Слике страница
PDF
ePub

ARTICLE III- Continued.

It is enough if it fairly and reasonably announces the subject: the details and the means need not be set forth. Matter of Petition of Mayer, 50 N. Y. 504; People ex rel. Davies v. Com'rs, 47 id. 51. The title need not be the most exact expression possible. Matter of Mayer, 50 id. 504.

An act is local when limited to a particular locality, irrespective of population. People v. O'Brien, 38 N. Y. 193.

It is not necessary to constitute a public act that it should be equally applicable to all parts of the State; it is enough that it extends to all persons within the territory described. Burnham v. Acton, 7 Rob, 395. A local act with a title apparently of general application, the subject of which is sufficiently set forth, is valid. Neuendorff v. Duryea, supra. As to what acts are, and what are not, within this provision, see People v. Hills, 35 N. Y. 449; People v. Briggs 50 id. 553; Matter of Fetition of Astor, id. 363; Matter of Van Antwerp, 56 id. 261: Matter of Petition of Volkenning, 52 id. 650; Sullivan v. Mayor, 53 id. 652; People v. Dudley, 58 id. 323; Wenzler v. People, 58 id. 516; People v. Quigg, 59 id. 88; People v. Wilsea, 60 id. 507; People v. Trustees of Dansville, 1 Hun, 595; Gaskin v. Meek, 42 N. Y. 186; People ex rel. Schenectady Astr. Observatory v. Allen, id. 404: Healey v. Dudley, 5 Lans. 115; Matter of Van Antwerp, 56 N. Y. 261; Harris v. People, 59 id. 599; Gordon v. Cornes, 47 id. 608; People ex rel. Hayden v. City of Rochester, 50 id. 525: Huber v. People, 49 id. 132; and note to Neuendorff v. Duryea, 25 Am. Rep. 239; also People ex rel. v. Sup. of Essex Co., 70 N. Y. 229: In re Pet. N. Y. Elev. R. R. Co., id. 327; People ex rel. v. Dunlap, 66 id. 162; In re Prospect Park, etc., Co., 67 id. 372; People ex rel. Com'rs v. Banks, id. 568; People ex rel. v. Brinkerhoff, 68 id. 259; Kerrigan v. Force, id. 381; Billings v. Mayor, id. 413; Matter of Mayer, 50 id. 504; Matter of Flatbush, GO id. 398; People v. Crissey, 91 id, 616; Matter of Upson. 89 id. 67; Webb v. Mayor, 64 How. Pr. 10; People v. Partridge, 13 Abb. N. C. 410; Matter of Paul, 94 N. Y. 497; Van Vranken v. Shenectady, 31 Hun, 516; Utica Water-Works v. City of Utica, id. 426; Matter of U. S.. 66 How. Pr. 517; 96 N. Y. 227; Matter of Mayor, 99 id. 569; Chamberlain v. Taylor, 36 Hun, 24; Supervisors of Seneca v. Allen, 99 N. Y. 532; Harris v. Supervisors of Niagara, 33 Hun, 279; Matter of Church, 92 N. Y. 1; Mc Donald v. Mayor, 19 Week. Dig. 513; Board of Water Com`rs v. Dwight, 101 N. Y. 9; In re Knanst, id. 188: Tingue v. Village of Port Chester, id. 294: Cole v. State, 102 id. 48; Johnston v. Spicer, 107 id. 186; Ensign v. Barse, id, 329; People v. Squire, id. 593; Prentice v. Weston, 47 Hun, 121; Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v. Attica, 49 id. 513; McCabe v. Kenny, 52 id. 514; Astor v. Arcade R. Co., 113 N. Y. 93; People v. O'Neil, 109 id. 251;

Existing law not to be made a part of an act except by inserting it therein.

*SEC. 17. No act shall be passed which shall provide that any existing law, or any part thereof, shall be made or deemed a part of said act, or which shall enact that any existing law, or any part thereof, shall be applicable, except by inserting it in such act.

* Sections 17-25, both inclusive, added by vote of the people November 3, 1875.

