« PreviousContinue »
he shall first approve any plans that are submitted, but he states that as the bill is now drawn, it is not possible to erect the bridge as described in the bill and in the place described by the bill, without detriment to navigation, and that if the railroad company could have produced a plan which would have enabled them to meet his objections, they ought to have done it before this, having had ample time for the purpose. I appreciate the desirability of an additional bridge between Troy and Watervliet, but the interests of the canal cannot be sacrificed. If prior to the next session, plans can be submitted to the Superintendent of Public Works which will convince him of the feasibility, both as regards kind of bridge and location of bridge, of accomplishing the ends at which the present bill aims, I shall be glad to aid in the passage of such a measure. But I should not be justified in signing the present bill in view of the protest of the Superintendent of Public Works.
VETO OF SENATE AND ASSEMBLY BILLS FOR
THE RELIEF OF CERTAIN POLICEMEN
STATE OF NEW YORK
Albany, May 27, 1899 Memorandum filed with Senate bill number 874 for the relief
of Henry Rehwinkle; Senate bill number 1314 for the relief of Michael Gavin; Senate bill number 1262 for the relief of George Curtis Dubois; Senate bill number 1281 for the relief of Patrick Ginley; Senate bill number 1440 for the relief of Philip Ryan; Assembly bill number 663 for the relief of Adolph S. Wasserman; Assembly bill number 1370 for the relief of Thomas P. Wilson; Assembly bill number 1664 for the relief of James N. Enright; Assembly bill number 2004 for the relief of Charles B. Von Gerichtun and Adolphus Brown; Assembly bill number 2098 for the relief of Patrick Ginley; Assembly bill number 2225 for the relief of John Fitzgibbons; Assembly bill number 2324 for the relief of W. L. Markell; Assembly bill number 2386 for the relief of Bernard Meehan; Assembly bill number 2387 for the relief of Thomas Cassidy; Assembly bill number 2406 for the relief of George H. Walsh; Assembly bill number 2407 for the relief of Thomas G. Mellon; Assembly bill number 2408 for the relief of James A. Dourigan; Assembly bill number 2435 for the relief of W. W. O'Connor; and Assembly bill number 2440 for the relief of Michael McGrath, — these being the policemen and firemen's reinstatement bills — Not approved
These bills form a class by themselves. They are designed to permit the re-entry into the police and fire department of men who have resigned or who have been removed upon charges which it is contended were unjust.
If I should sign them it would form a precedent for similar action in the case of certainly hundreds and probably thousands of other men who have been removed, or who have resigned in like manner. From the inquiries I have been able to make, I am inclined to think that in one or two instances among the bills before me, the men may have suffered an injustice in the past; that in two or three instances it is practically certain that no injustice has been done; and that in the great bulk of the cases there are no means whatever for finding out the rights of the matter. In any event, it is obviously impossible for either the Governor or the Legislature to decide on the merits of each individual case. A general policy must be adopted to meet all the cases. Either some general law should be passed providing opportunity of rehearing and reinstatement in the case of firemen and policemen who are removed from the department; or else the practice should be observed of passing only upon cases where the fire department or police department requests the Legislature to act; or else we should adhere to the present system, realizing that occasional injustice may be done to an individual, but accepting this as preferable to the alternative of never treating any decision as final. Probably the best method might be a provision in the charter to provide that within a certain period of time a rehearing of any case should be had on application of the person against whom charges were made, or, in the event of a resignation that a reinstatement may be allowed on a similar request. In any event it is extremely undesirable to deal with these cases by the haphazard method of passing laws to allow rehearings.
VETO OF SENATE BILL No. 432, FOR THE EREC
TION OF A BRIDGE FOR DEVELOPING THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Albany, May 27, 1899 Memorandum filed with Senate bill number 432 (Introductory
No. 417), entitled “An Act to permit experiments and the erection of a bridge for developing the power of Niagara river, at the city of Buffalo, upon plans to be approved by the United States engineering department to protect navigation ". - Not approved
This bill has on its face an entirely praiseworthy object, that is to say, the promotion of an experiment to see whether the waters of the Niagara river cannot be used to give a vast power system for the benefit of the city of Buffalo. But the bill is so drawn as to make it likely that it provides for the erection of a bridge across the Niagara river wholly without reference to whether the attempt to introduce the power system is a failure or not. The language of the bill is such that the bridge across the river could apparently be built even though the preliminary power bridge span was considered a failure by the State Engineer. At any rate, the State by this bill, if enacted into law, would at once surrender all right to object to any such bridge, whether the power bridge span did or did not prove a failure, and whether the State authorities did or did not regard the new project as a menace to navigation. Unquestionably the National government would still have the power to take into account the question of navigation under proper safe-guards; but it would, in my judgment, be wise for the State also to retain control of the matter. It might or might not be wise for the State to sanction the erection of the bridge without regard to the use of the power scheme in connection therewith; but this is a proposition which should be considered on its own merits and not under color of introducing a great power scheme. If the right to erect such a bridge without regard to whether the power scheme is or is not feasible is desired, then a bill for such a purpose should be introduced as such, and allowed to take its chances on its own merits. If the power scheme is the essential and vital feature of the undertaking, then it should be made clear in the bill that the bridge is only to be built if the power scheme proves a success; and, moreover, ample provision should be made by which the State may secure all the engineering talent desired in order to supervise and keep control of the undertaking.
VETO OF SENATE BILL No. 462, RELATIVE TO
STATE OF NEW YORK
Albany, May 27, 1899 Memorandum filed with Senate bill number 659 (Introductory
No. 462), entitled “An Act to prevent the use of any substitute for hops, or pure extract of hops, in the manufacture of ale or beer and to preserve the public health”. - Not approved
This bill seemingly does nothing more than repeat the Public Health Law, article 3, sec. 41, subdiv. 7, C. The