need to travel to San Francisco!

A Woman of Firsts: Constance Baker Motley

This For the Record blog post expands on a brief article in the February 2024 edition of the Municipal Library’s newsletter. New York City can count many groundbreaking women among its residents and leaders. Few, though, have been as inspiring as Constance Baker Motley who should be celebrated more widely, particularly in her adopted home of New York City. Yet there is only one public space honoring her—a recreation center on East 54th Street that the Parks Department renamed for her in 2021.   

The second Black woman to graduate from Columbia University Law School, Motley was one of the groundbreaking civil rights lawyers who fought segregation and Jim Crow throughout the nation. She was the first Black woman to serve in the New York State Senate, and the first woman to serve as a New York City borough president. That should be enough. But beyond those achievements, Motley was the first Black woman to serve as a federal judge, a position she held for 39 years.  

Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, Annual Report, 1965. NYC Municipal Library.

The Municipal Library biographical collection includes news clips, mostly from long-shuttered newspapers, documenting her career, as well as a Manhattan Borough President 1965 Annual Report. The Office of the Mayor collection in the Municipal Archives includes correspondence between Motley and the Mayor’s Office.  

Born in New Haven to immigrant parents from Nevis, Baker Motley aspired to attend college but lacked resources. While working as a housecleaner she volunteered with local organizations advocating for civil rights. Partly, she was inspired after being denied entry to a Connecticut public beach due to her color. In a fluke, a wealthy white contractor was in the audience when she was making a speech. He offered to fund her college education. And she was off! 

Initially attending Fisk University, she transferred to New York University to complete her undergraduate degree and then Columbia University’s Law School. While a student, she volunteered with the emerging Legal Defense Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People—the NAACP LDF, and was among the organization’s first employees. Working alongside Thurgood Marshall throughout the South, Baker Motley achieved major civil rights victories over a two-decade career. 

The first Black woman to appear before the United States Supreme Court, she argued ten cases, winning nine of them. One notable example is successfully representing James Meredith in the fight to desegregate the University of Mississippi.  

Mayor Robert F. Wagner swears-in Constance Baker Motley as New York State Senator, February 7, 1963, City Hall. Official Mayoral Photograph Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

In a 1964 special election to fill a vacancy, she became the first Black woman elected to the New York State Senate where she served for one year.

In February 1965, the existing Borough President of Manhattan resigned to become a State Supreme Court Justice. This triggered a process to fill the vacancy. Unlike the present, the vacancy was not filled via a special election. Instead, the City Council delegation for the borough—numbering 8 men—convened behind closed doors and determined the successor. In this instance, a prominent political leader, J. Raymond Jones, opposed the candidacy of the likely successor and advanced Motley. After meeting for two hours, the Council members emerged from their conference to declare they had elected Motley. With a salary of $35,000, Motley became both the Borough President and the highest paid female elected official in the country, according to the New York Herald Tribune.  

Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, Annual Report, 1965. NYC Municipal Library.

As Borough President, Motley championed the work of community boards and urged policymakers to tackle disparities, as she wrote in the transmittal letter for the 1965 Annual Report: “...our government must mount unceasing attacks on problems, old and new, so that, for example, we no longer perpetuate the misery of slum life which scars the urban scene just beyond our enclaves of culture and skyscraper symbols of material wealth. Superior educational facilities, jobs for all, and an improved business climate, are other problems of major import which must be met resolutely and solved satisfactorily.” 

Manhattan had established a community board structure in 1950 and Motley worked closely with these community leaders to advance projects and to develop plans that would end the “tale of two cities.” This included hosting two conferences for board members and the public to focus on revitalizing Harlem, from river-to-river. She recognized the need for board staffing and noted that “widespread and responsible citizen participation is not the natural state of affairs in local government, it must be nurtured.”   

Drawing on the Harlem community boards and other leaders, she organized two conferences that focused on revitalizing Harlem, from river-to-river between 110th and 155th Streets. The first conference led to agreement on a seven-point program to revitalize Harlem. Step one was securing funding in the capital budget. Step two was getting support from the two candidates for Mayor. Step three was getting federal funding.

Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, Annual Report, 1965. NYC Municipal Library.

Motley requested funding to develop a master plan for the project. The City Planning Commission did not include the request in their proposed budget and suggested that the request be taken up by the next mayoral administration. At a hearing on the budget, Motley testified, “I regard your observation as being both a frivolous and pedantic method of disposing of a problem which simply can not and must not be shoved under the rug of additional review or early consideration. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the population of our city realizes the frightful dimensions of the social economic and human problems we nurture in the slum ghetto.”

The project did receive capital funding when the new mayor, John V. Lindsay included $700,000 in the budget to advance community planning.

The second conference in January, 1966 was attended by both United States Senators, Jacob Javits and Robert Kennedy as well as Mayor Lindsay. The proceedings of this event were taped by WNYC, the municipal radio station and can be heard here.

