fyxmW Winivmii^ ^ib»g THE GIFT OF ,^ Kju^.ijrf^.Mak ijiMurv^' ^.issg.q.^- 2iI.[.v^.|a<^. 7583 :9 :5 Date Due !Mi^ a^iP M^ &:' Cornell University Library JK 3425 1915. A313 Documents of the Constitutional Conventi 3 1924 009 908 611 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924009908611 DOCUMENTS OF THE Constitutional Convention OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 1915 Begun and Held at the Capitol in tiie City of Albany on Tuesday the Sixth Day of April ALBANY J. B. LYON COMPANY. PRINTERS 1915 STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 1 COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 1. Bill of Rights — Mr. Marshall, Chairman. Mr. Keeves, Mr. Olcott, Mr. Scliurnian, Mr. Vanderlyn, Mr. Bunce, Mr. Curran, Mr, Morgan J. O'firien, Mr. Weed, Mr. F. Martin, Mr. O'Connor. 2. The Legislature, its Organization, etc. — Mr. Erackett, Chair- man. Mr. M. Saxe, Mr. Quigg, Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Aiken, Mr. R. B. Smith, Mr. Ford, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Linde, Mr. Buxbanm, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Tiemey, Mr. A. E. Smith, Mr. Aheam, Mr. Haffen, Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Burkan. 3. Legislative Powers — Mr. Barnes, Chairman. Mr. Jesse PLillips, Mr. iSohurman, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Brack-ett, Mr. Olcott, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Hinman, Mr. Bockes, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Tuck, Mr. L. M. Martin, Mr, Sheehan, Mr. J. G. Saxe, Mr. Foley, Mr. A. E. Smith, Mr. Ahearn. 4. Suffrage — Mr. CuUinan, Chairman. Mr. Stowell, Mr. Waterman, Mr. JSTye, Mr. Owen, Mr. Eggleston, Mr. G. J. White,- Mr. Mealy, Mr. fiaumes, Mr. E. E. Weber, Mr. Williams, Mr. J. G. Saxe, Mr. Dooling, Mr. Newburger, Mr. Frank, Mr. Eisner, Mr. Kirk. 5. Grovernor and Other State Officers, etc. — Mr. Tanner, Chair- man. Mr. Rheee, Mr. E. H". Smith, Mr. Stimson, Mr, CuUinanj Doc. No. 1 3 Mr. Hale, Mr. Franchot, Mr. Bockes, Mr. C. ISTicoU, Mr. Pel- letreau, Mr. Angell, Mr. Bayes, Mr. Blauvelt, Mr. Dykmaii, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. F. Martin, Mr. Donnelly. 6. Judiciary — Mr. Wickersham, Chairman. Mr. Brackett, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Gladding, Mr. Stimson, Mr. Clearwater, Mr. Eodenbeok, Mr. Dtrnmore, Mr. Steinbrink, Mr. C. H. Young, Mr. Sears, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Delancey JSTicoll, Mr. Stanchfield, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Dykman, Mr. Wagner. 7. On the State Finances, Revenues and Expenditures — Mr. Stimson, Chairman. Mr. Hinman, Mr. Low, Mr. Pelletreau, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Lennox, Mr. Van Ness, Mr. Austin, Mr. Beach, Mr. Bannister, ]\Ir. Dick, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Potter, Mr. Stanchfield, Mr. Delancey ISTicoll, Mr. Slevin. 8. Cities — Mr. Low, Chairman. Mr. John Lord O'Brian, Mr. Berri, Mr. Fobes, Mr. E. N. Smith, Mr. Latson, Mr. Green, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Franchot, Mr. V. M. Allen, Mr. Sanders, Mr, C. Nicoll, Mr. Foley, Mr. T. F. Smith, ]\lr. Baldwin, Mr. Weed, Mr. Shipman. 9. Canals — Mr. Clinton, Chairman. Mr. Cullinan, Mr. Landreth, Mr. Tuck, Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. R B. Smith, Mr. Green, Mr. Fogarty, Mr. Griffin, Mr. O'Connor. 10. Public Utilities — Mr. Hale, Chairman. Mr. Olcott, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Brenner, Mr. Mandeville, Mr. Deyo, Mr. Eeeves, Mr. Nye, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Fancher, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Mathewson, Mr. McLean, Mr. Potter, Mr. Blauvelt, Mr. Foley, Mr. Dooling. 11. Counties, Towns and Villages, their Organization, Government, etc.— Mr. John Lord O'Brian, Chairman. Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Coks, Mr. F. L. Young, Mr. Quigg, Mr. Parmenter, Mr. Vander- lyn, Mr. Johns.on, Mr. Heaton, Mr. Betts, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. L. M. Martin, Mr. Slevin, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. C. A. Webber, Mr. Schoon- hut, Mr. Eppig. 12. County, Town and Village Officers— Mr. Mereness, Chair- man. Mr. Tuck, Mr. Kyder, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Staudart, i\rr. Greff, Mr. Ford. Mr. Barrett, Mr. Linde, Mr. Parker, Mr.Bux- baum, Mr. Haffen, Mr. Daly, Mr. Wafer, Mr. Endres, Mr. Bern- stein, Mr. J. J. White. 13. Prisons, etc., and the Prevention and Punishment of Crime — Mr. Clearwater, Chairman. Mr. Ostrander, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Owen, Mr. Bell, Mr. Winslow, Mr. Adams, Mr. Drummond,' Mr. Leitner, Mr. Daly, Mr. Harowitz. 3 Doc. ]S'o. 1 14. Corporations — Mr. Brenner, Chairman. Mr. Eanclier, Mr. McKean, Mr. Wood, Mr. Doughty, Mr. Gladding, Mr. Bunce, Mr. Adams, ]\Ir. Kosch, Mr. Jones, Mr. Williams, Mr. Law, Mr. Frank, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Mann, Mr. Donovan, Mr. Heyman. 15. Banking and Insurance — Mr. Fobes, Chairman. Mr. Beach, Mr. Jesse Phillips, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Leggett, Mr. Van Ness, Mr. McKean, Mr. Kichards, Mr. Mulry, Mr. Eyan, Mr. Harowitz. 16. Militia and Military Affairs— Mr. Latson, Chairman. ]\Ir. Westwood, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Parker, Mr. McLean, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Byrne. 17. Education — Mr. Schiirman, Chairman. Mr. Clearwater, Mr. Vanderlyn, Mr. Sargent, Mr. S. K. Phillips, Mr. Mandeville, Mr. Ryder, Mr. Mealy, Mr. Lennox, Mr. Law, Mr. Baumes, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Shipman, Mr. Potter, Mr. Ward, Mr. J. J. White, Mr. Donovan. 18. Charities — Mr. Wadsworth, Chairman. Mr. Stowell, Mr. Waterman, Mr. Parmenter, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Doughty, Mr. Wood, Mr. Sargent, Mr. Bell, Mr. F. C. Allen, Mr. Mulry, Mr. Leitner, Mr. Drummond, Mr. T. F. Smith, Mr. New- burger, Mr. Eisner. 19. Industrial Interests and Relations — Mr. Parsons, Chairman. Mr. Low, Mr. Curran, Mr. Berri, Mr. Parmenter, Mr. Franchot, Mr. Mandeville, Mr. Eggleston, Mr. 0. NicoU, Mr. Jones, Mr. Leggett, Mr. E. E. Weber, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. A. E. Smith, Mr. Fogarty, Mr. Dahm, Mr. tJnger. 20. Conservation of Natural Resources — Mr. Dow, Chairman. Mr. E. N. Smith, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Whipple, Mr. Ehees, Mr. Landreth, Mr. Meigs, Mr. Austin, Mr. Bannister, Mr. Angell, Mr. Dunlap, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Morgan J. O'Brien, Mr. Leary, Mr. Blauvelt, Mr. J. G. Saxe. 21. Relations to the Indians—^ Mr. Lindsay, Clmirman.' Mr. Whipple, Mr. Meigs, Mr. E. B. Smith, Mr. Shipman, Mr. Schoonhut, Mr. Endres. 22. Future Amendments and Revisions of the Constitution — Mr. Himnan, Chairman. Mr. F. L. Young, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Heaton, Mr. C. J. White, Mr. F. Mai-tin, Mr. Ward. 23. Revision and Engrossment — Mr. Eodenbeck, Chairman. Mr. Quigg, Mr. Ostrander, Mr. Betts, Mr. Bayes, Mr. New- burger, Mr. Leary. Doc. No. 1 4 24. Privileges and Elections — Mr. C. H. Young, Chairman. Mr. Brenner, Mr. Bunce, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Dunlap, Mr. F. C; AUen^ Mr. Tierney, Mr. Eichards, Mr. Burkan, Mr. Heyman, Mr. Byrne. 25. Printing— Mr. Berri, Chairman. Mr. Betts, Mr. ]S'"ixon, Mr. Mereness, Mr. Beach, Mr. McLean, Mr. Dahm. 26. Contingent Expenses — Mr. S. K. Phillips, Chairman. Mr. Fobes, Mr. Sears, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Bell, Mr. Mulry, Mr. Dyknian. 27. Rules — Mr. John Lord O'Brian, Chairman. Mr. Hale, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Delancey ISTicoU, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Wagner. 28. Civil Service — Mr. Ehees, Chairman. Mr. S. K. Phillips, Mr. Wickersham, Mr. Dow, Mr. Dunmore, Mr. Deyo, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Dick, Mr. Coles, Mr. McKean, Mr. Aiken, Mr. Winslow, Mr. Weed, Mr. Eichards, Mr. Unger, Mr. Eisner, Mr. Mann. 29. Library and Information — Mr. Jesse Phillips, Chairman. Mr; Wickersham, Mr. Eodenbeek, Mr. Wood, Mr. Morgan J. O'Brien, Mr. Stanehfield, Mr. Leitner. 30. Taxation — Mr. Martin Saxe, Chairman. Mr. Ostrander, Mr. Steinbrink, Mr. Greff, Mr. ISTixon, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Leg^ gett, Mr. Standart, Mr. Eyder, Mr. }5arrett, Mr. Mathewson, Mr. V; M. Allen, Mr. Unger, Mr. Eyan, Mr. Eppig, Mr. C. A. Web- ber, Mr. Wafer. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 2 NAMES AND POST-OFFICE ADDRESSES OF DELEGATES TO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATES-AT -LARGE Name P. 0. Address Berri, William 465 Clinton Ave., Brooklyn. Brackett, Edgar Truman. Saratoga Spa, N. Y. Brenner, Jacob 252 Carroll St., Brooklyn. Clearwater, Alphonso P. Kingston, IST. Y. Cullinan, Patrick W. . . . Oswego, N. Y. Low, Seth 30 E. 64tli St., New York City. Marshall, Louis 47 E. 72d St., ISTew York City. O'Brian, John Lord Buffalo, N. Y. Parsons, Herbert 115 E. 72d St., ISTew York City. Rodenbeck, Adolph J . . . Rochester, IST. Y. Root, Elihu 1 E. 81st St., ISTew York City. Schurman, Jacob Gould. . Ithaca, N. Y. Stimson, Henry L 275 Lexington Ave., New York City. Wickersham, George W. . Cedarhurst, L. I. Young, Charles H New Rochelle, jST. Y. Doc. No. 2 2 DISTRICT DELEGATES FiEST Senate Disteict Name P. 0. Address Pelletreau, Eobert S . . . . Patchogue, N. Y. Coles, Franklin A Glen Cove, E". Y. ' McKinney, William M. .. Worthport, IST. Y. Second Senate Disteict Frank, Philip Bridge Plaza, Long Island City. Eyan, George J 236 Lincoln St., Flushing, L. I. Weed, John W 61 Sanford Ave., Flushing, L. I. TiiiED Senate Disteict McLean, Andrew 284 Carlton Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y. Webber, Charles A 172 Congress St., Brooklyn, N. Y. Wafer, Moses J 319 Clinton St., Brooklyn, N. Y. FouETH Senate Disteict Adams, Floyd J 88 Ross St., Brooklyn, E". Y. Weber, Richard E 46 Sumner Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y. Buxbaum, Isidor 266 Van Buren St., Brooklyn, N". Y. Fifth Senate Disteict Dahm, James H 462 55th St., Brooklyn, IST. Y. Byrne, Edward J 28 Eighth Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y. Daly, Michael 312 Prospect Park West, Brooklyn, N. Y. Sixth Senate District Reeves, Alfred G 148 St. John's Place, Brooklyn, N". Y. Steinbrink, Meier 18 Fuller Place, Brooklyn, E". Y. Bannister, William P. . . 109 Cambridge PL, Brooklyn, ET. Y. Seventtt Senate Disteict Fogarty, Michael 119 Russell St., Brooklyn, W. Y. Ward, Francis P 436 Humboldt St., Brooklyn, E. Y. Dykman, William IST ... . 171 Washington Park, Brooklyn N. Y. 11 3 Doc. No. 2 Eighth Senate District Name P. 0. Address Bayes, William R 1551 East 10th St., Brooklyn, JST. Y. Latson, Almet R 250 Jefferson Ave., Brooklyn, X. Y. Doughty, Edgar M 131 Lennox Row, Brooklyn, N. Y. Ninth Senate District Eppig, Theodore C 28 Linden St., Brooklyn, 'N. Y. Mann, Frank 62 Suydam St., Brooklyn, N. Y. Heyman, Harry 321 Lorimer St., Brooklyn, IST. Y. Tenth Senate District Sargent, Isaac 914 Herkimer St., Brooklyn, N. Y. Mathewson, William F. . 41 Granite St., Brooklyn, JST. Y. Linde, Joseph 226 Linden St., Brooklyn, K Y. Eleventh Senate District Aliearn, John F 290 E. Broadway, New York City. Smith, Alfred E 25 Oliver St., Now York City. Harawitz, Abraham 110 Forsyth St., New York City. Twelfth Senate District White, John J 219 E. 12th St., New York City. O'Brien, Morgan J Y29 Park Ave., New York City. Newburger, Harry W. . . lY Livingston PI., New York City. Thirteenth Senate District Drummond, Michael J. .. 435 Riverside Drive, New York City. Stanchfield, John B Hotel Vanderbilt, New York City. Baldwin, Arthur J 35 Fifth Ave., New York City. Fourteenth Senate District Foley, James A 316 East 18th St., New York City. NicoU, Delancey 23 East 39th St., New York City. Kirk, Hiram M 136 East 49th St., New York City. Fifteenth Senate District Smith, Thomas F 880 West End Ave., New York City. Sheehan, William F 16 East 56th St., New York City. Mulry, Thomas M 10 Perry St., New York City. Doc. Ho. 2 4 Sixteenth Senate Disteict Name P- 0. Address Wagner, Eobert F 244 East 86th St., New York City. Dooling, John T 179 East 80th St., JSTew York City. Saxe, John G 166 West 72d St., New York City. Seventeenth Senate District Tanner, Frederick C . . . . 12 Grameroy Park, New York City. NicoU, Courtlandt 405 Park Ave., New York City. Bell, Gordon Knox 58 East 72d St., New York City. Eighteenth Senate District Eisner, Mark 243 West 98th St., New York City. Olcott, William M. K. . . 58 West 84th St., New York City. Saxe, Martin 313 West 82d St., New York City. Nineteenth Senate District Shipman, Andrew J 636 West 158th St., New York City. Bernstein, J. Sidney. . . . 1980 Seventh Ave., New York City, linger, Albert Blogg 139 West 130th St., New York City. Twentieth Senate District Leary, Timothy A 144 East 89th St., New York City. Burkan, Nathan 25 East 99th St., New York City. Potter, Mark W 417 Eiverside Drive, New York City. Twenty-first Senate District Donovan, Peter 465 East 144th St., Bronx, New York City. Donnelly, James F 1432 Glover St., Bronx, New York City. Slevm, William F 30 East 130th St., New York City. Twenty-secoa'd Sejnate District Martin, Francis 2150 University Ave., Bronx, New York City. Haffen, Louis J 308 East 162d St., Bronx, New York City. Griffin, Anthony J 891 Cauldwell Ave., New York Citv. 5 Doc. No. 2 TwENTY-TIIIKD SeNATE DiSTEICT Name P. 0. Address Blauvelt, George A Monsey, N. Y. Leitner, George A Nyack, IST. Y. Richards, Eugene Lamb. Prospect Ave., New Brighton, X. Y. TwENTY-FOUETI-r SeNATE DISTRICT Winslow, Francis A Yonkers, N. Y. Young, Frank L Osaining, N. Y. Barrett, Henry E White Plains, N". Y. TwENTY-EIFTI-I SeNATE DiSTKICT Baumes, Caleb H 67 Farrington St., ISTewburgh, N. Y. Wiggins, Russell Middletown, N. Y. Rosch, Joseph Liberty, N. Y. TwENTY-sixTii Senate Disteict i 'hillips, Samuel K Beacon, N. Y. Ryder, Clayton Carman, N. Y. Quigg, Lemuel E ..... . Austerlitz, N. Y. Twenty-seventh Senate Disteict Sharpe, Severyn B Albany Ave., King-ston, N. Y. \ anderlyn, John N New Paltz, IST. Y. Austin, H. Leroy Catskill, JST. Y. Twenty-eighth Senate Disteict Barnes, William Guilderland, N. Y. Hinman, Harold J Albany, JST. Y. Mealy, Edward A Cohoes, N. Y. Twenty-ninth Senate District Ueaton, Willis E Hoosick Falls, N. Y. /illen, Victor M Petersburgh, N". Y. McKean, Andrew P . . . . Troy, N. Y. Doc. No. 2 6 Thirtieth Senate Disteict Name P- 0- Address Law, Robert R Cambridge, N. Y. Ostraiider, William S . . . Schuylerville, Is"^. Y. Deimis, Otis A WbitehaH, N. Y. Thibty-fibst Senate District Landreth, Olin Henry. . . College Grounds, Schenectady. Yan Ness, Seward H. . . Cobleskill, N. Y. Dunlap, W. Barlow 14i» j\Iarket St., Amsterdam, N. Y. Thibty-second Senate District P>iince, George H Herkimer, IST. Y. Williams, Perry G Lowville, N. Y. ilereness, Charles S . . . . Lowville, IST. Y. Thibty-thied Senate District Angell, Edward M 245 Glen St., Glens Falls, IST. Y. Owen, Harry E Port Henry, IST. Y. Tiemey, Patrick J 23 Couch St., Plattsburgh, N. Y. Thibty-fgurth Senate District Meigs, Ferris J Tupper Lake, , N. Y. Waterman, Robert S. . . . 36 Green St., Ogdensburg, N. Y. Hale, Ledyard P. .' Canton, N. Y. Thirty-fifth Senate District Smith, Edward N 162 Clinton St., Watertown, N. Y. Stowell, Merrick 165 East 6th St., Oswego, IST. Y. Ford, Lewis H Clayton, IST. Y. Thirty-sixth Senate District Dunmore, Watson T. . . . 75 Rutgers St., Utica, N. Y. ^lartin, Louis ]\[ Clinton, IST. Y. Peach, Samuel H 124 W. Dominick St., Rome, N. Y. Thirty-seventh Senate District Bockes, George L Oneonta, N. Y. Gladding, Albert F Norwich, N. Y. Lennox, Frank R Chittenango, N. Y. Y Doc. ISTo. 2 Thiety-eighth Senate District Name P. 0. Address Fobes, Alan C 1237 James St., Syracuse, IT. Y. Smith, Eay B 1200 East Genesee St., Syracuse, N". Y Cobb, D. Eaymond 109 College PL, Syracuse, N. Y. Thirty-ninth Senate District Green, George E 17 Frederick St., Binghamton, JST. Y. Deyo, Israel T 32 JSTorth St., Binghamton, JST. Y. Fancher, Samuel H 83 North St., Walton, K Y. Fortieth Senate District Aiken, E. Clarence Owasco, IST. Y. Eggleston, Joseph E . . . . Cortland, IST. Y. Allen, Francis C Ovid, JST. Y. Forty-first Senate District Parker, John M 113 Front St., Owego, K Y. Mandeville, Hubert C . . . 509 West Church St., Elmira, N. Y. Nye, Bertrand W 404 Madison Aye., Watkins, N. Y. Forty-second Senate District Parmenter, John Geneva, JST. Y. Johnson, John H Penn Yan, IST. Y. Betts, Charles H Lyons, N. Y. Forty-third Senate District Phillips, Jesse S 36 Church St., Homell, IST. Y. Wadsviforth, James W., Sr. Geneseo, N. Y. Wheeler, Monroe Bath, N. Y. Forty-fourth Senate District Leggett, John C Cuba, N. Y. Wood, Frank S 314 East Main St., Batavia, N. Y. Greff, Clarence H Warsaw, N. Y. Doc. 1^0. 2 8 FOBTY-FIFTH SeNATE DiSTBICT Name P- O. Address , Ehees, Eush University of Kochester, Kochester,. N. y. Jones, Frank JST Webster, IST. T. Tuck, Andrew E 203 Chamber of Commeree Building, Eochester, N. Y. FoETT-sixTH Senate District White, Charles J Lockport, JST. Y. Curran, Eichard H City Hall, Eochester, JST. Y. Dick, Homer E. A Wilder Building, Eochester, IST. Y. EOETY-SEVENTH SeNATE DiSTEICT Franchot, Edward E . . . . Niagara Falls, IST. Y. , Lindsay, James P JSTorth Tonawanda, 1^. Y. Kirby, Thomas A Albion, JST. Y. Foety-eighth Senate District Clinton, George, Sr Prudential Building, Buffalo, X. Y. Lincoln, Leroy A 523 Ellieott Square, Buffalo, IST. Y. Sears, Charles B 810 Fidelity Building, Buffalo, N. Y. Fobty-ninth Senate District Endres, Mat 296 Strauss St., Buffalo, N". Y. O'Connor, Thomas- V. . . 157 Mackinaw St., Buffalo, IST. Y. Schoonhut, Charles 352 Williams Si, Buffalo, IST. Y. Fiftieth Senate District Standart, Frank W 303 Mutual Life Building, Buffalo. Sanders, Harry D 633 Marine Bank Building, Buffalo. Nixon, James L 339 Washing-ton St., Buffalo. Fifty-first Senate Disteict Westwood, Herman J. . . 115 Central Ave., Fredonia, JST. Y. Dow, Charles M 72 Allen St., Jamestown, IST; Y. Whipple, James S Salamanca, N. Y. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 3 RULES CHAPTER I Powers and Duties of the President and Vice-Presidents Rule 1. The President shall take the chair each day at the hour to which the Convention shall have adjourned. He shall call to order, and, except in the absence of a quorum, shall proceed to business in the manner prescribed by these rules. Rule 2. He shall possess the powers and perform the duties herein prescribed, viz. : 1. He shall preserve order and decorum, and, in debate, shall prevent personal reflections, and confine members to the question under discussion. When two or more members rise at the same time, he shall name the one entitled to the floor. 2. He shall decide all questions of order, subject to appeal to the Convention. On every appeal he shall have the right, in his place, to assign his reason for his decision. In case of such appeal no member shall speak more than once. Doc. No. 3 a 3. He shall appoint all committees, except where the Convention shall otherwise order. 4. He may substitute any member to perform the duties of the chair during the absence or inability of both vice-presidents, but for no longer period than two consecutive legislative days, except by special consent of the Convention. 5. When the iConvention shall be ready to go into Committee of the Whole, he shall name a chairman to preside therein, subject to right of the committee to elect its own chairman. 6. He shall certify the passage of all amendments by the Con- vention, with the date thereof. 7. He shall designate the persons who shall act as reporters for the public press, not exceeding thirty in number ; but no reporter shall be admitted to the floor who is not an authorized representa- tive of a daily paper. Such reporters, so appointed, shall be entitled to such seats as the President shall designate, and shall have the right to pass to and fro from such seats in entering or leaving the Assembly iChamber. No reporter shall appear before any of the committees in advocacy of, or in opposition to, anything under consideration before such committees. A violation of this rule will be sufficient cause for the removal of such reporter. Removal for this cause shall be vested in the President. 8. He shall not be required to vote in ordinary proceedings, except where his vote would be decisive. In case of a tie vote the question shall be lost. He shall have general control, except as provided by rule or law, of the Assembly Chamber and of the corridors and passages in that part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the Convention. In case of any disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries, corridors or passages, he shall have the power to order the same to be cleared, and may cause any person guilty of such disturbance or disorderly conduct to be brought before the bar of the Convention. In all such cases the members present may take such measures as they shall deem necessary to prevent a repetition of such misconduct, either by the infliction of censure or pecuniary penalty, as they may deem best, on the parties thus offending. 9. He shall also be ex-offlcio member and chairman of the Com- mittee on Eules. 3 Doc. No. 3 10. In the absence of the President, or his inability to preside, his duties shall devolve upon the First Vice-President, or, if he also be absent, upon the Second Vice-President. The President and Vice-Presidents shall be consulting mem- bers, without vote, in the several committees to which they shall not have been specifically appointed. CHAPTER II Order of Business Rule 3. The first business of each day's session shall be the reading of the Journal of the preceding day, and the correction of any errors that may be found to exist therein. Immediately thereafter, except on days and at times set apart for the consider- ation of special orders, the order of business shall be as follows : 1. Presentation of memorials. Under which head shall be included petitions, remonstrances and communications from indi- viduals, and from public bodies. 2. Communications from the Governor and other State officers. Under this head shall be embraced also communications from public officers and from corporations in response to calls for information. 3. Notices, motions and resolutions, to be called for by districts, numerically. 4. Propositions for constitutional amendment, by districts, in numerical order. 5. Reports of standing committees in the order stated in Kule 15. 6. Reports of select committees. 7. Third reading of proposed constitutional amendments. 8. Unfinished business of general orders. 9. Special orders. 10. Greneral orders. Reports from the Committee on Revision and Engrossment may be received under any order of business. CHAPTER III Rights and Duties of Members Rule 4. Petitions, memorials, remonstrances and any other papers addressed to the Convention shall be presented by the Doc. i^o. 3 4 President, or by any member in bis place, read by their titles, unless otherwise ordered, and referred to the proper committee. Rule 5. Every member presenting a paper shall indorse the same ; if a petition, memorial, remonstrance or communication in answer to a call for information, with a concise statement of its subject, and his name; if a notice or resolution, with his name; if a proposition for constitutional amendment, with a statement of its title and his name; if a proposition of any other kind for the consideration of the Convention, with a statement of its subject, the proposer's name, and the reference, if any, desired. A report of a committee must be indorsed with a statement of such report, together with the name of the committee making the same, and shall be signed by the chairman. A report by a minority of any committee shall be signed by the members ren- dering the same. Eule 6. Every member who shall be within the bar of the Con- vention, when a question is stated from the chair, shall vote thereon unless he be excused by the Convention, or unless he be directly interested in the question ; nor shall the roll of absentees be more than once called. The bar of the Convention shall be deemed to include the body of the Convention chamber. Rule 1. Any member requesting to be excused from voting may make, when his name is called, a brief statement of the reasons for making such request, not exceeding three minutes in time, and the Convention, without debate, shall decide if it will grant such request ; or any member may explain his vote, for not exceeding three minutes ; but nothing in this rule contained shall abridge the right of any member to record his vote on any question previous to the announcement of the result. CHAPTER IV Order and Decorum Rule 8. No member rising to debate, to give a notice, make a motion, or present a paper of any kind, shall proceed until he shall have addressed the President and been recognized by him as en- titled to the floor. While the President is putting a question or a count is being had, no member shall speak or leave his place ; and while a member is .speaking no member shall entertain any private discourse or pass between him and the Chair. 5 Doc. No. 8 Rule 9. When a motion to adjourn, or for recess, shall be carried, no member or officer shall leave his place till the adjourn- ment or recess shall be declared by the President. Rule 10. No persons, except members of the Convention and officers thereof, shall be permitted within the Secretary's desk, or the rooms set apart for the use of the Secretary, during the session of the 'Convention, and no member or other person shall visit or remain by the Secretary's table while the yeas and nays are being called, except officers of the Convention in the discharge of their duties. CHAPTER V Order of Debate Rule 11. No member shall speak more than once on the same question until every member desiring to speak on such question shall have spoken ; nor more than twice on any question without leave of the Convention. Rule 12. If any member, in speaking, transgress the rules of the Convention, the President shall, or any member may, call to order, in which case the member so called to order shall immedi- ately sit down, and shall not rise unless to explain or proceed in order. Rule 13. All questions relating to the priority of one question or subject-matter over another, under the same order of busings, the postponement of any special order, or the suspension of any rule, shall be decided without debate. Rule 14?. All questions of order, as they shall occur, with the decisions thereon, shall be entered in the Journal, and at the close of the day's session a statement of all such questions and decisions shall be printed at the close of and as an appendix to the Journal. CHAPTER VI Committees and Their Duties Rule 15. The President shall appoint the following standing committees to report upon the subjects named and such others as may be referred to them, viz. : 1. On the bill of rights, to consist of eleven members. 2. On the Legislature, its organization, and the number, appor- tioimient, election, tenure of office and compensation of its mem- bers, to consist of seventeen members. Doc. jSTo. 3 6 3. On the powers, limitations and duties of the Legislature, except as to matters otherwise referred, to consist of seventeen members. 4. On the right of suffrage and the qualifications to hold offixje, to consist of seventeen members. 5. On the Governor and other State officers, their election or appointment, tenure of office, compensation, powers and duties, except as otherwise referred, to consist of seventeen members. 6. On the judiciary, to consist of seventeen members. 7. On the State finances, revemies, expenditures, and restric- tions on the powers of the Legislature in respect thereto, and to public indebtedness, to consist of seventeen members. 8. On cities, their organization, government and powers, to consist of seventeen members. 9. On canals, to consist of eleven members. 10. On public utilities, to consist of seventeen members. 11. On counties, towns and villages, their organization, govern- ment and powers, to consist of seventeen members. 12. On county, town and village officers, other than judicial, their election or appointment, tenure of office, compensation, powers and duties, to consist of seventeen members. 13. On State prisons and penitentiaries, and the prevention and punishment of crime, to consist of eleven members. 14. On corporations and institutions, not otherwise herein specified, to consist of seventeen members. 15. On currency, banking and insurance, to consist of eleven members. 16. On the militia and military affairs, to consist of seven members. 17. On education and the funds relating thereto, to consist of seventeen members. 18. On charities and charitable institutions, to consist of sev- enteen members. 19. On industrial interests and relations, except those already referred, to consist of seventeen members. 20. On the conservation of the natural resources of the State, to consist of seventeen members. 21. On the relations of the State to the Indians residing therein to consist of seven members. 7. Doc. No. 3 22. On future amendments and revisions of the Constitution, to consist of seven members. 23. Eevision and engrossment, to consist of seven members. 24. Privileges and elections, to consist of eleven members. 25. Printing, to consist of seven members. 26. Contingent expenses, to consist of seven members. 27. Rules, to consist of seven members, and the President. 28. On the civil service, to consist of eleven members. 29. On library and information. 30. On taxatiooi, to consist of seventeen members. Eule 16. The several committees shall consider and report, without unnecessary delay, upon the respective matters referred to them by the Convention. Rule 17. The Committee on Eevision and Engrossment shall examine and correct the constitutional amendments which are referred to it, for the purpose of avoiding inaccuracies, repeti- tions and inconsistencies. It shall also carefully examine in the order in which they shall be directed by the Convention to be engrossed for a third reading, all constitutional amendments so engrossed, and see that the same are correctly engrossed, and shall immediately report the same in like order to the Convention before they are read the third time. Rule 18. It shall be the duty of the lOommittee on Printing to examine and report on all questions of printing referred to them ; to examine from time to time, and ascertain whether the prices charged for printing, and the quantities and qualities furnished, are in conformity to the orders of the Convention and to the con- ditions fixed by it; to ascertain and report the nimiber of copies to be printed, and how distributed; and to report to the Conven- tion from time to time, any measures they may deean useful for the economical and proper management of the Convention printing. Rule 19. It shall be the duty of the iCommittee on Contingent Expenses to inquire into the expenditures of the Convention, and whether the same are being or have been made in conformity to law and the orders of the Convention, and whether proper vouchers exist for the same, and whether the funds provided for the purpose are economically applied, and to report, from time to time, such regulations as may conduce to economy and secure the faithful disbursement of the money appropriated by law. Doc. No. 3 8 CHAPTER VII General Orders and Special Orders Eule 20. The matters referred to the Committee of the AVhole Convention shall constitute the general orders, and their titles shall be recorded in a calendar kept for that purpose by the Sec- retary, in the order in which they shall be severally referred. Eule 21. The business of the general orders shall be taken up in the following manner, viz. : The Secretary shall announce the title of each proposed amendment or other matter, as it shall be reached in its order, whereupon it shall be taken up on the call of any member, without the putting of a question therefor, but if not so moved, it shall lose its precedence for the day. And whenever three proposed amendments or other matters have been thus moved the Convention shall go into Committee of the Whole upon them without further order. Rule 22. Tuesday and Thursday of each week shall be set apart especially for the consideration of the general orders; but they may be considered on any other day when reached in their order. Rule 23. Each member shall be furnished daily with a printed list of the general orders, which shall be kept on his files by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in the same manner as other printed documents. Rule 24. Any matter may be made a special order for any par- ticular day, by the acceptance of the report of the Committee on Rules, or by a two-thirds vote, or by unanimous consent. CHAPTER VIII Committee of the Whole Rule 25. Any matter may be committed to the Committee of the whole upon the report of a standing or select committee, or by unanimous consent at any time. Any committee may be dis- charged from the further consideration of any matter referred to it, and such matter may then be referred to the Committee of the Whole, by a vote of the Convention. The same rules shall be ob- served in the Committee of the Whole as in the Convention, so far ais the same are applicable, except that the previous question shall not apply, nor the yeas and nays be taken, nor a limit be made as to the number of times of speaking. ? Doc. No. 3 Rule 26. A motion to " rise and report progress " shall be in order at any stage, and shall be decided without debate. A mo- tion to rise and report is not in order until each section and the title have been considered, unless the limit of time has expired. Eule 27, Proposed constitutional amendments and other mat- ters shall be considered in Committee of the Whole in the follow- ing manner, viz. : They shall be first read through, if the commit- tee so direct; otherwise they shall be read and considered by sec- tions. When the limit of time has expired, the amendments which have been proposed and not previously acted upon shall be voted upon in their order without further debate. The proposed con- stitutional amendment as amended shall then be voted upon with- out debate, and the committee shall then rise and report in accordance with the action which it has taken. If the committee shall have adopted any proposed constitutional amendment, the same shall be reported complete with any amend- ments made in the committee incorporated in their proper places. Rule 28. If at any time, when in Committee of the Whole, it be ascertained that there is no quorum, the chairman shall im- mediately report the fact to the President, who then takes the chair for the purpose of securing a quorum, and when that is obtained the chairman resumes his duties. Rule 29. Should the committee not have completed the business before it rises, the chairman will report progress and ask leave to sit again. CHAPTER IX Proposed Amendments to the Constitution Rule 30. No proposition for constitutional amendment shall be introduced in the Convention except in one of the following modes, viz. : 1. Under the order of introduction of propositions for consti- tutional amendment by districts, in numerical order. 2. By report of a committee. Rule 31. The title of each proposition for constitutional amend- ment introduced shall state concisely its subject-matter. Matter which it is proposed to strike out shall be in brackets, and new matter shall be underscored and when printed shall be in italics. All proposed amendments shall be presented in duplicate. Doc. No. 3 10 Rule 32. All propositions for constitutional amendment, after their second reading, which shall be by title, shall be referred to a standing or select committee, to consider and report thereon, and shall be immediately printed and placed on the files of each member. All proposed constitutional amendments reported shall, if the report be agreed to, be committed to the Committee of the Whole and immediately printed. When a committee has reported that no amendment should be made to the provisions of the existing Constitution relating to any specified subject, and such report is agreed to, all propositions for constitutional amendment relating to that subject which have been referred to that committee shall be considered as rejected. All constitutional amendments pro- posed by a minority report from any committee shall be printed and placed on the files of the members of the Convention. Rule 33. Proposed constitutional amendments reported by the Committee of the Whole shall be subject to debate before the ques- tion to agree with the committee on their report is put. Rule 34. No proposed constitutional amendment shall be or- dered to a third reading until it shall have been considered in Committee of the Whole. Rule 35. No proposed constitutional amendment shall be put upon third reading until it shall have been reported by the Com- mittee on Revision and Engrossment as correctly revised and en- grossed, unless by unanimous consent. Nor shall any proposed constitutional amendment be read the third time, unless it shall have been once printed. Rule 36. Every proposed constitutional amendment shall re- ceive three separate readings, previous to its final passage, and the third reading shall be on a day subsequent to that on which the proposed constitutional amendment passed in Committee of the Whole. Rule 37. The third reading of proposed constitutional amend- ments shall take place in the order in which they have been or- dered to a third reading, unless the Convention, by a vote of two- thirds of the members present, direct otherwise, or the proposed constitutional amendment to be read is laid on the table. And the question on the final passage of every proposed constitutional amendment shall be taken immediately after such third reading, and without debate, but the vote on the final passage of every pro- 11 Doc. ^o. 3 posed amendment, revision or addition to the Constitution shall be taken by ayes and nays, which shall be entered on the Journal. Eule 38. In all cases where unanimous consent is asked for advancing a proposed constitutional amendment out of its order, it shall be the duty of the President to plainly announce such request in full twice. Eule 39. On the third reading of a proposed constitutional amendment, after the reading of the title, and before the reading of the text, the proposed constitutional amendment shall be open one hour, if required, for debate on its merits, before the previous question shall be ordered ; but no member shall speak more than five minutes or more than once; the vote, however, may be taken at any time when the debate is closed. Rule 40. On the third reading of the proposed Constitutional amendment, no amendment thereto shall be in order, except to fill blanks, without tinanimous consent. Rule 41. A motion may be made during the third reading of any proposed constitutional amendment to recommit it, and such motion shall not be debatable. Rule 42. A register shall be kept by the Secretary of all pro- posed constitutional amendments introduced in the Convention, in which shall be recorded, under appropriate heads, the progress of such proposed constitutional amendments from the date of their introduction to the time of their final disposition. Rule 43. In all cases where a proposed constitutional amend- ment, order, motion or resolution shall be entered on the Journal, the name of the member introducing or moving the same shall also be entered on the Journal. Doc. No. 3 12 CHAPTER X Motions and Their Precedence Kule 44. When a question is under consideration, the following motions only shall be received; which motions shall have prece- dence in the order stated, viz. : Motions to, or for: 1. Adjourn for the day. 2. Eecess. 3. Call of the Convention, j- Not amendable or debatable. 4. Previous question. 5. Lay on the table. 6. Postpone indefinitely, not amendable, but debatable. 7. Postpone to a certain day. 8. Go into 'Committee of the Whole. 9. Commit to Committee of the Whole 10. Commit to a standing committee. 11. Commit to a select committee. 12. Amend. Preclude debates on main question. Rule 45. Every motion or resolution shall be stated by the President or read by the Secretary before debate, and again, if requested by any member, immediately before putting the ques- tion; and every motion, except those specified in subdivisions 1 to 11, inclusive, of rule 44, shall be reduced to writing if the Presi- dent or any member request it. Kule 46. After a motion shall be stated by the President, it shall be deemed in the possession of the Convention, but may be withdrawn at any time before it shall be decided or amended. Rule 47. The motion to adjourn, to take a recess, and to ad- journ for a longer period than one day, shall always be in order ; but the latter motion shall not preclude debate. Eule 48. A motion to reconsider any vote must be made on the same day on which the vote proposed to be reconsidered was taken, or on the legislative day next succeeding, and by a member who voted in the majority, except to reconsider a vote on the final passage of a proposed constitutional amendment, which shall be 13 Doc. No. 3 privileged to any member. Such motion may be made under any order of business, but shall be considered only imder the order of business in which the vote proposed to be reconsidered occurred. When a motion for reconsideration is decided, that decision shall not be reconsidered, and no question shall be twice reconsidered ; nor shall any vote be reconsidered urpon either of the following motions : To adjourn. To lay on the table. To take from the table ; or Tor the previous question. Rule 49. No amendment to a motion shall be received while another is pending, unless it be an amendment to the amendment and germane to the subject. CHAPTER XI Of Resolutions Rule 50. The following classes of resolutions shall lie over one day for consideration, after which they may be called up, as of course, under their appropriate order of business : 1. Resolutions giving rise to debate, except such as shall relate to the disposition of business immediately before the Convention, to the business of the day on which they may be offered or to adjournments or recesses, shall lie over one day for consideration, after which they may be called up, as of course, under their appropriate order of business. 2. Resolutions containing calls for information from any of the executive departments, from State, county or municipal officers, or from any corporate bodies, shall be referred to the appropriate committee. Such committee shall report thereon within three legislative days. Rule 51. All resolutions for the printing of an extra number of documents shall be referred, as of course, to the standing Com- mittee on Printing, for their report thereon before final action by the Convention. Rule 52. All resolutions authorizing or contemplating expendi- tures for the purposes of the Convention shall be referred to the standing Conimittee on Contingent Expenses, for tJieir report thereon before final action by the Convention. Doc. i\o. 3 14 CHAPTER XII The Previous Question Kule 53. The "previous question" shall be put as follows: " iShall the main qu^tion now be put ?" and until it is decided, shall preclude all amendments or debate. When, on taking the previous question, the Convention shall decide that the main ques- tion shall not now be put, the main question shall be considered as still remaining under debate. The " main question " shall be on the passage of the proposed amendment to the Constitution, resolution or other matter under consideration, but when amend- ments thereto are pending, the question shall first be taken upon such amendments in their order, and when adopted in Committee of the Whole, and not acted on in the Convention, the question shall be taken upon such amendments in like order. CHAPTER XIII The Convention Chamber and Privileges of Admission to the Floor 'Klile 54. The following classes of persons, besides offixiers and members of the Convention, shall be entitled to admission to the floor of the Convention during the session thereof, viz. : 1. Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and ex-Governors of the State. 2. Judges of the Court of Appeals and of the Supreme Court. 3. 'Members of former Constitutional Conventions. 4. The members of the Senate and Assembly and ex-Speakers. 5. The State officers, deputies and commissi-oners. 6. The Regents of the University. T. United States Senators and Congressmen. 8. The Capitol Commissioners. 9. Persons in the exercise of an official duty directly connected with the business of the Convention. 10. The reporters for the press, as provided by subdivision 7 of rule 2. No other person shall be admitted to the floor during the session, except upon the permission of the President or by vote of the Con- vention ; and persons so admitted shall be allowed to occupy places only in the seats in the rear of the Assembly Chamber. All per- 15 Doc. No. 3 mits granted by the President may be revoked by him at pleasure, or upon the order of the 'Convention. No person shall be entitled to the privileges of the floor of ihe Convention as a legislative re- porter of a newspaper who is interested in pending or contemplated constitutional revision, or who is employed by, or receives com- pensation from, any corporation, except a newspaper, news or press association. The doors of the Convention shall be kept open to the public during all its sessions. CHAPTER XIV General Rules Rule 55. Equivalent motions, resolutions or amendments thereto, shall not be entertained. If any question contains several distinct propositions, it lahall be divided by the Chair at the request of any member, but a motion to " strike out and insert " shall be indivisible. Rule 56. All proposed action touching the rules and orders of business shall be referred, as of course, to the Committee on Rules ; such committee may sit during the session of the Conven- tion without special leave, and report at any time on rules or order of business so referred to them. It will be in order to call up for consideration at any time a report from the Committee on Rules. Any member may object to its consideration until the next legislative day, and, if sustained by twenty-four other members, the consideration shall be so postponed, but only once. Pending the final consideration thereof, but one motion, except by unanimous consent, that the Convention adjourn, may be entertained, and no other dilatory motion shall be entertained until such report is fully disposed of. A motion to suspend the rules shall in all cases state specifically the object of the suspension, and every case of suspension of a rule under such notice and motion shall be held to apply only to the object specified therein. Provided that when ordered so to do by the Convention a standing committee shall make a report on a constitutional amendment or other subject, the Committee on Rules shall report a rule limiting the time for de- bate; and upon such report no member shall speak more than once, nor more than five minutes. Such report shall stand as the time limited for debate on the subject-matter referred to in Doc. ]Sro. 3 16 sucli rule, and the previous question or other motion to close debate shall not be in order until the expiration of the time so allotted, or the debate has been closed; the time thus allotted for debate shall be equally divided between those in favor and those opposed to the subject-matter under consideration. All questions or mo- tions authorized by this rule shall be decided at once without delay or debatei, except as herein expressly allowed. Rule 57. The yeas and nays may be taken on any question whenever so required by any fifteen members (unless a division by yeas and nays be already pending), and when so taken shall be entered on the Journal. Rule 58. When the Convention shall be equally divided on any question, including the President's vote, the question shall be deemed to be lost. Rule 59. In considering the report of the Committee on Re- vision and Engrossment, each article shall be open to amendment germane to such changes as may have been reported by the com- mittee, without previous notice, but no one shall speak more than five minutes, or more than once, on any proposition to amend. Rule 60. When a blank is to be filled and different sums or times shall be proposed, the question shall be first taken on the highest sum and the longest time. Rule 61. A majority of the Convention shall constitute a quorum. In all cases of the absence of members during its sessions, the members present shall take such measures as they shall deem necessary to secure the presence of absentees, and may inflict such censure or pecuniary penalty as they may deem just on those who, on being called on for that purpose, shall not render sufficient excuse for their absence. 'So constitutional amendment shall be adopted unless by the assent of a majority of all the members elected to the Convention. Rule 62. Tor the purpose of securing the attendance of mem- bers, a call of the Convention may be made, but such call shall not be in order after the main question has been ordered, nor after the voting on any question has commenced, nor after the third reading of an amendment has been completed. 17 Doc. 1^0. 3 liule 63. When less than a quorum vote on any subject under consideration by the Convention, it shall be in order, on motion, to close the bar of the Convention, whereupon the roll of members shall be called by the Secretary, and if it is ascertained that a (Tuoriini is present, either hy answering to their names or by their presence in the Convention, the yeas and nays shall again be ordered by the President, and if any member present refuses to vote, such refusal shall be deemed a contempt, and any member or members so offending shall be cited before the Committee on Privi- leges and Elections, which, after inquiry, shall report to the Con- vention for such action as the facts shall seem to warrant, and, unless purged, the Convention may order the Sergeant-at-Arnis t(j remove said member or members without the bar of the Conven- tion, and all privileges of membership shall be refused the pei-son or persons so offending until the contempt be duly purged. Eule 64. Whenever any person shall be brought before the bar of the Convention for adjudged breach of its privileges, no debate shall be in order, but the President shall proceed to execute the judgment of the Convention without delay or debate. Eule 65. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep the Journal of each day's proceedings, which shall be printed and laid on the table of members on the morning after its approval. In addition to his other duties, he shall prepare and supervise the printing of the calendars of the orders of the day and cause them to be placed on the files before the beginning of each day's session. All appointments of oiScers and employees shall be entered on the Journal of the Convention, with the date of appointment. Rule 66. It shall be the duty of the stenographer of- the Con- vention to be present at every session of the Convention. He shall take stenographic notes of the debates in the Convention and in Committee of the Whole and shall, at each day's session of the Convention, furnish a copy of the debates of the day before, writ- ten out in long-hand, and file the same with the Secretary, who shall keep the same in his office, and the same shall at all times be open to the inspection of delegates. Rule 67. At a reasonable time, to be determined by the Con- vention, and at least five days before final adjournment, the Com- mittee on Revision and Engrossment shall be instructed tO' accu- rately enroll and engross the present State Constitution, with all 3mpndmpn<-° +>'o>-p^-" T^rr.^"^i^^ ,•v^,.^T>^^^] ■ qj. ^j^g proposed new Con- Doc. 'No. 3 18 stitution ; and the same shall be reported by said committee to the Convention, read through therein, and submitted to a final vote prior to its final adjournment. When an article of the Constitu- tion is amended, or a new article substituted or added, such amended article, or new article, shall be enrolled and engrossed entire in its proper place in the Constitution. CHAPTER XV Miscellaneous Provisions Eule 68. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall, under the direction of the Committee on Printing, receive from the printer all matter printed for the use of the Convention, and keep a record of the time of the reception of each document, and the number of copies received, and cause a copy of each to be placed on the desk of each member immediately after their reception by him. Subject to the direction of the President, he shall enforce the rules of the Convention. Rule 69. Separate files of the daily Journal, reports of the com- mittees and of all documents ordered to be printed shall be pre- pared and kept by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and one copy shall be placed upon the desk of each member of the Convention and of thr Secretary. Eule 70. There shall be printed, as of course, and without any special order, 1,000 copies of the Journal and of all reports of committees on the subject of Constitutional revision. Rule 71. Six hundred copies of the Journal and six hundred copies of the reports as printed shall be bound and distributed as follows, viz. : To each member of the Convention, two copies ; State Library, five copies; the library of the Senate, five copies; the library of the Assembly, five copies ; the office of each county clerk, one copy; and the remaining copies to such libraries and other institutions as shall be designated by the President or by the Convention. Rule 72. The officers of the Convention appointed by the Presi- dent shall perform such duties as he may prescribe, and for any breach of duty any such ofiicer may be removed and his successor appointed by the President. The officers of the Convention ap- pointed by the Secretary shall perform such duties as he may prescribe, and for any breach of duty any such officers may be removed and his successor be appointed bv the Secretarv. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 4 REPORT OF THE STATE PRINTING BOARD To the Constitutional Convention: Gentlemeh'. — Acting in accordance with your resolution dated April 7, 1915, authorizing the State Printing Board to execute a contract for the printing of the journals, documents and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, pursuant to the recommendation of the Committee (of the Convention) on Printing, in their report made April Y, 1915, we, the imder- signed, composing the State Printing Board, beg leave to report that, on the 22d day of April, 1915, we executed the contract with J. B. Lyon Company for the printing of the journals, docu- ments and proceedings of the Convention recommended by said Committee, as required by said resolution; that said contract is in form as recommended by the report of said Committee and re- quired by the said resolution of the Convention; tiiat one dupli- cate original of said contract, executed by J. B. Lyon Company and by the State Printing Board, has been filed with the Comp- troller of the State, endorsed with his approval, as required by section 16 of the Finance Law, and a duplicate original of said contract, as executed, is annexed hereto and submitted herewith, except that the exhibits appended thereto are copies of the originals of those attached to the contract filed with the Comp- troller. Doc. No. 4 2 That, upon the execution of said contract, and bearing even date therewith, the said J. B. Lyon Company executed to the People of the State its bond in the penal sum of $25,000, with the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Baltimore, Maryland, as surety, conditioned for the faithful performance of its said con- tract, which bond was approved by the Comptroller, as to foi-m, by the Attorney-General, and the same has been filed with the Comptroller, as required by law. All of which is respectfully submitted. Feancis ]\r. Hugo, Secretary of State. EuGEisTB M. Tea VIS, State Comptroller. Egbuet E. Woodbttey, Attorney-U-eneral. Composing the State Printing Board. Dated April 23, 1915. 3 Doc. No. 4 [coi'y] ARTICLES OF AGEEEMENT Made this 22d day of April, 1915, by and between the People OF THE State of New Yoek, by Erancis M. Hugo, Secretary of State, Eugene M. Travis, State Comptroller, and Egburt E. Woodbury, Attorney-General, composing the Printing Board of the State of New York, pursuant to a resolution duly adopted on the 7th day of April, 1915, by the Convention to Eevise the Constitution of the State of New York and Amend the same, assembled at Albany, commencing the 6th day of April, 1915, acting under and by virtue of an Act of the Legislature of the State of New York, being chapter 76 of the Laws of 1915, parties of the first part, and J. B. Lyon Company, of Albany, N. Y., party of the second part, WITNESSETH : Whereas, The Secretary of State, the State Comptroller and the Attorney-General, constituting the Printing Board of the State of New York, have, in accordance with the provisioais of said chapter 76 of the Laws of 1915, above referred to, and in accordance with the State Printing Law, being chapter 60 of the Laws of 1909, and acts amendatory thereof, given and caused to be duly published a notice, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, that they, the said Secretary of State, State Comp- troller and Attorney-General, as such Printing Board, would ou Saturday, the 3d day of April, 1915, receive sealed proposals in writing for the. printing of documents, journals and proceedings of said Convention to amend and revise the Constitution, as ap- pears by the notice hereto attached ; and WiiEEEAs, Said party of the second part has, in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned acts and the terms of said notice, made and delivered to the Secretary of State, the State Comptroller and the Attorney-General, as such Printing Board, a sealed proposal in writing, which is also hereto attached and made a part hereof, to do and perform the public printing specified and named in said chapter 76 of the Laws of 1915, specified, named and described therein as the printing of docu- ments, journals and proceedings of the Convention; and Doc. No. 4 any of them. Mr. Stimson. — Many departments do it every year. Mr. Tanner. — Is that in any considerable amount. Senator ? Mr. Wagner. — Yes. Our reappropriations this year amounted to nearly two millions of dollars and they have lasted two years land have not been spent in two years because the appropriation is not needed until a lapse of two years. Doc. ISTo. 13 30 Doctor GooDNow. — Of course, yo^ are right, Mr. Tanner, that if you keep this system that you now have it would be a desirable thing for the Governor to have the power not only to cut out an item but to reduce it if he saw fit. Mr. Tanner. — I think so. I was just asking if the power were carried further if there would still not be some ladvantage in his having the right to reduce. I do not see what harm it could do, and it might do some good. Doctor GooDNOw. — Yes. Mr. Stimson. — There would be no assumption that the power would always remain as now. Doctor GooDNOw. — Wo. Mr. Stimson. — And that is the system you characterize as the cart before the horse? Doctor GooDNOw. — Yes. Mr. Stimson. — Isn't it a little worse than that ? Doesn't that system amount to turning over to the Governor the real legislative power of the State in the control of the purse ? Doctor GooDNOW. — Of course, it is totally contrary to the historical development of the English idea with regard to it. The English idea was not so m.uch that the Legislature or House of Commons was opposed to it, but it was to prevent the King from spending too much. Mr. Stimson. — In other words, the centuries-long fight for the control of the purse was in order that the people's representatives in the Legislature should have the say of how much money should be spent. Doctor GooDNow. — Yes. Mr. Stimson. — And this system which we are drifting into, is that the Legislature pass appropriations which we know are too large and let the Governor cut them down ? Doctor Goo'DNow. — Yes. 31 Doc. ISTo. 13 Mr. Stimson. — That is ^ving the power of the purse, isn't it ? Doctor GooDNow. — That is what it is. Mr. Wagnee. — "What did you say about the election of the Grovernor of a state as an ladministrative officer, and being the sole administrative of the state? Did I understand you to make a remark of that kind ? Doctor GooDNOw. — No ; nothing except the expression of a wish. I did not chariacteri2se the present system in that way. Mr. Ctjllinan. — Well, I thought that you expressed yourself as favoring what is known as the short ballot system in connection with the reforms that you believe are urgent here ? Doctor GooDNow. — I would. That is, I do not see why the State of New York should not just do about what the Federal government does. All we elect there is a President, and we con- centrate our attention on the President and hold the President responsible. Mr. CtTLLiNAN. — Do you think we hold the President respon- sible, or the party he represents? Doctor GooDNow.— Well, it is the same thing, isn't it ? Mr. CuLLiNAN. — Oh, no ; we trust the people to elect the Gov- ernor then. Doctor GooDKow. — Yes. Mr. 'CuLLiNAN. — Why cannot they be trusted to elect the other officers of the State ? Doctor GooDNOw. — Well, it is a question that seems to me not so much trusting the people, but it is a question of how it works in practice. Is any State government in this country as efficient as the United States government? Mr. CuLLiNAN. — Well, I am not prepared to ^answer that. Doctor GooDNOw. — Isn't it true that at the present time the people of the United States feel much more respect for the United Doc. No. 13 33 States government for what it does than they do for what ether single State governments do in this country ? Mr. Hale. — Except Vermont. Doctor GooDNow. — Vermont has 400,'000 inhabitants. Mr. CtTLLiNAN. — Doctor, the United States government is com- posed of .a series of states, the composition of the government is of such a character that it is impossible for them to vote for the members of the Cabinet, you might say, who correspond to our elective State officers. Doctor GooDiTow. — But supposing it is, isn't it true that at the present time every American citizen knows that when the United States government does a thing it is going to do it better than the State government ? Mr. Wagnee. — ■ I don't think so. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — ■ In some respects I admit that. Doctor GooDisrow. — I don't know of any case at the present time where the people do not feel more satisfaction, more confi- dence that the thing will be done well, if it is done by the United States government than if it is done by the State. Mr. Pelleteeatj. — And for less money. Doctor GooDBTow. — And for less money, and it is simply be- cause you have so scattered the State government, the State gov- ernm'ent is so unconcentrated at the present time that hardly anyone can vote intelligently with regard to State officers. Mr. Wagnee. — Do you mean at this particular moment com- paring the Federal government with the State of New York ? Mr. CuLLiNAN. — Do you think it is a good thing in a repre- sentative form of government for the people to be deprived of the opportunity of considering the capacity of their officers during an election ? Doctor GooDNOW. — I do. I do not think thiat the people are competent to express a judgment on so many people at the present time. I know perfectly well, I flatter myself that I am a reason- 33 Doo. No. 13 able man, a reasonably intelligent voter, but I know -when I go to vote that I don't know 10 per cent, of tbe people, don't know anything about who they are, what they have done, who are on the ballot that I am to vote for. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — Do you think you are doing your duiy as a citizen when you do not inform yourself ? Doctor GooDNow. — I canaiot inform myself. I don't know how to and there are not 10 per cent, of the citizens who do, and what we do, of course, is to rely, so far as we can, upon the party organization. We say, on the whole we think the Democratic organization is better than the Republican, or the Democratic party is worse than the Eepublioan, and we let it go lat that, and in a great many instances, we take what happens, where there is unfortunately an attempt made by a voter to discriminate apart from the party, and to vote for persons, then you get a lot of discordant people into the government, the Governor may be a Republican, the Comptroller a Democrat and so, and theaii what do you do ? You simply have paralysis of the State government. ISTothing is done during that period. I do not think that that is common sense, and we certainly do not have it when we come down to the Federal' governmen-t. There we know that the ad- ministration is either Democratic or Republican and we hold them responsible for it, and we cannot do that in the State government. Take, for example, here is a 'State government, we have an Attorney-Genenal who is elective. One of the things that have happened a number of times in the history of the State is that we have had a Governor of one party and an Attorney-General of the other, and the Governor would not trust the Attorney-General to counsel him, and the Legislature has beeni compelled to provide a personal counsel who can be iappointed and who will be in sympathy with his political view. Mr. BocKES. — Suppose the Attorney-General is appointed by the Governor, he to advise all the officers of the State, suppose he has to write an opinion which will not satisfy either the officers of the State, the same as the corporation counsel of New York, he is supposed to be the adviser of the comptroller, but he is ap- Doc. 'No. 13 34 pointed by the mayor, and wlial; 'happens to Hm if the opinions which he should write should offend the mayor 'and be in favor of th'e comptroller ? Does not the same thing apply to the Attorney- General ? Doctor GooojifGW. — That is an argument for not electing the comptroller and mayor at the saxae time. Mr. BocKES. — Isn't it an argument to elect your corporation counsel or have him appointed by all those parties — - Doctor GooDwow. — Then it seems to me you would have it worse still. Mr. BocKES. — Isn't he supposed to ladvise the Legislature, and advise even the county officers in case he is asked for an opinion ? In that instance, if his advice should not satisfy the Governor, and he was the Governor's appointee, why, how long would he remain AttorU'ey^General, do you suppose ? Doctor GooDNOw. — Well, the Governor is the more important person, isn't he ? Mr. BocKES. — But he ought to be in such position that he could advise fearlessly and honestly everybody in the State. Doctor Goor(N"ow. — We do not think that is necessary in the Federal government. The Attomey-G«nerai there is appointed by the President ; he is removable at will, and there is never any difficulty which has developed, and 'Congress has not had to provide the President with a personal counsel, as has had to be done here in the case of the Governor. Mr. 'Stimson. — How about the Solicitor of the Treasury ? I think he exercises a power very unlimited in the Federal govern- ment. Doctor GooDNow. — You mean the 'Comptroller of the Treasury ? Mr. Stimson-. — Yes. He can stop the payment of money by any cabinet officer, by the President himself, can't he ? Doctor GooDNow. — Yes. Mr. Stimson. — Has he ever been removed ? 35 Doc. No. 13 Doctor GooDNow. — ISTot that I know of. I think the 'last man, Treadwell, has been in there about fifteen years. Mr. Stimson. — I think I noticed by the paper yesterday that he had stopped the payment of some military expenses, without )>eing removed. llr. Hale. — Is that l^al or moral power that he has gathered to himself by being worthy ? Doctor GooDNOw. — The Attorney-General. Mr. Hale. — In other words, when he does a thing as radical as that he is holding there a superior office, isn't he ? Doctor GooDNOw. — They have gradually got the idea down there that the Comptroller of the Treasury oug'ht to be about as independent as a judge. Mr. Hale. — Without any restraint ? Like a Member of Par- liament ? Doctor GooDNOw. — They play the game that "way. Mr. NicoLL. — Have you considered the relative expense of the United States government, the administration of the government of the United States as compared with the State government ? Doctor GooDNOw. — I never went into that. Mr. liicoLL. — What is your impression ? Doctor GooDwow. — My impression is they do work much more cheaply in the United States government than they do in the States. ]\Ir. Hale. — States generally, or in the State of 'New York ? Doctor GooDNOw. — I don't know about the States personally, but I think in the State of New York. Mr. Austin. — I do not think you are correct when you inti- mate that the reason fdr creating the ofiice of counsel for Gov- ernor was friction between the Attorney-General and Governor. The duties of the counsel to the Governor ^are entirely distinct and separate and different from the offices that have been, from Doc. ]Sro. 13 36 time immemorial, filled hj the Attorney-General, and his opinions have been confined to 'advioe to tlie Governor on matters of legis- lation, where the Governor needed an adviser through his inability to go into detail. Doctor GooDNow. — I think if you -will go to Washington you vsdll find that the Attorney-General does that -work. There has been no necessity under the United States Federal organizations for it. Mr. Hale. — He is the personal appointee of the Governor. Doctor GooDNow. — But you have had to have the officer here because the Attorney-General was not the personal appointee of the Governor. Mr. AtrsTiiT. — ISTo ; I don't think so. Mr. Wagnee. — A deputy could easily enough be 'assigned, but I have forgotten w'hich Governor began the practice, but it was desired to have the place in the executive department. Doctor GooDNow. — That often is a reason. Mr. Beach. — Doctor Goodnow, to go back to the budget under discussion, what would be the practice in case the budget is actually passed and was not sufficient for some particular depart- ment, in iactual practice for the current uses and expenses ? Would it be the idfea that each department must be actually held down for that current year to the expenditure of that amount of money, apportioned to it in the appropriation bill? Or would we be confronted with a supply bill every year, as we are now, to make up the deficiencies ? Doctor Goodnow. — That, of course, vrould all depend upon the way in which the system is administered, and would depend upon the conditions of any particular year. You can foresee to a cer- tain extent, but you cannot foresee absolutely. This building burned one year. You might have to have a supplementary estimate come in for that, and deficiency bills. You might have them, but I don't thinlc you would have as many as you have at the present time. 37 Doc. No. 13 Mr. Wagwee. — It would tend to have the different departments apportion more nearly what they actually now get. In other wordls, it seems to be the practice of the Legislature to larbitrarily cut down the appropriations way below, apparently, what is neces- sary and then immediately make it good with a deficiency bill. Mr. Stimson-. — I think what Mr. Beach is referring to there has happened, according to my recollection of the evidence, rather more commonly from an attempt to make an apparent or false economy on the part of lihe estimates. I mean that, there being no budget responsibility, it has appeared thiat it has become a practice very often to make the regular a;ppropriation bills smialler than they needed and then cover it with a supply bill. That has been stated, with how much accuracy I don't know. Mr. Deto. — Doctor, that, as Mr. Stimson has intimated, the fight under the English system of government for 100 years was as to the question of who should pull the purse strings. That fight was transferred to the colonies here, and when this govern- ment was established it was a departure, to some exteaiit, from the English system, in that we vested in our Legislatures the absolute control of the purse strings. In that respect it differed •firom the English system — the principle was different. We have always adhered to liiat, I think, in all of the States and also in the Federal government. What would you say to this propo- sition, that this suggestion of permitting a budget-making body to consist of the Governor and some of the officials, whether elected or appointed, it is immaterial which, but to allow the executive or the administrative branch of the government to make up a budget for the legislative branch, and then prohibit the legislative branch of the government from increasing those appropriations? In other words, aren't you departing from a fundamental principle in our theory of government in loosening up the hold of the Legislature upon the purse strings and transferring that to the executive or administrative branch ? Doctor GooDiTow. — Well, it does nc^t seem to me that there is anything inconsistent with democratic government. That is, if you consider the control of the purse strings consists mainly in the facility of pulling them open, why then, of course, that would Dpc. No. 13 38 be mconsistent with the idea of th.e control of the purse strings ; but I doubt very much whether there is any fundamental principle in democratic government, as we see it in this country, which must necessarily involve extravagance. That is what seems to me th'at your largument leads to. That is, we must let the Legis- lature have this control in order that they may open the purse strings, not that they may close them. The theory of the old days was to close the purse. That is what the people wanted to do, and here this simply encourages extravagance. It does not seem to me that that is a nec.essary fundamental characteristic of popular govemmeiit. Mr. Deyo. — Under our present system, the Legislature has the right to open our purse strings, and the executive branch has the right to close them. Doctor GooDNow. — Yes. Mr. Deyo. — Doesn't this suggestion involve a transposition of those functions? Doctor GooDWow. — Certainly, a transposition of the functions. Mr. Deyo. — It gives the executive branch the right to open and the legislative the power to close ? Doctor GooDNOW. — It is a transposition of the functions as they are distributed at the present, but historically, of course, as Mr. Stimson h^s pointed out, that was not the original idea. Mr. Stimson. — Wasn't the first change from the old order made when we gradually allowed the first closing of the purse to be transferred to the Governor ? Doctor GooDKOw. — Yes. Mr. Stimson. — And wasn't that a complete reversion ? Doctor GooDNOw. — Yes. Mr. Stimson. — Of the theory of the fathers ? Doctor GooDNow. — Yes. Mr. S'timson. — In that it conveyed to our Governor the real power over the purge strings ? 39 Doc. ¥0. 13 Doctor GooDNOW. — And tkat is only common of the grant to the government, the veto power on an item in the appropriation bill. Mr. Stimson. — Precisely, it has oome as an outcome of the extravagance of which you speai; ? Mr. Tannee.— Substantially, isn't the budget system which you now advocate merely a veto in advance ? The G-overnor fixes a figure beyond which the appropriation cannot go ? Doctor GooDNOw. — Yes. Mr. Tanneb. — Does it at the beginning of the term instead of the end of the term. ? Doctor Gdodnow. — Yes. Mr. Gttllinan. — Supposing the Legislature, which has the duty on it of imposing the tax to raise the f undfe of the State, sup- posing they say, we won't 'raise any funds, what is going to be the outcome of that situatioji? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse when you say you want an independent body to say how much money shall be raised ? Doctor GooDNow. — As a matter of fact, the action of the Legislature is not necessary in the 'present time for the raising of most of the funds of the State. That is, most of the taxes of the State lat the present time, out of which State expenditures are defrayed, are fixed by permanent law. That is, the Corporation Tax Law, Inheritance Tax Law, and Liquor Tax and a series of other laws, and it is only recently that we have oome back to a direct tax which makes it necessary for the Legislature to act in any one particular year. We went on for years here without the necessity of any action on the part of the Legislature for the purpose of bringing the revenues in. Mr. CuLLiNAisr. — But the Legislature represents the people, aijd they have 'passed those laws, jand now you are going to say to the Legislature that all those who raised those revenues cannot have anything to say about the appropriations ? Doctor GooDN-ow. — Yes ; you can cut down appropriations that are proposed, but, in order to prevent this log rolling that has been Doc. No. 13 40 going on, and wHcli is increasing (at an alarming rate, the expendi- tures of every State in the Union doing the same thing, they are doing it in the Federal government, a practice which is not practiced in any other government, we are going to say, you cannot raise those (appropriations. M(r. CuLLiNAiT. — Do you consider they have log rolling in Washington ? Doctor GrooDKow. — Certainly. Pork barrels and all others. ■Mr. Stimsof. — But in Washington they have not this system that you propose of preventing the esti(mate from being raised ? Doctor GrooDNOw. — Wo. And historically 'here is what the House of 'Comm'ons, from which every Legislature has sprung, found as a result of its experience, it had to do, and did it two hundred years ago. Mr. OuLLiwAJsr. — Is not the budget system in England the result of the fact that the men in the House of Lords owned England at that time, and have continued to own- it since so far as real estate is concerned ? Doctor GooDiirow. — ■ I do not (see how that could affect this. Mr. 