1074 with the act hereby amended, or the amendments thereof, and it shall be the duty of the commissioner and mayors of cities so to provide in regulation made under said act that the Senate concur in the amendments of the Assembly, which adds section 9 to said act.” JOHN I. GILBERT, Senate Committee. JAMES W. HUSTED, GEORGE CLINTON, Assembly Committee. IN ASSEMBLY, May 15, 1884. Report of committee of conference agreed to. By order, CHARLES A. CHICKERING, Clerk. The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to said report of the committee of conference, and it was decided in the affirmative, a majority of all the Senators elected voting in favor thereof, and three-fifths being present, as follows: Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the Assembly, with a message that the Senate have concurred in the report of the committee of conference. The Assembly returned the bill entitled "An act to provide the means and making appropriations to pay the expenses of superintendence, ordinary repairs and maintenance of the canals for the fiscal year commencing on the first day of October, 1884," with a message that they had agreed to the report of the committee of conference thereon, as follows: To the Legislature: The undersigned, appointed by the Senate and Assembly as a committee of conference relative to the matters of difference arising between the two houses upon the Assembly entitled "An act to provide the means and making appropriations to pay the expenses of superintendence, ordinary repairs and maintenance of the canals for the fiscal year commencing on the first day of October, 1884," report that they have duly conferred upon said matters and agreed to recommend as follows (Senator Robinson dissenting): That the Assembly concur in the amendment made by the Senate to said bill, striking out on page 2, line 17, engrossed bill, the words "twenty-five" and inserting "fifteen," and that the Senate do recede from its amendment to said bill in striking out section 4 of the bill. GEORGE CLINTON, HENRY HEATH, JOSEPH JOYCE, M. WALRATH, JR., EDWARD W. MAHER, M. C. MURPHY, Senate Committee. Assembly Committee. IN ASSEMBLY, May 15, 1884. Report of committee of conference agreed to. By order, CHARLES A. CHICKERING, Clerk. The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the report of the committee of conference, and it was decided in the affirmative, a majority all the Senators elected voting in favor thereof, and three-fifths being present, as follows: Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the Assembly, with a message that the Senate have concurred in the report of the committee of conference. V A message was received from the Assembly in the words following: IN ASSEMBLY, May 16, 1884. Pursuant to a concurrent resolution of the Senate and Assembly, the Governor returned the bill entitled "An act establishing the lines of Mott avenue, in the county of Westchester." The vote upon the final passage of the said bill having been reconsidered, on motion of Mr. Clarke, and by unanimous consent, the same was amended as follows: Section 2, strike out all after the words "said avenue or place." And as amended, passed and ordered to be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order, CHARLES A. CHICKERING, Clerk. The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to reconsider the vote by which said bill was passed, and it was decided in the affirmative, a majority of all the Senators elected voting in favor thereof, as follows: The President then put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passage of said bill, as amended, and it was decided in the affirmative, a majority of all the Senators elected voting in favor thereof, and three-fifths being present, as follows: Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the Assembly, with a message that the Senate have concurred in the passage of the same, as amended. The President appointed Senator Baker as a member of the committee of conference on Senate bill No. 268, in place of Senator Arkell, absent on account of illness. Mr. Gilbert, from the committee on internal affairs, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "An act in relation to the improvement and sale of certain lands adjacent to the city of Brooklyn," reported in favor of the passage of the same, with amendments, which report was agreed to, and said bill committed to the committee of the whole. Mr. Titus moved that the committee on railroads be discharged from the further consideration of the Assembly bill entitled "An act in relation to the canals," and that the same be referred to the committee of the whole. The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to said motion, and it was decided in the negative, as follows: A message was received from the Governor in the words following: STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, To the Senate: ALBANY, May 16, 1884. I return, without approval, Senate bill No. 32, entitled "An act to provide compensation for the performance of the duties of captain of the port of New York and harbor masters of the port of New York since May 24, 1883." This bill directs the payment from the State treasury of the sum of $33,000, or so much as may be necessary to compensate Chester S. Cole and other parties therein named, who it is declared have acted as captain of the port of New York or harbor masters since May 24, 1883. By chapter 487 of the Laws of 1862, the statutes in relation to the captain of the port and harbor masters were revised, and a complete system for the government and regulation of these officers was adopted. The first declaration of that law is as follows: "The Governor shall appoint, by and with the consent of the Senate, an officer to be called captain of the port of New York, and to assist him, subordinate to his directions, eleven harbor masters." And it ends with this distinct provision: "All acts heretofore existing relating to the captain of the port or to harbor masters of the port of New York, are hereby repealed." The persons for whose benefit the bill before me has been prepared were all appointed since the passage of the law above referred to and pursuant to its provisions. Six of them were so appointed in May, 1882, and the remainder at various dates prior to that time, one of them having