New-York tribune., 1896-02-05
THE SCHEME A BIG ONE.
OF 100 MEMBERS. 1T IS SAID III FAVOR
CONSOLIDATION.
A LETTER FROM THE LEAGUE OF LOYAL GIL
zFNs TO SENATOR IExow ADVOCATING RE-
suBMIssIoN-TIE LAST VOTE ON AN
NEXATION NOT REGARDED
AS BINDING.

AS BlNDlNt
George W. Chauncey Is responsible for the state
ment that of 1870 members OF the Union League
Club who had been interviewed on consolidation
III were in favor of a Greater New-York. II is
said that the petition signed by these III members
will shortly be Albany for the perusa OF the
Governor and the Legislature In speaking OF the
matter yesterday Mr.. Chauncey said: Ihis Is
90 per cent and I convinced that about the
same proportion OF those IN favor OF consolidation
will prevail throughout. I believe that the Dill
will become law on or before March l. AT any
rate we feel perfectly confident"
The why tho remaining $40 members OF the
Union League Club were not interviewed by MT
Chauncey or his friends not yet been learned
At any rate, another member OF the club said last
evening that in his opinion the III men who were
said 10 be In favor OF consolidation represented
about all OF that opinion in the club. Which man
Is accurate in his Views has not yet been ascer
taned
The following letter. only parts OF which are pub
ushed here written by j. l.. Dibbe at the in
stance of the League OF Loyal Citizens was sent to
Senator Lexow at Albany, yesterday:
Brooklyn. y. T., February 4. 1896.
Hon. Clarence VI. LeXow. Chairman OF Joint Sub
Dear Sir The public hearing to the citizens OF
Brooklyn on the question Of consolidation haVhs
privilege Of addressing you in relation to the late
Tbe last vote on consolidation either did or did
not positively or morally bind the iegsIat'ure "a an
nlf;horZing II to legiS!ate In accOTnlnCS- IL an
Affirmative vote bound the Legislature so to act, a
negative vote would likewise have debarred the'h
from 80 acting. , -.
II an affirmative vote in any way bound the
LEGISLATURE to legislatc In accordance or had a
negative vote forbidden the Legislature to sanction
the project, the authorization Of such commanding <
or linitlug vote 4 delegation or I'SlSlatlNo
power The Legislature could not pledge tseit 20
carry into effect an Affirmative vote without limit
Ing the freedom Of twO-thrds Of It's members 10
override a possible gubcrnator!al veto.
II the vote had any binding or commanding eIeci
unon the last LEGISLATURE. not that command
o., .fef faI bV l.pR.slIflITP
trniuctlon and urging Of the bill which faile1Y
II The present Legislature In In any way, morally
or positively bound by the vote. they are So bound
hv tho art OF a previous Legislature. ard II tl.s
legislature is so bound Will not all succeeding
Ie9islaturcs he similarly bound
Had ne Consolidation bill been passed. by the last
Icgislaturc and approved by the Governor, the
present Legislature would have power % repeal i
and tho Governor to approve such repeal. can 1t
br consistently held that this Legislature holds the
r,yht and power TO repeal Or r"F"rs" an hct OF the
las Legislature. carrying into effect ma)orty
vote and yet be bound 10 remedy the-felure or the
last LEGISLATURE 10 pass such an act?
4 rosihmisson today would give expression TO a
opinlon and afford safer basis for legislative con
As A measure Of public opinion the simple rule OF
m orfv is in no sense conclusive nor Is Il TO be
rel ID upon Is a safe guide.
ON the contrary. as respects important measures
OF vital interest. "A nearly division OF opinion
should suggcs; caution and act as warning
against prccptancy Of action not TO be disregarled
with safcty. Very respectfully J. l. DlBbLh.