which established guards for the protection of private rights against abuses in assessments; if there were substantial injury and injustice to individuals; if there were every conceivable wrong possible to occur in such a matter, this bill, in as sweeping terms as human language can supply, adopts them on the part of the legislative power of the State; strikes out of existence the private rights which have been disregarded, and annuls all judicial remedies by which they can be asserted or defended.

In a similar case, where the language of the bill was certainly no broader, and where the defects were not alleged to be more than technical or formal, the mayor and other officers of one of our principal cities attended in person to show the great evils that would result if the defects were not cured; but I felt it to be a clear duty to withhold my sanction from a bill expressed in language of dangerous generality. Such loose legislation is of evil example upon the statute book, even if it works no actual injustice in the case which is the first precedent. Those who seek these bills are anxious to be sure to make them broad enough for their own present object; and are not concerned as to the possible injury and injustice to others, or the evil policy that may inadvertently result. The loosest precedents are most likely to be copied. A bad practice in a few cases grows into all authority.

Healing statutes are enacted where public policy would sustain official acts that are invalid by reason of oversight or inadvertence, and some private rights are benefited and some harmed by the confirmation. On the same principle, instruments executed by private persons are sometimes aided. Out of such precedents has arisen a disposition on the part of municipalities to apply for statutes curing informalities or irregularities in the acts of their officers in respect to local assessments. A natural inclination to favor their own powers, and to fall in with expedients which in

crease the fund at their disposal for expenditure out of the same taxes, tends to enlarge the scope of such bills. Questions between the municipality and particular taxpayers become frequent. Hearings before the Governor are asked for. In a recent instance numerous parties and several counsel attended. In the present instance nine suits were pending when the bill passed. In such cases every variety of conflicting rights and conflicting equities are presented. It is quite clear that such bills, if tolerated at all in cases that are disputed or in the process of litigation, should show on their face that they are carefully limited in their operation; that they will not contravene the policy which imposes reasonable restraints for the protection of individual and personal rights of innocent third parties.

It is a sufficient objection to the present bill that it contains none of these qualifications, but is expressed in the broadest terms.

But to this objection is added the fact that the several remonstrances of taxpayers of Elmira allege that substantial wrongs were committed in the assessment; that jurisdiction was never acquired; that the proceedings were tainted by fraud and bribery; and that aldermen were interested in the contract, which was thereby rendered void by an express provision of the charter of Elmira.

I do not assume that these allegations are true in fact; but I cannot see that those who make them should be cut off from the right of trying to prove them in the court, or that the issues they raise ought to be tried in the Executive chamber.

The saving clause in the bill saves nothing; for the nine suits existing when the bill was passed, being instituted by the city, have been, as I am informed, or are about to be, discontinued, for the purpose of renewing them after the bill should become a law."

May 17. To the Senate:

Veto of a bill entitled “An act to authorize the Board of Police of the city of New York to grant new trials."

"This bill is objected to by every member of the board, and by the experienced officers of the police. Their unanimous judgment has been communicated to me that, if it becomes a law, it will seriously impair the discipline of the police force, on the efficiency of which the good order of the metropolis depends. It is said to have been introduced in the interest of two dismissed policemen, who would like to be restored, but whose hope would be sure to prove illusory. I have no doubt, in forming an independent conclusion, that the bill ought not to become a law. Certainty in the punishment for infractions of discipline, disobedience or neglect of duty, is of far more importance than severity. Celerity in the infliction of penalties, finality in the trial, are the essence of discipline. Such trials now consume an afternoon session, on about three days of each week. Every person convicted. will desire a re-trial, and will struggle to make a case for restoration. Evidence will be lost, the fear of punishment weakened, and the effect of punishment actually imposed will be impaired by the continuing hope of eventual escape. The board will be overwhelmed with

trials.

If an injustice to an individual does sometimes happen by a misjudgment, it is an insignificant evil compared with the introduction of a new and potent element of disorganization and demoralization to the whole service.

The act provides that, in case of a decision in favor of the policemen, on a new trial, he shall be restored by operation of law. In the meantime the office will have been filled, and this provision would produce two incumbents in one office, and would be prolific of claims for back salaries."

The bill was not passed over the veto.

May 17. To the Assembly:

Veto of a bill entitled "An act to regulate the course of proceedings at a trial on a charge of felony after a previous conviction for felony."

"This bill provides that upon the trial of a person charged with felony after a previous conviction of that crime, the offender shall first be arraigned on so much only of the indictment as charges the subsequent offense; that if a plea of not guilty is entered, the jury shall first inquire whether he is guilty of the subsequent offense; that if he pleads guilty, that then the jury shall inquire concerning the previous conviction.

There is no express provision for any inquiry as to the fact of the previous conviction, where the prisoner is found guilty of the subsequent offense after a trial on the merits, and as penal laws are to be construed strictly, it is at least doubtful whether such an inquiry could be had.

Well settled rules of the administration of the criminal law should not be altered for light reasons, nor without the exercise of great care to avoid the introduction of new and doubtful questions of construction.

This bill is loosely drawn, and does not fully provide for all the exigencies which may arise under it. For instance, where the prisoner pleads guilty of the subsequent offense, and the jury disagree as to the fact of the previous conviction, it cannot from the language of this bill be gathered whether the prisoner is to be sentenced for the lesser offense or whether there must be a new trial upon all the issues.

The apparent purpose of the bill is to guard against the jury being prejudiced by the fact of the previous conviction.

With an intelligent jury, acting under the guidance of an experienced and learned judge, there can be no danger of serious injury to the rights of the prisoner at all comparable to the evils which result from a hasty and ill considered VOL. VI.-54.

change in the well settled rules of conducting trials of criminal cases. Besides, under this bill as amended in the Senate, the jury might be informed of the previous conviction by the reading of the indictment.

So long as several different misdemeanors can be charged in the same indictment, and tried at the same time, there can be no impropriety in trying at the same time all the questions involved in the allegation of a single crime, although they involve distinct issues."

The bill was not passed over the veto.

May 17. To the Assembly:

Veto of a bill entitled "An act in relation to the Chautauqua Lake Camp Meeting Association of the Erie Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church."

"The corporation named in the title of this bill is the owner of a large tract of land, a portion of which has been subdivided into lots, and leased for long terms to various persons, who may or may not be incorporators, and who have erected cottages thereon. I am informed that these leases contain no reservation of rent, and no provision authorizing any assessment to be made by the corporation upon the leased property for any purpose.

This bill provides that the corporation may levy a tax upon the real and personal property within or upon its grounds for the purpose of paying the salary of a janitor and improving and protecting the property, not exceeding five hundred dollars in any one year, unless otherwise ordered by a vote of two-thirds of the property holders. It provides for the election of an assessor and a collector, and the mode of assessing and collecting the tax corresponds generally with that prescribed for the assessment and collection of town taxes.

In my opinion it would be a dangerous innovation for the State to delegate any portion of its taxing power to a private corporation.

The object sought to be obtained by this bill can be better