been made a harbor master in the year 1873. The fees which, by the law of 1862, these officers were declared entitled to charge and receive for their services, were in 1876 adjudged by the Supreme Court of the United States illegal. Notwithstanding this decision, the harbor masters continued to receive such fees under the guise of voluntary payments, until the year 1883. On the 4th day of May, in that year, the Legislature passed a law entitled "An act to provide for the appointment of a captain of the port of New York and harbor masters of the port of New York, and defining and regulating the powers, and duties, and compensation of said officers, and repealing chapter 487 of the Laws of 1862." This statute provides for the appointment of a captain of the port and eleven harbor masters by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate, who, instead of the illegal fees which they had theretofore collected, should be paid annual salaries by the State. This law contains all the provisions necessary to create an entirely new system, and its last section repealed the statute of 1862, above recited, and abolished the offices thereby created in the following terms: "Chapter 487 of the Laws of 1862, entitled 'An act defining and regulating the powers, duties and compensation of the captain of the port and harbor masters of the port of New York,' is hereby repealed, and the offices thereby created are abolished, and all acts or parts of acts which are inconsistent with this act, are hereby repealed." Thirty-three thousand dollars were appropriated by the terms of the law to pay the salaries of the captain of the port and harbor masters as therein fixed. As required by this statute, nominations to fill the offices thereby created were, on the 4th day of May, 1883, sent to the Senate, but the same were not confirmed by that body. It is claimed that notwithstanding the distinct legislation above recited and the repeal of the Law of 1862, that the persons appointed under the law thus repealed have continued to perform the duties attached to these offices; and the bill before me directs the payment to them of the money appropriated to pay the salaries provided for, by the act of 1883. It was my belief before that law was passed, that all the duties required of the captain of the port and harbor masters could be properly and efficiently performed under the supervision of the department of docks in the city of New York; and I am still of that opinion. But when the act of 1883 was presented to me, I had but the choice of allowing the old officers to remain, with no way of collecting compensation except by the exaction of illegal fees, or approve a bill providing for the abolition of the offices as then existing, and the appointment of new incumbents to be paid by the State. The latter course was adopted, and the law took effect, though by the refusal of the Senate to confirm, the new offices were not filled. In this condition of affairs the dock department, by virtue of the power vested in it by statutes then existing, undertook the performance of the duties which had theretofore been performed by the captain of the port and harbor masters. At a meeting of the dock commissioners held on the 9th day of May, 1883, five days after the nominees for harbor masters failed of confirmation, preliminary steps were taken to assume the proposed new duties. On the 11th day of May another meeting was held, which, upon the invitation of the dock department, was attended by representatives of the Produce Exchange, the Maritime Exchange, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade and Transportation, and two other Exchanges. At this meeting the subject seems to have been further considered, and on the 11th day of July the water front of the city was divided by the said dock commissioners into nine districts, and a dock master assigned to each district, at a salary of $1,500 per annum. This action was taken by the department, as declared in their resolutions passed creating such districts and appointing such dock masters, for the purpose, among other things, of "rendering necessary facilities for the prompt berthing of vessels" at the wharves; and'it was declared that the dock masters should "perform such duties and render such services in relation to the supervision, regulation and occupation of the wharf property and water front in their respective districts, as the laws of the United States and of the State of New York, the ordinances of the city of New York and the by-laws of this board and its rules or orders shall or may require, prescribe or direct." All this appears from the proceedings of the dock department duly certified and now in my possession. It has been represented to me from time to time since the first movement was made by the dock department in this direction, that the duties theretofore performed by the harbor masters were being performed by these dock masters, to the entire satisfaction of all interests affected. In response to several specific questions addressed to the dock department, I received in the month of November, 1883, a communication signed by the president of that department detailing the services performed by the dock masters in the matter of berthing vessels, and emphatically expressing the opinion that such duties could be satisfactorily performed under the direction of said department without expense to the State or taxing the commerce of the port. I was furnished in the month of January, 1884, with copies of the reports of the several dock masters to the commissioners. If these are to be relied on, they establish the fact that nearly all the berthing of vessels since July, 1883, has been done by such dock masters. I herewith transmit to the Senate copies of these documents. An examination of the testimony taken by the committee of the Senate which investigated these matters develops the fact that both the former harbor masters and the dock masters claim to have performed the duties appertaining to the office of harbor masters. In point of fact, all who are acquainted with the condition of things in the port of New York are aware that there is but little for anybody to do in the way of berthing vessels. There is one important difference between these two classes of persons who claim to have performed these duties. |