'CuLLiH-Aw. — • The m(0ney has to be raised by taxes. Doctor GooDN"ow. — -But (as a general thing where the owners of the land — the land owners — controlled the government, you find they do not let the taxes go on the land, and they have not let the taxes go on the land anything like what you have here. They put them on indirect taxes there until recently. Mr. Hale. — The large estates are being broken up there ? Doctor GooDNOW. — That is just lately. Mr. Austin. — Just as a matter of information, and not las a matter of importance here, in England, is la direct tax levied the same as we have it here ? Do they have a direct tax ? Doctor GooDNOw. — ■ On the land ? Mr. AxTSTiN-. — Yes. 41 Doc. No. 13 Doctor GooDNOw. — Practicdly, no. They have a tax on the rentable value. If a house is not rented they do not pay taxes. Mr. S'timson. — Their main tax is on incomes ? Doctor GooDNow. — Yes. Mr. Lennox. — Doesn't the extravagance in this State come from the administrative department rather than from the legisla- tive department? The extravagance that has grown up, hasn't that come from administrative department, and hasn't the Legis- lature done its best by cutting down estimates masked for by the administrative department ? Doctor GooDNOW. — I don't know. I have not been up here and I cannot speak from actual experience. Mr. Tanner. — The same Legislature has kept on increasing the number of departments. Mr. Lennox. — You do not want to take the right away from the Legislature to create a department ? Doctor GooDNow. — All the legislators like to have la little State money spent in their district. Mr. Lennox. — The main extravagance is in the different de- partments of the State made up by the ^administrators of those departments, and so really the check on extravagance now rests in the Legislature. They exert it to a large extent. Doctor GooDNOw. — I should say, from your description of the case, that one would have to come to the conclusion that the legislative efforts have been ineffective and what you want is something that will be more effective. Mr. Lennox. — Yes. Doctor GooDNOw. — This has been adopted, as I say, in England and in every English speaking country except our own. They spend a good deal of money, of course, but I think it is more effective. Mr. Lennox. — Don't you think a budget made up by iadminis- trative oflScers would be less or ismaller or more economical than the budget made up by the Legis'latuT'e ? Doc. Xo. 13 42 Doctor GooDNOW. — I think so. Mr. Lennox. — That is not true because the budgets put in now by different adtainistrative officers are large ? Doctor GooDNOw. — But you have no check upon the part of the Governor or no check by any central body. Mr. Stimson. — At the present we have no budget body. Doctor GooDNow. — ■ No. Mr. Stimsoit. — We have a series of estimates made up by subordinates ? Doctor GooDNow. — Yes, sir. Mr. Lennox. — That has to be made up by subordinates. Mr. Prendergast told me that theirs are made up by subordinates oi large experience. Mr. Stimson. — But Oomptrdller Prendergast told us at the same time that that saone budget had been cut dovsm $6,000,000 a year by their central Board of Estimate. Mr. Lennox. — And further cut dovsTi by the Common Council. Mr. Stimson. — And further cut down by the Common Council. As I remember the figures the average cutting down by the central executive heads the lowest was $6,000,000 and it ran from that up to nearly $12,000,000, while the Board of Aldermen cut it down about $700,000 or $800,000, the figures we had for the last year. Mr. Ehees. — This does not prevent the Legislature from re- ducing ? Doctor GooDNOW. — l^ot a bit. It only pre\'ents them from increasing. Mr. Austin. — Here was a suggestion made by Congressman Fitzgerald before the Committee ; he favored the budget idea. Doctor GooDNow. — He was opposed to it at one time. ]\[r. Austin. — He said in his judgment you should not go so far as to absolutely take iaway from the Legislature the right to 43 Doc. No. 13 increase a budget item, but his idea was that you should make it so difficult to increase, by requiring say a three-quarters vote of the Legislature, or something of that sort that it would only be in oases of extraordinary necessity, where there was a popular de- mand for it, land in deprecation of the Governor's attitude that that would occur. Doctor GooDNOw. — Look at the history of the thing. Mr. Austin. — I am simply asking you what your idea is, be- cause he was a big man. Doctor GooDNOw. — According to the rules of the House ot Eepreseatatives in Washington, no order is in order which pro- vides for legislation that would increase expenditures. In the case of an appropriation bill, what do they do? They will sus^ pend the rules by unanimous vote, when the thing gets up before the House of Representatives. Mr. Stimsgn.' — ■ In other words, they even now have one of their rules which would do this very thing, but nullify that rule by unanimous consent ? Mr. Austin. — That is different from providing by constitu- tional provision that it could not be increased except by a three- quarter vote, because they could not suspend the rules of the Constitution ? Doctor GooDNOw. — No. Mr. Stimson. — ^I was asking S'enator Wagner the other day what the effect had been of the provision which is in the Consti- tution now, which forbids any local or private legislation except ■ by two-thirds vote. Is that 'an effective check now ? Mr. Wagnee. — No, sir. It has not any great effect upon the size of our budget. Mr. Deyo. — Are measures defeated on that ground ? Mr. Wagner. — I cannot recall of any. Mr. Stimson. — Or is it possible for members to obtain two- thirds vote for their particular measure by courtesy, irrespective of party lines? Doc. ]STo. 13 44 Mr. Wagner. — I would not say oourtesy, but merit. Mr. Stimsob". — I will put my question in another way : Is it conmionly 'possible for members to obtain a two-thirds vote of the House for a local or private bill which they desire regardless of party lines? Mr. Wagnee. — I do not think they experience any great diffi- culty, because the Legislature usually relies upon the representa- tive in that locality as to the merits of the particular prop'osition. There are not very many of those. Mr. Stimson. — Yes, I understand, but your experience in the Legislature, so far as it goes, would rather indioate that such a provision for a two-thirds vote does not prevent members from getting bills passed by a two-thirds vote for ^a local purpose when they want it? Mr. Wagnee. — Wot for a local purpose. When it gets to ap- propriation bills there is a difference. If it required' a two-thirds vote to pass the bridge bills they would — the bridge bills that were passed, and 'Other bills, which, while they are not really local bills, that is, State branches, and for an alleged State purpose, you could mot have passed any of them, because they could not secure a two-thirds vote for very many of them. I think all the members of my party were recorded against every one of them. And those are the class of bills that Doctor Goodnow is talking about. Doctor Goodnow. — I should think, just from a point of view of political expedience, that what you suggest would be 'a good first step to take; that is, provided something could be adopted. I think from the point of view of actual practice throughout the world, that the -only way to check this extravagance is by adopting some such thing as this House of Commons Kule, 1713, but whether the people of the State would be ready for it is another proposition, and they might be willing to accept such a proposal as you make. Mr. Austin. — That is the idea I had in mind. Of course there is opposition, as well as there are a 'great many 'people who favor it. Whether the adoption of some proposition of that sort, still reserving an ultimate power in the Legislature to direct local 45 Doc. JSTo. 13 representatives of the people, as to whether they mig'ht not remove some opposition to the introduction of a budget system — Mr. Stimson. — Then the whole question would be whether it was a step which was at all effective ? Mr. Austin. — Yes. Mr. Wagnee. — On matters of appropriation I should think it would be, if you made the vote high enough. Mr. Stimson. — I mean it would not be a case where a man's desire to please another, a fellow member, in return for his pleas- ing you afterwards would override party consideriations ? Mr. Wagner. — Well, of course, human nature is human nature, and you cannot say that vpill eliminate that feature of legislative life, but I think it would make it more difficult than it is now to pass bills of that character. Mr. Stimson. — Have you any suggestions. Senator, as to how high it would be necessary to have such restriction in order to be effective ? Mr. Wagnee. — If you want to make it effective at all I should say you should make it three-quarters, because 'if there are party lines, and there are alVayg party lines, it is rarely that any one party has three-quarters control of the Legislature. I never re- member it. So that would be quite an effective check. Mr. Stimson. — Have you gentllemen any further questions to ask Doctor Goodnow ? (No response.) Mr. Stimson. — Then, Doctor, I want to tell you that I am sure that my Committee and I am also sure that both Committees are very much obliged to you for coming here this long distance and giving us this very instructive talk to-day. Mr. Tannee. — I move that a vote of thanks on behalf of both Committees be extended to Doctor Goodnow. Which motion was duly seconded and unanimously carried. Mr. Stimson. — We thank you, Dr. Goodnow; it has been a great honor to have had you with us. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 14 JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNOR AND OTHER STATE OFFICERS, AND COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, WITH HON. A. LAWRENCE LOWELL, PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY Senate Chamber, iCapitol Building, Albany, I^ew York, June 10, 1915, 3:00 p. m. Hon. Heney L. S'timson, .and Hon. Feedeeick C Tannee, presided as Chairmen of their respeiotive 'Committees. Mr. Stimson. — Willthe Committees kindly come to order? Gentlemen, -we have the pleasure of having with us to-day, Doctor Lowdll, the President of Harvard University. During the course of the meetings of the Committee on 'Finance, as the members of that Committee will remember, a question came up as to the methods of budget-making which were in practice in other coun- tries, particularly other English speaking countries, and, in order to get the best possible authority an those methods, it was sug- gested that we invite one of the greatest living American authori- ties on that subject. Doctor Lowell, who is known, of course, to all of you, from his study of the governmental methods in Great Britain particularly, Doc. JSTo. 14 2 as well as the otlier countries of Europe, has kindly consented to come here and speak to us this afternoon about the methods of budget-making in England, incidentally, and also the methods by which the executive functions of that government are carried on, and classified and co-ordinated. Doctor, the methods of these two Comm.ittees have been very informal, and I understand that you would be glad to be inter- rupted with questions? Dr. Lowell. — I should, at any tiane. Mr. Stimson. — And I, therefore, sug-gest that if you will take the matter into your own hands and proceed in your own way on those subjects, you -will probably find a good many of us will be anxious for light and will ask you questions during the course of your remarks. Dr. Lowell. — Thank you, sir. I should like to be inter- rupted and asked questions, because that is the only way to get information. I am' here not to give a lecture, but to give such information as anyone may desire, and I want to say in beginning this, I want to have it clearly understood that I have no idea that any foreign methods in any government can ever be trans- planted into another country and work the way they do at home ; that all you can do is to get suggestions and hints. In fact, I have spent a good deal of my effort in life in trying to find out that it is impossible to transplant any institution into a new soil, and expect the same fruit and yield in its new soil. You can get suggestions, but you cannot bodily transplant anything. You can merely get ideas. The English budget system, of course, rests upon a principle that we have not in this country, and have no approach to it. That is, the Legislature, who resigns whenever it loses the confidence of the Legislature; that is, whenever an adverse vote is passed by the Legislature on any important point. Of course, one must bear in mind that fact for much pressure which the Legislature exerts on the Executive, and which the Executive exerts on the Legislature is due to the fact that the Executive has no independ- ent origin. It is not like ours, elected by the people independently 3 Doo. No. 14 of Parliament, but is elected practically by Parliament itself, informally elected. That is, it is the leaders of the party in the House of Commons. Now, the way in which the budget is originally devised is this : Early in the autumn the various departments make up their estimates of what they will need for the current year, and, of course, like ail human things, they make up their estimate some- what larger than they can expect to get. Any ^aggressive concern wants to spend more money than it has, because it feels the useful- ness of it. Therefore, those first departmental estimates are somewhat larger than can be very well granted. Those estimates are submitted to the head of the department by the different branches of the department beneath it. He goes over them, probably cuts them down a little in most cases, and then they are passed into the Treasury, the head of which is known as the (Chancellor of the Exchequer ; he goes over them and sees how he can raise money to meet them, and, of course, he cuts down to some extent, and sometimes there is a sharp quarrel between different departments, between the Treasury and some other de- partment, on the question whether he can see his waj' clear to raise the money, raise money enough to meet the demands of those departments. One famous case of tJiat was the time when Lord Randolph Churchill, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, fell out of office, fell out of public life forever, as it turned out. He tried to cut dovra the estim^ates for the War Department, and it resulted in a difference, and a sharp difference between him and the War Department, and the War Department had the matter brought up before the whole Cabinet, and the whole Cabinet decided for the requirements for the army that the army wanted, and Lord Eandolph Churchill tendered his resignation. The cut was against him, and he went out. When those estimates have been approved or out down, or arranged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is then ready to bring them into Parliament, which he does. Now, I ought to explain what is a little difficult to follow, a little something of the procedurei in the House of Commons, because, without that, it is difficult to understand what the differ- ent steps of the process mean, and what their real significance is. Doc. N"o. 14 4 You must remember that the appropriations in England that are made lapse at the end of. the year for which they are made. Unlike the- French appropriations, for instance, which run OFer indefinitely, or our appropriations — I don't know how it is in ISTew York, but in Massachusetts our appropriations lapse at the end of the year next following the one when it is appropriated. Mr. Stimson. — Two years, yes. Mr. Taxnee. — When does the fiscal year begin, Doctor Lowell ? Dr. Lowell. — The fiscal year begins the first of April, and the appropriations lapse then. Parliament meets usually early in February, and the first thing that has to be done is to make up for any over-run that they are likely to have. That is, the first thing to do is to ask Parliament to cover any excess, which is very sure to occur, before the first of April. For however well your government is conducted, there are certain to be some unforeseen expenses in some way or other, which will necessarily require additional appropriations. The amount in England is very slight. They rarely over-run more than three or four per cent., except in case of war. Of course, in this war and in the South African War, they may over-run to any extent, but ordinarily the calcula- tions are very close, about three or four per cent. The first thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer does is to bring requests for those excesses, whatever they may be. Those are called excess drafts. Mr. Tanner. — Is there any statute preventing an officer from overrunning bis appropriation ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, I will explain that when it comes to the audit. As a matter of fact, there are very elaborate rules which I can point out to you, and which it is hardly worth while to go into. As a rule, your budget is voted by headings. There are different departments, and under each department the headii^s are differ- ent. The rule is that you cannot transfer from one grant to another, or exceed any grant, except in the Army and Navy where you can, transfer from any one graait in the army to any other grant in the army. If you want to take things from the clothing 5 Doc. No. 14 of soldiers and spend that money on ammunition, you can do it. In no other department can you do those things. After he has brought in his excess grants to make up for any deficiency in the past year, he then brings in his estimate for the coming year, and, inasmuch as he cannot possibly get this passed before the first of April, he gets some grant on account. Mr. 'Stimson. — About what time of the year are those esti- mates brought in ? Dr. Lowell. — Those estimates are brought in usually about the first of March. He has only about a month, and he only gets some provisional grants, enough to carry them along for two or three months, which will be certainly granted anyway, because they are much less than will be granted during the year. Here is the most important point of all : When he brings this in, there is a rule adopted, as early as 1Y06, I think it was, and made by sessional order, and finally made the permanent order of the House in, I think, 1713 — I could give you the exact dates, but I am within a couple of years, anyway, of the date — pro- viding that no motion shall be made in the House of 'Commons for any grant out of the public revenue, except upon the recom- mendation of a minister of the Crown ; in other words, a member of the Cabinet, and that always, of course, means the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he makes all fiscal motions. ■No motion can be entertained by the House of Commons, ac- cording to its standing order, for any grant from the public treas- ury, except on the recommendation of a Minister of the 'Crown. Now, that has received a very wide extension, and has been copied in all the British colonies. It goes right through the English world. The reason was this — a reason which we are perfectly familiar with in this country, and that is the tendency of individual mem- bers to try to get individual grants for local or personal purposes. A man is much interested in building a post-office in his town, or whatever it may be. It is a thing we are all so familiar with. It was in order to Stop that as early as 200 years ago, that they put in this rule. There have been attempts to dodge that. For instance, instead of introducing a motion for a grant to be paid Doc. No. 14 6 out of the public treasury, there would be introduced a motion to be paid out of moneys to be hereafter voted by Parliament, and then the House of Commons having voted in favor of that, they have practically expressed their opinion, and the government has to bring in a recommendation, and find the money, because the House had already expressed its opinion. That was dodged by adding' a few words to the motion, saying it could be paid out of the public revenues, or sums to be hereafter provided by Parlia- ment, et cetera. You have to continually stop leaks which will occur, of course, in any legal procedure. The object wais this: It was to prevent an expression of opinion in favor of an expenditure before the government thought it wise to make it. In other words, the whole art, of course, as we -all know, is having the right of initiative. If you give every individual member of the Hous^e a right to initiate things, it may be very hard for the House and the Min- ister to refuse them, although in their best judgment, they know it is not wise, and, for that purpose, the right of the initiative in expenditures is taken away from the individual member, and placed in the hands of the governanent. Why? I think for a very good reason, land that is that the House of Commons does not represent, and no legislative body ought to represent, a lot of individual interests. It ought to represent the public at large. And the only body that represents the public at large is the Min- istry, which stands for the whole country. In other words, they do not want the individual member to make motions to pay money out of the treasury that belongs to the public at large, for the benefit of the interest of his personal' constituent; he ought to be there to represent the public at large. And, although the things he wants to spend money on, may be a thing that is perfectly prop'er for him as representing his constituents, it is not proper for him to put his hand into the treasury to take it out. And the people who represent the whole public are the Ministers, who represent the whole majority of the House. I think that has proven in England, undoubtedly, to be a very wise prevention. It has made it possible to know just where you are coming out ; it has made it possible for the Treasurer to plan his expenditures, and taxes, so they will meet, and so that they will oover any deficit. 7 Doc. No. 14 I was looking a while ago at how closely they brought their estimates of expenditures and revenues together. T find that, ex- cept for a period of the Boer war, in twenty-five years I think they have never been 4 per cent, apart, and in fifteen years they have been only a per cent, and a half apart. That is very close financial calculation, and, as I say, the results always come out within three or four per cent, of what they calculate for British taxes. All others, for legacy taxes, are even more easily calculated. Mr. Low. — How is the private member, on his motions, to get the money for his own district ? How does he proceed to bring the needs of his district to the attention of the government? Dr. LowBLi,. — He has to go to government ofiices. But, as a matter of fact, very small appropriations are made for local pur- poses in England. I do not mean to say post-offices, of course, which are government agencies, but there is very little such as appropriating money for local purposes. It is peculiarly true that local things are paid for by local taxation. There is a singularly small amount of local expenditure by the government except, as I say, the large governmental purposes, ^and the question of whether you need a postoffice, if you please, is determined by the Post-Office Department. Mr. Stimson. — This provision that you speak of preventing additional items to the budget, except on the recommendation of the government, has that operated to make passible the keeping of the estimates and expenditures closely together? Dr. L(jWELL. — Yes, sir; because the government calcuilates just what its estimates are going to be, and what taxation will be required. l\rr. Stimsox. — And that is not subject to increase in the House ? Dr. Lowell. — No, sir, the House — mot only can it make no motion for a new grant — that has been interpreted to mean no one can make any motion for an increase. If the government asks for $100,000, some one cannot get up and move to make it $110,000. You can move to reduce or throw out altogether. You asked me how they bring their local needs to the attention 'Doc. No. 14 8 of the public. It is not unfrequently that a man moves to reduce an appropriation by 100 pounds, to draw attention to the fact that they need 100' pounds more. But you will notice his vote is of no consequence. That has happened on sundry occasions. I remember there were a number of cases of appropriation for Ireland, one for the education of the poor in Ireland, and one of the Irish members moved to reduce the appropriation for Ireland by 100 pounds, as basis for criticism of the Irish educational policy in not bringing in the Celtic language in the public schools more fully than was done and, as a matter of fact, that, in a very thin House, was carried. Well, the government said this is an accident, it is a small House, and we do not feel obliged to resign on that, and Balfour laughed and said " Ireland gets 100 pounds less for education," and that is all that has been done. And another one said, " AY ell, the defeat of the government on that is worth 100 pounds to Ireland." That I bring out because it illus- trates the point I want to make, which is this method of reducing expenditure, or, indeed, even without making a motion to reduce expenditure, the debate on those items gives an enormously full opportunity for criticism of whatever the government is doing. Disraeli said once that Parliament is the great inquest of the nation. It is not merely a legislative body. Parliament to-day legislates very little. If you take the thickness of the statute book, as a rule it is comparatively small, and the legislation that it does pass is almost all drawn up by the Cabinet, and with practically no amendment that the Cabinet does not agree to. The private members can bring in bills, but practically they cannot p^ass them if there is any considerable amount of opposition on anybody's part to them. Parliament is not a great legislative machine; it is really the Cabinet that legislates, with the advice and consent of Parliament. But Parliament is the 'greatest inquest in the world. That is, it is the body which keeps the closest observation on the working of the Executive government, upon the adminis- tration of affairs, of any body in the world. Mr. Stimson. — It is a perpetual committee of investigation ? Dr. Lowell. — It is a perpetual committee of investigation ; and I take it that is what the representatives of the public ought to do far more than what they do it in this country. It is the 9 Doc. No. 14 eyes of the English oommunity. You know very -well you can pick up any English paper where you get debates in Parliarient, and you will see the amount of investigation that is going on all the time. If anything happens in Scotland or Ireland or way out in the Indies, you will see they may question about it, and when the budget comes up for consideration, there is a great field day. Mr. Stimson. — I think the 'Committee may not know how that method of investigation is carried on. Dr. Lowell. — There are various ways, but the one I want to call to your attention now is the way in which it is done in the discussion of the estimates. Estimates are brought in ; they are a thick volume. The first thing that comes up is the civil list, and the support of royal palaces, et cetera. It used to be they had to take those up in order as they stood in the estimates. Appro- priations for royal palaces. Somebody would make some absurd remark about that, and it really wasted time, and then by the time they got down to the great and important items of the Army and l^avy, there was no time left to debate. It was about time for Parliament to adjourn. Therefore, Balfour introduced this sys- tem : He said, " I will take up in order first, any part of the esti- mates that any considerable number of people would like to have taken up." Well, the Irish member said, " We would like to have the Irish matters taken up first," and the Scotchman said they would like to have the Scotch matters taken up; the ]ieople interested in the Army said, " We will take up the Army." He said, " Which items would you like to discuss ? " They said item N"o. so-and-so. Very well, this item Wo. so-and-so, then under that item you can discuss anything with which it is connected. And there are certain general items under which you can discuss anything. For example, the salary of the Secretary of State for War, under that you can discuss the whole administration, the whole equipment of the Army, the whole policy the Army is pur- suing, the way in which they are carrying on the war in Flanders or in the Dardanelles. It really is not done for financial pur- poses at all because, as a matter of fact. Parliament very, very rarely wants to reduce the estimates brought in by the govern- ment, and cannot increase them. Therefore, the real object is Uoc. ¥o. 14 10 criticism of the government administration; and I fancy that is not a bad idea ; that through this system of bringing in all those estimates in succession, you get a chance to put every piece of the government through a fire of criticism and inquiry which searches out anything that you may cho'Ose to bring out. For instance, the time when, in 1895, Lord Eoseberry and his government went out. He went out because there was a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for War by 100 pounds. What for ? To draw attention to the lack of cordite in the government arsenals. You can discuss anything you want to bring up. Mt. Tanner. — Before you go further, may I ask this question ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. Tanner. — Who is in the ministry that has the final say as to the maximum of those appropriations ? Is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or is it agreed upon at a whole Cabinet meeting ? Dr. Lowell. — The estimate is brought in by the jDarticular minister, 'let us say, the Minister of War; he takes it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they agree, that is done. No- body practically reviews it ; it goes through. If they disagree and cannot adjust their differences, the whole Cabinet must decide between them. In other words, the complete executive must de- cide in the long run. That obviously miist be so. If we had it in our system, it would be our government. And, of course, there is always some struggle. The way in which the procedure goes through in the House of 'Commons, it is very much like ours, though it is much more elaborately carried out. The first service is submitting the esti- mates. The estimates are submitted to a Committee of the Who'le on supply, and are gone through there. Then the committee re- ports to the House. Then when that committee — when that report has been ac- cepted by the House, a bill is brought in to pay that money out of the treasury, but the first procedure is getting through the esti- mates. You begin with the detail, and very properly so, because your object is the criticism of the action of the government. 11 Doc. No. 14 When you are through with the detail, you bring in a bill to carry out the items which have been voted. They have a system which we also have inherited somewhat: The money is paid out of the consolidated fund. All the money that comes in revenue goes into the consolidated fund; all the money which goes out, goes out of the consolidated fund, and the first estimates that are brought in are simply estimates of supply ; then the amount of those estim'ates so approved by the House should be paid out of the consolidated f-und. You understand, of course, that there are a certain number of expenditures which are paid every year without a vote. For instance, the King's salary, what they call the civil list, the interest on the national debt, salaries of the auditor generally are all paid out of the consoli- dated fund, without any estimate being put forward at all. Mr. Rhees. — Is the auditor a member of the Cabinet ? Dr. Lowell. — No ; I was coming to that. Let us suppose we have got that bill passed through, for paying that money out of the consolidated fund, and you now have got to get the money into your consolidated fund. To do that, the Obancellor of the Exchequer brings in what is technically known as the budget. He virtually says to Parliament, " Wow I am going to show you how I am going to get the money for that," and that is the really most interesting thing to them, because you know the English government is changing its taxing continually ; it adds two or three pennies of income tax, and everybody groans, and it takes a little duty off tea, and there is lanother groan. And lately, you know they have been talking about new sources of supply, and creating a great deal of feeling both pro and con. That is technically his budget, his account of how he proposes to raise the money to reach the expenditures that have been voted. When those are also brought in, in the same way in Committee, approved by the House, and then a bill, called the Finance Bill, is founded on those. The expenditures and estimates for the year 'are voted about August, when the year has got about a third way through. Mr. Stimson. — Has any action been taken on the estimates at the time that the budget, as you speak of it, is brought in ? Doc. No. 14 12 iDt. Lowell. — As a matter of fact, the two are running par- allel. Part liave been passed and part have not. Mr. Stimson". — -I see; but this final passage in August that you speak of, is the passage of the budget ? Dr. Lowell. — Nowadays, the whole of the estimates are put in with the expenditures in one big bill, and passed through finally as a bill. They sum up everything that has been done before, and that is called the Finance Bill. Mr. Stimson". — In Marcb the estimates come in ? Dr. Lowell. — In March the estimates come in. Mr. Stimson. — Then there is a period of investigation ? Dr. Lowell. — Then there is a period of investigation, and while that is progressing somewhere about — usually early in April, the budget is brought in, and the discussion of the taxa- tion and of the expenses go on parallel, side by side, until the end of the season, and they are summed up together in the Finance Bill. Mr. NicoLL. — What happens to the budget when the govern- ment falls? Dr. Lowell. — The new government comes in and brings in a slightly changed estimate, and you have to do the same process over again. That happened in this case when Lord Eoseberry went out. A new government comes in, and then they will say, " We have not got time to make a new budget, and we will change it a little and pass it." If the new government fails, there is a new election, and before the new election there is a special vote to authorize such expenditures till Parliament meets again. That is a temporary measure. Now, I wamt to speak about how these things are ordered. You have got to know your appropriations, your expenditures are all voted. I have explained how when the expenditures exceed the estimates, or are going to exceed the estimates, the government, towards the end of the year, m^akes excess grants to cover them, so that they shall not be spending money without approval. There are three forms of account that come in. The govern- 13 Doc. 'No. 14 ment makes two, or rather the auditor makes one and the com- mittee makes another. The government, very quickly after the ending of the year, brings in a short account of the total of expenditures and receipts, so you can see how the finances bal- ance for the year. That does not attempt to give the amount expended under each item, but only under the general large grant. That can be made up quite rapidly, and is handed in very shortly after, a couple of months after the close of the year, a general account simply giv- ing a sort of balance. Mr. Stimson. — That is after the close of the fiscal year ? Dr. Lowell. — After the close of the fiscal year, which closes the first of April. Within a couple of months the balance sheet is brought in by the government. Then the matter is sent to the auditor — it takes the auditor longer. The auditor is not a mem- ber of the government. His salary is not appropriated by Parlia- ment. His salary is paid like that of the judges, out of the con- solidated fund, without action of Parliament, so that he is com- pletely independent. He is appointed by the House of Commons, and not by the government, and, consequently, he is made just as independent as anybody can be made. He goes through all the expenditures of the year. Mr. STiMsoir. — He exercises no executive or legislative func- tions whatever? Dr. Lowell. — He has nothing whatever to do with the con- trol of expenditures, but makes a report upon it. Mr. Stimson". — He is wholly unlike the office of the Comp- troller in the State of New York, who is both an auditor and an executive? Dr. Lowell. — Well, the 'Comptroller is a treasurer. Mr. Stimson. — In the case of the English auditor, he is purely an auditor ? Dr. Lowell. — He is purely an auditor. The Comptroller here is a treasurer to a certain extent; he is Secretary of the Treasury. Doc. No. 14 14 Mr. Stimsoh". — And also a tax collector ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir; and the adulter is nothing but a man who goes over the accounts. He simply takes all of those accounts and goes through them. Pie not only reports what money has been spent and gets vouchers for the payment to show that there is no fraud, but he also goes- through each item to see that it is within the amount that was appropriated, and that that money was spent as directed by the vote of Parliament. In other words, ' he not merely examines to see that the money is properly spent and that nobody puts it in their pockets, but he also sees that it has been spent for the purposes for which it was appropriated; and, of course, it very often happens that the money was not spent just exactly as it was appropriated. Sometimes the govern- ment, as I say, has power, as it has for instance in the case of the army, to expend for one purpose money voted for another, but in that case the Auditor needs the facts, and gets the explanation of the War Department why it was so spent. In other words, he goes through the accounts, sees that they are properly vouched, and annotates them, showing if there was anj'thing which was in any way irregular, his explanation of it, and a statement on his part that it was justified or not justified, as he thinks. Then, when he comes in, or when his report comes in, which, as you notice, takes about a year to prepare, that is, nearly a year, that is referred to the Committee on Accounts of the House of Commons, which again is an independent committee which has no connection with the government. Mr. Tannee. — What is it that determines his tenure of office? He does not go out with the Cabinet ? Dr. Lowell. — No ; he is elected by the House. Mr. Taitnee. — ■ For any definite time ? Dr. Lowell.— No. As I remember, there is no term at all. I do not remember now whether he is elected during good behavior, or elected from year to year, but those things are regulated practi- cally by custom. Mr. Tanner. — He is indepenident of the government ? 15 Doc. 'No. 14 Dr. Lowell. — H« is independent of the government, and lie is like the Speaker of the House, and is totally independent. Mr. Stimson. — You mean the English Speaker ? Dr. Lowell. — I mean the English Speaker. Mr. Ehees. — May I ask whether the auditor has no function before the end of the year ? He does not have to certify accounts for payment ? Dr. Lowell. — No. If I am right, he has no function what- ever to the House, except the making of his report upon the expenses. Mr. E.HEES. — ■ After the year is over ? Dr. Lowell. — ■ After the year is over ? Mr. Rhees. — Yes. Dr. Lowell. — • Of course an officer may go to him and say, " If I made this expenditure, would you be able to certify it ? " There is a certain amount of that done, but he has no control over it. Mr. RpiEES. — His signature docs not have to appear ? Dr. Lowell. — !N"o, except that he certifies during the year, he has to make a certificate when a vote is passed by the House, he certifies to the Bank of England that the vote has been passed which authorizes the pajmaent. See what I mean ? Mr. Ehees. — ■ Yes. Dr. Lowell. — He certifies to the Bank of England that such votes have been passedj but he has no control whatever over the expenditure of money. He simply certifies everything — ex- amines it and certifies. Mr. Stimson. — ■ He is a pure critic ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Then the House of Commons go in detail over his report. If there is anything irregular they have a right to call in government officials and ask why the irregularities occur, and they report to the House, and if they report that there is any- thing irregular which requires to be ratified, they ask the House to do it, and they do it. Doc. 'No. U 16 Mr. Stimsoit. — ■ I as't you this question. : Does he perform any function at all to help the House in the examination of the gov- ernment's estimates when they come in? Dr. Lowell. — ■'So, sir; none whatever. Nothing whatever to do with the estimate. Mr. Stimsoit. — His duties are purely related to the ^accounts ? Dr. Lowell. — Purely related to the accounts. Mr. Stimson. — ■ For the preceding year. Dr. Lowell. — He has nothing to do with anything uutil the House has voted it. When the House has voted it he will certify to the bank that it has been voted, and then he sees that the gov- ernment spends it as voted. Mr. Stimson. — The reason for my question was that it has been discussed before this Committee, and has been suggested by a number of the gentlemen who have been here, that expert as- sistance is almost essential in order to enable the legislative body to perform its work of criticism on the budget. I was wondering whether this oiEcer that you spoke of in any way took any part in that? Dr. Lowell. — Wone whatever. And I suppose it would rather change his position if he did. Mr. Stimsow. — • Yes. Dr. Lowell. — Because it is pretty hard to exercise both. Mr. Stimson. — Can you inform us as to whether there is any officer who has to perform that duty of helping the Bouse iu its examination of the items and of the estim.ates? What is their machinery to make that examination effective ? Dr. Lowell. — There is no machinery for that, for the simple reason that that machinery is the C'abinet. You will remember there is one of the things which is peculiar, and that is the Cabinet member is a member of the House. Mr. Stimson. — Yes. lY Doc. 'No. 14 Dr. Lowell. — And, therefore, the Cabinet officers are the con- fidential officers of the House. And the criticism is, such criti- cism as there is, and there is .a good deal of pretty expert criticism, it comes from knowledge of members of the Houses. In other words, the 'Cabinet represents the experts in the government. It is the business of the House to represent the coanmon opinion of the ordinary man. Mr. Stimson. — May I carry you back one step further ? Dr. Lowell. — Certainly. Mr. Stimson. — Does the Cabinet itself, when making a pre- liminary examination of the estimates that come up from the different bureaus, have any experts ? Dr. Lowell. — No. Mr. Stimson. — And, if so, what are they ? Dr. Lowell. — No, sir ; it has none ; because, in the depart- ment persons, in the bureau first, is the department, and then each department presents its own, and the criticism there made is made by the minister. The whole matter is a question of action and re- action between the public and the experts all the way through; because, for instance, let me take a particular department — say the War Department: The War Department brings in its esti- mates for guns, et cetera. Those estimates of the soldiers in the War Department, of the officers in charge of its bureau, do not go straight to the Parliament or to the House of Commons. They have to be presented to the Secretary of State for War who, except for this moment when we are in war, is never a soldier — he is a civilian, he is a member of Parliament, he is a man in public life, or, if you like, he is a statesm'an. It is his business to bring the ideas of the public close in touch with those of the experts in his department, and that is done. Mr. Stimsoit. — And such revision and cutting down of the original estimates of the bureau chief is done by their heads ? Dr. Lowell. — Is done by their political head ? Mr. Stimsokt. — Yes. Doc. No. 14 18 Dr. Lowell.— In the first place, and then by the treasury afterwards. In other words, he says to the men, " Now, General So-and-So, you want to appropriate so much money. I have no doubt you are quite right, and I have no doubt the army would be better off for that, but I cannot induce the public to spend that much." Mr. Stimson. — They cannot stand for it this year ? Dr. Lowell.— I cannot stand for it this year. Mr. Stimson". — The reason I asked you this question is that it has been the subject of very careful discussion before the Com- mittee. The estimates which come from subordinate bureaus are almost invariably based on an exaggerated notion of that bureau chief of the importance of his function. Dr. Lowell. — ■ Always. Mr. Stimson". — That is true of the English, as everywhere else? Dr. Lowell. — ■ Yes, sir. Mr. Stimson. — Then somebody, in a well regulated govern- ment, has to introduce a corrective on the inflated idea of that gentleman ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir. Mr. Stimson. — In England who does it ? His chief ? Dr. Lowell. — It is his chief. Of course that goes right through. You have two bureaus — even the man inside of the bureau wants more than he can get. The head says, " There is no use of my going to the chief of the department and asking him for that much money, we cannot get it." Then when those esti- mates for those bureaus all come up to the chief of that depart- ment, he pares down. He says, " The public will not stand for it." Then when the managers of the different departments bring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he in turn says, " No doubt it would improve the efficiency of the government if I could do it, but I cannot do it." Mr. Stimson. — And so the paring down goes on. 19 Doc. No. 14 Dr. LowEXL. — Yes, sir ; until it gets to the Ministers wHo represent not the experts, but the people. And I maintain that you never will get good government anywhere, and never can, un- less you represent both the expert element and the lay element, and represent them both in an effective way. You have got to have the public represented, and you have got to have the expert repre- sented. Mr. Stimsoit. — Successful legislation is a compromise between those two kinds of bodies, those two points of view ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir. I don't know whether I have made myself clear, or whether anybody would like to ask any questions. Mr. Low. — Do any agencies exist within the department for the preparation of those budgets originally, before they come to the department head ? Dr. Lowell. — Oh, yes. Each head of a bureau prepares the es- timates for his bureau for the coming year, then those are com- bined, all the bureaus of each department are combined together into an estimate for the department itself. Mr. Low. — Is there any committee of Parliament, or any outside agent of any kind that is looking into the details of those estimates during the year, so as to be able to criticize them more intelligently ? Dr. Lowell. — ■ No. The criticism is done after they are brought into Parliament. The whole initiative of this rests with the departments, and with the Executive, and it is only when they are brought into Parliament that criticism arises. Then there is plenty. A man will often get up, as in this particular . case pointed out, where there was criticism that there was a lack of sufficient amount of high explosives in the War Department. Mr. Low. — I suppose then each head — the estimates are pre- pared in the first instance by the permanent officers ? Dr. Lowell. — Permanent officers. Jfr. Low. — And the lay judgment is brought there through the political head, for the time being ? Doc. No. 14 20 Dr. Lowell.- — Yes ; there is no particular fear that an expert head of his bureau will a&k for less than he needs. Mr. Stimsob". — Have you any figures which would give us an idea of the amount of reductions that are normally made in those estimates by the heads ? Dr. Lowell. — You mean inside the bureau ? Mr. Stimsou". — • Inside the bureau. Dr. Lowell. — ■ No ; I haven't that ; and that, of course, is con- fidential information. Mr. Stimsok". — Which does not come out ? Dr. Lowell. — Which does not come out. Not that you cannot get it, but it is not published. Mr. Stimsow. — The fi-rst information the public gets in refer- ence to it is when it comes out in published form as a final document ? Mr. Parsons. — Does the auditor ever criticize any expenditure that is made, provided it is made within the appropriation ? Dr. Lowell. — No. Mr. Paesows. — He cannot judge extravagance ? Dr. Lowell. — • That is not his business. He is purely the servant of the House of 'Commons, to see that what the House of Commons voted was carried out. In other words, he has no political functions. It is not his business to have any opinion whether an expenditure is wise, but merely whether it is legal. Mr. Paesons. — Suppose the opposition wishes to charge ex- travagance; when does it make the charge? During the discus- sion of the estimates, or when ? Dr. Lowell. — There are a great many occasions for that. One is the time when the estimates are under discussion, and the estimates I say range all over everything. Then there are a great many occasions where the House of Commons can discuss anything they want. Curiously enough, when you move to ad- journ for a holiday, when you debate the Queen's speech — there 21 Doc. No. 14 are innumerable occasions, and — many of the kinds that do not interest you, because you have no exact parallel to them, but they are coming up all the time, when discussion may reach over any thing you please. It does not have to be relevant to the motion before the House. ^Yhen the Speaker first leaves the chair to go into the Committee on Supply, and so on — there are a large number of technical occasions when anybody may call the min- isters down and ask questions, and debate and discuss anything that you please. And there is any amount of opportunity for, as we should say, grilling the minister. Mr. Stimson.^ — I was going to ask you on that same line ; have you got with you the rules that govern Question Day, as I think it is called in the House of Commons ? Dr. Lowell. — I haven't got the rules with me. I could get them if you want them. I remember them very well. Mr. Stimson. — I should be very glad if you would get them. Dr. Lowell. — But it is merely to ask a question and not to debate. You can ask a question and get information on that par- ticular miatter that you want information about. You ask, for instance, a question, and given notice of it a day or two before- hand, because, of course, the ministry are not omniscient, and you give notice three or four days beforehand that on such a morning you will put any question, whatever the nature may be ; anything — ■ it may not necessarily be the act of the ministers. You may ask whether the cotton in Egypt is not equal to the cotton in America, and he will answer it, and you can get information in that way about the working of anything. Or you can raise a debate on it by constant questions coming every few days. If we did that sort of thing, we would probably set a day aside for just that thing. Mr. Stimson. — Those questions are normally aimed at the action of the government ? Dr. Lowell. — Mostly. Mr. Stimson. — There are — ^ their object is to find out what the government is doing, and how it is executing its trust ? Doc. No. 14 22 Dr. Lowell. — Perfectly. I remember the first time I ever went into the House of Commons, when Mr. Gladstone asked how it hapiDened that when some English sailors had been wrecked on the Cannibal Islands, the government did not succeed in get- ting a worship there for five days, and when they got there the sailors had been eaten. llr. Deyo. — Is there any such thing as parliamentary investi- gation of expenditures of estimates by committees ? Dr. Lowell. — You mean special occasions ? Mr. Deyo.^ Yes. Dr. Lowell. — Oh, yes ; there have been a considerable num- ber of them. There have been two or three lately, within the last ten or fifteen years. Every little while Parliament appoints a committee to investigate. Sometimes there is a parliamentary committee; sometimes they request the government to appoint a royal commission to investigate, for the two really have very much the same effect, because the ministry is always in accord with the majority of the House of Commons. It makes little difference in the practice in England. But those commissions are appointed constantly, and their reports are very interesting reading. I mean they record all the evidence that they take, and they are constantly investigating the government. There was a very interesting report made on the whole question of civil service in England, the whole administration, appointment of men, work of the department, and it was very elaborate. Then there have been recent reports on the whole financial situation, expenditures, and so forth. There are two or three on those subjects every year, but those are special investigations. I am talking now of the cur- rent inquest that goes on week in and week out, all the way through every session. The government is on the grill all the time, being asked questions about something, and somebody is raising a debate, and that is the thing which keeps civil service up to the mark. With the ordinary bureaucrat, all he knows, everything he does, is liable to be the subject of investigation in Parliament. But if his subordinate makes a mistake, knowing that any act he does is liable to be brought up in debate in Parliament at any time — 23 Doc. ]S"o. 14 Mr. Deyo. — With the permission of the Chairman, I would like to ask another question at this point, and that is whether or not, in your opinion, that feature of the government could be transplanted ? Dr. Lowell. — You mean the special commission ? Mr. Deyo. — I mean the grilling. Dr. Lowell. — Yes ; of course, to do that you must bring your objector on the floor. I do not mean he has to be a member of that House to be there all the time, but you have to give him a chance to come in. We do that to some extent in committee, but not in the whole body. Of course, there it is done in the whole body of the House. I believe we investigate our government a great deal too little; that we ought to more, and that the main function of the representatives of the people is not merely to pass law, but to investigate the way in which their government is carried on. In the first place, I believe we ha\'e two \'ery grave defects in our government, as I see it, compared with most gov- ernments. One is that we use experts a 'great deal too little; that is, we run our government by amateurs, have men who hold office a few years and go out ; instead of having a trained corps of men who make a life career of running many of our departments as w© ought, we run them laltogether too largely with amateurs, and in the second place we do not investigate our officers as much as they ought to be investigated. When' we do investigate, we investi- gate with hostile committees or commissions, when they should be friendly investigations. I mean there should be investigations asking about this and that and the other thing and it should not be merely investigations for the purpose of 'attacking some person in a hostile way. There should not be investigations merely seek- ing some official's scalp. Such is not the English method, but it merely gives publicity, and it is that sort of publicity which is not hostile to the individual, which we should have, and of which we have too little. We have grown, in late years, very much in our use of experts. I mention one which I happen to know something about, and that is education. The increased use of trained men, experts who spend their whole life in education, as a superintendent of educa- Doc. ]^o. 14 24 ti'On. In citiesj in states, the practice is growing more and more. You have appointed within a year or two, a most admirable man as Superintendent of Education of New York, Dr. Finley. He has devoted his whole life to education. Thirty years ago you might have put in somebody who had been prominent in some political office. You certainly would sixty or seventy years ago. We have improved enormously, in our use of experts in certain directions. We have always known how to use lawyers. We have never thought of putting a casual layman on the bench, or as Attorney-General. We are learning to use educators; we are learning to use engineers ; we ought to use trained administrators in every branch of our public life, I believe, in a way in which you do not use them. That is the reason why the corporations go 'ahead of us : They use experts, while the public does not. I believe democracy needs the best tools the world has every fashioned, and the best tools the world has ever fashioned are the men with the trained human brain. ' Mr. Ehees. — May I ask you a question with reference to the function of the auditor? You say he has to certify the grants voted by Parliament? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir. Mr. Rhees. — If I remember correctly, you said that towards the end of the fiscal year the government had to bring in supple- mental supply bills. Dr. Lowell. — ■ Yes. Mr. Ehees. — Is that supplemental supply bill voted before the expenditures under it are made ? Dr. Lowell. — As a rule. There are certain emergency pro- visions. Of course you have always latitude, and there are cer- tain small funds which the government can use in certain cases, in case of emergency. I have forgotten the amount. They are small amounts. You always have to leave a little leeway for margin of one kind or another, and the government can call on those. There is always that to give a little easement, but that is always made up at the end of the year. 25 Doc. No. 14 Mr. Stimson. — Before you leave that subject which Mr. Deyo asked you about — is this a fair statement of the difference be- tween their method of investigation of the govemment and our method of investigation, that they do it normally in a friendly way in a body whose regular daily duty it is to keep in touch with it? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. S'timson. — While, on the other hand, when we want to make an investigation, we appoint a special committee which feels that it is its duty to find out something wrong, is that it ? Dr. Lowell. — That is perfectly true, and their investigation is more democratic than ours in this sense; that it is not done by an appointed committee, but by every member in the House. Any member in the House can grill any member of the government he wants to, and this is constantly done. The case I happened to refer to of Gladstone and the cannibals, it was a member on his own side of the House, sitting right close to him on the bench, who was criticizing the govemment. He did not want to upset the govemment, but he said that he did think that when English sailors were going to be eaten, they might cut out a little of the red tape, and get there quicker. Mr. Lincoln. — Is there anything like their budget system in any State of the United States ? Dr. Lowell. — I don't know of any place where there is the relation between the Executives and the Legislatures which makes it really possible. The Executive might submit but could not carry it through, and I Iniow of no place where there is a provi- sion that they shall not increase the budget; and if they can in- crease it, they will make it all over again. Mr. Stimson. — Are you familiar with the provision that ex- isted in the Constitution of the Confederate States ? . Dr. Lowell.- — ■ !N^o, sir. Mr. Stimson. — There was such a provision. Dr. Lowell. — To what effect ? Doc. No. li 26 Mr. Stimson. — Practically to th-at effect, except that it was not am. absolute provision against the Legislature making increases. It -was a provision to the extent that no increase could be made except by a two-thirds vote. Dr. Lowell. — I will say that the English -provision has been adopted in a way in Anastralia, in ISTew Zealand and in Canada. Those places are quite ^as democratic as we axe, and they find it to work well. It seems to work very well there. In France, on the other hand, it is not a success. In Italy it is not a success, and they have had trouble with their budgets. Appropriations do not lapse in a year, and the result is you never know for five or six years what the balance of the year was, because the ex- penditures went on, and then they were continually moving to increase the budget for local purposes, and of course log-rolling and extravagance went on. Mr. Stimson. — The absence of that rule forbidding increases in the budget, as I understand from reading your book, is one of the reasons why the French government has been more extravagant ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, and it has foimd it very hard to find out where the expenses have gone. In Italy and in Switzerland it is the same. :Mr. Stimson. — I was going to ask you about SVitzerland. Dr. Lowell. — 'Switzerland, I cannot tell you very well about that. Switzerland is a peculiarly arranged place. You must re- member any examples taken from Switzerland are to be taken with some grain of salt as compared to the application to other places, because Switzerland is very, very small. You will re- member that the whole of Switzerland put together has only about twice the population of Massachusetts, and divide that into twenty-five cantons,, and you will get some rather minute places.- ■Some of the cantons are not as big as a single to^vn here. You must remember also it is a community of very even distribution of property, with very indigent property. Mr. CtrLLiNAN. — How is it about Germany ? 2T Doc. No. 14 Dr. Lowell. — You must reanember that in Germany there is no really popular government at all. That is, you have the Reichstag, which is elected, but at the same time the Chancellor is not responsible. The budget there, of course, is all prepared by the executive government, by the Chancellor for the Kaiser, and is put through the Reichstag. The only difficulty they have is that once in a while there has been a dissolution, and the government bas always won. Mr. Stimson. — ■ In answer to Mr. Nicoll's question, which you answered, are you familiar with the charters of several of our classes of cities in this State, which provide a system somewhat such as you have explained ? I mean a budget presented by a board of estimate under the control of the mayor; in our second class cities, to the board of aldermen, which the board of aldermen is forbidden to raise? Dr. Lowell. — I know nothing has prevented extravagance like that, there is no doubt about that. There is one thing I would like to point out, because I think it throws light on the working of the English system. Practically the relation of the English Cabinet to the House of Commons is the ISTew England town meeting. Almost exactly, with your cabinet as the selectmen, and those of you who are familiar with the New England town meetings, know how they interrogate selectmen about as they want to. Instead of meeting every day in the week for half a year, they only have two or three town meetings a year. But the sjistem is singularly like it. You have there the select- men, who are practically the cabinet, practically elected by the town. Everybody in the town has a right to ask them any ques- tions they please. Practically the whole of the expenditures of the town are laid before them at the towm meeting; there is no rule that nobody can raise it, you know, but it is rarely that any- body does raise an appropriation against the will of the public's selectmen. It works pretty well. Mr. Stimson. — That is the system in Massachusetts in local legislation ? Dr. Lowell.- JC through New England. Doc. No. 14 28 Mr. Westwood. — Is provision' ever made, and if so hov7, for the reimbursement of tlie Member of Barliament upon his success- fully defending his right to his seat ? Dr. Lowell. — I do mot recall any case of reimbursing the man. Perhaps I ought not say it never happened, because it is hard to prove the universal negative, but those contests for seats are made before judicial bodies, and the fines are heavy to the men who lose. Mr. Westwood. — How would you get into the budget an itean for that ? Dr. Lowell. — The government would not put it in, and if the government would not put it in, you cannot put it in. I don't think they would pay those expenses at all. I think they would rather not. Mr. Stimsok. — ■ They do not even pay salaries to their members ? Dr. Lowell. — They do not. Mr. E. ]Sr. Smith. — Is it necessary for this system that the Ministers be selected from the Parliament? Dr. Lowell. — We cannot adopt it just as it stands, but there is a gTeat deal in it that we can adopt to our institutions. Mr. Parsons. — How has this system worked in the self-gov- erning colonies? Dr. Lowell. — The self-governing colonies, I do not think any of them work quite as well as the English system does, but the budget part I think works pretty well. Mr. Parsons. — In the self-governing colonies the central gov- ernment does make large appropriations for local purposes ? Dr. Lowell. — Undoubtedly it does, and if it were not for this, it would be, of course, much worse. Mr. Wadsworth. — What is the Massachusetts system ? Dr. Lowell. — It is very much like yours. There is no — Mr. Wadsworth. — 'No improvement ? 29 Doc. ISTo. 14 Dr. Lowell. — There is no great improvement, no. We have a treasury and cuts are brought in by the Committee of the House, et cetera. We tried to get a little bit under the control of a single committee, but the things work in haphazard sort of way, as here. Mr. SxiMsoisr. — Have your State expenses increased in Massa- chusetts ? Dr. Lowell. — Enormously. Mr. Stimson. — Just as much as here ? Dr. Lowell. — Massachusetts has one advantage over ISTew York, which is not an inconsiderable one, and that is, as the Legis- lature sits in Boston, it gets a great deal better chance to hear public opinion, and to get men coming there constantly, citizens, before the committee. I merely state 'that as one advantage, and that is that the Legislature sits in Baston and therefore there are a great many more appearances of citizens before the committees at committee hearings than there is in any other Legislature that I know of in the United States, and that is an advantage. Massa- chusetts happens to be so homogeneous that that does not have the objections that it would in a gTeat many places. Mr. Stimson". — One of the other members has asked me to ask you the exact way in which the members of the Cabinet are ap- pointed in England, so as to get clearly in our minds the relation of the two that you have spoken of. Dr. Lowell. — The way by which the Cabinet officer is selected is really perfectly informal, and sort of subterranean, and not a little difficult to draft. As a matter of fact, when a Cabinet re- signs, and consequently when a new Cabinet begins, the King sends for what he believes to be the leader of the opposition of the party in power, the party I mean that has the majority in the House, or is going to get the majority in the House. That person is practically designated to him by circumstances. I mean to say I remember very well on one occasion when the Queen sent for Lord Hartington instead of sending for Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Hartington told her at once that there was only one man who could be the head of the Liberal Cabinet, and that was Mr. Gladstone, ■and she then sent for him. Doc. ¥o. 14 30 That man is usually designated, sometimes not. Wlien a leader dies, for instance, if Mr. Asquith should die today, he might send for Lord Gray, or Lloyd George, he might have some difficulty, but if the men say no, we are not the men you want to serve you, he will go back, but usually the leader is picked out, and then he goes and picks out his colleagues. He has to arrange them as a checkerboard. Some of them have got to be, obviously, in certain places; some are men where you can exercise some latitude, some what you call the second 'grade leaders, but in the main he has to take all the leading men of his party. He cannot leave any of them out. Mr. Stimsow. — There is one question that does not pertain to the budget, but it pertains to a matter which is pending before the Convention, and has been discussed, and was mentioned I think in one of the platforms of one of the great parties last year ; that was an improved method for the treatment of private and local bills. Could you tell us a little about the methods which are em- ployed in the House of Commons in dealing with that subject ? Dr. Lowell. — It is a long chapter. Local and private bills are treated the same way. That is, a bill which affects a corpo- ration or a town are treated exactly alike. The process is to try to get it out of politics as much as may be. I have always felt that we might get some ideas out of that, but, again, you cannot adopt it in the form there. The procedure begins by filing a notice of what the bill is going to be. In other words, filing the bill in the local government office, local government board office, then it has to be advertised. Mr. iS'timson. — Who files that ? Dr. Lowell. — It is filed by the person who wants it. Mr. Stimsow. — Some one outside of Parliament ? Dr. Lowell. — Anybody outside of Parliament who wants to. The petitioner, as we say. If it is, for instance, a railroad who wants to be allowed to build a spur track somewhere, or let us say that a town wants to be allowed to supply gas to its inhabitants for cooking ranges, or something or other — they do supply all kinds of things now. A town wants to build a bridge across a 31 Doc. No. 14 navigable stream, or .anything else of a local character, they file a bill in the local office, and then notice of the bill has to be published, given by publication in the neighborhood affected, and by posting, etc. Then the examiners of the local government board go through it to see that all proper notices have been given, vrhether by publication, by posting, by giving personal notice to the people directly affected, etc. Mr. Stimson. — Are those examinerB local officers ? Dr. Lowell. — They are examiners of the local government board. Mr. Khees. — That is one of the cabinet officers ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir. Like many of those boards, they have an arrangement by which it is a board, but the board con- sists only of its head. The others are men like the Secretary of State, etc., but the provisions is that the chairman on that board shall be necessary and sufficient for a quorum. The examiners examine that and then the bill is brought into Parliament, either to the House of Commons or to the House of Lords — you may begin either way — and they distribute it so as to get the hear- ings evenly distributed through the two houses. It is brought into the House of Commons and then referred to a private bill committee, and that private bill committee consists of four mem- bers of the house who are selected, not because they have an inter- est in the bill, but because they have not. That is, no one who has any interest in that bill, or in the locality which the bill affects, is allowed to sit on that committee. They sit in a purely judicial' way. The chairman of that body is one of the members who has been in the habit of sitting on those bodies. In fact, they have a chairman's panel from which they draw, which con- sists of a dozen or more who have been in the habit of sitting on those bills, and some one of those is always chairman of those private bill committees of four. Then the private bill committee sits and before them appears the parties by counsel and argue their questions, and present evidence exactly as you would in a court of law, except for the forms of procedure — that is, the examination of witnesses, what testimony is relevant, etc. The lines are a little more strictly drawn than they are in a court of Doc. "No. 14 32 law. The keafing is exactly as it would be in a court of law. You produce your witnesses. Of course, in many cases, you are producing expert witnesses, such as engineers to prove that this bridge over the river will or will not greatly hurt the system, etc. They have lav^yers who appear, and those are known as the par- liamentary bar, men who make it their regular business ; and that hearing lasts as long as is necessary, and then the committee reports, and their report is practically always accepted by the house. Then -it goes into the other house and the same procedure goes through there; and I have known very few cases where the report of the committee was upset in the House of Commons. 1 remember one case very well where the committee reported that a great private company ought to have the right to sell electric powetr. That Would have affected the town somewhat, the people in which thought it would interfere with their supply of power to their own inhabitants because this big company could probably supply it cheaper, and the boroughs opposed it, and got it voted down in the House of Commons. There was a considerable howl through the country that the towns had no more right to be selfish than the corporations had. Mr. Stimson. — But, in general, the difference between that method of treating local bills and ours is what ? Dr. LowELi.. — Those are referred to a committee which sits like a court, whose members are wholly impartial, and hears evi- dence and tries the case judicially, and in which the House as a whole practically takes no part. Mr. Stimson. — And on the other hand, we try to prevent it absolutely. Dr. Lowell. — We try to prevent it absolutely. Mr. Stimson. — And then make it subject to evasion by passing private and local legislation in the form of general bills ? Dr. Lowell. — There is no European country which does as we do; that is which practically treats a private or local matter as a public matter in its parliamentary body, permitting it to be debated and pushed about like a football in its public assemblies. In England they do it this way, but on the Continent those things are all done by the administration. 33 Doc. ISTo. 14 Mr. Low. — I take it the Englisli method is a very costly on© ? Dr. Lowell. — Th© Englisli system is a very costly one, and I think perfectly unnecessarily costly, but then that cost you will , remember in the main is just the same thing for which we spend. In other words, if a big, private concern wants a building con- structed it will very likely spend a great deal of money to do it in one way or the other. . A contest took place between Manchester and Liverpool on the petition of Manchester to build the Manchester ship canal, the legal expenses of which were $1,000,000. Mr. Low. — I remember seeing a ferryboat crossing the Thames years 'ago, and of being told that the reason they did not have a bridge was that it would cost four thousand pounds to get per- mission from Parliament, and it was cheaper to maintain the ferry. Dr. Lowell. — That, of course, is unnecessary. Mr. Stimson. — You mean that the system of treating those matters judicially is right, but the cost attached to it is not, and could be transplanted more economically if the people wished to do it? Dr. Lowell. — That is it exactly. Mr. CuLLiNAisr. — As I understand it, the budget is prepared by the cabinet, substantially ? Dr. Lowell. — Substajitially. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — The House of 'Commons merely has the veto power? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. It can reduce or strike out items, but it cannot increase them. Mr. 'CuLLiiTAN. — They are not increased ? Dr. Lowell. — No, sir. Mr. OiTLLiNAW. — The cabinet is appointed by the King ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. 'Cttllinan. — So the King originates the budget ? Doc. No. 14 34 Dr. Lowell. — Well, that, perhaps, is not really a fair way to put it. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — I want to be fair. Dr. Lowell. — When somebody said to me that the King was the fountain of justice, I said yes. Mr. CuLLiN-AN". — In our country the budget originates, for in- stance, in Congress, in the lower House. Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. Ctjllinak. — And in our State in the lower House ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. CuLLiKTAN. — In Massachusetts the same way? