« PreviousContinue »
Public Health Law says: "An article shall be deemed to be adulterated " * * * “ In the case of ale or beer, if it contains any substitute for hops or pure extract of hops, or if any such substitute is used in the manufacture thereof”. The present bill says: “After the passage of this act no substitute for hops or pure extract of hops shall be used in the manufacture of ale or beer sold or offered for sale in this State. All ale or beer shown to contain any substance used as a substitute for hops or pure extract of hops is hereby declared adulterated ”.
These provisions are absolutely identical, and there is therefore no warrant for putting the present bill on the statute books.
The final section of the present bill provides that in addition to the fine of one hundred dollars for violating the provision of the Public Health Law against adulterations, it shall be permissible to add imprisonment in the county jail for three months. This would make it possible to inAlict a far severer penalty upon a man who should adulterate beer than upon the man who for instance should violate section 41, subdiv. B 5 of the Public Health Law by selling food composed of diseased or decomposed or putrid or rotten animal or vegetable substance. It is
adulteration of beer than for using putrid and rotten animal substances in adulterating food.
VETO OF ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1635, IN RELA
TION TO PHARMACISTS AND DRUGGISTS
STATE OF NEW YORK
Albany, May 27, 1899 Memorandum filed with Assembly bill number 1635 (Intro
ductory No. 40), entitled "An Act for the regulation of pharmacists and druggists and to prevent accidents and mistakes in the preparing and compounding of medicinal prescriptions in The City of New York”.- Not approved
After carefully investigating this matter and getting reports from a large number of disinterested outsiders, who have sought to find out on the ground not only of the equity of the case but the feeling of the clerks interested, I have come to the conclusion that on the whole less injustice will result from waiting another year for the proper method of relief than would result from signing the bill in its present shape. The drug clerks are hopelessly divided on this bill and a very large number of them feel that if signed it would probably work a serious hardship to them in the way of interfering with their days off and even with their vacations. There is no question that there should be shorter hours for drug clerks and that in some cases at present hardship results from the length of hours. There is further no question that many of the proprietors have behaved with extreme shortsightedness in opposing any proper measure; and should they continue in this attitude of mere obstruction, it will probably result in the necessity of accepting any measure, no matter what crudities it may contain, rather than to submit to total lack
of relief; but it is certainly wise to give one more chance for the passage of a proper measure. It is to be hoped that the advocates of the relief will realize that the passage of a measure too drastic in form simply jeopardizes it, and may, as in this instance, prevent the adoption of any measure whatever. In making such a change of policy as was attempted in this bill, it is very desirable to make the dislocation felt as little as may be, and above all, to be careful that the bill does not damage those whom it purposes to protect.
VETO OF ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1614, IN RELA
TION TO OFFENSIVE TRADES IN BROOK-
· STATE OF NEW YORK
Albany, May 27, 1899 Memorandum filed with Assembly bill number 1614 (Intro
ductory No. 1108), entitled “An Act to amend the Greater New York Charter, relating to offensive trades in the borough of Brooklyn”. - Not approved .
If the Supplemental Barren Island bill had passed, I should have signed both it and the present measure, and the advocates of destroying the Barren Island nuisance are in part responsible for the defeat of their measure, as it was within their power, by the exercise of care and forethought, to have embodied the supplemental measure in this which actually passed. But, with only the present bill before me, I find, by consultation with the health officers. of the port of New York and other authorities, that serious trouble would in all probability follow upon sign
ing it. It takes effect immediately, that is, at the beginning of the hot season, and it neither provides, nor gives. time to provide, for the establishment of any other method of disposing of the garbage, dead animals, etc., of New York city. If given three or four months, the city authorities could, without any question, develop a plan for the proper disposal of the garbage, and, with this warning, they can have no excuse for failure to provide such method in the future, if, at the next session of the Legislature, a bill similar to the present bill, but giving a reasonable time before going into effect, is passed. If, during the coming summer, the nuisance complained of is unabated, such a bill will unquestionably be introduced and enacted in a law. If the garbage cannot be disposed of under the present method, save by creating a nuisance to numerous citizens of the city, then that method must be altered. The present summer will undoubtedly determine whether or not such nuisance can be abated. If it is not done away with, then the city authorities and those responsible for creating the nuisance may as well make up their minds that it will be abolished by law, and the responsibility will rest with them for any complications that may ensue.
Meanwhile, I shall send copies of this memorandum to the State Board of Health and to the Health Officer of the port of New York, directing them to communicate with the Health Board of the City of New York, and by next Fall to report to me upon the exact condition of affairs, and upon what remedies can be adopted — and some remedies must be adopted — in case the nuisance caused the people on the shores affected is not done away with this summer.
STATE OF NEW YORK
Albany, May 27, 1899 The following bills did not receive Executive approval because there was no return to the Executive Department of any action taken by the mayors of the cities which they affect:
A. 1212. Relative to First Univeralist Society, Mount
Vernon. A. 1843. Relative to the investigation of sources of light
and heat supply in the city of Syracuse. A. 2368. To amend the charter of the city of Oswego. S. 1178. Relative to bonds for street paving, Mount
The following bills did not receive Executive approval because they were vetoed by the mayor of the city of New York: A. 100. Confirming certain appointments made by the
fire commissioners for the former city of
684. Relief of clerks in Kings County Court. A. 749. Relative to extradition of William R. Foster. A. 753. Relative to newspapers to be designated in
which corporate notices shall be advertised.