New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-24
TETOES FOR TWO BILLS.
THE GOVERNOR wITHHOlDs HIS AP-
PROvAL FOR GOOD REASONS.

HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDE
WALKS ALONG THE HUDSON COUNTY BouLh-
YARD AT THE PUBLIC EXPENsE-HE DE-
CLrNEs TO REMOVE THE LICENSE
TAX FROM INSURANCE BROKERS.
! Trenton March q (SpeciaD-Governor "''ee'
vetoed tonight House bills Nos. 10 ana 10 49,.
or No ZIG he said: II am unable to approve '''s
| bill, The object OF 1t is TO authorize the po"' "
| Chosen Freehoders OF the county OF Huuso" =,
| struct sidewalks both sides OF 'he 49,
| County Boulevard a public road construc'eu -
| the authority Of the act TO which TINS Dill -
| plement. -.
9TH. bouevard Is fourteen miles long. and mas
heen constructed wholly at the genera expense "
| the county The scheme OF this Dill Is 10 LAY
sidewalks also at the general public expense VI w.
whole county, without any contribution on inc POI
OF the abutting property owners for speciaI oe"
that their lands may receive by reason OF '"e ~
provements | think 1t is almost the universal 'u
1, tho office ana Municipalities OF this state 'ha'
sidewalks are the especial care and charge VI -"
abutting property -owners. They are cons'de'eu q"
direct Improvement 10 the land and the |ou'' ~ -
Errors and Appeals has decided that Ia" "'
requires the abutting property-owners 10 pay Wv
whole expense is constitutional 1t can hardy De
denied that improvement such as Is au'"o'
by this bill would Of especial benefit TO tAe prey
erty along the line OF the Boulevard Cndouo'eu'!
it would be likewise a public beheht, Dut 10 ''e -
tent that the abutting property Is "c'eA' "
value by the construction Of the sine"a'hs ''"
proner;v ought TO contribute specially TO the ex-
pense II this bill provided for an "sSess
rnent upon the abu;ting property 10 the eN
tent OF IFS special benefits ] would cheeiIu'N
aporoye IT, But 1t contemplates that the whoe eA
pense shall be borne by the county al large ana ''s
money shall be raised by county bonds to the extern
OF $4,000.
In my judgment at least half OF that amount
ought 10 be contributed by abuttng property, and -
that extent al least the bill. II II became a"
would be an Injustice 10 the general taxpayers OF
the county There is a tendency of late to carry or
al general pablo expense. any io'a4 improvement
which formerly were done only at the expense %
the adjoining property. This L. especially true -
to the permanent Improvement Of highways While
such a practice may be of advantage III some cases
such for instance as The construction OF this boule
ward yet do not think that sidewalks should be
taken on; of the ancient rue. am INFORMED una
lands along this highway have already been iarsey
increased in value by the building OF this road ana
that without any special expense. over and above
VIVA, is borne equally by the most remote parts oil
the county of Hudson. Surely It requires no argu-
ment 10 convince Of the injustice OF further in
creising the value OF the LANDS along the line OF M
road by the aying OF siae~a.ss wn9"y al '"e ~
no. lis Is a supplement TO the ire insurance sct'
In refusing sign II the Governor gave the io'-
lowing reasons: $1,000. 10. -, 49, 90,
This bill repcalS the fouTtn section OF iIt az
approved Narcn 80 1892. which requires any person
acting as broker negotiate contracts with nre ID
sur.r.ee companies for others than himself for n
conversation 10 take a license from the De
partment OF Banking and Insurance .,,, ,...,. an,
TO be iusi and fair safeguard around the irara-
action OF nre insurance business Agents are re-
oulred 10 TAX. license before they can act ioI
Insurance companies. and the Legislature OF lS-
neer.s IL wise TO require brokers take out a
similar License. | have heard no good reason suS-
eestei why the action OF the Legislature IN lss-
should now be repealed
The State derives a revenue or about A" year
from tbs source The amount Vi the license zee j.
so per anuurn and does 10 De- excessive
For inc. reasons ! am unwilling to approve this
; n