The Clerk will read the next amendment. The Secretary - No. 830, by the Committee on Cities. To amend Article VII of the Constitution generally, in relation to cities and villages and their powers of self-government. The President - The amendment is open for debate under the rule. Mr. Low - Mr. President. The President - Mr. Low. Mr. Low - I move the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Tuck - Mr. President. The President - Mr. Tuck. Mr. Tuck - I desire to suggest an amendment on page 6, line 22, after the word "to" insert the word "boundaries". This, Mr. President, is done for the purpose of making it certain that the powers of changing the boundaries of a city, that is, by annexation or otherwise, will be a special city law, within the meaning of the section. The Secretary - By Mr. Tuck, on page 6, line 22, after the word "to" insert the word "boundaries". The President - Mr. Tuck moves to recommit the bill with instructions to amend by inserting the word "boundaries" after the word "to" in line 22, page 6, and to report forthwith. Mr. Low - Mr. President, I am inclined to accept that. The President - All in favor of the motion will say Aye, contrary No. Motion agreed to. Mr. Franchot - Mr. President. The President - Mr. Franchot. Mr. Franchot-I offer the following amendments. I make the usual motion to recommit and to report forthwith. The President - The Clerk will read the amendment. The Secretary - By Mr. Franchot. Page 3, line 16, after the word "may" insert "adopt and revise a charter or'". Page 4, line 23, after the word "charter" insert "after one revision thereof'". Page 7, line 6, enclose the word "such" in brackets and insert after such brackets in italics the word "each". After the word "city" insert in italics the words "to which it relates". Mr. Latson - Mr. President, may that be read once more, please? Mr. Stimson - Mr. President, I suggest that it be read more slowly. Mr. Barnes - Mr. President, I rise to a question of information. Do I understand, if this bill is amended, it cannot be voted on to-night? The President - It cannot. The Secretary - Page 3, line 16, after the word "may" insert "adopt and revise a charter or". Page 4, line 23, after the word "charter" insert "after one revision thereof'". Page 7, line 6, enclose the word "such" in bracketts and insert after such brackets in italics the word "each". After the word "city" insert in italics the words "to which it relates". Mr. Low - Mr. President, I am willing to accept all of those amendments. Mr. A. E. Smith - Mr. President. Mr. Franchot Mr. President. The President - Perhaps it would be better if we should take a vote on the amendments that have been accepted by Mr. Low. All in favor of recommitting with instructions to amend as read by the Secretary will say Aye, contrary No. The motion is agreed to. Mr. Steinbrink - Mr. President. The President - There is still another amendment proposed by Mr. Franchot. The Secretary - Page 6, line 24, after the word "and" and before the word "the" insert the words "in relation to". Mr. Franchot - Mr. President, that amendment is offered solely for the purpose of improving the language of the amendment and incidentally to clear up any uncertainty that might exist as to whether the words "the government of cities in matters of state concern", etc., are governed by the word "involving" or the words "in relation to'". Mr. Low - I accept the amendment, Mr. President. The President All in favor will say Ave, contrary No. It is agreed to. The Secretary - On page 6, line 25, after the word "and", insert the word "not". Strike out the word "less " and insert in place thereof the word "all". Mr. Franchot - Mr. President, that is suggested for much the same reason. Manifestly, if the law does not apply to all cities of the State, a classification or distinction is made, between cities of the State. It does not apply to "less" without classification or distinction, because the very fact that it applies to "less" means the classification and distinction in the State. Mr. Wickersham May the Secretary read the last amendment? That very last amendment? The President - The Secretary will read the amendment. The Secretary - Page 6, line 25, after the word " and " insert the word "not". Strike out the word "less" and insert in place thereof the word "all". Mr. Franchot - There is an error in the proposed amendment. It should be to strike out the words "less than" so that the line will read " and not applying to all the cities of the State without classification or distinction ". Mr. Franchot - There is no insertion of the word "all" that should be striken out. Mr. Low - I think we prefer to stand on the language of the bill, Mr. President. Mr. Franchot - Well, Mr. President, if a law applies to less than all the cities of the State, it must necessarily contain within a classification or distinction between the cities. The use of the words "without classification or distinction" after the language here employed, is a very different thing from its use in section 3 on page 2, line 24. The President All those in favor of the motion say