New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-05-26

pre- mlnent objection 10 the laws anectlDg
this city, passed BY the late Legislature, is that
they were enacted without the application or the
concurrence Of the Common Council. SO far as
the Charter is concerned, this is not true, although
the Mayor makes it the ground of official com
plant. The Common Council, under Mr.. Woods
direction, did apply for amendments to the Charter
prepared such On act as bis Honor desired, and
sent Conmitte to Albany to get it before the
Legislature. An amended Charter was passed, in
compliance with this request of the Corporation,
but the Legislature took the liberty of improving
here and there upon the draft sent up from the
Mayors office; and thereupon the Common Council
disOwn the act and the Mayor says il is thrust
upon US without our application. There were
some laws passed at the same session, hswever,
which the city did not officially request, nor is it
likely that a government of the present sort ever
would have requested any such changes. But this
is not the first instance Of the kind. There is
notable case on the record one of thousand times
more importance to the people, in which the
Legislature not only enacted laws not ap-
piled for, but set aside the city's protest
and Oyerruled the objections of the cee-
brated Council of Revision, consisting of
Governor Lewis, Chancellor Lansing, and
Judges James Kent, Ambrose Spencer and Daniel
d. Tompkins. This was the act of April 5, 1904,
removing the appointment of certain officers
from the Corporation to the people, and enarging
the franchise in municipal elections. Previous to
this time the elective franchise was confined to
freehoders with city residence of three months,
and one month in the Ward The act referred to
enlarged the franchise so as to include every male
citizen of twenty -one years and upward residing in
the city, paying taxes, and paying yearly
rental of S25 or more. When the proposed act
came before the Council of Revision, it was at once
thrown out. Gov. George Clinton drew up the OBJ
jections, and very strenuOusly opposed the bill
Before the Legislature, Gov. Clinton and ma
orty of the Council opposed the act on the ground
that no strong public necessity called for it, and
that it had been considered settled and salu-
tary principle in the government that Charters OF
Incorporation containing grants and privileges were
not to be essentially affected without the consent OF
the parties All this protesting was done in the
peaceful and becoming manner of gentlemen, and
was respectfully needed by the Legislature. How
ever, il was of M avail. tho ProPriot,' Of eontinu
ing "forever the Montgomerie Charter provision,
which allowed only small proportion of the citi-
zens a voice in the government, was not established
to the satisfaction of the Assembly, however veil
the distinguished Gov. Clinton, and his nephew
Dewitt Clinton Mayor of the city at the time) may
have thought of it. Despite the extraordinary ef-
forts Of the existing freemen voting arstOcracy,
to keep the profane poor away from the polls, the
people of the State Of New-York not of New
York City alone, but of Plattsburgb, Montauk
Point, and the Geneee widerness-broke down
the sacred barrier creced "foreyer" in the Mont
gOmerie Charter, and PIT the elective franchise on
basis then deemed moi only extra.democratic but
extra hazardous.
There are other lessimportant instances of the
same nature, but this enough to dispose of the
complaint that the Legislature have made an I'M
precedented innovation " enacting laws not asked
for by the City Government. Had the Metropoli-
tan Police bill made theMayOr the sole appointer,
remover and manager 6 the Police, would his
Honor have objected toit because the Common
Council did not ask it! is only the old story of
your bull and my OK.