president of the board of aldermen was substituted. The substitute was made a special order for the next day. Mr. Finn made an unsuccessful attempt upon 13th May to restore the bill to the form giving the mayor the power to appoint. The substitute bill was then passed (79 to 30). Messrs. Binder, Bruns, Cantor, Conlan, Hagan, Hayes, Haggerty, Hill, Kiernan, Maher, Naugle, Shelly, Smith, and Windolph voted aye. Messrs. Brennan, Dinklespiel, Finn, Hamilton, Lyon, McManus, Power, Shea, and Van Allen voted no. Mr. Dalton did not vote. This substitute was passed in the senate on 19th May, after strong opposition. Messrs. Cullen, Reilly, Plunkitt, and Traphagen voted aye. Messrs Daly, Dunham, and Murphy voted no. Governor Hill vetoed the bill. AQUEDUCT COMMISSION BILL. (Senate bill Nos. 427 and 472.-G. O. 534.-Int. 472.) This bill was introduced in the senate by Mr. Hoysradt. It provided for the appointment of three additional commissioners of the Croton Aqueduct by the governor, one to be a civil engineer, and of the others one to be a democrat and one a republican, with salaries of $5,000 each. It was committed to the committee on affairs of cities, and reported favorably by that committee, Mr. Daly dissenting. Upon 29th April, upon the third reading, Mr. Daly made an unsuccessful attempt to have the bill recommitted to the committee on affairs of cities. It was then passed (25 to 1). Messrs. Cullen, Dunham, Murphy, and Reilly voted aye. Mr. Daly voted no. not vote. Messrs. Plunkitt and Traphagen did In assembly on 6th May, the bill was amended by unanimous consent so that the mayor and the comptroller should be no longer included among the commissioners. It was then passed in its amended form (92 to 5). Messrs. Binder, Bruns, Cantor, Conlan, Hagan, Haggerty, Hamilton, Hill, Kiernan, Maher, Naugle, Smith, Van Allen, and Windolph voted aye. Messrs. Brennan, Dinkelspiel, Finn, Power, and Shea voted no. Messrs. Dalton, Hayes, Lyon, McManus, and Shelly did not vote. Upon the same day the bill as amended came up in the senate, and was passd (26 to 5), Mr. Daly again making an unsuccessful effort to retard it. Messrs. Plunkitt, Reilly, and Traphagen voted aye. Messrs. Cullen, Daly, Dunham, and Murphy voted no. In any case the bill would have been objectionable upon the ground that it proposed an unnecessary change in a commission which had performed its work honestly and well. No complaint of any moment had been made against the old commission. But in view of the strong suspicion, confirmed by future events, that it was the result of a political bargain looking to the division among the factions of the large patronage controlled by the commission, the bill became infamous. The probable meaning and effect of the bill were discussed publicly and fully before its passage, and no man voted for it without full warning that he was voting to sacrifice the interests of this city to the greed of politicians. The Governor having signed the bill, the predictions : of evil were fulfilled by his appointing men who, voting always with the then commissioner of public works (one of the aqueduct commissioners by virtue of his office), began to carry out the plans of the promoters of the bill. [The removal of Squire and the appointment by Mayor Grace of another commissioner of public works checked the evil in its beginning.] A protest against this bill, with an impressive array of signatures, was sent to the Governor by H. B. Claflin & Co. They assured him that every merchant to whom they showed the protest was eager to sign it; and said: "We have no doubt that with sufficient time, "we could get almost every considerable merchant in "this city to add his name to the paper." THE BRUNS DEPARTMENT-OF-PUBLIC- This bill (Nos. 395, 686, and 1028, G. O. 307,-Int. 95) was introduced by Mr. Bruns in assembly, 19th March. It was entitled, "An act to consolidate and reduce the "number of bureaus in the department of public works "in the city of New York, and define the duties there"of." It provided that the department of public works should have sole control of the "croton aqueduct, its "construction, structures and property of the water "system of the city," of all sewers and work upon them, of all paving and flagging, of the lighting of streets, and of the construction and maintenance of all public buildings. The bill provided that the commissioner of public works might appoint and remove all such offi cers, clerks, and assistants as might be necessary to carry out the provisions of the bill. The powers which this bill would have given to the commissioner of public works were very much in excess of those he possessed under the law as it stood. The commissioner at that time was Rollin M. Squire, whose administration had become matter of public scandal long before Mr. Bruns introduced his bill. In August, 1886, Squire was removed from the commissionership by Mayor Grace for corrupt practices in office. The removal was confirmed promptly by Gov. Hill; and Squire was indicted for his criminal acts.] The notoriety of Squire as an unworthy officer and the course of events during the summer have made it impossible for any member of the legislature to defend his advocacy of the bill; and such advocacy or any vote favoring the bill must be regarded as a serious blemish on the record of any assemblyman. This bill after its introduction was referred to the committee on affairs of cities, from which it was reported for the consideration of the assembly, Messrs. Hamilton and Lyon dissenting. On 29th April Mr. Bruns moved to have the committee on affairs of cities discharged from further consideration of the bill, and to have the bill (No. 686) engrossed for a third reading. This motion required a two-thirds vote, and not receiving this, was defeated. Messrs. Brennan, Bruns, Cantor, Hagan, Haggerty, Hayes, Hill, Kiernan, Maher, Naugle, Shelly, and Smith voted aye. Messrs. Binder, Dinkelspiel, Finn, Hamilton, Lyon, McManus, Power, Shea, and Van Allen voted no. Messrs. Conlan, Dalton, and Windolph did not vote. The bill was called up in assembly for its third reading on 12th May. On motion of Mr. Haggerty to recommit the bill to the committee on affairs of cities, with instructions to strike out the enacting clause, the bill was defeated. The result was SO evident that the speaker did not call for the negative votes. The Bruns bill in the form in which it was originally introduced in the assembly (No. 395) was introduced on 26th February by Mr. Cullen in the senate (No. 237.-G. O. 268.--Int. 337). It was referred to the commitee on affairs of cities, from which committee it was reported for the consideration of the senate. It was then committed to the committee of the whole, and ordered when printed to be re-committed to the committee on affairs and of cities. The following criticisms of the Bruns bill, taken from New York newspapers, express truthfully the judgment of all honest men who understood the scheme of which it was a part: "Without doubt the most audacious scheme for plunder which "has been brought forward at Albany for many years. There is absolutely nothing to be said in its favor. It is thoroughly "vicious from beginning to end, and is designed solely to enable a gang of unprincipled politicians to plunder the city almost with"out limit and practically without check. At the head of this gang "the bill places our precious commissioner of Public Works, Mr. "Squire."-N. Y. Evening Post, 8th May 1886. 66 66 "The members of the Legislature should act with great caution on the so-called Bruns bill." |