section ten of the proposed bill, this is recognized and provided for in excellent shape, but at present it seems to me unwise to turn the schools over to a single commissioner who would change whenever a new party came into power. I think this would deprive the schools of a needed element of permanence. THEODORE ROOSEVELT MEMORANDUM FILED WITH APPROVED SENATE BILL NO. 1060, RELATING TO COURT ATTENDANTS IN THE COUNTY OF QUEENS State of New York Executive Chamber Albany, April 25, 1900 Memorandum filed with Senate bill No. 1060, entitled "An Act relating to attendants upon the Supreme Court and This bill was passed in both branches of the Legislature and went to the mayor of the city of New York for approval. It was returned to the Executive Department not approved. This is the first instance in which a bill vetoed by the mayor has received Executive approval except where it has been re-passed by both houses of the Legislature over the mayor's veto, and it is proper that the reasons which influenced the Governor in signing this bill should be stated. This act relates solely to the question of providing for attendants for the Supreme Court and the County Court in and for the county of Queens. The county of Queens, notwithstanding chapter 378 of the Laws of 1897, remains a municipal corporation for certain purposes as completely as if that act had not been passed. The maintenance and expense of conducting the courts of the county are a county charge and are in no sense a charge upon the city as a municipal corporation. The money necessary to pay the officers, the appointment of which. is provided for in this bill, must be raised by a county tax imposed upon the county of Queens, and not by a city tax imposed upon the city of New York as a whole. It is clearly manifest that the proposed law does not in any wise affect the property, affairs or government of any of the several departments of the city of New York and therefore it is not such a law as is required by the Constitution to be submitted to the mayor of New York for his action thereon. THEODORE ROOSEVELT DESIGNATION OF JUSTICE CHASE TO HOLD THE TRIAL TERM AT UTICA STATE OF NEW YORK Executive Chamber WHEREAS the Trial Term of the Supreme Court ap pointed to be held at the city of Utica on the first Mon day in May, nineteen hundred, will be in danger of failing through the designation to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Fourth Department of the Honorable PARDON C. WILLIAMS, the Justice of the Supreme Court who was appointed to hold said court in the city of Utica; NOW THEREFORE In accordance with the statute in such case made and provided, I do hereby designate and appoint the Honorable EMORY A. CHASE, who is a Justice of the Supreme Court, to hold the said Trial Term of the Supreme Court at the city of Utica from and after Monday, May 7, 1900 in the place of the Honorable PARDON C. WILLIAMS. GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal of the State at the Capitol in the city of Albany this third day of May in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred. [L S] THEODORE ROOSEVELT By the Governor: WM. J. YOUNGS Secretary to the Governor MEMORANDUM FILED WITH APPROVED SENATE BILL NO. 249, FIXING STENOGRAPHERS' SALARY, FIRST DEPARTMENT STATE OF NEW YORK Executive Chamber Albany, May 3, 1900 Memorandum filed with Senate bill printed No. 249, introduced by Senator Ford, entitled “An Act in relation to the Supreme Court in the first judicial department and the appellate division thereof in the first department, in relation to the salary of the Supreme Court stenographers"-Approved This act is asked for by the judges of the courts concerned. One member of the Appellate Division writes me as follows: "The Legislature at its last session passed a bill known as Senate bill No. 249 which amended section 9 of chapter 553 of the laws of 1895, entitled ‘An Act in relation to the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department and the Appellate Division thereof in the First Department, in relation to the salary of the Supreme Court stenographers.' The object of this act was to equalize the salaries paid to the stenographers in the Supreme Court in the First Department with the salaries paid to the stenographers in the Supreme Court in the Second Department and in the City Court of the city of New York. I know of no reason why the stenographers of the Supreme Court in the First Department whose duties are much more important and onerous should not receive the same salary as is paid the stenographers in the Second Department, or in the City Court; and, although I had no knowledge of this bill until after it had passed, it would seem that it would only be right to give these very hard working and deserving men the same compensation that their brethren receive in positions of much less importance. In some way, however, this bill was sent to the Mayor as a bill affecting the city of New York and has failed to receive his approval. I am at a loss to understand upon what principle it was considered proper to send it to him. The provision of the Constitution authorizing the Mayor to veto bills applies to 'laws relating to the property, affairs or government of cities' (Article 12, section 2 of the Constitution.) Certainly a bill regulating the appointment of subordinate officers of the Supreme Court and regulating their compensation which is made a county charge has no relation to the property, affairs or government of a city. This act relates to the Supreme Court; regulates the appointment of its subordinate officers, provides for their compensation and prescribes their duties, thus relating directly to the administration of justice; and it is difficult for me to see that it applies in any way to the government, property or affairs of the city of New York. Of course these are only my individual views, but as this bill would seem to remedy what is an injustice, and as I certainly think that acts in relation to the administration of justice and to the organization of the Supreme Court could not be subject to the control of the municipal authorities, I have ventured to communicate to you the exact situation in regard to this bill." |