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 Inspectorship
Declares that the Public Requires
the Office to Remain.
And Dismisscs Lightly the Fact of
the Officers Incompetence.

ALBANY. April l9.-Gov. Flower to-
day vetoed the bill aholishing the Of.
lice 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 seaside re-
sodts near New York and Brooklyn
from deposits a dead animals decay
Ing vegetable and animal matter. or
other similar matter which is a menace
to health
ITO repeal all these desirable pro-
visions of law, as Is proposed by this
bill, would expose the residents of Long
Island, Staten Island. Westchester Coun-
~ and New York to disease and con-
tamnation, to say nothing of innumer-
able nuisances caused by the objection
able matter thrown upon the shores.
THE bill removes So necessary n
statutory safe guard OF the public health
that | am astonished ut its passage In
the Legislature. | have to-day approved
blll INTRODUCED in the Assembly by the
leader of the majority which extends
practically the same wise provisions
of law to the Oswegatchie River in
81. Lawrence County, with a view to
OF that stream. II 1t Is wise to pre-
vent the deposit of dead animals or
nauseOus substances in the OswcgatChie
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 law which are designed to protect the
public health throughout the entire
state as to repeal these laws for the
protection OF health around New York
Bay. The question of the expense OF
maintaining the enforcement Of the laws
proposed to be repealed could not have
influenced the action of the Legislature,
Tor this cost is not paid by the State,
but by, the counties Of New York. Kings,
WcstHheSter. Queens and Richmond, and
the public sentiment of those localities
Overwhelmingly sustains the contnu-
ance of the laws.
vanced for the repeal OF these safe
guards, First that the present Shore
Inspector, who is charged with the en-
forcemsent, of the laws, does not faith
by the Federal statute passed In 1855
The first of these reasons Is certainly
not sufficient Bad administration does
not Justify a repeal of good laws.
Whether the Shore Inspector performs
his duty, properly or improperly. the
Laws Laws under which he is appointed are
public health and should be retained
II the officer is not discharginG his du-
ties properly. the Senate can remove
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
| TINS bill any more reasonable, namely,
that the statute Is made unnecessary
| by the Federal statute of 1898. The two
| are entirely different in purpose. The
| State law is intended primarily for tho
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-
| ties repeal of the State law. 1t seems
| to me that the measure Is extremely
short sighted In policy, and am sure II
Is not desired by the people who live in
the localities which its enactment would
effect"