The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-03-10
Albany,
Correspondence of the Herald. I


ALBANY, March 8, 1912.
All the abseRt members aving returned, the at
tendance in the Assembly, this morning, was very
full, and q large amount of business has been dis
patched to-day. To-day and tomorrow are the
days set apart for the transaction of real business,
no resolutions, motions, Ne., can be introduced
without unanimous consent. The presentation OF
petitions, owing to the accumulation during the
days that the house was not in session, has been
unusually large A bill was reported by Mr. PESrz
in favor OF alteration of the New York Pilot Law,
which was read twice. and ordered to third read.
ing The minority of the committee also gave NO.
tice of an intention to bring in bill on the same
subject.
Mr. d. r. F. JONES reported a general bill
ito extend the time for the collection OF taxes in
she various towns in the state The house then
olved itself into committee of the whole the BILL
in relation to the State printing.
Mr.. PALMER moved to amend the first section,
SO that the term Of office should be fixed the Same
as that of oher state officers. Mr. p, who is q
practical printer, stated that the term, fixed IN
the bill, would not warrant the person appointed in
going into the large expense of purchasing presses
and type. 1t was lest.
Mr. FLAsLER said, that under the law under
which the present incumbent holds his Office, the
appointment would be made as this first section
provides. He would not believe, until he saw il
made evident by the acts Of the majority that there
was any intention Of interfering with the contract
between The state and the present incumbent. He
therefore saw for the first section, and to
shorten the details of the BILL he moved to strike
out.
Mr.. SIMMONS said he did not believe that this bill
would ever become a law. He did not believe in
this changing the officer merely because he hsppea-
ed to be opposed in politics to the majority; il
not right 10 make il q mere party matter. This
proposed violation Of contract next door to
quotation; and il he must speak plain 1t came from
IN fha frOr, uhoura ho such
doctrines This state, he alleged. was the father OF
reputation. Another reason why he was opposed
to the bill, was because he did not any provision
10 indemnify the present state printer for breach OF
contract, and damages incurred thereby. He did
not deny the right Of the legislature to repeal the
law, but they were bound, If no charge was made OF
non-performance of duty, and he had heard OF none
indemnify the printer i0T Inc damage on nc sn S
cooperating provision in this bill TO meet this de-
feet Iften per cent could be saved BY the passage
of this law as was alleged, Why did not gentlemen
think of it ten years ago! An imm nse amoant OF
monov might have been saved TO the State by this
tine He believed that this business was al got up
Mr. M MunnAY replied to Mr.. simmons's charge
Of repadation, being involved in the prime
of this bill apd denied the charge that such doc
tine originated here. He alluded to the case Of
Blair and Rives, at Washington, as being prece.
dent in this matter. In reply TO Mr. Flagler's re.
marks TO breach of contract, Mr.. MN said, that
according to the showing Of the gentleman from
Essex, there existed no constitutional objections on
this head. Why, sir, he remembered that one Of
the strongest reasons urged by the friends OF the
present incumbent at the passage Of the law under
which he holds his Office, in favor Of it, was, that
the prioter could at any time be removed. The
state printer knew this when he took the contract;
and why then were we called upon to pay damages1
He apprehended that this legislature would make no
difficulty in passing this law; il was expected and
demanded by their commitments, and the people at
large.
Mr.. TAMBLrE said in reply to Mr. SIMMONS ex
preston Of belief, that this bill would not become
u law, that be did not know upon what ground the
gentleman based such belief, but he suppo cd that
the Intervention Of the Governsrs veto what as
going 10 preventit. And flor what reason why,
because here was no provision providing Tor inc
payment Of damages to the State Printer ne lnIr.
had grossly overehsrged the State for his work,
and that this bill was not a mere party measure,
but a patric lie one and one too which would 0reat-