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — ■ Do you want to miake any comment on that situation ? Dr. Lowell. — My feeling is simply this, that the budget is a public matter. It is not a collection of private matters. It is a public matter, therefore, it would be wiser to have it originate by public officials and not by a lot of people who represent private and local interests. That is really the argument I wish to make upon it;, that what the public wants is somebody who represents the public. As a friend of mine said once, and I think there is some truth in it, and I think it explains a great deal of the move- ments in our government, that the characteristic defect of democ- racy is that there is nobody whose business it is to represent the public, and to some extent that is true. That is, people represent fractions of the public. The reason for having our budget origi- nate in our State with the Governor is that he is the one ofHcial who represents the whole public, whereas, the members of the House are, in each instance, representing small sections of the public, therefore, as a body, their combined good sense is very well, but if you give each of them a chance to originate the budget, you are putting that in the hands of a lot of people who represent individual interests and not the public interests. I believe myself that the reason that the power of the Governor and the President, 35 Doo. No. 14 etc., has increased so mucli in tlie last fifty years is because they come nearer representing the public than a representative assembly does. If you can get th« representative assembly to work as a whole, or representing all the public, on questions affecting the whole country, that would be admirable, but when you get them looking -at points which affect fractions of the public they cease to represent the public and they only represent a lot of scattered interests. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — Our L^slature and our 'Congress impose the tax. Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — Ought they not to say something, or have something to say 'about how that tax should be appropriated in the different phases of governmeoital activities ? Dr. Lowell. — Perfectly so, and they do. That is, if your government propo'ses 'an appropriation which they do not like, they ought to have the right to reject it. In other words, there is no doubt they ought to have the right to refuse to vote .any tax which they do -not believe to be right or do 'Uot favor, but that is a very different thing from giving individual members the right to pro- pose an expenditure which a man m^ay think in the interests of the whole public, when in fact it is not. Mr. CuLLiWAM". — You would eliminate the log-rolling feature ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir, I would eliminate the log-rolling features. As it is 'Uow we have said that each individual member shall have the right to initiate, but the Governor may veto. I think the Governor should initiate and the Legislature should veto, so far as appropriations are concerned. Mr. E. N. Smith. — What is the life of the ministry ? Dr. Lowell. — Of the ministry ? Mr. E. ]Sr. Smith. — Yes. Dr. Lowell. — It has varied, of course, a good deal, from time to time. Assuming that this ministry is now terminated, be- Doc. No. 14 36 cause they have made a coalition, it has lasted since 1906. Ton do not mean practically the same body running through ? Mr. E. ¥. Smith.— JSTo. Dr. Lowell. — This ministry camie in in 1906; it was in nine years. The one before 1906 came in in 1895 and consequently was in eleven years. Latterly, liey have been averaging eight or ten years. Mr. E. ]Sr. 'Smith. — I was asking that question.' as related to the fact that we elect our Governor for two years. How would that plan operate in connection with the financial system, like that in England ? Dr. Lowell. — I 'have no question, sir, th^at the shorter term that we have for all of our ofiicers makra government more diffi- cult. We have a curio'US habit dn Massachusetts ; we elect there a governor every year, but we always re-elect them two terms, making it a three-year term, unless we have some special reason for not re-electing him. It is understood he is not there for three years, but he has the right of nomination, and is habitually re-elected. We are shifting a little now. Mr. Sais'dbes. — ■ If the English budget were adopted in ISTew York State how would it be changed, in case the executive affairs are in the control of one party and the Legislative affairs are in control of the other party ? Dr. Lowell. — Of course, that raises a different proposition from that which existsi in England, where they must be of the same party. Although it probably would not work as well 'as if the Governor and Legislature were of the same party, still I do not think it would produce a deadlock; but, if it did, you would have to take some method by which you can get over 'a deadlock. There are a great mamy different ways in which you can get over a deadlock. Mr. 'S'timsokt. — Are you familiar with the way which has been in effect where some of our insular governments are established ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. But we would not want to do that, the budget would be continued until the next election. My impres- 37 Doc. No. 14 sion is that you will find in most cases that a deadlock will not arise. Even in the Stale of New York I happem to have taken statistics of those some years ago. The proportion of miatters that ■are carried by purely party votes' in the Legislature is much less than it is in the House of Commons. Mr. Sandees. — ^You think the frictiom would not be any greater th^an it is at the present ? Dr. Lowell. — I think the friction would not be any greater than it is at present. Mr. Deto. — I don't see 'how there could be any deadlock, but I can see how the grilling would be decidedly adverse grilling. Dr. Lowell. — I don't think that would be objectionable. Mr. Stimson. — The grilling in the House of Commons is by the opponents of the government. Dr. Lowell. — I do not object to that, but if the Governor pre- sented the budget, and the House refused to accept it, and there were not ^any power to initiate any budget of their own, there might be a deadlock. Mr. Low. — Would you propose th.at that should be avoided, and how? Dr. Lowell. — I could invent various ways of getting rid of that. Of course, if worse came to worse we could have a re- election of either the Governor or the House, if th.e term ran for some time. You could provide a certain minimum of expendi- tures in some way, but if you shake the people up in a box they would generally agree because neither party would want to keep the iState of New York without expenditures. Mr. Feanchot. — If I understand you, the ministers are re- sponsible to the cabinet, and to the people only through the medium of the House of Commons? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. Feaistchot. — What would you say would be the effect of having them directly responsible to the people, iiot through the legislative branch ? Doc. 'No. 14 38 Dr. Lowell. — It would make a good deal of difference, of course, in the operation of things, and it is for that reason that you cannot adopt their scheme as it stands here. You have got to adapt it to that very condition, and our exxecutive is not re- sponsible to the Legislature, but to the people. That would make you modify the scheme, but still I think there are many points in it that could be adapted to that condition. Mr. Hale. — ■ What control has the House of Lords over th« budget ? Dr. Lowell. — The House of 'Commons has always contended that the House of Lords had no right to change the budget in any way, nO' right to increase or diminish it, but must accept it or re- ject it as a whole. The House of Lords never admitted that, but they never ventured to exercise any such disputed power. It has been usually admitted that they had a right to reject it, but a little while ago they did reject it, and I fancy they will never Mr. Hale.— That was in 1911 ? Dr. Lowell. — They rejected it, and the election was so de- cidedly a condemnation of the way they did it, that I do not think that it is likely to be attempted again. Practically they have no financial power. Mr. Hale. — I happened to be in London that time. Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Mr. Hale. — I understood the King agreed, if necessary, to appoint seventy-six additional peers. Dr. Lowell. — He did. He was ready to swamp the House of Lords. They have no powers in financial matters practically. Mr. Hale. — What effect would that have upon the proposition to have a Legislature of a single house ? Dr. Lowell. — I suppose you could apply this either to the two Houses or to one. I think it would be possible to apply it to either. Of course it is a great deal easier to work in a government the simpler it is ; it is simpler to work a government with one House 39 Doc. No. 14 than with two ; but it does mot always follow that the simpler form of government, which is the easiest to work, is always the best. Good results usually come from more or less friction. If a thing works too easily it does not ^always work best. The very fact that you have two Houses, and consequently some attrition between them, it may be 'good, or it may not. It does not follow that any system of administration which is the easiest is the best. I think you could work with two Houses or one. Of course it would work easier with one. But as it is now either House can put up or down any appropriation. They must both agree. If they could not put it up, it would make the agreement between the two Houses so much easier to reach, particularly as experience in England goes, they are very rarely cut down. Mr. Tannee. — Doctor, if you were through with the budget feature, the 'Committee on the Governor and other State Officers, etc., ihave been taking up the question of the readjustment of the State Executive's functions. We have found that there is a great mass of departments and commissions, about 150 or 160. I don't know how far by analogy we can get anything from the executive system of England, but I am sure the Committee on Governor and other 'State Officers, etc., would like to hear what the division of executive departments in England is. If you will take that line up aud pursue the same method of permitting questions as you go 'along, I think it will be of great advantage to the Com- mittee. Dr. Lowell. — The English system is a system of departments with single ministers at the head of them. Mr. Tannee.— In the first place the executive is not, as in this country ; it is in the 'Cabinet entirely. Dr. Lowell. — It is in the Cabinet entirely. Of course nom- inally it is in the Crown, and, as you know perfectly well, every- thing is done in the name of the Crown, but practically every- body, all the ministers practically, have rubber stamps for signing the name of the Crown. The Crown is a little more than a rubber stamp so far as the ordinary executive government is concerned. Everything is in his name, in the name of the Crown, but it is done by the ministers. The general organization, in fact, is very Doc. No. 14 40 mueli alike in inost of the departments. The names and forms are so wholly different that if you will oome to read them through you would suppose them to be some heterogeneous gToup. But you know the whole English system of governm'ent is a bundle of shams, and nobody in England ever does what he would seem supposed to do by the title. They always do something different. The Crown does not govern. There is a Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, and he as not a Chancellor of the Exchequer, no such thing as the Exchequer exists. There is a Treasury, and it has nothing to do with the thing as Treasury. The names are simply outgrown. We are working with old- forms and old names, with wholly new substance put into them, consequently one must not be misled by that. Nominally those offices are boards, a great many of them. But, as I was just now saying, the Chairman of the Board is necessary and sufficient for a quorum and nobody does ever attend. I remember when one of the last boards was formed, I think it was the Local Government Board, Lord Hartington who was a singularly honest man, was asked a question in the House of Lords why they should have a board, because that was much less convenient than a single head to the ministry, and Lord Hart- ington said, " I cannot reaily remember why a decision was made in favor of the form of the board, but it is perfectly well under- stood that really there will be no board." He is the Chairman of the Board of Works, and I think he is really the minister. You have noticed that now you hear of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but he is the whole admiralty. The fact is there was a man called Lord High Admiral, and they put that into a commission as it was called, and made a board to exercise the functions of the Lord High Admiral, and now the president of that board is the whole thing, and they might just as well call him the Lord High Ad- miral, but they do not. Eor some reason they prefer not to, and there are 'a lot of curious forms in that way, but practically each department has a minister at its head, and that minister is a Mem- ber of Parliament. Mr. Stimson. — The First Lord High Admiral is the navy? Dr. Lowell. — That is the navy. Then there is the local government board, the Secretaries of State for the Interior. 41 Doc. No. 14 Mr. Stimsoit. — Would you mind explaining what eaoli one is ? Dr. Lowell. — I will. Of course, tlie Foreign Affairs you understand perfectly; and the War Department — you under- stand that — and the Navy. They are just the same in all coun- tries. Then there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chan- cellor who is simply the Secretary of State for the Treasury — Secretary of the Treasury, practically. Then there is the Attor- ney-General; that does not require any explanation. That is the same with us, practically. Then there is the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade is practically the Ministers of Commerce — what we call the Secretary of Commerce. Then there is the local government board, which has the government of local affairs. Mr. Stimson. — As our Secretary of Interior ? Dr. Lowell. — No. They have a Secretary of the Interior. Our Secretary of the Interior is more than local affairs. They call their Secretary of the Interior the Home Secretary, but the local government board is the man who has supervision of all local authorities, towns^, counties, etc., whereas the Home Secre- tary has the care of the poor, and many other things. Mr. Low. — Has it any relation to cities — any relation to the debt-making power of cities? Dr. Lowell. — Entirely so. That is one officer that does. Practically no city can increase its debt vsdthout the consent of that board. The board has very close supervision. Sometimes I notice when you talk to members of the board they say super- vision is most admirable, but when you talk to the local people, they say it is a little bit paternal. Mr. LiNCOLif. — Have any of our States a counterpart to the local government board ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes. Usually divided up among different in- stitutions. Then, as I say, there is a Home Department, which has what is left after you have given things to other people. The Home Secretary is one of the departments from which they have carved out a lot of departments, and left a lot of miscellaneous things, such as paupers, lunatics, and personal affairs of the King, Doc. No. 14 42 and such. Then there is the Education Department. Then there is a Special' Secretary for Ireland, and a Special Secretary for Scotland. Then there is the Board of Works, which has charge of the public works belonging to the government — I mean the government buildings all over the country. Then, of course, there is the post-office. The post-office, curiously enough, is under the Post-office Department, in the main. Mr. Rhees. — Is each minister a member of the Cabinet ? Dr. Lowell. — 'No. The members of the Cabinet are all minis^ ters, and the most important of those ministers are always in the Cabinet. Tor instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Premier, who may not have any office at all, and the Secretaries for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty, etc., those are always in the Cabinet. A president of the Board of Works may or may not be. Outside of the Cabinet comes the Ministry, and the Cabinet is the smaller body. Mr. Stimson. — What determines what positions shall be in the Cabinet ? Dr. Lowell. — Two factors ; one is the question of the im- portance of the department. The Foreign Secretary must be there. On the other hand, a big man in a small place would be put in. Mr. Stimson. — You indicate that at one time a man holding one office may be in the Cabinet, but at another time a man hold- ing that same office may not be in there ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir. Mr. Stimson. — Who determines that ? Dr. Lowell. — The Prime Minister. For instance, Winston Churchill has just got out of the Admiralty because it was thought it was not being well managed, and yet he was not wanted to have a back seat, so he is given another seat. Nominally, his department has charge of the little revenues belonging to the Crown in the Duchy of Lancashire. It is really a small office, but it is in charge of a big man. They put him in the Cabinet because they want him in the Cabinet, but another man to hold 43 Doc. No. 14 that office would not be. He is always in the ^Ministry. The Ministry means all the men who resign when the Cabinet goes out. There is a very sharp line in England between what are called political and the permanent civil service. All those men who go out of office when there is a change of Ministry are called min- isters and, therefore, there are about twenty-six or twenty-seven of them. Mr. Stimson. — Twenty-six or twenty-seven of them ? Dr. Lowell. — "^'es. But if you count the officers of the household, they run up to about forty. Mr. Low. — What is the size of the Cabinet ? Dr. Lowell. — Nowadays it runs up to nineteen or twenty — larger than before. I should say the ministers run over thirty. Mr. Low. — But the Cabinet members are all ministers. Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir. Mr. Low. — But the ministers are not all in the Cabinet ? Dr. Lowell. — No ; because there are a great many of those departments which have political under secretaries and change with the Cabinet, but are not in it. There is a Secretary for War and an Under Secretary for War. There are about forty go out with the ministers. Everybody else is in the permanent civil service. The departments are all practically organized on that same principle. Whatever the name may be, you have practically got at the head of them one man who is a member of the ministry. Whether in the department or not will depend partly on his own importance and partly on the importance of his office; and he goes out, of course, when the Cabinet changes. Mr. Franciiot. — To whom is he responsible ? Dr. Lowell. — The ministers stand together. It would be a case, if we do not all hang together, we will hang separately. They must; stand together. Lord Melbourne, it is said, when they had been having a discussion about the price of grain, he is said to have put his back against the door, and when the meeting was about to break Doc. ¥o. 14 44 up he said, ' Xow, raise the price of the bread or lower it ; 'it does not maJje any difference -what we say, but we have all got to say the same thing." They may have very bitter fights in the Cabinet, but unless it is so bitter that they have to resign and get out, they must get together, because if they do not they must get out. Mr. Pelleteeau. — Does Parliament have any power of con- firmation of the appointment of the minister ? __Dr. Lowell. — They have absolute ]iower, not of the individuals. Mr. Pelleteeau. — But as a body ? Dr. Lowell. — As a body. The first thing that is done is this : suppose a liberal cabinet resigns and a conservative comes in — or take what actually happened the last time there was a change of Parliament. Balfour resigned. Campbell-Bannerman was ap- pointed. What did he do? He knew perfectly well that that House was hostile to him. He dissolved it. and, as he had a right to, went to the country and got a new election. The point there is that the opposition puts down practically a motion for want of confidence in the ministers. If that is carried the ministers resign at once, and practically it is an understood thing in Eng- land that at any moment the opposition choose to ask it, that may happen. Mr. Wadswoeth. — From your knowledge of our general State governments, do you think it practical to ha.ve an oificial who would practically correspond to the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would make his estimates to the Legislature, etc. ? Dr. Lowell. — I think you have got to do that. Biit if you do that I think you would have an officer who would speak in the name of the Governor. Mr. Wadswoeth. — A man appointed by the Governor ? Dr. Lowell. — Yes, and responsible to the Governor. Just as the 'Chancellor of the Exchequer going into the House of 'Commons would not be able to speak as he does if he had not the Premier and whole cabinet behind him. 45 Doc. ¥o. 14 Mr. Pelleteeau. — I would like to ask the same question as to the auditor ? Dr. Lowell. — I think your auditor must be independent. Your auditor has to be a man who is wholly independent. I remember a case which I could tell you about that I came across in business myself when I was a comparatively young man. It so happened that the auditor, who had been employed by the treasurer of a cotton mill came in to a member of the committee of the stockholders on auditing the accounts and said to him, " The treasurer has been stealing. I thought I was employed by him to look after his subordinates, but I have learned that I was employed by the stockholders to report to them, and I report that the treasurer has been stealing." This is not a case where we are seeking for fraud, but seeking for irregularity. But, in any case, your auditor ought to be appointed clearly; he ought to owe his aippointment to a party outside. Mr. Stimson. — And his duties ought not, therefore, to be mixed up with executive duties ? Dr. Lowell. — Not in the least. He is to inspect, and he ought to have no other duties, because otherwise he is investigating himself. Mr. Pelleteeau. Should not he be appointed by the Governor ? Dr. Lowell. — I should feel it would be a pity to mix up your auditor with your executives in any way. You do not want to mix those things together. Mr. Wagnee. — You have got to put the appointive power somewhere. Dr. Lowell. — Certainly, but it ought to be outside of the executive. You may put it in your House, you may elect him, put him anywhere, but not in the hands of your executives. The probability is the best place to put him is in the Legislature ; but, whatever you do, you do not want to put him in the executive, and you do not want to give him executive power. Doc. No. 14 46 JVtr. Stimson. — And you do not want to put him in a position where he would be criticizing himself. Dr. Lowell. — No. Mr. Parmbnteb. — Does the minister represeint the locality ? Dr. Lowell. — He represents Bristol, but he practically has nothing to do Avith Bristol, as a matter of fact. Mr. Feanchot. — Who looks after the local interests of Bristol ? Dr. Lowell. — That is the point. The theory of the House of Commons is that the local interests have no business there. That is the theory. There are two theories of representation; one is, that every man that represents a constituency, and that the aggre- gate of separate interests is the interest of the community. The other theory is that every member of the Legislature represents the people as a whole. Mr. Stimson. — They have other methods by which Bristol is taken care of in a local as^mbly ? Dr. Lowell. — Certainly, but I feel that a iUan ought to repre- sent the whole community. Mr. Feanchot. — The system where he is elected from a par- ticular district, the tendency is the other way ? Dr. Lowell. — To some extent. Do you know any man who would stand up in Congress and say the interests of the United States are so and so and the interests of the State are so and so, but we are going to vote against the United States ? The Chaieman. — They do not say that, but they do it. Dr. Lowell. — But nobody will admit it ; which seems to show that a man feels he should represent the interests as a whole. Mr. Wagkee. — Would not the giving of increased power to the municipal corporation relieve the Legislature from a good deal of local matter ? Dr. Lowell. — Very much. 47 Doc. Xn. l-t The Chaiejian. — That is one of the questions that is before this Convention. Dr. Lowell. — Undoubtedly. The Chairman. — To try to get the local authorities of the counties and the towns and states to assume a large number of functions and be compelled to assume them, which are now done by the Legislature. Dr. Lowell. — Exactly. The Chaiemax. — That, in your opinion, would be a marked progress ? Dr. Lowell. — Oh, decidedly so. Mr. Feanchot. — Cou Id we ask Dr. Lowell, although it is not within the business of this Committee, to tell us what Massa- chusetts does in that regard ? Dr. Lowell. — We do the same thing as you do. Any amount of local bills. It is the curse of the Legislature. I think we have a pretty good Legislature, but that is the defect. Mr. Feanchot. — "i'ou do not have any system of home rule in the cities then ? Dr. Lowell. — Very little. Mr. Parsons. — Have the self-governing colonies adopted the English system in regard to local bills? Dr. Lowell. — I don't know. Canada, we know, has a great deal of local work. Mr. Lincoln. — In connection with the accruing of new activi- ties about the government and new bureaus, are those invariably subordinate to some existing department? Dr. Lowell. — ISTo. The Board of Works was a new depart- ment. Every little while they create a new board, but it is al- ways the same thing, it is always really a menace. The Chairman. — But I suppose that is only when the govern- ment goes into a new activity ? Doc. No. 14 48 Dr. Lowell. — Yes, sir ; usually the activities of government grow slowly, and they will be put into some other department until they get big, and then they will split them up. Mr. Lincoln. — Mr. Tanner explained there are some 150 bureaus, all independent. Dr. Lowell. — I know. Mr. Lincoln. — I wonder if they had any such curse, if it is a curse ? Dr. Lowell. — ■ No ; they are carefully grouped under single ministers. A new bureau may be added to a department, but al- ways under that head, and every department is represented in the ministry and the House of Commons. Mr. Khees. — But not by a new minister ? Dr. Lowell. — No. But there are some ministers in the House of Commons to whom every bureau chief can go and say, " We represent our department. Don't you want to answer this ques- tion? Or don't you want to bring out this fact? Or don't you want to introduce this bill ? " Mr. Deyo. — ■ Is there any minister who represents labor ? Dr. Lowell. — The labor interests oome under the Board of Trade. Chairman Tanner. — Are there any further questions, gentle- men? Mr. CuLLiNAN. — Just one question. Doctor. Do you want to say anything in reference to the fidelity in the discharge of his duties by a public ofiicer depending upon whether he is an ap- pointee or elected by the people? Dr. Lowell. — Well, I don't know that I could say anything that would be of any value in regard to fidelity. I can say some- thing in regard to the kind of officer who would naturally be chosen by one method or the other. My own experience is in watching things, and also in studying government, that it is true that the public can estimate certain qualities very well, but not 4'J Uoc. Nu. 14 other qualities as well. That, for iustance, of the selection of an expert is a very, very difficult thing to do, and impossible to be done by the public. It is my business to select experts in life to- day, and I know it is the most difficult thing to do. I can select a good man for the Legislature very well, because those are ques- tions of general integrity and of general intelligence, but when you come to select an expert you are required to ask the advice of a great many people, and make a very careful inquiry, and, there- fore, it is that the selection of experts is a very difficult thing to do for the public, and difficult for the Governor. It requires very great inquiry, and from people who know, and have the ability of finding out people who do know. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — Exclude experts. Dr. Lowell. — I mention all men who are performing any function requiring expert knowledge or training. You must not overburden the people with many names. The public will make a very wise choice of a few men, but not of a great many. A curious thing in England is this: I think that is one way where they have a way of simplifying an issue — the public is called upon to make a very small choice — to decide between a very small number of men. For instance, in a Parliamentary election the only thing a man votes for, as a rule, is a single member of Parliaraient. Mr. Hale. — How many names may be on the ticket ? Dr. Lowell. — There may be a number. He has to pick out the man that he wants. He is not voting for a number. There are some boroughs where they elect two men in one borough. There are not very many of those double-headed constituencies. When he votes in his municipal election he there, as a rulte, votes for a single member of the city council, and so on. Wihen he votes for his county council, there he votes for a single man. They get a very short ballot. Mr. OuLLiNAiir. — Don't you think that the American voter is rather jealous of his right to name those who shall govern ? Dr. Lowell. — The voter is very anxious to do things he can- not do, and he knows perfectly well that he cannot do them. Doc. JSTo. 14 50 Wihat I always say to myself is, and I think I am a voter af average intelligence, when I go to the polls and find I have got to stop and ask somebody how to vote, because the list is so long of names I don't know, I feel that probably a great many other people are in the same situation and feel the same as I do, whereas, if the number were less, I know I should vote more intelligently. I think the American public is a little too walling to undertake a great many things they cannot do well. I think we are inclined to try to do such things; I think that is our national temptation. Many successful business men are men whose business has grown big and they simply cannot adopt the method of a big business, but have to adopt the methods of a small business. I think that is the trouble with our people. We have grown big, and we are quite unconscious of how big we have grown, and we still think we can run things as we did while we were little. Chairman Tannee. — If that is all, Mr. Chairman, I move that this Committee extend thanks to Dr. Lowell for coming and ad- dressing us. Mr. CuLLiNAN. — I second the motion. Which motion was unanimously carried. Chairman Stimson. — President Lowell, I assure you, on be- half of both Committees, that we are very much indebted to you for coming and for the delightful way in which you have pre- sented the matter to these Committees. Dr. Lowell. — I thank you, I am sure, and I assure you I rather enjoyed having the afternoon with you. Whereupon the hearing adjourned. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 15 MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON STATE FINANCES, WITH HON. JOHN J. FITZGERALD EooM 332^ The Capitol, Albany, 'N. T., May 26, 1915, 3 :30 p. m. Hon. Henet L. Stimsoit, Cbainnaii. The Committee will please come to order. The Chaibmait. — We have the pleasure of having with us to-day Mr. Fitzgerald, who has been for two Congresses the Chair- man of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Repre- sentatives, and has therefrom had the chief charge of the making up of four national budgets, so far as a budget exists in our national government to-day. He has very kindly consented to come up here and to give us his experience and his suggestions in regard to financial legislation, as he has seen it in Congress. Mr. Fitzgerald, the methods of this Committee are perfectly informal, and I suggest that you follow your own wishes in re- gard to the way in which you care to present to us what you have to say. If you prefer to do it that way, I suggest that you make your own statement and then, if you are willing for us to ask Doc. No. 15 2 you questions, afterward, I am sure tliere are probably a number of us who will do so. Mr, FiTZGEEAUD. — I wiU be very happy to put myself in the hands of the Committee. There are so many familiar faces here that I feel I will be in the hands of my friends for the time being, at least. I have not come prepared with any systematic statement about State finances or even of the finances of the Federal government. At the invitation of the Chairman of the Committee I was glad to come, and, if my experience and information could be of any service, gladly give to the committee such information as I had. My work has been concerned diiefly with certain problems aris- ing in the attempt to curtail the expenses of the Federal govern- ment. I have been a member of the House of Representatives sixteen years, during all of that time serving on committees that had jurisdiction of some appropriation bills, and for ten years a member of the Committee on Appropriations, which handles about 50 per cent, of the appropriations of the Federal government. One of the crying evils in the Federal system at present results from the action of the House of Kepresentatives in 1885 in dis- tributing control of appropriation bills among eight different committees of the House. Until that time, from the creation of the Committee on Appropriations in 1865, with the exception of what is known as the Agricultural Appropriation Bill, and for a short time the Kiver and Harbor Appropriation Bill, all of the appropriations in Congress were under the control of a single committee from the beginning of the government, the Committee on Ways and Means. In 1865 the work had become so great that the jurisdiction of that committee was distributed among three committees, the Ways and Means, Appropriations, and Banking and Currency. And in 1885 a number of important appropria- tion bills were taken from the Committee on Appropriations and given to other committees of the House. The history of that movement shows unquestionably that it was undertaken largely for the purpose of breaking the power of Mr. Randall of Pennsylvania, vp-ho at that time as the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, a man of great power and force, twice speaker of the House of Representatives, had led a 3 Doc. ISTo. 15 revolt in the Democratic party in the preceding Congress, by which the enacting clause of the Mills Tariff Bill was stricken out; and in order to break his power the movement was initiated and culminated in the distribution of these bills. At that time it was predicted by a large number of men of experience and great capacity, that the result inevitably must be greatly increased appropriations. I recall that Mr. Cannon stated to me a few years ago that the increase in appropriations from that time until Mr. Cleveland found it necessary to issue bonds to restore and maintain the gold reserve in the treasury about equalled the $260,000,000 bonds it was necessary to issue. There is no doubt that in that period and since then the expenditures of the Federal government have increased out of all proportion to the increase in population and wealth of the United States. Still, that is not alone peculiar to the Federal government. The cost of State and municipal governments of recent years has been very greatly in- creasing out of proportion to the increase in wealth and popula- tion of all communities, and it is due to a very great extent to the fact that movements of all sorts were pressed for the purpose of having governmental organizations undertake functions that do not properly come within the legitimate sphere of governments. Everybody who has a scheme to reform mankind or better man- kind finds it so much easier to get money from the public treasury than private sources, and it seems to be such a popular cry to have the government undertake these things, that the Federal govern- ment, I know, has gone far afield in undertaking things no one ever contemplated would be undertaken when the Federal govern- ment was instituted. I have proposed in the House of Representa- tives as the first step necessary to control the expenditures of the Federal government, that all of the appropriations be centered in the committee in the House of Representatives; and a similar action would necessarily follow in the Senate. It is during my own service, if I recall correctly, that the Senate distributed con- trol of the appropriation bills. And one reason for the distribu- tion is the natural jealousy of members of legislative bodies of the power that necessarily goes to those who have intimate control of expenditures in the government. Every member of the legislative body thinks that he is just as important and just as influential and Doc. No. 15 4 just as competent as every other member. As a matter of fact, a comparatively few men specialize and become expert in various lines. But every one wants to exercise as mucli power as he. can acquire, and one way is found in obtaining control of the appro- priations. But that would not be sufficient to eliminate the evils. It would be the first step. We have reached a point in our Fed^ eral expenditures now aggregating a thousand — a hundred mil- lion dollars a year,, when it is necessary to either very greatly in- crease the tax — the taxes levied by the Federal government or else to curtail present activities or stop extending the activities of the government. We have reached about the limit of revenue under our present systems, and if the government is to continue to expand and in- crease its activities, there must necessarily be very greatly in- creased revenues. My own opinion — and what I say has no particular bearing on politics — my own opinion is that one of the sources of fiscal trouble in the Federal government has been the protective system of the tariff. That is where a large portion of our revenues has been raised without any relation whatever to its necessities. That the tariff bill has been framed not for the purpose primarily of obtain- ing revenue, but primarily to protect industries in this country, Avith the question of revenue, while important, not necessarily the prime element, so that in adjustment of revenues, there might be very large accessions of revenue^ regardless of the necessity of the money for the legitimate and econoanical conduct of the govern- ment. That element is absent in those systems of governments where the parliamentary system exists and where exists the so- called budget system. Our system differs so radically from the English system, for instanoe^, that it is difficult to discuss subjects as compared to our system with any system of government similar to the British system. There the government represents the ma- jority of the 'Commons as expressed in the most recent election. It prepares all the business except private business. It presents it to the House. The ministers or Cabinet are the men in charge of the business in the government, and when they determine their budget, that is the amount of money that is necessary to conduct the affairs of the government, they also determine the character 5 Doo. No. X5 of legislation that is necessary in order to produce the necessary revenue to meet the expenditures, and wherever their budget state- ment shows that there will be a surplus of revenues over the pro- posed expenditures, their budget always indicates the manner in which that surplus will be disposed of, either by applying it to some new activities, or indicating that certain portions of it will go toward the reduction of their debt. Now, our system differs radi- cally because we separate — and one of the distinctive character- istics of our system of government is the complete separation at least in theory of the executive — or I might put it, as the Fathers did, of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the government. So that we have under our system the executive pro- posing the moneys that may be necessary to conduct a government and a legislative body determining how much vnll be allowed for that purpose ; and in the framing of our tax legislation, the execu- tive, as a matter of fact, is not predominant; and it has not been under any political parties, so far as my experience or reading The executive may have great influence on certain details of tax legislation, but the legislative body, the Congress of the United States, determines the great bulk of items and rates and ways in which revenues shall be obtained. So that we have a system by which the legislative originates, as it mnst, under the Constitu- tion, the legislation for raising revenue and, while the manner in which it shall be expended is proposed by the Executive, the Con- gress determines for itself as the direct representatives how it shall be expended. Now, it has been said that the Federal government has no sys- tem whatever approaching the budget system. But that statement is not accurate unless a very narrow meaning is given to the word " budget." I summarized in a speech which I made in 1913, the laws controlling the submission of estimates. President Taft in 1913 transmitted a report to Congress made by the so-called Com- mission on Eijonomy and Efficiency, and in that message he said : " The Government is not only in the position of having gone along for a century without a budget, but, w^hat is at this time even more to the point, it has not the organic means either for prepar- ing or for considering one. In the executive branch there is no Doc. No. 15 6 established agency which may be utilized for assembling the data required for the preparation of budget summaries. The law gov- erning estimates requires that they be prepared and submitted by various heads of departments and independent establishments without executive review or revision. This makes it impossible to submit a budget unless the President does it on his own initia- tive." ISTow, that really summarizes or epitomizes the criticisms that have been leveled in recent years at our system. Tet I think that President Taft was somewhat mistaken and somewhat misled by his reliance upon the statements and report of the so-called Commission on Economy and Efficiency. In discussing that pro- vision I made this statement : " 'No legislation has been more carefully considered nor more effectively worded than the laws regulating the preparation and submission of estimates. " In accordance with the various statutes, all annual estimates for the public service must be submitted to CongTess through the Secretary of the Treasury and included in the book of estimates. The estimates must be transmitted only through the Secretary of the Treasury, and he is required to have them properly classified, compiled, indexed, and printed. The estimates must be prepared and submitted by the heads of the various departments and other officers required to make estimates to the Secretary of the Treas- ury on or before the 15th day of October. If they be not so sub- mitted, the Secretary of the Treasury must cause to be prepared in the Treasury Department on or before the 1st day of November estimates for such appropriations as in his judgment shall be requisite in every such case and include them in the book of esti- mates. Estimates, except those for sundry civil expenses, must be prepared and submitted according to the order and arrangement of the appropriation acts for the year preceding, and any changes in such order and arrangement and transfers of salaries for one office or bureau to another office or bureau or the consolidation of offices or bureaus desired by the head of any executive department may be submitted by note in the estimates." 7 Doc. Xo. 15 Duty of the Seoeetaey of the Teeasuey " The Secretary of the Treasury is required to rearrange any estimates submitted to him which do not conform in the order and arrangement of the prior appropriation act. All estimates are required to be included in the estimates submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury for insertion in the Book of Estimates and special or additional estimates for that fiscal year must only be submitted to carry out laws subsequently enacted or when deemed imperatively necessary for the public service by the de- partment in which they shall originate, in which case the special or additional estimate must be accompanied by a full statement of its imperative necessity" and reasons for its omission in the annual estimates." The Chaieman. — May I interrupt you ? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Certainly. The Chaieman. — Is there anything in those statutes, any- where, which makes it the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to revise and cut down other departments' estimates? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — There is not. When John Sherman was Secretary of the Treasury, in transmitting the estimates to Con- gress one year, he called attention to the fact that the estimates of the various departments aggregated about $11,000,000 in ex- cess of the estimated revenues of the government for the fiscal year for which the estimates were submitted. He was of the opinion that he had the right or that it should be his duty to re^ vise the estimates so as to bring them within the estimated rev- enues; but I understand from conversation with men who were familiar with the matter at the time, that that provoked such a controversy in the Cabinet, as to permitting one member of the Cabinet to exercise that supervisory power over the estimates submitted on behalf of some other department of the government that he refrained from doing so, and contented himself with calling the attention of the Congress to the fact that the estimates were $11,000,000' in excess of the estimated revenues, and sug- gested that the Congress exercise its undoubted power and reduce them. Doc. No. 15 8 There are two theories as to whether any member of the 'Cabinet should have that right. One school advocates the con- centration in some one member, and it was sug^bbted the Secre- tary of the Treasury, because, under the statute creating the Treasury Department, the Secretary of the Treasury is the only member of the Cabinet who makes his report directly to Con- gress ; it has been suggested that he be required to revise the esti- mates so as to submit them to Congress. There is another school which insists that the CongTess is entitled as a matter of right to have submitted to it the best judg- ment of the heads of all the departments, as to the amounts of money required to- conduct their departments, and the various purposes to which the money is to be applied, and then that the Congress should exercise the right to determine whether the pub- lic service requires those sums to be actually appropriated and, if necessary, additional revenues be obtained, or whether it will determine to eliminate certain specific items so as to eliminate the necessity for the additional revenues. The 'Chairman. — As a m^atter of practice, whatever the dif- ferent theories, it is a fact, isn't it, that the estimates go in with- out any such revision? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — ^Without any. There was an attempt, I think, during the administration of Mr. Taft, by himself, to ex- ercise some control in that way. My recolieetion is he issued an order that after the annual estimates had been transmitted, no supplemental estimates should be submitted unless he approved them, and I know that some officials in the government some time complained that, as a result of that, they were unable to submit requests for increases of compensation of certain officials, because they did not quite care to take up those questions with the President, as they did not seem to have sufficiently good rea- sons to induce him to approve them, although they might have found champions in Congress who would have found reasons adequate for his action. The Chairman. — His step was quite revolutionary to the regular practice ? 9 Doc. No. 15 Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Yes, and it had a good effect along certain lines. And this statement — I will not read it entirely — shows that Congress — all of these laws originated with Congress for the purpose — so far as possible of compelling department heads to furnish accurate information and to furnish it in a systematic and logical manner. Then this was found to be a practice com- mon to all administrations and parties, so what I say does not apply to one political party more than another, and does not apply to any particular individual, because I find out that men who have been very staunch economists in the House, become very profligate as the heads of executive departments. It seems to depend upon the atmosphere in which they exist as to how they operate. But Congress in 1909 passed what was known as the Smith amendment which, if it had ever been lived up to by any administration, would have had tremendous value. It has not been. ISTeither Democrats nor Republicans have followed it; and they don't follow it, because they don't like it. I will read the provision : " Immediately upon receipt of the regular annual estimates of appropriations needed for the various branches of the govern- ment, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to estimate as nearly as may be the revenues of the government for the ensuing fiscal year, and if the estimates for the appropriations including the estimated amount necessary to meet all continuing and permanent appropriations shall exceed the estimated rev- enues, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transmit the estimates to Congress as heretofore required by law, and at once transmit a detailed statement of all of said estimates to the President, to the end that he may, in giving Congress information of the State of the Union, and in recommending to their consideration such measures as he may deem necessary, advise the Congress how in his judgment the estimated appropriations could -with, the least injury to the public service be reduced so as to bring the appro- priations within the estimated revenues or if such reduction be not in his judgment practicable, without undue injury to the public service, he may recommend to the Congress such loans or new taxes as are neeessarv to cover the deficiency." Doc. ]Sro. 15 10 If that law were complied with by any administration, it would more nearly give us a responsible budget system than anything else that can be devised, because it does this : It requires an ad- ministration to estimate how much money is required to conduct the public iservice. It then requires the fiscal ofiicer of the gov- ernment to estimate how much revenue will be produced under the existing laws. If the revenue will not be sufficient to meet the expenditure that the administration deems desirable and necessary, then the responsibility is put upon the President, who is the head of the administration to say, first, whether some of these things that the members of his cabinet have suggested, should be done during that year, can without injury to the public service be omitted, and if they cannot, how, in his opinion, money should be obtained to meet these expenses, either by the way of loans or taxes. The Chaibman. — That statute has in it the germ of a budget system, has it not? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — It is, as near as we can come to it, under our theory of the government, unless we want to radically change it and so intermingle the executive and legislative branches of the government as to give members of the administration a place in the houses of Congress. JSTow, th'at statute has been avoided, and a most notorious instance of it is the following: I read the statement of a law where, after the estimates are transmitted to Congress, supplemental or additional estimates cannot be transmitted unless to carry out legislation which has been enacted subsequently to the date when the estimates are required to be submitted to Congress or unless deemed imperatively necessary by the happening of some subsequent event, and in that instance the head of the department must transmit in connection with the estimate a full explanation of the reasons which make it imperative. Well, there was an estimate submitted to Congress for a certain purpose for a million dollars, and in compliance apparently with that -statute, the head of the department made this statement: " This estimate was not included in the annual book of estimates because of the desire to keep the estimates as low as possible." 11 Doc. Xo. 15 It was a fraud on Congress; it was a gross viol'ation of the law, and a great injustice to the country, because it was simply, to use the vernacular, a thimble-rigging affair. It did not submit to Congress what they believed necessary but kept the estimate low enough to come within the estimated revenues, and then in violation of the other laws transmitted those estimates. That should be prevented. The Chairmaist. — While you are on that subject, it is not quite fair to lay all the blame of the non-observance of that statute on the executive branch of the government, is it? As I remember it, there was some opposition on the legislative side also. At the time when Mr. Taft, under that statute, v/as trying to prepare the first budget my recollection is that the House of Representatives passed a resolution directing him to submit the estimates in the old form, and not in the budget form which he was trying to do. Mv. Fitzgerald. — AVe put that provision in. If we had not done it we would have had chaos in the fiscal affairs of the government. While members of the Cabinet know how to ad- minister departments of the government, they do not know how to conduct fiscal affairs of government. There has not been one . — except those present — who have served in the Cabinet who did not ask more than they required to properly carry on the government. That is from the standpoint of the men who were directly represented by the people to protect the treasury. Now, in the four years I have been Chairman of the Com- mittee on Appropriations — I take charge of the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill — we reported the bill four separate years. That bill in those four years has carried $97,000,000 less than the amount of money asked for by the departments to conduct the public service. The Senate added a large number of items. The Secretary is familiar with what the Senate does. Everything the House leaves out the Senate puts in, and then a few things the individual Senators are peculiarly interested in. When the bill was finally enacted into law, the four bills were $59,000,000 less than the amounts requested by the departments to conduct the government. I defy any man that ever lived to show that Doc. No. 15 12 in a single, solitary iota, the affairs of the government were in any way injured, any public service was hindered or damaged, or was not conducted even better than if they had the $59,000,- 000 they didn't get. Wot only that. I undertake to say that without any trouble at all, if there were only half a chance, in the sixteen years I have been in Congress, the government could have been as well conducted for from fifty to one hundred millon dollars less than it has been conducted for. The Chairman. — A year ? Mv. FiTZGEEALD. — I don't say three hundred, but it would average from fifty to a hundred. The Chairman. — Each year ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — Each year. Mr. Parsons. — That $59,000,000 you refer to in connection with the Sundry Civil Bill is spread over four years ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — Fifteen million dollars a year ; average of $15,000,000 a year in a bill which would average about $115,- 000,000 a year; so it would be about 14 per cent., roughly, of the amount that was requested; and even then I know that I had to consent to a large niunber of items that I knew and everybody else knew were not essential for the proper maintenance of the government. The Chairman. — Well, isn't it a fact — Mr. Fitzgerald. — That is inherent, of course, in our system of government. The ChaiejMAN. — That the estimates, as they now go in , are too high, .as everybody knows ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — Well, there is this, Mr. Chairman, I think we should bear in mind. Of course, the man who is conducting a great department of the government, if he is of any real value as an executive, becomes very greatly impressed with the importance of his work, with its necessity and with the desirability of its proper extension ; 'and he is planning and proposing the extension 13 Doc. No. 15 or the increase of the activities of his department. Some of the things are important and valuable, but, relatively speaking, they are not. If we had unlimited sources of funds, and if our theory of government was that it was best for the people that the govern- ment should engage in every conceivable activity of government, that would be the way in which it would work out best. Eut, as a matter of fact — the proper theory of our government is that we should engage in as few activities that can be as equally well done by private individuals as possible, and if that were lived up to, to the fullest extent, we would very radically reduce the cost of our government. I don't know that in our State the same prob- lems would confront the administration of the fiscal affairs, as in the Federal government. We have 434 members of the House of Representatives. We have ninety-six Senators. They represent localities. Localities are interested particularly in certain phases of the Federal government. In a great mining community they want the activities of the Bureau of Mines extended as rapidly and as greatly as possible. In the agricultural communities they de- sire the activities of the Department of Agriculture extended. If the army worm appears on a man's farm nowadays, instead of the old fashioned way of plowing two or three rows up, so as to stop it, he sends an S S to the Department of Agriculture, and they send several scientists with all kinds of poisonous decoctions to kill the army worm. Then, on our sea coasts, we are interested in the deepening and improvement of waterways, the enlargement and increasing of the coast defences, so that the community spirit, the locality spirit, is, as it is intended to be, represented in the two bodies. Well, a member of Congress who is dependent for his official life and thinks more about that than anything else, — upon getting some activity of the government extended into his district, — is not concerned about how much money is to be appropriated to maintain the entire government. He is not concerned about where it is coming from ; so long as he gets his particular appropriations to be expended in his particular locality, he is willing to take chances upon satisfying the people of his district that the other evils are so far off or imaginary, that they are not affected; and that is particularly true under our indirect system of taxation. Doc. 'No. 15 14 One thing, in my opinion, that will stop it more than anything else is the continued and further extension of the income tax after it gets working properly and gets reached out to where the limit of incomes taxed will bring the great mass of people within the pro- visions of the law, there will be a keener interest in whether an appropriation that is made is satisfactory or not. For instance, I know a community of about 800 people where it costs for rent, light, heat and janitor service, less than $6'00 a year for the facilities required for the administration of the post-office de- partment, that secured through the activity of their Representative in Congress a public building of bronze and marble, as fine as anything that can be found in the United States, and it is so out of place that it even makes the landscape look shabby. (Laughter.) Now, it is estimated that the cost — the permanent charge on the government for that building is between 9 and 10 per cent, a year; so that we have a fixed charge of about $7,500, in place of one of $600. It would be necessary for a mam to have served in Congress to appreciate the rapaciousness vnth which men from the smaller communities seek the appropriations for the public build- ings. The Chaiemast. — You got the full brunt of that as chairman of the Appropriation Committee, didn't you ? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — I have a unique record. I opposed the appropriation proposed to extend the post-office facilities of the district in which I live, and they appropriated it in spite of me ; largely because I thought if they needed to enlarge the postal facilities in Brooklyn, they should think of Brooklyn as it is to- day, and not as it was thirty years ago, and they might perhaps, on mature consideration find a more appropriate and economical place for the handling of mails, for a post-office. A post-office that is located off from the subway and transit systems is not the economical place in a modem city. But that condition that I have described results in this: That most of the House of Representatives generally are not interested particularly in whether an appropriation bill carries a large or small sum. They have an academic interest in it. If they are in the majority they like to say, " Well, they have done well on this 15 Doc. Xo. 15 bill; they have brought it in in good shape." But if they have some peculiar interest in something they want to provide for, and for which provision is not made, they are willing, as a rule to vote for everything that is proposed, if it will result in enough votes being given for the matter in which they are interested. The result is that a committee after weeks of painstaking work, very onerous labors, trying to balance up the possible revenues and possible expenditures, trying to determine the relative importance of proposed matters that will bring a bill into the House, very frequently finds itself antagonistic to the sentiment of the House, and the sums are largely increased. Then the Senate adds on, and then the departments. If the head of a department comes to the House of Representatives and does not get everything he asks for, he immediately goes to the Senate and complains of what the House did, and some accommodating Senator always helps him to have it put on the bill ; and then it is merely a question of recon- ciling these differences and doing the best that can be done to get these bills down. The result is that instead of being able to tell in the beginning of the session of Congress, with any approximation whatever, about what the 'Congress should appropriate to support the government in the next year, it takes about two days after it has finished making its appropriations to tell what has been appro- priated. And then you can tell whether you are near your I'pvenues or not. Now, I proposed a remedy for that and I believe it must come eventually in Congress. It grows out of the provision in the Con- federate Constitution. The men who prepared that document were men of great capacity land long public service in the public life of the United States. They had a provision in their Con- stitution that must have come from their experience and their knowledge of the affairs of Parliament that prohibited Congress from appropriating any money unless it had been requested by the head of the department, unless by a two-thirds vote, or unless it was to pay a claim against the government or for its own expenses ; that last is a very important matter, because an executive might attempt to entirely curtail or hamper the legislative body by re^ fusing to estimate for its expenses; and I should have added one other thing: That was under certain conditions the expenses of Doc. No. 15 16 tlie judiciary, alth(}T:igli the two-thirds provision would give them power to do tJiat. The Chaieman. — Won't you read that provision to the Com- mittee ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — Yes, I have that here. The Chaikman". — The Confederate Constitution. Mr. Fitzgerald. — Article 1 of Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : " Congress is forbidden to appropriate money from the treas- ury except by a vote of two-thirds of both houses unless it be asked by the head of a department and submitted by th6 President or be asked for the payment of its own expenses or of claims against the Confederacy declared by a judicial tribunal to be just." That is, that the determination of a court — the final de- termination of a court of a claim against the Confederate govern- ment was paid without the intervention of the executive de- partment. And we have in practice what is similar. That is, all judgments of the court are certified to the House of E.epre» sentatives as audited claims, and they are included automatically in one of the appropriation bills, with the provision that they shall not be paid unless the time of appeal has expired, or unless the Attorney-General certified they do not intend to appeal. The Chairmaf. — That provision you have read is quite similar to the one existing for 200 years in the House of Com- mons rule, isn't it? Mr. FiTZGEEAUD. — Yes. The Chairman. — Have you that vsrith you? Mr. Fitzgerald. — • The rule of the House of Commons is : " This House will receive no petition for any sum relating to public service or proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue * * * unless recommended by the Crown." But there is a distinction. The recommendation by the Crown, 17 Doc. No. 15 of course, is the submission by the government or the Ministry of its proposed grants to the 'Crown. Now, the government which is responsible for the control and the administration of the government, and which is the representative of the majority of the 'Commons as expressed by the people at its last election, sub- mits its proposals. If the 'Commons are not siatisfied with the budget, they can reject it, overturn the government, or they can reduce or strike out some item. But the rule was to prevent the followers of the government from taking things into their own hands, and, regardless of the determination of the men selected as the responsible ministry, to force money on him to spend that he determined that they did not need. The remedy in that case is, if the House of 'Commons believed they submitted a budget which did not provide for expenditures for important matters that should be granted, to reject the budget and the Ministry would be compelled to resign and appeal to the country, or ap- point a new Ministry that would include in its budget the things the Commons wished. Of course, we have no such method of reaching things. The Chaieman. — But the effect on the budget of the Con- federate provision was to prevent estimates, or the budget you may call it, after it had reached the Congress, from being raised by this demand of individuals on the floor. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Well, I think it was designed at that time to prevent what was so commonly referred to as log-rolling. The Chaieman. — That is the short name for it. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — That is the combination of the individuals to appropriate money for certain design'ated functions of govern- ment that the responsible government did not believe necessary, desirable or expedient at the particular time, and yet there might be great emergencies and there might be occasions when money should be appropriated and the administration should be com- manded to do certain things that it was unwilling to do, and that power should be reserved to the legislative body, and with that provision of the two-thirds vote, it was amply safeguarded, be- cause we might have an administration that would decline to do Doc. 'So. 15 18 certain things that there was an overwhelming public sentiment insisting upon. An election might be conducted upon some issue, and after the administration came into power, the executive side of the department might ohange its mind, and yet the repre- sentatives of the people of the two Houses might more truly and accurately, representing the expressed sentiment of the country, be determined that the thing decided should be done, and they should have that power to compel the Executive to act under such circumstances. Xow, of course, under the State government there is one thing that is supposed to safeguard that, but in many respects, in effect, it is a wealjness. When I first went to Congress, I thought it was such a desirable thing that I contemplated to bring in an amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States, and a little ex- perience made me drop it, and that was the right of the Executive to veto items in appropriation bills. Of course, we have what is not common in the State practice. The items in the appropriation bills that there is a demand the executive be given authority to veto — it is not as a rule grants of money, but it is a substantive provision of law, which could, mot be enacted in any other way. For instance, we abolished the Court of 'Comnaeree in the Appropriation Bill. I was somewhat instrumental in doing that. I was in favor of it. I thought it should be abolished. There was a great difference of opinion. The President was very strongly in favor of retaining it, and yet there was a two-thirds vote of the two houses in favor of abolish- ing that court. Of course, if a bill could do it and come before the 'Congress, it could have passed over the President's veto. The only way to accomplish it was to incorporate it in the appropria- tion bill. Whether it is a desirable thing to do or not, apart from that, under the Anglo-Saxon theory of government, the repre- sentatives of the people should be in a position to compel an executive by the coercion exercised by the refusal to grant neces- sary supplies to conduct the government, to acquiesce in legisla- tion that two-thirds of the two houses would say is particularly desirable. The Chairman. — I notice that this Confederate provision applies not only to appropriation bills, but to all legislation, all 19 Doc. No. 15 legislation carrying appropriations, whether separate or whether in general appropriation bills. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Well, we have an evil under the present system. I think it is common in the State Legislatures apart from your supply and appropriation bill, to pass a number of inde- pendent measures, and they provide for certain increased activi- ties, or certain new functions to be exercised by the government and provide the money. What I would do in those cases — I would prohibit the legis- lative body from making the appropriation in the bill. Let them authorize the facility, authorize this new function and require an estimate to be made for it. Now it might be — you take in Congress — it might be that in December it would be thought very desirable at the beginning of the next fiscal year which would be the Ist of July to initiate some new activity of the government, and Congress might pass a law creating a bureau or a division, establishing some new service, and yet by May it might be apparent that, while it would be desirable, the financial condition of the government would be such that it would be better to postpone it. I would put the responsibility to some extent, at least, for the amount asked and to be added, upon the executive department, and I would compel them to submit the estimate, and if they declined to do it — why, with some such power as this, a larger vote than two-thirds vote would pass it. I was recently in Canada, and I was speaking to a member of the Canadian Parliament there, and their supply bills — and it is an interesting thing — are withheld from final action until the very last thing. It is the very last enactment of their Parliament. It excited my curiosity and the theory was, according to his statement, that that was to give everybody an opportunity to petition the 'Crown for redress or for relief, and the last thing that was done was to finally pass on the supply bill, and in that way they could include in it every grant that was necessary. That eliminated all possibility of the separate enact- ments appropriating money. The Chaieman. — May I interrupt you just a minute in order to be sure we get it clearly, because that is a matter which this Doc. No. 15 20 Committee has discussed? I understand your suggestion is that the Legislature should be prohibited not only from increasing the appropriation bills, but from passing separate bills carrying the money appropriations, and that whenever they wished to increase the function of government, they should pass a bill within their abundant power which would make it the duty thereafter of the executive to include the necessary moneys in the budget to carry out that function. Mr. Fitzgerald. — But I would not make it absolutely pro- hibitive on the Legislature — The Chaiemajst. — I understand. Mr. Fitzgerald. — to appropriate, because I doubt if that would be wise, to go that far, under our present conditions, and neither would I make it oompnloory upon the executive to submit an estimate for every service which the law authorized, but there would be an opportunity to fix the resiponsibility for the failure to request it, and there would be the opportunity for the Legis- lature to make the appropriation — only I should make it more difficult if the executive failed. Our gTeat trouble is this; That as long as times are good and money is easy and revenues are plentiful nobody cares particularly what the legislative body does in expending money, but as soon as the expenditures increase so that taxation becomes burdensome, there is a general controversy as to who is at fault, and who should be held responsible for the condition that embarrasses the public by levy of taxes. We ought to have some way in the system of our government to fix direct responsibility, and you cannot fix responsibility if the power is too greatly scattered. We must concentrate the power and concentrate the responsibility. We miust have some one to whom the people can go. If you have it too diffuse, while the agitation may be great you never reach anybody. The 'Chairman. — And where do you suggest that concentration be put in the way of initiating these estimates ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — I would put it in the Executive. I would make him responsible at the outset, and I have had experience with 21 Doc. No. 15 executives. I have an interesting line of correspondence in my files, extending over a number of years, coming right down to date, and it is similar in all instances, in which the Executive ex- presses his sympathy with the efforts to keep down public ex- penditures as low as possible and expresses some complianentary Expressions to those engaged in that work, " but this matter has just been called to my attention and it seems so important and •desirable, I hope it will be possible to make provision for it." I know, I know that the most ancient, time-worn, moss covered things that have been rejected time and time again, are placed before the Executive in such an attractive way that these letters come about them. He doesn't know, and he can't know. But if in some way he could be compelled to realize that at a certain time he must make up his mind what the important and desirable things are, and after that period he has to defer suggestions for another year, why, men will be keener to get before him everything that is essential. The action which President Taft took, which we have dis- cussed, had this result : Every member of that Cabinet before he finally passed on the estimates of his subordinates, he had not per- Jiaps paid much attention to them, some of them, prior to that time, but before he finally passed on that, they did a good deal of inquiring about the various bureaus and services of these depart- ments. He wants to know if this thing were taken care of, and if this were desirable. He had to know just what he tho'Ught would be imperative for the public service of his department next year, so as to have them all included, and taken up, because he realized it would be so much more difficult. Now, what happened — I •don't know how you can prevent this very thing except by the tak- ing of the initiative away from Congress — was this : In a certain — we will take any department of the government ; when the esti- mates were prepared, the head of the department eliminated some item which was very dear to the chief of a bureau and the esti- mates went in without that item. It was useless for him to ap- peal to the head of the department, because he could not satis- factorily explain to the President why it had not gone in. Now, this chief of bureau has been in Washington a good while and he had — Doc: No. 15 22 The Chaieman. — He knew the way to the 'Capitol. Mr. EiTZGEEALD. — connections. He was not a stranger in town, and he explained to some friend he thought would have some influence, and they put that thing in there in the appropriation bill. The Chairman. — Put it in Congress ? