to the

visi

butt

videl

егерт

neral

da

sto

to

To the Senate:

ALBANY, March 22, 1870.

I return, without my approval, Senate bill No. 55, entitled "An act to provide for the preservation of bridges in the city of Binghamton."

The bill provides that "any person who shall ride or drive a horse, team, or mule faster than at a walk upon any of the river bridges of the city of Binghamton, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged to pay a fine of not to exceed twenty-five dollars for each offence."

The charter of the city of Binghamton (chapter 291 of the Laws of 1867) gives the common council power (title 4, section 4) to make ordinances "to suppress and restrain immoderate driving" in the city, and (section 7, title 4) provides that a violalation of any ordinance may be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, as shall be prescribed in such ordinance.

It would seem, therefore, that the local authorities of the city already have power to impose and enforce such penalties as they may deem proper and necessary for restraining and regulating the rate of speed at which persons may drive in any part of the city.

The bridges to which the bill applies are those across the Susquehanna and Chenango rivers. Special authority has been given to the common council in relation to those across the Susquehanna by chapter 200 of the Laws of 1869; section 5 of which act confers on them power to "establish such police regu ́lations, in relation to said bridges," and to "establish and sue foi such penalties for fast driving, as they may deem advisable."

Again, chapter 203 of the laws of 1865, being "An act for constructing and maintaining free bridges across the Chenango river," provides that, whenever the bridges contemplated in the

act shall be completed, the commissioners of highways shall have charge of them, and may impose a penalty of ten dollars for each offence of driving upon said bridges faster than at a walk. By the charter of the city of Binghamton (section 10 of title 4) the mayor and common council are made commissioners of highways in and for the city.

By their charter, therefore, the city authorities have power to suppress, by such penalties as they choose to impose, immoderate driving anywhere in the city, and, of course, to define the offence of immoderate driving. Special provision is moreover made for the bridges to be affected by the bill under consideration.

If doubt has arisen in the mind of any one about the power of the common council, under existing laws, it is probably due to there being already too many laws applicable to the subject.

The

It is true if the power of the common council over travel upon the bridges is to be found only in the two special acts already referred to, then, while twenty-five dollars or more may be fixed by them for the Susquehanna bridges, no penalty exceeding ten dollars can be imposed so far as the Chenango river bridges are concerned. A penalty of ten dollars for each offence, persistently enforced (as can easily be done in a city), would seem to be quite large enough to deter persons from fast driving. higher penalty of twenty-five dollars, proposed by this act, will not, by its mere enactment, put down the practice. The general laws of this State provide a fine of only one dollar for this offence of fast driving upon a bridge (Revised Statutes, part 1, chapter 16, title 1, article 6, sections 122 and 123), and a larger penalty, if needed at all, is more necessary for the protection of the bridges in the rural districts, where the offence may often be committed without detection, whereas in cities detection can be prompt and sure.

all hav

lars fo

a wall

title! hers d

It being very clear, therefore, that no necessity exists for this special act, I deem it my duty to withhold my approval.

fence

JOHN T. HOFFMAN.

ALBANY, March 22, 1870.

efor

rd

e to

I respectfully return, without my approval, Senate bill No. 82, entitled "An act to except the counties of Oneida and Schoharie from the operation of the act in relation to fees of county treasurer, passed May 11, 1846."

The law, from the operation of which the bill proposes to except these two counties, provides that the several county treasurers "shall receive such compensation as shall be fixed by the boards of supervisors of their respective counties, not exceeding the half of one per cent for receiving and the half of one per cent for disbursing, and in no case to exceed the sum of five hundred dollars per annum."

The counties of New York and Kings, consisting chiefly of very large cities, were, in this original act, excepted; and the suggestions in this communication will be considered as not having reference to them.

Since the year 1860, eleven acts have been passed similar to the one now before me, applicable, in every instance but one, to a single county, and in that one to only two counties; which acts either enlarge the limit imposed by the act of 1846, or take it off altogether.

It is evident, from the frequent applications to be relieved from them, that the existing restrictions upon the power of the

boards of supervisors to provide compensation for the county treasurer are found to be, in many of the counties, inconvenient. An altered condition of things has made the maximum compensation of five hundred dollars, in the judgment of the people of some of the more populous counties, and of their local authoriities, inadequate to the services and responsibilities of the office.

It seems to me that the true remedy is not to be found in special bills, for the benefit of one or two counties at a time, but in an amendment to the general law, which shall either enlarge the limit now imposed upon the compensation to be paid county treasurers, or remove all restrictions upon the discretion of the boards of supervisors in this matter, as the Legislature may deem wise.

The supervisors are, in my judgment, quite competent to decide such a question, and are not likely to be wanting in fidelity to the interests of their respective counties.

If there are any special reasons why Oneida and Schoharie counties should be exempted from the operation of the general law now in force, I doubt if they can be known to many members of the Legislature, other than the representatives of the two counties, whereas, if the question was brought before the supervisors, it would be freely discussed and thoroughly understood by every one of them, and acted upon by all under a sense of direct responsibility to the people of their respective counties.

If the general law be amended, the Legislature will be spared the necessity of considering applications which will certainly be made hereafter from other counties, for special exemption from the restrictions now imposed, and needless encumbering of the statute book will be avoided.

JOHN T. HOFFMAN.

To the Assembly :

ALBANY, March 22, 1870.

I return, without my approval, the bill entitled "An act to amend an act to authorize the formation of town insurance companies, passed April 17, 1857, as to its operation on the Fire In surance Company of the towns of North and East Greenbush."

My objection to the bill is simply that it proposes unnecessary and, in my opinion, entirely unjustifiable special legislation. The act of April 17, 1857, is a general act, providing for the formation of town insurance companies anywhere in the State; and the fourth section limits the risk in any one policy to two thousand dollars.

The bill, now returned, amends this fourth section, by providing that, in the towns of North and East Greenbush, the limit shall be three thousand dollars instead of two thousand dollars.

I think it will be very difficult to assign a good reason for having a rule for these two towns, different from the one applicable to all the other towns in the State. If the limit of two thousand dollars, in the general law, is too small, it is better to enlarge it, so that it may have universal application.

I notice, by the published proceedings of the Legislature, the introduction of a very large number of special bills, the objects of which can be attained under existing general laws or by slight amendments to them.

It imposes a great labor upon the Executive to examine and return, with objections, such bills when they are passed; and I respectfully, but earnestly, ask such legislative scrutiny as will prevent their passage, and, to some extent, at least, check the admitted evils of unnecessary special legislation.

JOHN T. HOFFMAN.