The evening world. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, 1894-04-19
PROP TO FURCUESON.
Gov. Flower Vetoes the Bill Abol-
ishing the Shore lnspeotorship
Declares that the Public Requires
the Office to Remain.
And Dismisses Lightly the Fact of
the Officers Incompetence.
(By Associated Press.)

Wy hnoocluteu FTtssj
ALBANY, April 19.-Gov. Flower to-
day vetoed the bill abolishing the Of
flee Of Shore Inspector. In his veto
message he says
THE effect of this bill is to repeal
! the statutes which have been passed
for the protection of the shores and
Bay of New York and the reaside re-
sorts near New York and Brooklyn,
from deposits of dead animals, decay
ing vegetable and animal matter. or
other similar matter which Is a menace
| to health.
TO repeal all these desirable pro-
visions of law. as is proposed by this
bill, would expose the residents of Long
Island. Staten Island, Westchester
County and New York to disease, con-
tamination. to say nothing of innumer-
able nuisances caused by the objection
able matter thrown upon the shores.
THE bill removes SO necessary a
statutory safeguard of the public health
that l am astonished at its passage in
the Legislature. have to-day approved
a bill INTRODUCED in the Assembly by the
leader of the majority which extends
practically the same wise provisions
VI law W tHe oSWtkdtCHle river Ill
st. Lawrence County, with a view to
preventing tn pollution of the waters
of that stream. II 1t is wise to pre-
vent the deposit OF dead animals or
nauseous substances in the Oswegatchie
River. how much wiser Is 1t to have a
similar law for the waters Of New
York Bay.
THE Legislature might with equal
propriety abolish the salutary provisions
public health throughout. the entire
protection Of health around New York
Bay The aI sss Of the 9.
proposed to be repealed could not have
influenced the action Of the Legislature.
for this cost Is not paid by the State
the public sentiment Of those localities
overwhelmingly sustains the continu-
ance of the laws.
vanced for the repeal Of these safe
guards. First. that the present Shore
Inspector, who is charged with the en-
that the laws. are made unnecessary
by the Federal statute passed In 1883.
The first of these reasons is certainly
not justify a repeal Of good laws.
Whether the Shore Inspector performs
his duty properly or improperly. the
laws under which he is appointed are
essential to the maintenance of the
! public health and should be retained.
| II the officer Is not discharging his du-
ties properly. the Senate can remove
| him upon the recommendation of the
Governor. but no charges OF any kind
have been filed with me against him.
Neither In the second argument
| which has been advanced in behalf of
| this hill raaSOna hla namely
that the statute is. made unnecessary
| by the Federal statute of 1888. The two
are entirely different in purpose. The
State law is intended primarily for the
protection of the public health; the Fed
eral law is intended chiefly to prevent
deposits in the channels Of navigation
| The two do not conflict, and the exist
| ence Of the Federal law in no way justi-
/ fies a repeal of the State law. 1t seems
to me that the measure is extremely
short-sighted in policy. and am sure it
Is not desired by the people who live In
the localities which Its enactment would
effact'