New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-16
ALBANY.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT QUESTIONS
IMPORTANT DEBATE IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
OBJECTIONS ADvANCED-AILEGED UNCoNsuTU-
TIoHAL ACTION or THE SECRETARY or STATE.
IRON The REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRrBUsBl
ALBANY. Jan. 15.-The proposed Constitutional
amendments considered in Committee Of the
Whole in the Assembly to-day and after completing
the reading of five out of the eleven articles to be
amended, the Committee reported progress and post
poned the consideration of the remainder till flu
ture day. Smith M. Weed acted as spokesman
for those who opposed any of the amendments,
and several very important questions arose
at the outset of the discussion. In the
first place. il wac claimed, and generally
admitted that any amendments made to any one
article az adopted by the last Legislature, even to
the change Of single letter, would inyalidate the
whole of that article, and prevent its being sub
mitted to the people. But Mr Vedder went further
and claimed that all the amendments together were
to be considered one amendment, and that IL the
present Legislature threw out any Gone article
adopted by the last Legislature, the whole would
fall to the ground A still more fatal
objection was interposed by Mr. Bcebe of Sullivan,
who said that he had taken pains to inform
himself on the subject, and was prepared
to assert that the Constitutional provision re-
curing the amendments to he published in the
newspapers three months prior to the last election
for members of the Legislature had not been com
piled WITH aud therefore any action that the present
Legislature might take with regard to these amend
ments would be null and void. This statement was
deemed 10 DC of such vital Importance that reso-
luton was adopted calling upon the Secretary OF
State for full information AZ to the manner III which
the amendments had been published.
The objections made by Mr.. Weed III Committee
of the Whole were mainly to certain provisions IN
the proposed amendments TO Articles Nv. and v.
He was opposed to the amendment restricting the
Legislature in extra sessions to such action as might
be recommended by the Governor, and also to tho
power given TO the Governor of signing such por-
tons of bill left in his hands at the adjournment
OF the Legislature he chooses, and allowing those
portions TO become law while the remainder failed.
His strongest objections however, were to the pro-
posed amendments to Article ". which vests the
appointments Of several State officials, now elective,
in the hands of the Governor, and authorizes MN
to appoint % Superintendent Of Public WORKS WIN
all the powers of the present Canal Commissioners
and many more beside Mr.. Weed said that TINS
official would have more power under the proposed
amendment than any man over had In tins or any
other State, aud would be enabled to perretuate
himself in Office by nominating and electing his own
Sanu0atP LOT GoVcTUOI WutHcNCi Hc PN"o'N' IL
view of the overwhelming vote last fall against
vesting the appointment of judges in the hands OF
the Governor, it was absurd to suppose the people
would ever ratfy such amendment as this, and 1t
was an insult to submit it to them. Mr.. Beebe was
equally decided in his opposition TO this article, and
although no Republican member expressed himself
against it in debate yet since the adjournment several
have stated that they should oppose the article
when il came up for third reading, and would not
vote for it under any circumstances Mr. Pope
Rep.) Of st. Lawrence says it would not get 900
votes in his county. e. S. Spencer says he shall
make speech against it, and proposes that 1t should
be by the Republicans, as it would Dc fatal
to that party to pass such an amendment But the
difficulty H. if Mr.. Vedder is right in his censtruc-
tion of the Constitution that the Legislature can
not reject Article V. without destroying the whole
work of the Constitutional Commission and Of the
last Legislature.