The dock masters were directed to perform them, and the harbor masters knew they had no right after the 24th day of May, 1883, to interfere with them.

That the law of 1862 repealed all former laws on the subject of the appointment and compensation of harbor masters is entirely certain, if the English language means any thing, and if these harbor masters did not hold office under that law, they were not officers.

And it is just as certain that the law of 1883 repealed the law of 1862, and abolished the offices thereby created.

This is the only meaning that can be given to the language of these statutes.

And if there had been no express words to that effect in these laws, the result would have been the same; for it is a well-settled rule in the construction of statutes, laid down by the highest court of the State, that "where a later statute, not purporting to amend a former one, covers the same subject, and was plainly intended to furnish the only law upon the subject, the former statute must be held repealed by necessary implication." This language is quoted from the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the case of Heckmann agt. Pinckney, reported in Vol. 81 of the New York Reports, at page 211.

These harbor masters were not taken by surprise by the passage of the act of 1883, as every member of the last Legislature is well aware. They knew its effect and the intention of the Legislature in its enactment. And it may be safely asserted, I think, that they were not mere idle spectators of the passage of the law, or the proceedings that led to the failure of the attempt to fill the offices thereby created.

In June, 1883, a month after the passage of the law of that year, the captain of the port, in a suit brought by him in behalf of the harbor masters for a penalty, applied to the court for leave to discontinue the action upon the ground that, by that very law, the offices held by him and his associates had been abolished. And for that reason and no other, the court granted the application, and decided in the plainest terms. that these officers were appointed under the law of 1862, and that on May 4, 1883, the act under which the plaintiff and his associates derived their authority was repealed, and the offices created by the said act were abolished."

The decision of the court on this application, and the opinion giving the reasons therefor, are reported in Howard's Practice Reports, Vol. 65, at page 520.

It is only when they seek to obtain the money which was appropriated for those who it was intended should succeed them, that they take the opposite ground and put forth the attenuated pretext that they remained in office and performed services in the employ of the State. If it be true that their terms ended when the law of 1883 took effect, and that the dock masters were duly designated to perform their duties, it follows that the harbor masters after that date were not employees of the State; and in performing or attempting to perform such duties, they were not even volunteers, but usurpers.

No one claims that these persons were acting under the law of 1883. On the contrary, they insist that they were acting under some previous statute which the law of 1883 did not repeal. There was no salary attached to the office prior to the last-named act, and no fixed measure of compensation; and it is quite clear that the only person entitled to the salary provided in that statute are those holding office under it.

But the bill under consideration provides that the parties named shall be paid for the period between the 24th day of May, 1883, when the law of that year took effect and the day that this bill shall become a law at the rate of the annual salaries provided by the law of 1883.

This determination by the Legislature of the amount due these persons for their services is, beyond all question, a violation of section 19 of article 3 of the Constitution, which is in the following words:

"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."

And on the theory that these persons are in office under a law passed prior to that of 1883, and to which no salary was attached, I am of the opinion that this bill is obnoxious to the provisions of the Constitution which prohibits the passage of any private or local bill "creating, increasing or decreasing fees, percentage or allowances of public officers during the time for which said officers are elected or appointed," as well as another provision that declares the Legislature shall not "grant any extra compensation to any public officer, servant, agent or contractor."

No pretense is made that the persons named in this bill performed services for the State blindly, or in the expectation of compensation under the law of 1883, which abolished their offices. A representative of theirs was early informed by at least one of the officers of the State, that such a thing could not be anticipated; and the Attorney-General was at hand to advise them of their legal rights.

It may further be here suggested, that if a claim exists against the State in favor of these parties, upon any theory or within any rule of law or right, a tribunal has been established for its ascertainment and adjudication, the doors of which is open to every citizen.

The people have an interest in the determination of the question whether their representatives in the Legislature have the power to dispense with the services of its appointed servants when no longer needed; and whether the sum of nearly or quite $33,000 shall be paid by the tax payers of the State, upon claims, if not fictitious, greatly exaggerated, and in behalf of parties, who, in defiance of express legislation, and against the protest of the State, have chosen to regard themselves still in the public service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

Mr. Fassett moved that said message be laid upon the table.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to said motion, and it was decided in the affirmative.

The Assembly bill entitled "An act to lay out and establish a permanent exterior street along a portion of the East river in the city of New York, and to alter the map or plan of the city of New York to conform thereto," was read the third time.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passage of said bill, 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. The Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the city of Cohoes,' passed May 19, 1869, and other acts amendatory of the same," was read the third time.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passage of said bill, 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. The Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend chapter 675 of the Laws of 1881, entitled 'An act to facilitate the payment of school taxes by railroad companies,' and the acts amendatory thereof," was read the third time.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passage of said bill, and it was decided in the affirmative, a majority of all the Senators elected voting in favor thereof, and threefifths 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. The Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act concerning pawnbrokers,"" was read the third time.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passage of said bill, 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. The Assembly bill entitled "An act for the relief of Isaac Piser," was read the third time.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passage of said bill, 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. The Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend the Code of Civil Procedure" (Int. No. 498), was read the third time.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passage of said bill, 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. The Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend chapter 367 of the Laws of 1882, entitled 'An act to restrict the formation of companies under chapter 309 of the Laws of 1848, entitled An act to provide for the incorporation of benevolent, charitable, scientific and missionary societies, and the acts amendatory thereof and to legalize the incorporation of certain societies organized thereunder and to regulate the same," having been announced for a third reading,

On motion of Mr. Lansing, and by unanimous consent, said bill was amended as follows:

Add the following as section 2 :

"§ 2. All degrees heretofore and hereafter conferred by any veterinary college in this State are declared valid."

Said bill, as amended, was then read the third time.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the final passage of said bill, 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, with an amendment.

The Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend chapter 367 of the Laws of 1882, entitled 'An act to restrict the formation of corporations under chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848, entitled An act to provide for the incorporation of benevolent, charitable, scientific and missionary societies,' and the acts amendatory thereof, and to legalize the incorporation of certain societies organized thereunder, and to regulate the same," having been announced for a third reading,

Mr. Daly moved to recommit said bill to the committee on miscellaneous corporations, with instructions to strike out the enacting clause.

After debate, said bill was laid aside.

The Assembly returned the bill entitled "An act to amend the Code of Civil Procedure," with the following amendment:

Section 1, line 5, engrossed bill, strike out the words "service of summons upon a corporation or association."

The President put the question whether the Senate would concur in said amendment, 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 their amendment.

The Assembly returned Senate bill entitled "An act to abolish imprisonment on final judgment in civil actions," with a message that they had passed the same with the following amendments:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: "SECTION 1. No person shall be actually imprisoned in a civil action for a period exceeding two years, and at the end of such time his body shall be discharged from from execution and no further execution against his body shall issue on the same judgment, but such discharge from execution shall not operate as a satisfaction of the judgment or to prohibit the issuing of a property execution thereon.

66

§ 2. This act shall apply to all persons imprisoned before as well as after the passage of this act.

66

"§ 3. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.

"84. This act shall take effect immediately."