ciple and will breed injustice in practice. The provisions of the present bill show this clearly. The volunteer who enlisted from New York and was credited to this State, though he may now live in Illinois, is as much entitled to a pension for his service as though he had remained here. It is only the Federal government that can grant pensions upon a just and equal basis, for it represents all the people and can discharge the common obligation to all who served in a common cause. The present bill relates only to the veterans of the Civil War. But it must also be regarded as an important precedent, and if enacted into law may have far-reaching consequences. If a State pension is to be granted, upon the basis of ninety days' service alone, to those who served in the Civil War, how will it be denied to those who served in the SpanishAmerican War? And what will be the consequences of the establishment of such a system? If the States generally adopt the policy of granting military pensions, independently, for service in the United States army, it will be a most natural result that the burden of future pensions will largely be left to fall upon the States. We may trust that hereafter we shall not be vexed by war, but it is important that, in case of war, the sense of our community of interest and of the resulting National obligation should not be obscured by any policy adopted by the States. If the Atlantic coast should be the scene of warfare and troops should be mobilized in the Atlantic and Central States, none the less should the people of the Pacific coast recognize their partnership in all obligations that might be entailed. Similarly, if there should be a conflict upon the Pacific coast, the people of New England and New York should through National action bear their part of the resulting burden. If pensions in such cases become justly payable, they should be paid by the Federal government without diminution by reason of State pension systems, and without demand that through such means East or West or any State or States should take care of its own. The State of New York maintains a Soldiers and Sailors' home for veterans of the Civil War who are in need, and a home for aged, dependent veterans and their wives. It is a different matter to provide for the payment of a State pen sion, as now proposed, based solely upon military service to the Nation, and the unwisdom of such a policy we cannot afford to ignore. We honor the veterans of the Civil War for their struggle to preserve the Union; it is our duty to conduct the government, so maintained, in accordance with the principles of its institutions. It may be said that this matter should be submitted to the judgment of the people. But it is the intent of the Constitution that no bill of this sort shall be submitted to the people unless it is recommended by the Legislature and the Governor, or by the Legislature over the Governor's veto, for their favorable consideration. For the reasons stated I cannot recommend the enactment of this proposed law. The bill is therefore disapproved. (Signed) CHARLES E. HUGHES Making an Appropriation for the Expenses of Delegates to the National Guard Convention at Los Angeles, California STATE OF NEW YORK- EXECUTIVE CHAMBER Albany, May 22, 1909 MEMORANDUM filed with Assembly bill No. 1375 (Senate Reprint No. 1483), entitled "An act making an appropriation for the expenses of delegates to the national guard convention at Los Angeles, California.” NOT APPROVED. Provision can be made for a suitable detail to represent the interests of the State at the convention, and this bill does not seem to be required. (Signed) CHARLES E. HUGHES Making an Appropriation for the Construction of a Dam and the Installation of a Water System at Letchworth Village STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE CHAMBER Albany, May 22, 1909 MEMORANDUM filed with Assembly bill No. 1383 (Senate Reprint No. 1579), entitled "An act making appropriations for the Eastern New York State Custodial Asylum, established by chapter three hundred and thirty-one of the laws of nineteen hundred and seven, to be known hereafter as 'Letchworth Village.'" Statement of item of appropriation of money, contained in said bill, which is objected to, to wit: On page 2: "For the construction of a dam to provide for water storage and to apply to the installation of the main water system of the village, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)." This item is objected to as unnecessary and inexpedient at this time. (Signed) CHARLES E. HUGHES Making Appropriations for the Improvement of the Delaware River and Powell Creek STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE CHAMBER Albany, May 22, 1909 MEMORANDUM filed with Assembly bill No. 2060, entitled "An act to complete the construction of such dike or dikes as are necessary for the protection of property adjacent to the Delaware river in the city of Port Jervis, by the completion of the work begun under chapter seven hundred and sixteen of the laws of nineteen hundred and four, and making an appropriation therefor."; and Assembly bill No. 2096, entitled "An act to provide for the improvement of the Delaware river at the village of Deposit, Delaware county, and making an appropriation therefor." ; and Assembly bill No. 727, entitled "An act to provide for the completion of a dyke or dykes for the protection of property adjacent to the Delaware river in the town of Highland, in the county of Sullivan, and making an appropriation therefor." ; and Assembly bill No. 1351, entitled "An act to provide for dredging Powell creek in the county of Nassau, for widening and deepening the channel thereof, and making an appropriation therefor." The extent of the demands upon the State treasury compels the conclusion that these expenditures, and others of the same class which are found in the Supply bill, cannot be allowed. At the same time, the number of requests for appropriations for river improvement in various parts of the State and for protection from loss by floods, calls attention ta the necessity of providing a proper system by which the needs of these communities can be met in a just way. Under the present system legislative acts, or items in appropriation bills, are sought which place the entire cost of the improvements upon the State. But it is apparent that in view of the limits. of the State's income and the pressure upon it, a proper distribution of the expense of such improvements should be made so that the cities, towns and counties directly benefited may bear what may be found to be their proper share. The statute relating to river improvement, under the direction of the State Water Supply Commission, has been amended this year to make its plan more workable, and if anything more is needed to make it entirely adequate to the just necessities of further improvements in various parts of the State, it can readily be supplied by further amendment. We should thus have a method by which every exigency may be promptly considered, its requirements met, and the cost fairly apportioned. I hope that this subject will have early attention and that the whole matter will be put upon a proper basis. (Signed) CHARLES E. HUGHES Amending the Liquor Tax Law - The "New Theatre " STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE CHAMBER Albany, May 24, 1909 MEMORANDUM filed with Senate bill No. 911, entitled "An act to amend the Liquor Tax law, in relation to consents that may be granted for the traffic in liquor within two hundred feet of a church or schoolhouse." NOT APPROVED. This amendment to the Liquor Tax law allows for traffic in liquors within 200 feet of a building occupied as a private school with the consent of the person or corporation using the building for that purpose. The amendment has been sought in the interest of the "New Theatre" in the City of New York, an enterprise in itself entirely commendable and worthy of support; but it is recognized that a special exception should not be granted for this case, and hence the bill is general in its application. The bill applies generally to all places throughout the State where traffic in liquors to be drunk upon the premises may be carried on, as well to the ordinary saloon, or the low grade hotel, as to any other place. -- The amendment cannot be justified. It ignores the fact that the policy of the law is for the protection of the children, and not for the advantage of proprietors or managers of schools. That policy is expressed in the provision for a free area about our schoolhouses. If proprietors of private schools may be permitted to allow this area to be encroached |