The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-05-19
Governor Rob inson's veto-What the
Legislstsrs Ought To Do.

bus bill, that it had some crude and ooJec-
tionable features which might excuse ana
perhaps justify a veto. These crudities,
which, in some cases, amount to plain incon-
sistencies, related to minor details OF the
While, therefore, we were prepared for a veto
and carefully abstained from reprobating IT
in advance, we expected to see it put on the
ground that the bill was clumsily drawn,
and expected that an opportunity would be
afforded to the Legislature to amend slips
and obviate discrepancies and repass the
good features OF the bill in An unexcep-
tionable form. Instead Of this wise consid-
crate action, which our respect for Governor
Robinson led us to anticipate, We are sur
prised to find . veto in which no good
feature of the bill is recognized and
in which the Governor makes ON unseemly
threat that he will sign no bill whatever re-
lating to New York city which this Legisla-
ture may pass. Governor Robinson takes
the broad and extraordinary ground that the
present Legislature is disqualified for pass
ing any law relating to New York city, and
makes o virtual threat to veto every such
bill, without regard to its intrinsic merits!
Lucius Robinson was almost the last public
man in the State whom we should have
thought capable Of taking SO indefensible
and preposterous a position.
The Governor gives too much reason to
suppose that he has been captured by Tam
many Hall and the office-holding interest in
this city. Why else should lie not have
been content with a simple veto of the Om-
nibus without at the same time virtually
vetoing in advance every bill relating to
New York city which this Legislature might
pass? The real objections Of Tammany
Hall are not to the crude details of the Om-
nibus, which might easily be amended,
but to the main features of the bill.
The Governor has put himself in perfect
accord with the wishes Of Tammany by do
ing his best to discourage the Legislature
from repassing the substance of the vetoed
bill in an amended FORM He puts his veto
on ground so bro,d and sweeping that no
possible bill relating to the government Of
New York city could escape it. 1t is the
most preposterous exercise of the veto power
in the annals OF the State inasmuch as it
denies the right of this Legislature to pass
even a good bill for amending the charter Of
the city.
We do not. dispute at all that the last
Legislature neglected very plain duty in
its failure to reapportion the State in ac-
cordance with the census of 1875; but it is
simply ridiculous to maintain that that
neglect disqualifes this Legislature for the
performance of any duty or the exercise OF
any right which belongs to the Legislative
body. Governor Robinson himself does
not deny that it is valid Legislature, in
spite OF the failure to pass an Apportion-
ment bill last year, for he has held
constant intercourse with it as such since
it assembled in January. He merely i'm
pugns its right to legislate for New York
city, which is inconsistent and absurd if it
has right to legislate on any subject what
by the State constitution in the Legislature
or it possesses none Of them and since
Governor Robinson has been for the last
five months recognizing it as Legislature
he stultifies himself when he disputes its
right to pass laws relating to city charters.
II the failure of the Apportionment
bill last year did not utterly disqualify
this Legislature it is competent to
pass all bills which the constitution
does not interdict. The reasoning of the
Governor implies that an act relating to the
charter of city should not receive the APP
proval of the Executive unless majority Of
the members for that city voted for it. This
is an untenable position. If carried to its
logical consequences it would make the city
governments independent Of the Safe. It
would give them the right to frame
their own charters, but no such
right is accorded to them by the
State constitution. On the contrary,
the constitution expressly empowers the
Legislature to frame charters for cities, and
not merely authorizes but commands it Ito
restrict their power Of taxation, assessment
borrowing money, contracting debts, and
loaning their credit so to prevent abuses
in assessments, and in contracting debt by
such municipal corporations" This is n
plain, and all wise men think a snlutary,
control over the local freedom of
the municipalities. We concede that
the cities should have all the local
self-government compatible with their real
interests. but the necessity OF a paramount
control by the State has never been
seriously disputed. 1t is only the proper
limit of this control, not the question
whether such control is necessary, that can
ever be made subject OF controversy. The
doctrine of Governor Robinson, that cities
should be allowed to dictate their own
charters, or that no charter for city should
receive the Executive approval, unless a
majority OF the members from that city
voted for Il is quite inadmissibic. Why