ject of conservation. We have attempted to present here a plan which would secure the very objects which my friend here says ought to be obtained. For twenty years after the last Constitution was adopted, as I took occasion to say when this proposal was originally presented; the Legislature failed in the duty which it owed to the people of this State in fixing a policy which should be lived up to. The purpose of this Committee in dealing with this question was to carry on a consistent policy, which could only be done by having a commission which should not be constantly changed. We have had a change in the last year from a commission of three to a commission of one. We have had commissions of one, of three and of five; and the purpose of the Committee, on full consideration, having in view the immense work which is under the jurisdiction of a commission of this character, decided on this form of commission.

All that can be said against it is that Mr. Smith has now, at the last moment, differed with the Committee as to the form in which they should carry on their work. I submit that the Committee, having had the advantage not only of the views of Mr. Smith, because certain gentlemen presented that side-perhaps with not as much ability or force, but their very best opinion, as best they could- and those were given consideration by the Committee. The proposal submitted here, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to go over again, presents a fixed and definite policy and imposes no limitation upon the Legislature, and is intended to carry out a consistent policy which was never presented, until the last few years, by legislative action. It ought to be placed in a position where the natural resources of this State under a consistent policy could be developed and preserved for the benefit of the State.

I hope that this eleventh hour and belated suggestion, with respect merely to the waterways, will not be accepted, thereby throwing down what has been the labor of months to build up here-a commission and a manner of protecting the interests of this State which will result, if carried out, as I have no doubt it will, honestly and intelligently to the advantage of all the people of this State, not only in a single way, but in the forest and game laws of the State.

I have not time within my limits to answer the other objections that have come from the fish and game men; but let me say with respect to them, because we have all been inundated with communications from some of the fish and game clubs, that their objections is that they want to keep alive the same argument that has been made here for the code which we have prepared with so much care during the last fifteen years. There is no desire to interfere with that. The code on these subjects has been obtained after a hard struggle. The commission must necessarily be in sympathy with it. It is within the power of the Legislature, if the commission attempts in any way to interfere with the provisions of that codification, to enact laws here which will annul the action of the Conservation Commission.

Mr. A. E. Smith Mr. President, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. A. E. Smith - Would there be any objection to inserting in it the eligibility clause which is in the present law?

Mr. M. J. O'Brien - None whatever. I have no objection to anything that will strengthen it. I have not the slightest objection if it can be done without endangering the bill.

Mr. A. E. Smith-Then, Mr. President, I move to recommit the bill to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to report it forthwith amended as follows:

After the word "district on line 4 of page 2, insert the following: "No person shall be eligible to or shall continue to hold the office of commissioner who is engaged in the business of lumbering in any forest preserve county, or who is engaged in any business in the transaction of which hydraulic power is used, or in which water power is distributed or sold under any public franchise or who is an officer or holder of the stock or bonds of any corporation engaged in such business within the State."

Mr. M. J. O'Brien - Mr. President, I am not chairman of the committee. I am only speaking for myself as a member of that committee. I should be very glad, if it will not delay the bill, to have that incorporated in the bill. Mr. Dow - Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. A. E. Smith - Mr. Chairman, one minute. Will there be any objection -I would like to ask the Chairman if there would be any objection to this amendment. On page 2 of the bill, beginning at line 7, where you seek to set forth the duties of the commission, would there be any objection to incorporating in that that part of the language of Chapter 569 of the Laws of 1907, which would say that part of the duty of the commission of nine is to devise plans for the progressive development of the water powers of the State for the public use under State ownership and control.

Mr. Marshall—No, we cannot accept that amendment. That is making an act of the Legislature a constitutional provision and it certainly should not be done.

Mr. A. E. Smith—Ah, I know, but you are doing too much legislating, Mr. President, with this already. There should be no powers and duties defined in this Constitution for any commission, especially a question like the conservation question, in this State. Now, you started to legislate and that is what I want to do. You are legislating duties in here, and you are legislating them in a way which I think is not sufficiently clearly defined for me, for the "development and protection of the natural resources of the state". That means nothing.

