The evening world., 1894-04-19
PROP To FURGUESON.
Gov. Flower Vetoes the Bill Abol-
ishing the Shore Inspeotorship
Declares that the Public Requires
the Office to Remain.
And Dismisses Lightly the Fact of
tho Officers Incompetence.
(Dy Associated Press. }

ALBANY. April l9.-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 o 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
bill INTRODUCED In the Assembly by the
leader of the majority which extends
practically the same wise provisions
VI Ia" " thc oS"tbdtChie ItiNtI III
st. Lawrence County. with view to
preventing tn pollution of the waters
of that stream. If 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
of pn Taeh esh to he entre
State. as to. repeal these laws for the
protection Of health around New York
Bay. The question Of the expense OF
proposed to -be1repcaled could not have
Influenced the action Of the Legislature,
fo. this cost Is not paid BY the state
westchester, Queens and Richmond, and
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-
forcement OF the laws, does not faith.
thai the laws, are made unnecessary
by the Federal statute passed in 1888
The first of these reasons is certa inly
not sufficient. Bad administration doe:
so'1
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
If 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 is the second argument
which has been advanced in behalf of
this bill any more reasonable, 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
effect"