New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-06-16
STATE CARE BILL NOT A LA "
THE GOVERNOR DECIDED THAT HE HAD
NO POWER TO REVIVE IT.
THE CYCLE PATH BILL. ALSO FAILED TO RECEIVE
HIS APPROVAL. THOUGH NE WOULD HAVE
LIKED TO SIGN IT-OTHER MEASURES
THAT DIED YESTERDAY.

THAT DIED YESTERDAY.
Albany, June l5-Governor Morton this afternoon
decided not to approve the Conklng Dill bringing
the New-York City dependent insane under state
care This Is the bill which Mayor Strong returned
10 the Governor without taking action upon IT, The
Governor filed the following memorandum on the
bill:
The bill was passed by the Assembly on the s'h Of
May last by the Senate on the sih and on the I'm
a SsI. o eUpy for hs aeto to the
provisions OF the Constitution On the 2lsi the orig
na S b s the wa" eSpI Of the bill WAS
returned by the Mayor, but without any certificate
showing whether the city had or had not accepted
the same. ana also without any certificate showing
that he pub!ii notice ana an oppoItunity 10Y a
required by The Constitution and by Chapter OF
the laws OF Ihe question rs IS now
approval whether II Is subject 10 Executive ac-
question: First. whether the bill Is one for speca!
city law within the meaning OF Section OF Article
such biz and. therefor one Of the class Of Bills
required to be first submitted to the Mayor for Mo
consideration 1t Is subject to Executive consideia-
think IL is conccde by every one who has given
the matter Careful Consideration that this bin is a
.city bill' within the meaning OF the Constitution
FOR It's transfer 70 the state and requires acton
by certain city officers 1t Is so clearly one Of the
class Of bills which must be submitted 10 city
further discussion of that question is unnecessary
upon BIZ is primarily one OF jurisdiction; $? ne
ton OF this b? The jurisdiction Of the Governor to
act upon bill depends upon the existence OF various
the votes of a majority Of the members elected 70
each branch OF the Legislature certain DIS as1
OF each branch when the vote Is taken upon tncir
nnal passage; and st another class OF ois can
Of two-,hirds OF the members elected to eacn Dranen
re- Geq ,s is lacking in given case cove
nor has no jurisdiction to act and an approya. Of
such bill by him does not make valid law. In
addition to these jursdctional requirements. which
must be considered in The case Of every Dill, me
turisdletonai limitation upon The pownr Of me
BY virtue OF this new provision. The G)7crnor 90,
ans no r: hsen H 20 ie y y snd il h
accepted by IT, or II not accep,ed Is again passed by
"whencver any such hn Is accepted AZ hers.n Iro-
vidod shall be subject as are other bills to the ac-
10 act noon an accepted OH cannot be treated also
as a grant by Implication OF tAe sane power 10 &c,
made that the Governor mas any power 10 "A upon
the city bill on.y in case OF ih acceptance by ,ne
1'he Constitution contains no iniimaion that Jurs-
dlcton intended 20 be c1nicrfeu nP0n e or
moi accepted by ciies. The Constitution evidently
nsenden ia 70 the eoh lst snce ha laws should
enacted affecting their interest," but the Consiitu.
conferrlng upon the Legislature the power 70 pa,
n '.cty BIZ the second lime notwthstani.ng lts
rejection by the city; ana a.so py entering upo
the Governor the same power to act upon such a
~; IN PASSED the second time, as II II had beel
accented by the city In the nrst instance. put tie
- n,ake law that which the authorities OF me cay
say shall not be law. excepting IN the single m
rca ~ the sec ond passage q the bill by the egis-
Ss"ro. and city bill' upon ts first passage Ks not
T. 81, In an initiatoy condition. During the sess on
~ me Legislature such a Dill may pass from an
-. 70 n completed condition. but the c0nten-
.;mn maj bill rejected by city after the adjourn
men. T or he Governor implies that the Governor
Ss more nov or in the making OF laws aiter an id-
No. Of the Legislature than while IL - In
SS~sson and that The Governor IN case OF such
Iii: a.ter adjournment has as nuch Dover as me
~. While session. which would not per
hans be seriously urged. ,, .,,,,,,ss,,,
.Sn.. constitutional provision regarding suo"ssio
nc hS,s 10 citizens should be construed so as 10
~ sor,e force and effect and the evident design
S eiving to a city some power 10 determine 'hr
o. s of legislation affecting II would be OF no
Smact and the action OF city upon Dill aHectihs
d. Interests would amount merely 10 an expression
~. 80 nnnion IL the Governor had power 10 make Dill
" which the city had declined TO accept theis
fore the submission oil such pi'' ~ " N''' "0'N
Be q mere idle ceremony ,,.o, -, the s,h
think study OF the Development OF tne sup
-, ~ .bome rule for cities in the CONSTITUTIONAL
Tonven,,on OF 1894 shows very clearly that IL was
shsp the mere right to express an opinion upon Il
ss.ard,nc measure and 10 confer upon them con.
ssSderabe degree Of local government Inc III o.
nrnnos,jon submitted to the convention. on July a.
ss'neS elaborate provisions regulating the internal
sffars OF cities and II was therein providf,d ina
Except as permitted by Section l. me heglsIata'e
.hsil not pass any Law relating to cities. eHcep.
Following subjects" enumerating various classes
of Subjects concerning city affairs. By oecuoh No.
referred to. II provided that avs may De
sarsed affecting one or more OF the suoJec's e"1"