New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-11-03
SENATOR LOOMS RIPPER BILL
Buffalo Legislator Defends His Court
of Claims Measure.


Court OF Claims bill ought to he accom-
panied by a statement that the one thing
ripped by this bill was the grossly par
tsan wholly inexcusabe Republican legis-
lation OF past years regarding the Board
or Court OF Claims.
The Board of Claims was constituted In
1889. and consisted of three commissioners
with siX-ycar terms so arranged that the
term Of one commissioner would expire
every two years, thus insuring continuity
Of service of experienced men. To this
end, it was specifically provided that In
case of a vacancy occurring the person
appointed to fill such vacancy should hold
only for the balance of the term wherein
the vacancy occurred.
In 1897 the name of this body was changed
from the Board OF Claims TO the Court OF
Claims. but without change Of the pro-
vision for six-ycar terms, one TO end every
two wears.
This condition Of things continued until
1901. when Benjamin Odell was Governor,
and i'm the last year Of his term. when
the chances seemed 10 favor his being sue
ceeded by a Democrat. Then, for the very
evident purpose of making sure that two
isfpubilNdH JhNS'S Sii'hii not III any tNtllt
he succeeded by Democrats. the Republican
Legislature passed an act changing the
law so as to provide that an appointee TO
fill a vacancy should hold office for full
term of six years from the date of ap-
polntment. Thereupon, within two days,
and evidently by Encouragement, Judges
Swift and Rodenbach promptly resigned,
thereby creating the desired vacancies, and
were Immediately reappointed for full six
year terms. The orderly arrangement OF
terms. one expiring every two years. was
deliberately sacrificed TO partisan ends.
Following this. in 1906 and in the last
year of Governor Iiiggins's term. statute
of very doubtful constitutionallty was
passed extending the terms OF the present
judges for ten years from the time of the
statute going into effect and increasing
their salaries from 5000 to $1,000. But for
this statute their terms would have ex-
PRED last year. in 1910 This increase OF
salary was given on the understanding
that Judges should thereafter pay their
own expenses for which provision had
heretofore been made by the state. Yet
last year an accommodating Republican
Legislature again provided for the payment
OF expenses without limit, In addition TO
salaries.
Now the object Of my bill was to nulify
the indefensible legislation to which l have
by the bill and all that could possibly be
accomplished thereby. Tie terms OF the
present Judges were ended as they ought
to have ended. and would have ended in
1910 but for the unwarranted and. I be-
lieve, unconstitutional extension OF their
terms by the legislative enactment Of 1906
The Board of Claims was re-established.
in name as we'll as in fact with the former
orderly arrangement for the expiration Of
the terms of the commissioners, one every
two years, thus insuring a continuity Of
the services OF experienced men.
The salaries OF the commissioners will
be 5000 instead of 5000: their expendi-
lures for which the state now provides,
will be strictly limited to $3.50 per an
mum instead Of being allowed, as now,
10 run up 10 $500 or more. In all, there
will be a saving of at least $1,000 per an
mum.
I may say also that the anomaly Of CIV
ing the name court" TO a body having
no common law or equity jurisdiction, and
especially calling r. court of record, has
been cured by repeating all such statutory
provision Indeed. my bill was in effect
though not nominally, but little moro than
a repeal OF the Republican legislation to
which I have alluded. IL would have
taken that form but for the fact that
this would have necessitated the re-endct-
ment of the old law which the Republican
legislation superseded.
This. in brief, is what was accomplished
by this ripper bill. You can see nothing
in il. or rather, perhaps / should say. will
not see anything in It, but a grab for the
spoiIs Of the office. That was the very
obvious purpose of your legislation, which
has now been repealed.
These are the facts, unquestioned and
unouestionable. Is there any reason why
they should not be stated?
FRANK NJ. LOOMS.
Buffalo, oct 30. 1911.
ISenator LOOMS in the Legislature adj
mitted freely that his bill abolshing the
Court of Claims was ripper BILL" and
defended it, as he attempts to do now
He seems TO miss the point that this
hodv by series Of changes had como TO
no KNOWN anu ItkhIbtbs ny hil' bhi anu
the public, as court performing jul
dicIal functions in the award OF damages
and settlement of claims, even If not
one of the courts created by the con-
s,itutIon. Its work was of much i'm
portance; its members had given general
and thorough satisfaction by their per-
formance Of their duties. IL was
recognized and declared, by prominent
lawyers Of both political parties, that
any change I'm the law or the personnel
Of the court would be merely In the in
terest of job-grabbing politics. Even
the Democratic Attorney General de-
nounced II as against sound public policy
L. LIZ. ,..I.lio I,,tcrcaI Id [