There is general recognition of the evils of special legislation, but the difficulty of curtailing it is very great because in a large number of cases the special legislation is asked in order to escape the hardship of the restrictions of former special legislation which have outlived their usefulness. Special acts thus become necessary because of the minuteness of the provisions of earlier acts.

This has been conspicuously illustrated in the case of salaries paid to subordinate officials in different communities. Instead of establishing local government with suitable powers and responsibility, communities have sought to protect themselves against their own elected officers by having the Legislature restrict their powers in a variety of detail. The result, however, is that when changes are needed the appeal must be made to the Legislature instead of to the local authorities, and there is an absence of that proper responsibility to the community with respect to changes in which the community alone is interested. Thus, salaries of subordinate officers plainly should be fixed by the local authorities and not by the Legislature. And experience shows that where the Legislature instead of fixing the salary absolutely, fixes a maximum salary, it is the latter which is actually paid and the Legislature from time to time is asked in effect to increase the salary by increasing the maximum allowed. The notion that the legislative restriction is a protection proves in practice to be a fallacy, as shown by the multitude of statutes raising salaries. The difference is that they are raised by legislative acts instead of being dealt with by responsible local boards.

During the past two years I have urged that bills with regard to the salaries of subordinate officers, should leave the matter to the local authorities so that to this extent at least we might put a stop to unnecessary special legislation and re-enforce the autonomy of our local communities.

As an illustration of a suitable provision with regard to subordinate salaries I may refer to the clause in Assembly bill No. 1670 recently passed by the Legislature and approved by me this day, making the office of sheriff of Onondaga county a salaried office, as follows:

"The under sheriff, deputies, attendants and other subordinates shall receive such salaries or compensation for services as shall be fixed and determined by the board of supervisors of said county.'

In view of the position which I have taken regarding this matter, in acting upon many bills, I cannot consistently approve the bill now before me.

(Signed)

CHARLES E. HUGHES

Dividing the County of Clinton into Three School Commissioner Districts

STATE OF NEW YORK - EXECUTIVE CHAMBER

Albany, April 19, 1909

TO THE ASSEMBLY:

I return herewith without my approval, Assembly bill No. 639, entitled

"An act to divide the county of Clinton into three. school commissioner districts."

This is a special act fixing the school commissioner districts of Clinton county.

There is a provision in the General Education law with regard to the alteration of school commissioner districts. If it is not sufficiently broad to give the board of supervisors in the several counties the authority they should possess for making changes in districts, it should be amended. But the matter should be left, under appropriate general law, to the county authorities. They would be best able to judge of the propriety and convenience of a proposed alteration and would be accountable to the people of the county for their

decision. I do not believe that such a matter should be dealt with in detail by a special act of the Legislature.

I return herewith without my approval Senate bill No. 191, entitled

"An act to make the office of sheriff of Tompkins county a salaried office, in part, and to regulate the management thereof."

This bill is disapproved upon the ground that it fixes the salary and the compensation of certain subordinate officials which should be left to the determination of the local authorities. The reasons are the same as those which I have more fully stated in my message to the Senate with regard to Senate bill No. 192, also disapproved.

(Signed)

CHARLES E. HUGHES

Authorizing the Trustees of the Village of Cohocton to Construct Cement or Concrete Walks

STATE OF NEW YORK - EXECUTIVE CHAMBER

TO THE SENATE:

Albany, April 23, 1909

I return herewith without my approval Senate bill No. 943, entitled

"An act to authorize the trustees of the village of Cohocton, county of Steuben, to construct cement or concrete walks in such village and assess one-half the cost thereof on the adjoining property."

There appears to be no necessity for this act, as the general village law provides authority for the construction of such walks as may be needed.

I return herewith without my approval Assembly bill No. 824, entitled

"An act in relation to elections in the village of Charlotte, Monroe county."

The village of Charlotte by reincorporation, legalized by chapter 65 of the laws of 1875, became subject to the General Village law. This general law, now chapter 64 of the Consolidated Laws, provides for the conduct of village elections. If further safeguards should be provided, they should be supplied by appropriate amendment of the general law and not by a special, independent enactment appllicable, as in the case of this bill, to a single village. Otherwise, instead of adopting a suitable remedy, we should start a new series of unnecessary special acts. The bill is therefore disapproved. CHARLES E. HUGHES

(Signed)

VETO MEMORANDA

Statement of Appropriations

STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE CHAMBER

Albany, May 22, 1909

Memorandum filed with Assembly bill No. 1906 (Senate Reprint No. 1577), entitled

"An act making appropriations for certain expenses of government and supplying deficiencies in former appropriations."

The total appropriations (exclusive of reappropriations, of contributions to canal and highway debt sinking funds and of payments from the sinking funds, from sundry trust funds, and from proceeds of bond sales) which have been made by the Legislature this year amount to..... $38,456,909 99

The bills and items disallowed by me amount

to

4,488,886 06

Leaving the total of said appropriations as allowed

Add contributions from the general fund in

lieu of direct tax to Canal debt sinking fund.... Highway debt sinking fund..

$1,044,000 00

Making a total of appropriations.
As compared with the total

appropriations of 1908 as
approved (exclusive of
sinking funds)

And contributions last year from the general fund to

$33,968,023 93

1,053,200 00

2,097,200 00

$36,065,223 93

$29,309,401 29