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — -Well, the head of the department never protested against it. If he could get that in addition to the other things he asked for, he was satisfied. He would not discipline his subordinate for this back-handed way of going behind the administration and increasing the appropriations on it. Everybody was too busy to keep track of it, and in that way to a considerable extent the beneficial results of that order were undone. If the House of Representatives and the Senate had been oper- ating under a provision that they could not have included except by a two-thirds vote, an item that had not been requested by the executive, there would have been a very great difference. Mr. Gladstone, in one of his great budget speeches, laid down the principle to which I referred in this speech. He said that the proper function of a legislative chamber — here, I will find it — " Is not to augment but to decrease expenditures." Of course he was speaking largely, with the view largely in mind of their peculiar system of government. The Chaieman. — That is what it means to hold the purse strings, generally, to shut them, and not to open them. Mr. Fitzgeeald. — Some persons object that we should not deprive the representatives of the people of this right to loosen up the purse strings, but the universal condition in this country to-day is not that we must safeguard the rights of the people to get money for things. The whole curse of our condition is that everybody is doing their utmost to get it, and succeeds, and the evil that must be corrected — the evil that must be corrected is the evil of excessive expenditure, and that is why in directing our attention to it I am not alarmed at the fact that the admin- istration won't get enough money to do anything. I have never 23 Doc. Xo. 15 known any administration — and it is an unfortunate condition when the head of any department of the government is able to say — and it can be said by them right along in the Federal government — that " I didn't think it was necessary or desirable to spend this money, but Congress insisted on appropriating it for this purpose, and I must acquiesce in the expressed will of Congress." And I know one department of the Federal govern- ment where the common thing is to beg Congress to appropriate more money than the department asks. I undertake to say that it can be conducted for 30 per cent, less, and better conducted than with the money now obtained, because it is the most profligate, extravagant department to be found in the United States. They are engaging in all kinds of schemes, enterprises and activities that have no more connection with government than they have with the government of Mars. I represent a certain county of a district, and I could go to that department in the summer, when campaign time came, and get three or four highly paid experts, a moving picture outfit, and lecturers, and go from one end of my district to another, conducting an illustrated lecture bureau ostensibly for the enlightenment of my constituents, but pri- marily to retain me in Congress. That is a desirable thing, I admit. (Laughter.) But it is not really an important thing from the standpoint of the people and the government. l^ow, if there were some way by which that could be stopped, and it is difiicult to stop it, I don't think I am immune from any of these vices or evils, I am just as human as anybody else in Congress, and I don't particularly criticize the man who does resort to these things, but we must in some way eliminate the temptation of the possibility of this kind of action; and when a man is unable to do things of that character, along that line, when he' cannot force, up appropriations, why, then his only in- terest is in seeing that they appropriate properly, and it does this: It would do what is done in the governments where they had a responsible government with the budget system. If my constituents are keenly interested in some matter that requires an expenditure of public money, I would be compelled to present that matter to the department that had charge of it. They would Doc. Ko. 15 24 make tlieir mvestigation. And they would determine whetliCT- it was one of those things that should be included, and they would have to take the responsibility for requesting it. They could not say John Smith forces that on us. And then the total of these soibmissions would be contrasted, and the ad- ministration should be compelled, to save time, to mabe definite and concrete recommendations as to how the money should be obtained to meet these drafts on the treasury. ■Now, I don't know that there is much more I could say in this desultory way. I will answer any questions. Mr. Parsons. — In your service, how many instances have you known where it was advantageous that Congress increase the amount of an appropriation suggested by the executive? The Chaieman-. — Where it was advantageous ? Mr. Paesons. — Where it was advantageous. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — It would be too broad a statement to say never in my experience, but I think it would be very rare. The head of a department of the government is so naturally interested in his department doing what it should do, and doing it properly and successfully, that they invariably request the money that they need. Now, sometimes the head of a department believes that something should not be done. His experience teaches him that it is a waste of money; there is no beneficial result, and he does not ask for much, and Congress appropriates the money, and he says, " Well, this is what the Congresis wishes, and I ought to spend it." I think that happens. B'ut I would say it is a very rare thing, and then only because either for some oversight or because of the change in conditions from the time the estimates were sub- mitted, that it becomes neeesisary or desirable for 'Congress to appropriate more. I have had this experience: Estimates would be submitted, and several months afterwards in the course of the investigations the head of the department would state a situation in which it would be his opinion that a larger sum of money would be required than originally asked. The rule of the Committee on Appropriations, which is not the rule in the other committees, is to require the head of department to submit the supplemental 25 Doc. Ko. 15 estimate in compliance with the law, and then act under that request. But the situation which I understand you have in mind, that a department determines a certain amount is necessary and Congress, without any suggestion from the department, increases that, — they are very rare, and they result mostly from the under- handed suggestions from people, subordinates, in the department, who want to magnify their work and importance. Mr. Paesons. — Or because some Member of Congress wants something done in his particular locality. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — That iis very largely the situation. Mr. Parsons. — Well, are there many instances where the ex- ecutive recommends doing away with some customary appropria- tion, and Congress refuses to do it — whether in your opinion it would be well to do it? Mt. Fitzgeeald. — The most notorious illustration of that was the reorganization of the customs service, where some in Congress recommended reorganization in order to eliminate a large number of useless offices. But the man who represented the district in which there were two or three Presidential offices could speak most eloquently upon the necessity of retaining them. It was only within a few yeans that we succeeded in doing that. The same was true in connection with the maintenance of certain assay offices, although there might perhaps have been mo-re justification for the position taken by those who urged their retention because the assay office was right at the place where the metal was pro- duced, and they had a better argument than the customs service. In fact, in the cuistoms service we have saved about $800',0€0 a year as a result of that reorganization, and it unquestionably is a much more effective and superior organization than under the old system. The Ciiaieman. — How many years was the old system kept up after the heads of departments recommended the change ? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Oh, they recommended changes for a good many years. I don't know how many. I think all the time I have been in Congress; we wanted to get it through four years ago. The first year I was Chairman of the Committee. Doc. 'No. 15 26 Mr. PAESoisrs. — The same is true of the pension agencies ? Mr. FiTZGEEAL'D. — The same is true of the pension agencies. We had an antiquated system by which a pension voucher was made out in the Pension Office in Washington. There were nine or ten or twelve agencies with the agent receiving from $3,500 to $4,500 a year, with an office there. Those vouchers were mailed from Washington to the agent's office and from there to the pensioner, and they were executed and returned to the agent's office and then to Washington, and then the checks were sent out. We, after a number of years, abolished the agencies and pro- vided for the adoption of the voucher checking system, so that now when a pension is due, a man is mailed his pension check, with a voucher attached, and the one act of endorsing the check, having it witnessed by two witnesses, completes the whole trans- action. And that is natural. Public opinion in a locality is very peculiar. That is the effect of public opinion that controls the action of legislatures and the representative of a community who has in that com- munity certain positions which are filled more or less upon his recommendation must be a man of very unusual political virtue to aid in the abolishing of the positions while his party is in power and his friends have the offices. (Laughter.) Mr. Low. — Mr. Fitzgerald, I gathered from what you said, and I am interested to know whether I understood you correctly, that you thought that under our American system it would be judicious to give the Executive the suggestion of a budget to be passed upon by the Legislature under conditions which would prevent the Legislature from increasing an item except by a two- thirds vote. Was that the idea you intended to convey ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — I hardly think that it would be wise to — that is, I am speaking of my experience in the Federal govern- ment — whether it would be wise at one step to completely de- prive Congress of the right to appropriate the ordinary expendi- tures of the government unless the Executive had estimated. But I would make it so difficult for them to do it, that the times they would do it would be only such occasions when there could 27 Doc. 'No. 15 not be any question that they ought to do it. I think to abso- lutely prohibit would probably be — Mr. Low. — Fatal. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — too extreme as a start ; but to make it a matter of extraordinary difficulty, because in my experience I hav« not known any embarrassment of any substantial character to come to any department of Federal govel-nment because they did not have sufficient funds. Now, when Mr. Root was Secre- tary of State, that was one department that had more trouble, perhaps, in gettting the assistance that was required, than any other department in the government, and there has in recent years been considerable reorganization and extension of the assistance given to it. I have no doubt the organization is much more effective, and yet, while it may have been annoying and difficult and embarrassing at times to the personnel of the department, no substantial interest of the country suffered as a result of it. There is something that the people forget, that it is not the personal inconvenience of the official that is of much moment. I don't worry so much beeaxise men in the executive departments complain that they cannot get home to dinner — when Congress is in session. I have to work siX' teen to eighteen hours a day, so that if the head of a great department of the government must work eight or nine or ten or eleven hours a day, it is the best indication he is doini; his work properly, because he has to take some time to think if he is going to do his business and he cannot spend his time away from his work; I don't mean in his office, but the heads of the departments in our Federal system must do considerable work apart from the time they spend in their office hours, or the departments are not conducted by them; they are conducted by somebody else. Now, it may embarrass, and there are times, T have no doubt, when there is great personal inconvenience and perhaps personal hardship iipon some employe of the government because of the failure of Congress to do some one thing or an- other; but no substantial interest of the government suffers, as far as T have known, because, after all, of course it is something' that 'is lost sight of, as soon as a man is elected to Congress. Doc. No. 15 28 Members of Congress are just ordinary human beings, about the- average in intelligence and capacity of the people they represent and they do not change when they go to Washington. They are just as anxious to provide the government v?ith the means and the facilities to have it properly conducted, and they do to the best of their ability do that. Of course, there are always differ- ences of opinion, but they do manage to provide the means and facilities. Ait times a department may be a little hampered, some official may be required to dm^ote more time than could reasonably be expected to his work, but there is always adequate means of handling the work. Of course, this question arises,, and that is on a question of broad policy, whether some activity of the government shall enter upon some activity or perform some function that has not been undertaken, and the head of a department may be very keen to have it do it. He may be very enthusiastic about it, and may be disappointed that Congress does not do that, but then that is a matter to be determined by the legislative body, and, while he may be disappointed, the legis- lative body must assume the responsibility for the failure to extend the activities of the government in the way proposed. Mr. Low. — That is precisely what the Legislature is for, isn't it? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — That is our theory of government. We may not be very suoeessful at it at times, but that is our theory, and that is where the responsibility should be, ^and I have never had much sympathy with the proposal that the legislative body should be merely a ratification meeting and that everything that an Executive proposes in the matter of legislation, however it may catch the popular fancy, must be approved by the Legisla- ture or else they are a lot of debauched, corrupt and incompetent men, because I have seen Executives who have been misled at times, and they have lived to repent and to rejoice that the Legislature was obstinate. Me. Parsons. — As far as the Federal government is con- ceirned, would you have the budget made up by the Executive in connection vnth the river and harbor improvements and public buildings and so on, all those things ? 29 Doc. No. 15 Mr. FiTZGEEAi.D. — Well, I would very radically change our method of public buildings. We don't provide public buildings for the public service. (Laughter.) In the great mass of cases, we provide them to meet certain political exigencies of a locality. You might as well be perfectly frank about that. Congress has authorized public buildings that cannot be completed within six years. Some cannot be completed within four or five years after they are authorized, unless -we very greatly augment the capacity of the supervising architect's office to turn out public buildings. 'Now, we spend about $20,000,000 a year for public buildings. The supervising architect's office is geared to turn out about $12, 000,000 a year, it claims. Up to about 1900 we had authorized from the beginning of the govern- ment about four hundred and some odd public buildings, I think. Since that time we have authorized about 500. The Chaieman. — I saw a statement that in 1909 Congress appropriated $20,000,000 for post offices which the Postmaster- Ceneral had not recommended. Mr. Fitzgerald. — Well, of course, he nover recommends post offices at all. The Chaikman. — Well, which he stated were unnecessary. Mr. Fitzgerald. — But I say the Postmaster-General does not recommend. But I don't think there is any question — they have been doing that ever since I have had any knowledge of it. This is what happens on public buildings in the Federal government: Suppose I represent a community or district which has no large city, perhaps the largest town in it may be twenty or fifteen thou- sand. I may have one or two communities like that. And none of them has a- public building; but across the line in some other district, the town of equal size, has' a public building that costs $50,000 or $75,000. ISTow, I am a candidate for office and I go in that town and in my speech I announce that I propose to have a public building put thera In most of these places, unless you have a good sized city, a thousand dollars furnishes ample for postal facilities, and then they have an authorization to buy a site. And they pay New York prices out in the sage brush country Doc. No. 15 30 for lots, ^and the govemment buys post oflSoes. And then, in a conamunity of eight or nine hundred, based upon the theory that there is a tremendous postal business, they will authorize a build- ing of fifty thousand dollars, nothing less than fifty thousand dol- lars and up. Then, in order to get a better building, a Member of Congress will pass a bill providing that there shall be a term of court held in this town, and maybe the court — the Federal Court will sit there three terms a year, and maybe it will take two days each term to do all the Federal Court business in the town; and then because a Federal Court is to sit at that town, they need a court room and additional facilities and they increase the amount to be expended in the building and some other governmental ac- tivity will be provided, and the result is that you can go all over the United States and find buildings costing from seventy-five thousand dollars to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in com- mimities ranging from one thousand to five thousand people. Mr. PoTTEE. — How will you stop that, Mr. Fitzgerald ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — Why, I would have a President who would veto a couple of those bills once in a while and we would step it. One of the things that is interesting in political history shows that they do not do it; but this is what happened to a man who had the courage to stop it: One of the charges made against Mr. Cannon when he was Speaker of the House of Representatives was that by the arbitrary exercise of his great power he refused to permit to be oonsadered a bill for which two-thirds of the members of the House had signed a petition. It was what was known as a Public Buildings bill, and they had so framed the bill and had taken care of so many members to their satisfaction that more than two-thirds of the members of the House signed a petition asking to have it considered by unanimous consent, or if he would not do that, to recognize the chairman of the committee to move to sus- pend the rules and pass the bill ; and, as was customary in those days when a request of that character was made of the Speaker, he took the bill and turned it over to some one who was familiar with m'atters of appropriation. This bill was turned over, I think, to the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and sub- mitted to analysis by some men who were experts in these matters, 31 Doc. Xo. 15 and they made a report as to what this bill proposed to do, and when Mr. Cannon found out the character of the buildings and the kinds of places that it was proposed to expend twenty odd million dollars, he notified the chairman of the committee that he would not recognize him to suspend the rules. It was in his discretion under the rules to recognize him, and there was a controversy, and he said, " I will not recognize any one to move to suspend the rules to pass that bill, but if two-thirds of this House has the cour- age of its convictions, as indicated in that petition, it can remove me as Speaker, and put in a Speaker who will acquiesce in their wishes and pass the bill." (Laughter.) And the bill was not passed. Now, that is one of the things, strange to say, for which he was so severely condemned, for the arbitrary exercise of power in which he had denied to the House of Representatives as expressed in the signatures of more than two-thirds, an opportunity to con- sider the bill. The Chaieman. — That story suggests that in order to accom- plish the reform which you mentioned, it may be necessary to raise that two-thirds point a little bit higher. Mr. Fitzgerald. — No. The veto power is very effective. Mr. Paesons. — • Well, there was a rule, was there not — That is, under the rules of the House of Eepresentatives, it takes a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules, and there was a case where they passed the River and Harbor Appropriation Bill under the suspension when it was not read at all, without any chance of amendment. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Those things will be done, any way, but it would be very unlikely if a bill like the one I have described were passed and were afterwards vetoed by the President, and in his veto message he pointed out his reasons, it would be very unlikely — in fact, it would be impossible to get the necessary votes to pass that bill over his veto. The Chaieman. — The publicity which it would get there would have weight, of course. Doc. No. 15 32 Me. Eitzgehald. — You have got to have courage first, in some place, and then proper publicity.. Me. Lincoln. — Under your plan of .budget, the budget is to go from the executive to the House of Representatives? Mr. PiTZGEEALD. — Well, under our law, all estimates are transmitted to the House of Eepresentatives by the Secretary of the Treasury, the heads of departments and independent estab- lishments that do not happen to be under a head of a department, by the 15th of October; must be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. He is required to classify them, arrange them properly, and if they are not presented properly, to arrange them. If the estimates are not presented he must prepare them, and there are certain requirements of the statute requiring that they must submit reference to the statute a,uthorizing the particular expenditure, and where it is found. That comes in what is known as a book of estimates. Me. Lincoln. — My point was this : The House of Repre- sentatives under your plan, I believe, may lower but not increase the recommendations of the Executive. Is that correct ? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — • Yes. Me. Lincoln. — Well, then, what becomes of it when it goes, to the Senate? They may only lower but not increase the ap- propriations of the House? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Well, under that plan the Senate ought to be bound by the same rule that they might recommend within the estimates submitted, but should not have a right to include things not estimated, because I would sooner give the House the larger power than the Senate on these matters, but one House should not have a power in that respect that the other does not have. The Chaieman. — Your plan involved having both houses bound by the same rule? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — • By the same rule, because if the Senate could increase or amend in regard to the recommendations you would simply transfer to the Senate all legislative power, or if 33 Ddo. No. 15 the House had that power aind the Senate did not, it would com- pletely emasculate the powers of the other body. Mr. Lincoln. — Would that be final, if the Senate raised the appropriations made by the HoUse up to the amount, we will say, the Executive has proposed — is that final in yoar plan? Mr. Fitzgerald. — No ; when that is done, the procedure is this: The House passes a bill. It goes to the Senate, is con- sidered in a committee and may be amended there, or, when it finally passes the Senate, is passed with certain amendments. Then the bill, with the Senate amendments, comes back to the House. Now, the House can agree to those amendments. If it agrees, they pass the bill. If not, it disagrees with them, it sends them back, and the Senate either insists on its amendments and asks the House to appoint managers to confer, or recedes from its amendments. They appoint conferees, three members from each house, and they meet and adjust their differences the best they can. They must have a complete agreement and have the House ratify the agreement which is made in the other body. Mr. Lincoln. — You find that Conference Committee worked satisfactory ? I don't meam you — but is that a satisfactory method ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — It is the only way you can adjust the differences. It must be. It is the recognized known parliamentary method when two houses are in difference. If the two houses are in difference they appoint managers or representatives and they meet and agree upon something. Either one side yields to the other, or they oompromise the difference, and then the two houses must ratify that compromise. And then that becomes a final law. Mr. C. NicoLL. — You said there were eight committees that made appropriations. "What are they ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — Why, we have the Committee on Agri- culture which has the agricultural bill. The Committee on Military Affairs has the army bill ; that is the bill for the support of the mobile army, and has the military academy bill. The Doc. ISTo. 15 34 Naval Committee has the naval bill. The 'Committee on Indian Affairs has the bill for the support of the Indian Service. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has the Diplomatic Service bill for the support of diplomatic and consular service. The Committee on Appropriations has the legislative, executive and judicial, all the deficiency bills, the District of Columbia bill, the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill, and the Pension Appropriation bill. The Committee on Rivers and Harbors appropriate for rivers and harbors. Mr. C. NicoLL. — And the public buildings. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — I think those are the eight. Mr. C. jSTicoll. — Well, is the eomference between you all ? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Well, vi^hat happens is this : The estimates for the ISTaval Establishment, excepting the JSTaval Establishment in Washington, that is, the administrative department, go to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Well, they pay no attention to hov7 much revenue we are going to have. That Committee has jurisdiction of the legislation for the Navy. Now, if they rec- ommend and pass a bill to extend the activities in some way of the Navy Department, when it comes to recommend money to carry out the service, why, they are in sympathy with the depart- ment head as to the amount required. The Committee on Ap- propriations has no legislative jurisdiction. We cannot recom- mend any legislation of any kind. We only can consider the estimates for money for some service which is authorized by law. Mr. C. NiGOLL. — Don't these Committees get together for the purpose of making their appropriations according to the revenues ? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — No. We tried it informally, to get the Chairman of these Committees together and agree, but every Committee but the Committee on Appropriations, insisted that there was no way by which they could reduce the sums appro- priated for their departments, so the economies had to be eff'ected by the Committee on AppTopriations. I have a statement which will show ihow that works out in one of these speeches. I put 35 Doc. No. 15 those tigTires in. This is a statement I made on the 15th of March of this year. The total appropriations made in the seven annual appropria- tion acts excluding river and harbor budgets, because they are not for the conduct of any branch of the service and prepared by the Committees on Agriculture, Military Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Naval Affairs, Indian Affairs — Post Office and Post Roads v?as the other Committee — respectively for the four year period 1913 to 1916, amounted to $2,265,000,000 ; for the cor- responding four year period from 1909 to 1912 they amounted to $1,979,000,000, an increase of $286,000,000. Wow, the estimates submitted for the period 1913 to 1916, on which they were based, amounted to $2,264,000,000, or $11,- 515,000 less than Congress actually appropriated. Outside com- mittees in the four years appropriated for those departments $11,50€,000' more than the departments said they wanted. The appropriations made in the fall regular appropriation not including the Pension Act, and including all deficiency acts which were prepared by the Committee on Appropriations, which has a number of these bills, for the four year period of 1913 to 1916, amounted to $718,000,000, and for the corre- sponding period 1909 to 1912, to $799,000,000, a reduction actually made during the latter period under the earlier period of $81,000,000, or about ten per cent. The estimates submitted to Congress during the period 1913 to 1916, on which those acts were based, amounted to $819,000,000, or $100,950,000 more than Congress actually appropriated, so that the Committee on Appropriations in the four years recommended appropriations in the bills that it had control of $100,000,000 less than the de- partments asked for, while these other Committees combined made them $11,500,000 more than they asked for. Now, I can give you an expert's explanation o fwhy that hap- pens. I put it in a speech I had. A man interested in the de- partment was complaining that the service in which he was in- terested did not get liberal appropriations and he undertook to sihow why, and it is the most illuminating statement that has ever been made. Dr. Harlan Updegraff, of the Bureau of Education, in the Doc. No. 15 36 American School Board Journal' of May, 1912, -was explaining the failure of the Bureau of Education to obtain large appropria- tions, and he said: " If, during the past forty years, the Commissiou'er of Educa- tion had been granted lump-sum appropriations from which he eould have paid salaries fairly commensurate with those paid by local public and private agencies throughout the United States, and had it been possible for him to set aside proper amounts for traveling expenses, the bureau would have made a far greater im- press upon educational policy and practice. In consequence of the higher appreciation which would have resulted, it is also quite probable that the Congress would have increased its appropriations from year to year until their magnitude would have become more nearly commensurate with the high regard in which all Ameri- eans hold their public schools. " However, there is an underlying cause for this situation in the business procedure of each of the houses of Congress. Under this procedure the estimates for some departments are acted upon by their friends at court, while the estimates for other departments are passed on by a tribunal whose main object is economy. All appropriation bills for the Department of Agriculture are pre- pared in the House Committee on Agriculture, and are reviewed in the Senate by the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. This same practice also holds with the appropriations for the diplomatic service, the military service, the naval service, and the postal service. On the other hand, the appropriations for the other branches of the Executive Department are prepared by the Committee on Appropriations of the House and are referred by the Senate to its committee of like name. Quite naturally the at- titude of these Committees on Appropriations toward the esti- mates submitted by their respective branches of the Executive De- partment is distinctly different from that shown by the committees which recommend the appropriations for a single department or bureau. Members of the latter class of committees have their at- tention centered on one particular set of governmental activities, which they hold in growing appreciation as their knowledge of the work increase. On the other hand, members of the Com- mittees on Appropriations have their attention divided among 37 Doc. 'No. 15 several departments and independent offices and oommissionB, all of which are more or less desirous of increased funds. Strong at- tachment to the work of any branch of the government service is not fostered by such a condition. Moreover, the numerous in- sistent demands that oome upon them develop a controlling idea in the minds of those Appropriations Committees - — not the great good that may oome to the people through any branch of the serv- ice, but rather the desirability of cutting appropriations to the lowest possible limit in order that the party in power will not be held aocoTintable for large expenditures. In brief, all the appro- priations for the Department of Agriculture, and the principal appropriations for the War, Navy and Post Office Departments, are in the hands of their friends, while those of the remaining government offices must come before a tribunal, the chief aim of which is to keep the total appropriations, including those framed by the special committees, within certain fixed limits. It follows from this that the liberal appropriations recommended by the special committees have a tendency to lower the appropriations for the other departments, which are drawn directly by the Ap- propriations Committees. Had the estimates of the Commisisioner of Education during the past forty years been referred in the House to the Committee on Education and in the Senate to the Committee on Education and Labor there would undoubtedly be to-day a far different story to tell. If such a reform in the pro- cedure of the House could be carried out to-day, an increased participation of the National government in the education de- velopment of the country would probably result." He is absolutely correct, if the appropriations for any par- ticular department of the government were confined to a com- mittee that had to appropriate for no other department of the government; the expenditures were greatly increased, and that was predicted with unerring accuracy in 1879. In that period Mr. Garfield — at that time expenditures of the Federal govern- ment were about $30O,O00,000', and they were proposing to dis- tribute these appropriation bills. And Mr. Garfield, then in the- House of Representatives, said : " Let me state that the proposition to divide the Committee on Appropriations, to scatter its bills as suggested, and as was Doc. No. 15 38 once moved, indeed is, in my judgment, although I think it is not pending, an utterly ridiculous proposition, I believe it would cost this government $20,000,000 if the appropriations were scattered to the several committees. * * * I do say, sir, with- out the slightest question in my own mind of the truth of the statemeait, that the scattei'ing of these appropriations as suggested by the gentlemen here will be absolutely breaking down all econ- omy and good order and good management of our finances. It can not be otherwise." Those predictions were borne out by what resulted following the distribution in 18'85. And the same result followed in the Senate. Mr. Pelleteeau. — May I ask a question ? If the introduc- tion of all bills containing an appropriation were confined to the lower House, would or would it not be in the interests of the State that such appropriation be not increased in the Senate ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — If they were all confined to on« body Mr. Pelleteeau. — If the introduction were confined to the lower House. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — That would be a radical departure from — Mr. Pelleteeau. — Yes. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — from the underlying theory of the system of government, of Federal system, of State government. Our legislative department of government has been erected upon the theory that the two Houses should have equal legislative powers, and I doubt whether — Mr. Pelleteeau. — Wouldn't that stop log rolling between the lower House — Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — No, I think not. Where that is in force, it is in the parliamentary system of government where the House of Lords now cannot do very much with the supply bills. But the overwhelming controlling reason for that is that the Commons directly represent the people and the minute they reject the im- portant proposals of the government, the government must appeal 39 Doc. No. 15 to the people. It makes a tremendous difference in the opera- tion of the two systems of government. And I think one of the great difficulties that has been encountered in the attempts that have been made to work out systems that will improve conditions in our country, has been the fact that too many of those that have been studying and proposing these changes, have become enamored of the parliamentary system, or the system in vogue in the parliamentary government. They are trying to engraft on our system conditions irreconcilable with our system of govern- ment. There the executive department is so intimately related to the legislative department of the government, and it is so directly responsive to the will of the country, it makes a big difference. We have a situation, for instance, where we will elect a Governor for two years and a Senate for two years, and we may in the middle of his term change the political conaplexion of the lower body, and we must try and so adjust our arrangements as to safeguard against an absolute deadlock, and imder these circum- stances the Assembly might refuse to recommend appropriations that properly should be made. Now, the Senate, in that instance, would be the safeguard, because it would compel an adjustment by amendment. If the two bodies of the Legislature were politically the same, and different from the Executive — if the Legislature refused to make the appropriations that the Executive demanded, believed essential, it would be easy to fix responsibility upon one of the parties. But we might have that situation where the lower body would be of one political complexion and the Executive and the upper body of the same but different from the lower body, and you have a very unfortunate condition from the standpoint of the public, however pleasant it might be from the standpoint of a man active in political management. I think that what we should try to do is to more emphatically fix responsibility for the initiation upon the Executive, and try to emphasize to the Legislature the im- portance of its duties, and simply put the checks that now be- come necessary upon them. You see, when we consider the history of Anglo-Saxon govern- ment the Commons were never granting eiupplies to the Crown Doc. ISTo. 15 40 that it did not want. There was a continuous struggle on the part of the Crown to get grants from the people, and the people to secure concessions and rights from the Crown, and they bar- tered one thing for the other. The Commons would not give the Crown its necessary grant of supplies unless it would remedy certain grievances. We have not that situation. Our Legisla- tures are not trying to get the Exeicutive to give certain redress to the country or certain relief, ^and it is the dif&culty of trying to take a system based upon that underlying principle of govern- ment and engraft it on ours which is so different, which sepajrates distinctly and completely the three departments of government. What should be done, in my opinion, is taking our present system, to have a proper appreciation of the evils that have grown up, and direct remedies to the correction of the evils that have grown up; not to attempt to completely reconstruct a new system, and tear down and wipe out the existing one. Mr. Wagner. — I was going to ask you whether you believed that the other elective officers of the State should also be dependent upon the judgment of the Executive 'as to the ^appropriation® which they asked for. Mr. Fitzgerald. — That is one of the difficulties that arise under our present State government, and it differentiates this situation completely from the situation in the Federal government. In the Federal government, the President selects the heads of his departments, and it is his administration. Now, under our exist- ing Constitution and present ballot, we might very easily have an Executive and several important State officials belonging each to a different political party. Mr. Wagner. — That has happened recently in the State. Mr. Fitzgerald. — Yes ; it happened, but there might be — it would be more easy under our aiew ballot. You might have a man representing either political party in the State government, and that is one of the difficulties to which I have given a good deal of thought to try and work out a solution. We always make a mis- take as soon as we yield to this suggestion that you can trust the Executive. Now, that is the common expression in the Legislative 41 Doo. No. 15 body -when you want to make a recommendation. You can trust the Executive. You can't do it safely. I am not talking about the particular polities of any man, but that is the greatest mistake that is made. You cannot trust the man to forget all his political skill and education and to ignore his political associates and his environment. I would not trust any Executive any further than would be necessary. I would mark out the law so distinctly that he must follow it, and make him administer that law. If you give him wide administrative powers and as you do, you get further and further away from our whole system of government, and the Federal statutes are full of these laws regarding estimates and appropriations and submissions due entirely to the fact that Con- gress has inevitably found it necessary to compel the Executive Department of the government to follow certain definitely laid down lines. The Chairman. — The point of that, you mean, Mr. Fitzgerald, is that if an attempt was made to carry out the suggestions that you have made here this afternoon, and to impose upon any officer in the executive the responsibility of preparing a budget, you mean that ought to be done so precisely as to make it his duty and to leave no possibility of discretion. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Ycs, and what I say about trusting the Ex- ecutive was this: Just for the sake of argument, suppose you had a Republican Governor, a Democratic Comptroller and a Progressive or some other Attorney-General, and the Governor alone, under our system had the right to submit the estimates for the moneys required to administer the public service. No man is sufficiently superhuman, under those conditions, to be able to forget that the Comptroller is a Democrat and not a Republican, and the Attorney-General is not a Republican, or whichever it would happen to be. And he would not be in the same cloise com- munity of relationship and touch, the same notions, and he might, by his action, and the restraint you put upon the Legislature, vitally cripple the CJomptroUer's Department in the performance of very important functions. So that under our system that problem arises as to the origin of the estimates. Doc. No. 15 42 Not that I mean that men who become public officials are in any way degenerate, but the fact is that a man who is a public official is human all the time. It is not as easy to reconcile men of differ- ent political faiths, as to the a;ppropriateness of certain things in different departments under different men. The Chairman. — You realize one of the problems before the Convention is the very question whether we should not change that system so that it would make these different elective officers ap- pointive, and avoid this very possibility of divergence you have just spoken of. Is it your opinion that the two questions would interlock that question with the budget question somewhat? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Well, no. I would not like to express that. I have read something of the history of the State of New York, and concentration of the power of appointment, and I have such positive views that I don't think I ought to interject. Mr. D. NicoLL. — What difficulty is there in a Republican Governor and a Democratic Comptroller or Attorney-General on the board to make a budget? They are all engaged in trying to administer the government economically. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — The very point of objection, Mr. Nicoll, is this: That you diffuse responsibility and power. If the system could be worked out where the Executive had to stand out before the people of the State as the man responsible prim^arily for the fiscal condition of the State, you would have a situation then where if the people were grossly dissatisfied, you would know whom to hold responsible. Mr. D. NicoLL. — The Board of Estimate in the city of New York under Gaynor's administration was composed of different parties, and it often has been, don't you know ? The Chairman. — It has raised considerable difficulty. Mr. NicoLL. — Yes, but they worked something out of it. Mr. Eitzgeeal©. — But they usually, the public at least, the city of New York, usually see the Mayor more than anybody else, whether he is the responsible person or not. 43 Doc. 'No. 15 Mr. Wagneb. — Under our presait system, isn't the Governor in the end responsible for the appropriations? He has under our law the right to veto any particular item of the appro- priation bill, any small or large item, so that in the end he is the final judge of the appropriation and supply bill, and I VFas wonder- ing what difference you thought it made whether he, in initiating the appropriations, exercised his veto power, or in the end, that is, after both houses of the Legislature have acted upon it, and then he used his veto power. He exercises the power you propose to give him now in the end. You simply want him to have the power in the beginning. I was wondering what difference that would make. The responsibility is the same, as I see it. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — It makcs it in this way : That in order that a legislative body should do its work intelligently, or more in- telligently and with better results, it should have, when it starts, a concrete, definite proposal of what is required for the various de- partments and what the sources of revenues to meet those ex- penditures are. And if you don't have that at the beginning, you may be lucky enough to hit things so that they fit. But you get much better results if you could have that all in advance. The problem to get that, to prevent it being juggled at the outset and then added to, is one of the things — Mr. Wagnee. — The diificulty, I think, the financial com- mittes of the Legislature in the past has had, is the lack of knowledge as to the desirability or at least the necessity of appro- priations. Now, supposing the power of making a preliminary in- quiry was given to the Comptroller or the Secretary of the Treas- ury, as you have in the Federal government, if he were an elective ofiicer, so that he would not be one of the Cabinet members, then the question of his superiority would not arise. But here is a Comptroller and elective ofiicer directly responsible to the people. Supposing the power was given to him to make an original inquiry into all the appropriations asked for, and to transmit a report for the necessity for the appropriations, and his opinion and all the facts, to the legislative body, and upon that the Legislature is to make its. appropriations finally and then after that the Governor would again have the final veto power. Doc. No. 15 44 Mr. Fitzgerald. — Well, in the Federal system we work it a little differently, in that after the estimates are submitted, the headfe of the depaiiments and heads of the bureaus are subjected to a pretty thorough examination as to the necessity. For instance, in the last session of Congress, the Committee on Appropriations took 5,000 printed pages of testimony, and they got pretty accurate information. Anyone who has had anything to do with it knows that if there was some independent source of power, or body that could investigate along certain lines, it would be a great help. For instanofe, it is very difficult for a committee of a legislative body to know, if it is proposed to spend $300,000 for an addition to a hospital, whether $300,000 would be the proper sum, or $10'0,000 would not be ample. And if there were some place, a competent independent corps, which would first sift these various proposals and collate such information as would be valuable, it would be of immense help. From time to time it has been proposed in Wash- ington that there should be attached to the Committee on Appro- priations a permanent force which would have the power to con- tinually make investigations in the various departments and collate information for the Committee. Mr. Wagnee. — Just the things you have just mentioned. The Department of Efficiency and Economy which unfortunately in my judgment, was abolished as a department, that department was a very effective instrument in getting just that sort of informa- tion to the Legislature, which it could not get in any other way, and it discovered that a number of requests made for hospitals, for instance, were absolutely unnecessary ; in one case where they asked for the equipment, although the plans had not even been drawn for the construction of the buildings, and other extrava- gant demands which could not have been discovered by a mere asking of questions of the head of the hospital because they always have ways of justifying it. But the Commissioner of Efficiency and Economy sent inspectors around, and in that way they got first hand information, which was of great assistance to the Legislature, and I think at the present time what is needed more than anything else is just that sort of information. Mr. Fitzgerald. — I think one of the things that are perhaps most difficult at times in Congress is for men to be able to deter- 45 Doc. No. 15 mine just what ought to be done about certain matters, due en- tirely to inability to obtain information of the character that ought to be had. Sometimes it becomes very largely a guess, which is often resolved largely upon the personality of the head of a de- partment, if a man has so impressed himself upon the Committee that it is inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in situations where they assume that personal equation decides it. Others, where the committee for one reason or another is distrustful, why that may determine the refusal to grant something that perhaps should be done. But that is a detail, the working out of which is dependent somewhat on the other. There is no doubt that the most effective thing to keep an administrative ofiicer legitimately in check in the expenditure of money is the fact that what is done is checked up afterwards. I have not any doubt that from at least ten to fifteen million dollars has been saved in' the construction of the Panama Oanal as a result of the policy that was initiated. Mr. Taft was Secre- tary of War when General Goethals was put in charge of the work, and they requested the 'Committee on Appropriations to visit the Canal Zone, and personally investigate what was being done, and take the testimony on the zone, and they have been down there every year but one year, and both General Goethals, and those who are intimately acquainted with what was done, are of that opinion, that that effective close investigation and check has resulted in the elimination of waste and cutting off of things that saved 'about $15,000,000. Mr. ScHUEMAN. — I wanted to ask if I understood you aright in saying that for the Federal government, with its unitary execu- tive departments, you believe it would be an advantageous reform, if some such method of preparing the budget were adopted, as that prescribed in the law of the 'Confederate States, extracts from which you read ? Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Oh, I think I have several times expressed the opinion in the House of Eepresentatives that the power to initiate expenditures should be considerably curtailed ; that is, the individual initiative, and I think that is important. Doc. ISTo. 15 46 Mr. ScHUEMAH-. — That clause, as I understood it — they pro- vided that the executive departments should submit estimates to the Confederate legislature. Mr. Fitzgerald. — Provided that the departments could not appropriate money unless submitted by the President or the heads of departments except by a two-thirds vote. Mr. ScHUEMAJsr. — ITow, would you say that would be a wise measure of reform, for Congress, for the United States, would you think that a wise policy to adopt in a State if the State abo had a unitary executive department ? Mr. PiTZGEEALD. — -Well, of course, my experience has been limited to the Federal ■government, and I am not sufficiently in- formed as to the detailed operations of the Legislature, to ex- press an intelligent opinion. I speak from my own experience and knowledge in the other field, but it differs, the procedure differs radically, I am quite certain, in this State and in Wash- ington. Mr. ScHUEMAN. — I understand that; I understood that. I was trying to follow you. Mr. PiTZGEEALD. — I have not the slightest hesitation in say- ing that much better result would be obtained if the individual in the two houses of Congress could not initiate expenditure by increasing the amount proposed by the Executive, or proposing expenditures that the Executive did not wish, but I would not make that absolutely impossible, but would make it so difficult, and loading him down, that it would only be done under the most peculiar and extraordinary circumstances. Mr. ScHUEMAK". — I should think, then, if we had a State with a unitary executive department, the chances are that that would also be a good measure of reform, to begin with ? Mr. PiTZGEEALD. — In the State government, you have to have a check on that, that we have not in the Federal govern- ment, the veto power of the Governor over the item in the appro- priation bill. If the Legislature puts something in the Supply or Appropriation bill that is not asked, the Governor has the veto power. We do not have that in the Federal government. 47 Doc. No. 15 Mr. ScHUEMAN. — I was impressed with what you said about the importance of the Legislature having the Governor's opinion in advance. Mr. Fitzgerald.— Well, I think that is true. The man that is to appropriate the money ought to know the opinion of those who administer the service, as to what is needed and how it should be expended because without that -information they are not in a position to determine. Then when that is ex;plained they decide just what they will or will not permit the admin- istrative department to do. Mr. Parsons. — Would you approve in the Federal govern- ment that the Cabinet olScers have seats in Congress ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — I am not in sympathy with that and I don't think it would be very advantageous. I think the best article ever written favoring that was written by President Wil- son in about 1882 or 1883, in a magazine; I think it is known as the Overland Monthly or Overland Journal. He advocated that very thoroughly. But I don't see how it would help. 'Now, this is what would happen if we gave the members of the Cabinet a seat in the House of Kepresentatives. The Secretary of War to-day, for instance, would prepare an elaborate speech in favor of what he believed to be desirable reforms in the Army. And he would have the stage all set and the speech on the wires and set up on the boards throughout the country. And he would go to the House of Representatives and make a speech advocating his side of the question that would get a publicity that would be unique and nobody who answered him would be given any atten- tion whatever, and it would be the most effective way for Execu- tive coercion and domination that could be urged in the Legisla- ture of the county. Where the Cabinet members have a seat in the legislative body, you see their position is so different. They are like the chairman of a committee who had a bill. When the House of Commons resolves itself into the committee on supply and they reach the estimate of the War Department, the Secretary of War is in charge, associated with the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer of that portion of the budget, and then he is grilled and hammered, and if a proposal is made to strike out a certain grant, Doc. No. 15 48 lie must defend it, and if it is an important matter and he is de^ feated, lie submits his resignation, or it might be sufficiently im- portant to compel the whole government to go out; but just to give these members of the Cabinet a right to come in and lecture and browbeat and overawe and develop public opinion so as to coerce the Legislature, we have enough of that already and we would not get anything effective. He would have the sole right as a member of the House, and if somebody asked a question that it would be embarrassing to answer, he would exercise the right of a member of the House and decline to yield. Mr. Parsons. — In regard to your suggestion of having the Executive prepare the appropriation bill, what would you think of having the officer there to answer questions ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — He doesn't prepare the appropriation bills. He does in the parliamentary system. He prepares the appro" priation bill and he brings it in and must put it through, but with us he doesn't prepare the appropriation bill. Mr. Parsons. — But supposing he did, as you suggested — Mr. Fitzgerald. — Then you completely revolutionize our system of government. You are intermingling the Executive and the legislative branch, and you are breaking down one of those divisions we consider essential. The Chairman. — I think what Mr. Parsons suggested was this: Suppose with a view to making the estimates which you just stated were apt now to be so high and irresponsible, suppose Congress assumed the power to call the head of the department in, whose estimate it was, and to ask him questions in public on it, what effect do you think that would have upon the future re- sponsibility of the officer in making similar estimates? Mr. Fitzgerald. — I don't think it would be effective. I have sat for sixteen years in committees where five men have tried to get information out of members of the Cabinet. The Chairman. — That was not in public. Mr. Fitzgerald. — It does not make much difference. You would have 434 men in the House, and any one of them had a 49 Doc. 1^0. 15 right to question this man. It is absolutely impossible for more than one man to conduct an intelligent and illuminative examina- tion merely by the asking of a question at random here and there. I think the Secretary has seen copies o£ hearings in Congress — I have — vi^here ten or twelve men would sit — The Chaiemaist. — I have been before committees, but the trouble is they are all secret. Mr. Fitzgerald. — and the Secretary would be 'asked a question and somebody would suggest that was not fair, and somebody else would intervene and there would be three or four printed pages of controversy between the members of the Committee, and then you would find a place where the Secretary would say, " Well, gentle- men, I have prepared a written statement which fully explains this matter, and with your permission, I will put it in the record," and that is the extent of the examination. 'Now, in the Committee on Appropriations the arrangement is a little different ; by long prac- tice, which has become fixed, working with sub-committees of five a person who is called upon to give information, , is questioned by the chairman, and he conducts the investigation with slight inter- ruption until he has completed his investigation, and then any other member of the committee who wishes to bring out addi- tional information questions. But you could not bring -a member of the Cabinet into the House of Representatives and go through that. It takes sometimes three or four days in the Committee. The Chaieman. — My suggestion is that possibly the fact -that' sTich an examination was public would make the head of the de- partment better prepared. Mr. FiTZGEEAUD. — They lare all printed. It doesn't have any effect on them, and the advantage of the man who has the floor in the legislative body over the unfortunate individual who tries to ask him questions is so great that that would be the most enjoyable part of the day's work for the member of the Cabinet, to come down and show the members of the legislative body how very little they did know. And it would get so that it would be only the un- usual crank or pestiferous individual who would have the temerity to question the head of the department, because nobody wishes, Doc. No. 15 50 unless his skin is pretty thick or lie had reached that stage where he doesn't appreciate it, to be humiliated by smart answers of some one, or by the asking of a question which can be answered in such a way that the mere manner in which it is answered, although the language is not offensive, is so completely demoralizing to the questioner that he subsides. And then again, very frequently in these investigations, even the best tempered men like myself have our tempers rufSed in the committee room and the clashes are very keen and usually adjusted, but some of them would precipitate a riot if they occurred in the House of Eepresentatives. Another thing would be, that after the novelty of the thing wore off, why, you could not get a corporal's guard to hear the great majority of the members of the Cabinet answer questions in the House. A baseball game would break the meeting up for lack of a quoiTun. And it comes dovson to this : That a great body is in- effective to do that detail work, and it must be done by a compara- tively few persons who will concentrate to do their work. 'Now, if a member of a Cabinet brought in an appropriation bill, and had charge of the bill, and was questioned on the floor, and reached an item, and a motion was made to strike out the paragraph, for he is not in a position to brusquely refuse to an- swer questions, must justify that or have it voted out on him you have an entirely different proposition. But just to make the statements, I have known members of the Cabinet who would paint such a glowing picture in the estimates they would present, and then escape from any real questioning or • investigation that I think the resnlt would be worse than at present. Mr. Paesons. — Presumably you would have the examination by the Committee first. But doesn't it sometimes happen in the House of Representatives that there is a difference of opinion between the members of the Committee and other members of the House as to just what the Cabinet officers did mean, and in those circumstances wouldn't the House be aided by having the Cabinet officer there to be heard in response to questions by the whole House? Mr. Fitzgerald. — Well, I have known that to happen, that members of a Committee were under suspicion of attempting to 51 Doc. Xo. 15 do something detrimental to the public service. Probably I have been in that position myself, but I knov? that some men have complained that certain examinations in the Committee on Appropriations reminded theon of a criminal being cross-examined by his own attorney and the judge, as well as the prosecuting officer; but it has always been under circumstances where the members of the Committee radically differed with the head of the department or attempted to obtain information which they believe exists, and that the member of the department is reluctant to give'. Mr. Paesosts. — I didn't mean to suggest the Committee was under suspicion. Mr. Fitzgerald. — It is a fact, though. Mr. Paksons. — I didn't mean to suggest that. It is very diffi- cult sometimes for a person who had not been in the Committee to find out just what the Cabinet officer had intended. You men- tioned a moment ago that a great many questions would be asked, and finally the thing would be cleared up by a written statement he would present. -Sometimes he has not written a statement, and you have to make up your mind as to what he meant from the hearing as printed. And it is very difficult at times. Mr. FiTZGEEALD. — Of course, if the object is to make it cer- tain that a head of a department will get all the money he thinks he ought to have, that will help him very materially. But that is not the evil that every one complains of. In spite of all the supposed handicaps under which the department labors, our ex- penditures every one concedes are excessive, greater than they should be. Now, if you permit the head of the department in ad- dition to all the other ways he has of influencing the members of committees in Congress to come in on the floor of the House un- der conditions in which he is able to create a public opinion, whether correct or incorrect, in order to do what? In order to defeat the recommendations of a Committee that is trying to protect the public treasury. That is the only thing. That is what it is. No one suggests it is necessary in Congress for the head of the department to come in, in order to get the things the Doc. JSTo. 15 52 Committee recommends; but it is to help him to get the things the Committee refuses to recommend. By the tim.e they got finished, there would not be much left to distribute. Mr. Pelletbeau. — Mr. Fitzgerald, if the Governor should be clothed with the power to submit a statement to the Legislature, wouldn't it be wise that there be an official or bureau performing the functions of Commissioner of Efficiency and Economy, I thinlv it was called, under the control of the Governor, appointed by him, and answerable to him ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — ISTo ; I should taie it away from the Gov- ernor. It ought to be independent. It ought to be for the benefit of the legislative body, not the ^administrative body. They have all the knowledge and souroes of information they need. What is needed, if anything is needed, are independent means of infor- mation- for the legislative body. That has been the experience I have had in the Federal government. Mr. Pelleteeatj. — Then I understand you to say there should be such an official or bureau — ■ Mr. Fitzgerald. — JSTo ; I say anything that aids in furnishing information — the experience in Congress is that it would very materially help the committees in Congress if there was some force or body responsible and answerable to the House that would obtain information independently; not that the departments and the men in them are dishonest, but there is frequently room for a very wide difference of opinion as to the advisability or propriety of doing a thing one way or another, and the most effective check is the obtaining of information from independent sources. The Chairman. — Don't feel that you must stand up, Mr. Fitzgerald, you have been standing a long time. Mr. Fitzgerald. — I just as soon stand. Mr. ScHURMAW. — Have you some extra copies of that speech ? Mr. Fitzgerald. — I have promised to send some to the Chair- man. The Chairman. — What is that ? 53 Doc. No. 15 Mr. Fitzgerald. — I said I would send you some of those speeches. The Chairman. — I hope you will. We will be very glad to get them. Have any of the members of the committee any further ques- tions to ask Mr. Fitzgerald? I am sure that I voice the sentiments of every member of the Committee in telling you, Mr. Fitzgerald, that we are very much obliged to you for coming and for what you have told us in refer- ences to the operations of the Federal Congress, and I feel certain it will be of great usefulness in the deliberations of the Committee. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 16 REPLY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO RESOLUTION OF THE CONVENTION STATE OF NEW YORK Office of the Attoenby-Geneeal Albany, June 24, 1915 Hon. Elihu Root, President of the Constitutional Convention, Capitol, Albany, N. Y.: Deae Sir. — Some time ago there was transmitted to this department a copy of the resolution of the Constitutional Convention : " That the Attorney-General be requested to furnish to this Convention, with all convenient speed, the following infor- mation relative to matters pending before the Court of Claims : " 1. The number of claims pending, classified by the years in which the claims were filed. " 2. The amount involved in the claims so filed, also classi- fied by years. " 3. The number of claims adjusted without recourse to Doc. No. 16 2 the Court of Olaims or Board of Claims in ©ach year of the last five years. " 4. The total amoiunt paid by the State in satisfaction of claims in each year of the last five years. " 5. The geographical distribution of pending claims, stated by comities. " 6. A clas'sifieation of pending claims by mmiber and amount involved, showing: " a. Claims arising from appropriations made by the State in the course of the Barge canal improvement. " b. Oases on contract growing out of the Barge canal improvement." Accompanied you will please find charts (by counties) upon which are registered the number of pending claims classified by years, the nature of the claims and the amount claimed up to May 1, 1915. You will also find charts showing the classification of claims by counties, the character of claims by coiinties, the number of claims and the amount claimed as of all claims now pending in the Court of Claims in the State as a whole. The resolution requested classification of pending claims by number and amount, showing claims arising from appropriations and because of contracts in coimiection with the Barge canal improvement. The data furnished not only shows this character of information concerning the Barge canal, biit concerning the old canal and other classifications which are enumerated here- inafter, viz. : Old Canal: Number Amount A. Leakage and overflow 66 $97,247 65 B. Damage 3 4,876 00 0. Claims, services 120 27,000 28 Total, old canal 189 $128,623 93 Baege Canal: A. Permanent appropriations 865 $51,086,312 78 B. Water rights 38 3,205,719 25 C. Leakage and overflow 662 1,017,012 41 I' Doc. No. 16 Number Amount D. Contracts 37 $3,570,342 77 E. Negligence 151 565,554 34 F. Pollution, streams 2 42,515 71 G. Closing navigation 2 61,102 30 H. Damage to boats 13 16,510 95 Total, Barge canal 1,770 $59,565,070 51 Total, both canals 1,959 $59,693,694 44 Highways : A. Contracts 22 $698,740 10 B. Damage 5 14,635 00 C. Highway damage 2 11,462 26 D. Pro rate bond tax 1 122 00 E. Permanent appropriation. ... 1 150 00 Total, highways 31 $725,109 36 State Eeseevations : A. Permanent appropriations ... 7 $294,052 00 B. Use of land and water 1 400 00 C. Appropriation, timber 2 82,053 17 D. Damage by animals 8 3,270 27 Total, State reservations. . . 18 $379,775 44 Miscellaneous Claims : A. Negligence B. Contract C. Damage D. Excise , E. Salaries, employees F. Loss of property 6. Failure to deliver goods bought at public sale 1 82 50 79 $495,246 66 22 638,073 19 14 90,771 03 1 11,460 00 9 19,094 83 1 200 00 Doc. ]^o. 16 Number Amount H. County taxes on railway bonds 5 $20,407 84 I. Taxes 2 4,922 64 J. Refund of money occasioned by erroneous affixture of stock transfer stamps 297 605,097 66 K. Refund of money erroneously deposited by county treas- urer, Kings county 1 3,485 35 Total, miscellaneous claims 432 $1,888,837 19 The classification above stated is particularly set out as to the individual character of claims in accordance vpith the resolution, by counties, each county, as stated above, carrying all the infor- mation under a separate pamphlet. For the purpose of explana- tion, however, it would suifice to state that the general classifi- cations referred to above furnishes the following information : No. of claims Amount Old Canal 189 $128,623 93 Baege Canal 1,770 59,565,070 51 Total, canals 1,959 $59,693,694 44 Highways 31 725,109 36 State Reseevations 18 379,775 44 MiscELLANEors 432 1,888,837 19 Grand total 2,440 $62,687,416 43 The classification of claims in subdivisions above set out is in some instances not without criticism. • The classification of the subdivisions under the general classification of miscellaneous claims seems to me could more comprehensively be covered by four subdivisions, such as negligence, contract, damage and taxes. Under such classification the classification of taxes would cover 5 Doc. Xo. 16 any payment required by the State for local improvements to State property, erroneous taxes, etc. The same is applicable to some other classifications. However, I am submitting for your consideration the classifications in the manner in which they are found. This same criticism perhaps should be made of the classifi- cation throughout. Nevertheless the charts are comprehensive in their essentials, referring to the nature of claims, particularly in connection with the canals, which appears to be the principal business of the Court of Claims. On the whole, the matter of the resolution is more particularly discussed than was requested. The magnitude of the work in assembling -data as required in the resolution required the use of arbitrary charts and it has been found necessary to furnish the copy by manuscript rather than by type. The only information not furnished upon the charts is that requested under subdivisions 3 and 4 of the resolution. Subdivision 3 of the resolution follows, viz. : " 3. The number of claims adjusted without recourse to tho Court of Claims or Board of Claims in each year of the last five years." Number of claims adjusted without recourse to the Board of Claims or Court of Claims for the past five calendar years and from January 1 to June 1, 1915 : YEAR Agreements Amount of settlement 1910 233 $1,639,769 97 These agreements cover 318 separate parcels of land on 36 different Contracts. 1911 333 1,741,955 03 These agreements cover 392 separate parcels of land on 51 different Contracts. 1912 326 1,480,466 51 These agreements cover 386% separate parcels of land on 46 different Contracts. 1913 255 645,642 23 These agreements cover 300 separate parcels of land on 54 different Contracts. 1914 212 854,785 71 These agreements cover 259 separate parcels of land on 60 different Contracts. Included in this number of settlements are 13 agreements covering 14 parcels of land appro- priated for Barge canal terminals the amount of settlement for which vi^as $265,392.06. These agree- ments cover 8 different terminal Contracts. Doc. No. 16 6 YEAR Agreements Amount of settlemen 1915, Jan. 1-June 1. . 51 $38,831 21 These agreements cover 68 separate parcels of land on 27 different Contracts. Included in this number of agreements are thr^ agreements covering three parcels of land appropri- ated for Barge canal terminals, the amount of settle- ment for which was $333.18. These settlements cover two different terminal Contracts. Subdivision 4 of the resolution, viz,: " The total amount paid by the State in satisfaction of claims in each year of the last five years," ending December 1, 1914: 1910 $257,034 40 1911 745,961 35 1912 516,055 44 1913 1,328,217 92 1914 1,039,955 13 |3.SS7.i?:?4 24 The claims paid in the course of these rears have oessx, wben. particularly discussed as to the character of the fund pajinent, from the following funds : General. Old Canal, Bai^ Canal, and TerminaL Suhdi vision of Resolution Affecting the Department of the A ttorney-General The resolution further requested, viz. : ''' Further resolved. That the Superintendent of Public Works, the State Engineer and Surveyor and the Attorney- General transmit to the Convention, at liieir earliest con- venience, the following information relating to matters pend- ing and disposed of during each of the ten y^irs last past, before the Courts of Claims and the Boards of Claims, so far as such information shall be of record in their respective ofEces, viz. : " 1. The amounts paid in each year to officers, employees, agent=. investigators and representatives of suoh depart- ments, respectively, for services, fees, expenses and disburse- ments in relation to matters before said courts or boards. 