Hoboken pride

Many of the arguments in favor of the charter appealed to the townspeople's sense of civic pride. Some noted that a movement was underway in Hudson County to combine all of the county's municipalities into Jersey City.

Hoboken resident T.F. Whitley addressed the Mar. 24 pro-charter meeting, asking, "Do you wish the name of Hoboken changed, and to be swallowed up, as Jonah was swallowed by the whale?"

At this, the crowd reportedly cried, "No! No!"

Whitley continued, "Jersey City may be the whale, but let us not be the Jonah. I trust we shall, on Thursday, sustain this charter."

A measure to combine all of Hudson County into Jersey City would indeed later come to a vote, in 1869. Hoboken would vote the measure down.

The opposition

Though support for the charter was strong, there were a great many in town who argued against it. Most of the town's growing German population was reportedly against the charter.

The opponents of the charter - who took to calling themselves the "Independent Citizens" of Hoboken - based their arguments largely on economic grounds. Incorporation as a city, they claimed, would lead to an increase in taxes to fund the new government.

Consequently, they worried, landlords would raise rents, driving out many of the town's longtime residents.

Corruption allegations

Charges of corruption were also leveled from both sides of the charter debate.

Some who were in favor of the charter claimed that the state legislature had unfairly restricted voting times in an attempt to defeat it. According to article 69 of the charter, the vote to adopt or reject would take place on Mar. 29 during working hours, between noon and 6 p.m.

Some contended that an honest poll schedule would be open both before and after normal working hours. At the Mar. 24 pro-charter meeting, Hoboken resident William P. Brown said, "The way opposition to this charter was made at Trenton was basely treacherous on the part of their legislators."

An unlikely spokesman

Strangely enough, opponents of the charter found a spokesman in New Jersey State Assemblyman John M. Board, the charter's original author.

According to the New York Daily Times, Board addressed an anti-charter meeting on the eve of the election to argue against the very act he had introduced into the State Assembly less than three months earlier.

Board claimed that the Senate had made amendments that diluted the charter's power to secure cheaper government.

"The original charter as introduced into the State Legislature was thrown aside," Board said. "The present charter ... came into this breathing world covered with sin and corruption."

Board also claimed that the Assembly chairman had refused to hear his arguments against the Senate amendments because he wrongly thought most of the town was for the charter.

Board noted that on Feb. 21, the Senate had received a remonstrance from 250 "residents, freeholders and taxpayers" of Hoboken, expressing their sentiment against the act.

However, Sen. Moses B. Bramhall had obtained a petition of his own. That very same day, he presented the Senate's Committee on Municipal Corporations with 310 signatures from citizens of Hoboken, asking for the passage of the act to incorporate.

The vote

Board told the anti-charter crowd that he acquiesced to the Senate's amended charter only because he was confident that the public would reject it when it was put before them for a vote.

But Board was wrong.

On Thursday, Mar. 29, 1855, the people of Hoboken voted in favor of incorporation as a city. The final tally was 337 for the charter and 185 opposed, nearly two to one in favor.

It was now up to the residents of the City of Hoboken to elect their representatives in the new government.

Next week: politicians scramble for a position.

Christopher Zinsli can be reached at gateway@hudsonreporter.com. To read past columns from this year-long series, visit www.hobokenreporter.com.