The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-06-05
GOVERNOR CRANE AND LEGISLA-
 TON.

A Little Discussion of His Method of Protecting the Public Interest, It makes a vast difference on whose foot the boot is in the business of so~ called executive interference" with legislative proceedings, as an incident
 of the past week served to illustrate.
 Whenever a message that has gone
 through both branches is laid upon the
 governors desk, and is then recalled,
 amended and sent to the executive to be
 finally signed by him, there is always
 some talk about the governors inter
 fering, and the intimation is likely to
 be thrown out in debate that, if the eX-
 ecutive doesn't like a bill in the form
 the legislature passed it, he ought to
 be willing to veto it and accept the re-
 sponsibility for the consequences. At
 the same time persons concerned for
 the principles at stake in pending leg
 islation are usually very thankful for
 the opportunity, if one be granted, to
 eliminate objectionable features and
 save the meat of the bill.
 Unless a governor is utterly callous to
 public opinion and is of a temperament
 that likes to exalt it's own importance
 or make grand stand plays for politi-
 cal effect, he recognizes that he can
 with propriety veto only a few bills-a
 half-dozen in the course of a session is
 about the limit. It is power which
 was intended to be used sparlngly and
 governors as rule do not like to use 1t
 otherwise At the same time, every in
 telligent member of the legislature
 knows that lot of ill-considered legis-
 lation would be placed in the statute
 book if somebody didn't head it off. There are also other measures with the spirit of which a governor may be in hearty accord, but which he may be-
 lieve would be very unwise to permit to become law in the precise form that the legislature has given them. Public sentiment in such cases would be cer- tain to msinterpret if it did not actu- ally condemn, the use of such executive disapproval. Two instances of this kind have occurred this year-the bill to regulate the speed of automobiles and the Sunday soda-water bill, so- called Governor Crane thought the end sought to be accomplished by both these pieces of legislation wise, but he found what he considered to be serious lldNS III lIt Illl dSGOlpSy pl AllC bIilS' I He did not want to interpose the veto under the circumstances, and he there fore had the bills recalled and amend | ed so as to remove his objections. | Then he signed them, and the public | got the benefit without suffering the ! that might have resulted | had the bills become law in theirorigi- | nal form.
 Some of the talk that has been made | about executive "interferenCe" of this l kind has come from men in the legis- | lature who were mighty glad one day | last week that the governor permitted | the legislature to interfere with the | natural course of executive action. A | bill came before the governor providing | that George R. Farwell of the firm of | Farwell Brothers, might recover from the city of Boston damages on account | of the abolition of the Dorchester-ave- nue grade crossing. MT Farwell's | claim was that his business was seri- ously affected, if not ruined by the de- | flection of the New York, New Haven l, and Hartford tracks, but though he was awarded nearly forty thousand dollars by jury in the superior court the supreme court set aside the verdict The suit was brought under the act au- the abolition of the crossing, and the legislature was asked to pass law under which there could be no doubt about the plaintiffs right to re- cover. One of the Farwells was a member of the legislature two or three i years ago, and was then elected to the board of aldermen. The measure went