The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-05-22

crease this year over last years total
of over 600.
The appropriation for the general on
Grafton Of the Department Of PUBL"
Works tcanal operation is $4,000
below the appropriation for the same
purpose last year.
The form OF tentative budget, as sub
mittcd by me to the legislature at
the opening Of the session Of the pres
ent year, WIS based upon a plan OF
transfer of allowances within schedules
under large aggregate appropriations.
a an alternative. the Legislature
adopted an appropriation bill segregated
to practically the same extent as the
tentative budget proposal which ! sub
mitted. but where my proposals included
schedules supporting appropriations,
each item in these schedules was made a
separate legislative appropriation in the
bill passed.
"lt is not possible. in = highly seq
reLatcd itemizcd appropriation act. such
as this. where all the items are separate
appropriations and between which no
transfers are to be made to express The
needs OF state government in anything
like as low n figure AZ where transfers
are permitted. but r. ~ also true that
this highly segregated tented appropfi-
alton act viii retIru TO the state n
very much larger amount of uncXpended
balances at the end of the year than a
bulge, IN the form Of my proposal.
"A conservative estimate OF the
amount which Will accrue from the un-
expended balance OF the present APP
Precipitation act to aid the financing II
the expenditures OF state government
next year is in excess Of $1,000 90"
AMI probably viii reach $4,000 oo. 80
that while that amount Of saving cannot
he represented In a reduction at this
time IN total appropriations approved
by me. the amount Of saving is assured
by the form OF the appropriation act,
itself.
AS their is no direct tax imposed tbs
year the expression ~ the cost of gov
/ eminent IN this amount does not place
any added burden upon the taxpayers.
hut on the contrary, aS | have shown,
assures a reserve for futut, budget pur.
poses.
"A very great a'iyan.e = made in
the approximation hill Of the present
Legislature over any previous appropr'-
alton bill IN IN" fact that II = for tn"
first time based upon scientific expense
| class ifCatiouS which. for instance. sep
arate expenditures for personal service
from every other kline OF expenditure,
cla asifvirg maintenance and operating
expenses under their proper subdivisions.
preventing the use Of those ~appropria-
tons for more than one Kind OF ex-
pense, and giving opportunity TO the
state Comptroller for Proper audit con-
TIL
The BIZ. for the FIRST time in the
: history Of the state. makes complete
provision for the maintenance and or
Grating expenses OF every department
md activity OF the state for the full
year, a feature Of appropriation the i'm
p%ortauce OF which anuot 30 orerestl-
mated IN future state financing.
During my consideration Of the
present APPROPRIATION bills ! have been
asked by the Mayor Of the city of New
York and an organization known as the
Tax Reduction Committee II New YORK
TO veto items OF appropriation in that
bill providing for interest on outstand-
ing State bonds and amortization con-
tributions to eight of the sinking funds
Of the state. making an aggregate pro-
posed reduction of appropriations OF
S6,2l6.9li.
''Thc first Of thes, Items Of proposed
reduction. that Of 81 coo. 900 for canal
sinking fund 80 {, Is impossible upon
the argument advanced hN IN" MAYOR
and the committee because the %approprl-
alton referred to includes both interest
charges and amortization in one item
which could not hc vetoed separately
and the veto would reduce the fund in
question below it, actuarial require
meuts for next year.
II submitted the whole proposition
however. to the Nttorucy-Goueral OF the
, state and to three distinguished c"nsti'
|tutional lawyers. George l.. lngrahaW
and John &. Miiburn Of New York c.ty
and to George Clinton OF buffalo. the
Attorney-Gcneral has advised me in a
lengthy opinion that a veto OF any one
~ ,ha ttap,E included In this Sc ~ n q
total would he Illegal and unconstitu'
toual.
: Judge Ingraham and Mr. MIlburn
who Joined In an extensive and carefully
, considered opinion, after setting forit
! tn" Constitutional provisions and stat
utcs which require either tho imp"S'
ton Of a direct tax or the setting up al
an appropriation from the general func
! To- meet interest and amortization
charges ON all canal bonds, say:
1--WE think, therefore. that the ta'
thus imposed must he collected, unless
the Appropriation Is made, and II The
Governor mould veto the provision
o making the appropriation then I
would he tho duty of IN" public Off
y cials 10 levy and collect the tax an'
pay the proceeds thereof into the sink
ing fund
This same plan for reducing th'
t cost of the State government was urg"t
7 upon me last year by the authorities o
the city of New York when the appro
priation bills We're under consideration
and at that time also | was advised 10y
0 the Acknowledgement that such actor
would Toe unconstitutional.
t "The suggestion was also made tina
II I should veto the appropriation Of 81,
= $50 ,27baS Tor state aid 10 town high
h WAYS. This appropriation WAS mad b,
g the state pursuan to tn" highway law
and it's veto would mean the Reputation
nv the state Of an obligation.
The declaration Of the Mayor Of tn,
city of Sew York aud the Tax Rcduc
ton Committee that a reduction q
a GOO, GOO could he made in m" lcglsla
tive appropriation act was based on m
ANALYSIS Of that act II was simply "a
assumption based on the fact that IN,
appropriation act a. passed was 81 900,