7 Doc. No, 16 ' 2. The amounts paid or incurred for services, fees and expenses of witnesses, consulting experts, special counsel and otherwise in relation to matters before said courts or boards." Item No. 1 of this subdivision is fully answered by the infor- mation that there is in this department a Court of Claims bureau which until the 1st of January, 1915, consisted of the foUovring officers and employees at the salaries hereinafter set out: Deputy Attorney-General $5,000 Deputy Attorney-General 3,500 Attorney, Board of Claims bureau 3,000 Stenographer and record clerk 1,800 Total, salaries $13,300 The character of the work in this bureau of the office and the demands upon the department have been such- that from time to time other deputies, as required by the Attorney-General, have assisted with the work in the Court of Claims. The second deputy (salary, $6,000) in the administration ended January 1, 1915, devoted practically full time to cases involving matters of water power, contract cases, etc. The matter of the expenses of these men it is estimated would total between $2,000 and $3,000 per annum. The expenses of experts, witnesses, etc., in cases affecting canals have been taken care of by the agent in the office of the Superintendent of Public Works, and this chairacter of information will be furnished by his department. The matter of other experts would average $1,000 per annum. At the present time in the effort which this department is making to relieve the congested condition of the calendar in the Court of Claims, there are six Deputies Attorney-General regu- larly assigned to the Court of Claims, salaries totaling $28,000. The expenses in this department occasioned by traveling, experts other than in canal cases, and for the printing of papers in con- nection with appeals, will require between $7,000 and $12,000 for the next calendar year. In addition to the above items, there are two other deputies whose time for the greater part is occupied Doc. ISTo. 16 8 in connection with cases in this court, salaries totaling $12,000, so that there is a general demand tipon this department for sal- aries, as estimated at this time, of $40,000. In addition to the figures above stated, permit me to state that in consideration of the demands above referred to, I have found it necessary to assign some cases, such as highway matters, etc., to other deputies in the department in order that they may be properly prepared and ready for trial at the earliest possible moment. All of which is respectfully submitted. E. E. WOODBURY, Attorney-General. 9 Doc. Xo. 16 Canal System— State of New York— Claims Pending May i, 1915 Old Canal COUNTY Leakage and overflow Damage Services, claims for overtime Total old canal No. Amount No, Amount No. Amount No. Amount 1 Albany 1 S850 00 1 $850 00 2 Bronx 3 Broome 5 Cayuga 13 7,831 00 13 7 831 00 6 Chemung 8 Clinton 9 Columbia 10 Cortland 11 Delaware 12 Dutchess 13 Erie 14 Franklin 15 Fulton 16 Genesee 17 Hamilton 500 25 67 815,373 44 68 15,873 69 19 Jefferson 20 Kings 21 Lewis 22 Livingston 23 Madison 2 4,414 00 2 1 45 4,414 00 1 S500 00 500 00 1 600 00 44 9,511 54 10,111 54 26 New York 27 Niagara 2,500 00 1 24 8 2,500 00 28 Oneida . . 24 7 23,898 75 3,163 00 23,898 75 29 Onondaga 30 Ontario 1,376 00 4,539 00 31 Orange 32 Orleans 2 1 5,200 00 450 00 2 1 5,200 00 33 Oswego 450 00 39 Schenectady.. . . 40 Schuyler 2 5 9,170 00 35,384 41 7 1,808 80 9 5 10,978 80 35,384 41 42 Steuben 43 Suffolk 46 Ulster .... 48 Washington .... 7 5,786 24 2 306 50 9 6,092 74 50 Westchester Totals 66 S97,247 65 3 $4,376 00 120 $27,000 28 189 $128,623 93 Doc. l^o. 16 10 Canal System— State of New York- Baboi COUNTY Permanent appropriations Water rights Leakage and overflow Contracts Due to the fault or negli- gence of the State No. Amount No, Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount 1 Albany 7 $813,222 50 15 $39,849 85 2 Bronx 3 Broome. . . 6 1 4,000 00 200 00 11 86,255 07 7 Chenango. . . 8 Clinton. . . . 10 Cortland 11 Delaware.... 12 Dutchess . 13 Erie... 4 1,910,397 24 1 $329 52 14 Franldin 15 Fulton 16 Genesee 5 5,660 00 17 Hamilton.. . 18 TTprWiTTipr 97 9,448,455 14 138 205,719 50 3 $270,864 02 1 22,000 00 19 Jefferson . . . . 20 Kings 21 Lewis 22 Livingston 23 Madison 1 6 1 1320 00 26,500 00 3,255 00 25 33 28 12,880 01 31,207 34 23,269 83 1 19 1 200 00 24 Monroe 25 Montgomery 26 New York 77 55 6 43 98 43 2 2,460,947 69 454,580 86 1,484,389 96 178,370 15 2,417,128 25 961,104 54 9,500 00 8 2 1,260,801 32 27,583 39 48,039 U 100 00 4 110 53 2,445 00 48,443 58 49,491 12 5 24 25 9,868 29 28 Oneida 29 Onondaga. . . 5 1 13,383 60 15,000 00 1 1 24,638 02 57,387 60 25,737 68 69,775 47 32 Orleans 92 74 1 3 1,974,520 94 9,217,491 34 1,190,187 85 5,297,367 46 7 72 10,958 14 190,843 12 2 1 247,566 36 3,799 97 3 29 2,942 68 33 Oswego 15 2,399,811 70 196,841 89 2 449,357 42 36 Rockland. . . . 37 St. Lawrence. 38 Saratoga. . .. 39 Schenectady. 44 19 4 80 4,754,090 65 1,143,300 30 83,201 10 2,492,608 08 2 1 117,230 00 573,803 03 27 55 1 50,138 94 231,883 80 3,363 00 2 53,067 80 6 18 61,799 95 35,874 03 40 Schuyler. . . . 41 Seneca 1 2,640 00 42 Steuben 43 Suffolk 44 Sullivan 45 Tompkins. . . 2 1,250 00 46 Ulster 47 Warren 1 27 76 1,750 00 1,134,672 01 3,571,621 65 3 52 17 920 00 38,572 10 7,167 08 48 Washington.. 49 Wayne 60 Westchester.. 3 3 5,032 08 61,383 84 14 1 1,046,184 52 129,093 35 13 4 82,361 00 7,044 72 865 Totals. , . . 551,086,312 78 38 83,205,719 26 062 $1,017,012 41 37 $3,570,342 77 151 $565,554 34 11 Doc. No. 16 Claims Pending May i, 1915 — Continued Canal DAUAGEB 1 To boats Total barge canal Total both canals By pollution of Btream Closing of navigation No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount 1 S760 61 23 $853,841 96 24 $854,691 96 1 ? 8 6 12 64,000 00 86,455 07 6 25 64,666 66 94,286 07 4 S A 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 1,910,726 76 5 1,910,726 76 13 14 15 8 5,660 00 5 6,660 00 16 17 239 9,947,038 66 307 9,962,912 35 IS 19 20 21 22 27 147 88 6 54 239 123 2 13,400 01 3,834,720 91 509,455 89 1,484,389 96 192,312 74 2,529,422 43 1,152,758 73 9,600 00 29 148 133 5 55 263 131 2 17,814 01 3,835,220 91 519,567 43 1,484,389 96 194,812 74 2,553,321 18 1,157,297 73 9,500 00 23 4 1 7,225 45 666 81 24 25 26 2 1 i,629 30 91 30 27 28 29 ,W ,11 2 4,283 25 106 193 1 5 2,240,275 37 12,069,890 32 1,190,187 85 5,746,724 88 ios 194 1 5 2,245,475 37 12,070,340 32 1,190,187 85 5,746,724 88 ,12 2 t61,102 30 33 34 35 .W 37 91 93 6 83 5,036,327 34 1,984,861 16 86,904 33 2,537,763 79 91 102 11 83 5,036,327 34 1,995,839 96 122,288 74 2,637,763 79 38 39 1 340 23 40 2 t42,516 71 41 42 43 44 2 1,250 00 2 1,250 00 45 46 4 110 101 2,670 00 2,308,321 71 3,766,210 64 4 119 101 2,670 00 2,314,414 45 3,766,210 64 47 1 1,500 00 48 49 50 2 $42,515 71 2 t61,102 30 13 116,510 95 1770 159,565,070 51 1959 $59,693,694 44 Doc. No. 16 12 State of New York -Claims Pending May i. 1915— Continued Highways COUNTY Contract Damage Highway damage Pro rata bond tax construction of highways Total I vTo. Amount 1 ■^0. Amount No, Amount No. Amount No. Amount 2 (306,547 57 2 (306,547 57 2 Bronx 3 Broome 4 Cattaraugus. "2 1 3 ■56!563'92 8,026 80 22,235 02 2 1 4 56,503 92 8,026 80 5 Cayuga 1 $3,000 00 25,235 00 6 Chemung . . . 7 Chenango. . . 8 Clinton 9 Columbia . . . "i ■■2S',568'44 1 28,508 44 12 Dutchess.... 1 2 5,853 74 21,504 50 2 21,504 50 14 Franklin .... 15 Fulton 16 Genesee 17 Hamilton. . . 18 Herkimer . . . "2 1 ■■47',i87'99 11,633 05 2 1 47,187 99 11,633 05 22 Livingston. . 23 Madison .... 24 Monroe ' i "i'sooioo i ■$9;566 00 "2 ■ii',666o6 25 Montgomery 27 Niagara 28 Oneida "i 1 1 i ■■■i;435'2i 301 16 26,020 72 9'583'37 1 1,025,00 ' i ' 1^96226 "i "■$i22 '66 I 1 1 ' i 3,519 47 30 Ontario 26,020 72 32 Orleans 33 Oswego 34 Queens .... ■■9'583'37 36 Rockland . . 37 St Lawrence 38 Saratoga.. . 40 Schuyler. . , 41 Seneca 42 Steuben.... 43 Suffolk 44 Sullivan . . . ' 1 132,437 OC 1 ■■7'566oc 1 1 132,437 00 7,500 00 46 Ulster 47 Warren. . . . 48 Washington ' 1 ■ iioio 6c , '. " 1.610 00 49 Wayne. . . . 50 Westchester ' '2 ' '26i96i'61 : ! 20,961 61 Totals .... 22 r. r 8698,740 IC £ $14,635 OO 2 $11,462 2e ] $122 0( ) 3( ) $724,959 36 150 00 3 I $725,109 36 13 Doc. :NTo. 16 State of New York — Claims Pending May i, 1915 — Continued State Heservations COUNTY Permanent appropriation Use of land and water by Forest, Fish and Game Commission Appropriation of timber Damage caused by animals Total No Amount No Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount 1 Albany . . . 2 Bronx . . . 5 Cayuga 8 ClintQn 2 $2,346 00 2 $2,345 00 10 Cortland... . 1 11 50 1 11 50 12 Dutchess 13 Erie 14 Franklin 1 SI, 900 00 1 1,900 00 15 Fulton 16 Genesee. .... 1 1 $1,125 00 80,928 17 1 1 1,125 00 18 Herkimer . . 80,928 17 19 Jefferson. , , . . . . . 20 Kings 21 Lewis 22 Livingston . . 23 Madison 1 $400 00 25 Montgomery 26 New York... 27 Niagara 28 Oneida 30 Ontario 31 Orange. 1 68 27 1 68 27 32 Orleans 33 Oswego 1 1 172 50 75 00 1 1 172 50 36 Rockland 75 00 37 St Lawrence 38 Saratoga 3 280,000 00 3 280,000 00 40 Schuyler 42 Steuben 43 Suffolk 254 00 1 1 254 00 45 Sullivan , 1 1,170 00 1,176 00 46 Ulster 2 10,970 00 1 344 00 3 11,320 00 7 Totals $294 ,-052 00 1 $400,00 2 182,053 17 8 $3,270 27 18 $379,775 44 Doc. No. 16 14 State of York— MlBOELLANEOUB COUNTY Injury and negligence Contract Damage Interest on excise money, City of New York Salaries due state employees for services, etc. No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No Amount 1 Albany 5 S17,539 50 6 $333,502 43 1 1 S200 00 1,700 00 1 $1,220 00 2 Bronx 4 Cattaraugus. "3 1 10,178,57 10,000 00 1 647 55 5 Cayuga 6 Chemung. . . 8 Clinton 1 1 2 5,000 00 380 50 4,225 00 'i4',2i6'66 '1"566'66 9 Columbia, . . 10 Cortland. . . . 11 Delaware. . . 3 586 00 12 Dutchess 2 8 25,137 00 64,978 64 16,323 03 4,845 00 13 Erie 15 Fulton "i ""266'66 16 Genesee 17 Hamilton. . . 73,017 06 1,842 00 2,724 94 18 Herkimer. . . 2 1 16,626 20 1,242 50 19 Jefferson 1,185 64 20 Kings 21 Lewis 150 00 22 Livingston. . 2 146,159 90 1,400 00 23 Madison 1 7 5,666 66 14,270 16 24 Monroe 2 1 1 151 55 25 00 900 00 25 Montgomery 26 New York... 1 $11,460 00 99 50 27 Niagara 2 5 17 2 4 2 1 3,305 00 23,855 op 157,070 00 21,425 00 33,942 40 3,415 00 10,000 00 28 Oneida 29 Onondaga. . . 28,650 10 2 1 82,295 98 700 00 30 Ontario 31 Orange 3,139 75 1,075 00 32 Orleans 33 Oswego 34 Queens 35 Rensselaer... 1 5,000 00 36 Rockland. . . 37 St. Lawrence 15,253 07 4,012 50 38 Saratoga 1 4 1 1 1 10,000 00 9,615 05 350 00 5,000 00 12,000 00 39 Schenectady. 40 Schuyler 41 Seneca 42 Steuben 43 Suffolk 2,309 66 44 Sullivan .... 45 Tompkins . . . 46 Ulster 1 22,691 14 500 00 48 Washington. 49 Wayne 50 Westchester. 1 1 1,000 00 2,000 00 6,838 38 Totals... 79 $495,246 66 22 $638,073 19 14 $90,771 03 1 $11,460 00 9 $19,094 82 15 Doc. No. 16 Claims Pending May i, 1915 — Continued Claims Lobs of property hired by State Failure to deliver goods bought at public sale Recovery of county taxes on railway bonds Recovery of taxes Total No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount 13 1 1 4 1 $352,461 93 1,700 00 1,770 50 10,826 12 10,000 00 1 ?, 3 4 5 6 1 $1,478 72 1 3 1 2 3 4 8 1,478 72 19,710 00 380 50 4,225 00 586 00 46,105 03 64,978 64 7 R g in 11 11? 13 14 1 200 00 1,"; 16 2 3 2 74,859 06 19,361 14 2,428 14 17 18 19 20 1 1 3 9 1 6 2 5 21 3 6 3 2 150 00 146,159 90 6,400 00 14,421 71 25 00 17,464 64 3,305 00 23,855 00 286,016 08 22,125 00 38,173 71 4,490 00 17,021 31 ?1 22 23 ?4 ?5 1 $82 50 2 $4,922 64 26 27 ?S 29 30 1 1,091 56 31 ■^9^ 1 7,021 31 33 34 1 5,000 00 35 36 1 9,173 63 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 28,439 20 10,000 00 9,615 06 350 00 5,000 00 12,000 00 2,309 66 37 .38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 - 1 1 4 1 22,691 14 500 OC 9,681 OC 2,000 OC 46 47 ] »200 OC ) 1 1,642 6S 48 49 50 1 $200 OC ) 1 $82 5C S $20,407 Si 1 2 $4,922 64 134 297 1 $1,203,254 1! 605,097 6f 3,485 3. i 1 Refund of money, Kin 432 $1,888,837 1< ) Doc. No. 16 16 State of New York— Total ClASBIPI CATION County Old canal Barge canal Total canals No Amount No Amount No. Amount 1 Albany 1 S850 00 23 $853,841 96 24 $854,691 96 2 Bronx 3 Broome 6 12 64,000 00 86,455 07 6j 64,000 00 13 7,831 00 6 Chemung 7 Chenango 8 Clinton 9 Columbia 10 Cortland 11 Delaware 12 Dutchess 13 Erie 6 1,910,726 76 S 1,910,726 76 14 Franklin 15 Fulton 16 Genesee 5 5,660 00 5 5,660 00 17 Hamilton 18 Herkimer 68 15,873 69 239 9,947,038 66 307 9,962,912 35 19 Jefferson 20 Kings 21 Lewis 22 Livingston 23 Madison 2 1 45 4,414 00 600 00 10,111 54 27 147 88 5 54 239 123 2 13,400 01 3,834,720 91 509,455 89 1,484,389 96 192,312 74 2,529,422 43 1,152,758 73 9,500 00 29 148 133 5 55 263 131 2 17,814 01 3,835,220 91 519,667 43 26 New York 1,484,389 96 194,812 74 1 24 8 2,500 00 23,898 75 4,539 00 28 Oneida 2,553,321 18 1,157,297 73 30 Ontario 9,500 00 31 Orange 32 Orleans . 2 1 5,200 00 450 00 106 193 1 6 2,240,275 37 12,069,890 32 1,190,187 85 5,746,724 88 108 194 1 5 2,245,475 37 33 Oswego 12,070,340 32 1,190,187 85 5,746,724 88 36 Rockland 37 St. Lawrence . . . 38 Saratoga 91 93 6 83 5,036,327 34 1,984,861 16 86,904 33 2,537,763 79 91 102 11 83 5,036,327 34 9 S 10,978 80 35,384 41 1,995,839 96 40 Schuyler 122,288 74 41 Seneca 2,537,763 79 42 Steuben 43 Suifolk 44 Sullivan 45 Tompkins 2 1,250 00 2 1,250 00 46 Ulster 47 Warren 4 110 101 2,670 00 2,308,321 71 3,766,210 64 4 119 101 2,670 00 48 Washington ... 9 6,092 74 2,314,414 45 3,766,210 64 49 Wayne 50 Westchester Totals 189 $128,623 93 770 559,565,070 61 1959 $59,693,694 44 17 Doc. No. 16 Claims Pending May i, 1915 — Concluded OF Claims Highways State reservations Miscellaneous Grand total No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount 2 1306,547 57 13 1 1 4 1 $352,461 93 1,700 00 1,770 50 10,826 12 10,000 00 39 1 1 12 27 5 1 3 4 2 4 5 15 1 1 5 3 313 3 1 1 1 32 160 134 308 58 271 153 5 8 111 196 1 8 1 4 95 106 12 84 1 3 2 2 4 5 124 102 2 $1,513,701 46 1,700 00 1,770 50 131,330 04 112,312 87 25,385 02 1,478 72 19,710 00 31,233 94 4,225 00 597 50 51,958 77 1.997.209 90 1,900 00 200 00 5,660 00 75,984 06 10,110,379 65 14,081 19 3,485 35 150 00 146,159 90 24,214 01 3,881,042 62 519,592 43 2,106,952 28 199,142 74 2,580,695 65 1,425,614 97 31,625 00 64,262 70 2,249,985 37 12,087,361 63 1,190,187 87 5,761,480 75 75 00 28,439 20 5,326,327 34 2,005,455 01 122,638 74 2,542,763 79 12,000 00 135,000 66 8,676 00 1,250 00 34,011 14 3,170 00 2,325,705 45 3.768.210 64 20,981 61 1 ?, 3 2 56,503 92 8,026 80 25,385 02 4 1 5 5 8 1 3 1 2 3 4 8 1,478 72 19,710 00 380 50 4,225 00 586 00 48,105 03 64,978 64 7 R 1 28,508 44 2 $2,345 66 9 10 1 11 50 11 i 5,853 74 21,504 50 12 2 13 1 1,900 00 14 1 200 00 15 16 1 1 1,125 00 80,928 17 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 9 1 303 2 5 21 3 6 3 2 74,859 06 19,351 14 2,428 14 3,485 35 150 00 146,159 90 6,400 00 14,421 71 25 00 622,582 30 3,305 00 23,855 00 268,016 08 22,125 00 38,173 71 4,490 00 17,021 31 17 2 1 47,187 99 11,633 05 18 19 20 21 m 23 2 11,000 00 1 400 00 24 25 26 1 1,025 00 3,519 47 301 16 27 3 ?.H 1 29 30 1 26,020 72 1 68 27 31 32 33 34 1 9,683 37 1 1 172 50 75 00 1 5,000 00 35 36 28,439 20 10,000 00 9,615 05 350 00 5,000 00 12,000 00 2,309 66 37 3 280,000 00 38 39 40 41 42 1 132,437 00 7,500 00 1 1 254 60 1,176 00 43 44 45 3 11,320 00 22,691 14 500 00 9,681 00 2,000 00 48 47 I 1,610 00 4S 49 2 20,961 61 .■id 31 $725,109 36 18 $379,775 44 432 $1,888,837 19 2440 $62,687,416 43 STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 17 MEMORIAL OF THE NEW YORK STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR Utica, ]Sr. Y., June S, 1915 I'd the President and Delegates to the State Constituticiial Convention: Gentlemen. — The undersigned, on behalf of the New York State Federation of Labor, representing 700,000 organized work- ers, and speaking for the unorganized, beg leave to respectfully bring to the attention of your honorable body Labor's desires in the building of our new State Constitution. Aittached to and made a part of this memorial is a coi^y of twen- ty-four propositions adopted by representatives of the Organized Labor movement of the State at a conference held in the City of Albany, May 24-26, 1915. It constitutes a Bill of Eights. We earnestly petition that it be made a part of the new State Con- stitution. It represents advanced thought. It represents the hopes and aspirations of wage-earners for better living and work- ing conditions in the future. We believe it will elevate all the people of the State to a higher plane and make equality before the law real, tangible and lasting. It will tend to beget con- fidence in government and allay industrial strife. The twenty- Doc. Ko. 17 2 four propositions are big and broad enough for all the people to stand on. We present to you this Bill of Rights confident it will receive your earnest, sympathetic consideration. That it may become a part of your finished work and be incorporated in the fimda- mental law, we shall ever pray. Respectfully submitted, HOMER D. CALL, Prest. N. Y. S. F. of L. Edwaed a. Bates, Secretary-Treasurer. For the New York State Federation of Labor. AMENDMENTS TO STATE CONSTITUTION PRESENTED TO CON- STITUTIONAL CONVENTION BY THE NEW YORK STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR Albany, May 28, 1915. 1. Resolved, That the Constitution contain a provision as fol- lows: " That the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce and the Legislature shall not enact a law and the courts shall not construe a law contrary to this declaration." 2. Resolved, That any act which any person may legally and lawfully do shall be held to be legal and lawful when done by two or more in consort. 3. Projiosing an amendment to article 1 (section 19 and new section), providing that nothing contained in the Constitution shall be construed to limit the power of the Legislature to enact laws for tlie protection of the lives, health, safety, comfort or general welfare of employees. 4. For power to enable the State to insure workers against acci- dent, sickness, invalidity, old age and unemployment. 5. To provide a State fund, to insure employers against a risk of workmen's compensation, to the exclusion of every other form of compensation insurance. 6. That there shall be a Department of Labor and a Compensar tion Commission (function separated) provided for in the Con- stitution. 7. Empowering the State and its several political divisions to 3 Doc. :Nro. 17 undertake such public works and engage in such industries, as they deem necessary to the public welfare for the purpose of re- lieving distress from unemployment or other extraordinary emer- gencies. 8. Abolish the power of the courts to nullify laws regularly passed by the Legislature or the voters of .the State by means of referendum on the ground of alleged unconstitutionality. 9. Insure the right to trial by jury in all criminal or quasi- criminal prosecutions where the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment, including all cases of contempt of court. 10. To provide that the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended and that military tribunals shall not exercise civil or criminal jurisdiction over citizens while the regularly constituted State courts are open to administer justice. 11." For the extension of popular rule and control of officials by the initiative, referendum and recall. 12. Favor election of all judges. Election to take place at time no other officer is elected. Ballots to contain no party emblem. Candidates to be grouped under title of office. 13. Resolved, That this special convention of the ]^ew York 8tate Federation of Labor declares itself in the interest of the masses of the citizenship of the State of Xew York against the abandonment of the annual sessions of the New York State Legis- lature. 14. Resolved, That the terms of the elective officers of the State of New York shall not be extended. 15. That the terms of the State Senators shall be for a period of one year. 10. Resolved, That the delegates to constitutional conventions be elected at a time when no other State officials are to be chosen and that no party emblems be used at such elections. 17. Resolved, With a view of having the members of the Legis- lature in a more independent position financially, this conference recommend to the Constitutional Convention the wisdom of rais- ing the salaries of the members of the Legislature to an adequate amount. 18. To amend procedure necessary to pass a bill (now found in section 15, article 3), so as to take from the Governor the nullifying of that section by the use of emergency messages. Doc. Ho. 17 4 19. Agaiisst the State constabiilary and the employment of pri- vate armed force in labor disputes. That the Governor of the State be the Commander-in-Chief of the army and naval forces thereof, and that as such Commander, he alone be empowered to call out any portion or the whole of said forces or either of them in time of need. 20. Resolved, That this conference of the Executive Council and represeritatives of labor of the State of Xew York go on record in favor of the constitutional amendment as adopted by the Legislature, to be voted upon at the coming election for woman suffrage, and that all are urgently requested to support the ratification thereof. 21. Resolved, That inasmuch as the so-called " Short Ballot " is a proposition to vest greater powers in the hands of the chief ex- ecutive of the nation, states and municipalities, it is in violation of the fundamental jirinciples of justice, democracy and freedom. The proposition should therefore not be endorsed but condemned and opposed, and it is hereby condemned. 22. Free Speech and Free Press. — Every person may freely speak, write or publish his sentiments on all subjects, being re- sponsible for the abuse of that right, and no law shall be passed by the Legislature to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. Xor shall any ofScer.or court of the State, or officer or court of any political division of the State, abridge, enjoin or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press. The question as to whether the rights of freedom of speech, or of the press have been abused, shall be determined by a jury. In all criminal prose- cutions for libel, no person shall be found guilty and be punished where the matter alleged to be libelous be triie unless the alleged matter was written and published with criminal motives and for wrongful ends. 23. Eight Hours. — In all cases of employment by and on be- half of the State, or any political division thereof, or in any con- tract for labor or for supplies, by or on behalf of the State, or any political division thereof, not more than eight hours in any twenty-four consecutive hours shall constitute a day's work. 24. Capital Punishment. — Capital punishment, that is, death penalty for crime, is hereby prohibited. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 18 ANSWER OF STATE COMPTROLLER EUGENE M. TRAVIS TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CONVENTION, RELA- TIVE TO SINKING FUNDS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DATED MAY 5, 1915 State of New Yoek — Compteollee's Office Alba^ty, June 16, 1915 The Constitutional Convention of the State of New York, Albany, New York: Gentlemen : In response to a resolution of ' your honorable body dated May 5, 1915 and received June 11th, a copy of which follows : Mat 5, 1915 " By Mr. Wagner : Besolved, That the State Comptroller be requested to trans- mit to this Convention a statement showing the amount and term of all bonds issued under the provisions of Article 7 of the Constitution and now outstanding ; also the amount in each sinking fund for the redemption of such bonds together with the amount which should be in each sinking fund if « Doc. No. 18 2 such fund was maintained on a three per cent, amortization basis." I beg to submit for your consideration the following state- ments : EXHIBIT "A" Condensed Balance Sheet of the Sinking Funds of the State as of April 30, 1915. EXHIBIT " B " Statement of the Bonded State Debt, Sinking Funds, Reserves or Calculated Balances and Surplus or Excess of Sinking Fund Resources over Reserves or calculated balances as of April 30, 1915. Bonded Debt The total bonded State Debt outstanding as of April 30, 1915, as shown by details in Exhibit " B," was $186,165,660.00, classi- fied as follows : Canal Debt $118,000,660.00 Highway Debt 65,000,000.00 Palisades .Interstate Park Debt 2,500,000.00 Saratoga Springs State Eeservation Debt. . . . 665,000.00 Total $186,165,660.00 On this amount the Saratoga Springs State Eeservation bonds of $665,000.00 are redeemable from General Fund revenues. In addition to this amount there has been issued since April 30, 1915, bonds amounting to $235,000.00, making the total Saratoga Springs Eeservation debt as of June 1, 1915, $900,000.00 for which no sinking funds are maintained, the bonds being paid by appropriations from General Fund revenues. Sinking Fund Eesoueces The total of the Sinking Fund Eesources available for the interest and principal of the debt ($185,500,660.00) for which the funds were established, as shown by the balance sheet, Ex- 3 Doc. No. 18 hibit "A," as of April 30, 1915, was $40,568,351.32, classified as follows: Canal Debt Sinking Funds $28,881,977.99 Highway Debt Sinking Funds 11,443,320.34 Palisades Interstate Park Debt Sinking Fund 243,052.99 Total $40,568,351.32 SUEPLUS The Surplus or Excess of available resources over the reserves calculated in accordance with the method stated in the Balance Sheet, Exhibit "A," as of April 30, 1915, was $28,904,706.05, classified as follows: Canal Debt Sinking Funds $20,671,850.68 Highway Debt Sinking Funds 8,136,684.81 Palisades Interstate' Park Debt Sinking Funds 96,170.56 Total $28,904,706.05 Bonds Authoeized Not Issued The bonds authorized, but not yet issued, as of June 1, 1915, amounted to $44,899,000.00, classified as follows: For Barge Canal Terminals $9,800,000.00 For Highways 35,000,000.00 For Saratoga Springs State Reservation 99,000.00 Total $44,899,000.00. In addition to the above bonds authorized but not issued there will be submitted to the people of the State at the next election for their consideration a proposition to issue not exceeding $27,- 000,000.00 of bonds for the purpose of continuing the improve- ment of the Erie, Champlain and Oswego Canals. Attached hereto find statements showing in detail the informa- tion requested. Eespectfully submitted, EUGENE M. TEA VIS, Comptroller. Doc. No. 18 4 State of New Yoek — Compteollee's Office EXHIBIT "A" Condensed Balance Sheet of the Sinking Funds of the State of New Yoek as of Apeil 30, 1915 (Details shown in Exhibit " B " following) Resoueoes Canal Debt Sinking Funds Investments $20,639,878 29 Cash 8,242,099 70 $28,881,977 99 Highway Debt Sinking Funds Investments $7,549,490 00 Contributions of 1914 due from General Fund 8,367,281 50 Cash 526,548 84 11,443,320 34 Palisades Interstate Park Debt Sinking Fund Investments $97,300 00 Contributions of 1914 due from General Fund 142,328 48 Cash 3^424 51 243,052 99 Total Eesources $40,568,351 32 Liabilities and Sueplus Reserve for Interest Payable Canal Debt $3,328,750 00 Highway Debt 1,360,000 00 Palisades Interstate Park Debt 50,000 00 $4,738,750 00 Doc. No. 18 Reserve for Principal Calculated balances April 30, 1915, which, with a fixed an- nual contribution payable at the end of each year and pro- portion with interest at 3 per cent, compounded annually during the term of each bond issue, would be sufiicient to retire the principal of the bonds outstanding at their maturity for: Canal Debt $4,881,377 31 Highway Debt 1,946,635 53 Palisades Interstate Park Debt 96,882 43 $6,924,895 27 Total Reserve $11,663,645 27 Surplus (Excess resources over reserves as above) Canal Debt Sinking Funds $20,671,850 68 Highway Debt Sinking Funds. 8,136,684 81 Palisades Interstate Park Debt Sinking Funds 96,170 56 28,904,706 05 Total Liabilities and Surplus $40,568,351 32 Doc. No. 18 EXHIBIT Statement of Bonded State Belt, Sinking Funds, Reserves or Resources over Reserves or Calculat CHARACTER OF DEBT Date of issue Term of years Maturity Outstanding bonds Canal Debt Sinking Fund No. 2 3% bonds Erie, Champlain and Oswego canalB, chapter 147, Laws 1903 Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Julj Jan. July Jan. July Jan Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. 1, 1905 1, 1906 1, 1907 1, 1908 1, 1909 1, 1910 1, 1911 1, 1911 1,1912 1, 1910 1, 1912 1, 1912 1, 1914 1, 1915 1, 1915 1, 1915 18 60 50 50 50 60 50 50 50 50 50 30 50 50 30 50 Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. July Jan July Jan. July Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan 1, 1923 1, 1956 1, 1957 1, 1958 1, 1959 1, 1960 1, 1961 1, 1961 1, 1962 1, 1960 1, 1962 1, 1942 1,1964 1, 1965 1, 1965 1, 1965 $2,000,000 00 Sinking Fund No. 3 3% bonds Erie, Champlain and Oswego canals, chapter 147, Laws 1903, chapter 302, Laws 1906, $1,000,000 00 5,000,000 00 6,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 $21,000,000 00 Sinking Fund Nc. 4 4% bonds Erie, Champlain and Oswego canals, chapter 147, Laws 1903, chapter 66, Laws 1910 610,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 $40,000,000 00 Sinking Fund No. 5 4% bonds, Cayuga and Seneca canals, chapter 391, Laws 1909, chapter 139, Laws 1910 $1,000,000 00 2,000,000 00 $3,000,000 00 Sinking Fund No. 6 4% bonds. Barge canal terminals, . Sinking Fund No. 7 4J% bonds Erie, Champlain and Oswego canals, chapter 147, Laws 1903, chapter 66, Laws 1910, $5,000,000 00 30,000,000 00 Sinking Fund No. 8 41% bonds Cayuga and Seneca canals, chapter 391, Laws 1909, chapter 139, Laws 1910, chapter 787, Laws 1913, chapter 2, Laws 1915 4,000,000 00 Sinking Fund No. 9 4i% bonds Barge canal terminals, chapter 746, Laws 1911, chapter 787, Laws 1913, chapter 2, Laws 1915 5,000,000 00 Sinking Fund No. 10 4i% bonds Erie, Champlain and Oswego canals, chapter 147, Laws 1903, chapter 66, Laws 1910, chapter 787, Laws 1913, chapter 2, Laws 1915 8,000,000 00 Doc. ISTo. 18 "B Calculated Balances amd Sulplus or Excess of Smhing Fund ed Balcmces as of April 30, 1915 Sinking Fui^db Cash and investments in funds April 30, 1915 Add Contributions due from General Fund from appro- priations of 1914 Deduct Reeei-ve for interest payable from funds Balance after adjustments available for principal of debt Reserve or calculated balances available for principal as of April 30, 1915 Excess or surplus of adjusted balances over reserves or calculated balances April 30, 1915 SI, 991, 175 04 16,641,376 28 4,525,286 62 349,925 95 461 , 720 45 3,782,053 91 262,612 65 551,085 97 316,081 12 * Deficit. $30,000 00 60,000 00 SI, 901, 175 04 $1,017,479 37 S883,605 67 $45,000 00 225,000 00 225,000 00 450,000 00 $93,921 37 412,892 58 330,836 19 608,743 03 $945,000 00 15,696,376 28 $1,446,393 17 14,249,983 11 $200,000 00 200,000 00 200,000 00 200,000 00 $454,051 07 404,160 06 354,753 45 306,315 60 $800,000 00 $20,000 00 40,000 00 $60,000 00 $100,000 00 676,000 00 170,000 00 318,750 00 170,000 00 3,725,286 62 289,925 95 361,720 45 $1,519,280 18 $45,406 11 61,263 12 $106,668 23 $363,122 67 3,107,053 91 357,279 00 92,612 65 232,335 97 146,081 12 11,820 66 35,032 10 23,641 33 2,206,006 44 183,257 72 *1,402 22 2,749,774 31 80,791 99 197,303 87 122,439 7 9 Doc. No. 18 EXHIBIT " B » Statement of Bonded State Debt, Smking Ftmds, Reserves or Resources over Reserves or (jdtculat CHARACTER OF DEBT Date of issue Term of years Maturity i Outstanding bonds Non-Interest Bearing Debt Erie, Champlain and Oswego 6% .... 50 50 50 60 50 60 60 60 60 i 6% canal revenue certificate July 1, 1873 Dec. 1, 1956 Mar. 1, 1958 .'ispt. ]. 19.5S Mar 1, 1960 -Var. 1, 1961 Mar. 1, 1962 Sept. 1,1963 Sept. 1, 1963 Mar. 1, 1965 500 00 Total 8118,000,660 00 Dec. Mar. Sept. Mar. Mar. Mar. Sept. Sept. Mar. 1, 1906 1, 1908 1, 1908 1, 1910 1, 1911 1, 1912 1, 1913 1,1913 1, 1915 Highway Debt Sinking Fund No. 1 3% bonds, chapter 469, Laws 1906. Sinking Fund No. 2 4% bonds, chapter 469, Laws 1906, chapter 718, Laws 1907 81,000,000 00 S 000,000 00 5,000,000 90 6,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 8,000,000 00 Sinking Fund No. 3 4i% bonds, chapter 469, Laws 1906, chapter 718, Laws 1907, chapter 787, Laws 1913 Sinking Fund No. 4 4J% bonds, chapter 298, Laws 1912, chapter 787 Laws 1913 $33,000,000 00 16,000,000 00 5,000,000 00 Sinking Fund No. 5 4}% bonds, chapter 298, Laws 1912, chapter 787, Laws 1913, chapter 2, Laws 1916 10.000.000 00 Total $65,000,000 00 Mar. Mar. 1, 1911 1, 1912 50 10 Mar. 1, 1961 *$95,000 Palisades Interstate Park Debt Sinking Fund 4% bonds, chapter 363, Laws 1910. Saratoga Springs State Reservation 4% bonds, chapter 569, Laws 1909, chapter 394, Laws 1911 $2,500,000 00 665,000 00 $186,165,660 00 * Annually. 9 Doc. No. 18 (Continued) Calculated Balances amd SvZplus or Excess of Sinking Fwnd ed Balances as of April 30, 1915 Sinking Funds Reserve or calculated balances available for principal as of April 30, 1915 Cash and investments in funds April 30, 1915 Add Contributions due from General Fund from appro- priations of 1914 Deduct Reserve for interest payable from funds Balance after adjustments available for principal of debt Excess or surplus of adjusted balances over reserves or calculated balances April 30, 1915 $160 00 $160 00 500 00 $160 00 500 00 600 00 $28,881,977 99 $3,328,750 00 15,000 00 $25,553,227 99 757,327 17 $4,881,377 31 83.514 39 $20,671,860 68 709,702 64 $62,624 53 673,812 78 $100,000 00 100,000 00 100,000 00 200,000 00 160,000 00 $348,743 96 322,014 64 243,905 32 387,529 73 232,135 72 1,980,000 00 1,040,000 00 284,656 97 6,655,501 51 1,935,451 00 588,380 54 146,660 12 6,336,501 61 $660,000 00 $1,534,329 37 6,121,172 14 1,255,451 00 416,223 57 359,160 12 $360,000 00 112,500 00 212,500 00 $239,250 24 74,765 70 14,775 83 1,696,200 76 513,614 84 131,884 29 $8,076,038 84 $3,367,281 SO $1,360,000 00 $10,883,320 34 $1,946,635 53 $8,136,684 81 $100,724 51 $142,328 48 $50,000 00 $193,052 99 $96,882 43 $96,170 56 $37,068,741 34 $3,509,609 98 $4,738,750 00 $36,829,601 32 86,924,895 27 $28,904,706 05 STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 19 OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS— WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW State of New Yokk, Court of Appeals In the Matter of the Claim of Maeie Jensen, Claimant-Respondent J for Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law against SouTHEBN Pacific Company, Employer and Self-Insurer, Appellant. (Decided July 13, 1915) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division affirming an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. Norman B. Beecher, for Appellant. Eghurt E. Woodbury, Attorney-General (E. C. Aiken of Coun- sel), for Respondent. Yisscher, Whalen (& Austin filed brief for K^ew York Central Eailroad Company, as amici curiae. Doc. Xo. 19 2 Miller, J. — The claimant's husband was killed on August 15, 1914, while employed in imloading the steamship El Oriente which was berthed alongside a pier in the Hudson river. When the accident occun-ed he was moving an electric truck upon a gangway connecting the vessel with the pier. The appellant, a corporation of the state of Kentucky, is a common carrier by rail- road. It also owned and operated said steamship, which plied between New York and Galveston, Texas.. It does not appear that the steamship was in any way operated in connection with a line of railroad and in its report of the accident the appellant stated its business to be " transportation by steamships engaged solely in interstate commerce." We are required on this appeal, first, to construe the Workmen's Compensation Law (chap. 67 of the Con- solidated Laws) in so far as it relates to this case and, second, to determine its constitutional validity. The scheme of the statute is essentially and fundamentally one by the creation of a state fund to insure the payment of a prescribed compensation based on earnings for disability or death from accidental injuries sus- tained by employees engaged in certain enumerated hazardous employments. The State fiuid is created from premiums paid bj' employers based on the pay-roll, the number of employees and the hazards of the employment. The employer has the option of in- suring with any stock corporation or mutual association author- ized to transact such business, or of furnishing satisfactory proof to the Commission of his own financial ability to pay. If he does neither he is liable to a penalty equal to the pro rata premium payable to the State fimd during the period of his noncompliance and is subject to a suit for damages by the injured employee, or his legal representative in case of death, in which he is deprived of the defences of contributory negligence, assumed risk and neg- ligence of a fellow servant. By insuring in the State fund, or by himself or his insurance carrier paying the prescribed compen- sation, the employer is relieved from further liability for personal injuries or death sustained by employees. Compensation is to be made without regard to fault as a cause of the injury, except where it is occasioned by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or another or results solely from his intoxication while on duty. Compensa- tion is not based on the rule of damages applied in negligence 3 Doc. No. 19 suits but in addition to providing for medical, surgical or other attendances or treatment and funeral expenses, it is based solely on loss of earning power. Thus the risk of accidental injuries occurring with or without fault on the part either of employee or employer is shared by both and the burden of making com- pensation is distributed over all the enumerated hazardous em- ployments in proportion to the risks involved. So much for the general outline of the scheme against whose justice or economic soundness nothing, that occurs to me, can be said. The particular provisions requiring construction are the fol- lowing : " Section 2. Application. Compensation provided for in this chapter shall be payable for injuries sustained or death incurred by employees engaged in the following hazardous employements : Group 8. The operation, within or without the State, in- cluding repair, of vessels other than vessels of other statesi or countries used in interstate or foreign commerce, when operated or repaired by the company. Group 10. Longshore work, including the loading or un- loading of cargoes or parts of cargoes of grain, coal, ore, freight, general merchandise, lumber or other products or materials, or moving or handling the same on any dock, plat- form or place, or in any warehouse or other place of storage." " Section 114. Interstate commerce. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to employers and employees engaged in intrastate, and also in interstate or foreign commerce, for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation has been or may be established by the congress of the United States, only to the extent that their mutual connection with intra- state work may and shall be clearly separable and distinguish- able from interstate or foreign commerce, except that such employer and his employees working only in this state may, subject to the approval and in the manner provided by the commission and so far as not forbidden by any act of con- gress, accept and become bound by the provisions of this chapter in like manner and with the same effect in all re- spects as provided herein for other employers and their em- ployees." Doc. No. 19 4 It is claimed that loading and nnloading are included in " op- eration " and that, therefore, the case falls within Group 8, which excepts vessels of other states or countries used in interstate or foreign commerce, but the specific enumeration of longshore work in Group 10 excludes such work from the other group. It is next claimed that the statute was not intended to apply to employment in interstate or foreign commerce and that in case of doubt that construction should be adopted, for otherwise it would offend against the commerce clause of the Federal Consti- tution by imposing a burden upon such commerce. The latter claim will be noticed first. The statute does not purport directly to regulate or impose a burden upon commerce, but merely under- takes to regulate the relations between employers and employees in this State. Such regulation may, and, no doubt, does, indi- rectly affect commerce, but to the extent that it may affect inter- state or foreign commerce it is plainly within the jurisdiction of the State, until congress by entering the field excludes State action. (SherlocJc v. Ailing^ 93 U. S. 99 ; Morgan's R. R. and Steamship Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455 ; Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 II. S. 352; Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. 685.) Literally construed. Section 114 makes the statute apply only to intrastate work, either done by itself or in connection with, but clearly separable and distinguishable from, interstate or foreign commerce. But, though the section is awkwardly phrased, it is manifest that a broader application was intended, else the clause " for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation has been or may be established by the congress of the United States " is meaningless. The legislature evidently intended to reg-ulate, as far as it had the power, all employments within the State of the kinds enumerated. The earlier sections are in terms of general application, and Section 114, which is headed " Interstate Com- merce ", is one of limitation, not of definition. Its obvious pur- pose was to guard against a construction violative of the Constitu- tion of the United States, and so it provided that the act should apply to interstate or foreign commerce, " for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation has been or may be established by the congress of the United States ", only to the extent that in- 5 Doc. No. 19 trastate work affected may or shall be clearly separable or dis- tingTiishable therefrom. In other words the legislature said that it did not intend to enter any field from which it had been or should be excluded by the action of the congress of the United States. But it is said that congTess may at any time regulate em- ployments in interstate or foreign commerce and that the case is one in which a rule " may be established ",. etc. Again, the spirit, not the letter, must control. If it had been intended to confine the application of the act to intrastate work, the legislature would doubtless have said so in a sentence. The words " may be " should be construed in the sense of " shall be ". One other question in respect of the application of the act re- mains to be considered. It is said that the appellant is a carrier by railroad and that, therefore, the Federal Employer's Liability Act of April 22, 1908 (35 Stat. L. 65), prescribes the rule gov- erning the employment in which the deceased was engaged. As far as this case is concerned the apellant is a carrier by water. Its business is transportation by steamships, which, as far as appears, may not even indirectly be related to transportation by rail- road, certainly not by any particular line of railroad. It is significant that the earlier Federal Statute of June 11, 1906 (34 Stat. L. 232), applied to "every common carrier" en- gaged in interstate or foreig-n commerce, v/hilst the present act applies only to carriers by railroad. There is nothing in the act indicative of a purpose to apply it to carriage by water, if it happen to be conducted by a railroad corporation, and not other- wise, to apply one rule of liability to transportation by a steamship line, if owned and operated by a railroad corporation, and a different rule to precisely similar transportation not th\is con- trolled. The Federal Act provides a rule of liability of carriers by railroad for injury or death " resulting in whole or in part . by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negli- gence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves or other equipment." The words '"boats" and " wharves " may be given due effect by applying them to ad- juncts or auxiliaries to transportation by railroad. Our conclusion therefore, is that the employment in which the deceased was engaged was not governed by the Federal Statute, Doc. Xo. 19 6 that the Workmen's Compensation Act applied to it, and that the latter act is not violative of the Federal Constitution for attempt- ing directly to regulate or impose a tax or burden on interstate or foreign commerce. We now come to perhaps the most important question in the case. Does the act violate the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States for taking property without due process of law ? iluch reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Ives v. South Buffalo By. Co. (201 IST. Y. 271.) In that case Judge Werner, referring, to the appeal on economic and sociologic grounds and speaJving for the court said : " We have already admitted the strength of this appeal to a recognized and widely prevalent sentiment, but we think it is an appeal which must be made to the people and not to the courts." That decision was made in March, 1911. Following that suggestion, the legislature provided in the orderly way prescribed by the Constitution for the submission to the people of a proposed constitutional amend- ment and in due time that amendment was adopted on November 4th, 1913, and became Section 19 of Article 1 of our State Con- stitution. It is unnecessary to set that amendment forth in extetiso, but it suffices to say that so far as the due process clause or any provision of our State Constitution is concerned the amend- ment amply sustains the act. However, it is urged that the reasons which constrained the court to declare the act involved in the Ives case unconstitutional, are equally cogent when applied to the Fourteenth Amendment. In the first place it is to be ob- served that the two acts are essentially and fundamentally differ- ent. That involved in the Ives case made the employer liable in a suit for damages thoush without even imputable fault and regardless of the fault of the injured employee — short of serious and willful misconduct. This act protects both employer and employee, the former from wasteful suits and extravagant ver- dicts, the latter from the expense, uncertainties and delays of litigation in all cases and from the certainty of defeat if unable to establish a case of actionable negligence. Both acts are said to have been based on the proposition that the risk of accidental injuries in a hazardous employment should be borne by the busi- ness and that loss should not fall on the injured employee and 7 i>oc. Xo. 19 his dependents, who are unable to bear it or to protect themselves against it. That act made no attempt to distribute the burden, but subjected the employer to a suit for damages. This act does in fact as well as in theory distribute the burden equitably over the industries affected. It allows compensation only for loss of earning power, but by the creation of a state insurance fund, or by the substitute methods provided, it insures the prompt receipt by the injured employee or his dependents of a certain sum undiminished by the expenses of litigation. The two acts are, therefore, so plainly dissimilar that the decision in the Ives case is not controlling in this. Moreover, upon the question whether an act offends against the constitution of the United States the decisions of the United States Supreme Court are controlling. The only one of the ntimerous Workmen's Compensation Acts which appears to have been directly passed on by the United States Supreme Court is the act of Ohio, which contained an optional clause. {Jeffrey Mfg. Co. V. Blagg, 235 U. S. 571.) The single question decided in that case was that limiting the application of the act to shops with five or more employees did not result in arbitrary and unreasonable classification. This act is compulsory. The employer is subjected to a penalty for not adopting one of the three methods of insur- ance allowed him, and the employee has no choice at all except possibly as to whether he will enter one of the classified employ- ments. However, except for a feature presently to be considered, the decision in Noble State Bank v. Haskell (219 U. S. 104), is decisive. Indeed upon close analysis it will appear that the taking justified in that case as a proper exercise of the police power was no more in the public interest than that involved in this case and that the mutual benefits to the parties immediately concerned were not as direct. In that case an act of the State of Oklahoma requiring every bank existing under the state laws to pay an as- sessment based on average daily deposits into a guarantee fimd to secure the full repayment of deposits in case any such bank became insolvent was sustained not merely under the reserve power of the state to alter or repeal charters but as a proper exercise of the police power. Solvent banks were thus required to pay money into a fimd for the direct benefit of others, the banks Doc. Xo. 19 8 benefiting only indirectly from the supposed benefit to commerce and the greater stability of banking. In this case the mutual benefits are direct. Granted, that employers are compelled to insure, and that there is in that sense a taking. They insure themselves and their employees from loss, not others. The pay- ment of the required premiums exempts them from further lia- bility. The theoretical taking no doubt disappears in practical experience. As a matter of fact every industrial concern, except the very large ones who inspire themselves, have for some time been forced by conditions, not by lavi^, to carry accident indemnity insurance. A relatively small part of the sums thus paid actually reached injured workmen or their dependents. With the economic saving of the present scheme, insurance in the long run should certainly be as cheap as under the old wasteful plan, and the families of all injured workmen, not a part only, will receive some compensation for the loss of earning power of the wage earner. We should consider practical experience as well as theory in deciding whether a given plan in fact constitutes a taking of property in violation of the constitution. A compulsory scheme of insurance to secure injured workmen in hazardous employments and their dependents from becoming objects of charity certainly promotes the public welfare as directly as does an insurance of bank depositors from loss. But for the matter now to be considered we need not look far- ther for a case controlling upon us and in principle decisive of this. Wliilst the Noble State Bank case was referred to in the Ives case, it was not controlling for the reason that the State Constitution was involved and it was not in point as an authority because of the essential difi'erences in the act then before the court, already pointed out. A point was made on oral argument that the act was uncon- stitutional for depriving an employee injured by negligence im- putable to the employer of a right of action for the wrong. Of course, the employer can not be heard to urge the grievance of the employee (Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Blagg, supra), but exemption from further liability upon paying the required premium into the State fund is an essential element of the scheme, and if the act be unconstitutional as to the employee, the employer would be deprived of that exemption and thus would be directly affected 9 Doc. No. 19 by the unconstitutionality of the act in that respect. It is not accurate to say that the employee is deprived of all remedy for a wrongful injury. He is given a remedy. To be sure the com- pensation or recovery is limited, and that in a sense may possibly constitute a taking, but if so, it is his contribution to an insurance scheme designed for his benefit, and may be justified on precisely the same grounds as the contribution exacted of the employer has been. When he enters into the contract of employment, he is now assured of a definite compensation for an accidental injury oc- curring with or without fault imputable to the employer and is afforded a remedy, which is prompt, certain and inexpensive. In return for those benefits, he is required to give up the doubtful privilege of having a jury assess his damage, a considerable part of which, if recovered at all after long delay, must go to pay ex- penses and lawyers' fees. Moreover the act does not deal with intentional wrongs but only with accidental injuries, and no account is taken of the presence or absence of negligence attributable to the employer. In the way modern imdertakings are conducted, it is rarely possi- ble to trace personal fault to the employer, but he has been held liable for wrongs of others under the doctrine of respondeat su- penor. That doctrine has been developed by the courts to make the principal accountable for the conduct of his affairs, though it must be remembered that it does not rest on the doctrine of agency. No one has a vested right under the constitution to the maintenance of that common law doctrine, which undoubtedly may be extended or curtailed by the legislature, No one doubts that the doctrine of assumption of risk and the fellow servant doctrine, also developed by the courts under different conditions than those now prevailing, may be limited or entirely abrogated by the legislature. Acts having that effect have been sustained by repeated decisions of this court. The power to limit or take away must also involve the power to extend. At the common law the servant was held to assume by implied contract the ordinary risks of the employment, including the risk of a fellow servant's negligence, and even of negligence imputable to the master if the danger was obvious, or with knowledge of it the servant volun- tarily continued in the employment. It would not be a great extension of that doctrine for the legislature to provide that the Doc. No. 19 10 employee should assume the risk of all accidental injuries, and if than can be done, it is certainly competent for the legislature to provide by the creation of an insurance fund for a limited com- pensation to the employee for all accidental injuries, regardless of whether there was a cause of action for them at common law. This subject shoiild be viewed in the light of modern conditions, not those under which the common law doctrines were developed. With the change in industrial conditions, an opinion has gradually developed, which almost universally favors a more just and eco- nomical system of providing compensation for accidental injuries to employees as a substitute for wasteful and protracted damage suits, usually unjust in their results either to the employer or the employee, and sometimes to both. Surely it is competent for the State in the promotion of the general welfare to require both employer and employee to yield something toward the establish- ment of a principle and plan of compensation for their mutual protection and advantage. Any plan devised by the wit of man may in exceptional cases work unjustly, but the act is to be judged by its general plan and scope and the general good to be promoted by it. Fortunately the courts have not attempted to define the limits of the police power. Its elasticity makes progress possible under a written constitution guaranteeing individual rights. The question is often one of degree. The act now before us seems to be fundamentally fair to both employer and employee. Of course, I do not speak of details, which may or may not be open to criticism, but which, granting the validity of the under- lying principle, are plainly within the province of the legislature. It is not open to the objections, found to be fatal to the act con- sidered in the Ives case. It is plainly justified by the amendment to our own State Constitution and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, notably in the Noble State Bank case, make it reasonably certain that it will be found by that court not to be violative of the Constitution of the United States. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. WiLLAED BaetLETT, Ch. J., CoLLUST, CuDDEBACK, CaEDOZO, and Seabuby, JJ., concur. Weenee, J., not sitting. Order affirmed. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 20 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATURE, ITS ORGANIZATION, ETC., RELATIVE TO PRO- POSED AMENDMENT No. 741 (Int. 697) Mr. Lindsay, from the Committee on The Legislature, its OrganizatioTi, etc., to which was referred the Proposed Consti- tutional Amendment, entitled " Proposed constitutional amend- ment to amend Section 6 of Article III of the Constitution, in relation to the compensation and expenses of members of the Legislature " (Int. 'No. 697), which was read twice, and said com- mittee recommends that the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole. The following reasons are presented as representing the views of the majority in support of said report : The present rate of compensation for members of the Legisla- ture was fixed by a constitutional amendment adopted November 3, 1874. Prior to that date, under the Constitution of 1846 it had been $3 per day, limited to $300 for the per diem, with mile- age as at present. The Constitutional Convention of 1894 only continued the existing compensation. Legislators are, therefore, now serving for a compensation considered adequate by the people of the State forty-one years ago, and based on the conditions then existing. Since then the necessary cost oi living has greatly in- Doc. ISTo. 20 2 creased, so that the purchasing power of a dollar then and now is essentially different. Salaries of other officers and employees of the State have from time to time been greatly increased. It is conceded, we think, that the present compensation of members of the Legislature is wholly inadequate, and that members give their time and service to the State at an actual loss. The Legislature is the most important department of the State, has the most important duties to perform relative to the man- agement of affairs of the State, and its members are peculiarly the agents of the people for the performance of those duties. It is also generally conceded that the Legislature should be representa- tive of all classes of citizens, rich and poor, exalted and humble. At the present rate of compensation it has become practically im- possible for a poor man to accept the office and properly attend to its duties, and particularly is it impossible for the laboring man whose absence not only prevents him from otherwise earning sup- port for his family, but frequently results in his being compelled, after his period of service, to seek a new position. The committee does not believe that the salary should be made so large as to make the position attractive from a merely money point of view, but it does believe that it should be sufficient to reasonably com- pensate for services of the member of the State, and prevent him from actual loss. The provision in the Proposed Amendment for mileage, the committee believes to be not only fair, but that it will result in equalizing the burdens imposed upon members residing in dif- ferent parts of the State. A majority of the committee are con- vinced that the small increase in pay proposed by this amendment will result in very many more intelligent and well-qualified per- sons aspiring to the position, and that the general result will be improvement in the general character and standing of the Legis- lature. Finally, the committee is convinced that there is a general demand for a reasonable increase in such compensation, and that the increase proposed is reasonable and will meet the approval of the voters of the State. Voters are not unjust, and do not demand that their servants shall work for them at a loss. The vote given in 1911 for the amendment to increase the salary of Assemblymen to $3,000, and of Senators to $3,500, with mileage at three cents per mile is no criterion. It is true that amendment was defeated, principally for the reason that nearly half the voters failed to express an opinion on the question ; and it is sig- nificant that the entire seven amendments submitted that year all failed of passage. Undoubtedly the great objection to that amend- ment, if any, would be that it provided for actual mileage at three 3 Doc. No. 20 cents a mile, which gave the impression that there was an attempt to make money out of the mileage over its actual cost. Perhaps the strongest evidence of this general demand is the action taken by the New York State Federation of Labor, set forth in its memorial of June 8, 1915, which is printed as Document No. 17 of this Convention. Eesolution No. 17, of said memorial is as follows: 17. Resolved, With a view of having the members of the Legislature in a more independent position financially, this conference recommend to the Constitutional Convention the wisdom of raising the salaries of the members of the Legis- lature to an adequate amount. For the foregoing reasons, your committee recommends the adoption of said amendment. (Signed) James P. Lindsay, For the majority of the Committee. which report was agreed to, and said Proposed Amendment ordered printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Brackett presented the following minority report : To the Convention: With great respect for the opinion of our fellow members of the Committee on Legislative Organization, we feel constrained to dissent from the report of the committee recommending the raising of the salaries of members of the Legislature from $1,500, a year, as now established, to $2,500. Among others, these are our reasons for such dissent: 1. It is not a time favorable to the increase of official salaries. It should always be remembered that the expenses of the State are paid in part by persons whose incomes are smaller than the salaries of the majority of the public servants, to which payer* any increase of taxation is burdensome. This time of financial stress should not be seized upon to increase such burden in the slightest degree if it is avoidable. It is avoidable here. 2. We do not forget the claim that many salaries are now so large as to make the salary of legislators ridiculously small in comparison. Our reply is that such present disproportionately large salaries should be greatly reduced, rather than that any attempt be here made to grade the lower up to them. The public service is no place in which to amass a fortune. It is one of the penalties of such service that the money returns there- for are, and must remain, very moderate. Doc. No. 20 4 3. There are two lines of reasoning with respect to salaries of those in the State service. One is that the larger salary will at- tract to such service a better and more efficient class of public servants; the other that such larger compensation will draw to it men who are willing to become professional politicians, with a chief view of drawing the salary regardless of the character of the service rendered. We believe that the best service to the State in the Legislature is not rendered by the man devoting his whole time to political life and who is lured by the salary, but rather by those who, busy in their own affairs, are yet willing to sacrifice of their time in serving the public in places of honor, and who find much of their compensation for such service in the confidence and regard of the constituency electing them and in the satisfaction that comes from the consciousness of duty well performed. It must be borne in mind that the active duties of a member of the Legislature are not continuous, do not usually engage more than about a third of the year and that they are so distributed as to leave reasonable time for a man diligent in business to care somewhat for his private affairs, while still well serving the public. For these reasons, believing that the present compensation of $1,500, a year for each legislator, while not large, is still sufficient to indemnify the average Senator or member for his time rendered and expense incurred in the public service, we present this minority report for the consideration of the Convention. July 14, 1915. (Signed) Edgar T. BeacketTj Lemuel E. Quigg, Thomas A. Kiebt, Lewis H. Eded. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 21 RULES OF THE CONVENTION REVISED TO JULY 15, 1915 CHAPTER I Powers and Duties of the President and Vice-Presidents Rule 1. The President shall take the chair each day at the hour to which the Convention shall have adjourned. He shall call to order, and, except in the absence of a quorum, shall proceed to business in the manner prescribed by these rules. Rule 2. He shall possess the powers and perform the duties herein prescribed, viz. : 1. He shall preserve order and decorum, and, in debate, shall prevent personal reflections, and confine members to the question under discussion. When two or more members rise at the same time, he shall name the one entitled to the floor. 2. He shall decide all questions of order, subject to appeal to the Convention. On every appeal he shall have the right, in his place, to assign his reason for his decision. In case of such appeal no member shall speak more than once. 3. He shall appoint all committees, except where the Convention shall otherwise order. 4. He may substitute any member to perform the duties of the chair during the absence or inability of both vice-presidents, but Doc. lio. 21 3 for no longer period than two consecutive legislative days, except by special consent of the Convention. 5. When the Convention shall be ready to go into Oommittee of the Whole, he shall name a chairman to preside therein, subject to right of the committee to elect its ov^n chairman. 6. He shall certify the passage of all amendments by the Con- vention, with the date thereof. 7. He shall designate the persons who shall act as reporters for the public press, not exceeding thirty in number ; but no reporter shall be admitted to the floor who is not an authorized representa- tive of a daily paper. Such reporters, so appointed, shall be entitled to such seats as the President shall designate, and shall have the right to pass to and fro from such seats in entering or leaving the Assembly Chamber. Wo reporter shall appear before any of the committees in advocacy of, or in opposition to, anything under consideration before such committees. A, violation of this rule will be sufficient cause for the removal of such reporter. Removal for this cause shall be vested in the President^ 8. He shall not be required to vote in ordinary proceedings, except where his vote would be decisive. In case of a tie vote the question shall be lost. He shall have general control, except as provided by rule or law, of the Assembly Chamber and of the corridors and passages in that part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the Convention. In case of any disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries, corridors or passages, he shall have the power to order the same to be cleared, and may cause any person guilty of such disturbance or disorderly conduct to be brought before the bar of the Convention. In all such cases the members present may take such measures as they shall deem necessary to prevent a repetition of such misconduct, either by the inilictioia of censure or pecuniary penalty, as they may deem best, on the parties thus offending. 9. He shall also be ex-officio member and chairman of the Com- mittee on Rules. 10. In the absence of the President, or his inability to preside, his duties shall devolve upon the First Vice-President, or, if he also be absent, upon the Second Vice-President. The President and Vice-Presidents shall be consulting mem- bers, without vote, in the several committees to which they shall not have been specifically appointed. 3 Doc. No. 21 CHAPTER II Order of Business Rule 3. The first business of each day's session shall be the reading of the Journal of the preceding day, and the correction of any errors that may be found to exist therein. Immediately thereafter, except on days and at times set apart for the considera- tion of special orders, the order of business shall be as follows: 1. Presentation of memorials. Under which head shall be included petitions, remonstrances and communications from indi- viduals, and from public bodies. 2. Communications from the Governor and other State officers. Under this head shall be embraced also communications from public officers and from corporations in response to calls for information. 3. Notices, motions and resolutions, to be called for by districts, numerically. 4. Propositions for constitutional amendment, by districts, in numerical order. 5. Eeports of standing committees in the order stated in Rule 15. 6. Reports of select committees. 7. Third reading of proposed constitutional amendments. 8. Unfinished business of general orders. 9. Special orders. 10. General orders. Reports from the Committee on Revision and Engrossment may be received under any order of business. CHAPTER III Rights and Duties of Members Rule 4. Petitions, memorials, remonstrances and any other papers addressed to the Convention shall be presented by the President, or by any member in his place, read by their titles, unless otherwise ordered, and referred to the proper committee. Rule 5. Every member presenting a paper shall indorse the same; if a petition, memorial, remonstrance or communication in Doc. No. 21 4 answer to a call for information, with a concise statement of its subject, and his name; if a notice or resolution, with his name; if a proposition for constitutional amendment, with a statement of its title and his name; if a proposition of any other kind for the consideration of the Convention, with a statement of its subject, the proposer's name, and the reference, if any, desired. A report of a committee must be indorsed with a statement of such report, together with the name of the committee making the same, and shall be signed by the chairman. A report by a minority of any committee shall be signed by the members ren- dering the same. Rule 6. Every member who shall be within the bar of the Con- vention, when a question is stated from the chair, shall vote thereon unless he be excused by the Convention, or unless he be directly interested in the question; nor shall the roll of absentees be more than once called. The bar of the Convention shall be deemed to include the body of the Convention chamber. Rule 7. Any member requesting to be excused from voting may make, when his name is called, a brief statement of the reasons for making such request, not exceeding three minutes in time, and the Convention, without debate, shall decide if it will grant such request ; or any member may explain his vote, for not exceeding three minutes ; but nothing in this rule contained shall abridge the right of any member to record his vote on any question previous to the announcement of the result. CHAPTER IV Order and Decorum Rule 8. No member rising to debate, to give a notice, make a motion, or present a paper of any kind, shall proceed until he shall have addressed the President and been recognized by him as en- titled to the floor. While the President is putting a question or a count is being had, no member shall speak or leave his place ; and while a member is speaking no member shall entertain any private discourse or pass between him and the Chair. Rule 9. When a motion to adjourn, or for recees, shall be carried, no member or officer shall leave his place till the adjourn- ment or recess shall be declared by the President. 5 Doc. Xo. 21 Rule 10. No persons, except members of the Convention and officers thereof, shall be permitted within the Secretary's desk, or the rooms set apart for the use of the Secretary, during the session of the Convention, and no member or other person shall visit or remain by the Secretary's table while the yeas and nays are being called, except officers of the Convention in the discharge of their duties. CHAPTER V Order of Debate Rule 11. No member shall speak more than once on the same question until every member desiring to speak on such question shall have spoken; nor more than twice on any question without leave of the Convention. Rule 12. If any member, in speaking, transgress the rules of the Cenvention, the President shall, or any member may, call him to order, in v?hioh case the member so called to order shall immedi- ately sit down, and shall not rise unless to explain or proceed in order. Rule 13. All questions relating to the priority of one question or subject-matter over another, under the same order of business, the postponement of any special order, or the suspension of any rule, shall be decided without debate. Rule 14. All questions of order, as they shall occur, with the decisions thereon, shall be entered in the Journal, and at the close of the day's session a statement of all such questions and decisions shall be printed at the close of and as an appendix to the Journal. CHAPTER VI Committees and Their Duties Rule 15. The President shall appoint the following standing committees to report upon the subjects named and such others as may be referred to them, viz. : 1. On the bill of rights, to consist of eleven members. 2. -On the Legislature, its organization, and the number, appor- tionment, election, tenure of office and compensation of its mem- bers, to consist of seventeen members. Doc. 1^0. 21 6 3. On the powers, limitations and duties of the Legislature, except as to matters otherwise referred, to consist of seventeen members. 4. On the right of suffrage and the qualifications to hold office, to consist of seventeen members. 5. On the Governor and other State officers, their election or appointment, tenure of office, compensation, powers and duties, except as otherwise referred, to consist of seventeen members. 6. On the judiciary, to consist of seventeen members. 7. On the State finances, revenues, expenditures, and restric- tions on the powers of the Legislature in respect thereto, and to public indebtedness, to consist of seventeen members. 8. On cities, their organization, government and powers, to consist of seventeen members. 9. On canals, to consist of eleven members. 10. On public utilities, to consist of seventeen members. 11. On counties, towns and villages, their organization, govern- ment and powers, to consist of seventeen members. 12. On county, town and village officers, other than judicial, their election or appointment, tenure of office, compensation, powers and duties, to consist of seventeen members. 13. On State prisons and penitentiaries, and the prevention and punishment of crime, to consist of eleven members. 14. On corporations and institutions, not otherwise herein specified, to consist of seventeen members. 15. On currency, banking and insurance, to consist of eleven members. 16. On the militia and military affairs, to consist of seven members. 17. On education and the funds relating thereto, to consist of seventeen members. 18. On charities and charitable institutions, to consist of sev- enteen members. 19. On industrial interests and relations, except those already referred, to consist of seventeen members. 20. On the conservation of the natural resources of the State, to consist of seventeen members. 7 Doc. No. 21 21. On the relations of the State to the Indians residing therein, to consist of seven members. 22. On future amendments and revisions of the Constitution, to consist of seven members. 23. Eevision and engrossment, to consist of seven members. 24. Privileges and elections, to consist of eleven members. 25. Printing, to consist of seven members. 26. Contingent expenses, to consist of seven members. 27. Rules, to consist of seven members, and the President. 28. On the civil service, to consist of seventeen members. 29. On library and information. 