New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-03-29
WORK OF THE IEcIsLATrRE.

THE NEW PUBLIC WoHES BILL PASSED IL TIE a.
srYBLN-rAEiY P0IlICS IN CANAL MANAGE
MENT-THE DEPARTMENT oE DoCEs AND TIE
SINKING TUND CuNMIssiuNtE~ IL THE >TNArE
-NEw-YonW PIPE CONTEMPORARIES OF
LIFF INSURANCE COMPANIES.
lFEoa THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF rH2 TF1BrNrl
ALBANY, March 2s.--The Assembly dis,in-
grishcd itself today by passing the n"| bill aoau Ia"
Superintendent oi Public Works. auc the Senate ~ order
ing 10 third ra ling senate. Morris -"y's hill maxim, tie
Department of Dock. Of Neg-Yor. bureau Of the De
partner. o. pl.lc ~, iUd also Lis bill for The ap
puintmtn 81 three citizens members Of The Board o.
Commissioner, Of III, sinking Fuud
The Puhic Works old $50. not passed. by the Assembly
without ~oruc opposition. NJ. Baker, Chairman - tic
Committee on Canals after ITS passage ny The senate had
ecn duly eaHouacci asked hat tho bill have IFS lird
reading. No iyctpu WJs made. TUc vote on To la,-
sage OF the li' then Began. Eyely member untli Mr
Gilbert's name Was reached voted IN tho Affirmative
MI Gilbert under the usual proteH-c Of giving az cx
cue for not voting thrs, sad that Le was
s,rlriscd that the Senate had omitted from tie new
hin the clause forbddiug the superintendent TO
use the canals fol political purposes. In ccuIi
documents an omission was often REGARDED
a. significant as Inserted matter It might he 80 IL this
case and the o- from me till OF the clause he had
mentioned might possibly be construed by the
people ~ an Indication OF the intention Of
the LEGISLATURE 10 take partisan action in re
gard 10 the matter. lie coull not see that any
earthly object could be gained unless 1t was proposed 10
obtain some partisan advantage in thc MANAGEMENT oI
the canals. lie was not il sympathy with any 5ucE
policy and beng favor Of The rCnSrtsan clause, he
woIid vote "NO." Nh Hayes said that WREN The ormer
bill was under consideration he had said that lie would
not vote for IL LH.ess the noD"ltisan clause was
inserted He would Therefore be compelled 10
vote against the present bill. Mr. Post said that ho
could not vote for tae present bill lie Was opposed 10
the use Of the canals artisan purposes This policy
,t.a1 fha mails aull had
brought dshonor upon the state He could not support
any legislation Of the character embodied III the Til that
would not include provision That Would Keep inc III
famous party politicians OF the canal management
Mr. HOgsbOOm said that he would vote in the affirmative
so as 10 move reconsideration OF the bill He thought
that there attempt being made to pats me Dill!
hastily. The Assembly ought 10 take time 10 consider
such an important Dl Mr. Rugges said tha+ when the
former bu was under consideration in the Assembly he
among others had argued that certain portions OF the
bill deprived the superintendent Of powers vested IN
him by the Constitution. Those objectionable features
had partially aferward been removed by the Senate
The bill as lie understood precisely the bill rec
commended by the Governor at the beginning Of the ses-
sion lie thought tue nOn-parsan clause glittering
generality and much surplusage, and should there
fore vote for the bill II the nOn-partisan clause vas
made more definite and pronounced II would make
the bill unconstitutional. MI. skinner SAID that he
WAS opposed TO suCA has!y legislation, aud could
through in this way TTenty-One members
a majority Of them Republicans voted against the bill
Messrs s. Brown ChiIds, Clark, COrsa. Coulter, FISH,
Gilbert j. g. Graham, j. = GRAHAM, Guch, Hayes
Langbein Mckee, MOrey Pech Post, skinner, smith,
stephens0n rahan SuydaIn, and Winch There were
90 votes in favor Of the BILL Mr. Alvord leading The list
Jndge H0geboom moved that the vote be reconsldeIed
and that the bill then he laid upon the table The motion
10 lay upon the table defeated b. vote OF 79 to 20
Judge Hogeboom then withdrew his motion to recon
slider the vote There is doubt expressed that the
Governor will sign the bill, but there Is considerable
Jou,. felt about his nominating another person for
spuerintcndent Up 10 d late hour this afternoon the
Govcrnor had not signed the bill.
Willie the bill merging the Department OF DocEs IN the
Department Of Pablo Works under consideration III
the Senate Mr. SHOEMAKER opposed the passage OF the
hill on fe ground that IL would confer too great powers
ON the SUPERINTENDENT of Public Works. Senator Nor
rissey said that the Department of Docks had cost
S54OOOOO since 1870. and II was agreed on all sides
mat that was than II ought 10 cost lie hoped
fiat every Democrat in Senate and in tine Assembly
would vote Tor tue bill. The bill ordered to third