New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-10
THE GOVERNORS LAME EXCUSES FOR N0x
SIGNING THE CROSBY BILL.
STALE AND WEAK MESSAGE, FULL or TAM
ASSERTION AND ABSOLUTELY DEVOID OF
REASONABLE ARGUMEST-MR CROSBY
WANTED TO OVERRIDE THE VETO
AND MR. ArNswoRTH Exco.
RATED the RUM PARTY
AND ITS ALLIES.
fBr rELEoRAPa to THE rarsuxEl

on the plea OF puDnc poncy, Dut the aCtempt WAS
doleful one.
The Assembly Chamber was crowded all after
noon by people who waited to hear the message
read. 1t did not come until nearly 80, and for
the first time in many days the Chamber was
quiet and when the clerk began to read the
message the dropping of a pin could be heard
The Governor did not have basis of argument
and had to resort to silly excuses to uphold the
veto, and retain the whskcy and brewer vote.
His principle objection was that the bill was
crude, ill-considered and unadvisable, notw1th-
standing the fact that IL was drawn by some OK
the brightest lawyers and ablcst thinkers In the
State lie wcpt for the rural districts to which,
in his opinion, the measure would be unjust, ana
he WIS against it because its passage had been
decided upon in Republican caucus lie adj
mitted that the liquor traffic should be regulated
but this bill wouldn't do it, and he fell back
upon the old plea of monopoly. This is the mes
sage: -i. 4
TEXT OF THE VETO MESSAGE ~
State of New-York. Executive Chamber,
Albany. May 9. 1888
Assembly bill No. s8s, entitled "An act further resu-
lang the sale OF intoxicating LIQUORS. IL herewith re-
turned without approval
Last year the Legislature presented for my approval
measure called High License BILL" 1t rot only con-
tanned unconstitutional provisions but It was not Uniform
operation throughout the State its innovations being
mainly restricted the groceries OF and Brook
lyn. 1t provided for license for liquors which should
not be and ale and beer not less than
s1Oo, leaving the maximum which might be charged
In either wholly unlimited That measure, so clearly
unequal and unfair in its provisions failed 10 become
law and It is believed that such failure met with general
approval. fact, IT to be universally con-
ceded that Executive other proper course open
for him except to his sanction Objectionable
may be stated that the public hearing
upon the present BILL nearly all those who appeared In is
advocacy admitted the popriety Of the adverse action
taken the former bill
UNJUST DEFECTIVE AND OBJECTIONABLE.
new measure is presented for approval which
radically differs from the proposed law OF last year. ous
many Is equally as unjust defective and
Objectionable But. in the first place. the bill does noe
amend the general excise law Of the State but is an en-
rey and independent act having no connection
with or proper other statutes the samo
SUBJECT This Is clearly objectionable, and there no
excuse for such defective legislation.
The attention Of the Legislature has been repeatedly
called necessity Of properly amending the existing
general law instead Of eracng separate and Independents
acts and by multiplicity thereof creating confusion In
their application and serious doubt a. TO their proper con
| structioH.
On March 10 last in special communication addressed
by to Legislature, thore pointed cut the dis
connected pecemea agmentay intricate and incongru-
legislation which has been heretofore had upon the
subject excise and absolute necessity OF enro
revision existing statutes and the desirabity OF ceas
ing che Of any supplemental or nde-
pendent legislation relating to this subject 1t may DO
safely asserted excise law should be clear and ex
pclt and easily comprchendod Its Interpretation should
difficulty and above all 1t should be complete
| In ITSELF
| CRUDE, ILL-cONSIDERED AND UNADyISABLE.
The proposed bill violates essential principle Of leg
sation and irrespective OF any other question: 1t Is de-
eetive In form therefore Objectionable. The measure
is also crude consdercd and unadyisable. The amounts
fixed as the maximum which may be exacted for IL
unreasonable, and likely to be productive OF
great Inconvenience hardship In certain portions Of
State, especially In the rural districts and IN the
smaller villages and towns the imposition OF LIQUOR IL
ccnse f.a OF not $500 and ale and beer IL
OF less than e1o0 would amount practically
prohibition of licenses whatever SO long as the
general policy the State prevails in opposition proh
OF licenses the amount liked by statute
which are authorized to imposed should be reasonable
and not There should not be undue axty
the one hand needless severity the other. Under
the preence Of regulating the liquor trac there should
not be an attempt practical prohibition
Legislature should not seek to accomplish indirectly
what 1t has not constitutional right power TO do
directly
| UNFAIR IN IT'S DISCRIMINATION
The measure is likewise unfair in its discrimination
It imposes ain unjust burden upon the ale and beer bus
ness and renders it possible that greater sum may b
demanded for such lconse than for liquor license. 10
provides from $500 TO $1,000 be required for
liquor license, while for ale and beer license alone
the sum s4eo may te insisted upon the maximum
sum- IL submitted that such peculiar and unusual
provision demanded by public sentiment and ought
not to bo approved other State In the UnioD where
| high license has been entered upon. does the
| amount which may be demanded for ale
| and beor license exceed that Of LIQUOR license.
1t is difficult discover adequate for this
against harmless and In
splruous liquors proposed in this b and this is un-
accountable except from the fact that the bill arst
adopted q partisan party measure and after
ward arbitrarily changed, without due consideration
lection simply SECURE enough votes for Its nna passage
regardless OF It's real merits
The amount REQ uired fer storekecpers license Is
necessarily burdsnsone and excessive sorekeepers'
who de sell any beverages be drank upon
Asr premises but sell them In small packages ana cases
merchandise and usually the most respectable OF
any people engaged IN the trade yet by the terms
this bill thor licenses arbitrarily fixed at from $500
TO s5O0am0unts which It must be conceded would be
regarded exobtant and operate oppressyeV in many
Instances There dcinans for this dscrminatsn
against this class largely made OF retail grocers and
It was unwse part OF the friends Of the bill 10 In.
! sist upon such terms The Retail Grocers
Union OF Ncw-York City, q very large. worthy and re-
spectacle organization, have nled with me Protest
against b in which the injurious effects heis
business interests fully set forth
INJUDICIoUs IN ITS DETAILS
1t is apparent the bill Is unwise discrmins
lions and niudcious In It's details aud would require
amendment the session OF the Legislature.
The important fact must not be overlooked that by s
express the essential provisions Of the bill do not
20 eject Until October The section Of
the bill tsection 12 declares Therefore It's enact
mens would not AFFECT any licenses for
| this year, nearly oil Of which have sl.
ready been grsnted under the existing law.
present licenses in force rule do expire
until May l. 1889 The bill is Unsatisfactory all In
eress affected that permitted become law I: would
provoke another contest year It's amendments
few months delay can work material barn. and In the
meantime revised excise be perfected and
early next Legislature The excise laws Of