30. On taxation, to consist of seventeen members. Rule 16. The several committees shall consider and report, without unnecessary delay, upon the respective matters referred to them by the Convention. N^o favorable or adverse report by any committee, upon a proposed constitutional amendment, shall be made except by a majority of all the members of the committee. A minority of a committee may express its views in a report. Rule 17. The Committee on Revision and Engrossment shall examine and correct the constitutional amendments which are referred to it, for the pvirpose of avoiding inaccuracies, repeti- tions and inconsistencies. It shall also carefully examine in the order in which they shall be directed by the Convention to be engrossed for a third reading, all constitutional amendments bo engrossed, and see that the same are correctly engrossed, and shall immediately report the same in like order to the Convention before they are read the third time. Rule 18. It shall be the duty of the Committee on Printing to examine and report on all questions of printing referred to them ; to examine from time to time, and ascertain whether the prices charged for printing, and the quantities and qualities furnished, are in conformity to the orders of the Convention and to the con- ditions fixed by it ; to ascertain and report the number of copies to bo printed, and how distributed; and to report to the Conven- tion from time to time, any measures they may deem useful for the economical and proper management of the Convention printing. Doc. No. 21 8 Rule 19. It shall be the duty of the Committee on Contingent Expenses to inquire into the expenditures of the Convention, and whether the same are being or have been made in conformity to law and the orders of the Convention, and whether proper vouchers exist for the same, and whether the funds provided for the purpose are economically applied, and to report, from time to time, such regulations as may conduce to economy and secure the faithful disbursement of the money appropriated by law. CHAPTER VII General Orders and Special Orders Eule 20. The matters referred to the Committee of the Whole Convention shall constitute the general orders, and their titles shall be recorded in a calendar kept for that purpose by the Sec- retary, in the order in which they shall be severally referred. Eule 21. The business of the general orders shall be taken up in the following manner, viz. : The Secretary shall announce the title of each proposed amendment or other matter, as it shall be reached in its order, whereupon it shall be taken up on the call of any member, without the putting of a question therefor, but if not so moved, it shall lose its precedence for the day. And whenever three proposed amendments or other matters have been thus moved the Convention shall go into Committee of the Whole upon them without further order. Rule 22. Tuesday and Thursday of each week shall be set apart especially for the consideration of the general orders ; but they may be considered on any other day when reached in their order. Rule 23. Each member shall be furnished daily with a printed list of the general orders, which shall be kept on his files by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in the same manner as other printed documents. Eule 24. Any matter may be made a special order for any par- ticular day, by the acceptance of the report of the Committee on Rules, or by a two-thirds vote, or by unanimous consent. CHAPTER VIII Committee of the Whole Eule 25. Any matter may be committed to the Committee of the Whole upon the report of a standing or select committee, or 9 Doc. No. 21 by unanimous consent at any time. Any committee may be dis- charged from the further consideration of any matter referred to it, and such matter may then be referred to the Committee of the Whole, by a vote of the Convention. The same rules shall be ob- served in the Committee of the Whole as in the Convention, so far as the same are applicable, except that the previous question shall not apply, nor the yeas and nays be taken, nor a limit be made as to the number of times of speaking. Kule 26. A motion to " rise and report progress " shall be in order at any stage, and shall be decided without debate. A, mo- tion to rise and report is not in order until each section and the title have been considered, unless the limit of time has expired. Eule 27. Proposed Constitutional amendments and other mat- ters shall be considered in Committee of the Whole in the follow- ing manner, viz. : They shall be first read through, if the commit- tee so direct ; otherwise they shall be read and considered by sec- tions. When the limit of time has expired, the amendments which have been proposed and not previously acted upon shall be voted upon in their order without further debate. The proposed con- stitutional amendment as amended shall then be voted upon with- out debate, and the committee shall then rise and report in accordance with the action which it has taken. If the committee shall have adopted any proposed Constitutional amendment, the same shall be reported complete with any amend- ments made in the committee incorporated in their proper places. Rule 28. If at any time, when in Committee of the Whole, it be ascertained that there is no quorum, the chairman shall im- mediately report the fact to the President, who then takes the chair for the purpose of securing a quorum, and when that is obtained the chairman resumes his duties. Rule 29. Should the committee not have completed the business before it rises, the chairman will report progress and ask leave to sit again. CHAPTER IX Proposed Amendments to the Constitution Rule 30. Wo proposition for Constitutional amendment shall be introduced in the Convention except in one of the following modes, viz. : Doc. No. 21 10 1. Under the order of introduction of propositions for consti- tutional amendment by districts, in numerical order. 2. By report of a committee. Rule 31. The title of each proposition for Constitutional amend- ment introduced shall state concisely its subject-matter. Matter which it is proposed to strike out shall be in brackets, and new matter shall be underscored and when printed shall be in italics. All proposed amendments shall be presented in duplicate. liule 32. All propositions for Constitutional amendment, after their second reading, which shall be by title, shall be refen-ed to a standing or select committee, to consider and report thereon, and shall be immediately printed and placed on the files of each member. All proposed Constitutional amendments reported favor- ably shall be committed to the Committee of the Whole and imme- diately printed unless a different order be made not inconsist- ent with Rule 34. When a committee has reported that no amendment should be made to the provisions of the existing Con- stitution relating to any specified subject, and such report is agreed to, all propositions for Constitutional amendment relating to that subject which have been referred to that committee shall be considered as rejected. All Constitutional amendments pro- posed liy a minority report from any committee shall be printed and placed on the files of the members of the Convention. Rule 33. Proposed Constitutional amendments reported by the Committee of the ^Vhole shall be subject to debate before the ques- tion to agree with the committee on their report is put. Rule 34. iSTo proposed Constitutional amendment shall be or- dered to a third reading until it shall have been considered in Committee of the Whole. Rule 35. No proposed Constitutional amendment shall be put upon third reading until it shall have been reported by the Com- mittee on Revision and Engrossment as correctly revised and en- grossed, unless by unanimous consent. Nor shall any proposed Constitutional amendment be read the third time, unless it shall have been once printed. Rule 36. Every proposed Constitutional amendment shall re- ceive three separate readings, previous to its final passage, and the third reading shall be on a day subsequent to that on which 11 Doc. No. 21 the proposed Constitutional amendment passed in Committee of the Whole. Eule 37. The third reading of proposed Constitutional amend- ments shall take place in the order in which they have been or- dered to a third reading, unless the Convention, by a vote of two- thirds of the members present, direct otherwise, or the proposed Constitutional amendment to be read is laid on the table. Ajid the question on the final passage of every proposed Constitutional amendment shall be taken immediately after such third reading, and without debate, but the vote on the final passage of every pro- posed amendment, revision or addition to the Constitution shall be taken by ayes and nays, which shall be entered on the Journal. Rule 38. In all cases where unanimous consent is asked for advancing a proposed Constitutional amendment out of its order, it shall be the duty of the President to plainly announce such request in full twice. Rule 39. On the third reading of a proposed Constitutional amendment, after the reading of the title, and before the reading of the text, the proposed Constitutional amendment shall be open one hour, if required, for debate on its merits, before the previous question shall be ordered ; but no member shall speak more than five minutes or more than once; the vote, however, may be taken at any time when the debate is closed. Rule 40. On the third reading of the proposed Constitutional amendment, no amendment thereto shall be in order, except to fill blanks, without unanimous consent. Rule 41. A motion may be made during the third reading of any proposed Constitutional amendment to recommit it, and such motion shall not be debatable. Rule 42. A register shall be kept by the Secretary of all pro- posed Constitutional amendments introduced in the Convention, in which shall be recorded, under appropriate heads, the progress of such proposed Constitutional amendments from the date of their introduction to the time of their final disposition. Rule 43. In all cases where a proposed Constitutional amend- ment, order, motion or resolution shall be entered on the Journal, the name of the member introducing or mo\dng the same shall also be entered on the Journal. Doc. No. 21 12 CHAPTER X Motions and Their Precedence Rule 4-1. When a question is under consideration, the following motions only shall be received; which motions shall have prece- dence in the order stated, viz. : Motions to, or for: 1. Adjourn for the day. 2. Recess. 3. Call of the Convention. 4. Previous question. 5. Lay on the table. 6. Postpone indefinitely, not amendable, but debatable. 7. Postpone to a certain day. 8. Go into Committee of the \^^hole. 9. Commit to Committee of the Whole. 10. Commit to a standing committee. 11. Commit to a select committee. 12. Amend. Not amendable or debatable. Preclude debates on main question. Rule 45. Every motion or resolution shall be stated by the President or read by the Secretary before debate, and again, if requested by any member, inamediately before putting the ques- tion ; and every motion, except those specified in subdivisions 1 to 11, inclusive, of rule 44, shall be reduced to writing if the Presi- dent or any member request it. Rule 46. After a motion shall be stated by the President, it shall be deemed in the possession of the Convention, but may be withdrawn at any time before it shall be decided or amended. Rule 47. The motion to adjourn, to take a recess, and to ad- journ for a longer period than one day, shall always be in order; but the latter motion shall not preclude debate. Rule 48. A motion to reconsider any vote must be made on the same day on which the vote proposed to be reconsidered was taken, or on the legislative day next succeeding, and by a member who voted in the majority, except to reconsider a vote on the final passage of a proposed Constitutional amendment, which shall be privileged to any member. Such motion may be made under any 13 Doc. No. 21 order of business, but shall be considered only under the order of business in which the vote proposed to be reconsidered occurred. AMien a motion for reconsideration is decided, that decision shall not be reconsidered, and no question shall be twice reconsidered ; nor shall any vote be reconsidered upon either of the following motions : To adjourn. To lay on the table. To take from the table ; or For the previous question. Rule 49. No amendment to a motion shall be received while another is pending, unless it be an amendment to the amendment and germane to the subject. CHAPTER XI Of Resolutions Rule 50. The following classes of resolutions shall lie over one day for consideration, after which they may be called up, as of course, under their appropriate order of business : 1. Except as provided in Rule 56, all resolutions giving rise to debate, whether reported by a committee or otherwise introduced, unless they relate to the disposition of business immediately before the Convention, to the business of the day on which they may be offered, or to adjournments or recesses, shall lie over one day for consideration, after which they may be called up, as of course, under their appropriate order of business. 2. Resolutions containing calls for information from any of the executive departments, from State, county or municipal officers, or from any corporate bodies, shall be referred to the appropriate committee. Such committee shall report thereon within three legislative days. Rule 51. All resolutions for the printing of an extra number of documents shall be referred, as of course, to the standing Com- mittee on Printing, for their report thereon before final action by the Convention. Rule 52. All resolutions authorizing or contemplating expendi- tures for the purposes of the Convention shall be referred to the Doc. Wo. 21 14 standing Committee on Contingent Expenses, for their report thereon before final action by the Convention. CHAPTER XII The Previous Question Rule 53. The "previous question" shall be put as follows: " Shall the main question now be put ? " and until it is decided, shall preclude all amendments or debate. When, on taking the previous question, the Convention shall decide that the main ques- tion shall not now be put, the main question shall be considered as still remaining under debate. The " main question " shall be on the passage of the proposed amendment to the Constitution, resolution or other matter under consideration, but when amend- ments thereto are pending, the question shall first be taken \ipon such amendments in their order, and when adopted in Committee of the "Whole, and not acted on in the Convention, the question shall be taken upon such amendments in like order. CHAPTER XIII The Convention Chamber and Privileges of Admission to the Floor Rule 54. The following classes of persons, besides officers and members of the Convention, shall be entitled to admission to the floor of the Convention during the session thereof, viz. : 1. Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and ex-Governors of the State. 2. Judges of the Court of Appeals and of the Supreme Court. 3. Members of former Constitutional Conventions. 4. The members of the Senate and Assembly and ex-Speakers. 5. The State officers, deputies and commissioners. 6. The Regents of the University. 7. United States Senators and Congressmen. 8. The Capitol Commissioners. 9. Persons in the exercise of an official duty directly connected with the business of the Convention. 10. The reporters for the press, as provided by subdivision 7 of rule 2. 15 Doc. Xo. 21 No other person shall be admitted to the floor during the session, except upon the permission of the President or by vote of the Con- vention ; and persons so admitted shall be allowed to occupy places only in the seats in the rear of the Assembly Chamber. All per- mits granted by the President may be revoked by him at pleasure, or upon the order of the Convention. No person shall be entitled to the privileges of the floor of the Convention as a legislative re- porter of a newspaper who is interested in pending or contemplated constitutional revision, or who is employed by, or receives com- pensation from, any corporation, except a newspaper, news or press association. The doors of the Convention shall be kept open to the public during all its sessions. CHAPTER XIV General Rules Rule 55. Equivalent motions, resolutions or amendments thereto, shall not be entertained. If any question contains several distinct propositions, it shall be divided by the Chair at the request of any member, but a motion to " strike out and insert " shall be indivisible. Rule 56. All proposed action touching the rules and orders of business shall be referred, as of course, to the Committee on Rules ; such committee may sit during the session of the Conven- tion without special leave, and report at any time on rules or order of business so referred to them. It will be in order to call up for consideration at any time a report from the Committee on Rules. Any member may object to its consideration until the next legislative day, and, if sustained by twenty-four other members, the consideration shall be so postponed, but only once. Pending the final consideration thereof, but one motion, except by unanimous consent, that the Convention adjourn, may be entertained, and no other dilatory motion shall be entertained until such report is fully disposed of. A motion to suspend the rules shall in all cases be made upon one day's notice which shall state specifically the object of the suspension, and every case of suspension of a rule under such notice and motion shall be held to apply only to the object specified therein. Provided that when ordered so to do by the Convention a standing committee shall make a report on a Constitutional amendment or other subject, the Doc. No. 21 16 Committee on Rules shall report a rule limiting the time for de- bate; and upon such report no member shall speak more than once, nor more than five minutes. Such report shall stand as the time limited for debate on the subject-matter referred to in such rule, and the previous question or other motion to close debate shall not be in order until the expiration of the time so allotted, or the debate has been closed; the time thus allotted for debate shall be equally divided between those in favor and those opposed to the subject-matter under consideration. All questions or mo- tions authorized by this rule shall be decided at once without delay or debate, except as herein expressly allowed. Rule 57. The yeas and nays may be taken on any question whenever so required by any fifteen members (unless a division by yeas and nays be already pending), and when so taken shall be entered on the Journal. Rule 58. AYhen the Convention shall be equally divided on any question, including the President's vote, the question shall be deemed to be lost. Rule 59. In considering the report of the Committee on Re- vision and Engrossment, each article shall be open to amendment germane to such changes as may have been reported by the com- mittee, without previous notice, but no one shall speak more than five minutes, or more than once, on any proposition to amend. Rule 60. When a blank is to be filled and different sums or times shall be proposed, the question shall be first taken on the highest sum and the longest time. Rule 61. A majority of the Convention shall constitute a quorum. In all cases of the absence of members during the sessions the members present shall take such measures as they shall deem necessary to secure the presence of absentees, and may inflict such censure or pecuniary penalty as they may deem just on those who, on being called on for that purpose, shall not render sufficient excuse for their absence. No constitutional amendment shall be adopted unless by the assent of a majority of all the members elected to the Convention. Rule 62. For the purpose of securing the attendance of mem- bers, a call of the Convention may be made, but such call shall not be in order after the main question has been ordered, nor after 17 Doc. ISTo. 21 the voting on any question has commenced, nor after the third reading of an amendment has been completed. Rule 63. When less than a quorum vote on any subject under consideration by the Convention, it shall be in order, on motion, to close the bar of the Convention, whereupon the roll of members shall be called by the Secretary, and if it is ascertained that a quorum is present, either by answering to their names or by their presence in the Convention, the yeas and nays shall again be ordered by the President, and if any member present refuses to vote, such refusal shall be deemed a contempt, and any member or members so offending shall be oited before the Committee on Privi- leges and Elections, which, after inquiry, shall report to the Con- vention for such action as the facts shall seem to warrant, and, unless purged, the Convention may order the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove said member or members without the bar of the Conven- tion, and all privileges of membership shall be refused the person or persons so offending until the contempt be duly purged. Rule 64. Whenever any person shall be brought before the bar of the Convention for adjudged breach, of its privileges, no debate shall be in order, but the President shall proceed to execute the judgment of the Convention without delay or debate. Rule 65. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep the Journal of each day's proceedings, which shall be printed and laid on the table of members on the morning after its approval. In addition to his other duties, he shall prepare and supervise the printing of the calendars of the orders of the day and cause them to be placed on the files before the beginning of each day's session. All appointments of officers and employees shall be entered on the Journal of the Convention, with the date of appointment. Rule 66. It shall be the duty of the stenographer of the Con- vention to be present at every session of the Convention. He shall take stenographic notes of the debates in the Convention and in Committee of the Whole and shall, at each day's session of the Convention, furnish a copy of the debates of the day before, writ- ten out in long-hand, and file the same with the Secretary, who shall keep the same in his office, and the same shall at all times be open to the inspection of delegates. Rule 67. At a reasonable time, to be determined by the Con- Doc. No. 21 18 vontion, and at least five days before final adjoumment, the Com- mittee on Kevision and Engrossment shall be instructed to accu- rately enroll and engross the present State Constitution, with all amendments thereto properly inserted, or the proposed new Con- stitution ; and the same shall be reported by said committee to the Convention, read through therein, and submitted to a final vote prior to its final adjoumment. When an article of the Constitu- tion is amended, or a new article substituted or added, such amended article, or new article, shall be enrolled and engrossed entire in its proper place in the Constitution. CHAPTER XV Miscellaneous Provisions EuJe 68. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall, under the direction of the Committee on Printing, receive from the printer all matter printed for the use of the Convention, and keep a record of the time of the reception of each document, and the number of copies received, and cause a copy of each to be placed on the desk of each member immediately after their reception by him. Subject to the direction of the President, he shall enforce the rules of the Convention. Eule 69. Separate files of the daily Journal, reports of the com- mittees and of all documents ordered to be printed shall be pre- pared and kept by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and one copy shall be placed upon the desk of each member of the Convention and of the Secretary. Eule 70. There shall be printed as of course and without any special order 1,500 copies of the journal, 500 copies of the calendar, 2,500 copies of each proposed constitutional amendment, and 3,500 copies of each report and minority report of a com- mittee on the subject of constitutional revision or amendment in which are set forth the reasons for their recommendation, to be printed as documents; 500 copies of each other document; and 3,500 copies of the record of the proceedings of the convention. Eule Tl. The printed copies provided for in Eule 70 shall be disi)Osod of as follows: There shall be reserved for binding 1,200 copies of the journal, 1,200 copies of the reports, 1,200 copies of the record of the proceedings. 19 Doc. No. 21 The copies so reserved for binding shall be folded, collated and held by the printer until the close of the Convention, when they shall be bound as directed by the President or the Convention, and distributed as follows: To each member of the Convention, two copies. To the State Library, five copies. To the Legislative Library, five copies. To the office of each county clerk, one copy. To each public library of the State, one copy. To each bar association of the State, one copy. To each college and university of the State, one copy, and the remaining copies shall be distributed as designated by the Presi- dent or the Convention. The printed copies provided for in Rule YO and not reserved for binding shall be disposed of as follows: One copy of each shall be placed upon the file of each member of the Convention, and one additional copy shall be delivered or mailed to each member as he shall direct. Two copies of each shall be placed in the Legislative Library for use of members of the Convention. One hundred copies shall be reserved for the use of the officers of the Convention, the State Library, the Department of Educa- tion, the Legislative Index Publishing Company, and the docu- ment room reserve. Copies of the proposed constitutional amendments, of the reports and of the record shall, be mailed daily to daily newspapers and weekly to all other newspapers and to each public library of the State, each bar association of the State, each law school of the State, each college and university of the state, and to such other institutions, newspapers and individuals as shall apply therefor and can be supplied from the number printed not necessary for the current work of the Convention. Two copies of proposed constitutional amendments and two copies of reports for each member of the committees having duty in relation thereto shall be delivered to the clerks of such com- mittees. The balance of printed copies provided for and not reserved for binding shall be distributed in the order of application therefor by the members of the Convention. Doc. No. 21 20 Eule 72. The assistant sergeant-at-arms and doorkeeper shall be under the supervision of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who shall re- quire their attendance and the performance of their duties. The committee clerks and stenographers shall be under the supervision of the chairmen of the several committees to which they are re- spectively assigned, who shall require their attendance and the performance of their duties. The general stenographers and all assistants to the stenographer shall be under the supervision of the stenographer of the Convention, who shall require their attend- ance and the performance of their duties. With the exception of the Secretary and assistant secretaries, the President's clerk and stenographer, the Secretary's stenogTaplier and the secretaries to the Vice-Presidents, all other officers, assistants and employees of the Convention receiving compensation shall be under the super- vision of an assistant secretary who shall be designated by the Secretary for that purpose and who shall require the attendance and performance of duty by such officers, assistants and employees. To enable the President and Secretary of the Convention to sign the necessary vouchers for payment, pursuant to chapter 76 of the Laws of 1915, the several supervising authorities herein- before mentioned shall severally certify from time to time to the President and Secretary as to the attendance and performance of duty by the officers, assistants and employees respectively under their supervision. Rule 73. After the eleventh day of June, nineteen hundred and fifteen, the call for proposed constitutional amendments by dis- tricts under Eule 3, shall be discontinued and no proposed consti- tutional amendment shall be introduced except on the report or recommendation of a standing or select committee. INDEX— DIGEST (Numbers refer to rules) A Absence of a quorum 63 Absentees, roll call of 6 Adjourn, motion to always in order 47 except one only, when 56 not amendable or debatable 44 ( 1 ) not to be reconsidered 48 jjrecedence of 44 ( 1 ) when out of ordet 56 Adjournment : final vote before final 67 to a daj', certain 47 until declared, decorum 9 Admission to the floor j 54 Adoption of proposals, majority vote 61 Advancement by unanimous consent 38 Allotment of time in debate 56 Amend, motion to amendment on third reading, when in order 40 certain ones out of order 44 precedence of 44 ( 12 ) Amendable, motions not 44 ( 1-5 ) , 53 Amendment : equivalent not in order 55 how affected by " previous question " 53 to amendment, in order if germane 49 to amendment, when out of order 49 Amendments, proposed constitutional. (See "Proposals.") Announcement of vote, members recorded before 7 Appeals from chair, limit of debate on 2 (2) Appendix to Journal, points of order in 14 Appointments of ofEcers and employees 65, 72 Assignment and control of employees 72 Attendance of members, call to secure 62 how enforced 61, 62 Audit of expenditures by committee 19 B " Bar " of convention, definition of 6 members brought before 64 when in order to close 63 Doc. N"o. 21 22 (Numhers refer to rules) Binding of journals, documents, etc 71 Blanks : 'how filled, precedence 60 may be filled on third reading 40 Brackets, use of, in printing proposals 31 Breach of privilege, penalty, etc 64 Business, order of 3 C Calendar of General Orders 20-23 matters placed upon 20 order of consideration of 21, 22 printing of 65 Secretary to prepare 20 to be placed on files daily 23 Call of the Convention: how made ■ 62 procedure under &2, 63 purpose of 61, 62 when not in order 62 Call to order, of member 12 Chairman of Committee of the Whole: to be designated by President 1 ( 5 ) to report when no quorum present 28 to report progress, etc., when 29 Censure of members for absence 61 Certification of service of employees 72 Close " bar " of convention when in order to 63 Close debate, motion to. (See " Previous Question.") Committee of the Whole : amendments made in, to be reported 27 any matter may be committed to 25 calendar to be followed in 21-27 chairman to be designated by President 2 (5) consideration in, before third reading 34 debate allowable in 25 files, calendars to be placed on 23 leave to sit again 29 matters for, all " General Orders " 20 may designate its chairman 2 ( 5 ) motion on report of, debatable 33 motion to commit to, precedence of 44 ( 9 ) motion to go into, precedence of 44 ( 8 ) motion " to rise and report " 26 motion " to rise and report progress " 29 order of business, j)recedence of 3 (10) order of procedure in 21, 27 previous question out of order in 25 procedure in, order of 21, 27 proposals, how taken up 21, 27 23 Doc. X«. 21 {Numbers refer to rules) Committee of the Whole — Continued : proposals not moved lose day's precedence 21 proposals to be considered in, before 3d reading 34 proposals to be read through in, when 27 proposals, when referred to 32 quorum, procedure in absence of 28 report of, motion on, debatable 33 rules of procedure in, general .' 25-29 special days for go'ing into 22 special orders in, how made 24 unfinished business in 3 ( S ) , 29 when convention shall go into 3 (10), 21 " yeas " and " nays " not taken in 25 Committees, standing, duties of, etc 15-19, 50, 51, 52, 5C adverse report of 16, 32 agreement to reports of 32 chairman to sign reports 5 consideration, discharge from 25 consideration of matters in 16 contingent expenses, on, duties of 10, 52 convention may order to report 56 discharge of, from consideration 25 favorable report of, procedure on 16, 32 introduction of proposals by 30 (2) , 73 list of ■ 15 majority report, chairman to sign 5 minority report, members making, to sign 5, 16 motion to commit to, precedence of 44 (10) printing, on, duties of 18 proposals, all on one subject rejected, when 32 proposals introduced by 30 ( 2 ) , 73 recommit to, motion to, on 3d reading 41 report, convention may order to 56 report in three days, when to 50 (2 report, majority required to 16 report of rules committee 24, 56 reports, adverse or favorable 16 reports, majority, to be signed by chairman 5 reports, minority, to be signed by members 5 reports of, order of, business precedence 3 ( 5 ) reports of, to contain statement 5 revision and engrossment, on, duties of 17 rules, duties of, on 56 rules, special order on report of 2i to consider and report promptly 16 Committees, select, reports , of, order 3 ( 6 ) Communications, presentation of 3 ( 1, 2) , 5 Consideration : by committee of the whole before 3rd reading 34 discharge of committee from 25 Doc. No. 21 24 [Numbers refer to rules) Consideration — Continued: of amendments, order of 53 of matters in committees 16 of report of rules committee 56 Constitution, proposed amendment to. (See "Proposals.") Contempt, definition and procedure 63 Contingent expenses, committee on : duties of 19 to audit expenditures 51, 52 Control of employees 72 Convention : call of, motion for, precedence 44 ( 3 ) call of, out of order, when 62 call of, procedure, etc 61, 62 corporation employees excluded from floor 54 employees of, entered in Journal 65 expenses of, audit of, by committee 19 may order committee to report 56 officers to be entered on Journal 65 privilege of the floor of 54, 64 quorum of, majority to constitute 61 removal of officers and employees 72 sessions of, open to public 54 vphen in possession of motion 46 when go into committee of the whole 21 Convention chamber : admissions to 54 Bar of Convention to constitute 6 privileges of convention 54, 64 Conversation, prohibited during debate 8 Corporations, employees of, excluded from floor 54 D Debatable, motions and questions: to adjourn to time certain 47 to amend, except on main question 44 ( 12 ) to commit to a committee, except on main question 44(10,11) to commit to committee of the whole, except on main question 44 ( 9 ) to go into committee of the whole, except on main question. . . 44 (8) on main question if " previous question " negatived 53 to postpone indefinitely 44 ( 6 ) to postpone to day certain, except on main question 44 ( 7 ) on questions in committee of the whole, except 25, 26, 27 on report of committee of the whole 33 on report of committee on revision and engrossing 59 on report of committee on rules 56 on third reading of proposals, when 39 on third reading of proposals, when not 37 25 Doc. No. 21 (Numbers refer to rules) Debatable, motions and questions not: adjourn for tlie day, to 44 ( 1 ) , 48 amendments after expiration of time-limit (in C. of W.) .... 27 breach of privilege, on decision of 64 call of the convention, for a 44 (3) lay on the table, to 44 (5) main question, after adoption " previous question " 53 main question, when certain other motions made 44(7-12) postpone special order, to 13 " previous qvfestion," when moved 53 priority, questions of, in same order 13 proposals, after completion third reading 37 proposals, after roll-call on passage begun 37 recess, to take a 44 ( 2 ) , 47 recommit on third reading, to 41 request to be excused from voting, decision of 7 " rise and report progress," to ( in C. of W. ) 26 suspend any rule, to 13 Debate, order of 11-14 allotment of time in 56 appeals, members to speak once only 2 (2) decorum and order during 8 five-minute rule, application of 39, 56, 59 no member to speak more than once, etc., when.2 (2) , 11, 39, 56, 59 report of rules committee to limit 56 resolutions giving rise to, to lie over 50 to be reported by oflicial stenographer 66 (See also "Debatable" and "Debatable, not," above) Debates : stenographic record of 66 Decorum and order 2 ( 1) , 8, 9, 10, 12, 63, 68 Delivery of printed matter to convention 68 Dilatory motions, when out of order 56 Disbursements of convention appropriation 19 Discharge of committee 25 Distribution of printed journals, documents, etc 71 Divisible motions, and indivisible 55 Division to be determined by yeas and nays, when 57 Division of time in debate 56 Documents, etc. : delivery of to convention 68 distribution of 71 files of to be placed on desks 22, 68, 69 number of, to be printed 70 printing of 18, 32, 51, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70 Duties of president and officers, members, employees, etc. (See re- spective titles: "President," etc.) E Emploj'ees: assignment of, to respective duties 72 Doc. No. 21 26 {Numliers refer to rules) Employees — Continued : names to be entered on journal 65 removal of 72 service of, to be certified 72 Endorsement of papers, liow made 5 Enforcement of: attendance of members 61, 62 decorum and order 2 (1), 8-10, 12, 63, 68 rules by sergeant-at-arms 68 Engrossment : of entire article amended, or 67 of entire proposed new constitution 67 of proposals 17, 35 report of before 3d reading 35 Equivalent motions out of order 55 Excuse : for absence of. member 61 from voting, request for 7 Expenditures : audit of, by committee on contingent expenditures 19 resolutions involving, reference and report of 52 Expenses, contingent, committee on, duties. ( See " Contingent," etc.) Expiration of time limit in committee of the whole, procedure on. . 27 Explanation of reasons for excuse from voting 7 Extra printing, resolutions for, reference, etc 51 F Files of journals, documents, etc 32, 68, 60 Filling blanks, order of consideration in 40, 60 Final passage of proposals: consideration by committee of the whole, before 34 debate in order, when 39 debate out of order, when 37 engrossment of proposals before 17, 35, 67 final form of proposals on 67 final vote before final adjournment 67 " yeas " and " nays " to be entered in journal 37 (See also "Proposals" and "Third Reading.") First reading of proposals by title 3^2 Five-minute rule, when applicable 39, 56, 59 Fix time to which to adjourn, debatable 47 Floor, admissions to 54 G " General Orders," definition of 20 rules of procedure, etc 20-29, 34 (For details of rules and procedure, see " Committee of the Whole.") Germane,- amendment to amendment allowable 49 27 Doc. No. 21 {Numbers refer to rules) I Index of proposals 42 Indivisible questions 55 Information, resolutions requesting, reference, etc 50 Introduction of proposals 30, 31, 32, 43, 73 by members 30 { 1 ) , 31, 32, 43 by committee 30 (2), 31, 32, 73 by members, prohibited after June 11 73 Italics, new matter to be printed in 31 J Journal of tlie Convention : copies, distribution of . . . . '. 71 copies, 1,500 to be printed 70 daily proceedings to be kept in 65 files of, to be provided for members 65, 69 members, when names of entered in 37, 43, 57 oflScers and employees, names of, in " 65 proposals to be entered in 43 questions of order to be entered in 14 reading and approval of 3 " yeas " and " nays " to be entered in 37, 57 L Lay on the table, motion to 44 ( 5 ) , 48 Leave to sit again ( committee of the whole ) 29 Limit of debate: by previous question 53 by report of rules committee 56 five-minute rule applicable, when 39, 56, 59 on report of revision and engrossing 59 on third reading 39, 53 none in committee of the whole 25 (See also "Debatable" and "Debatable, not.") Limit of time in committee of the whole, expiration of 27 M Main question: definition of 53 when debate on, out of order 44, 53 Majority of members elected: necessary to adopt proposals 61 to constitute a quorum 61 two-thirds vote to make special order 24, 37 Matters in committee of the whole, how moved 21 Members of Convention : absence of, censure, penalty, excuse, etc 61 attendance of, how enforced 62 calendar to be furnished daily 23 contempt, when in 63 Doc. No. 21 28 {Numbers refer to rules) Members of Convention — Continued : fifteen may require roll call 57 in debate, confined to question under discussion 2 ( 1 ) in place during vote 8 introduction of proposals by 30 ( 1 ) may be called to order, when 12 may call another member to order 12 may record vote before result declared 7 may request motion to be read 45 names of, entered in journal, when 37, 43, 57 not to converse during debate 8 not to introduce proposals after June 11 73 not to pass between speaker and chair 8 present shall vote unless excused 6, 63 privileges of, when suspended 63 request of, to be excused from voting 7 rights and duties 4-7 shall endorse papers 5 speaking in committee of the whole, no limit 25 speaking on appeals, once only 2 (2) speaking on report of rule committee 56 speaking on report of revision committee 59 spealcing on third reading 39 to be recognized by chair before speaking S to remain in place until adjournment declared 9 twenty-five may postpone rules report 56 Memorials, etc., presentation of 3 ( 1 ) , 4, 5 Minority reports of committees: to be printed 32 to be signed by members making same 5 Motions : adjourn 44 ( 1 ) , 48 adjourn to day certain 47 adjourn, when out of order 56 amend, to 44 ( 12 ) amend an amendment, when out of order 49 amendable motions 44 amendable, motions not 44 call of convention, for, not debatable or amendable 44 (3) certain, always in order 47 commit to committee of the whole 44 (9) commit to a committee 44 ( 10-11 ) debatable motions 25, 33, 44, 47, 53, 56, 59 debatable, motions not 7, 13, 26, 41, 44 dilatory, wlien out of order 56 discharge committee, to 25 division of, when 55 during consideration of rules report 56 equivalent, out of order 55 go into committee of the whole 44 (8) 29 Doc. No. 21 CSumherg refer to rules) Motions — Continued : in committee of the whole 21, 26 lay on the table not debatable or amendable 44 ( 5 ) " leave to sit again," for, ( C. of W. ) 29 main question, when debate precluded 44(7-12) members may require, to be read 45 order of business, precedence in 3 ( 3 ) postpone indefinitely, debatable, not amendable 44 (6) postpone, precedence of 44 precedence of 44-49 previous question 44, ( 4) , 53 previous question negatived, effect 53 priority, questions of, when not debatable 13 recess, to take, precedence of 44 ( 2 ) recommit on third reading, not debatable 41 reconsidered, which can or cannot be 48 reduced to writing, when 45 " rise and report progress," to (C. of W.) 26, 29 " strilce out and insert," indivisible 55 take from the table, not reconsidered 48 shall be stated before debate or vote 45 special order, to make 24 susper sion of a rule 13 when in possession of house 46 withdrawal of, when allowable 46 N Names of members entered in Journal 37, 43, 57 New matter in proposals, printed in italics 31 " No quorum " : in committee of the whole, procedure 28 in convention, procedure 63 Non-debatable questions. (See "Debatable, not.") Notices, order of business of, precedence 3 ( 3 ) Number of: copies of documents, etc., to be printed 70 members on standing committees 15 members to postpone rules report 56 members to require " yeas " and " nays " 57 times member may speak on certain motions. 2 (2), 11, 39, 56, 59 times member may speak, under special rule 56 Numbers, order of consideration in filling blanks 60 Objection to consideration of rules report 56 Officers and employees : duties of 1, 10, 72 names of, entered in Journal 65 removal of 72 service of, to be certified before paid 72 Doc. iSTo. 21 30 {Numhers refer to rules) Order and decorum 2 ( 1 ) , 8-10, 12, 63, 68 call to, how and when 12 dviring debate 8 points of, entered in Journal 14 president to preserve 2 ( 1 ) sergeant-at-arms to enforce rules 68 Order of business 3 motions affecting, referred to rules committee 56 special orders, how made 24 Order of debate 11-14 Order of third reading, precedence 3 ( 7 ) (See also "Third reading of proposals.") Orders, general and special 20-24 (See "Committee of the Whole.") P Papers, etc., presentation and disposition of 4 endorsement of by members 5 Passage of proposals, final. (See "Third reading.") Penalty for absence of members 61 Personal reflections out of order 2 (1) Persons entitled to privileges of floor 54 Petitions, etc., presentation and disposition of 4 endorsement by members 5 Points of order to be entered in Journal 14 Postpone, to: precedence of motions 44 ( 6-7 ) vote required, report of rules committee 56 Precedence of: amendments under previous question 53 general orders in committee of tlie whole 21 motions generally 13, 44-49, 53 President : announce twice request for unanimous consent 38 appeals, decision of, may assign reasons on 2 (2) appoint committees, unless, etc 2 (3) , 15 call members to order, when shall 8, 12 duties of 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 68, 72 certify passages of proposals, shall 2 (6) chairman of rules committee, shall be 2 ( 9 ) conflne members to question under discussion, shall 2 ( 1 ) consulting member of committees, shall be 2 (10) decide questions and points of order, shall 2 (2) designate member to preside, when shall 2 (4) designate reporters, may 2 ( 7 ) direct sergeant-at-arms enforcing rules, may 68 execute judgment of convention, shall 64 members to address, before speaking 8 name chairman of committee of the whole, shall 2 (5) name member entitled to floor, shall 2 (1) 31 Doc. Xo. 21 {X umbers refer to rules) President — Continued : preserve order and decorum, shall 2 (1, 8), 12, 64, 68 prevent personal reflections, sliall 2 ( 1 ) privilege of floor, may grant or revoke 54 remove oiScers and employees, may 72 state question befoife debate or vote, shall 45 suppress disorder, shall 2 ( 8 ) vote, not required to in ordinary proceeding, except 2 ( 8 ) tie vote, including vote of, question lost 2 ( 8 ) , 58 vice-president to preside in absence of 2 (10) Previous question; motion for 53 in order of third reading 39 cannot be reconsidered 48 not amendable or debatable 44 (4), 53 not applicable In committee of the whole 25 order of precedence 44 (4) order of considering amendments under 53 when out of order 56 Printed journals, documents, etc 68-71 delivery of 68 distribution of 71 files of to be kept 69 number of copies of 70 Printing of: calendars, supervised by secretary 65 documents 68, 70 journals 65, 70 minority reports of committees 32 proposals 18, 32, 35, 70 proposals, before third reading 35 resolutions for, to be referred 51 Printing, committee on, duties of 18, 51 Priority of motions, when question of, not debatable 13 Privileges and elections, committee on, to consider breach of privilege, contempt, etc 63 Privileges : of the floor 2 ( 7) , 54, 64 of the floor, breach of 64 of membership, when suspended 63 Proceedings of convention, stenographic record of 66 Progress, " leave to report and sit again " 29 Progress of proposals, entered in register 42 Proposals, relative to, general rules 30-43, 73 action on in committee of the whole 20-29, 32-34 advancement by unanimous consent 38 by committee only, after June 11 73 consideration in committee of the whole 26, 27, 34 debate allowable on third reading, when 39 distribution of, when printed 71 endorsement of by members 5 Doc. No. 21 32 (Numbers refer to rules) Proposals, relative to, general rules — Continued : engrossment of, before third reading 17, 35, 67 final form of, before passage 67 final passage of 3 (7), 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 61, 67 first and second reading by title 32 how prepared, form of 30-31 in general orders 21 introduction of 3 (4) , 30, 32, 72 majority vote of members elected, to pass 61 may be tabled on third reading 37 new matter to be italicized 31 not to be passed on day considered in committee of the whole 36 number of copies to be printed 70 old matter omitted to be bracketed 31 order of third reading of 3 (7> previous question, effect of on third reading 39 printed before third reading, to be 35 progress of, to be entered in register 42 register of, to be kept by secretary 42 rejected by adverse report, when 32 revision of before passage 17, 35, 67 report by committee of whole, debatable 33 third reading of. (See "Third reading.") . ..3 (7), 34, 35, 36, 37 39, 40, 41, 61, 67 titles to be printed in calendar 20 titles to state subject matter 31 to be introduced in duplicate 31 to be read in order of third reading numbers 37 to be read in committee of the whole, section by section 27 to receive three readings before passage 36 vote shall follow third reading immediately 37 when referred to committee of the whole 32 " yeas " and " nays " on final passage 37 Proposed amendments to constitution. (See "Proposals.'') Public, all sessions to be open to 54 Purging members of contempt 63 Putting question, members not to speak or leave 8 Q Question : amendment to, when out of order 44, 49 being put, no member to speak or leave 8 division of 55 lost on tie vote, including President's 6-8 main, definition of 53 of priority, when not debatable 13 on filling blanks, order 60 on final passage to follow third reading 37 previous, how put 53 33 Doc. ^o. 21 (Tfumbers refer to rules) . Its adoption would compel the levy next year of an unjust direct tax of $11,000,000 which ought not to be levied, since it is conceded by everyone familiar with our sinking funds that the excess in the different funds can be used for the payment of the interest upon the bonds without in any way affecting the security of the investment or in any way violating the provisions of the Constitution. Indeed, the excess has been collected unjustly from the present taxpayer and we ought as near as possible cure this injustice by giving the present taxpayer the benefit of this excess. 4. For the reason that while the report favors the serial bond method for future State debts, the proposal for the amortization of the present funded debt does not include or adopt the prin- ciple upon which the serial bond system is based. Briefly, the history of the principal sinking funds is as follows : The first issue of bonds for the barge canal consisted of $2,000,000 3 per cent IS-vear bonds. By an adjustment made in 191-1, the sinking fund now equals the principal and its earnings meet the interest charges from year to year. The next sinking fund for barge canal bonds was created to provide for the payment of $21,000,000 of 3 per cent 50-year bonds authorized by an amend- ment to the Constitution in 1905. Instead of raising a tax as provided by the Constitution to provide a sinlsing fund for the bonds issued under this authority, the Legislature levied a tax rate of .481 of a mill upon the entire valuation of the State upon the theory that a sinking fund should be created for the entire authorized issiie of $99,000,000 whether the bonds had been actu- 13 D'oc. Xo. 23 ally issued or not. The result was the creation of an unnecessary and illegal excess in this sinking fund of over $16,000,000. In other words, the Legislature provided a sinking fund in the years 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909 for the bonds which had been issued and for the bonds which have been issued since, and there ought not to be any question about using this excess for the purpose for which it was raised, that is, the contribution to the sinking fund for those bonds which were subsequently issued. The next sinking fund is to provide for the retirement of $40,- 000,000 4 per cent 50-year bonds issued under the authority of another amendment to the Constitution, which permitted the Legislature to increase the rate of interest. V/hen the Legis- lature provided a tax rate for these bonds, it reduced it from .481 of a mill to .4 of a mill although the rate of interest had been increased, thus disclosing and confessing the error which had been made in 1906. This sinking fund also contains an excess due to the fact that after the tax rate was fixed, the assessed valua- tion of the State was greatly increased and the consequent con- tribution to the sinking fund was much larger than was neces- sary and also to the fact that the earnings of the sinking fund were much larger than were contemplated when the tax rate was fixed. The other barge canal sinking fund provides for the retirement of 50-year 4I/2 per cent bonds and this sinking fund has a large excess due to the payment into it of large amounts received for premiums and accrued interest. All the canal sinking funds have received premiums and accrued interest which are not necessary to meet the requirement in the Constitution and which are en- tirely unnecessary for the amortization of the bonds. The excess in the highway sinking funds is due to the fact that the Constitution provided for the setting aside of a proportionate part of the debt each year but failed to make use of the earnings of such sinking funds with the result that the earnings of the funds have been placed in the highway sinking funds and created excesses to that amount. The highway sinking funds have also been unduly enlarged by the payment into them of the premiums received on the sale of Doc. ]ST"o. 23 14 bonds. What is true of the barge canal sinking funds is also true of the barge canal terminal sinking funds, of the Cayuga and Seneca sinking funds and the Palisades Park sinking funds so that the unnecessary amount in the several funds as stated by the Comptroller in his report to this Convention is as follows : The surplus or excess of available resources over the reserves calculated in accordance with the method stated in the balance sheet, Exhibit A, as of April 30, 1915, was $28,904,706.05, classi- fied as follows : Canal Debt sinking funds $20,671,850 68 Highway Debt sinking funds 8,136,684 81 Palisades Interstate Park Debt sinking funds. . 96,170 56 Total $28,904,706 05 The report of the Finance Committee accompanying their pro- posal condemns the creation of this large excess in the several sinking funds and admits that it was placed there improperly and through an error in judgment and not through any require- ment of the Constitution. iN'evertheless, their proposal does not permit the use of any of this excess for the purpose for which it was created, and the Committee gives as its reasons for not re^ lieving the taxpayer by the use of these funds in excess of the requirement that the purchasers of the bonds knew of the exist- ence of these abnormal sinking funds and that it would therefore be a violation of good faith on the part of the State to use them and consequently would impair the credit of the State. The contention of the Committee in this regard is not convincing because the purchasers of the bonds also knew what the consti- tutional provisions for sinking funds were and purchased the bonds with that knowledge. So far as impairing the credit of the State is concerned, for two years in three different sinking funds the State has, through the Legislature, made use of a portion of this excess and there has been no impairment of the credit of the State because the sale of bonds subsequent to this action of the Legislature produced the greate-st premiiim that the State ever received and furthermore since this action of the Legislature, the value of the State bonds involved has increased and not decreased. 15 D'oc. No. 23 The Committee also leaves open the question of the legality of using any part of the sinking fund. Without attempting to dis- cuss that question, the fact that the Committee itself proposes in the future to use a part of the excess destroys the force of that contention. The other reason for not using any part of the ex- cess in the sinking funds, which is set forth by the Committee, is that the highway bonds are fifty-year bonds while the highway improvement will last only a few years, and the Committee con- tends that for that reason future taxpayers will be burdened with a tax for which they received no benefit equal to the tax which the present taxpayers have been obliged to pay by the creation of the excess in the sinking funds. This contention of the Com- mittee is made on the assumption that the highway improvements last for four or five years in some cases and then are lost to the State. The fact is that poor judgment on the part of the High- way Department caused the construction of a considerable number of State roads which could not endure for more than six or seven years. They have also constructed many roads which ought to endure during the life of the bond, but in the case where the improvement is short-lived the present taxpayer has to provide out of the general funds of the State each year money to place these roads will be iised by the future taxpayer with the same these roads will be used by the future taxpayers with the same enjoyment and benefit as if they were originally constructed in permanent form, the future taxpayer will only pay his portion of the debt. It will be noticed by examining the Comptroller's report to this Convention, which is Document ISTo. 18, that there is now in the sinking funds a total of $40,568,351.32 available, according to the report, for both interest and principal of the debt;, that of this sum of $40,568,351.32 there is an excess over the reserve required of $28,904,706.05. It is my contention that this excess should be applied to the piirpose for which the several sinking funds were created, namely, the payment of principal and interest. In that way we can avoid next year a direct tax of over $11,000,000. I particularly urge this action at this time, not only because it is just to the present taxpayer who has paid Doc. IS^o. 23 16 this excess, and the use of the excess will not in any way affect the integrity of the sinking fund or the security of the bond- holder, but particularly because it will lift a burden from the shoulders of the taxpayers of ]^ew York city which they can hardly bear in view of the tremendous budget, for local purposes, of the city of New York. For the reasons as stated, I disagree with the report of the Committee in that it did not make this additional requirement of iising the excess for the payment of interest now, but so far as their other recommendations are concerned I heartily concur in their views. ROBEET WAGE'EE. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 24 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL IN- TERESTS AND RELATIONS RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, No. 195 (Int. 194); No. 196 (Int. 195), AND No. 419 (Int. 407) July 26, 1915 Mr. Parsons, from the Cotamittee on Industrial Interests and Relations, to which was referred Proposed Amendment introduced by llr. A. E. Smith (ISTo. 195, Int. Xo. 194), entitled "Pro- posed constitutional amendment to amend Article III of the Con- stitution by inserting a new section, in relation to delegation of legislative power in matters affecting employees," reported as follows : The Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations recom- mends the passage of the said amendment with the following amendments : Strike out in line 4 the words " in its discretion ". Strike out in lines 4 and 5 the words " duly constituted " and insert in lieu thereof the words " State board or ". Strike out in line 5 the words " board or administrative agency ". Strike out in line 6 the word " varying ". . Doc. No. 24 2 Strike out in line 7 the words " to existing conditions " and insert in lieu thereof the following ", according to varying con- ditions,". Strike out in line 8 the words " comfort " and " general ". Strike out in line 9 the word " employees " and insert in lieu thereof the words " any class or classes of persons or the public generally ". which report was agreed to, and said proposition ordered reprinted as amended, and referred to the Committee of the Whole. The object of this Proposed Amendment is to enable the Legis- lature to delegate some of its power. The complexity of modern industrial conditions is such that it is impossible for the Legislature, in dealing with them to have in mind their great variety and to deal with each of them ade- quately and fairly. This results in laws which are unnecessarily harsh in their application to some conditions and which affect others which they were not intended to affect. While the Legislature may now authorize the making of rules and regulations and in that way delegate some of its functions, it may only " delegate the power to determine some facts or state of things upon which a statute makes, or intends to make, its own action depend." 8 Cyc. of Law and Practice, p. 830 ; Ruling Case Laws, Sec. 179. It cannot delegate powers which are " inherently and ex- clusively legislative." Village of Saratoga Springs v. Saratoga Gas, Electric Light and Power Co., 191 ¥. Y. 123, at p. 133. The result of this is that rules and regulations cannot be formu- lated to deal with some situations as to which a board or commis- sion can, as a practical matter, better determine what should be done than can the Legislature. For instance, the Court of Appeals has held that it was a dele- gation of " inherently and exclusively legislative " power, and therefore unconstitutional, to insert in the one day of rest in seven law a provision exempting " employees, if the Commissioner of Labor in his discretion approves, engaged in the work of any industrial or manufacturing process necessarily continuous in which no employee is permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day ", * * * " because of the attempt which the Legislature has made to delegate its power to the Commissioner of Labor ". People v. KlincJc Mfg. Co., 214 N. Y., at p. 138. 3 Doc. No. 24 ihere is a law against smoking in factories. There are some lactories, however, where there is no danger from smoking, and where it could reasonably be allowed. It has been found im- practicable to draw a general statute v/hich would leave it to the Commissioner to find facts so as to allow the exemption. In such cases a board or commission sitting throughout the year could give fuller hearings than can the Legislature, and could more fairly classify the exemptions which should be made. The delegation of such power would make more effective the work of the State. Industrial Commission, which was created, as had been the Industrial Board, to meet the needs of the industrial situation. Both the representatives of employers and the representatives of employees who were heard before your committee approved such a delegation of power. The power can only be delegated to a body consisting of more than one, inasmuch as the terms " board " and " commission " imply more than one person. Wilson v. Bleloch, 125 A. D. 191. The phrase " rules and regulations " implies " uniformity, publicity and the establishment of standards * * *_ A rule must necessarily be of general application, and a regvilation must apply impartially." State Racing Commission v. Latonia Agricultural Association, 123 S. W., 681, 685. This limited delegation of power would not permit favoritism in individual cases, but woi;ld require rules for all similarly situated. The words " supplementing ", " modifying " and " adapting " are defined to mean the following: Supplementing. Adding to anything to make it more full and complete. Filling up, or supplying by additions, making up de- ficiencies in. Modifying. Qualifying; especially moderating or reducing in extent or degree ; altering slightly or not very much ; varying. Adapting. Making suitable; making to correspond; suiting; fitting by altering, modifying or remodeling for a different pur- pose; making by altering or fitting something else; producing by changing of form or character. — {Century Dictionary.) This amendemnt is a mere grant of power to the Legislature. The Legislature may impose such limitaitions upon its exercise by Doc. ITo. 24 4 those to whom it delegates the power as it sees fit, and woiild presumably reserve the right to annul at any time any action taken under such delegation of power. HEEBERT PAESOISrs, Chairman, Committee on Industrial Interests and Belations. Mr. Parsons, from the Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations, to which was referred Proposed Amendment introduced by Mr. A. E. Smith (No. 196, Int. 'So. 195), and Proposed Amendment introduced by Mr. Parsons (No. 419, Int. No. 407), both of which relate to the power of the Legislature to prohibit manufacturing in dwellings, reported as follows : The Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations recom- mends the passage of Proposed constitutional amendment (No. 419, Int. No. 407), entitled " Proposed constitutional amend- ment to amend Article III of the Constitution, in regard to the power of the Legislature to prohibit manufacturing in structures used for dwelling purposes," withovrt amendment, which report was agreed to, and said Proposed Amendment re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole. There is question whether the police power of the State as declared by the courts is extensive enough to prohibit manu- facture in dwellings. This is due to the decision of the Court of Appeals, in Matter of Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 09, where an act which prohibited the manufacture of cigars in any part of any floor which was occupied for the purposes of living, sleeping, cooking or doing any household work in a tenement house was held un- constitutional and in which Judge Earl, writing the opinion of the court, said (at p. 113) : " To justify this law, it would not be siiificient that the * * * manipulation (of tobacco) may be injurious to those who are engaged in its preparation and manuf actiire ; but it Avould have to be injurious to the piiblic health. * * * It cannot be per- ceived how the cigarmaker is to be improved in his health or in his morals by forcing him from his home -with its hallowed associations and beneficent influences to ply his trade elsewhere -X- * -::- "What possible relation can cigar making in any build- ings have to the health of the general public ? * * * " Earlier in the opinion the court had said of the cigarmaker (p. 104) : 5 Doc. i^o. 24 ' He may choose to do his work where he can have the super- vision of his family and their help, * * *. He may desire the advantage of cheap production in consequence of his cheap rent and family help, and of this he is deprived." Even if it be argued that later opinions of the court would justify such legislation, the power should not be left in doubt. Some of the objections to permitting manufacture in dwellings are the following: The public health is imperilled. Sanitary, laws and regula- tions of manufacture cannot be enforced, nor can restrictions on the hours of labor of women and children be enforced or their night work prevented. Tenement manufacture is a breeder of tuberculosis. We spend vast sums of money to cure tuberculosis, a large amount of which is caused by mamifacture in tenements which we do not prevent. To allow manufacture in dwellings operates unfairly to the enlightened manufacturer who prefers to have his employees work in sanitary surroundings. His com- petitor who has the work done in dwellings is relieved of the cost of rent, light and fuel and of maintaining sanitary condi- tions, and all other laws regulating factory buildings. Manu- facture in dwellings is manufacture at very low compensation and depresses the general wage scale. It tends to aggravate irregularity of employment. The manufacturer endeavors to keep a supply of capable employees for his factory. This is un- necessary if he is contracting ovit his work to be performed in dwellings. One of the worst results of manufacture in dwellings is the use of the labor of children. Very young children can be and are employed. Their employment cannot be prevented be- cause it would require an army of inspectors to prevent it. As soon as an- inspector enters the ground floor of a tenement the children on the other floors can be dismissed from their work, and the inspector finds nothing. It also leads to lack of school attendance. There is, of course, a great deal of work done in dwellings which is not at all objectionable. It will be for the Legislature to so legislate imder the power which this amendment gives that such work will not be interfered with. HERBERT PARSONS, Chairman, Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 25 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC UTILITIES RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, No. 715 (Int. 98) ; No. 161 (Int. 161) ; No. 718 (Int. 249) ; No. 494 (Int. 482); No. 655 (Int. 639); No. 708 (Int. 688) July 28, 1915 Mr. Hale, from the Committee on Public Utilities, submitted the following report: The Committee on Public Utilities to which were referred, First: Proposed Amendment introduced by Mr. Foley (K^o. T15, Int. ISTo. 98), entitled " Proposed conistitutional amendment, to amend Article V of the Constitution, by adding a new section thereto in relation to public service commissions for the first and second districts;" Second: Proposed Amendment introduced by Mr. Schurman (No. 161, Int. ISTo. 161), entitled " Proposed constitutional amendment, to amend Article V of the Constitution by adding a new section thereto in relation to public service commissions;" Third: Proposed Amendment introduced by Mr. Olcott (iN'o. 718, Int. No. 249), entitled "Proposed constitutional amend- ment, to amend the Constitution by adding a new article creating public utilities commissions and prescribing their jurisdiction, powers and duties;" Fourth: Proposed Amendment introduced by Mr. Coles (No. 494, Int. No. 48'2), entitled "Proposed constitutional amend- Doc. No. 25 3 ment, to amend Article V of the Constitution by adding a new section thereto in relation to public service commissions;" Fifth: Proposed Amendment introduced by Mr. Hinman (No. 655, Int. Ko. 639), entitled "Proposed constitutional amend- ment, to amend the Constitution by adding a new article creating public service commissions and prescribing their jurisdiction, powers and duties;" and Sixth: Proposed amendment introduced by Mr. Landreth (No. 708, Int. No. 688), entitled "Proposed constitutional amendment, to amend Article V of the Constitution in relation to the public service commission, its powers and duties;" Reported by Proposed Amendment, entitled " Proposed consti- tutional amendment, to amend Article V of the Constitution by adding a new section thereto relating to public service commis- sions " (Int. No. 706), which was read twice, and' said com- mittee reports in favor of the passage of said proposed amend- ment, which report was agreed to and said proposition ordered printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole. MINORITY REPORT Mr. Kirby presented the following minority report : To the Convention: The undersigned hereby dissents from the report of the Com- mittee on Public Utilities, relative to the office of Public Service Commissioners, and gives the following reasons therefor : First: That the continuation in office of the commissioners in the Second District at the present salary of $15,000 each, and at a greater salar}^ than judges of the Court, of Appeals and justices of the Supreme Court, except in the first depai'tmeut, should not be tolerated. Second: That the proposal of the committee does not prevent the Legislature from further raising the compensation of the commissioners. Third: That the right to review, and the extent and manner thereof, of the decisions and orders of the commission should not be left to the Legislature but should be fixed by the Coiivention. Thomas A. Kibby. siAii^. KJt iMJj.W YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 26 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RELATIONS TO THE INDIANS, RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT No. 769 (Int. 707) July 29, 1915 Mr. Lindsa}', from the Committee on Relations to the Indians, to which have been referred several proposed amendments relating to abolishing of Indian courts and extending the laws of the State of iN'ew York to the Indians, reports by proposed constitutional amendment entitled " Proposed constitutional amendment to amend Section fifteen of Article I of the Constitution of the State of New York, in relation to Indians " (Int. No. YOY), which was read twice and said committee reports in favor of the passage of the same, which report was agreed to, and said proposed amend- ment ordered printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole. The following reasons, among others, are presented in support of said report: Your Committee is convinced that the time has come when the Indians of the State of New York should be treated as civilized persons, and not as barbarians. The theory of the State and Federal Government for more than a century has been to treat them as dependents, in a state of tutelage, with the ultimate end in view of full citizenship. Although this policy has been pursued through four generations, our method of governing these people, our attitude toward them, and their knowledge of our laws remain practically as they were a half century ago. Doc. No. 26 2 During that period the American Negro, at the beginning of the period fully as incapable of self government as the Indian, has passed from slavery and dense ignorance to good citizenship and comparative intellectuality. Indeed, when the American Indian in this State vs^as an intelligent, independent, and, in a measure, self governing individual, the American Negro was much lower in the scale of civilization, and was a slave. The reason for the progress of the Negro, and the stagnant condition of the Indian is not hard to find. One associated with the white man, was gov- erned by his laws, later had the benefit of these laws conferred upon him, and was compelled to know and obey them; the other, treated as a child, left to his own devices and government, in doubt as to his allegiance and rights under our laws, has drifted along without an object and without hope as to his future. Ultimate citizenship has been the cry of presidents and governors in their recommendations, of commissioners of the Federal Government and of this State, for nearly a century ; while the method of gov- ernment of the Indians in New York during all that time has tended in exactly the opposite direction. In 1888, the Legislature of this State appointed a commission, of which M.r. Whipple of this Committee was Chairman, to in- vestigate and report on almost every phase of the State Indian problem. This Commission performed its duties with thorough- ness, and made a report in January, 1889, covering in detail and with the greatest fullness and accuracy, all questions relating to the lands, moral and social condition, government and needs of the Indians, and collecting in the report the treaties, laws and contracts which relate thereto. This report, commonly knowni as the Whipple report, among other things, made the following rec- ommendation : (4) " The repeal of all existing laws relating to the Indians of the State, excepting those prohibiting the sale of liquors to them and 'intrusion upon their lands, the extension of the laws of the State over them, and their absorption into citizenship." Practically nothing has been done by the Legislature in pur- suance of such recommendation. In 1905, the Legislature appointed another Committee to in- quire and report upon the powers of the State to legislate for the 3. Doc. No. 26 Indians, and what, if any, additional legislation was needed. This Committee, for which Mr. Eay B. Smith of this Convention was counsel, took evidence upon the various reservations and else- where, and in 1906 made its report. Both the Whipple Com- mission and this Committee strongly condemned the Indian courts, the law conferring upon the peacemakers of the Seneca Indians on the Allegheny and Cattaraugus reservations exclusive power over marriage and divorce, and the unsettled condition of the In- dian with reference to our laws and the jurisdiction of our courts. Still nothing has been done. Our present Indian laws are substantially as they were enacted from 1813 to 1849, except that the exclusive power over marriage and divorce was conferred on the peacemakers' courts of the Al- legheny and Cattaraugus reservations by Chapter 374, Laws of 1859. Very few of these laws are of a general nature applying to all Indians within the State. The Indians on the Tonawanda, Allegheny and Cattaraugus reservations have peacemakers' courts ; the two last named have Surrogates' Courts, and the Tonawandas have not; the peacemakers' courts of the Allegheny and Catta- raugus reservations have exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, and the Tonawandas have not. The Tuscaroras, Onon- dagas, St. Regis, and Shinnecocks have no courts of any kind. The power to contract is conferred upon all Indians, and then nullified in the same section by a provision forbidding any person to sue an Indian of the Tonawanda or Seneca nation or Onondaga tribe upon any contract under heavy penalties, leaving the St. Begis, Tuscarora, Oneida and -Shinnecock Indians open to such suits. The statute extends the State laws as to marriage and divorce to all Indians, and in the same section excepts those on the Allegheny and Cattaraugus reservations. This report cannot be extended to indicate all these anomalies and contradictions in our present Indian law. At the present time in the great State of ISTew York, on the Al- legheny and Cattaraugus reservations, two ignorant Indians, called peacemakers, may at the request of an Indian, release him from his wife, and set her adrift without provision or remedy, and without any trial, except an informal hearing. She may appeal to the Indian Council, but the evidence shows it seldom acts. She cannot have any relief under our laws or in our Courts. Doc. No. 26 4 It is a piece of patchwork, out of date, and its worst features enacted to suit the whims of certain classes of the Indians. The evidence taken by the various commissions, as well as communi- cations from the better class of Indians who desire some relief from present conditions, show conclusively that the present con- ditions of the laws is fostering shiftlessness, immorality, and crime upon the reservations, and retarding the development of the Indian toward good citizenship. No doubt the failure of the State to take some drastic action heretofore has been because of doubt as to how far the State could extend its laws. Your Committee is convinced that there is nothing to prevent legislation on the part of the State, in prac- tically every instance where the Federal Government has not as- sumed to legislate. It is remarkable that the Federal Government has never assumed by treaty, or laws, to govern the Indians within this State. It has by treaty guaranteed them in the possession of their lands, provided for the punishment of certain crimes of a more important nature, restrained them in their contracts with agents and attorneys respecting collection of claims, etc., but never provided any code of laws governing them. On the other hand, the State has, from its earliest existence, passed laws for their gov- ernment and control, which have been approved by the Courts. In consolidating the laws of this iState in 1909, the schedule of laws repealed shows about 160 chapters of Indian enactments running from 1779 to 1902, as-repealed; so that the State has always as- sumed to act, while the Federal Government, for over a hundred years, has been content to withhold such action for the Indians of this State. O'rdinary justice requires that the Indian should be recognized in our Constitution, that he be guaranteed the protection of our laws and the process of our courts to enforce his rights. Exper- ience shows that legislatures shift the responsibility to Commit- tees of Investigation or to Congress, and when the Federal Gov- ernment fails to act, as it has always done, the matter is aban- doned and forgotten. The amendment proposed is not intended to affect, nor can it in any way affect, the tribal lands of the Indians, nor does it in- terfere with the maintenance of their tribal relations. Its object is mainly to insure to the Indians justice among themselves by 5 Doc. No. 26 abolishing the inefficient and often corrupt tribal courts which a few reservations have, and conferring the protection of our State courts upon all alike. Your Committee has been requested to submit for the infor- mation of the Convention a condensed statement of the title and law governing Indian lands and the position of the law as to gov- ernment of Indians in this State, and for that purpose submit'^- the following: INDIAN LANDS IN NEW YOEK The United States never had, and has not now, any title or right to the lands of the Indians in this State. The title, that is, the preemptive right to all these lands was originally vested in either the commonwealth of Massachusetts under the grant to the colony in 1628, or in the State of New York under the grant to the Duke of York in 1664. This title is what has been called ttie preemptive right — that is, the right to extinguish the Indian title of possession, by purchase or treaty — after which the lands would belong to the State. In 1786 the State of New York and the commonwealth of Mass- achusetts, with the consent of the United States, settled their differences, Massachusetts thereby ceding, granting, releasing and confirming to New York forever all its claim, right and title " to the Government, sovereignty and jurisdiction " of the lands claimed by the State of New York ; and the State of New York ceding, granting, releasing and confirming to Massachusetts and to the use of the commonwealth, their grantees and the heirs and assigns of such grantees forever, the right of preemption of the soil from the native Indians, and all their estate, right, title and property (the right of title of Government, sovereignty and juris- diction fcxcepted) in that portion of the said lands which included practically the whole of New York (except a mile along Niagara riverj west of a line drawn north and south from a point 82 miles west of the northeast corner of Pennsy. vania ; together with some other lands between the Owego and Chenango rivers. Massachusetts then ceded the like preemption right of all other lands claimed in New York to this State, and reserved the right to assign its preemption right to persons who thus would be able Doc. No. 26 6 to extinguish the Indian title; but purchases from the Indians were to be void unless approved by a superintendent appointed by that State and confirmed by it. Massachusetts made various transfers of its rights to individ,uals and associations, and thus has divested itself of these rights, ex- cept the right to be represented at any extinguishment of the Indian title; and by contracts made with the Indians by these various assignees, with the consent of Massachusetts, New York and the United States, this preemptive title has been extinguished as to all the lands except those of the Allegheny, Cattaraugus, and probably about 1920 acres of the Tuscarora reservations. The remainder of the Tuscarora lands, 4329 acres, the Tuscarora nation owns in fee. The Oneidas own 400 acres of land which they hold in severalty. The Cayugas now have no lands in the State. The Shinnecock Indians own 400 acres on Long Island in fee. They are largely a mixed race, few of them being full blood Indians. The St. Regis Indians have 14,030 acres of land in Franklin County, the title to which is in the Statd, and the right of occupancy and possession in the tribe. The Onondaga Indians have 7300 acres near Syracuse ; the title to which is in the State, and the right of occupancy and possession in the tribe. The Tonawandas have 7548 acres in the Counties of Erie and Genesee which they purchased, and the title to which is now in the State Comptroller of this State and his successors in office in trust for the tribe. The Seneca Indians have 30,469 acres on the Allegheny reserva- tion and 21,G80 acres on the Cattaraugais reservation, the title to which is in the Seneca nation, subject to the preemptive right of what is popularly known as the Ogden Company, upon the extinguishment of the Indian title. The foregoing comprise all Indian lands in the State. The only, claim of the United States Government is that as general guardian or protector of all Indians, and its general right to make treaties with them, and under its treaties with the Senecas, no disposition of their lands can be made without its consent. It 1 Doc. No., 26' is therefore impossible for either the State of New York, the Indians themselves, the owners of the preemptive right, or all three combined to dispose of these lands without the consent of the United States. The extension, therefore, of the general State laws, and jurisdiction of the State courts over the Indians would have no effect upon these tribal lands. GOVEBNMENT OF INDIANS OF NeW YoEK The United States, first treating Indians as foreign nations, then as dependent nations, within its borders, made treaties with them until 1871, when by an act of Congress it forbade recognition of them as an independent nation with whom treaties could be made. Act of March 3, 1871, Chap. 120. Sec. 2079, Revised Statutes. U. 6. