New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-05-20
THE cRySUs CONTROVERSY.

The course the Legislature will follow on the
census question seems to be a matter of doubt.
The delay caused by Governor Hills blunder-
ing veto has complicated the matter. The
Federal statute regarding duplicate return
which would largely reduce the cost of tn
census to the State, requires it to be begun in
June. The work of preparation is so great that
| il il feared advantage of that law could not be
taken now. Should that prove to be true, the
Legislature may adopt concurrent resolution
| reciting that it has already discharged its duty
in regard to the census, and adjourn.
There is no room for doubt that such state
| ment would be strictly true and should there
| be no census taken, it would be entirely the
| fault OF the Governor. But it would be better
| for the Legislature to waive any claim as to the
strength of its present position and re-enact the
simple and sensible bill which Governor Hill
vetoed. Tue responsibility for the loss of the
| 300, 900 from the Federal Treasury will rest
wholly with the Governor, as will the cOst of
| the extra session, and the foolish waste oil
81, 900 in the competitive Civil Service exami-
nation of enumerators. The bill that the Gov
ernor vetoed is essentially the same as has been
| uniformly enacted since 1925, approved by
| Democratic and Republican Governors, and the
wisdom of which has never been questioned
| until now. 1t amended the existing law so as
greatly to reduce the cost of the census as COM
pared with the one taken while Mr.. Tilden
was Governor. To re-enact that bill would
leave the Republican position impregnable.
1t is given out by the Democratic newspapers
which have heretofore correctly fOreshadowed
the Governors action on this question that he
will veto any bill that provides for anything
further than o mere count of the inhabitants.
He ia said to hold that under the Constitution
the Legislature cannot pass any other bill, as 1t
is limited to the specific object of his recon-
mendation. These threats should not influence
the Legislature. 1t could not in any event con-
form itself to his wishes without conflicting
with his proclamation converting an extra ses-
sion. A mere count OF the inhabitants cannot
be taken without repeating the existing statute
passed in 1855. Under the call for an extra
session the Legislature has no right to abrogate
that act II is the business of the Governor to
execute the laws not to make them; or to at
tempt by notification to force their repeal. The
Constitution says that the census shall be taken
under Gdirection of the Legislature mot
under the dictation of the Governor. Existing
laws direct how the census shall be taken. and
it only requires an Appropriation To carry them
out. By vetoing the Appropriation bill, the
Governor cannot force the Legislature to repeal
the present law. Such an attempt is usurpa-
ton.
1t is clear that the word enumeration y in
the Constitution cannot DO limited to a mere
count of the inhabitants, as the Governor holds
Under this enumeration the Constitution
provides, in the same clause, that there shall be
IAN equitable apportionment OF representa-
tives, excluding aliens, and persons of color
not taxed" A mechanical count of the inhab
itants would not make any such distinctions
Hence ii must be assumed that the Legislatures
and Governors of the past have not erred in
their Interpretation of the law, and that Gov
ernor Hill cannot assume judicial functions any
more than he can arrogate to himself legsla-
tive powers. A mere count of the inhabitants
would not fulfil the constitutional require