The Monmouth inquirer., 1925-02-26
BRIDGE BILL
is WITHDRA WIN
Facing Gov. Silzer's Veto, Sena-
tor MacKay, It's Sponsor,
Draws Back Measure.
DOUBT IN SENATOR'S MINDS
Suggestion Of Amendment for Bridge
Measure-Proposed at Hearing Of.
Bayonne Project, May Have
Bearing on Fort Lee Span.

Trenton.-O Objections by Governor
Silzer to several features of thu
Mackay bill for bridge across the
Hudson from Fort Lee to Washing
ton Heights led the Senate and House
to vote to recall it from the Governor
for the purpose Of amendment.
The resolution to withdraw was
offered after conference between
the Governor and Senator Mackay,
at which Governor Silxer asked for
amendments which would condition
the preliminary appropriation of
S150,0O0 upon a like appropriation by
New York; require trial by jury in
condemnation proceedings incidental
to the taking of land; and state
specifically that tolls derived from
the bridge would be devoted to
amortization of bonds
Because of his objections it was
stated the Governor would not APP
prove the measure in the form the
bill was passed by the two Houses.
The resolution to recall the bill was
rushed to the Assembly after passing
the Senate, and the House imme-
diately concurred.
Speaking later in the Senate on
Senator Simpsons bin for bridge
across the Kill won Kull from Bay
onne to Port Richmond. Senator
Mackay suggested that the Simpson
measure, which IN general outline
followed that of the Fort Lee bill, lie
over for amendments to meet objec-
tions found by the Governor in the
latter measure.
Senator Mackay said the Governor
desired also that the bill state that
the Port Authority shall not have
power to locate highways leading to
proposed structures.
Hearing on 5ayonne Project
While substantially no serious OBJ
lection was made to Senator Simp-
sons bill, Senate 10, for bridge
between Bayonne and Port Richmond,
Staten Island, at hearing before the
Highways Committee of the Senate.
Senator Simpson brought to the at
tention Of several hundred Hudson
County advocates of the span the
fact that some legal minds in the
Senate feared the measure contained
provisions which did not accord with
the constitution of this state, though
in conformity with that of New York.
When former Mayor Matthew T.
Cronin, of Bayonne, who was chair
man for the proponents, remarked
that he would reply" to Senator
Simpson, the latter stated he did not
want a reply" but information to
satisfy those whose minds might be
in doubt.
81 don't want to hand Bayonne a
plate of Dead Sea fruit" the Senator
commented
Doubt In Senators Minds
The Senator had suggested that
questions had arisen in the minds OF
some OF his colleagues regarding the
constitutionality of the plan for con-
domination of property provided In
the Bayonne, the Elizabeth, the
Perth Amboy and the Fort Lee bridge
bills and also about the possibility
the bills would pledge the credit OF
the state. In addition, they were
hesitant about committing the state
financially, either legally or morally,
through the agency Of the Port OF
New York Authority, by whom it has
been planned the structures were to
be built.
"The question" he said after for
mer Corporation Counsel A. A, Mel
mixer had spoken, ''is whether we
should adhere to the present form OF
the bill or whether 1t would be better
for Bayonne to have a bill which
would provide straight-out appro-
priation for the work to be done
now"
The point had application to the
Mackay bill for the Fort Lee bridge
across the Hudson. The pertinence
Law In the fact that the two measures
are similar in form, and question
Affecting one would apply to the
other
Willing to Take Risk
III we change to bill for an ap-
preparation" said Mr.. Melniker, who
favored adhesion to the present form
OF the measure, I'VE will have to
come back again and fight out the
thing again. Let us get started. We
feel that no other body is so avail
able to take up the work as the Port
Authority. Let US take the risk about
the question Of constitutionality.
De Witt Van Buskirk, former mem
Der Of the Port Authority, who lives
in Bayonne and who has been active
in the bridge fight suggested that II
the committee should undertake to
make any changes, they should not De
taken up until after conference with
the New York legislators so that N
both states the legislation would be
uniform and concurrent
Opposition from Newark
The only approximate declaration
Of opposition was made by Charles
J. Fagg. q representative OF the
Newark Chamber Of Commerce. and
this was qualified when he said New
Z