The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-08-01
An Interrogation
We have received the subjoin"d COM
munication:

We have received the subjoinsd COM
munication:
TO THH EDIIoE % THp Sr-S- ~, In TuI
svS Of July - 'bcrs vA- prn,ed IN editorial
srticie which - 'he casual r-sd-r Norld seem
- ~ aimed IN Sc Indirect criticism rega- iIas
me ettrAvasani expenditures ~ Nrv ore st.'s
drring The ss' 'our vs,r. a. Governor HroHS-
THE writsr recently attended = tlnnsr IN Pnus
delphla ~ which both Soy-rnor HrGHrs Snd
Governor start o. prnn.vivanla spoke Gov.
,rno- HroHEs In NJ ,pe-sh ssld. =, : -,rne n
be- = that - 'h- Governor o. N~V NorI had =
power ,.1lll- 20 'na' e. 30 O,' rrno- - P,an
s-Iyaals namely ~ now. arbitrarily 20 sole
down me appropriation urIs Nrv or YOU'D
oec'.ry 80 - b'sb.~ = rnsuc,sl ro.' lon - ioes
rsun',tvsnA i's added . ? --mrrbsr e. ms
80 OF ~ "r'.r ,p?'HpHr flJa -, 'h- ouly
r,copr-. ,e'' % h'r vllrh l1 .4e -'NIor'ry o. In
stances NO Ia vcr. r.l f~a And s-riors IN iu.-
tl~e % ne ulutnn'. hsnearlar
- hose srr 40 facts. Il 10, your criticism
unfSir. inasnlch - q Distinctly deals IN half
uu'hs' PBu.ptIrHIs WANNA
rHusrsrrHs lily %
The question which our friend asks
is a. far a. the answer * simple. IL IL
true that the Governor II New York il
not permitted 10 scale down appropria-
ton bills but must veto whole items or
allow them. Thus the appropriation
bulls passed bv tho recent Legislature
amounted 10 iil,Sii, OF ~ and by veto
ing certain specific items Governor
HuGHFs cut ont A.7I3.7i7.a7. leaving q
net budget Of $40 col 22,2s
But while the Governor was limited
10 the course he followed 80 long az he
was willing to accept the appropriation
bills, there was a simple. effective and
complete remedy in his hands. The
Legislature had passed appropriation
bills amounting 10 above $40 ON 900 in
excess Of the previous year and more
than fs.OO. 600 in excess ~ the actual
revenue n the stat" For this enormous
increase therc has never been presented
single satisfactory explanation.
In the face of such n situation the low
arnor had IL wholly within his power 10
veto the appropriation bills "a n whole
and summon tho Legislature 10 RECON
Slder in extra session the question Of the
not merely have acted within his con-
stiutional rights. but he would have
AIKEN n course which would havp earned
him instant and unanimous approval
from tho citizens Of the state
The criticism of Governor HLGnEs.
and THT SI'N had No intention that its
criticism should -@em indirect. rests
upon the fact thar instead OF calling
upon tho LEGISLATURE 10 perform
proper duty which II had shamefuIly
neglected he whit led the budget 10 the
moons derabl" extent possible by veto
ing separate items and then signed T.
subsequently hc called the Legislature
hack, not 80 submit the QUESTION Of
Tho rEtravnEant budget. but 20 attempt
10 coerco il into passing his purely per-
soHal project of direct primaries.
Precisely rho same course that he fol-
lowed in the primary legislation was
open to th" Governor ~ the case II the
budget and tho necrSs,ity for such action
here vas a. patent a. II wss lacking ia
the primary INA 'rr. BuI 10 r,.SiIbmis
~ IN" Legislature the financial Irgisla-
ton would naturally distract attention
from he primary project which to him
seemed Of vastly mor" importance np-
parontly, thnn budget swollen by
SIoUOnDD of unwarrantcd appropria-
tions
Our correspondent nv indirect ION
-eems 10 charge IA with dealing In half
truths. IN point Of fact, did not Cover
nor HUOHEs in informing his Pennsyl-
VanlA- SudisnO0 Of tho remedy in hin