Page images

an unfavorable report, of the committee of the whole, the bill is deemed lost. When the bill comes up for a third reading, it may be read in full by the clerk. But the practice is to read only the title, the enacting clause, and the numbers of the sections. At

At any time during the reading, debate and amendments are in order; but after the reading of the last section no debate may take place and no amendment may be offered.

The course of a bill in the senate is the same as in the assembly; and a bill which has been passed by one house, goes through the same course in the other before it is ready for the governor's signature.

Often the same bills are introduced in the two houses. If such a bill passes one house, and goes to the other, the bill as introduced in the second house is dropped in many cases, and action is taken only on the bill as received from the first house. But the house may treat the senate and the assembly bill as distinct. By formal motion either bill may be substituted for the other.

Upon a bill as printed in either house, the letters G. 0. followed by a number indicate the place of the bill in general orders; and the mark Int. followed by a number is used to show the order in which bills are introduced. The phrase general orders refers to the order of considering bills in committee of the whole.

In this record only such bills as were printed have been considered. Many bills are introduced, but never printed.

A member may introduce a bill “by request” without any statement of the source of the request. But this manner of introducing bills is not considered to affect any responsibility that may be thought to attach to the act of introducing them.



(From special dispatch from Albany to the New York

World, dated 7th Feb., 1886, and printed 8th Feb., 1886.)

“For years its organization in this city has been perfect-per“fect in its strength, in its co-operative policy, in its results. Before a Legislature has been in session a week the astute, vigilant “ and unscrupulous lobbyist has prepared his list. This list is a “ work of art. The calibre of each member is here recorded and, “ if purchaseable, his price is put opposite his name. The lobbyist

never may have talked with or even seen his man, yet the legisla“ tor's dimensions are down in back and white for future reference.

“ It has been a notorious fact here for years that the agents of “the lobbyists have had free access at all times to the rooms of speakers and clerks of the House and of the Senate. Those agents have had their own keys to these rooms, have come and gone unquestioned and uninterrupted. They have had access at “ all times to the books, ledgers and journals of the two houses of “ the Legislature: they appear at the desk of the clerks of the “ Senate and of the Assembly now day after day, pick up bills as “ fast as they are introduced, copy them and the name of the mem" ber who introduced them. One-half of the members of both “houses know these men, know their purposes, know who their

employers are, know the object of their duplication of part of “the legislative records. But no movement ever has been made by “ either legislator or clerk to crush the evil out: not a hand or a "o voice has been raised even to call attention to the fact, presiding “ officers, clerks, sergeants-at-arms of both houses winking at the “ audacious infringement of the rules of their respective cham

66 bers.

Strange tales have been told of bills that have passed both "houses, but have been mysteriously altered by the time they “ reached the Executive Chamber, provoking a veto which they “ otherwise would have escaped. The errors in some instances

may possibly have been the fault of the engrossing clerks, but as

long as lobbyists and the agents of lobbyists are allowed the free“ dom of the floors of both houses, of private rooms, of committee

rooms, the responsibility for such errors must fall upon the presiding officers of both houses.”

This description of the methods and the impudence of the organized lobby and of the leniency shown by members of the Legislature to the lobbyists, is not exaggerated. Indeed, it may be said with truth that the evil influence of the lobby upon legislation is even greater than this account would indicate.

The bad character of some of our legislators is shown by the notorious fact that in every assembly for years past an organized band of plunderers known as The Black Horse Cavalry has existed. Its sole object is to extort money by offering united opposition to bills until bribes of sufficient size have been exacted from the promoters of the bills. Every rich corporation in this city knows the strength and the rapacity of these robbers.



Among the Roosevelt bills passed in 1884 was one giving to the mayor of New York sole power to appoint certain city officials without confirmation by the board of aldermen.

The obvious intention was to include the commissioners of excise; but because of some doubt whether they were state or city officers, the question was raised whether they came within the provisions of that act.

The aldermen failed to confirm the nomination by the Mayor of Messrs. Andrews, Von Glahn, and Woodman, to succeed Messrs. Haughton, Mitchell, and Morris. The Mayor's appointees took office without confirmation, and opposition to them was afterwards practically withdrawn, although the dispute as to the title to the office is still before the courts.

To set at rest such doubts a bill was introduced in the senate (No. 16 and No. 241.-G. O. 14.—Int. 86) by Mr. Comstock, in behalf of a majority of the special committee of the senate of '84-'85 to investigate the government of N. Y. City (Gibbs Committee), giving the Mayor sole power to appoint police justices and excise commissioners without the confirmation of the board of aldermen.

Mr. Bruns introduced in the assembly a bill (No. 961.-G. O. 692.—Int. 266), giving to the President of the board of aldermen of New York the power to appoint two commissioners of excise, and providing that subsequent appointments should be made by the mayor. This bill was the first form of the “Nooney Excise Bill,” so-called from the fact that Robert B. Nooney was president of the board of aldermen at that time.

Mr. Comstock’s bill was passed in the Senate on 30th March. Messrs. Daly, Dunham, Murphy, and Traphagen voted aye. Messrs. Cullen, Plunkitt, and Reilly did not vote. The bill was then sent to the assembly, where it was referred to the committee on affairs of cities,


Mr. Hamilton in the assembly on 6th April, moved that the committee on affairs of cities be discharged from further consideration of the bill, and that the bill be committed to the committee of the whole. A favorable vote would have decidedly advanced the bill toward its final passage. This motion was lost. Messrs. Hamilton, Shea, and Van Allen voted aye. Messrs. Binder, Brennan, Bruns, Cantor, Conlan, Dalton, Dinkelspiel, Hagen, Hayes, Haggerty, Hill, Kiernan, Maher, Naugle, Shelly, and Windolph voted Messrs. Finn, Lyon, McManus, Power, and Smith did not vote.

On 15th April the committee on affairs of cities of the assembly reported the Bruns excise bill favorably, Messrs. Hamilton and Lyon dissenting.

On 12th May, in the assembly upon motion of Mr. Charles Smith, to go into committee of the whole on the Comstock bill, the bill was called up by a two-thirds vote. Messrs. Binder, Bruns, Cantor, Conlan, Hagan, Hayes, Hill, Kiernan, Maher, McManus, Naugle, Smith, and Windolph voted aye. Messrs. Brennan, Dinkelspiel, Finn, Haggerty, Hamilton, Lyon, Shea, and Van Allen, voted no. Messrs Dalton, Power and Shelly did not vote. By this time the arrangements had been perfected for the substitution of the “ Nooney excise bill ” for the one under consideration as soon as the committee of the whole was reached. Hence a vote for this motion was to all intents a vote in favor of the Nooney excise bill.

In committee of the whole, upon motion of Mr. Charles Smith, the“ Nooney Excise Bill ”, providing for the appointment of three excise commissioners by the

« PreviousContinue »