New-York tribune., 1890-04-01
VETO OF THE SAXTON BILL.
Continued from First PaaeD

Ballot Reform bill. senator saxton submitted to the
committee IA report he had written adverse to the
Governors suggestion This report In large meas
lrc Novcd TO be reply in advance to the Governors
veto Of the saNton bill. The Governor in the opening
paragraphs of his veto message Of tonight complains
that the Legislature would not unite with him in re-
questing an opinion from the Court OF Appeals on
the bill Mr.. SaNton in his reply answers CON
clnsvcy this complaint and gives Satisfactory
reasons why the Legislature declined to accept his
advice. The Judiciary Committee adopted Senator
saXtOns report its senators Linson and
Eoc>ch Democrats. dissentcd and authorized to
put in a minority report. The majority report will be
submitted to the Senate tomorrow. Below ali
extract from the report
The proposition contained in the f.
plausible and may at first glance to be fair
and reasonable The closely 1t l. examined. how
eyer in the light OF both and authority the more
evident does il become only that it IS entirely i'm
practicable but that If carried into effect its resus would
be- mi~'hi"vous In the extreme. our own STATE once
tried the experiment under constitutional provision OF
having the Chancellor and Judges Of th. supreme
unite with the Governor in passing upon the adyi,ablty
and consttutiOnaity Of pending measures but history
informs u, that the experiment unfortunate
and 1t nnall abandoned 1922. The
now asks to revive the system. not by law constitu
tonal enactment, but by concurrent resolution Of the
senate and Assembly. lie invites the Legislature to
establish IN this extraordinary the precedent by
virtue OF which the may any time henceiorth
b" requested to aid IN dlschaging the dnties which the
Constitution has imposed upon the Governor. We are
fully convinced that the resolution IN question
the opinion Of the Of Appeals the constitutions
alIty Of the bill should De adopted for the following
Frs-Thc Judges OF the Court Of Appeals could not act
upon without sacrificing their of dignity and
sclf.;c,pce. its duty to review decisions Of
eIior courts upon questions of law. II has original
Jurisdiction whatever The hi,
that te jurisdiction Of the Court Of Appeals Is DOT
rr'd by the Constitution. brt by stautc but IL
clear tha, the Court Appeals intended the
Constitution 10 be- exclusively appellate What
differences of opinion may exist. however.
with regard 10 the power Of the original
Court Of Appeals. no one will question the fact
that the Second Division ot the Court OF Appeals cannot
exercise any powers except such expressly given
70 by the Constitutions The divisions. according to
the PLAN meaning Of tn Constitution. to act separately
and power has ever been conferred by law can any
law grant the power which viii enable them 70 act to-
e,thcr In the determination Of The Judges ought
pay att nton such resolution II IL adopted
We are that they would refuse comply with the
request They would not exercise powers, even inor-
mally which have not been vested In them by proper
authority, and which constitution and laws never
Intended they should have. They would not give
extra judicial opinion upon question which Nigh; after
ward before them for Judicial decision.
The and Assembly have already expressed their
firm belief that the bin doe, not in any way conflict with
the Constitutions They have acted upon that belief and
they do not f, and call in question the wisdom Of their
de!Acrat. actiou II the really desires his
opinion o the Court Of Appeals why doe, he not make
an effort to obtain tl The only precedent cited in his
message favor = that In 1872 Chief Justice
Church Informal not to Governor Hoffman, giving
The opinion of himself and Judges bil then
In tic Governors hands. But this opinion was given,
no, AZ the request ~ the legislature, but 0f the Governor
himself. II tie present Executive wants . know what
the Think why does hc not follow ;hc example u
his predecessor
The precedent would De- very dangerous one. Should
the house, adopt thu Governors son, hey would
no, only strengthen for~ precedent but 70 certain
.N.nt c>.lhl.h still another and II the Judges should
?, ,pond a, they did very unwi~oiy We think, IN the
former case would henc,rth De an inclination both
or tle part and tho LEGISLATURE - apply
f,r their opinion matters Of pending legislation When
o recall that on many measure, the members - he L'sis
ture arc divided by party lines and that the Governor
and tho majority ~ the LEGISLATORS sometime, belong 70
d Toret parties realize what important and
part the JUDGES might b" required - play in
the s,-!f, y patsaa.. the precedent should be fully
established.