I do not think we are bound to provide special means for remedying their own neglect to enforce their rights. I therefore return the bill to you in the confident belief that, on reconsideration, you will agree with me that it should not pass into a law."

The bill was not passed over the veto.

March 17. To the Assembly:

Veto of a bill entitled "An act to provide for the appointment of an additional clerk for each of the district courts in the city of New York."

"The act not only provides for the appointment of an additional clerk by each of the justices of the several district courts in the city of New York, but it fixes the compensation of the clerk, and directs the board of supervisors to raise by tax the amount necessary to pay the salaries of the appointees.

There are nine district courts in the city of New York. The expense of maintaining these district courts, in connection with the police courts, is at least $450,000. There is no valid reason for increasing this expense; it should rather be diminished.

Each district court, in addition to the justice, who receives a liberal salary, has a clerk whose salary is $6,000 per annum; a stenographer, who receives $2,500 per annum; two attendants, a janitor, and an interpreter, each of whom receive about $1,200 per annum. It is well known to those who are conversant with the business of the courts, that in all of them, this clerical and other force is sufficient, and more than sufficient, for the business which appertains to them. This bill, therefore, if I signed it, would authorize the appointment of nine unnecessary officers, each of whom would receive $6,000 per annum, and it would add $54,000 annually to the taxes of New York city.

If bills like this are permitted to become laws, no efforts of the authorities to reduce expenditures and taxation can be successful. I cannot, therefore, give it my approval."

The bill was not passed over the veto.

March 22. To the Assembly:

Veto of a bill entitled "An act to amend chapter 311 of the Laws of 1859, passed April 14, 1859, being an act to provide for the inspection and sealing of gas meters, and for the protection of consumers of illuminating gas, and further to amend chapter 116 of the Laws of 1860, passed March 24, 1860, being an act to provide for the appointment of deputy inspectors of gas meters, to reside in different parts of this State."

"The first section of the bill returned amends section 1 of chapter 311 of the Laws of 1859, by providing that for every stamp or seal put upon a gas meter by an inspector, the inspector shall receive five cents, to be paid by the manufacturer of the meter. This is in addition to the salary now payable in the first instance out of the State treasury, but which is ultimately charged and assessed by the State upon the different gas companies.

The right of the Legislature to provide for the inspection of gas meters (which are measures '), and to charge the expenses upon the companies who sell the gas by these measures, under the constitutional provision relating to weights and measures," will not, I suppose, be denied; but to impose a tax or charge upon the manufacturer of the meter, to be paid to the inspector, is, I respectfully submit, clearly in violation of that portion of section 8 of article 5 of the Constitution of the State, which abolishes all offices for the weighing, gauging, measuring, or inspecting any merchandise, produce, manufacture, or commodity whatever.'

Const. 1846, art. 5. § 8.

The meter can properly be inspected at the expense of the individual or corporation using it as a measure for the sale of gas, but not at the expense of the manufacturer, who holds it merely as a mechanical production, an article of manufacture. In this opinion, I respectfully submit, the Attorney General of the State concurs.

There is another objection to this bill, which being stated, will also, I am confident, command the assent of the Legislature. It is this: The inspector of gas meters is an officer of the State appointed by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate. By chapter 116 of the Laws of 1860, his salary was increased from $1,500 to $2,500 per annum, and he was authorized to appoint deputy inspectors, to reside in different parts of the State where gas meters were manufactured, who were to receive two dollars a day from him out of his salary when actually engaged in the discharge of their duties.

There can be no doubt, I think, that this provision was not only wise, but sufficient for the accomplishment of the end in view. The inspector would appoint only when necessary, and the appointees would be engaged only when necessary, the chief inspector being obliged to pay them out of his increased salary a per diem allowance.

The bill now returned makes an entire change in this respect. It authorizes and requires the inspector to appoint three deputies, and no more, one for New York, one for Brooklyn, and one for Albany, each of whom shall receive a salary of $1,500, to be paid primarily out of the State treasury (ultimately to be assessed upon and apportioned among the gas companies). If these deputies are needed in New York and Brooklyn and Albany, it is difficult to see why they will not be required also for the other cities of the State. Moreover, if the public interests demand these appointments under salary (which is greatly to be doubted), I respectfully submit that, as matter of public policy, they should be appointed as the chief inspector himself is ap

pointed, namely by the Governor and Senate. It seems to me impolitic, if not improper, to confer upon the inspector, who is an appointee of the Governor and Senate, the power to appoint three deputies, each of whom possesses as much power as he does, and who together draw from the treasury of the State nearly twice the amount of his salary.

I therefore respectfully submit that this bill should not become a law."

The bill was not passed over the veto. By the Public Service Commissions act of 1907, chap. 429, the office of inspector of gas meters was abolished, and the statutes relating to that subject were repealed. The Commissions were authorized to appoint inspectors of gas meters.

March 23. To the Assembly:

Veto of a bill entitled "An act [to amend an act] to incorporate the Little Valley Water-Works Company."

The bill creates a private corporation, by the corporate name of the Little Valley Water-Works Company, with a capital stock of not less than three nor more than ten thousand dollars, for the purpose of supplying the village of Little Valley with pure and wholesome water; and authorizes this private corporation, for the purpose mentioned, to enter upon any lands, streets, highways, roads, lanes, canals, railroads, or public squares through which they may deem proper to convey water and to lay pipes and aqueducts. The corporation is also authorized to enter upon any lands, even without the consent of the owner, for the purpose of making an examination, survey and map of the lands, the title to which they intend to acquire under the provisions of the act. In case they cannot agree with the owners and occupants of lands and water which they intend to take and use, they are authorized to apply to the supreme court for the appointment of commissioners to determine the compensation to be paid, and upon the payment or legal

tender of the amount awarded by the commissioners, or in case of appeal therefrom by the court, the corporation is authorized to enter upon and take and hold the lands, water and property for which compensation is awarded. The company is authorized, when its works are completed, to make contracts and agreements for the use and distribution of its water; in other words, to sell the water, at its own price and upon its own terms, to whoever may choose to buy it.

The bill, therefore, creates a private company with power to take private property against the consent of the owners by the exercise of what is commonly called the right of eminent domain, upon the theory that it is taken for a public use, while in fact it is taken to empower a private corporation to construct aqueducts and reservoirs which would enable them to sell water to the public for their own private gain. There are such grave doubts about the constitutionality of such a law that, although I am aware that the legislation is not without precedent in this State, I feel it my duty to withhold my approval from this bill, and I do so after having asked and received the opinion of the Attorney General of the State.

The right of the Legislature to confer upon cities and villages the power of constructing water-works for the use of the public, and to that end, to delegate to them the right of eminent domain by which they are enabled to obtain the title to private property for public use, is indisputable, and, as a general rule, such works have been constructed in this State by or under the direction of municipal authorities; but care must be taken to discriminate between powers delegated to, or conferred upon, municipal corporations and similar powers sought to be conferred upon individuals or private corporations. If the Legislature can authorize a private corporation to acquire title to lands and property against the consent of the owner, as is done by the bill herewith returned, it can authorize an individual to do the same.