One notable action incorporated into development plans was a series of community generated amendments to the Morningside Heights General Neighborhood Renewal Plan. Due to Motley’s insistence, and the deference given to Borough Presidents in certain actions, the Board of Estimate incorporated several amendments to the plan. These dealt with “insuring the continuation of the mixed racial and economic character of the neighborhood, maintaining the present width of Eighth Avenue, adequate relocation housing sources on the West Side, priority consideration for rehabilitation of existing housing as opposed to demolition and new construction.” Further, the adopted plan limited expansion in the neighborhood to those in the plan, in an attempt to reduce large institutions eradicating neighborhoods.  

Motley also weighed in against the Lower Manhattan Expressway which Robert Moses still advanced, despite 25 years of community opposition. She forecast that the planned Board of Estimate vote to designate the Haughwout Building (location of the first elevator) a landmark would finally end the project.

She successfully opposed the relocation of a concrete plant from 34th Street to 131st Street and the Harlem River. Instead, she persuaded the Board of Estimate to locate a park on the waterfront, although the space remained largely undeveloped until the 1990s. 

Borough President Motley did not confine her work to the borough of Manhattan.  The Annual Report includes her statement on the development of an industrial park in Flatlands, Brooklyn. She linked the matter to the desegregation of the City’s schools and urged the development of an educational park to advance integration. In a deeply-moving statement, she cited her commitment to integrated public education and noted that without completely integrating housing, the City needed to pursue alternatives to achieve the goal. “The next generation must be fully equipped to secure the jobs which are available…. The needs of factories in New York deserve consideration.  But so do the needs of children. I cannot approve the allocation of this entire site, a vast bloc of the city’s most precious resource—open land—without any provision for meeting the equally important problem of how to provide quality integrated education.

To the thousand of boys and girls in the ghettoes of Bedford Stuyvesant and Brownsville, the plan for an industrial park offers nothing. To a number of adults, who may commute from their suburban homes in segregated areas, this plan offers city-subsidized jobs.

I do not oppose jobs, but when a plan is proposed to provide these jobs that would also permanently preclude the breaking of racial barriers that divide children, that price is too high to pay.

It will not be my vote on the Board of Estimate which locks the door to the ghetto and throws away the key.”

1965 Woman of the Year. Constance Baker Motley, center receives an award from the American Association of University Women, New York City branch, October 8, 1965 (the women to the right and left of Baker Motley are not identified). Official Mayoral Photograph Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

She also was ahead of her time in trying to identify and root out conflicts of interest. She developed a three-question survey for her staff asking for a list of any entity in which the individual or family member held office, owned a financial interest or was employed by an outside organization.

In total, she served only 13 months as the Borough President. One wonders if Motley had continued as Borough President, what might have been different in our City.

Instead, though, Senator Robert Kennedy recommended her for a federal judgeship on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. When quizzed about this suggestion, Motley expressed skepticism that her name would advance through the Justice Department review, be submitted by President Lyndon B. Johnson and approved by the Senate. In an interview with the New York Post she offered her thoughts. “But even if such an appointment were contemplated, there would be the unlimited time to be consumed in investigation. You know that I have appeared before practically every federal district court in the South, before the 4th, 5th, and 6th Circuit Courts of Appeal, before the Supreme Court.

“Each of these lower court judges would be asked to evaluate me, and I don’t think some of the Southern judges involved would have had such a high opinion of me, considering the matters I brought before them.”

But, in 1966 President Lyndon B. Johnson did nominate Motley for the position. The confirmation process took some time. As predicted there was pushback from Southern lawmakers.

She remained as Borough President while the nomination made its way through the confirmation process. During this time, Motley’s advocacy for the Harlem revitalization project continued. In August, she urged Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller to construct a State office building in Harlem stating that it would increase employment and reduce tensions.

Upon confirmation, over the objections of Southern senators, she became the nation’s first Black woman federal judge, taking a pay cut. 

Constance Baker Motley became the chief judge of the District Court in 1982 and continued to serve as a judge until her death in 2005.

In January, 2024, the United States Postal Service honored her with a Black Heritage Stamp joining her legacy with that of hundreds of Black leaders like Harriett Tubman, A. Philip Randolph, Ida B. Wells, Martin Luther King Jr.  Ella Fitzgerald, John Lewis and more. Let’s see what New York City can do to further commemorate this remarkable woman.

If these highlights pique your curiosity, check out the biography: Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality by Tomiko Brown Nagin. 

Finding Bayard Rustin

Before watching the Netflix film Rustin, what I knew about Bayard Rustin, a key organizer and mastermind behind the March on Washington, was limited. I had only seen Rustin’s name mentioned in the organizational files of the New York Police Department (NYPD) Intelligence Records, also known as the “Handschu” collection. However, after a closer examination of the Handschu records, I became aware of Rustin’s prolific involvement with numerous organizations, and his influence on some of the most successful demonstrations in civil rights history.

