New-York tribune., 1905-01-12
A CANAL RESOLUTION.
INTRODUCED IN SENATE.
Bracket Ij1onid Learn II Federal
Governments Consent Is Needed.
IBY TELEaRAPH TO rHr T,Ip-yr.l


Albany, Jan 1.-THE first direct legislative
action now growing out Of the questioned cor
stitutonolity Of the Jaw authorizing the ex-
penditure Of Slolooo.0o0 on canal Improvement
came tonight when Senator Edgar T. Bracket
introduced a resolution requesting an opinion
from the Attorney General on the safety for the
state Of beginning work on the project. The
Brackett resolution recites decision Of the
United States Supreme Court that the Erie
canal is nSVlga bic water Of the United States.
and suggests that as a result OF the decision it
might be desirable. before the State begins the
work Of enlarging the canal TO determine the
question OF its right to undertake such work
without the consent OF the United States gov
ernment.
II is not known II this is the point on which
,he-question OF constitutionality is TO be raised
fv Flihu Root. bus II is a sample Of the wide
range of legislatirg attacks against the law that
nav he expectedf Senators Davis and Hill. Of
Buffalo. two Of the strongest adherents of the
canal construction. both discussed the develop
rnents. and both agreed that they would not
impede the work
1t IS a desperate and dangerous effort 10
thv-srt the declared viii Of the people" said the
former. but ! am satisfied that II will accom-
plish nothing"
Senator Hin declared that ne believed all ques-
lions Of constitutionality had been carefully pro
1ided for when the act was passed, and ne be-
reved that they would be promptly disposed Of
Both Buffalo Senators declared that they would
actively combat any effort 10 delay or defeat the
canal construction.
When Senator Bracket introduced his resolu-
,ion he asked unanimous consent 20 hsyt II i'm
yrs6isteIv considered. To this Senator EIsberg
objected Senator Hnl OF Buffalo is preparing
10 meet the points raised in the Bracket resolu-
tion He said tonight that the national gov
eminent had never dreamed Of Interpreting the
law as the resolution suggested and that fl was
merely provision intended TO apply 10 liens on
ships navigating such waters.
n the constitutional tangie little new de-
veloped to-day. Attorney General Mayer had
6 long talk with the Governor. in which this
question was discussed. but neither would say
anything about The conference. II was reported
however that a study OF the law had revealed
the fact that taxpayers suit was not the rem
edy that would be open 10 the anti-canal forces.
thus eliminating one possible method Of attack
but unQuestiOnably opening Up another field OF
legal OpeT alton which has not been disclosed.
Nv \. Franchot. the new Superintendent OF
Public Works returned to-day. and promptly sci
about writing a letter TO the Attorney General
asking for his opinion on the legality OF the tWo
forms of canal contract, lump sum and item
With the question Of The constitutionality OF the
Law. Mr.. Franchot explained that he had no con-
cer-. but until the other complex problem is set
Ted he cannot safely proceed with the letting Of
me rohLacls NoLAlhg IL the nature OF a re-
quest on the part OF ex-Secretary Root or the in
terests he represents for e hearing the con-
stitUuonsl questions came 10 the Attorney Cen
erals once to-day; neither did Mr.. Franchot's
letter. II Is certain, however. that the general
feeling to-day wEs that the DELAY in the letting
present tangle might prove shorter than was
originally expected. This view does not how
ever. take into consideration the possible legis-
1a,ivs hlibustering which is already assured
from the snu-canal members.