New-York tribune., 1909-05-25

THE GOVERNORS PART WELL DONE.
The Governor will be widely and deservedly
praised for his work in cutting down the APP
preparations of the state. The Legislature eX-
ceeded the appropriations for last year by S9,-
14750S exclusive in both cases of provisions
for sinking funds. Out of this total the Gov
ernor has cut S4,4SS, $50, leaving the appropria-
lions for the year. exclusive of those for sink
Ili:. funds 81 COS GO greater than those of last
wear. likewise excluding sinking fund provi-
sions A statute passed this year resulted in
cut in canal bond sinking fund appropriations
of more than S4OO0Oo0, so that the total in
crease in the budget this year IS only S464,-
OBJ 60 But ali that is saved on sinking funds
goes for additional running expenses and nearly
half million more. If it had not been dis
covered that New York was making too lib
eral contributions TO its sinking funds. this
years budget would have been $4,65S,622
greater than that of last year, instead OF being,
as it is. only S464022 greater, provided that the
Governor could not have found any additional
items to cut out
No doubt the Governor will be criticised by
his enemies for permitting the ordinary eX-
penses Of the state to increase more than S4.-
OO0oO0-an increase which is almost wiped out
by the saving on sinking funds. There will be
sneers about the cost of reform We shall
be told that at this rate the next budget will
De anu LidIIS ItlISSl4Olo VIII DC III
dulged in at the Governors expense, as II
the responsibility were his. But the blame for
using up on the expenses of the state all that
was saved, at the Governors suggestion, from
contributions TO sinking funds must be Shout
dered by the Legislature. The system under
which the Governor has power to disapprove
individual items in the appropriations, but not
TO reduce any item, causes a division Of re-
sponsibility and confusion in the public mind
A. - E1,pr toto
is. however, comparatively slight. As Mr.
Hughes says In his memorandum:
Where a single item in the general appro-
priation or supply bill covers an Increase II
allowance for a given purpose the item can
not be reduced but must either stand or be
wholly disallowed. a general readtustment Is
therefore impracticable. and the burden or
cuvtailment must be borne by those specific
items of appropriation which can be disalloWed
without dislocating administration
The result of this is that the Governors
knife can be applied only TO the expenditures
which are not absolutely imperative If an
expenditure is essential the Legislature can
make as extravagant an allowance for 1t as 1t
sees fit and the Governor is practically power
less II he cuts it out he does so at the cost
as he says, of "dislOcating administration No
doubt if Governor Hughes had the same power
that Governor Stewart of Pennsylvania has
to reduce appropriations, well TO disallow
out of the budget; for the appropriations for
the various necessary administrative purposes
of the state shelter a good deal of favoritism
and politics.
When allowance IS made for the really linn
tied powers Of the Governor over the budget
he Will be seen to deserve great credit for the
work he has performed. He has done his ut
most TO keep the expenses Of the state down
and has. indeed whitfield them to the point
where they do not exceed the estimated in
come He has laid the knife unsparingly
where the knife could be laid He has given the
subject his careful study, inquiring patiently
into the merit Of every item before allowing
or disallowing it. IF the Legislature had done
its work in the same spirit the budget would be
many millions smaller. 1t will be generally
regretted that he had not full power, for, with
his business sense and Indifference to political
considerations, he would have effected ecOno-
mics all along the line The state will face a
big increase in its budget next year unless the
next Legislature does its part better than this
Legislature did, for a saving of $4,OOOOOO on
sinking funds cannot often be made.