Aye, contrary No. The motion is lost. Mr. Steinbrink - Mr. President. The President Mr. Steinbrink. Mr. Steinbrink - Mr. President, I offer this amendment. The President The Secretary will read the amendment. The Secretary - By Mr. Steinbrink. Page 3, line 6, after the word Mr. Steinbrink Mr. President, I offer this amendment, and then I shall briefly explain both. The President - The Secretary will read the amendment. The Secretary - Page 3, line 6, after the word police " insert subject to cities of the first class to court review ". The President In substitution for this? Mr. Steinbrink I have offered both, Mr. President, with this in mind. When this matter was discussed by the Committee of the Whole the suggestion was made to me after the discussion, that, while this amendment might be very appropriate in cities of the first class, there might be cities in the State where this was not desirable. Now, if that is so, then the second amendment would certainly meet with no objection. The first amendment that I have offered leaves it free to this Convention to grant to police in all cities, if renewed, court review, and if that is not desired in all cities of the State, then the second amendments, which limits court review in cities of the first class, should certainly prevail. Now in the city of New York to-day there are eleven thousand, I am informed, eleven thousand men on the uniformed force. Repeatedly efforts have been made to place in the hands of one man the power to remove these men without court review. Now, that attempt will be made again and again and again until it is successful and it is for that reason that I believe it to be desirable to write into this Constitution, into this section with reference to cities, wherein we have the grant of power, the so-called home rule provision, to write into it once for all the constitutional provision that these men cannot be stripped of their places without the right to court review, and I ask you, gentlemen, that if you do not want this throughout the State, through all the cities, then at least it should be granted in the city of New York where we have had from time to time difficulties, and the power should not be left in any one man to make a political body of the police force by putting it in his powers to strip them of their places for the most trivial infractions of the rules. And it won't do for us to say that these things do not occur, because in the past 48 hours I have had occasion to examine some of the decisions and Judge Scott of the Appellate Division in a strong dessenting opinion says, "but even a delinquent policeman has some rights which may not be arbitrarily and unreasonably denied him" and in this case there was a reversal of the police commissioner's findings. And Justice Clark says in one of his opinions "but it is as important to the discipline and morals of the force to protect an officer against dismissal on frivolous charges, to see that he has fair play and just treatment, as it is to sustain the department when he is shown to be really guilty of insubordination, dereliction of duty, infraction of rules or other conduct in violation of good order and discipline." And the courts in the first and second departments have never hesitated to sustain the police commissioner when there has been real evidence of wrong doing, but on the other hand they have been compelled time and time again to reverse the findings of the police commissioner who attempted to strip a man of his place for the most trival infraction of rules, and it is as against this that I have offered this amendment. Mr. Winslow Mr. President, I desire to move an amendment to Mr. Steinbrink's amendment so that it shall read "cities of the first and second class". The arguments made by Mr. Steinbrink are good in relation to cities of the first class and they are equally as good arguments for cities of the second class, and concerning New York, I certainly believe that the policemen of the larger cities should be protected from illegal interference. In all of the cities of the first and second class are pension systems and the policemen pay a portion of their earnings into this pension fund and there are many occasions on the records of the courts where efforts have been made to remove policemen for purely political reasons, and as Mr. Steinbrink has well said, the courts are always ready to sustain the commissioners, when police officers have been removed for sufficient cause. I believe it is only just that policemen of cities of the second class, as well as of the first class should be protected from political interference. I therefore move the amendment as offered and that the amendment be referred to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions to report forthwith as amended. The President Will the gentleman send his amendment to the desk? Mr. Wiggins - Mr. President, the argument advanced by Mr. Steinbrink, seems to me to be very sound. Under ordinary circumstances one would rightly say that this was a legislative matter; but in order that the Convention may understand it, it is necessary to read this