discipline; but I insist that, in the treatment of prisoners convicted of crime, the existing statutes of the State on that subject should be observed. Yours respectfully, GROVER CLEVELAND. VETO, ASSEMBLY BILL, NOT PRINTED, TO CHANGE TIME OF ANNUAL TOWN MEETING, TOWN OF HECTOR, SCHUYLER COUNTY. STATE OF NEW YORK. EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, ALBANY, February 5, 1883. To the Assembly: Assembly bill, not printed, entitled "An act authorizing and requiring the annual town meeting for the town of Hector, in the county of Schuyler, for the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, to be held on the first Tuesday in April next," is herewith returned without approval. This legislation seems to be prohibited by the provision of the Constitution which declares that the Legislature shall not pass a private or local bill providing for the election of members of boards of supervisors. And if it is not thus prohibited, there seems to be no sufficient reason why the town meeting referred to in the bill should be postponed. It is alleged that the prevalence of a contagious disease in the town mentioned renders such a postponement proper; but upon inquiry I am convinced that there will be a fair expression of the choice of the electors if the town meeting is held at the usual time. GROVER CLEVELAND, . VETO, ASSEMBLY BILL No. 4, TO AMEND CHARTER OF CITY OF ELMIRA. STATE OF NEW YORK. EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, To the Assembly: ALBANY, February 5, 1883. Assembly bill No. 4, entitled "An act to amend chapter three hundred and seventy of the laws of eighteen hundred and seventy-five, entitled 'An act to amend and consolidate the several acts relating to the city of Elmira,'" is herewith returned without approval. This bill provides, among other things, that the city of Elmira shall not be liable for damages or injury sustained by any person in consequence of any street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk or cross-walk in said city being out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or in any manner obstructed, unless actual notice in writing of such condition be given to the common council, the mayor or the city clerk, at least forty-eight hours previous to such damage or injury. It is also provided that all claims (which was probably intended for claimants) against the city for damages or injury alleged to have arisen from such defective, unsafe or dangerous condition, or from the negligence of the city authorities in respect to any such street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk or cross-walk shall, within fifteen days. after the happening of such damage or injury, notify the mayor or city attorney in writing, signed by the claimant and duly verified, describing the time, location of the place where such injury occurred, cause and extent of the damage or injury, and that the failure to so present such claim shall be a bar to any action or proceedings therefor against the city. The time for commencing an action for such damage or injury is limited to six months from the happening of the same. These provisions establish a different rule to govern the liability of the city of Elmira in cases of injury caused by negligence, than that which prevails in other parts of the State. I regard this as special legislation of the most objectionable character. Besides being wrong in principle, the practical operation of such an enactment cannot fail, it seems to me, to produce injustice and jeopardize personal rights. Under the provisions of this bill the municipality is absolved from the consequences of the grossest negligence of its agents and servants resulting in the most serious injury to the citizen, unless actual notice of the negligent acts or omissions be given. No person would be likely to serve such notice in anticipation of being himself injured by reason of the conditions specified in the bill; and if he did, he would by that very act furnish such proof of his knowledge of the existence of danger, and his opportunity to avoid it, as might defeat his claim for redress. And certainly a cause of action against the city for injuries sustained through negligence ought not to depend upon anything which a stranger to the controversy may have done or omitted. I am also unwilling to sanction such an invitation to relax the duty of municipal authorities to properly care for the duty of the citizen. The provisions of the bill requiring the presentation of a claim for damages within fifteen days, and the commencement of an action within six months after the happening of the injury, are obviously objectionable, as unnecessarily and unreasonably restricting the right of the party injured, to recover by a resort to the courts the damages which he has sustained. GROVER CLEVELAND. VETO, ASSEMBLY BILL No. 26, TO INCORPORATE THE DARWIN R. BARKER LIBRARY ASSOCIATION OF FREDONIA. STATE OF NEW YORK. EXECUTIVE chamber, ALBANY, February 9, 1883. To the Assembly: Assembly bill No. 26, entitled "An act to incorporate the Darwin R. Barker Library Association of Fredonia, New York," is herewith returned without approval. We have general statutes regulating the organization of precisely such associations as this bill contemplates, and the creation of corporations of this description by special act, except when, in the judgment of the Legislature, its object cannot be attained under general laws, is distinctly prohibited by article eight of the Constitution. There certainly appears to be no necessity for the passage of a special act in this particular case to effectuate all the purposes which the proposed corporation should be created to accomplish. If the special enactment is sought in order to exempt this corporation from the payment of local taxes, as is provided by the eighth section of the bill, it should, in my opinion, be refused, because if not prohibited by the clause in the Constitution forbidding the Legislature from passing a private or local bill granting to a private corporation or association any exclusive privilege or immunity, no sufficient reason is apparent for the exemption of the property of this corporation from such taxation, as is borne by others of its class. GROVER CLEVELAND. VETO, ASSEMBLY BILL No. 88, TO AUTHORIZE SUPERVISORS OF CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY TO APPROPRIATE MONEY FOR A SOLDIERS' MONU MENT. STATE OF NEW YORK. To the Assembly : EXECUTIVe chamber, ALBANY, February 12, 1883. Assembly bill No. 88, entitled "An act authorizing the Board of Supervisors of Chautauqua county to appropriate money for the purchase of land upon which to erect a soldiers and sailors' monument," is herewith returned without approval. It is not an agreeable duty to refuse to give sanction to the appropriation of money for such a worthy and patriotic object; but I cannot forget that the money proposed to be appropriated is public money to be raised by taxation, and that all that justifies its exaction from the people, is the necessity of its use for purposes connected with the safety and substantial welfare of the taxpayers. The application of this principle furnishes, I think, a sufficient reason why this bill should not be approved. I am of the opinion, too, that the appropriation of this money by the Board of Supervisors would constitute the incurring of an indebtedness by the county to be thereafter met by taxation. If this be true, the proposed legislation is forbidden by section eleven of article eight of the Constitution, which provides that no county, city, town or village |