New-York tribune., 1901-05-12
VETO FOR BRIDGE GRAB.
GOVERAOR LET'S 1T DOWN HARD
IN HIS MEMORANDUu
SCORES IT FOR ITS CUNNING EN-
PlohERS' LIABILITY BILL
ALSO VETOED
Try TELEGRAPH TO THE rnrBuxE.l

gen.
orally expected here in Albany, vetoed to-day
Senator Raines's amazing bill giving TO the
New-fork and New-Jersey Bridge Companv
authority to build elevated approach along
West-st And thus great franchise is refused
the company The grant would have been
worth many millions Of dollars.
The perpetual franchise granted to the bridge
company. without due compensation. the Gov
ernor considers feature Of the bin which could
not possibly meet with his approval as the Fx-
ecutive Of the State. The rights of the CITY Of
Aew-fork, he thinks. not sufficiently re-
garded in the act Moreover, the bill was OBJ
Jectionable because while pretending TO be a
general measure. il so drawn as TO apply
only to one city and to one corporation
Hence" said the Governor in his memorandum
upon the bill however cunnsnsly the bin may
have been drafted tc evade the constitutional
provision, all subterfuge may be swept aside
and the measure considered as affecting the
city OF New-York alone"
The Governors memorandum upon the act
which was highly commended here to-day by
State officials who read it, is given below:
This bin proposes through general legislation
TO confer upon the New-Nork and New-Jersey
Bridge Company certain rights within the city
of New-York for the construction of elevated
railroad structures upon Mest-st, as ap-
proaches or appurtenances of the bridge itself.
At the hearing before the Executive II was
clearly developed that the conditions provided
for in the bin could apply to no other munich
pality than the city of New-H York, and that no
other corporation could avail itself Of the rights
and privileges granted by the proposed bin eN
cept corporation such as the New-York and
New-Jersey Bridge Company, which now has
right TO build bridge OF the class and character
SO clearly defined in the bill Hence, however
cunningly the bill may have been drafted to
eVade the constitutional provision, all subter
fuge may be swept aside and the measure con-
sidered as affecting the city OF NeW-Hork alone
Law is common sense, and whenever ordinary
judgment can foresee the application of a law
far reaching in it's effect. vital to the in
terests OF the community, this act. we should
consider the subject Of which il treats as within
the letter well the spirit OF the constitu-
ton Therefore the elaborate arguments as TO
whether such law is general enough TO over
ride the protection which surrounds the grant
ing of franchises within the municipalities
should count for but little when we know that
as a matter OF fact no legal Interpretation Of
an act should permit the Legislature TO do
wrong and sweep away restrictions and grant
rights 10 one that are denied TO others
ITS EFFECT OK THE CITY.
Assuming that these premises are correct we
can consider the subject from the standpoint
OF its effect upon the city OF New-York Calling
an elevated structure Of the character sought
for in this bill an approach to the proposed
bridge within the generally accepted meaning
OF such term does not make il one. Nor can
the New-York and New-Jersey Bridge CON-
Yany construct, under the act Of Congress, any
approach in the city Of New-York without first
securing the consent of the Sinking Fund Com
rnssioners Any act which seeks what this
measure proposes to do without such consent,
by compelling in q mandatory manner this ap-
proval. thereby nullifes the charter rights so
recently conferred by the legislature upon the
greater city and makes imperative the protec-
ton designed by the Federal statutes,
Neither property be taken without due
,,rocass ~ law The franchises given TO the
city OF New-York by the legislature are among
its most valuable properties Therefore, when
IL is sought TO give ownership OF then III per
petuity without granting even the power of
condemnation. the city is poWerless TO secure
their value from those who thus control the
N-a1n s. the
mediate and future needs OF our greatest port.
The contention that this grant is in effect
moi 2 uaonopoly given by the legislature TO
private corporation is not borne out 10y a con-
sideration Of the bill. no provision is made Tor
the use of this elevated road by other bridge
companies which may build in the future ana
a perpetual grant would place all such corpora
lions at the mercy Of the corporation TINS Dill
seeks TO endoW with these eAuaorolnafg
Yowers In my opinion the states Of New-fork
and New-Jersey have already been hoeraI
enough with this company, and II IL cannot eN-
isl without these extra powers 1t should go 10
the board which already has the authority TO
grant such rights as may be desired ana the
rovrer 10 ask for such additional grants as may
be necessary at the HANDS Of the legislature.
The people of New York are the sole judges or
their own needs; upon them Iesls me respols- ti
bil!ty for the growth and prosperity OF thelr
home No antagonistic combination, actuated
by selfish aims. which seeks 10 prevent great
improvements, should be tolerated, any more
than other com binations which seek 10 obtain
In the face of constitutional ana statutory
restrictions rights without adequate cohpehsa-
In the hope that these improvements may
come from the people themselves ana that
civic rriaa will promote them rather than prl-
,,ate eain I am constrained TO withhold my ap-
roval from the bin in question
The Governor also vetoed Assembyman Cos
telos Fmployers' Liability act This was
measure supported by some labor organizations
and opposed by others. The corporations OF the
State generally thought they made concessions
TO their employees in il. But as the Governor
points ont in his memorandum upon the act the
bin unfortunately had inserted IN II pro-
vision which interferes with the rights Oh 'i1oSe
who are not employees and whose moos oi Pio-
cedure In bringing actions against coIPoralioi'
for damages sustained would be very ma'erlAiiy
curtailed"
The Governors memorandum vetoing the act
is in part follows:
Ovrin, "a the fact that there has been for a
long rertoS considerable agitation Tor an en-
ployers' liability bi and TO the consSlett s
thought which was given 10 the piePai @N.Di- 1 -
this bin by those having the matter IN cnafse. ls
I have deI,oted unusual study 10 its PROVISIONS
and their probable effect. III Is uii.o ,-;ston
that the bill has had inserted in IL a proEisIoli
which interferes with the flsnos EN-. "a ,lTocedure
in bringing actions against corporations ~ ~
damages sustained would he very ila.el , 80 10
curtatled The whole bin, therefore mus De
considered from the standpoint not only oI al, an
employers liability act but also 80 % - 90
the statutory limitations now eHIslils ,-...a,,s ~
tions for negligence. Under the Masssto 80
TfoDlovers' liability act the term wlthlh Nihch
notice must be given is Sixty das a- ,.,'I,o ono
tion must be commenced thereunoer Nltiiili ~. % tte
year but no curtailment is mace as 10 III rhe
rights of those who are not employees Ihe
State of Connecticut has a separate . az 49,
reference solely TO the rights OF IN - acover
porations and IL restricts the rlghl 10 te..
unless notice has been given within SIX tnontiis,
no amendment TO the statute or l llmltauohs ~ ~
this State has been made in great many years
raj