provision of the Constitution by which we see that we give to municipalities the right to regulate, among other things, the terms and even the compensation and method of removal of all city employees. Now, when you write into the Constitution the words "method of removal" of employees that takes it entirely away from the Legislature and the city is then vested with entire control over the employees of the city. They may do this, they may pass some amendment to the city charter which would be very harsh indeed. As Mr. Steinbrink said, they can turn a man from the police force for slight fractions of the rules and I can conceive it entirely possible that a man might attempt to turn over the entire police force of a large city for his own political uses. It seems to me to be an outrage that we should in this constitutional article give to the cities the very right which they attempted to get last year in New York and which the Legislature denied to them. Mayor Mitchel came up here and wanted to take away from the Legislature the right to regulate this in any manner and that they should give it up entirely. He wanted to become the czar of the police department, and the men here said no, these men have some vested rights which should be protected and preserved. They have been contributing to this pension fund and they have done SO justly and in good faith, with the thought when they had discharged their duty that they would be beneficiaries under it, and now for some slight infraction, it may be provided that the police commissioner may bring them up on charges, cut them off without any benefit at all. It seems to me that the men in these large cities ought to be protected. Those are the things that this Constitution is drafted for, to protect the minority from the majority, and if that is to be done, it ought to be done in the city, and these men should have the Constitution place them in a position where they would not be subject to this arbitrary removal by the Mayor. Mr. Barnes - Mr. President. The President - Mr. Barnes. Mr. Barnes - I have no particular desire to get into the discussion of this subject, but by the argument made by Mr. Wiggins in regard to the protection of the minority from the majority, a great principle, affecting the life of each person as a person, has now been converted by him into an argument for the protection of a policeman. I must confess that I cannot follow any such reasoning. I must confess to a sense of regret that this Convention has adopted so much legislation which should have been left to the Legislature, and has failed to take some of the responsibilities which it seemed to me should belong to it and taken away from the Legislature. But the proposal made by Mr. Steinbrink seems to me to be so utterly vicious, so absolutely unwarranted by our own scheme and theme of government, as I understand it, involving again the proposal that the bestowal of a power involves its abuse that doctrine I cannot understand and I don't know what it means. The Legislature can, of course, maintain the present status if it desires. The people of the State through their Legislature can take it away, but to attempt to write it in the basic law of the State, the principle which Mr. Steinbrink advanced here, it seems to me to be perfectly absurd, and as I said before vicious. Mr. A. E. Smith Mr. President. The President - Mr. A. E. Smith. Mr. A. E. Smith - The remark of the distinguished gentleman from Albany who has just taken his seat indicates what an entire lack of understanding there is of this question of proper protection to policemen. This is not a new question in this chamber. It is not being debated to-night for the first time. It goes back to the very first charter given to New York, and to every attempted revision of that charter from the days of the Hughes Commission down to the session of 1914. This question has been discussed in this very room and the Senate. Now, we must be able. Mr. Barnes - That is where it ought to be discussed. Mr. Smith - What? Mr. Barnes - That is where it ought to be discussed. Mr. Smith Well, we must be able to differentiate between the employee of a municipality and that agent of the municipality which is performing a State function. The function of the police in the city is not altogether a municipal duty. It is a State function, and the municipality is acting simply as the agent of the State, and it has been accepted and adopted as a matter of clear State policy that we are to give protection to the men that do that kind of work from removal by superiors. I cannot make this too strong. It was for the purpose of taking them out of politics that we guaranteed them this right to their place while they performed their duty. This court review was for the express purpose of taking them away from the influence of local politics. Let us get down to the situation clear and plain. If a policeman should arrest a saloon keeper for violation of the excise law, and in a couple of months that saloon keeper would have it in his power to call at headquarters and have him jacked up and dragged in before the commissioner |