[blocks in formation]

An act recognizing and validating a concurrent resolution is not within this prohibition; People v. Larned, 5 Hun, 626.

This provision does not require the re-enactment of general laws necessary to carry into effect a special statute. People ex rel. Com`rs v. Banks, 67 N. Y. 568.

An act altering a town by creating a new one out of it, and providing that all laws applicable to the old town is valid. People ex rel. v. Hayt, 7 Hun, 39.

See Wells v. City of Buffalo, 14 Hun, 438; Hurlburt v. Banks, 1 Abb. N. C. 157; People v. Hayt, 7 Hun, 39; Hathaway v. Tuttle, 12 Week. Dig. 240; Nash v. White's Bank of Buffalo, 37 Hun, 57.

Private and local bills not to be passed in certain cases.

SEC. 18. The Legislature shall not pass a private or local bill in any of the following cases :

Changing the names of persons.

Not applicable to corporations. Moran v. Lydecker, 11 Abb. N. C. 298; 27 Hun, 582.

Laying out, opening, altering, working or discontinuing roads, highways or alleys, or for draining swamps or other low lands.

See People ex rel. Morrill v. Supervisors, 112 N. Y. 585.

Not applicable to city streets or avenues, Matter of Woolsey, 95

N. Y. 135.

Locating or changing county seats.

Providing for changes of venue in civil or criminal cases. Incorporating villages.

But they may amend a village charter existing before this provision was adopted. Reed v. Schmit, 37 Hun, 223.

Providing for election of members of boards of supervisors.

An act providing for election of supervisors in four counties only is void. People v. Hoffman, 60 How. Pr. 324.

Selecting, drawing, summoning or impaneling grand or petit jurors.

Not applicable to an amendment simply transferring power of selection of petit jurors. People v. Petrea, 92 N. 128.

Regulating the rate of interest on money.

The opening and conducting of elections or designating places of voting.

ARTICLE III - Continued.

Creating, increasing or decreasing fees, percentage or allowances of public officers, during the term for which said officers are elected or appointed.

Not applicable to general bill increasing fees of sheriffs of Kings county; Kerrigan v. Force, 68 N. Y. 381; nor to New York city consolidation act; Ricketts v. Mayor, 67 How. Pr. 320; nor to regular salaried officers; Mangam v. City of Brooklyn, 98 N. Y. 585; nor to certain county treasurers; Supervisors of Seneca v. Allen, 99 id. 532. See Cole v. State, 101 id. 48.

Nor to act conferring exclusive jurisdiction in criminal matters upon police justices. People ex rel. Lynch v. Duffy, 49 Hun, 276.

Granting to any corporation, association or individual the right to lay down railroad tracks.

See Astor, v. Arcade R. Co., 113 N. Y. 93; Farnham v. Benedict, 107 id. 160.

An act anthorizing the construction of an "illustrative section" of elevated railway on a street in New York is invalid. People v. Loew, 102 N. Y. 471.

An act extending the expired time of a railroad is invalid. Matter of Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 75 N. Y. 335; Patten v. N. Y. El. R. Co., 3 Abb. 306.

But an act restricting and regulating an existing right is not within the prohibition. Gilbert El. Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 3 Abb. N. C. 434; People v. Long I. R. Co., 9 id. 181.

Granting to any private corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever.

See Syracuse Water Co. v. City of Syracuse, 26 State Rep'r, 374; Matter of Union Ferry Co., 98 N. Y. 139. The Legislature may regulate powers previously granted to a corporation. Matter of N. Y. El. Ry. Co., 70 N. Y. 327; Moran v. Long Island City, 101 id. 439.

Providing for building bridges, and chartering companies for such purposes, except on the Hudson river below Waterford, and on the East river, or over the waters forming a part of the boundaries of the State.

