I return herewith, without my approval, Senate bill No. 188, entitled

66

'An act to permit the electors of the towns of Vernon and New Hartford, in the county of Oneida, to vote upon the proposition to make the charge of fifteen per centum of cost of roads already improved in said towns, under chapter one hundred and fifteen of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, a town charge instead of a charge upon abutting owners.”

If provision is to be made to relieve abutting owners from the charge of 15 per cent. of the cost of improved highways, to which they have been subjected under chapter 115 of the Laws of 1898 (prior to its amendment by chapter 468 of the Laws of 1906), the result should be accomplished by a general law applicable to all towns in like case. It is inadvisable, in my judgment, to open the door to special legislation of the sort exemplified by this bill. The State should have a general policy either to decline to interfere with the charge already laid upon the abutting owners, or to provide for their relief by an appropriate statute general in its application.

(Signed)

CHARLES E. HUGHES

In Relation to the Claim of Robert E. Jones Against the City of New York

I herewith return, without my approval, Senate bill No. 366, entitled

"An act to provide for the payment of the claim of Robert E. Jones for furnishing work, labor, services and materials in the repair of the fire alarm system in the fifth ward of the borough of Queens in the city. of New York."

Its purpose is to empower the board of estimate and apportionment of the city of New York to inquire into the facts relating to the justice of a claim against the city and to provide for payment for services and materials actually furnished and delivered to the city, although a strictly legal obligation may not have been incurred.

Undoubtedly there are many equitable claims against the city which by reason of some technicality cannot be enforced under the present law. That, however, is no reason why it should be necessary for the Legislature to pass a special act with reference to each one of such claims in order that the

local authorities should have power to pass upon it. A number of bills of this sort, each relating to a single claim, have reached me, and others are pending in the Legislature. It is an example of special legislation which is wholly unnecessary. It is a simple matter to give the board of estimate and apportionment of the city of New York, by a general bill, the necessary power to deal with the equities of any claim where the city has actually received the benefit of services or property. In other words, instead of conferring the power in individual cases and filling the statute books with unnecessary acts, the power should be conferred by an appropriate amendment of the charter.

(Signed)

CHARLES E. HUGHES

I herewith return, without my approval, Assembly bill No. 818 (Senate reprint No. 1026), entitled

"An act to provide for the erection and furnishing. of a new court house in the city of Hudson for the use of the county of Columbia, and to provide means to defray the expense thereof, and to sell or dispose of the ruins of the former court house situate in Hudson."

The object of this bill is to take from the board of supervisors of Columbia county the power vested in it by the County Law to build a new county court house, and to place this power with a commission named by the Legislature. The exceptional circumstances which would warrant such a departure from correct principle do not appear to exist. Public sentiment, instead of demanding it, opposes it. The people of the county, whose money is to be expended in the erection of the new court house, have indicated that they desire that its construction should be in charge of their duly elected representatives.

The building of a new court house is undoubtedly an important event, and it is fitting that there should be concern lest the work should be carried on improperly, and lest that which should be a monument of the public spirit and good judgment of the county should memorialize ignorance and extravagance. The movement which culminated in the introduction and passage of this bill had its inception with members of the bar and derived its force from the fear that the interests of the people would not be safeguarded by the board of supervisors, and that the serious errors which had been committed in connection with the building of the court house recently destroyed might be repeated.

The present board of supervisors is not responsible for the action of a prior board, and is apparently alive to its duty and is proceeding with competent assistance in the direction of the work committed to it by law. It has been shown to me by evidence, which in the absence of suitable contradiction must be accepted, that the people of the county have confidence in the present board, and there is no apparent ground upon which this matter, which normally belongs with the board of supervisors, should be taken, against the wishes of their constituents, out of their hands.

I herewith return, without my approval, Assembly bill No. 1122, entitled

"An act in relation to employees in the Queens county jail, and fixing their compensation."

The bill authorizes the sheriff of Queens county to appoint three additional keepers and two deputy wardens for the county jail. It also fixes the salaries of these and the other employees in the jail. As to the necessity of increasing the force in the jail and as to the propriety of the proposed salaries I make no comment.

I disapprove the bill because I regard it as important that matters of this sort should be placed in the control of the appropriate local authorities. A large number of bills have been introduced providing for new positions and increases of salaries in various local offices of political subdivisions of the

State, and I am convinced that the policy should be established of giving to the local authorities adéquate power to deal with such matters. Whether there should be an additional jailor in one county, or the salary of a clerk or copyist in another county should be increased, is a purely local matter. Local needs can best be determined by the boards which have been chosen to administer local affairs, and the expenditure of the moneys raised by taxation for local purposes should be under their control. In the counties of the State, outside of Greater New York, there are boards of supervisors to whom such matters should be committed; and if any amendment is needed to the general law defining their powers it should be supplied so that special legislation with regard to particular communities shall be rendered unnecessary. By the Greater New York Charter it is provided that the salaries of all county officers in the counties of New York,. Kings, Queens and Richmond shall, unless otherwise provided by law, be fixed by the board of aldermen on the recommendation of the board of estimate and apportionment. The creation of additional positions, wherever necessary, in the administrative departments of county government, and the matter of salaries of subordinate employees, should be in the control of the proper local authority, and suitable amendments to the charter may be made in order to accomplish this result.

What has been said of county officers is also true of city and village officers. The proper authorities of the city or village should have sufficient power under general provisions of law to fix the salaries of subordinate city and village officers and employees and to create such additional minor positions as may be needed.

3

(Signed)

CHARLES E. HUGHES

hat

ap