I offer the second amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman The gentleman will send his amendment to the desk.

While Mr. Smith is preparing his amendment is there any debate on the bill?

Mr. Whipple - Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Whipple.

Mr. Whipple-A question of information. Just where are we at now, Mr. President?

The President The Conservation amendment is being debated, under the rule, and there is now half an hour remaining for debate.

Mr. Whipple-Will it be in order, Mr. President, at this time, to make

a motion in relation to any portion of the bill?

The President - Yes, but if a Proposed Amendment, the amendment which is being reduced to writing by Mr. Smith will have precedence.

Mr. Whipple-Certainly, but while he is writing, I can make a motion? The President

Yes.

Mr. Whipple-Mr. President, prematurely this morning I made a motion to recommit and strike out Section 6 of this bill. I thought that I was in order because we were in the order of motions and resolutions, and this I thought then was a subject under that order. It was decided it was not, and, therefore, I want to renew that motion now, and I want to renew the motion because in that respect, at least, I agree with Mr. Smith, that the Committee has legislated too much altogether, because it has put in this Section 6 whereby it proposes, by this Constitution, to reward a whole lot of people who have violated the Constitution now in force by taking our property without leave or license, and if this Section 6 remains as in this bill, and I hope you will make no mistake about that, in practice in effect, as a final result under the Commission's action, based upon all experience, you are handing over to these people at least one million dollars worth of your property, free gratis, that they will hold and occupy as against all other people, the choicest places in the choicest scenic section of our country. Lake George and the beautiful places surrounding the lake, and you will put into this Constitution the principles of rewarding offenses against the present Constitution and there is no getting away from it.

It is a thing that should not be done by thoughtful men who have a conscience. It is a thing which, if it remains in this bill will prevent me from voting for any of the bill. There is no principle in justice, in common sense, in right, in equity, that can for a moment be urged in support of the proposition of that sixth section; and if you understand, and if you are not led astray by the specious plea that it is to take care of some old man or some old woman, you won't consider it for a moment.

The story about that has not been half told. There are about 700 people, not one per cent. of whom should have applied to them the specious argument set forth here, and to urge that for the special benefit of the other 99 per cent., would be, to say the least, an outrage. You have refused the right of any other citizen of the ten million in this State to have any interest in this land, which is theirs, and yet by this section, you give to these people who have taken it by force the grounds they occupy to the extent of ten acres.

How can you justify that I do not care what reason, any person advances why it should be done. There is no reason that justifies a wrong. There is no reason that will justify an honest man in putting in a Constitution an approval of a wrong and hand over a million dollars worth of the State's property to people who have been before handed enough to take it by force.

There may be an isolated case; there are a few where that is not true. I know of an island in Lake George where a man went there by authority issued twenty-five years ago, but ever since 1895, he has been occupying illegally the land which he ought to have gotten off. This would justify that occupation of property that you could get fifty thousand dollars for in a minute and he is having it free and holding it as against all the people, who visit Lake George. That is only one out of hundreds of cases.

I move to recommit this bill to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to strike out Section 6 and to report forthwith for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. Westwood - Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Westwood.

Mr. Westwood-I desire to be heard for a moment on Mr. Whipple's motion, if it is now in order?

Mr. Westwood - The proposition of Mr. Whipple is directed to section 6 which permits the issuance to certain classes of individuals of leases within the Adirondack forest preserve.

I wonder if the members of this Convention distinctly understand what it is by the insertion of this section proposed to do?

Let me read a word or two from section 2, at the bottom of the second page, which is the language of the present Constitution and which it is proposed to continue in the revised Constitution: "Lands of the State constituting the forest preserve shall not be leased, sold or exchanged " and yet, in section 6 it is provided that the department on payment of just compensation may issue to certain classes of individuals non-transferable licenses."