The Legislature shall pass general laws providing for the cases enumerated in this section, and for all other cases which in its judgment may be provided for by general laws. But no law shall authorize the construction or operation of a street railroad except upon the condition that the consent of the owners of one-half in value the prop

ARTICLE III - Continued.

erty bounded on, and the consent also of the local authorities having the control of that portion of a street or highway upon which it is proposed to construct or operate such railroad be first obtained, or in case the consent of such property-owners cannot be obtained, the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the district in which it is proposed to be constructed, may, upon application, appoint three commissioners who shall determine, after a hearing of all parties interested, whether such railroad ought to be constructed or operated, and their determination, confirmed by the court, may be taken in lieu of the consent of the property-owners.

See Matter of Union, etc., R. Co., 112 N. Y. 61; Matter of Met. R. Co., 111 id. 583; Matter of N. Y., etc., R. Co, 107 id. 42.

This provision as to highways applies only to public highways. People ex rel. Com'rs v. Banks, 67 N. Y. 568.

These provisions for consent of property owners do not apply to the city of New York. In re Gilbert El. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 361.

The Legislature may enact that a second railway shall not be constructed in a street until the consent of the first is obtained. In re Thirty-fourth street R. Co., 102 N. Y. 343.

Private claims not to be audited.

SEC. 19. The Legislature shall neither audit nor allow any private claim or account against the State, but may appropriate money to pay such claims as shall have been audited and allowed according to law.

See Code v. State, 102 N. Y. 48; O'Hara v. State, 112 id. 146.

Bill imposing a tax, manner of passing.

SEC. 20. Every law which imposes, continues or revives a tax shall distinctly state the tax and the object to which it is to be applied, and it shall not be sufficient to refer to any other law to fix such tax or object.

See Clark v. Sheldon, 106 N. Y. 104.

This section applies only to a generai tax upon all property of the State; it has no application to a local tax upon a particular section. Jones v. Chamberlain, 109 N. Y. 100.

A tax such as is provided by act of 1885. chap. 483 (collateral inheritance, etc.) may be constitutionally imposed. Matter of McPherson, 104 N. Y. 306; 58 Am. Rep. 306.

ARTICLE III- Continued.

A tax law must strictly conform to the constitutional requirements. People v. Supervisors of Kings, 52 N. Y. 556.

A tax law for a local purpose must state the tax. Hanlon v. Supervisors of Westchester, 57 Barb, 383.

This provision is satisfied by a provision in the tax bill that the money is to be paid into the treasury to the credit of the general fund. People ex rel. Burrows v. Supervisors of Orange, 17 N. Y. 235.

See People ex rel. Hopkins v. Board of Supervisors of Kings Co., 52 N. Y. 556.

It is sufficient if the maximum limit is stated. Hurlburt v. Banks, 1 Abb. N. C. 157.

This does not apply to acts merely modifying process of collection of a tax already imposed. People v. Supervisors, 36 Hun, 491.

Nor to acts enlarging the bounds of towns and villages. Pumpelly v. Owego, 45 How, Pr. 219. See People v. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 27 Hun, 188; People v. Home Ins. Co.. 92 N. Ý. 328; People v. N. Y. Floating Dry Dock Co., 11 Abb. N. C. 40.

SEC. 21. On the final passage, in either house of the Legislature, of any act which imposes, continues or revives a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, continues or revives any appropriation of public or trust money or property, or releases, discharges or commutes any claim or demand of the State, the question shall be taken by yeas and nays, which shall be duly entered upon the journals, and three-fifths of all the members elected to either house shall, in all such cases, be necessary to constitute a quorum therein.

A commutation by military service is not a tax within the meaning of this provision; this section refers to a general tax. People ex rel. Scott v. Supervisors of Chenango, 8 N. Y. 317.

Nor is the act compensating parties whose property may have been destroyed by mobs or riots. Darlington v. Mayor of N. Y., 31 N Y. 164, 185.

Board of Supervisors.

SEC. 22. There shall be in the several counties, except in cities whose boundaries are the same as those of the county, a board of supervisors, to be composed of such members, and elected in such manner, and for such period, as is or may be provided by law. In any such city the duties and powers of a board of supervisors may be devolved upon the common council or board of aldermen thereof.

« ПретходнаНастави »