New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-25
SELECTIONS FROM THE MAIL.
SENATOR LEXOW'S WEAK REPORT.
HE FAILS TO ANSWER OBJECTIONS RAISED TO
CONSOLIDATION AT THE HEARING.


CONSOLIDATION AT THE HEARING.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: l examined Lexow's report on consolidation
with interest, to what he would say about the
objections. urged before the subcommittee at the
hearing in Brooklyn that the proposed bill would
destroy the limit to the debt-contracting power
which the Constitution imposes upon cities and coun-
ties and that the establishment of the proposed CITY
would, according to the Constitution. require the re-
constituting OF Boards OF Supervisors In New-Hork
and Kings countless with the dangers OF expense and
extravaganza which would result therefrom.
AS to the debt-contracting power. find that Sen
ator Lexow disposes Of the objection in these words
only: 1T seems to that this can constitute no
valid objection IT, for the sake of argument, we
assume that the proposition true. there is adequate
power in the Legislature BY proper limitation to fore
stall any such predicted abuse"
senator Lexow did not attempt to show that his
proposed bill would not destroy the limitation on the
de5t-contracting power Of the two cities which the
Constitution has established. He SAL that he could
not do that lie has sought to avoid the objection BY
saying that some Legislature may set up statutory
barrier in place OF the constitutional barrier which
he proposes to have this Legislature throw down.
This mode Of avoiding the objection suggests the
famous lines OF Bramston:
hear lion in the lobby
Say Mr.. Speaker shall we shut the door.
And keep him there. shall We let him in
To Try If " him out again?
Because the animal In question in this case Is
tiger instead of lion. the lines are no less applicable
Senator Lcxow urges the Legislature to open the
door and let the creature In because, possibly,
Legislature may turn him out again.
But what does Senator Lexow mean by saying that
TINS doubling Of the Disseminating power 'can con-
stute valid objection?" Doubtless here are those
to whom the fact that the bill would break down
the constitutional limitation on the contracting of
debt In these cities would be not only no objection to
It, but really argument in its favor. because the
contracting Of debt amounting TO % per cent Of the
value OF the real estate OF the two cities would posi-
bly, furnish. 10 those who friends Of the parties
In power. double the amount of Jobs which they
could hope for under 10 per limit. But for the
citizens who have to pay the debts by taxation. such
an extension OF the limit is certainly Objectionable
because II IS TO them great danger. And the very
reason why the limitation was pat in the Constitu
ton was this, that people knew that the Legislature
c0ud not be relied on to guard against the suggested
abuse OF the debt-con tracing power
adroy fails to answer the objection ar all The
objection Is "If you pass the bill there must We
and a menace TO economical administration" Sen
dtor LeXow does not deny either statement. lie
writes as II the objection made 70 the bill taat
1t d!d not provide for Boards Of Supervisors in
stead or that II made IL necessary 10 provide for
hem lie says, first. that there is time to provide
there Is, bu, that has nothing to do with the CO.
Then ne says that II the Legislature does not per-
form It's duty and provide for Boards OF Superyls-
ors. THE failure TO perform that duty would not
leave the communities OF New-YOrk and Kings de-
priyed OF an instrument essential u the execution
o the governmental powers now vested in their
Common Councils and Boards OF Supervisors" Does
not Senator Lexow know that neither New-York
nor Kings County now has Board Of Supervisors?
Does he not that. II the Legislature should
bring about 4 state OF things in which the Consu-
tuition requires that each OF them should nave a
Board q Supervisors. Il would instantly raise In.
numeraNe questions as 10 what powers could law
.uly be exercised by their Common Councils. II
the Legislature should ail to provide for the cleo
t!on OF Boards Of Supervisors? II the LEGISLATURE
determines to create the state Of things In which
he Constitution calls for the existence OF Boards Of
supervisors In New-York and krSs counties. II
ought by the very same act TO provide FOR their
election II VIII violate its duty under the Consi-
tuition d, = does not
Hence the legislature II 1t passes this bill must
Boards OF Supervisors In NewYork and Kings
counties
The objection therefore that the bill VIII throw
upon the citizens OF New-York and Kings counties
the useless expense Of Boards Of Supervisors with
all the complications. confusion and menace
from tncr existence in those counties In times past
is lefi entirely unanswered by Senator LeSow's re-
port
C.izcns who believe in the performance or con-
stltufional duties. who believe tAat the con"itu-
tlaal limitation Il the dcbt-contractns power OF
cities and counties TO 10 per cent Of the real es;le
valuation Is 4 wse one, and who believe tina; the
existence OF county Boards o. Supervisors along
size OF city Common Councils is a danger 20 pru-
don't and economical government VIII hnd nothing
the objections 10 the Cons 3ldaton bill when have
been urged these grounds.
ROBERT D. BENEDICT.
New-York. Feb. q. 1875.