term of years upon the bonds of the town, to meet such emergen cies, then it is better, at once, to amend this general law of 1858, so that all the towns of the State may have the benefit of the amendment.

My desire is that the duty and power of taking care of roads and bridges, and other local improvements, shall rest with the people and officers of the towns, and with the boards of supervisors. They know their wants and the merits of the local measures better than the Legislature can possibly know them, and the town officers and supervisors are the best and most intelligent representatives of local interests.

It is only by leaving these matters entirely in the hands of the local authorities that the dangers of special legislation can be avoided. In no other way can the Legislature be relieved from the pressure of special applications, which interferes with the due consideration of measures affecting the great general interests of the State at large.

JOHN T. HOFFMAN.

ALBANY, March 25, 1869.

To the Senate:

I return, without my signature, a bill entitled "An act to incorporate the Excelsior Temple of Honor No. 23, of the city of Albany."

There is no necessity for this special bill. The provisions of the general law of the State for the incorporation of benevolent and charitable societies (see chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848, and amendments thereto) are ample and sufficient for the purpose contemplated.

The originators of this bill, I am informed, were under an im pression that by one clause in the general law secret societies were excluded from its operation; but it will be seen, by reference to an amendment made in 1861 (see chapter 239, Laws of 1861), that this clause has been stricken from the law.

The number of "Temples of Honor" is increasing in this State, and several special bills are already before the Legislature for their incorporation. I therefore promptly return this one, in order to call attention to the general laws under which these societies can be readily organized.

JOHN T. HOFFMAN

ALBANY, April 6, 1869.

To the Assembly :

I return, without my signature, a bill entitled "An act to incorporate the Rescue Hook and Ladder Company No. 1, in the village of Bath," being Assembly bill No. 110.

The statute books contain, every year, a large number of special acts for the incorporation of fire, hook and ladder, and hose companies in incorporated villages.

This special legislation is unnecessary; chapter 151 of the Laws of 1847, entitled "An act in relation to firemen in incorporated villages," being a general law applicable to the whole State, makes full provision for the organization of fire and hook and ladder companies in all villages by the trustees thereof.

Public policy demands that these companies should be formed under general laws, and be a part of or connected with the organized government of the village and not independent of it.

JOHN T. HOFFMAN.

To the Assembly :

ALBANY, April 6, 1869.

I return, without my signature, Assembly bill No. 47, entitled "An act to incorporate Ours Hose Company No. 4, of the city of Elmira, in the county of Chemung."

Public policy demands that fire and hook and ladder and hose companies in cities and villages should be connected with, and not be independent of, the organized local government.

Special bills, like the one herewith returned, have been very frequent in past years, and should be no longer encouraged. If the Legislature deem it judicious to organize in cities fire companies, to be independent of the local governments, it will be better to provide therefor by amendments, if necessary, to existing general laws.

The charter of the city of Elmira makes ample provision for the organization within the limits of the city of fire, hook and ladder, hose and axe companies, and this special law is, therefore, wholly unnecessary.

JOHN T. HOFFMAN.

ALBANY, April 8, 1869.

To the Assembly:

I return, without my signature, Assembly Bill No. 236, entitled "An act to authorize the annual town elections of the town of Sodus, in the county of Wayne, to be held by election districts."

A bill, with similar provisions, affecting certain other towns, was passed early in the session and received my signature. Under the impression that, in that instance, extraordinary circumstances, known to the Legislature, made it difficult for all the people in

the towns named to assemble in town meeting at one place in their respective towns, I signed the bill with, probably, less consideration than was due to it.

Applications for this privilege of voting for town officers in separate election districts are becoming frequent. It is evident that they are not confined to cases where it is inconvenient for some portion of the people to reach the common place of meeting, but that, in many instances, this privilege is asked for where the old method of all voting at one general town meeting is both practicable and reasonably convenient.

The frequency of these applications brings up, it seems to me, the question whether we are ready to give up the system of town meetings as now established, for the sake of the convenience, real or supposed, of voting for town officers in separate districts.

Local governments of the same class should be, as far as possible, uniform in character throughout the State. If the Legisla ture continues to grant these special applications, this desirable uniformity will be lost, and we may soon have the town meeting, as of old established, abandoned in many portions of the State and retained in others; for the town meeting is practically abandoned when the town officers are elected at many polls instead of one. The polls being opened at other places, the interest of the people in the proceedings of their town meeting will be greatly diminished, although it may still be convened for certain purposes.

The most purely democratic of all our governments is the town meeting. There the whole body of the people meet to deliberate upon matters of common interest; public questions of a local character are discussed, every voter having the right to take a direct part in the discussion; local regulations of a public nature are adopted; money is appropriated; taxes and sometimes borrowing of money upon the credit of the community are

sanctioned or refused; all this not through representatives, but by direct act of the people at large there assembled. The town meeting is the legislature of the town. It is, of course, not intended, by this bill, to do away entirely with the town meeting; this will still be assembled, for certain purposes other than the election of town officers. The division of the people into separate polling districts for the election of town officers will tend to distract them from the general meeting, at which a large popular attendance is desirable, in view of the important local questions which are often there determined. There will be danger of matters of grave consequence being decided by a very small proportion of the people interested.

If it be deemed wise to change the system of town meetings, now established as a part of our machinery of self-government, I submit that it should be done by a general law affecting all the towns alike. A proposition to do this would excite general attention, and the Legislature and the Executive would be aided in coming to a decision of the question by the discussion of it among the people. A special law, like this one, fails to excite such general attention.

It must be remembered, also, that if any town embraces within its limits so much territory as to make its government by a general meeting inconvenient, power now resides in the board of supervisors to divide towns, to alter their boundaries, and to

erect new towns.

I respectfully call attention also to the fact that this bill provides for other matters which are not referred to in the title thereof, and that, therefore, being a local bill, it violates section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution.