The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-05-22
BE,JECTED BY MAYOR STRONG.
Three City Bills Returned to Albany
 Faults in the Harlem Drawbridge Meas

Three City Bills Returned to Albany Faults in the Harlem Drawbridge Meas ure.
 Albany, May 21-Three New York city bills were returned to-day by
 Mayor Strong to the clerk of the as- sembly with hls,reasons for refusing on
 the part of the city to accept them. One of the bills rejected was Assembly,
 men Reinhard's amending the act for
 the construction of a drawbrldge over
 the Harlem river, and for the moval of the present bridge at Third avenue.
 Mayor Strong writes as originally drawn, this bill was objectionable, It's
 purposes and intention being to invest
 the title in the land necessary for the
 bridge approaches on June in orday that the constructor may be able to go ahead and complete his work and thus facilitate the time for the com pletion of this important improvement.
 As amended by the legislature Mayor
 Strong finds the bill objectionable in
 several particulars. The most serious
 objection is that 1t is provided that the
 commissioners must make separate re-
 ports of the land to be included within
 the single approach to the bridge, CT
 within one block along the line of the
 approach. This involves the trial of
 the question by piecemeal, and. in the
 mayors opinion, will delay very great
 ly the proceeding and embarrass the counsel to the corporation in his de- fence of the city's interest.
 An0tbar o1oiaofinr1 raica1l pa iy7c tba
 bill by the mayor is that interest upon awards shall run at the rate of per cent. from the time of the appoint ment of the commissioners of appTais- al. The enjoyment of the property con- cerned not having been affected by the proceedings thus far taken, the pay ment of interest from the date of the commissioners appointment in Febru- ary, 1894, the mayor characterizes as a mere bonus or gratuity to the property owners and entirely unjustifable.
 Another bill disapproved by the mayor is Assemblyman Niles amend ing section 1867 of the consolidation act so as to provide that the commissioner of jurors in New York city in preparing his list of trial jurors shall first take from the names of the residents who did not vote at the last preceding gem eral election, and until the list of all such persons, liable to serve as jurors is exhausted, he shall not include in his list of trial jurors the names of any person registered as having voted at the said then last preceding general election. Mayor Strong writes that he IS in hearty accord with any endeavor on the part of the legislature to increase the number and efficiency of our jury service. The great number of exemp- tions and the disinclination on the part of of many of our citizens to per- from public duty by serving as jurors l justifies legislative action, in the may or's judgment. The Nil g blll however, does not meet the requirements Of the | case. It would, he believes, in fact re- l duce the number of citizens eligible for l jury duty. and it Imposes upon the | or jurors a duty that 1t l would be impossible for him to carry | out literally. The mayor adds:
 "The provision exempting a voter | who submits the name of a person | who failed to vote and could have done l so at the last preceding election, ad- mits of a strict Interpretation which | might be construed into permitting the name of one man who did not so vote to excuse from jury service several who lid vote. Again, there is substantial among the judges of the su- oreme court in this department to the effect that the bill would largely reduce the number of available intelligent urors."
 The third bill rejected was the bill ,f Assem.blyman Foley, dem., of New York, for the relief of Mary T. Bates. n suit brought against New York ,ity to recover damages.