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375. Prior to this, the only treaties made by the United States with New York Indians were for the purpose of insuring peace, settling boundary lines, and guaranteeing them and their posterity in the possession of certain lands, or consenting to the disposition of parts thereof. No treaty contains any provision for government of the Indians except that in the treaties of 1789 and 1795 with the six nations provision was made for surrender and punishment in cases of robbery, murder, etc. The United States has never passed any laws for the government of Indians in New York except such as are of general application to all Indians, and there appear to be only two or three of these. One provides the method by which contracts made by an Indian for ser\aces relating to claims for lands and moneys due from the United States shall be made (U. S. Stat. Sec. 2103) and another is an amendment to the Penal Laws (Chap. 321, U. S. Laws of 1909) which provides for punishment and jurisdiction in case of certain crimes of Indians against the person or property of another Indian within the limits of any reservation, viz: murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, assault with a deadly weapon, arson, burglary and larceny. This statute was before our Court of Appeals in People ex. rel. Cusick V. Daly, 212 N. Y. 183, where it was held that as the Federal Government has chosen to legislate on this subject it con- Doc. No. 26 S trolled and excluded State legislation on the same subject. In this case the court seems to assume " that, in the absence of Federal legislation, the State has most ample power to legislate for the Indians within its borders." This is undoubtedly true because the United States Constitution nowhere prohibits it except as to treaties and regulations of commerce with the Indians. The only other restriction is the right claimed by the Federal govern- ment as guardian to legislate for their protection. The various State courts so construe the rights of the State, as witness Farring- ton V. Wilson, 29 Wis. 383, Smith v. Smith, 140 Wis. 599, holding that State courts have jurisdiction to appoint guardians of Indians though belonging to a distinct tribe. Also, Stacy and another v. La Belle, 99 Wis. 520, that State courts have jurisdic- tion of a contract in favor of a white man against an Indian be- longing to a tribe and a particular reservation. This last case enumerates the cases in which a State may act in the absence of Federal legislation. See also, holding the same, 122 Ind. 541. (7 L.R.A. 782.) Our courts hold that where jurisdiction is not conferred on peacemakers' courts, our courts have jurisdiction. Terrence v. Gray, 165 A. D. 636 ; Matter of Printup, 121 A. D. 322 ; Peters v. Tallchief, 121 A. D. 309. Also that our laws of descent and distribution apply to Indians. Hatch V. Luckman, 155 A. D. 765. Our own Indian law provides that State courts have jurisdiction where it is not conferred on peacemakers' courts. Art. 2, Section 5. Indian Law. It also provides that Indians are liable on contracts not pro- hibited by law, but immediately forbids any action on a contract against any Indian of the Seneca or Tonawanda nation, or Onon- daga tribe, though making no such provision for the Tuscaroras, St. Regis, Shinnecock, or any other tribe. It also provides that the State laws as to marriage, annulment, and divorce apply to Indians, and that the State courts have juris- diction; and then confers these powers exclusively, on peace- makers' courts of the Allegheny and Cattaraugus reservations only, probably granting these unusual powers to them because they are 9 Doc. No. 26 the least civilized of all the Indians in the State. Even the Tona- wandas who have peacemakers' courts, have no jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, and none of the other tribes have any kind of courts. While no State law has provided for Surrogates' courts among them, the Senecas of the Cattaraugus and Allegheny reser- vations have erected Surrogates' courts which probate wills and dis- tribute estates. The other laws are of minor importance, and except for abolishing their so-called courts would not be interfered with by the amendment proposed. The general laws would not interfere in any way with tribal relations, nor management of tribal affairs. That the State has power to govern Indians was decided many years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States in construing a New York statute of March 31, 1821, providing for removal of persons from Indian lands. The court says : " The statute in question is a police regulation for the protection of the Indians from intrusion of the white people, and to preserve the peace. It is the dictate of a prudent and just policy. Notwithstanding the peculiar relations which these Indian nations hold to the government of the United States, the State of New York had the power of a sovereign over their persons and property so far as it was necessary to preserve the peace of the commonwealth, and protect these feeble and helpless bands from imposition and intrusion. The power of a State to make such regulations to preserve the peace of the community is absolute, and has never been surrendered." People v. Dibble, 21 Howard (U. S.) 366-371. The United States Supreme Court seems to have settled the respective powers of the Federal and State courts and the power of a State court to act in the absence of Federal legislation in The Minnesota Eate Cases, 230 U. S. 352 et seq. At page 399, the Court says: " It has repeatedly been declared by this Court that as to those subjects which require a general system or uniformity of regula- tion the power of Congress is exclusive. In other matters, ad- mitting of diversity of treatment according to the special require- ments of local conditions, the States may act within their respective jurisdictions until Congress sees fit to act; and when Congress does act, the exercise of its authority overrides all conflicting State Doc. No. 26 10 legislation." And at page 402, after stating the nature of the legislation necessarily reserved exclusively to Congress, the. Court farther says, " But within these limitations there necessarily remains to the States, until Congress acts, a wide range for the permissible exer- cise of power appropriate to their territorial jurisdiction although interstate commerce may be affected. It extends to these matters of a local nature as to which it is impossible to derive from the constitutional grant an intention that they should go imcontrolled pending Federal intervention." * * * * " Where the subject is peculiarly one of local concern, and from its nature belongs to the class with which the State appropriately deals in making reasonable provision for local needs, it cannot be regarded as left to the unrestrained will of individuals because Congress has not acted, although it may have such a relation to interstate commerce as to be within the reach of the Federal power. In such case, Congress must be the judge of the necessity of Federal action." For the Committee, JAMES P. LINDSAY. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 27 MEMORIAL PRESENTED BY IHE SOCIETY OF TAM- MANY OR COLUMBIAN ORDER TO THE DELEGATES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK June 16, 1915 Whereas, There appear to be, and in fact there are, certain in- terests and influences at work to alter, subvert and abridge those fundamental principles of free government which by reason of the sacrifices of our forefathers are the heritage and birthright of OUT people ; and Whereas, For more than a century the historic Society of Tam- many or Columbian Order has been the constant defender and champion of the masses. Now, therefore, we, the Council of Sachems of that ancient and patriotic society and in pursuance of the traditional policy of the Columbian Order, do respectfully submit this memorial. First. We denounce, as opposed to and in contravention of the doctrines of liberty enunciated in the Charter of Liberties and Privileges drafted by the first Colonial Assembly of this State in 1683, all attempts to tamper with or change the right of trial by jury as it now exists. When, in the days preceding the forma- tion of this Republic, the representatives of the people of the Colony of ITew York enacted that "AH TEYALS shall be by the Doc. No. 27 2 verdict of twelve men, and as near as may be peers or equals and of the neighborhood and in the county Shire or Division where the fact shall arise or grow Whether the same be by indictment infermacon declaration or otherwise against the person offender or defendant," they laid down a guarantee of freedom wrung by their forebears from a despot at a cost too great for calculation. Yet there are those intrusted with the task of preserving unim- paired these treasured principles, who would, overnight, substitute for them the theoretic notions of unpatriotic legal reformers, forgetting the tremendous price so paid for the privilege of trial by common-law jury — the most precious gem in the diadem of liberty. Second. The power of the people to elect those who are to sit in judgment upon their liberty and their property rights should never be abrogated ; least of all should that power be placed in the hands of a privileged and exclusive coterie, whether composed of lawyers or laymen. In the undisguised effort being made to deprive our citizens of the right to be judged by judges of their own selection, we perceive an inevitable return to the days of Jeffreys — those black and despairing times when a favored sycophant passed upon the life and liberty of the masses, at the behest of the power which had selected him to wreak its private vengeance. Sub- stitute for a Jeffreys an unscrupulous attorney selected by an insidious and powerful combination of money and monopoly, the greatest menace of modern society, and you have a possibility of injustice and tyranny which will all too soon ripen into a prob- ability. The power of selecting judges should never be placed in the hands other than those of the people themselves. There- fore, and in no uncertain terms, we decry the effort to bring about the appointment rather than the election of jiidges. The influences which would tamper with our juiy must not be per- mitted to steal our judiciary too. Third. " Taxation without representation " still exists in this otherwise Excelsior State. We demand that you accord to the tax-burdened city of New York some measure of relief from its rural taxmasters ; that our metropolis with its population of 5,000,000 receive that fair and just proportion of representation 3 Doc. l\o. 27 in the State Legislature to whicli its share of the task of maintain- ing the State entitles it. This city of New York is and of right ought to be the free and untrammeled metropolis of the western world ; and it is your duty to accord and grant it an unequivocal home rule so that we shall not be at the mercy of rural communities, who do not and in the nature of things cannot understand what is essential and necessary for its growth and welfare. John F. Aheaen, Asa Bird Gardiner, Charles F. Murphy, Wauhopb Lynn, John J. Scannell, George W. Plunkitt, Thomas Darlington, Henry W. TJnger, George W. Loft, William Dalton, Thomas F. McAvoy, Louis F. Haffen, Edward C. Sheehy, Council of Sachems of the Society of Tammany or Columbian Order. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 28 REPORT OF THE COMMITIEE ON CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES RELATIVE TO THE SEVERAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS July 30, 1915 Mr. Dow, from the Committee on Conservation, to which was referred several proposed amendments in relation to conservation of forest lands, reports by proposed amendment entitled " Pro- posed constitutional amendment to insert in the Constitution a new article in relation to the conservation of natural resources " (Int. No. 708), which was read twice and said committee reports in favor of the passage of the same, which report was agreed to, and said proposition ordered printed and referred to the Com- mittee of the Whole. The Committee on Conservation of Natural Resources herewith presents the following reasons in support of its report: The Committee was called upon to consider two basic questions : First, the determination of the policy of the State in respect to the preservation of its Forest Preserve; and second, the admin- istration of all the natural resources of the State, free from politi- cal interference. In respect to both of these fundamental propositions and to the Doc. No. 28 2 numerous incidental propositions that have been presented to it, the Committee has held public hearings and executive sessions; has fully considered all amendments referred to it, and all sugges- tions made to it ; and, after thorough deliberation, has reached the conclusions embodied in its report. The propositions submitted to the Committee on Conservation, and from which they have drawn suggestions, were as follows : Pr. No. 10, Int. No, 10, proposed by C. H. Young. Pr. No. 25, Int. No. 25, proposed by J. S. Whipple. Pr. No. 37, Int. No. 37, proposed by R. B. Smith. Pr. No. 71, Int. No. 71, proposed by C. H. Young. Pr. No. 84, Int. No. 84, proposed by E. N. Smith. Pr. No. 129, Int. No. 129, proposed by H. L. Austin. Pr. No. 154, Int. No. 154, proposed by W. B. Dunlap. Pr. No. 208, Int. No. 207, proposed by A. P. McKean. Pr. No. 220, Int. No. 219, proposed by Gl H. Bunce. Pr. Nos. 128^247, Int. No. 128, proposed by H. L. Austin. Pr. No. 299, Int. No. 295, proposed by W. P. Bannister. Pr. No. 316, Int. No. 312, proposed by A. J. Baldwin. Pr. No. 375, Int. No. 370, proposed by Charles M. Dow. Pr. No. 382, Int. No. 375, proposed by A. J. Baldwin. Pr. No. 445, Int. No. 433, proposed by Perris J. Meigs. Pr. No. 450, Int. No. 438, proposed by G. E. Greene. Pr. No. 492, Int. No. 480, proposed by Charles M. Dow. Pr.- No. 584, Int. No. 569, proposed by E. M. Angell. Pr. No. 585, Int. No. 570, proposed by E. M. Angell. Pr. No. 586, Int. No. 571, proposed by E. M. Angell. Pr. No. 647, Int. No. 631, proposed by T. A. Leary. The Forest Preserve. — As to the policy of the State in respect to the Forest Preserve, your Committee adopts the following lan- guage of the report of David McClure for the Committee on For- est Preserves, made to the last Constitutional Convention, under date of August 23, 1894, and reading in part as follows: " That your Committee has reached the conclusion that it is necessary for the health, safety and general advantage of the peo- ple of the State that the forest lands now owned and hereafter acquired by the State, and the timber on such lands, should be preserved intact as forest preserves and not under any circum- stances be sold." 3 Doc. No. 28 Your Committee thus reports the present language of section seven of article seven of the Constitution relating to the preserva- tion of the Forest Preserve as wild forest lands, vrith the exceptions that it recommends that the Department of Conservation be " em- pov/ered to reforest lands in the Forest Preserve, to construct fixe trails thereon, and to remove dead trees and dead timber there- from for purposes of reforestation and fire protection solely; but shall not sell the same". This exception, in the opinion of the Committee, will prepare for reforestation and more adequately protect the State forests from destruction by fire. Administration. — In determining the question of administra- tion, your Committee was called upon to deal with considerations which are peculiar to the question of conservation. It seemed necessary that your Committee should provide for continuity of policy and freedom from political control, which in their opinion is indispensable to proper management of the Forest Preserve. They deemed that these ends could best be secured by an unpaid board which, from the nature of the work and the opportunity for State service it offers, would attract to it men of a type whose serv- ices no salary could secure. Such a board will be deliberative in function, and will shape the policy of administering the natural resources of the State, in response to public sentiment, and for the best interests of the State as a whole. By appointing- commissioners for overlapping terms of nine years, and providing that they can only be removed by the Gover- nor on charges, permanency of personnel and continuity of policy are secured. By specifying that each judicial district in the State shall be represented on this board, every portion of the State has its spokes- man, and as a consequence, the people as a whole will feel that their voice may be heard, and thus public confidence and support will be better guaranteed. Extensive reforestation is provided for, in order that the large tracts of State-owned land, now bare, may be reclothed vnth for- ests, to the improvement of the water holding capacity of the soil and the enhancement of the Forest Preserve as park and recreation ground. The practice of forestry throughout the State is encouraged and Doc. ISTo. 28 4 the department given discretionary power to promote forest man- agement upon the large areas unsuited to agriculture. The purchase of additional lands within the Blue Lines which bound the forest parks within the Forest Preserve, is not only rec- ommended, but a plan for securing funds for such purchases is provided. Systematic purchasing of lands within the Blue Lines would consolidate the present holdings, making administration more economical, and at the same time, secure control of lands upon whose forest cover depends the regular flow of our most im- portant streams, and insure perpetuation of the water supply of the State and its municipalities. By making it possible, if deemed advisable, to extend the fire protMtion system to include the entire State, your Committee feels that it is providing for the safety of forest lands. Most sections of the State have suffered heavily in the past from forest fires through lack of an efiicient protective organization. In such cases, this department may, at the solicitation of citizens or acting upon its own discretion, install a local State fire warden for the purpose of preventing and suppressing such forest fires. Concerning the regulatory powers of this department, your Committee deems it advisable to empower it to enact the necessary rules and re'gulations concerning fish, game, birds, shellfish and Crustacea, subject to the veto of the Governor. This power should not only lighten the load of the Legislature to a considerable ex- tent, but also result in less confusion and better co-ordination of the fish and game laws, with increased eSiciency and equity. Regarding the personnel, civil service regulations are to be en- forced, with the exception of the superintendent, emergency em- ployees and laborers. The existing provision permitting the use of three per cent, of the Forest Preserve for water storage purposes is retained with- out any change whatever, as is the provision that any citizen may bring an action for violations of the provisions of this article (the final clause of section seven) . To avoid inflicting hardships upon communities and individ- uals who have for years occupied lands now belonging to the State, the Department of Conservation is given discretionary power to issue licenses to occupants of that class. These licenses are revoca- 5 Doc. No. 28 ble and are limited to cases where occupancy commenced before December 1, l&OO, and to permanent residents. The final change to be mentioned is the one whereby the City of New York may use for water supply purposes three small speci- fied tracts owned by the State in CTreene and Ulster coimties. Such use is felt to be of necessity to the city, and by clearly specifying the parcels in question, no extensive easements are granted. (Signed) : 1. Charles M. Dow Chairman 2. Edwaed E". Smith 3. Geoege Clinton 4. LoTTis Marshall 5. 6. EusH Ehebs (Eeserving right to dissent to mandatory appro- priation.) Y. Olin H. Landeeth (Reserving the right to dissent to the limitations placed on the powers of the Commission.) 8. Feeeis J. Meigs (Except for the too narrow limitations placed on some of the discretionary powers of the depart- ment, I approve.) 9. H. Leeot Austin (But dissenting as to the nine-headed commission and mandatory appropriation, for reasons which I will state. ) 10. Wm. p. Bannistee (Reserving right to dissent to mandatory appropri- ation.) 11. Edwaed M. Angell (Being in favor, however, of broader powers in the Commission.) 12. W. Baelow Dunlap 13. Aethue J. Baldwin (Reserving the right to dissent to mandatory ap- propriations.) Doc. No. 28 6 14. M. J. O'Brien 15. Timothy A. Leabt 16. Geoege a. Blatjvelt (Reserving right to dissent.) 11. John G. Saxe The majority report is signed by all the members of the Com- mittee, except Mr. Whipple. Messrs. Dow, Smith, Clinton, Marshall, Dunlap, O'Brien, Leary, and Saxe sign without restriction. Messrs. Landreth, Meigs and Angell reserve the right to dis- sent as to the limitations placed upon the powers of the depart- ment. Messrs. Ehees, Bannister, Austin and Baldwin reserve the right to dissent from the provision for a mandatory appropriation, and Mr. Austin also from the form of administration. MAJORITY REPORT Mr. Angell presented the following majority report: SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT RELATING TO THE EESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THE DISOEETION- AEY POWEE OE THE CONSEEVATION DEPART- MENT AS PROPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION OE NATURAL RESOURCES The undersigned members of the Committee on Conservation of Natural Resources, while in hearty accord with all the provisions of the majority report, disagree with the conclusion of the majority of the Committee that none of the restrictions of use in the present Constitution should be relaxed. We believe that the limitations in the majority report are too restricting in their effect upon the operations and do not offer an opportunity for the proper develop- ment of the State's natural resources. The Committee has reported a plan for the organization of the department along lines which should insure continuity of purpose, free from partisan control, by men of high character, whose sole purpose vsdll be to serve the best interests of the State in the preservation, the development and enhancement in value of its 7 Doc. No. 28 natural resources. We believe that they should be entrusted by the people with the duty and the power to work out the problems before them, and to that end they should be given greater latitude under the Constitution — a latitude which will enable them to exercise their discretion in many particulars upon important questions of policy. The majority seem to believe in prohibition of use. We believe in protection and conservation, and conserva- tion is not prohibition. We favor making provisions in the Con- stitution which will permit, under rules and regulations to be fixed by the Conservation Department, the following : I. The building of highways in the Forest Preserve. II. The leasing of camp sites of limited area for limited periods on restricted portions of the Forest Preserve. III. The sale by the State of lands in the Forest Preserve out- side of the Adirondack and Catskill parks, except the land con- tiguous thereto and the islands in and the lands adjacent to Lake George. IV. The classification of the lands of the State in the Adiron- dack and Catskill parks into two areas, one of which shall be forever held as wild forest lands, and which shall include the lands upon the mountain tops and the lands in and around the lakes and major streams, and such other lands as for any reason the Commission shall determine should be so classified ; and the second area to include all the other lands of the State within said parks, with a provision that the Conservation Department may cut, sell, and remove any part of the timber thereon which is mature or detrimental to forest growth, in accordance with the principles of scientific forestry, and for the purpose of increasing the growth of the forests. Such lands, however, to be forever kept as forest lands and the forest cover thereon to be maintained and per- petuated. Our reasons for desiring to incorporate the foregoing provisions in the Constitution are as follows : I. Under the provisions of the present Constitution and under the proposed amendment proposed by the majority of the Com- mittee it is impossible to build highways in the Adirondacks or Catskills through or upon the lands of the State. These lands are owned by the people and should be made accessible to them so that Doc. No. 28 8 they may more easily go there for health and recreation. The forests should not be locked from access to the majority of the people of the State. Such highways would, in addition, furnish the best possible fire protection because they would be broad fire lanes and besides would enable the forest rangers quickly to reach the locality of the fire and extinguish it before it has acquired headway. II. The leasing of camp sites should be permitted for largely the same reasons. The Adirondacks and Catskills should be opened to the use of the people of the State by leasing to them camp sites of a limited area and for a limited time. This would not only be a means of substantial revenue to the State but would furnish during the time most needed a fire fighting force. Fires are less frequent where camps are occupied, for camp site lessees ^ould become interested in seeing that no fires devastated their camps, and they would thereby furnish a great protection to the property of the State. III. The State owns about 250,000 acres outside the Adiron- dack and Catskill parks in isolated areas where they serve no useful purpose but are a constant and increasing expense to the State. The Conservation Commission and practically every or- ganization and individual in the State interested in this subject, have, for many years, advocated the sale of these lands and the devotion of the proceeds, estimated to be not less than $1,000,000, to the purchase of other lands within the Adirondack and Catskill parks. IV. Lands in the Adirondack and Catskill parks should be classified by the Conservation Department into areas as above out- lined, one of which should be held as wild forest land, and the other as utilization forests. The State owns approximately, 1,800,000 acres in the Forest Preserve, an area larger than the State of Delaware and about half the size of Connecticut. It is fair to say that 1,250,000 acres of this area are covered by heavy forest growth. The average annual growth is estimated by competent authority to be 200 feet per acre, or an aggregate annual wood crop of 250,000,000 feet of lumber, worth approximately $1,000,000. This is now an abso- lute economic loss to the State, for an amount eqtial to the annual 9 Doo. No. 28 growth annually falls from decay and its value is gone forever. Under proper forest management the annual growth could be taken each year and still the necessary forest cover maintained. This would mean the removal annually of not over two per cent, of the trees standing on the lands. The growth and quantity of forest trees would be increased, and the value of the Forest Preserve for water storage purposes be undiminished. If the part to be set aside in the first area to be forever held as wild lands on which no cutting should be allowed, be estimated at one-third to one-half of the whole area the above estimate would be decreased to $500,- 000 — the amount asked for annually by the Committee. The carrying charges of the Forest Preserve are not less than $365,000. exclusive of the interest on the amounts paid by the State for these lands. The Conservation Department has for years advocated a change in the Constitution which would make unnecessary this vast economic waste. The platform of the Pepublican and Demo- cratic parties for the year 1914, upon which platforms all the delegates to this Convention were elected, demanded a change. The Camp Pire Club of America, The Association for the Pro- tection of the Adirondacks, the Empire State Forest Products Association, the Committee of Engineers, representing national and local professional engineering societies, and many other asso- ciations and individuals having knowledge of the subject, and no personal interest, have advised a procedure similar to that here advocated. The Legislature of the State at its last two sessions has passed a concurrent resolution as a proposed constitutional amendment, as follows : " The prohibition of section seven shall not prevent the cutting or removal of mature, dead, or fallen timber or trees detrimental to forest growth, on lands constituting the Forest Preserve, nor the leasing of camp sites and the construction of roads and trails nec- essary for protection against fire, and for ingress and exit. The Legislature may authorize the sale of lands outside the limits of the Adirondack park and the Catskill park as such parks are now established by law. The proceeds of such sales of lands shall be set apart in a separate fund and used only for the purchase of lands or for reforestation in such parks." The third annual report of the Conservation Commission for the year 1913 says: " Nearly all the merchantable material in a Doc. No. 28 10 forest is contained in a few of the larger trees. Tlie larger trees are but a small proportion of the whole stand, therefore, their re- moval does not injure the forest cover. The purpose could be best accomplished by classifying the Preserve into areas which sHould be maintained as protective forest and into other areas which could be used for wood production. The former would in- clude mountain tops, steep slopes, or other places where it might be difficult to maintain the forest cover, and which should not therefore be lumbered. The latter would include the lower and more level sections where operations could be profitably conducted without injuring the foreet cover, leaving, however, belts around lakes and other places where the aesthetic or camping interest was more important than the commercial." This method also has the endorsement of Henry D. Graves, Chief Forester of the national preserve, and an authority of the highest standing, who in a letter to the chairman of the Conserva- tion Commission under date of July 18, 1915, wrote in part as f oUows : " Undoubtedly considerable parts of the Adirondack Preserve should be retained as pristine forests for the recreation and es- thetic enjoyment of the people. I believe, however, that it would be equally unfortunate for the Constitution to prevent the people of the State from carrying out, after expert advice and public consideration, a policy of practical forest management on certain parts of the Adirondack lands or any other lands owned by the State where it is determined to be the highest use which can be made of that particular portion of the public holdings." This is likewise the method proposed by the head of the New York State Forestry colleges at Syracuse and Cornell in numer- ous letters, and in testimony before the committee at its public hearings. It is also the method by which the Japanese govern- ment manages its forests, as stated by Mr. Nokai, a director of the natural forests of Japan, now on a visit to this country. The last Democratic State platform, adopted in the year 1914, contains the following language: " The Constitution, in relation to the preservation of forests, should be so amended as to permit a profit to the State, to be de- rived from the scientific preservation and cultivation of our forest lands, at the same time protecting them against exploitation by private interests." 11 Doc. No. 28 The Eepublican State platform, adopted at the time the Re- publican delegates-at-large to this Convention were nominated, contains the following upon this subject: " We favor conservation and utilization of the State's forests and waters under conditions which will safeguard the rights and interests of the State. The holdings by the State of forest lands should be enlarged and adequately protected against fire and Waste." Gifford Pinchot in a letter to the Chairman of this Committee under date of July 7, 1915, wrote in part as follows : " In am in favor of a constitutional provision which will permit the cutting of timber, not only dead and down, but mature and ripe, in the Adirondacks, as perhaps you know, and I am enclosing herewith a report made to the Camp Fire Club in 1911, which deals with the matter." The Empire 'State Forest Products Association, at a meeting held in Utica November 12, 1914, recommended that — " The Constitution should be so amended that the Legislature may pro- vide: (1) For the sale of mature, dead and down timber being and standing in the Forest Preserve, as now or hereafter constituted, and for the removal of timber so sold in accordance with the prin- ciples of scientific forestry. (2) To sell the lands in the Forest Preserve outside the Adi- rondack and Catskill Parks. (3) To lease camp and cottage sites in the Forest Preserve. (4) To provide for the construction of roads, trails and fire lines or lanes in the Forest Preserve. (5) To set apart the proceeds of the sales of lands and all other net revenue from the Forest Preserve in a fund, to be used only for the purchase of lands in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, for the reforesting of lands owned by the State in said Parks and for such other purposes for the benefit of the Forests in said Parks as the Conservation Commission shall provide. (6) To raise funds sufficient to continue the acquisition of forest lands and lands suitable for growing forests not belonging to the State within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks." The Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, and Doc. ISTo. 28 12 the Camp Fire Club of America, by tbeir sub-committees, at a joint meeting held in New York City July 16, 1914, voted in favor of the following proposed amendment to the Constitutiou : " The prohibition of Section 7 shall not prevent the cutting or removal of [mature] dead or fallen timber or trees, detrimental to forest growth on lands constituting the Forest Preserve, nor the leasing of camp sites, nor the construction of roads and trails necessary for protection against fire and for ingress and egress. The Legislature may authorize the sale of lands outside the limits of the Adirondack Park and of the Catskill Park as such Parks are now established by law." In an editorial in the July, 1915, number of "American Forestry ", the official organ of the American Forestry Associa- tion of which Dr. Drinker, President of Lehigh University, is president, the following is stated: " The prejudice against cutting of green timber is deeply in- grained in the minds of New York citizens, due to distrust of her politicians. The situation demands the complete elimination of politics from the management of the State forest lands. Should the Convention be able to accomplish this, they need no longer hesitate to permit cutting. On the Minnesota National Forest, the timber around the shores of the lakes and other points acces- sible to the public is preserved and protected although the Forest Service has the technical right to cut and remove it. Areas of especial value can be so classified, and preserved in their primitive condition. The remaining areas, unaccessible to the public, can be logged by methods which preserve the forest cover, secure reproduction and prevent waste from decay. These methods have been fully demonstrated on the National Forests. Must New York, through timidity, close her eyes to progress, and either lock up her forest resources, or imperil them with ill-considered half measures ? Now is the time for the State to establish a sane and orderly administration which will bring the Adirondack forests to a plane equal to that of the wonderful Black Forest of Ger- many, which while serving as the recreation ground for the entire region, supports hundreds of villages and thousands of persons dependent entirely on the forest industries for their existence." The New York Evening Mail in its edition of July 27, 1915, in an editorial entitled "Tying Up the State Forests," states its opinion of the report favored by the majority of this Committee in the following words: 13 Doc. JSTo. 28 " The Conventions Committee on Conservation has decided to recommend the continuance of the present constitutional prohibi- tion against any attempt at scientific forestation of the lands of the State. No timber is to be cut on the State lands except v?hat is dead or fallen. The construction of roads in the Forest Pre- serve will be forbidden, as well as the future leasing of camp sites. ' The whole cause of forestry, and to that extent of conserva- tion, has been greatly and stupidly hindered in this State by the inability under which the State authorities rest to make any economic or scientific use of any part of the State's forests, even as a matter of experiment, instruction or example." " The simple fact is that the Adirondack forests are not con- sidered by our sapient legislators to be the property of the people, but of the rich ' camp ' owners and club men who go up there to enjoy themselves in a luxuriant manner in the summer and to shoot deer and other game in the autumn. For their purposes the forest seems well enough in its roughest condition. Scientific forestation makes no appeal to them whatever. " We have a chance in the State of New York for almost as great a development of our forest wealth as has taken place in the empire of Germany. The central portion of our two great mountain ranges contains 7,200,000 acres, which is under nom- inal fire protection. The Statef-owned Forest Preserve consists of 1,825,852 acres, to which it is proposed to add largely. But none of this land is under forest management; this, as we have said, is already forbidden by the Constitution. In the meantime we are prevented by the selfish caprice of a few millionaires from realiz- ing so desirable a thing as that which is seen in Prussia, where the 6,700,000 acres of State forest yield a net annual income of $20,500,000, without any deterioration of the forest whatever." These are but a few of the many authorities which might be referred to which indicate conclusively the error which will be made by this Convention if it perpetuates and still further limits the already too narrow policy in the care, use, and development of the Forest Preserve, of which the majority of the Committee is in favor. True conservation does not consist in locking up our resources where the wealth therein contained must be forever lost, but in the utilization of these resources under wise regulation. EDWARD M. ANGELL. OLIN H. LANDEETH. FERRIS J. MEIGS. Doc. No. 28 14 MINORITY REPORT Mr. Whipple presented the following minority report : MINORITY EEPORT FEOM THE COMMITTEE ON CON- SERVATION OE NATURAL RESOURCES, AND REASONS THEREFOR The undersigned, a member of the Committee on Conservation of Natural Resources, disagreeing with the Committee's report in several, separate and distinct particulars, makes the accompanying minority report setting forth the reasons for disagreeing and in what particulars the majority report should be amended, and asks that this dissent and minority report be placed on the General Orders calendar and considered in connection with the majority report in the Committee of the "Whole. Some of the reasons that impel a disagreement with the major- ity of the Committee are as follows: 1. On the question of the administrative features intended to be provided for by the proposed constitutional amendment re- ported by the majority of the Committee, it is believed that the plan so proposed by the Committee, which is for an unpaid board of nine members, is not justified by experience, will be unwork- able, will prove inefficient and be a detriment to the public servica It is also believed that the class of men, who will from necessity be selected as members of such a board, will be men of wealth, whose business interests require nearly all of their time |ind attention. That they, or many of them, will have little or no actual knowledge of the subject matter to be under their control, and no time or disposition to give it the constant, daily attention this intricate, many headed, difficult problem that is bounded by the limits of the State, demands. That the conflicting opinions of the members of this large board, based upon insufficient knowledge will result in inaction and in the end will not produce good results. The whole history of the department for more than twenty-five years, establishes the fact that such undesirable results follow when more than one man has been at the head of the commission. The large commissions have always been inefficient, and made little or no progress, responsibility has not been centered and they have never worked well. 15 Doc. No. 28 The State has tried a commission of seven, then one of four, then one of three, then one of five, then one of four, then one of three, then a single commissioner, vehich form was continued until 1911, when a return was made to a three headed commission and after again trying that plan for four years we are back to a single headed coromission. An examination of the work in the department will disclose the fact, that there was more constructive work done under a single- headed commission from 1903 to 1911, a period of eight years, than there has ever been done in a much longer time by any larger commission. With this experience and this record it does not seem wise to the dissenting member of the Committee, that the State should again go back to a larger commission and especially when it is to be tied up for twenty years by a Constitution. Further, the proposal is objectionable because the members of the board are to be asked to give their time, best services and best thought for a long period of years without pay. It sounds fine in theory but to work without pay never has and never will cause men to do their best for a considerable length of time. It is objectionable because responsibility is not centered. It is objectionable because the Governor does not appoint the superin- tendent and have power to remove him. In fact such a board is just as objectionable from every standpoint as a like board would be for the Agricultural Department, the Highway Department and many other departments. It would be much like the vermi- form appendix in man, useless, and should be cut off. 2nd. The majority proposition makes no provision for roads of any kind through this immense tract of forest land. A park without roads in the right places, is of much less use to the people than it would be with proper roads. What would have been thought when Central Park in the City of New York was established, if no roads had been provided for and the commission prohibited from making any ? In time, this wonderful woodland park will be to the people of the whole State what Central Park is to the people of Greater New York. These parks and playgrounds of the people are for use. Easy Doc. ]S^o. 28 16 and convenient ways should be provided for ingress and egress. Therefore this minority report suggests at least that a State high- way may be provided for by the Legislature, running from Old Forge northerly along the Fulton Chain of Lakes and thence north- erly to connect with some main highway at or near the Saranac Lakes. Such a road would run through the most beautiful part of the Adirondacks, would furnish an acceptable and beautiful . way from the southern side to get in and out, and would afford better opportunity for protecting as many as forty miles of wood- land from fire. For these reasons dissent is made to that part of the majority report. 3rd. Inasmuch as the majority report provided that dead trees and timber may be taken out where necessary, for better fire pro- tection and reforestation, but declares such material cannot be used, dissent is made to that proposition because it is not compre- hensive enough. There seems to be no good reason why such material should not be used at least for fire wood for domestic purposes by the res- ident people, (there are several thousand of such people) some revenue obtained and thereby relieve a bad situation that exists in many places where the people have to pay as much as $14.00 a ton for coal, while millions of cords of stove wood are in sight in dead and down trees, doing no good to any one and in many in- stances making a dangerous situation and opportunity for more fire. 4th. Dissent is made to that portion of the majority report that provides for permits, ratifying and making legal the occupancy on State land of five or six hundred people, who for years have been occupying the people's property without legal authority and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. That proposi- tion appears to be a proposed premium on doing wrong and to the exclusion of all those who obey the law and do right. It sin- gles out a special class who have been violating the law, gives them special privileges and excludes all others from enjoying like privileges. For the foregoing reasons this minority report is made and amendments to the majority report suggested in these particulars, 17 Doc. No. 28 with the hope that the reasons for dissenting are so plain aad reasonable, that the Convention will adopt these minority proposi- tions. J. S. WHIPPLE. PEOPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article Section 1. The department of conservation shall consist of a single commissioner, appointed by the Governor and subject to re- moval by him on charges after an opportunity to be heard. The commissioner's term of office shall be six years. His compensa- tion shall be fixed by law. He shall appoint and may, at pleasure, remove a deputy commissioner and fix his salary. He may also appoint all necessary subordinates, all of whom shall be selected from eligible lists from open competitive examination conducted by the Civil Service Commission. Subject to the limitations in this article contained, the depart- ment shall be charged with the development and protection of the natural resources of the State; the encouragement of forestry and the suppression of forest fires throughout the State; the exclusive care, maintenance and administration of the forest preserve; the control, conservation, prevention of pollution, and regulation of the waters of the State ; the protection and propagation of its fish, birds, game, shell-fish and Crustacea, with the exclusive power, subject to the veto of the Governor, to enact regulations with re- spect to the taking, possession, sale and transportation thereof, and shall exercise such additional powers as from time to time may be conferred by law. § 2. The lands of the State, now ovraed or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be for- ever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the trees or timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. The Commission is, however, empowered to reforest lands in the forest preserve, to construct fire trails thereon, and to remove dead trees and dead timber therefrom for purposes of reforestation and fire protection solely, but shall not sell the same, except for fire wood for domestic purposea. Doc. No. 28 18 § 3. The legislature may by general laws provide for the use of not exceeding three per centum of such lands for the construc- tion and maintenance of reservoirs for municipal vrater supply, for the canals of the State and to regulate the flow of streams. Such reservoirs shall be constructed, owned and controlled by the State, but such vrork shall not be undertaken until after the bound- aries and high flow lines thereof shall have been accurately sur- veyed and fixed, and after public notice, hearing and determina- tion that such lands are required for such public use. The ex- pense of any such improvements shall be apportioned on the public and private property and municipalities benefited to the ex- tent of the benefits received. Any such reservoir shall always be operated by the State and the Legislature shall provide a charge upon the property and municipalities benefited for a reasonable return to the State upon the value of the rights and property of the State used and the services of the State rendered, which shall be fixed for terms of not exceeding ten years, and be readjustable at the end of any term. Unsanitary conditions shall not be created or continued by any such public works. § 4. The legislatiu'e may authorize the use by the city of isew York for its mimicipal water supply of certain lands now be- longing to the State located in the townships of Hurley and Shandaken in the county of Ulster and in the tovsmship of Lex- ington in the county of Greene, for just compensation. § 5. The legislature shall, for twenty years from and after the adoption of this Constitution, provide annually by bond issue or otherwise, the sum of not less than $500,000* for the purchase of real property within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, the reforestation of lands, and the making of boundary and valuation surveys. Such funds shall be expended by the Department of Conservation on the approval of the Grovei'nor, § 6. The legislature may provide for the construction of the State highway from Old Forge along the Fidton Chain of Lakes and thence to connect with a highway at or near the Saranac Lakes. § 7. A violation of any of the provisions of this article may be restrained at the suit of the people, or with the consent of the Supreme Coiu't in Appellate Divisio'U, on notice' to the Attorney- General at the suit of any citizen. 19 Doc. 'No. 28 MINORITY REPORT Mr. Austin presented the following minority report: MINORITY EEPOET AS TO THE PEOPOSED CONSER- VATION AETICLE With, the general policy proposed by the Conservation Com- mittee as to the preservation of the iState's natural resources I am in entire accord; it is only vfith the methods by which it pro- poses to carry out this general policy that I am at variance. I dissent from the proposal for a nine-headed unpaid Conser- vation Commission for the reasons stated by Delegate Whipple in the minority report, submitted by him, and for the further reason that I have very grave doubts as to the advisability of giving these nine unpaid commissioners the absolute power, sub- ject only to executive veto, to make the fish and game laws for the State. I well realize the many inconsistencies which have arisen from the multitude of fish and game laws enacted by the Legislature, and I think the Conservation Department should have much dis- cretion delegated to it in the matter of protecting wild life, but we are going too far when we say that the Legislature shall be deprived of even a reserve power over this subject. I also dissent from that part of the majority report which would place in the Constitution a provision commanding the Legislature to appropriate at least five hundred thousand dollars annvially for the purchase of lands, reforestation, the making of sui-veys, etc. The proposal to appropriate specific sums of public money by a constitutional provision, operative for twenty years in the future, does violence to all our accepted principles of State finance, and seems to be indefensible from any view point. It may well be proper for the Constitution to declare that sufficient moneys be provided by the Legislature to carry out the State policy as to conservation therein enunciated, as has been done with reference to canals by Section 9 of Article VII of the present Constitution ; but to command the Legislature to appropriate half a million of dollars for twenty years to come, regardless of conditions, which are sure to change, and of variations in the State revenues and expenditures which are bound to occur, is an entirely different proposition. Doc. JSTo. 28 20 It is my personal belief, based upon my own. experience, that an annual appropriation of the sum suggested will be desirable for many years to come, but the appropriation of money to carry out the State's activities is essentially a legislative function, not that of a Constitution. The necessities of one State department must be considered in connection with the needs in other directions and the probable revenues ; these cannot be absolutely determined five, ten or twenty years in advance. Therefore, having defined the general policy which we believe the State should pursue, it seems that we should go no further, for we must assume that the Legislature will provide the funds necessary to carry out that policy, if consistent with the other demands upon the public treasury. Unless this be true our entire theory of the administra- tion and control of State finance should be discarded. H. LEROY AUSTIN. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 29 OFFERED BY MR. M. J. O'BRIEN AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT No. 752, Int. No. 699 PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT To amend section nine of Article I of the Constitution, in relation to the right of electors to select candidates for office The Delegates of the People of the State of New York, in Convention assembled, do propose as follows: Section nine of article one is hereby amended to read as follows : § 9. No law shall abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor the right of the electors, or any number of them, to associate and select candidates to be voted for at any election for public office in such method as they may deem proper; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceed- ings; nor shall any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool selling, book making, or any other kind of gambling hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state, and the legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the pro- visions of this section. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 30 MINORITY REPORT ON PROPOSED CONSTO UTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 765 (Int. No. 194) July 29, 1915 Mr. Leggett presented the following minority report in relation to " Proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article III of the Constitution by inserting a new section, in relation to delega- tion of legislative power in matters affecting employees," (No. 765, Int. No. 194.) The minority of the committee opposes the adoption of this pro- posal for the following reasons : That no instances were quoted to the committee calling for addi- tional power in the Legislature to remedy the evils sought to he cured. That the wording of the proposal is so broad as to easily make possible the adoption by executive boards of rules and regulations that would cover ground not contemplated by the Legislature. This would at the best constitute the board a Legislature without the safeguards of a Legislature and without its responsibility to the people, and at the worst, it would go so far as practically to defeat the will of the Legislature. J. 0. LEGGETT. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 31 MINORITY REPORT ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 419 (Int. No. 407) July 29, 1915 Mr. Leggett presented the following minority report in relation to " Proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article Til of the Constitution, in regard to the power of the Legislature to pro- hibit manufacturing in structures used for dwelling purposes." (No. 419, Int. ]^o. 407.) The minority of the committee respectfully opposes the adoption of this proposal for the following reasons : That the right of the individual to earn his own living and that of his family by the labor of his own hands in his own home through the pursuit of a lawful and innocent occupation should never be at the risk of the tyranny, caprice or mistake of the Legis- lature. That this is a right which has existed from time immemorial and which the state should not be permitted to take away. Men have organized rebellions and suffered death for less cause than would be possible under this proposal. J. C. LEGGETT. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 32 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STATE FINANCES, REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, RELATIVE TO A BUDGET SYSTEM FOR THE STATE August 4, 1915 Mr. Stimson, on behalf of the Committee on State Finances, Revenues and E?:penditures, presented the following memoranda : THE RAPIDLY IlSrCREASING GROWTH OF GOVERN- MENT EXPENDITURE Your Committee has pointed out in its recent repoTt to the Convention on Article VII of the Constitution the very rapid" increase in debt of the State of 'Sew York and of its political subdivisions; it has pointed out that the State debt, whether measured in the aggregate or per capita, now greatly exceeds the deibt of every other State in the nation and that the same is true of the debt of its political subdivisions, taken either in the aggre- gate or per capita. It now invitee attention to the similar rapid increase in the cost of the government of the State. The ex- penditures out of the general fund of the State, exclusive of interest on the canal and highway debts and of the free school fund, have increased from $7,163,831.18 in 1885, to $42,408,- Doc. ]S'o. 32 2 488.24 in 1914. This represents an increase in general running expenses of nearly 600 per cent, in thirty years. This increase of expenditures, as shown by five-year periods, is as follows: 1885 $7, 163, 831 18 1890 7, 200, 056 54 1895 12, 066, 646 97 1900 17,696,398 85 1905 . 24, 511, 946 95 1910 34, 791, 676 01 1914 42, 408, 488 24 During this period the population of the State has increased only 82 per cent. During this period the assessed valuation of real and personal property liahle to taxation in the State has in- creased from $3,224,682,843 to $12,070,345,088, a percentage of only 274. Furthermore, a large portion of this increase in assessed valuation does not represent a real increase in property but is due either to new methods of taxation, like the Special Franchise Tax, first levied in 1899, or to increases in percentages of assessment, as, for example, in New York city, where in 1903 the rate of assessment was raised from between 67 and 75 per cent, to approxi- mately 90 per cent. Until recently the State has not felt the strain of this dis- proportionate rise in expenditures because it has been able to meet them by its revenues fro^m indirect taxation. But it has now become apparent that the limit of indirect taxation has been practically reached. Indirect revenues fell off $1,900,000 from 1913 to 1914 and the Governor in his message of January 7, 1914, stated that in his opinion the maximum indirect revenue had been practically reached. According to the report of the Census Bureau the governmental cost per capita of the State government of New York rose from $2.47 in 1895 to $5.41 in 1914, an increase of 235 per cent, where the population of the State had gained only 53 per cent, during nineteen years. During that period assessed valuations in the State rose only 171 per cent., including both of the fictitious 3 Doc. No. 32 increases above mentioned. In other words, the State government cost each resident more than double the amount it cost in 1895. This rapidly increasing per capita cost of government is a phenomenon which is not peculiar to New York State but is occurring likewise in other State governments, and also in the Federal government although to a less extent than in New York. The cost of the Federal government in thirty years prior to 1908 has increased nearly 400 per cent., while the increase in the popu- lation was less than 84 per cent. The growth in ordinary ex- penditure for carrying on that government, excluding interest on the public debt but including payments for pensions and many public works, rose from $135,000,000 in 1878 to $637,000,000 in 1908. (See Statement of Hon. George B. Cortelyou, former 'Secretary of Treasury, in North American Review for April, 1909.) Hon. James A. Tawney, the last Republican Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, made the following statement in 1909 : " In no period, except in time of war, have the expenditures of our national government increased so rapidly, both in the aggregate and per capita, as these expenditures have increased during the past eight years. This fact may well cause our people not only to pause and consider the cause of this very large in- crease in the annual expenditures of the government, but also to consider the necessity of checking this growing tendency towards excess." The Hon. John J. Fitzgerald, the present Democratic Chair- man of the same Committee in the House of Representatives, in a hearing before your Committee on May 26, 1915, pointed out the same rapid increase in the expenses of government and said : " We have reached a point in our Federal expenditures, now aggregating a hundred million dollars a year, when it is neces- sary either to very greatly increase the taxes levied by the Federal government or else to curtail present activities or stop expanding the activities of the government. " We have reached about the limit of revenue under our present systems and if the government is to continue to expand and in- crease its activities there must necessarily be very greatly in- creased revenues." (Document No. 15, p. 4.) Doc. No. 32 ' 4 The same accelerating rate of the cost of government is to be found throughout the States, although the figures show' that New York is the worst offender. The average cost of government of all of the States of the Union rose 105.9 per cent, from 1903 to 1913, according to the Census Bureau figures. During that time the population of the States rose only 20 per cent. Of these the cost of government of the States of the Middle Atlantic division rose 160.3 per cent, and of New York State rose 200.2 per cent. To sum up, we find that throughout the country the amount of money spent on government, both State and National, is increasing much more rapidly than the population and much more rapidly than the sources of supply, in the shape of property subject to taxation. Undoubtedly this increase of -cost is largely due to the fact that government has greatly extended its activities. There is no reason to suppose, however, that any real or permanent check can be put upon this increase. It arises out of the constantly increas- ing complexity of modern life and modern business and the in- creasing density of our population. So long as these factors con- tinue, greater and greater demands will be made upon the activi- ties of government. They represent an economic pressure which is constantly growing. Out of these facts arises the corresponding and increasing need for sound financial methods in conducting the business of govern- ment. With States, as with individuals, the habit of expenditure breeds extravagance, and it cannot be assumed that the comple- tion of particular projects will counteract the desire to spend. America is only at the threshold of her problem. If, under our present methods, the cost of government has already reached the limit of reasonable taxation, it only makes it clear that we should examine our methods in order to prevent unnecessary waste. It has been frequently pointed out that the United States is substantially the only civilized country where, in both its National and State governments, a scientific budget system is unknown. No financial plan is presented to our Legislature in public each .year by the men who are responsible for the conduct of govern- ment. No considered estimates of the future, no material what- ever for comparison with the past, is presented by our executives 5 Doc. No. 32 to the Legislature in such a way that that body and the public can understand them and hold the spenders of our public money responsible; instead, our appropriation and revenue bills are made up in the comparative secrecy of legislative committees and rushed through in the hurry of the final days of a legislative session. The effect of this looseness of method has long been apparent in the results of our expenditures. For many years we have been spending half as much upon our army as Germany has spent upon hers, and a still greater percentage of what France has spent upon hers, but where their expenditure has produced forces which are now astonishing the world by their size and efficiency, our expend- itures from the lack of the proper working machinery between the executive and Congress which a budget system would supply has largely been wasted upon unnecessary army posts in the districts of influential congressmen. The same is true in respect to our navy, where money necessary for dreadnoughts is spent on use- less navy yards in favored localities. Our river and harbor appro- priation bills have obtained the name " Pork Barrel Bills " be- cause their contents are looked upon more from the standpoint of the political requirements of legislators than of national routes of transportation. The same lack of responsible aim has marked our appropriations for public buildings. Nearly thirty years ago this fundamental defect in our national system was pointed out by Mr. James Bryce in that leading study of our institutions, The American Commonwealth, where he said, quoting an American publicist: " A thoughtful American publicist remarks : ' So long as the debit side of the national account is managed by one set of men, and the credit side by another set, both sets working separately and in secret without public responsibility, and without inter- vention on the part of the executive official who is nominally re- sponsible; so long as these sets, being composed largely of new men every two years, give no attention to business except when Congress is in session and thus spend in preparing plans the whole time which ought to be spent in public discussion of plans already matured, so that an immense budget is rushed through without Doc. No. 32 6 discussion in a week or ten days — just so long tlie finances will go from bad to worse no matter by what name you call the party in power. No other nation on earth attempts such a thing or could attempt it without soon coming to grief, our salvation thus far consisting in an enormous income with practically no drain for military expenditure.' . . . Under the system of congres- sional finance here described America wastes millions annually. But here wealth is so great, here revenue so elastic, that she is not sensible of the loss. She has the glorious privilege of youth, the privilege of committing errors without suffering from their con- sequences." (The American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 17Y- 179.) These words were uttered over a quarter of a century ago. The figures of our taxable resources alluded to above make it evident that this period of youthful privilege is now over and that we in America can no longer claim the same exemption from the condi- tions governing other communities. In view of the foregoing facts your Committee believes that the only alternative to a grave danger of general discontent arising out of the constantly increasing burden of taxation is a thorough and drastic revision of our financial methods. Your Committee has made a careful study of the methods of financial legislation of this State. It has had before it gentlemen representing all phases of legislative and executive activity of the State including men who had held or still occupied the positions of Governor, Comptroller, Speaker and chairman of the principal committees of both houses of the Legislature. It has had before it men thoroughly familiar with those activities in the Federal gov- ernment, including ex-President Taft and Mr. Fitzgerald, Chair- man of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Repre- sentatives. It has examined into the budget methods of the cities of this State and budget methods in vogue in Great Britain, Canada and other countries. As a result, it presents its conclusions as to the chief defects in the present methods of financial legislation in the State of New York and finds that the following are the chief causes of waste and extravagance in those methods: 7 Doc. Xo. 32' DEFECTS OF PEESENT SYSTEM IN NEW YORK STATE Lack op Responsible Revision op the Depaetmental Estimates Under the Laws of 1910, chap. 149, the annual estimates of the various departments, bureaus and commissions of the State are to be submitted by them to the Comptroller on November 15th of every year for transmission to the Legislature. The Comptroller has no power to revise or reduce these estimates when submitted or even to compel their timely submission. His only function is to assemble them and transmit them to the Legislature. No other executive officer has any power to revise or co-ordinate them. As a result, they are made up by the various bureau chiefs who consider only their own desires without regard to the revenues or other needs of government and as a result the aggregate of these estimates mounts into a sum which bears no responsible relation either to any consistent plan for expenditures for the coming year or to any plan for raising revenue In size they are limited only by the enthusiasm of each bureau chief for the activities of his own bureau. The evil is very much aggravated by the fact that there is no adequate organization of these bureaus and commissions into a limited number of departments. The estimates of the various officers, instead of being sent to the Comptroller through a de- partmental chief who can revise and reduce the estimates of his subordinates, are transmitted directly to the Comptroller. Almost the only exception to this lack of system is in the somewhat limited oversight exercised by the Fiscal Supervisor of Charities. As a result, when these estimates reach the Legislature they are regularly so high that very little attention is paid to them. They are necessarily treated as mere requests for money desired rather than as responsible estimates of the amounts rquired. The Legis- lature is therefore itself forced to undertake the work of proposing and formulating for the first time a program of the annual ex- penditures. Doc. No. 32 II The Legislature is JSTot the Peopee Body to Peei-aee a' Financial Plan oe Expendituee Your Committee has reached the conclusion that the Legisla- ture is not the proper branch of the government to initiate such a program of annual expenditures and that in attempting to do so it labors under the following insuperable disadvantages: (a) Its proper work is legislative; it has no administrative con- trol or authority over the bureaus and departments through which the moneys of the State are expended and necessarily cannot have such authority. It is therefore without the consistent regular in- formation as to operating difficulties, problems, methods and costs which would naturally come to the superior officer of those bureaus. Instead it must act upon such information as it can acquire through hearings held by committees, meeting only occasionally. The Legislature cannot exercise executive supervision to compel a given bureau to try to produce the desired result with less money by adopting a more efficient method. It cannot exercise executive authority to reconcile conflicts between overlapping or encroaching bureaus so as to prevent duplication of effort and expense. In a word, it cannot produce the constant necessary team play and co- operation which is essential to economy. (b) The Legislature is under the further disadvantage that its members, instead of being responsible solely to the St.ate as a whole, are each responsible to and dependent upon a single district of the State. A financial program made up in the first instance by the Legislature necessarily tends to represent a compromise or bargain between different districts rather than the viewpoint of the State as a whole. The treatment of the multitude of separate items necessarily tends to that process of give and take which has become so common in America as to be stigmatized by the terms "log rolling " and " pork barrel." (c) In the third place, the very fact that the program is made up in the Legislature at once tends to shield it from real criticism by the Legislature. !N"o body can adequately criticize its own work. This applies both to criticism by the majority and min- ority parties. A real budget program presented by the executive 9 Doc. No. 32 to the Legislature should receive, and in other countries regularly does receive, criticisms and suggestions, even from the executive's own party members. The viewpoint of the man who grants money is different from the viewpoint of the man who asks for it, even when they both belong to the same party. Under our methods the man who makes up the program is the same man who afterwards leads the debate on the majority side. No criticism whatever from him can be expected. It is his own program. On the other hand, so far as the minority is concerned, they also have participated in the work of the committees and, to a certain extent, their views have also been accommodated. And even in those cases where they differ with the program, inadequate opportunity for the discus- sion of the issue thus presented has been afforded under our methods, as will be shown under the following subdivisions. As a result, the budget debates of the Legislature, after the appropria- tion bill has been made up, have become formal and perfunctory, (d) Finally, the fact that no program for consideration and discussion takes form until the Legislature itself makes up the ap- propriation bill, tends to destroy publicity and opportunity for debate. Instead of there being an entire financial program laid before the Legislature by a responsible executive early in the ses- sion with which every citizen in the State can familiarize himself, comparing its items with the corresponding expenditures of pre- ceding years, and as to which, therefore, he can put himself in a position to understand the issues and debates, no citizen now in the ordinary course learns anything of any program until the Ways and Means Committee reporls the appropriation bill so late in the session that there is no apportunity for effective suggestion or criticism. The bill has then received the approval of the varioiis elements and leaders in committee and the subsequent dis- cussion's mean little. This evil has been accentuated by the misuse of the emergency message, under which, during the past twenty- one years, e\'ery appropriation bill except one has been hurried through in the final hours of the session without the necessity even of being printed and lying on the desks of members for three days. We think it is safe to say that under ordinary conditions not only is the public ignorant of the items of appropriation bills until they are enacted into Law, but the same ignorance applies to the mem- Doc. Ko. 32 ■ 10 bers of the Legislature outside of the one or two men who control the conduct of the bill. It is, therefore, almost impossible to create a real issue, a real debate on the subject of economy and without the publicity of such an issue and such debate your Committee does not believe that real economy can be attained. Ill No Complete Financial Peogeam oe Budget at Present Exists The third general criticism which your Committee makes of our present system is that nowhere, either in the Legislature or outside, is there now ever formulated or made public a really complete financial plan or budget. Such a budget, as it is univer- sally understood in communities or institutions which practice budget-making, should contain the following essential elements: (1) A responsible estimate of the proposed expenditures for the coming fiscal year. (2) Financial statements of the current resources and liabili- ties of the State, including its debts and various funds, and including, for the purpose of comparison, a statement of its cur- rent expenditures and revenues in past years. (3) A proposition of the new measures of taxation, if any, which will be necessary to meet the proposed expenditures of the coming year. To see how far short we fall now of having any such informa- tion available it is only necessary to recall the issue which arose last| winter between the present State administration and its pred- ecessor over the question as to whether a direct tax of $18,- 000,000 was needed. When it is recalled how difficult it was for the ordinary citizen to determine the rights of a controversy over the necessity of a tax amounting to nearly thirty per cent, of the total revenues of the State, one can form some conception of the confusion of our present methods and the desirability of a complete annual budget responsibly prepared. 