New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-19

tirs OF the Assembly tits morning was taken up
Win discussion on the majority and minority re-
ofts OF the Special Committee appointed to investl
cate the alteration made in tine Fifth Avenue Re-
pavement bill after it had been printed. The report
of the majority. signed by Messrs. Alvord, Seward
I. j. Campbell, aud Hammond. exoneratod from
blame both the persons interested in the bill and
the officers of The Assembly. In the minority report
which is eigned by Messrs. Daily and Hess, it is
stated
THAT your Committee. comparing the reprinted bin
WIFI the orIna m nuscript discussed in tn, Cites
Committee find very material Discrepancy. amount
g IN the aggregate ~ e st to S2G0o)O but which IS
claimed to have been inadvertently omitted That the
Iresularlty 90 use an exceedingly mid ternl which
through the agency of ono ClarIcs Walters.
WHOM your Committee thus far have been
unable to nnl. wOile your Committee have
OF e., Tue advocates OF the bill, or collision
hcicnt TO snow that this a weestIls rnle
OF the House has been departed from aud an rregrary
permitted which the Assembly should not be slow to
dcountenanco and condemn" Tae Committee regret
that the officers OF the House permitted on its floor
person of 50 "unsavory reputation" Walters; also
that " the Legislative printer chOud have considered
himself al Liberty, On pryate order 10 rrnt ior any
eIuro lines interpOlAted"
T. C. Campbell of New-York moved that tho two
reports Win the evidence be printed and lay the
table. but aftcrTard Withdrew his motion TO lie
the table, ana the motion 10 PRINT the reports and
the evidence was debated. Mr.. AYord opposed the
motion on the ground that there was no necessity
for printing this matter, asserting that there
essential difference in the two reports in regard TO
the evidence and what is shown by it. He declared
that there was not really ground enough for in
vestigaon rs the bill in question had never formed
part OF the archives of the Assembly, it not
printed by its ORDER but printed at the expense
of those Interested in the bill for the information of
members Of the Assembly, and WAS laid on the desks
Of members by permission of the Assembly. Mr..
Alyord opposed any further delay in tins matter.
Daily stated that Mr. AiyOrd had been present only
l.tle time at the SCISSORS Of the Investigating
Committee and had paid little attention 10 it's work.
SIR. Daily was DESTROYS of making little delay
possible but considered the matter serious enough
to demand the careful consideration OF the evidence
by the Assembly. Mr.. I. G. Campbell supported
and enforced this Wow. Mr. Seward Of NeW-Y0rk
vehementIy opposed delay, saying that the inye3ti-
CATION had taken ten days, when it should have
been finished in three hours
Mr.. Seward moved to amend the motion to print
by motion to adopt the majority report. This
amendment WAS declared to be 0dt OF order. Messrs
Lincoln, Hammond. Alyord, DAILY, and Campbell
kept up a lively discussion for some time. and the
motion to PRINT was voted on and lost. \ motion
by Mr. Alyord to adopt the majority report was
aftcrward voted upon by Yeas and Nays. Several
gentlemen took up time in explaining their reasons
for asking to be excused from voting. The majority
report was adopted by vote of 70 10 q.
At a late hour in the session the tiit1 Avenue Re
pavement bill itself was brought up by motion
made by Nc. Seward of New-York, 80 take the bill
from the a6,e a1d refer it to tho Committee Of tho
Whole. Mr.. Ddly of N3w-Yorl made motion to
amend by Substituting the uniavorIble minority re-
,,o-f rr.u, (l,ufni Cite, UDOn the bill.
The effect of this acton if it had prevailed, w0uld
have been to Kill the bill. Mr. Daily advocated this
step in speech OF considerable length and heat.
lie declared tEat powerful lobby had attempted to
get the bill through the Legislature Of 1874, and as
serted that is in violation OF the spirit Of the con-
sttuti0nal amendments, which are opposed to spe-
cial lcgi8llLion. The claims of the advocates
of the measure were inconsistent he said.
In order to avoid conflict with the constitutional
amendments these gentlemen claimed that Fifth
ave. is a street; to avoid conflict With the pro-
visions of the Charter OF 1873 they claimed That
Fiftl-ayc. is a highway and not street. The Leg
islature should not interfere, Mr. Daily argued, in
such matter as the paving of this avenue. 1t
should be LETT entirely TO the local authorities act
ing under general laws. What right has the Legs-
lature to tell the people of NowYork City how they
shall pave their sirees7 What right has the Legis-
laturc 20 impose tax Of 81 100000 at least city
which does not desire this action The measure is
against the wishes Of a majority of the property
owners Ffth-ave., while, if it were submitted to
the vote OF the citizens of NewYOrk, there
would not be affirmative to ten negative
vo.es. But members OF the Assembly here
from the interior counties propose to lay
burden of 81 100000 upon a city already overbur
dened The bill, declared Mr.. DAILY, in effect grants
an exclusive franchise to pave FIftll-aye. and
monopoly for repairs This Legislature has no
right to give such an exclusive franchise and to
grant such monopoly Fifth-ave. is now better
paved than any other avenue in New-York, and
even if the Legislature had the right to take such
step as is contemplated by this bill. what reason is
there for such a discrimination in favor of this
thoroughfare OF the.rich and fashionable, which not
more than two or three per cent of the people of
New-York usef Some of the avenues on the East
Side are in an almost impossible condition, but if
they were to be repaved the property-owners along
the avenues must pay for the work, while this bill
proposes to tax all the people of New-York for the
benefit of those who live on the richest thorough
fare in New-York But this bill is not desired even
by O majority of these residents. Many Of the
largest property owners Fifthave represent the
scheme as experiment. and protest against 1t.
But the principal objection to the bill Is that it in
terferes with the right of the authorities of New
York to say how and with what they will have
their streets paved.
Mr. DAILY denounced the way in which this bill
had been pressed, asserting that the air of the AS
sembly had been thick with jobbery and corruption
on account of the measure. and that it had been
boosted by friends of the bill that they could carry
80 votes in the Assembly.
Mr.. Seward said that he did not propose to enter
into discussion of the kind begun by Mr.. DAILY.
His motion was to bring the bill into such position
that it could DO considered and discussed by the
Assembly. He asked if there were any reason for