March on Washington, Flyer, 1965. Handschu Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

The Handschu collection, which contains records acquired by the Municipal Archives as part of Judge Charles W. Haight’s 1985 court ruling in Barbara Handschu et al. v. Special Services Division, is an invaluable resource for information about the city’s social-political sphere during the 1950s-1970s. The collection includes biographical data, mugshots, flyers and reports from several organizations, police complaints and communication reports, surveillance photographs, and audiovisual material. The vast collection comprises around 500 cubic feet, including 200,000 card files and information on more than 5,200 organizations and 3,000 individuals. Thanks to extensive surveillance and documentation of the civil rights movement, the Handschu records are an excellent source of information to learn about civil rights leaders like Bayard Rustin.

The Handschu collection is comprised of several series, including individual files. Rustin’s file only has an index card that refers to a single communications report concerning his statements about the Harlem Riots in 1964. Although it is not uncommon to find empty files, it is unusual that a file lists only one report. 

Report regarding Bayard Rustin, August 19, 1964. New York Police Department Intelligence Files, Bureau of Special Services, Handschu Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.   

After an unsuccessful search, I reviewed the Handschu card series, arranged by name into various groupings. Each card records the person’s name and includes information such as age, occupation, and relevant political activity. Police officers created the cards as they gathered information about a person, and there can be multiple cards for an individual. Rustin’s card shows us his passion for pacifism and work against conscription. The card comments on his arrests in 1947 and 1948, while working with the Fellowship of Reconciliation. The card lacks references to reports and ends around 1960, which is unusual. There could be multiple reasons for the abbreviated information; for example, state and federal agencies often requested police files for their investigations, and many cards were not returned or were misfiled.

Bayard Rustin, Index Card, New York Police Department Intelligence Records, Bureau of Special Services, Handschu Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.  

Bayard Rustin, Index Card (reverse), New York Police Department Intelligence Records, Bureau of Special Services, Handschu Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.   

In 1988, the New York Police Department’s Inspectional Services Division decided to index and number the pages of files from sixteen different organizations represented in the large organization series, which includes groups like the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Communist Party, Black Panther Party, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The indices list the names of individuals along with the page on which the person is mentioned. A sample page for SANE Nuclear Policy, for example, designated organization code 27, lists Rustin, along with other prominent individuals such as Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. Rustin appears in twelve of sixteen organization folders, including CORE, NAACP, Black Arts, Communist Party, and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). His most prominent role was with CORE, an organization he co-founded and was active in for many years. His association with that group generated multiple references. 

Large Organization Index, Organization 27 (SANE Nuclear Policy), New York Police Department Intelligence Records, Inspectional Services Division, Handschu Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

Rustin’s inclusion in these organizations supports the thesis that while he is not yet a household name, he was instrumental in organizing and leading activities that changed the course of American history. Although he was a Deputy Director of the March on Washington, we find only a few mentions of his name in that folder. With more than 250,000 people in attendance, the March on Washington is one of the most well-known civil rights events, and the venue for Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Nevertheless, it was not Rustin’s first rodeo; the organizational files also include his role in organizing the 1958 Youth March for Integrated Schools, which had around 10,000 attendees. Other significant impacts include Rustin’s part in organizing a school boycott along with Reverend Milton Galamison, which resulted in more than 400,000 students boycotting classes and several peaceful rallies across the city in favor of school desegregation.              

There are very few details about Ruskin’s personal life in the Handschu files, but we get a sense of his friendship with Martin Luther King. We find him serving as a Special Assistant to Dr. King, listed as Executive Director of the King Defense Committee, and leading a march at a peace rally after Dr. King’s assassination. There are references from individuals in the War Resister’s League files that indicate he was well-liked and admired. Although he was an openly gay man, there is no indication about his sexuality in any of the files. The only mention I found was a New York Tribune clipping discussing Senator Strom Thurmond’s remarks that labeled Bayard Rustin a pervert after the revelation of a 1955 sodomy charge in California. The clipping has the words “Send to BOSS” inscribed in the corner.   

Interview with Bayard Rustin, Report, July 20, 1967. New York Police Department, Bureau of Special Services, Handschu Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

The Handschu records demonstrate that Rustin was actively involved in various causes, including anti-war efforts, fighting discrimination, education, and labor rights. There are numerous examples of his support for improving life for all. For instance, in the War Resister’s League folder, we find an essay where he proclaims that “the Crisis in Vietnam is not only one of the dangers of nuclear war [but] a crisis for the conscience of America.” There is also a flyer listing him as a guest speaker at a community church addressing the murder of four children in Birmingham, Alabama, and a report of a rally and sit-in against Woolworth’s and W.T. Grant stores. In other records, we find evidence of him writing letters requesting donations for the National Economic Growth and Reconstruction Organization (NEGRO) and supporting taxicab strikes.

Rustin believed that nonviolent resistance was the best approach to social change. The most effective way of combating racism and inequality was by cooperating with races and forming powerful alliances. Fortunately, historians can use these intelligence records, which the police created and acquired for surveillance, to piece together the life of a man who significantly impacted the civil rights movement.