New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-06-14
ADVISED TO SIGN THE BILL.
,.,,rs 9 CARRIERS OPINION AS TO THE
GOVERNORS POWERS.
,,r THINKS THAT THE MAYORS FAILURE TO ACT
on THE STATE CARE MEASURE DID NOT
KILL. 1T-GOvERNOR MORTON STILL uN-
DECIDED AS To WHAT COURSE


Albany. June 19-Governor Morton has not yet
determined whether he will act on the bill bring
ing the dependent insane Of NewYorl City under
cta,e care which Mayor Strong returned some
time ago without either accepting or rejecting.
The State Commission in I.unacy to-day filed with
tbe Governor an opinion. written by James {.
Carter. Of New-York in which he holds that the
hill IS a city bill: that the Governor has the right
+, sign it. and that if he does sign it it VIII be-
come law within the meaning of the new Con-
sttution In his opinion. Mr.. Carter says after
discussing the question as to whether the measure
is a city bill:
The question relating TO the consequences OF a
faure by the Mayor to perform the duty thus m
posed upon him is next to bS nd,nr
The failure of the Mayor to place his cer''hca'e
upon il. would the measure pSc one a l"m ,ho oon
No doubt the imperative Language OF the con,
e,itntioual provision that special city Jaws sha1i
not be passed except in c1nIoI tass wlsn t hat all
the requirements prescribed in regard TO the enac. %
wanda tory: that is to say. requirements coinpl-
ance with which is Indispensable to the Nalil,E o.
the enactment. and hot Wha' Is C",G ~ u i,,,y or
duty necessary condluoh 10 the Ndi'uio; ,D,innI
law The question, however. must be deterhlncd
pressed in the constitutional provision and in ascer-
tanning this we must as IN me ca~e ceS Yl 10 fb con-
sequences which would flow from any particular
am SATISFIED that it was not the intent Of this
section that any failure by the Mayor to perform
his duty after the close OF the Legislative session
should have the effect Of precluding that acton
by the Governor either by way of approval Or or . dls
approval, which he is required to take in relation
TO legislation in general My reasons Tor TINS COZ"
First-shoud it be held that the certificate OF the
Mayor Indispensable, the conse llehce wouiu
respect to all Special city bills passed during the
last fifteen days Of a session thlnk !, th'l'.f
an intention to the trainers OF the Constitution or
the people who adopt It, unless II contained ''a, ~
hot find any such language in the section:
oSo5es doe not wG'G to but
legislative action The main pHposg S ONE on
s0n be i9 gTP55h b6de by their mem
bers with the ascertaned fact wheiher pr,pI prTpCSsr
city acceptable to such city or oinerwi&se. Sc d ~
On5sd i may haTg bee" a the but
his action is in no respect made dependent upon
Fe Moreoyer il viii be observed that. by the
general provisions Of the Constitution an iaMs or
by way OF approval or d.sapproval such acti09n 9n
by him is temporarily arrested IN ,he cas- e' cons cons
tempiated tina; he shall eventually act upon mes s
a asson a "a he fxsf saas Gns Bill has been
by Mayor or other municipai repreSeH'd' bas no,
the Legislature without acceptance ana mas i'o'
been passed a second time ,
Third-shoud We interpret the provision as max
ing the certificate Of the Mayor seIe Ms
things be done. which is contrary to the o~r1naly ~
has closed prior to the expiration Of fifteen days ,.
Aft tor 49,
iii he is still required to certify upon it his ac-
ceptance non-acceptance. ana IN eacn case 10 10
transmit II TO the Governor Why should ne pe
required to send to the Governor bin which ne
had certified as not accepted. unless the Governor
rad some function to perform in relation 10 "!
one of the most common rules oi nterire,atio ~ & r~
legislative provision; and the rule IS parucn'ary
applicable to CONSTITUTIONAL enact tments whicn are
nresurned 10 be drawn with extreme care ana 70
contain useless matter NO other @ pu.poSSe p,S ' 80
be assigned this requirement except that OF
ION in respect to legislative bills with the in
structon afforded by the certificates OF the Mayor
and this instruction Is the same IN case OF ei'"er
acceptance or nOn-acceptance 49,.
Fourth-As a final consideration. may add that
II is an accepted rule OF judicial action not to declare
on enactment Of legislative body uncons'ltn;. ln1i
unless IL appears to be so beyond rat:onal ,ioun.
0)enio j. In the people agt Draper, 10 ~ y 0-''
the people rel. the city OF Rochester agt Brlgs>;
m X Y .55) This rule has recently been reassertel
IN emphatic language by the Court OF Appeals says
Mr. Justice Peckham. in delivering the OPINION OF
,ba C'our. in the people cx rel Carter ag Rice. 10
\ Y ALB "Tne incompatibity OF the legislative
enactments with the Constitution must De manifest
should the Governor sign the present bin and the
question Of its validity should come before inc
who could that rs incompatipl.itN WIN WIN the
Constitution manifest ana unequlNochl
not insensiDle to the cons.leration tnat A tne
Interpretation which adopt affords an opportunity
10 crowd city measures INTO the last fe" Gays OF
session and thus avoid the possibility OF second
vote upon them but do not regard TINS as sum
cent 10 break the force OF the reasons above as
signed. Legislation Of this character may be sald
10 90 before the Governor in some degree discred-
disapprova OF the municipal authorities VIII De less
likely 10 receive the executive assent ,,
that the Governor may still approve the phi, ana
that upon such approval, It may become law.
Edward Eauterbach has submitted similar
brief to the Governor, and Charles Il. Lincoln.
the Governors legal adviser, is examining poth
opinions.