Upon the following day Senator O'Connor of Broome County, succeeded in passing a resolution which had been objected to upon a former date by Senator Cantor of New York (then in the chair), which requested the Mayor, the Comptroller of New York, and the Commissioner of Street Improvements in the Annexed District to communicate to the legislature their views upon the "Huckleberry Bill." The resolution declared in part that :

Whereas, the daily newspapers of the City of New "York, almost without exception, have repeatedly charged that "Assembly bill No. 21, commonly called the "Huckleberry "Railroad Bill," now before the Senate for consideration, is a "measure without precedent, unjust and oppressive to the "citizens of the Annexed District, and that it proposes to con"fer as a gratuity upon individuals in whose interest said bill "is sought to be passed, privileges and franchises of great value "in contravention of existing laws," these officials mentioned should be requested to give their views upon the bill.

In answer to this resolution, Mayor Grant and Commissioner Heintz replied that if the bill released the proposed corporation from existing provisions of law, it would be detrimental to the interests of the City of New York. Comptroller Myers, in replying, criticized the bill in detail, and declared in emphatic terms that in his opinion the bill was "detrimental to the rights and interests of the City of New York."

The deadlock in the senate committee on railroads continued meanwhile, and was not broken until the 24th of March. Senator McClelland then voted in favor of reporting the bill with the amendment providing that the company should pay to the city one per cent. of its gross receipts when the earnings should amount to $1,700 a day, and an additional one per cent. of its gross earnings for each additional $1,700 so earned.

The bill was reported to the senate upon the 25th of March, and came up for final passage upon the 5th of April. At this time it was further amended by limiting the fare to five cents for a continuous ride, and by limiting the capital stock to $2,000,000. The bill was, however, fundamentally bad, and remained so notwithstanding these amendments. Nevertheless, and in spite of continued opposition to the bill, it was passed by a vote of 19 to 13.

New York City members voted as follows:

AYES.-Messrs. Ahearn, Brown, Cantor, Hagan, McMahon, Plunkitt, and Roesch.—7.

NOES.-None.

The passage of the bill at this time was made possible by the votes of three republican senators, Messrs. Coggeshall, Emerson, and Richardson, who, in opposition to their party, voted in the affirmative.

The bill was then sent to the assembly for concurrence. When it was received in the house, Mr. Webster moved to concur in the amendments at once. Mr. Conkling objected. This made a reference to a committee necessary. Accordingly the bill was again referred to the committee on railroads, which reported in favor of concurring in the senate amendments upon the following day, April 7th. The amendments were at once concurred in, and the bill was finally passed by a vote of 78 to 40.

New York City members voted as follows:-
:----

AYES. Messrs. Byrne, Dinkelspiel, Drypolcher, Duffy, Farquhar, Foley, Martin, McManus, Mullaney, O'Dair, Roche, Sohmer, Southworth, Stein, Sullivan, Sulzer, Walker, Webster, Wells, and Wissig.-20.

NOES.

Messrs. Conkling, Connelly, and Hoag.-3.

NOT VOTING.-Mr. Hahlo.—1.

The bill then went to the Governor in the usual manner, and by his signature became a law upon the 20th of April,

THE FARQUHAR ELECTION INSPECTORS'

ACT.

LAWS OF 1892, CHAPTER 400.

Assembly bill No. 1296, introduced by Mr. Farquhar of New York.

This act provides for reducing from four to three the number of inspectors of election in each election district in New York City; two of the inspectors to belong to that party which cast the greatest number of votes in that city at the last preceding election, and the third to belong to that party which cast the next greatest number of votes, and the three to be appointed by the Board of Police. This provision results in allotting two inspectors to Tammany Hall, and one to the republican party. Under the former system the inspectors were four in number, divided equally between the democrats and the republicans. The bill was introduced for the purpose of giving to Tammany Hall control of the election machinery in New York City.

The old system had worked well. The non-partisan character of the boards of inspectors had proved a fairly efficient guarantee that votes cast would be counted fairly. Tammany urged the passage of the bill on two grounds; first, that a saving of $40,000 yearly would be effected by the reduction in the number of inspectors; secondly, that the law regulating the number of inspectors in each election district should be made uniform throughout the State.

The anxiety of Tammany Hall to save the city money is likely to be regarded with considerable distrust. In answer to the second reason, Mr. Erwin, the leader of the republican minority in the senate, made the pertinent objection that while in the country districts the three inspectors were elected by the people, in New York they were to be appointed

by the Board of Police, a partisan Tammany body. It would be easy for the Board of Police to appoint a republican whose loyalty to his party would be none too strong, and who, if not actually conniving at the frauds of his democratic colleagues, would not be likely to offer any serious resistance to their schemes.

Tammany was not sincere in its contention that the law should be made uniform throughout the state. Had it been so, it would have had the number of inspectors in the country districts increased from three to four. Then each of the two

great parties would have had an equal number of inspectors in each county. This, however, was not what Tammany desired. It wanted control of the election machinery in New York City, and used the argument that the law ought to be the same in all parts of the state, in order to conceal the real purpose of the bill.

Upon the introduction of the bill, the most serious opposition to it was aroused on all sides. Prominent democrats, men whose loyalty to their party had never been doubted, appeared before the committee which had the bill in charge, and protested most earnestly against it. Many of the democratic politicians seemed inclined to believe that the bill was a mistake in policy, and it required the strongest pressure from headquarters to swing some of the recalcitrant members into line. A member of the City Reform Club who appeared before the senate committee to protest against the bill, stated that in his opinion an equal reduction in the expense of elections would be accomplished by giving one inspector to the party which had cast the highest number of votes, and two inspectors to the party which had cast the next highest number. To this, Senator Brown of New York replied, that in that case, with the election machinery thus placed under its control, the minority party would at each election become

the majority party. This was a distinct admission that the purpose of the bill was to perpetuate Tammany Hall in power. Upon the 13th of April the bill was passed in the assembly by a vote of 65 to 60, the speaker casting the necessary sixtyfifth vote.

New York city members voted as follows :—

AYES. Messrs. Byrnes, Connelly, Dinkelspiél, Drypolcher, Duffy, Farquhar, Foley, Hahlo, Martin, Mullaney, O'Dair, Roche, Sohmer, Southworth, Stein, Sullivan, Sulzer, Walker, Webster, and Wissig.-20.

-4.

NOES.-Messrs. Conkling, Hoag, McManus and Wells.

The bill was then sent to the senate for concurrence, and referred to the committee on cities (Mr. Brown, of New York, chairman).

On April 19th the bill was made a special order in the senate. Senator Erwin had finished a speech in opposition to the bill, and was on the point of offering an amendment, when, apparently by pre-arrangement between LieutenantGovernor Sheehan and the democratic majority, the clerk began to call the roll. The protests of the republican minority were disregarded. number necessary to pass it. were recorded against it. voted for the bill, as follows:

The bill received 17 votes, the 13 votes, all cast by republicans Every senator from New York City

AYES.-Messrs. Ahearn, Brown, Cantor, Hagan, McMahon, Plunkitt, and Roesch.—7.

After the passage of the bill, numérous protests were forwarded to the Governor, urging him not to affix his signature to the measure. Then, if ever, was an opportunity afforded the Governor of manifesting his independence by vetoing a measure which a large section of his own party considered impolitic, and to which the best elements of the community