VETO MESSAGES OF 1870.

To the Assembly:

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER,

1870. }

ALBANY, February 24, 1870.

I return, without my approval, Assembly bill entitled "An act authorizing the appointment of an assistant district attorney for Washington county."

The bill authorizes the district attorney of Washington county to appoint an assistant, who shall receive an annual salary, to be fixed by the board of supervisors, not exceeding five hundred dollars.

It seems to me that this is a matter which ought to be left to the county authorities, who are the proper, as they are the best judges of the necessity, if any, which exists for this additional office.

There is no pressing emergency which calls for this special enactment. Under existing laws, there can be no difficulty in providing for necessary assistance to the district attorney.

By the Revised Statutes (part 1, title 4, section 3) the Super visors are authorized to audit the bills of the district attorney for any expenses necessarily incurred by him in criminal cases. It can hardly be doubted that a proper sum for clerical or other assistance could be thus made a county charge.

For a temporary emergency requiring the services of an additional prosecuting officer the general laws also provide. Under the Revised Statutes (part 1, title 2, article 7, section 90) “when

ever any district attorney shall fail to attend" any court of oyer and terminer or general sessions, the court may appoint a person to discharge his duties during the sitting of the court; and for compensation to the person so appointed due provision is made.

The supervisors of every county have authority, under the general laws (chapter 304 of the Laws of 1852), to fix the salary of the district attorney at such sum as they may think proper, except that the salary as fixed at the time of the election of any district attorney cannot afterwards be increased during his term of office. If the necessity for an extra force in the district attorney's office in Washington county was apparent at the beginning of the term of the present incumbent, it is to be presumed the supervisors would have put the salary at a sum sufficient to enable him to pay out of it for the services of an assistant. If the necessity has only become apparent since the present incumbent came into office, it cannot be a very pressing one.

It is not claimed, so far as I can learn, that any great increase of criminal business has occurred within the county in that short period.

If an additional prosecuting officer be necessary in Washington county, it is probable that many other counties have the same need.

It is true there are several laws on the statute books like this one, each law applicable to only one county. They are comparatively unimportant, perhaps, but they all belong to a class of special laws which, in my judgment, ought to be discouraged and discontinued.

The boards of supervisors are the safest judges of what the public business, in their respective counties, require in this respect. If any thing needs to be done by the Legislature to attain

i

the object sought by this bill, it should be done by a general law authorizing every district attorney to appoint an assistant whenever the supervisors of his county deem it proper to sanction the appointment by providing the necessary salary.

The Legislature would thus be relieved from the consideration of special bills of this class.

JOHN T. HOFFMAN.

ALBANY, March 22, 1870.

To the Senate:

I return, without my approval, Senate bill No. 61, entitled "An act for the protection of the bridge over the Oswego river at Phoenix, between the town of Lysander, in the county of Onondaga, and the town of Schroeppel, in the county of Oswego."

The bill provides that it shall not be lawful for "any person to ride or drive faster than a walk in crossing the bridge "above named, and that the penalty for riding or driving at a faster pace shall be twenty-five dollars for each offence, to be sued for in the name of the commissioners of highways, one third of the penalty to go to the informer.

There is a general law on this subject (Revised Statutes, part 1, chapter 16, title 1, article 6, sections 122 and 123), which provides that the commissioners of highways "may put up at each end of any bridge maintained at the public charge, and the length of whose chord is not less than twenty-five feet," a notice "that there is one dollar fine for riding or driving on this bridge faster than a walk," and that whoever shall ride or drive upon any

such bridge at a faster pace shall forfeit one dollar for each offence.

The fine imposed by this law is, no doubt, too small; but, if it be too small to deter persons from injuring the bridge named in this bill, it is also too small to serve the purpose of protecting the other public bridges in the State. Considering how often and how easily this offence of immoderate driving upon a bridge may be committed in the rural portions of the State, without the chance of detection or with impunity, because no one will take the trouble to inform, it may be well to make the penalty larger, with the view of impressing the public with the magnitude of the offence, and so large that sufficient compensation can be afforded out of it to the informer.

The bridge, for the protection of which this special act is asked, is no doubt a valuable one; but there must be many other bridges quite as valuable which need the same degree of protection; and, in fact, all the bridges of the State, whether more or less valuable, are entitled equally to protection from injury. The application for this special act should, in my judgment, suggest the propriety of at once amending the general law, so as to save the necessity of future demands for special acts in other instances.

Whether the penalty of twenty-five dollars, named in this bill, be in proper proportion to the offence, is a question which I do not consider; but it seems very plain to me that to protect one bridge by a penalty of twenty-five dollars and all the others by an almost nominal fine of one dollar is to make a very partial and unjustifiable discrimination in extending the care of the State over this kind of public property. The offence is the same whether committed to the injury of one bridge or another. If under the present laws persons are not deterred from injuring

bridges by fast driving, because the penalty now affixed to the offence is too light, the obvious and comprehensive remedy is, it seems to me, not to provide for one case out of thousands, but to amend the general law by increasing the penalties in it provided, so that the good effects of the amendment may be felt in every part of the State.

If the Legislature should think proper to amend the general law, I respectfully suggest that the matter may wisely be devolved upon the local authorities within certain limits; that is to say, that empowering either boards of supervisors or commissioners of highways in their respective counties and towns to impose and sue for such fines for this offence as they may think fit, not exceeding a maximum sum, and empowering them to give to the informer a share of the fine, would meet all the needs of the present case, and at the same time provide for others that may hereafter occur.

I regret to differ from the Legislature, with regard to a bill of so little apparent importance; but I am satisfied that the sentiment of the people is wisely and overwhelmingly in favor of diminishing the tendency to a multiplicity of laws, which results in a great measure from just such bills as the one now before me, in which a defect in the general law is sought to be cured for the benefit of one limited locality, and not, as should be done, for the benefit of the whole State.

It is my plain duty to do what I can toward remedying this great evil of needlessly multiplying laws.

JOHN T. HOFFMAN.