66

This, Mr. President, is the most flagrant illustration of the granting of special privilege which has come before this Convention at any point of its deliberations. We have heard the general proposition of special privilege argued during the memorable debate upon Mr. Barnes' measure. We have heard special privileges in particular instances argued in respect to judges' pensions and matters of like import, but we have had to wait until now to be confronted with the most flagrant imaginable case of special privilege which it is proposed by members of this Convention to read into the fundamental law of this State.

But why is it so palpably a case of special privilege? Judge Clearwater may not have a lease; I may not, none of the members of this Convention may have a lease to any part of the forest preserve, the great public park. Nobody outside of the few counties which go to give the land for the forest preserve may have this special privilege. It is confined to those few persons who can meet certain particular requirements, first: They must have been occupants of and continuous residents throughout the year of the lands; they must have actually occupied the land since a given date six years ago, and they must have improved the property which they seek to lease by the erection of permanent buildings thereon.

It would almost seem that this was especially drawn to cover the case of some particular individual — I use the noun in the singular - rather than any special class that were entitled to something by the Constitution makers of this State. In order to justify it, in order to justify any such scheme which reflects a palpable case of special privilege, there must be strong reason to justify the singling out of so small a class for the giving to them of the privilege.

Now, I am told that this is for the purpose of reaching cases of people who have lived there a great many years, but I have in my hand a list of so-called squatters, a list of occupants which I have been over with a great deal of care, supplied by the Conservation Commission, and I there find an almost insignificantly small number of residents, people whose homes are

there. The proposition is drawn wide enough to cover hotels that have been occupied.

Mr. President, we should not in the Constitution write a clause which will grant a special privilege and a special special privilege to those who occupy in derogation of the State's right.

Mr. Austin - Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Austin.

Mr. Austin - In spite of the fact that the delegate, Mr. Whipple, says no man with a conscience can support this section, I ask you with all the earnestness that I have within me to support the report of the committee upon this section and to support the report of the Committee of the Whole after the first discussion on the subject.

This takes care of no rich camper on Lake George, gentlemen. It does not affect a single island there. It takes care, in spite of the slur of Commissioner Whipple, when he says be not misled by the proposition that this takes care of any poor man that is just whom it does take care of, and I say to you after months which I spent in the investigation of matters of this kind, after personally interviewing and taking the testimony of nearly seventy per cent. of all the occupants upon State lands in the Adirondacks, I say to you, that a large percentage of the people affected by this amendment are so poor that if you put them off they will have to be sent to the poor house; and the man who now moves to strike this from the Constitution, why didn't he put those people off when he was commissioner? Of course, he can ask me the same question, why didn't I, and I will respond Mr. Whipple-Will the delegate yield?

Mr. Austin-No, I do not wish to yield. - exactly as he responded: that he did not dare because those people, most of them, gentlemen, went into the forests, or many of them, years and years and years ago when there was not any such thing as a title to Adirondack land that amounted to anything and they have just as firmly in their souls the conviction that they have the right to be there and to the lands there, as we have the conviction in our souls that we have the right to be here in this Convention. And I assure you - the right and the wrong I do not defend the attitude but I tell you just as sure as those people are removed from the Adirondack lands millions of dollars' worth of land will be burnt over by fires which will be willfully set by those people.

Mr. Brackett Mr. President, does the gentleman think it is consistent with the dignity of the great State of New York that it should be afraid to do what is right in fear of lawlessness? Now, really and truly?

Mr. Austin - I say this, Mr. President, that the State of New York should not be afraid to do what is right, and what is right is not always exactly what is law or legal. I admit that the theory may be entirely against this proposition; but, gentlemen, all the argument of equity is on the side of leaving these people where they are, if the Conservation Commission decides in a particular case that their claim is meritorious. It has all been threshed out. You have heard it fought out in this Committee and it was fought out in the Conservation Committee. It originally stood sixteen to one against it, and when they heard the circumstances the vote stood about sixteen to one for it, and I beg the members of this Convention to stand by the report of