The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-06-12

In his address at Rochester on Friday
Governor ROOSEVELT referred to the now
franchise Tax law in these terms:
II have seen IN che public press lately otices Of
more than Qua attempt that Ia 10 be made by cor
p0rations w the courts 10 defeat, through some
technicalites law that designed for their own
protsrton. A. iuan 10 others aud = one whr
dcpi coates class ,r- hr,tility. wish T. empla.
ste the dagger I" ",... % these men 10y such att
tudr expose not ouly the STATE but the corporations
s- well They ma, make up their minds absolute y
that the Franchise Tax law has como to stay ZAP.
pl use Lam sure AZ can be that any successful
attempt mss 10 overturn this tar will result In put
ting upon the statute books drastic law than
the one at prosGut thUre.'
The only tcchnraitles through which
the Ford act can be- defeated arc arguments
which in the Judgment Of the courts shall
demonstrate that the measure il in conflict
with the highest law OF the State--that Is,
with the Constitution, which the people
have prescribed US u guide to the Legis-
latur". Ms well as Ia the other departments
Of the State Government for the exercise OF
their powers.
To call violation of tho Constitution "A
technicnity recalls tho Western newspaper
which announced that "the prisoner there
not guilty.
We understand that tho Ford act IS
deemed by some lawyers to bc unoonst i
tutiunal because IL confers the power OF
assessment upon State board instead Of
leaving 1t In the hands Vt local officers. The
statement has recently been published,
however, as coming FROM the Governor
himself, that Supreme Court Justice and
Jndg" of tho Court Of Appeals had advised
him that there was no valid constitutional
objection to the measure.
Whatever may be the fact in this respect
1t is inaccurate to talk about tn" possibility
of overturning the Franchise Tax law by
technicalities." No "tcchniculitles" can
be available for this purpose except some
provision or provisions in tho State Consti-
tuition which the Legislature has inadvcrt-
entity disregarded or purposely violated, and
In either event 1t is hard to gee why the cor
porations which may have the temcrty to
show that this act Of the Legislature Is un-
constitutional should be threatened with "a
more drastic law" in the future. II the
Ford bill is In conflict with the Constitution,
Governor ROOSEVELT cannot desire that it
should DO enforced. Why then, warn the
corporations which it affects that 1t will be
worse for them II the courts condemn the
measure on this ground? Are people to he
punished because they insist upon the SUI
prrmacy Of the fundamental law as enl-
bodied in the State Constitution? We hope
not We do not believe that Governor
ROOSEVELT desires any such thing yet the
fair import OF what he said on this subj
al Rochester was that, IL the corporations
succeeded In having the Ford bill pro-
nounced unconstitutional by the courts, the
Legislature would enact a law which would
operate still more harshly upon tho cor.
porations.
This would be simply furnishing people
for successfully asserting their legal rights.
1t would be wrong and indefensible on any
admissible theory Of ethics or politics. We
believe in the main principle Of tho Ford
bill and hop" and bcl"v" that eventually
1t will prevail but IL any portion of it Is
unconstitutional, it should be re-cast in a
constitutional form, without imposing any
penalty upon those who prove that it il not
In all respects harmonious with the Consti-
tuition OF the State