New-York tribune., 1902-03-21
HOSTILE TO CANAL BILLS.
ASSEMBLY WILL HAVE NOTHING To DO
WITH IMPROVEMENT MEASURES.
TBr TELEGRAPH TO THE rR1BuxE.I

Albany. March 20.-The Assembly disclosed
its hostility to-day to all bills that provide for
submitting to the people at the November cleo
ton the proposition to spend several million
dollars in the improvement of the canals of the
State. II rejected amendment TO Assembly
man Weekes's bill which provided that the peo-
ples approval should he asked for an expendi-
ture of $31S0OOO0 in the Improvement of the
Erie and Champlain canals. This proposition
included in Senator Davis's BILL which
passed the Senate this week. 1t then rejected
the Weekes bill itself. which submitted to the
people the proposition to expend $372O00OD in
the Improvement Of the Oswego. the Erie and
the Champan canals.
Senator Davs's bill is still alive, but after the
rejection of a precisely similar measure attached
to Assembly bill there can be no reasonable
hope that this bill will he passed by the Assem-
bly, The votes which caused the defeat of the
bill were cast chiefly by Republicans and Demo
Gratis living in the interior of the State, although
a few New-York City members voted against
it, The Rochester and Syracuse Republicans,
who live the line of the Erie Canal, also
voted against it. The rural Republican mem
bers frankly said that they feared that the
passage of the bill would affect the RepubIi
can State canvass disastrously; that they were
appTehensive that Democratic orators would
acknowledge that the State administration is
economical, but would then point to the canal
hill as an Indication that the economy would
not last long Republicans living along the
line Of the Erie Canal intimated that the mem
cry Of the way in which the 100000 voted in
1890 for canal improvements was expended had
not yet died out
The debate in the Assembly upon the canal
bills lasted three hours. The bill brought up for
consideration was that Of Assemblyman Weekes,
appropriatng $31,20O00O for the Improvement
OF the Osweso, the Erie and the Champlaiu
canals When the bill was reached Mr. Weekes
moved 10 amend il 10 conform with the Senate
blll OF senator Davis. He said that If each
house passed different bills they would cross
each other and the delay would put a quietus
on such legislation altogether
Assemblymen Lewis and Costello, both of Os-
wego spoke against the amendment whereupon
an eliort was MADE by the antI-canal men TO
still further dsconcert their adversaries by Of
fertns half dozen other amendments. Two Of
these especially awakened the interest of both
factions. The first was introduced by Assem-
blyman Kelsey, and was concurrent resolution
in amendment TO the constitution TO provide
for the construction of a railroad for freight
purposes in the bed Of the canal. The second.
which was offered by Assemblyman Burnett.
provided for an additional S3OO0OOO for the
dredging out of Canandaigua Lake. which is in
his district
on the call of the House the canal men raised
the cry that number of members who they
had hitherto believed would support the bill
could not be found. After nearly an hours de
lay the sergeant alarms announced that he was
unable 10 find nine Of the absentees.
The amendment was finally defeated by a
vote of 64 ayes to II noes. The following mem
berS from greater New York voted against Mr..
Weekess amendment: Assemblymen Adams.
Bardwell. Day. Nance Pendry, Remsen, Rey-
nOlds and Weber.
The other amendments were then killed and
vote was taken on the bill with the result that
SlNty-three members voted for and sixty-seven
against the bill Mr.. Weekes voted finally
against his own bill, saying that it was useless
10 pass n, since Governor Odell had not recon-
mended 1t In his message, but the bill Of Senator
Davis providing much smaller appropriation.
Mr.. Weekes's sentiments were shared by other
NewYOrk members who voted against the bill