IV

That the discharge of effluent and waste material from the paper and sulphite mills owned and operated by the George West Paper and Bag Company into and through Kayaderosseras Creek is hereby declared a nuisance, which the said firm are hereby ordered to abate on or before April 1st 1900; provided however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent such discharge into said creek, subsequent to the date aforesaid, after such effluent and waste materials shall have been treated in a sanitary manner, so as to render the same innocuous, and according to process to be approved by the State Board of Health.

GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal of the

State at the Capitol in the city of Albany this [LS] 30th day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

VETO OF ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1599, RELATING TO SWEAT SHOPS

STATE OF NEW YORK

TO THE ASSEMBLY:

Executive Chamber,

Albany, April 3, 1899

Assembly bill No. 1599, introduced by Mr. T. P. Sullivan, entitled "An Act to amend Chap. 415 of the Laws of 1897, entitled 'An Act in relation to Labor,' constituting Chap. 32 of the General Laws, and the several acts

amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto," is herewith returned without approval.

This bill relates to the same subject as Assembly bill No. 1163, introduced by Mr. Costello, entitled "An Act to amend the Labor Law relating to licenses for the manufacture of certain articles in tenements," (which is now Chap. 191 of the Laws of 1899), both bills coming to me at the same time. The Costello bill, however, is a carefully thought out and most important piece of remedial and constructive legislation. It embraces other subjects not included in the Sullivan bill, and it also remodels, in far more effective form, the two sections of the old act which this bill attempts to remodel. To sign this bill, now that the Costello bill has become a law, would mean an act of positive retrogression in the effort to abolish sweatshops; and if signed before the Costello bill became a law its provisions would, of course, have been superseded by those of the latter. The Costello bill does not go as far as I should like to see it go, but it does take an enormous stride in advance, representing the first really effective bit of legislation against the sweatshops which has been enacted in this State; it is in line with and to a large extent carries out one of the suggestions in my message to the Legislature upon which I dwelt with particular emphasis. The same may be said of the other bill introduced by Mr. Costello, Assembly bill No. 1615, entitled "An Act to amend the labor law, relating to the duties of the factory inspector and the enforcement of the provisions of such law," which has just become a law and is Chap. 192 of the Laws of the State of New York. This carries out another of the suggestions contained in my message and

marks a great advance in the effort to make effective the enforcement of the factory inspection law.

The particular bill under consideration, however, though doubtless well-intentioned, would have accomplished little or nothing even had neither of the other laws been passed; and if enacted into law now it would, as I have already said, be an act of retrogression (aside from the question of its possible unconstitutionality, which I need not now discuss). On no subject is it more important to have wise and sound legislation than where the interests of labor are concerned. When such legislation is good, it probably accomplishes more real benefit to the community than can be accomplished by any other kind of law, but crude and hasty labor legislation either wholly fails to accomplish anything—being so drawn as to be ineffective or else works harm instead of good to the very people supposed to be benefitted. In the two Costello bills, the Legislature has put through measures which are certain to accomplish good of the most far-reaching kind and which mark a long stride forward in our treatment of labor questions- although I have little doubt as regards the sweatshop bill that it will have to be amended in the line of rendering it more stringent and more certain of enforcement. But the present bill comes under the category of measures which are loosely drawn and are pushed without serious consideration of the objects sought to be attained. Had such serious consideration been given the subject the futility of passing a measure which in part nullified the Costello bill, at the very time the Costello bill was on its passage, would have been evident.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

MESSAGE RELATING TO FUNDS FOR USE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

STATE OF NEW YORK

TO THE LEGISLATURE:

Executive Chamber

Albany, April 7, 1899

I herewith transmit a copy of a letter received by me from Messrs. Fox and Macfarlane, whom I appointed as counsel to take up the matter of the charges in reference to the canal contracts under the Acts of 1895 and 1896. I earnestly request your careful consideration of this letter and immediate action upon it. It is obviously in the interest of the administration of justice that funds be immeditely made available to enable the counsel to carry out the work which they were appointed to perform. Delay in furnishing them the means so to proceed may result in guilty parties being protected by the statute of limitations. It is equally obvious that only by enabling counsel to find out the exact facts is it possible to settle whether or not indictments should be found against any persons connected with the canals. There can be nothing more important to the State than the punishment of any man contractor or public official, who has done wrong, on the one hand, or on the other, than the clearing of any man who has been wrongfully suspected. And the only method by which either of these results can be reached is by providing funds sufficient to enable the counsel to prosecute to a conclusion the work on which they are now engaged. I therefore call your attention to the urgency and importance of the matter.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

(THE LETTER)

Hon. THEODOre Roosevelt,

Governor of the State of New York, Albany, N. Y.:

SIR: In reply to your request to be informed what progress we have made in examining the testimony taken by the Canal Investigating Commission and reported by them to your predecessor in office, with a view to advising you whether or not criminal prosecutions should be instituted against any of the persons involved, we beg to report that we have, during the two months which have elapsed since we were appointed, carefully read the voluminous testimony taken by the Commission and their report, besides the report of Judge Countryman and the statements published by the former State Engineer and Surveyor, Mr. Adams, and the former Superintendent of Public Works, Mr. Aldridge. We have also examined a large number of exhibits and documents relating to these transactions in the offices of the Comptroller and State Engineer.

In the testimony taken by the Commission are disclosed and partially examined many transactions which are suggestive of wrong-doing by the parties engaged in them and which we think should be more carefully examined.

The purposes for which the Commission were appointed did not require that exhaustive and precise examination of witnesses with reference to particular transactions which should in our judgment precede criminal prosecutions. We must make the examination now if our work is to continue. Most of the witnesses, assistant engineers, inspectors and others employed by the State on the canal contracts under the Acts of 1895 and 1896 are no longer employed by the State. The addresses of most of them,