11 Doc. ISTo. 32 IV The JSTecessity of Restrictions Against Additions to the Budget on the Flooe Aftee it is Peepaeed The fourth general criticism which your Committee makes is that there is no restriction now imposed against additions at the behest of individual members being made to the budget after it is formulated and proposed by its framers. Your Committee be- lieves that the absence of such restriction would be fatal to any budget system. The spirit of mutual accommodation is necessarily so strong between members of all legislative bodies that without protection against its effect the best laid program of financial expenditure is liable to destruction on the floor of the houses. Your Committee learned of an instance last winter where an appropriation, the real though not ostensible purpose of which was to help a member of the Legislature to re-election in his own district, after it had been rejected by the Finance Committee of the Senate, was forced through on the floor of that body by the united vote of both parties, the Chairman of the Finance Com- mittee and the leader of the minority alone voting against it. Restrictions against such increases or additions exist in the Legislatures of all other English speaking countries. They orig- inated in the oldest standing rule of order of the House of Com- mons, dated July 11, 1Y13, which forbids that body to raise the amount of items presented in the budget. Similar restrictions exist in the Constitution of the Dominion of Canada as they did in the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy. They are a familiar and most successful feature of the charters of all the largest cities of this State and your Committee believes they embody a principle which is indispensable to successful budget practice. This principle has been stated by one writer as follows : " Upon the creation of just such a situation as that the effi- ciency of representative government depends. Its essential prin- ciple is to fix the representatives so that they cannot put their hands into the till; then they will keep a good watch over those who do handle the money. Congressmen will take a very differ- ent view of pork barrels from that now held when they can no longer help themselves to the pork." (Ford on the Cost of Our National Government, p. 115.) Doc. Ho. 32 12 V The Present System Reverses the Heal Relation of the Executive to the Legislature and Subeendees Impoe- TANT Powers to the Executive Your Committee further finds that the system of permitting the Governor to veto items in appropriation bills prepared by the Legislature has resulted in transferring to the Governor, to a large extent, the historic function of the Legislature of holding the purse strings of the State. The present system presents a sin- gular reversal of the proper relation which should maintain be- tween the Executive and Legislature. Instead of the Executive coming to the Legislature with a request for funds, which it is the province of the Legislature to pass upon and either grant or refuse, our system has gradually resulted in the Legislature pre- senting to the Executive appropriation bills which he is expected to reduce. Instead of the man who is to spend the money pre- senting to the body which is to grant the moaiey his request for their final decision, the latter body, in sulbstance, draw their check in blank and present it to the Executive for him to determine how much of it he cares to use. Your Committee finds the present system has resulted in the Legislature, under pressure of local and individual interests, passing many appropriation bills with larger aggregate than they believed to be proper in reliance upon the hope that the Governor would afterwards prune them down to the proper dimensions. In other words, our attempt to ac- complish by the use of the Executive veto what elsewhere has been accomplished by the legislative rule against additions to the budget mentioned under subdivision IV above, has very nearly resulted in an abandonment to the Executive of the priceless legis- lative function of holding the purse. Our Legislatures, instead of placing upon themselves during their own deliberations, a self- denying ordinance, like the rule of the House of Commons above mentioned, have left it to the Governor to make the necessary cor- rections afterwards. Not only is our system an abandonment of essential legislative power, but it is open to other grave dangers to which a proper system would not be open. Instead of presenting his budget a.i 13 Doc. No. 32 tlie beginning of the session, the Governor uses his veto power after the session is over, and can make it an instrument of punish- ment or rev^ard. Instead of presenting a public plan of expend- itures and revenue vsrhich can be subjected to the fullest publicity and the most searching scrutiny, and where an attempt to recom- mend expenditures for other motives than the interest of the State as a whole could be discovered and discussed, the Governor exercises his veto power in a series of disconnected acts under circumstances which make such discovery less easy. VI The PEESEi«rT Systek Prevents Any Eeal Defense or Oeiticism of the Budget in Public Finally, as a result of our present method, the members of our Legislature are deprived of adequate opportunity to ask questions in public concerning the estimates of the men who know most about them. In those communities where the budget is presented by the Executive to the Legislature, it follows as a natural matter of course that the men who have prepared the estimates and the financial program present themselves personally before the Legis- lature to defend and to be examined about them. The Legislature thus has an opportunity to learn at first hand the propriety of the requests which are made and to cross-examine the men who make them under such circumstances that the public can get a clear conception of the strength and the weakness of any pro- posed budget. Such a method of public criticism can accomplish results which are quite impossible to our present system of com- mittee work which, at best, is conducted without effective publicity. Recommendations Your Committee has prepared and presents herewith a pro- posed amendment which embodies its recommendations, made for the purpose of meeting the foregoing defects in our present system and of providing the machinery for a budget system in the State. Your Committee is glad to report that on many of its conclusions Doc. No. 32 14 and recommendations its members were unanimous and that all such recommendations, after having received careful discussion, are supported by a large majority of its members. First. — Estimates must he first revised and classified within the respective departments Your Committee were unanimous in their belief that a system should be introduced which would compel a greater sense of responsibility on the part of department heads in submitting there estimates of requirements. Such a reform will be greatly facili- tated in case the recommendations of the Committee on Governor and State Officers are adopted under which it is proposed that the various bureaus, commissions and offices of the State shall be grouped into a limited number of departments at the head of each of which shall be an executive chief. The amendment proposed by your Committee makes it the duty of such depart- ment head to classify the estimates of his department according to his judgment of their relative importance. He is thus made responsible that they be presented in such a way that any subse- quent pruning can be done with intelligence. This duty of class- ification will necessarily tend to make the head of each department better acquainted with the needs of his various bureaus and subordinates and will tend, in the opinion of your Committee, to increase the responsibility which such department head will feel as to his estimates. Second. — The estimates should then he revised and co-ordinated hy a central executive authority Your Committee were unanimous in believing that these de- partmental estimates should be revised by a central executive authority before transmission to the Legislature. This is the nub of a real budget system. It means that that executive au- thority must be responsible for preparing and completing a con- sistent plan for the proposed expenditures of the State under which those proposed expenditures will be brought into proper relation to the expected revenues. It means that some central authority on the executive side of the government must take the responsibility of cutting do\vn the estimates which are too high, 15 Doc. Xo. 32 of deciding between tEose which are conflicting, and of recom- mending an aggregate which will bear a proper relation to the revenues; it means the introduction of a system of planning and foresight where none now exists. Third. — This central authority of revision should he the Governor The very great majority of your Committee are of the opinion that this ultimate responsibility of revising the estimates and preparing the budget must rest with the Governor. (a) Upon him rests the constitutional duty of seeing that the laws are enforced. The departments whose estimates comprise by far the greater portion of the budget are the instruments through which he performs that constitutional duty. His rela- tion to them is such as to make it his duty to constantly and naturally receive information as to their functions and puts him in a position to exercise that supervision over their co-operation and team work which is absolutely necessary for economy. He is the man who can insist that a given department shall do its work with less money or decide between several departments which is to be given the preference in respect to available rev- enues. He is the man who, xmder the present system, thotigh less effectively, makes a similar decision when he prunes the appro- priation bills with his veto. (b) Secondly, as the head of the State he is the one who can best explain and defend a given fiscal policy to the people of the State and he is the one who, above all others, is interested in upholding before the people of the State a policy of economy and who should be held responsible to them for the success or failure of such a policy. Fourth. — Objections to a hoard of revision No board composed of several co-ordinate members could per- form these functions with equal efficiency. The necessary author- ity over subordinates would be absent and the sense of responsi- bility would be diminished. (a) The state has already made such an experiment with a board of estimate created under chapter 281 of the Laws of 1913, and the defects above mentioned caused its complete failure. Doc. ISTo. 32 16 The board there created was composed of the Governor, Lieuten- ant-Grovernor, President and Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, Speaker and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of Assembly, Comptroller, Attorney-General and Com- missioner of Efficiency and Economy. It was thus composed of four legislative andj five executive members, and violated the principle above referred to, which requires that the function of proposing a budget should be separated from the functioii of disposing of it and that the former should belong to the Executive and the latter to the Legislature. Although the board under the statute was ostensibly given ample power for the preparation and revision of estimates, it at once became deadlocked and was unable to agree. It failed wholly to formulate definite proposals and never succeeded in proposing any budget to the Legislature. It was shortly abolished by statute. Its fate amply demonstrated the error of confusing instead of defining responsibility. (b) It has been suggested to the Committee that the Comp- troller and the Attorney-General should share with the Governor this responsibility in the matter of revising the estimates. Your Committee believes that the Comptroller should be consulted in respect to the budget but should not be committed to it in advance. He is the auditing officer of the 'State. His services should be at the disposal of the Legislature in criticising and disposing of the budget. If the Comptroller were made a memeber of a budget board lie would be committed to that budget and his subsequent criticism would be foreclosed and useless. The amendment which your Co'nunittee submits, therefore, provides that the Comptroller shall receive a copy of the budget and that he shall have an opportunity thereafter to present his views in regard to it before the Legislature. This we believe to be the true function which he should play. As to the Attorney-General, your Committee wholly fails to see what services he could render in the revision of the estimates. He is not a financial officer ; he is not the superior of the depart- ments who render the estimates, and to impose upon him such a duty would simply be an interference with his functions as chief law officer of the State and would impose a useless burden upon him. 17 Doc. No. 32 Fifth. — Public hearings upon the budget The amendment submitted by your Committee provides that the Governor shall give public hearings upon the estimates at which he may require the attendance of department heads and their subordinates. The purpose of your Committee is to make the function of revision of the estimates as public as possible. This will minimize the danger of unfairness of allotment between the different activities of the State and will give an opportunity for public information and criticism. Sixth. — Estimates of Legislature and judiciary The Governor's power of revision should, in the opinion of your Committee, not be extended over the estimates of the legis- lative and judicial branches of the State. Under your Committee's amendment such estimates are pre- pared by those branches and transmitod to the Governor. They necessarily form an integral part of the budget or plan of ex- penditures for the ensuing year but the Governor is given no power to revise or reduce them and may simply present them to the Legislature with such recommendations in respect to them as he may be advised. He, however, retains his present power of veto over these estimates. Seventh. — Submission of budget to Legislature The budget, when completed by the Gbvernor, must be sub- mitted to the Legislature on or before the first of February. It must contain all of the elements above specified. Your Committee believes that the essentials of a complete budget should be so carefully prescribed in the Constitution that there will be no dauger of the system failing from lack of an adequate standard to which future administrations must conform. The experience of some cities of the State justifies this precaution. We believe that the elements enumerated in the proposed amend- ment contain such requisites. Your Committee believes that it is essential that the budget should be presented as early as possible in the session and, after careful investigation, believes that the first of February will give the Governor time for its preparation and yet allow it to reach the Legislature in time for full discussion. Doc. No. 32 IS Eic^hth. — Appearance of Governor, Comptroller and heads of departments before the Legislature Under the proposed amendment these officers are to have the right and be subject to the duty, when requested by either house, to appear and be heard and to answer inquiries relative to the budget. In order to provide for a proper, permanent and dignified system for such appearance, it is made the duty of the Legislature to provide for the necessary procedure by law. This right and duty of appearance follows as a necessary corollary of the budget system. Where such a budget is prepared by one branch of the government and submitted to another, it necessarily carries with it the right to be heard and the duty to submit to interroga- tion with reference to the measures which are thus proposed. It follows the natural method by which men in all the affairs of life dispose of such an issue, namely, by meeting face to face in discussion and interrogation. It also insures that the plans of the Governor, embodied in the budget, will receive essential publicity and criticism on the part of the State. If the budget has been unfair to any department or bureau, it provides a means by which that fact can be made public. If there should be any issue be- tween the Grovemor and the Legislature as to proper economy or adequate expenditure, it insures that this issue will be discussed in a deliberative forum, under parliamentary rules, instead of as now, merely upon the stump and in the press. It affords an in- valuable opportunity by which the people's representatives, with- out the expense, excitement and necessary hostility of special in- vestigations into departments, may keep themselves informed as to the financial working of every branch of the State government. For these reasons " Question Day " in the House of Commons has been called the center of gravity of the British constitution. (See Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VI, pp. 810-811). Ninth. — Relation of the Goverfior's budget to other finoMcial legislation Your Committee has very carefully considered this difficult question. On the one hand, it is essential to the success of the whole system that the Governor's budget, when presented, be given a fair trial and that it be considered on its merits without the easy 19 Doc. ISTo. 32 temptation to the Legislature to throw it aside and begin over again a new budget of its own ; on the other hand your Committee believes that, particularly when a new system is thus being intro- duced, the Legislature should retain not only adequate power to correct executive abuses, but the right to initiate financial legis- lation by methods which will not disrupt the budget. The amendment which your Committee presents, therefore, pro- vides that the Legislature, in acting upon the budget, may reduce or strike out but not raise the items therein. It thereby applies to the proposed bill the old self-denying ordinance of parlia- mentary procedure above mentioned. To leave in the Legislature the right to raise those items would, as your Committee believes, leave the door open to an entire abandonment of the system and an immediate return to present methods and would also tend to destroy all incentive on the part of the Governor to prepare the budget carefully in advance and present it with a sense of respon- sibility. But to meet the objection that the Governor might misuse his power and either starve objects which the Legislature deems worthy or trade with individuals or localities, the power of initi- ation of financial legislation is left with the Legislature subject* to but two restrictions : (1) It must not be exercised until after the budget is disposed of by both houses ; and (2) Such appropriations must be made by separate bills, each for a single work or object. We believe that this will adequately protect the budget system and yet keep it free from executive abuse. A Governor sincerely devoted to economy will have the opportunity to present a com- plete financial plan, drawn in the sole interest of the State at large. He will have all the aid which public presentation and. discussion can give him in presenting that plan to the Legislature. The Legislature must approach it in the spirit of a fair critic and not of a rival constructor and yet, if individual abuses have crept into the budget, they can be remedied. The Legislature is left free to inaugurate new State activities, provided it does them in the mannner prescribed. By postponing such additional legislation until after the budget has been acted on both the State and its representatives in the Legislature will have opportunity to fully Doc. ISCo. 32 20 know all the revenue available, if any, beyond the regular depart- mental expenses. We believe that this proposal will enlist in the working out of this problem all of the probabilities for success which can come through publicity and a sense of responsibility on both the ex- ecutive and legislative branches of the government. It also fol- lows closely all of the lines of precedent which successful budgets in other comm^mities and institutions have followed in the past. Tenth. — Fiscal Year. Expiration of Appropriations Your Committee fiirther believes that the beginning of the State's fiscal year should be moved forward to July 1, with a view to bringing the period to be financed closer to the time during which the estimates and budget for that period must be made. This change would put the termination of the year to be planned for three months nearer to the time when the plans are made than it is under the present system and by so much would facilitate more accurate forecast. Finally, we believe that the expiration of appropriations from time to time, two years from the date of their enactment, causes great and unnecessary confusion. It is therefore proposed that hereafter all appropriations shall expire three months after the end of a fiscal year. This would make all appropriations expire simultaneously, and yet would give time to permit the payment of any bills accruing late in the preceding fiscal year. BRIEF SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. The fear that the proposed budget system would deprive the Legislature of power or dignity is, we believe, a complete miscon- ception. On the contrary, the Legislature would be restricted only to the extent of being protected from disrupting infiuences while considering the budget. It would retain power of initiation thereafter ; and in addition, it would be restored to its lost position of dignified and effective control over appropriations. Under present methods, financial legislation has been in danger of degenerating into a scramble for local favors and privilege ; the proposed system makes it possible for the Legislature to consider from a State-wide viewpoint the broader financial interests of the State. 21 Doc. No. 32 Under present methods the Legislature has been gradually sur- rendering its most vital power in financial legislation to the execu- tive veto. The proposed system will restore that power and make it final. 2. jSTor is there the slightest force to the claim that the proposed system would give undue power to the Governor. It would add not one iota to the power that he now possesses through the veto of items in the appropriation bills. Whereas now that power is sub- ject to no review and thus may be used as an instrument of reward or punishment after the legislative session is over, the proposed system would deprive him of his veto as to budget items and would thus compel him to use his influence in advance, in the open, under the fire of legislative discussion and the scrutiny of the entire State. It would thus be the Legislature which would have the final word. 3. Of even less weight, in the opinion of your Committee, are the objections sometimes urged that the Governor, and especially a new Governor, would not have time to prepare a budget. It is believed that the burden woiLld be lighter than under the present system under which the Governor must prune the appropriations within thirty days after the session, under all the added pressure of reviewing some five hundred other bills and without any of the assistance of the previous classification by department heads for which the proposed amendment provides. Doubtless the burden would be heaviest on a new executive. But it is the familiar practice of each new administration in oiir first and second class cities to rely, to a large extent, upon its predecessor for its first budget. There is no break in government and the system is successful, as we believe it would be in the State government. The lengthening of the Governor's term from two to four years would greatly aid the efficient and intelligent prepara- tion of budgets. Undoubtedly in budget making as in virtually all other execu- tive work, much of the work of investigation and comparison would fall to subordinates. But in view of the growing importance of the issue of economy and the probability of a direct tax for many years to come, no Governor could afFord to shirk or delegate the iiltimate decision. On the contrary, he would have a new and vital incentive to study the machinery of the State. He could Doc. Fo. 32 22 not risk the sure discovery of ignorance or neglect. He would be imder a new compulsion to devise systematic and rational methods of saving, for on him would squarely fall, as it should, the responsibility for extravagance and to him would be given as never before due credit for wise economy. 4. We have already enunierated some of the reasons which require and justify the presence of the heads of executive departments and the government on the floor of the Houses of the Legislature in order to defend and answer inquiries about the budget. Critics of the budget system have assailed such a pro- ceeding as novel and un-American. To answer such criticism it is only sufiicient to remind the Convention that this procedure was practiced by the first national administration of this country under President Washington and his cabinet olficers ; that it has been in- troduced by an American Congress into the governments now in force in Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands; that it is a sys- tem in practice before the local legislatures of many of the largest cities of this State ; and that it was strongly advocated by Justice Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution, and that it has since been earnestly recommended by a long line of Americaii statesmen, including Presidents Taft and Wilson, and Senators George H. Pendleton, James G. Blaine, John J. Ingalls, W. B. Allison, 0. H. Piatt, Elihu Boot and James W. Wadsworth, Jr. A practice recommended by such precedents and such authorities cannot be justly criticised as un-American. In concluding, your Committee fully recognizes the diificulty of the subject and the responsibility involved in suggesting changes, no matter how well supported by authority and experience, into any system rooted in long-accustomed usage. But it has been forti- fied in its conclusions by recent investigations in otlier States, notably Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois, which resulted in recom- mendations essentially similar to those here made. It believes that the system which it advocates would mal'ce possible in this State a much needed adjustment of expenditures to revenues, and that it would bring into the finances of New York simple and common sense principles long familiar and admittedly indispensable in the affairs of everyday American business. KespectfuUy submitted for the Committee, HENEY L. STIMSON, Chairman. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 33 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CANALS, RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT No. 779 (Int. No. 710) August 4, 1915 Mr. Clinton, from the Committee on Canals, reported by pro- posed amendment entitled " Proposed constitutional amendment to amend] Section eight of Article VII of the Constitution " (Int. No. 710), which was. read twice and said Committee reports in favor of the passage of the same. which report was agreed to, and said proposed amendment ordered printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Clinton, from the Committee on Canals, submitted the following statement of the reasons for the proposal to amend : The approaching completion of the Barge canal improvement has made it necessary to amend Section 8 of Article VII by de- fining the canals to which the prohibition against sale, lease and other disposal in the present Constitution, applies. The reten- tion of the langviage no^y in the Constitution might possibly lead to a misconstruction, it at least would leave the intent open to misinterpretation. In addition to this, questions have arisen heretofore in the courts, as to what properties used in connection with the canals were to be considered parts of them so as to be Doc. No. 33 2 within the prohibition against sale, etc. The Committee has therefore added to the language of the Constitution, clauses which are intended to include within the prohibition, canal termi- nals the Ei'ie, the Oswego, the Champlain and the Cayuga and Seneca canal, as the same will be improved and become part of the Barge canal system, at the same time preserving the applica- tion of the prohibition to the Black River canal. Language has been used which saves as a portion of the Barge canal system, those parts of the existing canals which have been preserved as a part of that system by existing statutes, which are either amend- ments to the laws under which the Barge canals are being con- structed, or separate statutes. The parts so preserved are, in some instances, needed auxiliaries as terminals or to connect with the Barge canals, manufacturing localities which would otherwise be cut off from direct connection with the improved canals. These are not many and do not impose upon the 'State the maintenance of any considerable portion of the old canals. In addition to the parts preserved by existing statutes the Committee, after careful consideration, has concluded that the existing inland Erie canal from Tonawanda creek to connection with the Black Rock Harbor, and canal slips 1 and 2 in the City of Buffalo should be made a part of the Barge canal system, even though not enlarged to Barge canal capacity at present. Slips 1 and 2 in the City of Buffalo are needed for terminal purposes and should not be abandoned; and the inland Erie canal from Tonawanda creek to Black Rock Harbor, your Committee is de- cidedly of the opinion, should be saved as a part of that system in order to enable west bound boats with partial cargoes or without cargoes to reach Buffalo from Tonawanda cveek without proceeding up Niagara River against the heavy current. Tinder existing statutes the present Erie canal is preserved from Rome to Mohawk passing throiigh the City of Htica. This was done because the Barge canal passes so far to the North of the manufacturing districts in that city that the expense to manufacturers of shipping by the Barge canal would be greatly increased if connection by the existing Erie canal, both east and west, were not retained. However, the saving of this part of the Erie canal in the City of Utica prevents the improvement of the 3 Doc. ISTo. 33 grade of the city streets at and in the vicinity of bridges crossing the canal. To relieve the municipal conditions and at the same time to save for the manufacturing industries, connection with the Barge canal through the existing Erie canal, your Committee hag deemed it wise to insert language in the proposed amendment which will permit the present Erie canal between Schuyler and Third streets in Utica to be disposed of on condition that a flow of sufficient water from Schuj'ler to Third streets be maintained, as may be done by means of pipes or other conduits. This proposed amendment protects the manufacturing industries and will permit the lowering of the bridges and the street grades. In view of the approaching completion of the Barge canal system, efforts have been made, and will continue to be made, to secure portions of the canals which may be abandoned for par- ticular municipal and private purposes. In the opinion of your Committee this practice should be stopped as the result must be, if it be allowed to continue, that abandonment will not be properly safeguarded and the State will not receive proper compensation. Your Committee has therefore proposed an amendment to the effect that abandonment, sale or other disposition of canals or canal property which shall cease to be a portion of tTie canal system of the State shall be, pursuant to general laws, only, which shall secure to the State the fair value of the property. Question having arisen under a recent decision of the Court of Appeals as to what the title of the State to property appro- priated to canal purposes is, your Committee has deemed it wise to propose an amendment that announces that title to be in fee. Maintenance of the supply of water for the canals, to protect commerce and navigation, and 'control over the flow of water in tlie prisms and channels, is paramount to the use of canal waters for any other purpose. ISTevertheless, in certain localities and under certain circumstances (dependent upon the supply of water) there is at times more water than is needed for navigation, the use of which for power purposes can be permitted, subject to such con- trol as will prevent creation of currents which will be impediments to navigation. This has been recognized heretofore and leases have been granted for the use of surplus waters which in their operation have been exceedingly detrimental and which have not com- pensated the State fairly for supplying the waters to the lease- Doc. N"o. 33 4 holders. Your Comniittee has therefore deemed it necessary, for the protection of the State, to propose an amendment permitting the leasing of surplus waters provided that the use thereof shall not in any way injure, impair, interfere with, or endanger navi- gation or the construction, use, maintenance, operation, the safety of the canals or of other property of the State. Your Committee has deemed it wise that no lease shall be granted in perpetuity and that there shall be reserved to the State the right, whenever in the opinion of those having charge of the management and' opera- tion of the canals, the needs of navigation required to terminate or suspend the same and to regulate and alter the amount of water to be used thereunder. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 34 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CHARITIES, RELA- TIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT No. 378 (Int. No. 371) August 5, 1915 Mr. Wadsworth, from the Committee on Charities, presented the following memorandum: To the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention: The Committee on Charities of the Constitutional Convention desires to call your attention to the provisions of the enclosed amendment (No. 378, Int. JSTo. 371), introduced by Mr. iStein- brink, and hereby reported for your favorable consideration. The importance of the department for the insane is shown by the fact that it includes 14 hospitals, over 33,000 patients, 6,000 em- ployees and 200 medical officers. The appropriations necessary for caring for the insane and providing for their proper acconamo- dation during the next fiscal year amount to approximately eight and one'-half million dollars. The total number of admissions to the hospitals during the last fiscal year amounted to 7,9'56 and the discharges to 7,264. The average annual increase in popula- tion has amounted to about 800 patients during the last fifteen years. This is now the largest undertaking of a medical and curative nature maintained by any government in the world, and by the time of the next Constitutional Convention the population of Doc. No. 34 2 the hospitals will undoubtedly reach 50,000 or 60,000 and the number of employees 10,000. The accompanjang proposal amends Section 11 of Article VIII of the present Constitution and continues " a state commission in lunacy in which shall remain the management and fiscal control of the state hospitals for the insane (not including institutions for criminals and convicts) except insofar as such management may now or hereafter be delegated by the legislature to local boards of managers." Section 11, as it reads at present, authorizes the State Commis- sion in Lunacy to visit and inspect all institutions either public or private used for the care and treatment of the insane (not including institutions for epileptics or idiots). Section 13 of the Constitution of 1894 provided that " existing laws relating to institutions referred to in the foregoing sections and to their supervision and inspection, insofar as such laws are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, shall re- main in force until amended or repealed by the Legislature." This section indicates that the Constitution of 1894 intended to recog- nize not only the power of the Commission to visit and inspect in- stitutions for the insane, but fully recognized the financial control of the institutions conferred upon the Commission by the Legisla- ture in 1893 and the general administrative jurisdiction over the hospitals authorized by other statutes. The Commission in Lunacy has had entire administrative and financial control of the State hospitals for the insane since 1893. You will observe that the provisions of the proposed amendment as submitted by this Conunittee merely continue the powers con- ferred upon the Commission in Lunacy by the Legislature prior to the amendments of 1894 and recognized in the Constitiition at that time. Your Committee, after careful study of the administra- tion of the hospitals for the insane, is firmly of the opinion that the present methods of management and control should be con- tinued and should be clearly defined in the Constitution. The hospitals for the insane should be kept entirely out of the domain of politics and should not be liable to radical changes which, at the present time, may be made at any session of the Legislature. As a result of several public hearings held by the Committee, 3 Doc. No. 34 and investigations by sub-committees, and numerous communica- tions which have been received from the friends and relatives of patients in the hospitals for the insane, it is convinced that those who are most concerned in the welfare of the hospitals are unanimously opposed to any change in the present methods of ad- ministration. The public hearings held by this Committee were attended by members of the boards of managers of all the hos- pitals, superintendents of a number of these institutions as well as representatives of various charitable, medical and other organi- zations. The Committee has also consulted many other acknowl- edged authorities familiar with the 'affairs of the institutions and the history of the hospital service, and finds that their views are fully in accord with those already expressed by us. After a careful investigation of the subject this expression of views WQiUd seem to voice the sentiments of the entire people of the State. While various propositions relating to the administration of the hospitals and charitable institutions of the State have been sub- mitted to this Committee, we are of the opinion that the amend- ment which we are recommending for your approval is the only one which should be contemplated at this time. In addition to the duties mentioned above, the Commission in Lunacy also inspects at least twice a year the institutions for in- sane criminals and convicts as well as twenty-four licensed private institutions. An evidence of the standards maintained by this Department is shown by the recent award by an international jury at the Panama- Pacific Exposition of the highest prize to the State hospitals of ISlew York. The economical administration in the expenditure of these funds appears from the fact that the average annual per capita cost of maintenance of the insane in the hospitals was only $208.91 during the last fiscal year, or, in other words, fifty-seven cents per day. The entire care of the insane was undertaken by the State in 1889, at which time there was an insane population in the hos^ pitals of 16,000. Since then it has grown to 33,000. Doc. N"o. 34 4 The magnitude of this undertaking as shown by these figures is such as to clearly indicate the inadvisability of combining this Department with any other. Consolidation without beneficial re- sult is folly. To consolidate merely to promote an idea is without sound reason. Where a department or branch of government has attained a point of efficiency which marks the apex in the present state of the development of medical science at the very minimum cost, it necessarily follows that to combine its activities with those of other departments leads inevitably either to an impairment of its efficiency or an increase in cost of maintenance and probably to both. The high standard of efficiency in the New York State hospitals as a result of the administration, which we propose to continue, has been such that it has been copied by others, and it is universally acknowledged that the care of the insane in New York has reached a higher standard than in any other State. The cost of caring for the insane in this State is lower than that in other States where the standards are not so high. The history of the Department shows that the hospitals for the insane were governed by local boards of managers for thirty years, by a single Commissioner for sixteen years and by a Com- mission as constituted at the present time for twenty-six years. The present method of administration was adopted by the Legislature after a careful investigation of the conditions prevail- ing in the State institutions, by a Senate committee. The 'Charities Committee is therefore firmly of the opinion that there is not only no indication of a necessity of any change in the present method of government of the Department, but that any changes would be highly unwise and would seriously threaten the welfare of the insane wards of the State. To inaugurate a system of care in this State which has proved unsatisfactory in others would be highly disastrous. We therefore urge upon the Convention the wisdom of con- tinuing a form of government of the hospitals for the insane which has stood the test of the last twenty-six years and which seems to meet with the entire approval of the people of the State. J. W. WADSWOETH, Chairman. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 35 MINORITY REPORT ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET SYSTEM FOR THE STATE August 5, 1915 By Mr. Wagner : I disagree with the report of the Finance Committee in that its conclusions and recommendations are in many siihstantial respects inadequate and inconsistent. More particularly I submit that the report of the majority de- prives the Legislature of the power which finds expression in the Federal Constitution, the father and mother of our state constitu- tions, to the effect that all appropriations should originate in the legislative branch of the government elected by and representative of the people who pay the taxes. Though this sentiment may not have been written in the letter, it has existed in the spirit of our State Constitution. The producers of public money should retain control of the public purse strings. This was the contention of the Barons who wrenched the Magna Charta from King John and ifi all the intervening years this policy has been the cornerstone of the structure of legislative government. The majority report admits that the two prime requisites for a State budget are accurate information and complete publicity; and yet the constitutional provision which it proposes secures neither. It admits that the great need of our State finances is a scientific budget and then it proposes a budget without science. A Doc. No. 35 2 It recognizes the evil of the present system of basing appropria- tions largely upon conjecture and yet it provides for a " guess " by the heads of the departments followed by a " guess " by the Governor, with the points of political advantage always in sight. The report complains that appropriations are now made on " requests " and then continues the very evil of which it complains in substance though it changes it in form. Facts for a scientific budget can and should be secured by the same method through which they are secured in a court or in any other tribunal of public moment and civic interest. Such a method is embodied in the proposal introduced by Mr. A. E. Smith, Pr. 345. The report holds that the Legislature is not the proper branch of government wherein appropriations should originate. While contending in one place that the Legislature should not surrender its historic control of the public purse strings, the report asserts in another place that the Legislature is not the proper branch of government to originate appropriations. If the Legislature be not the proper place to originate appropriations, then it would seem the United States has been traveling upon the wrong path for 130 years and still continues to pursue its devious way; if the Legislature be not the proper branch of government to origi- nate appropriations, for a century or more the Legislature of New York has been exercising a duty erroneously given to it. Even before New York became a State, the colonial governors sent over here by the King of England voiced the sentiments which this report now approves. But the early colonists did not approve it. All the statesmen who have since helped make New York the Empire State of the Union did not approve it. The majority report states that " a real budget program pre- sented by the Executive to the Legislature should receive and in other countries does receive criticism and suggestions, even from its own party members ". I submit that the application of the word " Executive " as applied to the budgets referred to is not warranted by the definition of the word " executive " in any standard dictionary of the English language, and I further submit that in the principal countries referred to the " budget " is really a " parlimentary " and not an " executive budget ". 3 Doc. No. 35 The prevailing report asserts that the present method of ap- propriation destroys publicity and opportunity for debate. Yet it is obvious that the proposed method secures publicity on routine matters of administration, where publicity is least needed and gives no guaranty whatever of publicity on special appropriations where publicity is vital to economy. Neither does it make ade- quate provisions for open and thorough debate. The majority report complains further that appropriations are rushed through in the final hours of the session, but it fails to rec- ommend a provision like the one to be found in the Constitutions of Louisiana and Mississippi, making it impossible to pass any appropriations during the last five days of the session. It deprecates the lack of consideration given to appropriation bills but it fails to set a time limit for the introduction of such bills, nor does it suggest a method of supplying exact and scientific information to the members of the Legislature. It states that the historic function of the Legislature is to hold the purse-strings of the State and it then proceeds to hand this historic function over to the Governor and make the Legislature a mere rubber-stamp on budget appropriations. It condemns the present power of the Governor to punish op- ponents and to reward friends in the matter of appropriations, but it does not recommend a corrective for this abuse except in case of appropriations for mere matters of administration, thereby lodging in the Executive enormous possibilities thus to abuse his office. It postulates the necessity of a " greater sense of responsibil- ity " in appropriations, and then it discards the only method that can secure complete, open, definite and undeniable responsibility through compelling the heads of departments to swear to their estimates. If this report is to be made the policy of the State, I suggest that it be carried to its logical conclusion. If publicity is desir- able on mere matters of administration, it appears to me that it is especially desirable on special appropriation bills. If the Gover- nor is to be prevented from making a political foot-ball of mere routine appropriations, he should be prevented from making a political foot-ball of special appropriation bills. Doc. No. 35 4 If I am correct in the opinions and conclusions heretofore ex- pressed, it becomes manifest that the remedy proposed in. the ma- jority report is at best only partial and ineffective to consummate the desired financial reforms. I therefore respectfully submit to the Convention the follovi'ing recommendations: It is recommended that the legislature retain the power which it has always exercised' of originating appropriations; on the theory that the source from which the money comes should retain control of the money and dictate the manner of its expenditure within the proper constitutional limitations. Without receding from the recommendation last expressed, it would seem that the method proposed in the majority report, being imperfect as it now stands, should be perfected by the following amendment : It should be required that the head of each depart- ment swear to his estimates and classify them in a division of necessities, desirabilities or contingencies, as the case may be, ac- cording to the suggestion made by Governor Glynn at a hearing before the -Committee on State Finances. Siich sworn estimates should be submitted to the Governor, the Comptroller and every member elected to the Legislature at least fifteen days before the Legislature convenes. This procediire is now in force in several States with good effect. Members of the Legislature intending to introdvice special bills asking for appropriations should be re- quired to file with the Governor, the Comptroller and the members of the Legislature within fifteen days previous to the convening of the Legislature a copy of the bill, stating the amount of money desired and the purpose for which it is to be expended. Fifteen days after the Legislature meets, it should be the duty of the Gov- ernor to sitbmit a budget on these special bills with a message ex- pressing his views thereon, just as the procedure proposed In the majority report provides in reference to matters of administra- tion. This treatment of special appropriation bills would certainly abolish the evil of which the report of the m.ajority complains of permitting the Governor to reward friends or punish enemies by preference in the case of special appropriation bills. In addition to a provision preventing the passage of any ap- propriation bill in the closing days of the Legislature, there should 5 Doc. ]Sro. 35 be a provision forbidding the introduction after the Legislature has convened of appropriation hills of any kind except by a re- port of a financial committee of either House of the Legislature. It is further recommended that special appropriation bills be not passed without a two-thirds vote of all the members elected. Tt is further recommended that all items in appropriation bills be voted upon separately. This would insure the responsibility of action and the maturity of deliberation which the majority re- port emphasizes. It is further recommended that a provision compelling the ab- solute itemization of every appropriation exceeding the sum of $10,000 be adopted. Respectfully submitted, ROBEET WAGNER. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 36 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CITIES, RELATIVE TO THE SEVERAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS August 5, 1915 Mr. Low, from the Committee ou (jities, to which were referred the several Proposed Constitutional Amendments relating to Home Eule for cities, as follows: No. 719, introduced by Mr. Wagner. No. 187, introduced by Mr. Sandeis. No. 774, introduced by Mr. R. B. Smith. No. 283, introduced by Mr. O'Brian. No. 635, introduced by Mr. Low. No. 335, introduced by Mr. Franchot. No. 381, introduced by Mr. Mann. No. 724, introduced by Mr. E. N. Smith. No. 568, introduced by Mr. Eisner. No. 629, introduced by Mr. Weed. No. 698, introduced by Mr. Cobb. No. 671, introduced by Mr. Green. No. 678, introduced by Mr. Franchot. No. 693, introduced by Mr. Berri. No. 709, introduced by Mr. Fobes, reports that the Committee held a number of hearings on them and on the subject matter em- braced in such Proposed Constitutional Amendments. It has also Doc. ¥0. 36 2 been made a careful studj of Article XII of the present Constitu- tion, which article relates to the government of cities. The Com- mittee reports by proposed amendment, entitled : " Proposed Constitutional Amendment to amend Article XII of the Constitu- tion generally, in relation to cities and villages and their powers of self government," (Int. No. 712), which was read twice, and said Committee reports in favor of the passage of the same which report was agreed to, and said proposed amendment ordered printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Tranchot presented the following: MINORITY REPORT To the Constitutional Convention: The undersigned disagree with the report of the majority for the reasons hereafter given. It is obvious that the proposal of the Committee is a result of compromise. Any criticism contained in this minority report is a criticism of that result, not of the efforts of the individual members of the majority. We are forced to disagree only be- cause the composite result seems to us to violate the fundamental principles that must govern any measure desigTied to meet the widespread demand from the cities of the State, and especially from the city of New Tork, for increased power of self-govern- ment. This demand is based upon two principal causes of com- plaint: (1) interference with local affairs by the Legislature; (2) inadequate power over matters of city concern, even the most minute. The relief demanded has been grouped concisely under two heads: First, power; second, protection. A proper proposal for Home Rule should in our judgment contain the following essen- tials, for which we have consistently contended : First.— A BEGAD GRANT TO CITIES OF POWER, EX- CLUSIVE IN SUBSTANCE AS WELL AS IN FORM, TO REGULATE ITS LOCAL AFFAIRS, COUPLED WITH A PROHIBITION AGAINST SPECIAL LEGISLATION BY THE STATE WITH RESPECT THERETO. 3 Doc. No. 36 Such grant is required to cure the following evils of the present system of city government : (a) The burdening of the Legislature with local matters in which the State is not primarily concerned. (b) The avoidance by local officers of responsibility for city government, — colloquially termed " passing the buck ". (c) The delay and consequent inefficiency in performing neces- sary city functions. (d) The settlement of city problems away from home by legis- lators not responsible to the locality for such settlement and un- familiar with such problems. Such grant in order to cure these evils must obviously include the power of revision and amendment of charters and special city laws. Power without the machinery of government to exercise it is nil. t 1 Second.— TB.B PRESERVATION OF STATE SOVER- EIGCNTY OVER CITIES THROUGH LEGISLATIVE CON- TROL EXERCISED BY GENERAL LAWS. Home Rule for cities does not imply a divesting of State con- trol over cities. We agree that the paramount authority of the State should be retained ; we disagree only as to the method of its exercise. As to the matters not within the grant of power to cities, the Legislature should, of course, have plenary power as now. As to matters within the grant it should retain power to enact general laws. The retention of the right in the Legislature to nullify local action in purely local affairs is not necessary to ade- quate State control. We submit that the cities of the State have justified by experience their ability to administer their local af- fairs free from legislative check or authority. We do not sym- pathize with putting their citizens in a class with the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. As citizens of the city they have the same capacity for self-government as they possess as citizens of the State. Third.— TB.E EXPRESSION OF THE GRANT OF POWER IN SIMPLE, DIRECT AND SPECIFIC LAN- GUAGE SO AS TO AVOID CONFUSION AND ENDLESS Doc. No. 36 4 LITIGATION m DEFINING STATE AND CITY POWERS, AND THE MANNER OF THEIR EXERCISE. 'Governmental power to be effective must be free from doubt. Constitutional amendments in most of the other states have made a grant of power to cities in general terms similar to those em- ployed by the majority proposal, such as " local self-government ", the right to regulate " local affairs " or " municipal affairs ". Judicial construction has everywhere been necessary to define the grant. A mass of conflicting decisions on important phases of city government in different states reveals that, by such general grant to cities, governmental powers are divided into three classes : (a) Those clearly granted to cities; (b) Those clearly reserved to the State; and (c) Those which are neither clearly granted nor reserved. We favor a specific assignment of this last class of powers either to the city or to the State. This assignment should be by the Con- vention as a matter of governmental policy and not left to the uncertainty and delay of piecemeal judicial construction. We are confident that, profiting by the experience of other states, a proposal can be drafted which performs this task. Fourth.— TB.^ RIGHT TO EACH CITY AT ITS OPTION TO CONTINUE AS A LEGISLATIVE CHARTER CITY OR BECOME A HOME RULE CITY. Home Rule should not be forced upon any community. There may be a sentiment in some cities against a change in the present system of city government. On the other hand other cities have expressed a desire for a change. Both can be satisfied. To sub- ject the desire of either class to that of the other would be hostile to the very principle for which we contend. The grant, therefore, should be optional. Considered in the light of these fundamental principles the proposal of the majority fails in the following particulars: First.- — No grant of exclusive power to cities is made except possibly as to a few minor matters which might be so held by the courts. The extent to which the control over officers and em- 5 Doo. ISTo. 36 ployees as defined in subdivision " a " of section 3 can be exer- cised by municipal action without " changing the framework " of the city government is left in doubt. If the courts hold (as we think they would) that a redistribution of powers and duties among officers or departments, or an increase or decrease in their number is a " change of framework of government," there would remain nothing exclusively in the control of the municipality ex- cept the qualifications, mode of selection, terms of office, com- pensation and method of removal of officers and employees. If this is the extent to which Home Rule is to be granted, the Con- stitution should so state simply and directly. Furthermore, the Committee has recognized to such an extent the necessity of hedging about with restrictions the exercise of the power of amendment by local authorities as to make it very difficult to adopt any change at all. Amendments to the charter are sub- ject to the veto of one official, the Mayor of the city, and no pro- vision is made for overriding his disapproval of a charter change. Thus, confiicting interests of different bodies or officials on whom the power is jointly conferred will tend to defeat its exercise. This further demonstrates the impracticability of providing for the adoption of separate amendments by the local authorities of a city. Passing to general charter revision we find that it would take approximately three years between the first proposal for a charter revision and its final enactment into law. After the draft is prepared by the charter commission, it is to be approved by the people. If approved by the people, it is submitted to the Legis- lature. If not disapproved by the Legislature within sixty days it takes effect as law. The Legislature may thus destroy the en- tire work in charter reform by its disapproval. The approval of electors of a city should in our judgment be final. It would be possible to provide that, if the charter was defective or not in ac- cordance with State policy, it be returned to the Commission for further revision. We submit that this phase of the plan is waste^ ful and impracticable. Under the proposal it would be possible, however, without the necessity of a Revision Commission, for the Doc. No. 36 6 charter to be completely amended by concurrent action of the Mayor, the local legislative body, and the Board of Estimate, if any, and the failure of the Legislature to nullify. After the Constitution takes effect on January 1st, 1916, no amendment to the framework of any city charter could be made until iMaroh 1st, 1917, and not even a very necessary change in a city charter could be made after the first week of any session untif the following legislative year. New York city during the last session was compelled to apply immediately before adjournment for special and urgent relief in connection with the building of its subways. The existence of the Majority's proposal would prevent such emergency action. It is apparent that the nullification scheme fails to obviate any of the existing evils. The Legislature will continue to be burdened with local matters, local officers will continue to side-step responsibility, delay and consequent ineffi- ciency win continue, and any change involving matters of impor- tance will still be finally settled away from home. Second: The language of the grant will breed hopeless doubt, uncertainty and confusion and throw into the courts the determina- tion of the exercise of the respective powers of city and State in this respect: (a) It fails to define the line between powers granted to a city and those reserved to the State. As to such matters as taxation, the issuance of bonds, the regulation of the operation of privately owned public utilities, the acquirement of public utilities by the city or the exercise of the power of eminent domain, acts of a given administrative officer will depend for their validity upon the validity of the grant of authority to him to act. If granted by the Legislature, claim could be made that they should have been granted by the city; if granted by the city, vice versa. (b) It has injected a further element of doubt and confusion by providing two methods by which municipal action may be taken as to matters determined to be within the grant of power to cities to regulate its " property, business and local affairs." If such action involves a change in " framework of its govern- ment " it must be submitted to the Legislature for possible nulli- fication. The classification made is illogical and unscientific. 7 Doc. No. 36 For example, matters of important State concern, such as the recall of public officers, are left for determination by the local authorities in the use of the words " method of removal," while matters of no importance to the State must be submitted to the Legislature. Two questions, therefore, may always be raised as to any act of an official authorized by an amendment of the chai1»r made by the local authorities: (1) Is the power to fix such provisions included in the grant to the city? and (2) can such power be validly exercised by the local legislative authorities without submission to the State Legislature? (c) Finally, it has injected an even more serious element of doubt by providing that the Legislature may pass special city laws relating to the " government " of municipalities. Just how laws relating to " government " differ from laws relating to " property, business and local affairs " of cities no one can say. Certainly the present abuse in the introduction and passage of special laws affecting cities will continue, and the courts in order to sustain the constitutionality of such legislative acts will be forced narrowly to limit the group of subjects included within the words " prop- erty, business and local affairs ". The ordinary meaning of the word " government " comprehends the officers to administer it and " framework " to support it, and thus its use hopelessly mud- dles the meaning of this " exclusive " grant of power and the manner in which it is to be exercised. If you subtract from the acts relating to the " property, busi- ness and local affairs " of the city the acts relating to its " gov- ernment ", the result is zero. This seems to us the exact measure of exclusive control granted to cities by the proposed amendment. It is only fair to state that this provision of the proposal was inserted for the purpose of preserving the present suspensive veto provisions of the 'Constitution as to special laws affecting matters oi State concern. It is our opinion that it accomplishes this purpose only at the cost of practically destroying the exclusive nature of the grant. Since the vast majority of governmental acts must affect the rights of property and of personal liberty, and involve finan- cial responsibility on the part of the city, we may be sure that such questions as above indicated will endlessly be raised. Doc. No. 36 8 In sum, the proposal begins with a promise of complete Home Kule to cities, but one reaches the end only to discover that it is but a declaration of principle and that the limitations subsequently im- posed effectively destroy the first impression and promise- If adopted it will tend to throw into confusion for the next ten years the exercise of power by city government throughout the State. Such a measure does not confer genuine Home Rule, does not elimi- nate mandatory legislation affecting cities, narrows instead of widens the present sphere of local control by municipalities. Eespectfully submitted, JAMES A. FOLEY EDWARD E. FRAlSrOHOT. Capitol, Albany, N. Y., August 5, 1915. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 37 ADDRESSES OF WILLIAM D. GUTHRIE, D. CADY HER. RICK AND GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SUFFRAGE, JUNE 16, 1915 REMARKS OF WILLIAM D. GUTHRIE, OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee on Suffrage: I desire to be heard in support of so much of the proposed constitutional amendment introduced by Delegate John G. Saxe and now before you for consideration as provides for nominations by party conventions for elective State offices and for elective judicial offices, state or local. I do not, however, support the state-wide personal registration which he proposes, because I believe that this would be a mistake, as well as an unnecessary inconvenience to voters residing in the rural districts. The con- ditions in these districts are very different from those obtaining in the cities of the State, with their large and congested popu- lations. In the country districts, the inspectors, watchers, chal- lengers and public are generally acquainted with all the voters, and fraud is much more readily discovered or prevented than * In accordance with the suggestion of the Chairman of the Committee, the language has been revised and amplified. Doc. No. 37 2 in the great cities. 1 am myself a voter ia a rural district of Nassau County, and I am certain that annual personal regis- tration would be an unnecessary inconvenience, if not a hardship, to a large number of the voters there, and would tend to prevent many from voting who are ready and willing to do so on election day. It seems arbitrary and senseless to require voters in the rural districts, busy about other things than politics and living at a distance from the place of registry, annually to register in person, when they have lived all their lives or for many years in the same district, are well known to nearly every resident, and fraud is practically impossible The great cities present very different conditions. There many do not even kaow the names of their next door neighbors. The inhabitants of every block change each year. Frequently a single building will be the residence of more voters than can be found in one or more square miles in the rural districts. The City of Greater JSTew York now has a population of approximately 5,- 500,000 crowded into one corner of the State. This is more than one-half of the total State population. It is practically impossi- ble to keep track of the constantly changing population in such an urban district. Experience for many years has demonstrated the necessity for annual registration in JSTew York, as well as in the other large cities of the State. Many, however, believe that urban registration could safely be made less irksome and in- convenient to those who permanently reside in a district. If they actually voted there at the previous election, they should not be required to appear personally for registration but might be permitted to register by sending a verified notice of continuance of residence. Some such provision, if adopted, would avoid what is a needless inconvenience in the case of a large part of the electorate and would materially increase the urban vote. The privilege of nominating elective State officers by means of delegate conventions is now denied by the Election Law; but it ought, in my opinion, to be recognized as essentially a consti- tutional right, which the legislature should not be at liberty to abridge. The right to assemble peaceably for the purpose of nominating candidates is certainly a political right of permanent importance and vital concern to all citizens, and it should be guaranteed by constitutional provision and not be left to constant 3 Doc. No. 37 change or denial by the legislature. The present State constitu- tion regulates the qualifications of voters, the registration of citizens entitled to vote, and the creation of registration and election boards. It does, not contain a single provision in regard to nomination for office, even for the office of Governor, although nomination for State offices is of far greater importance to the body politic than many of the matters now regulated by constitu- tional provision or recited in the Bill of Eights. The constantly increasing functions of the modern State have made the executive and administrative department the most im- portant and powerful branch of government, and the increasing complexity of governmental machinery has rendered it absolutely essential that competent, expert and trained public officials should be chosen. Government has become an extremely difficult and scientific business, and special capacity, training and expert knowledge are more and more required in executive and adminis- trative office. The test of a good government is more than ever its aptitude to produce good administration. If we are to have efficient and avoid wasteful administration, the greatest care must be exercised in selecting candidates. The fullest opportunity for information, investigation and discussion in regard to the qualifications and character of proposed candidates is indispen- sable. As Governor Throop said nearly a century ago, " There is perhaps no part of the duties of .citizenship which requires more sound judgment and honesty and singleness of purpose than those relating to the nomination and election of executive and administrative officers." Good government depends in large measure much more on the ability and character of the men who administer it than upon laws or institutions. The maxim, con- stantly on the lips of so many, that a government of laws and not of men is the controlling desideratum may be grossly mislead- ing, for the best system of laws in the hands of incompetent, in- efficient and dishonest administrators will produce far worse results than an inferior system in the hands of competent, effi- cient and honest public officials. It may be truthfully said that the most difficult task and the highest duty that our electorate are ever called upon to perform is the selection of candidates for elective State office. In order to perform that duty, there Doc. No. 37 4 must be adequate and reliable means of information, full op- portunity for conference, exchange of views, debate and criti- cism as to the capacity and character of candidates, and effect- ive co-operation and organization in support of qualified candi- dates. The selection of a Governor for the great State of New York, containing more than 10,250,000 inhabitants and comprising a political constituency larger than any other in this country or Europe, is surely a matter of vital and profound concern to the whole body politic, to every citizen, to every community, to every party, to every class, to every interest. If the short ballot be now adopted, the successful administration of the whole State government will be practically staked upon the selection of quali- fied candidates for Governor. All hope of governmental reform, efficiency and economy will then necessarily depend upon the statesmanship and character of one man, who will be vested with full executive and administrative powers over a population and a territory larger than some of the nations of the world. A wise and safe choice will be infinitely more essential and more difficult than in the past. Indeed, if the views of certain ad- vocates of the short ballot prevail, we are to vest all this power in the Governor without any restraint except his sense of re- sponsibility to the people and without an effective check upon his will or caprice until the expiration of a term of four years! We should then have to trust him absolutely. We should in truth have precisely the definition of an elective despotism and tyranny — beneficent if we are so fortunate and blessed as to secure an exceptionally able and high-minded statesman for Governor, baneful if we have an incompetent, untrained, or scheming politician or demagogue. The Governor would have it immediately within his power to become an absolute State boss through the use of an enormous and constantly increasing patron- age, directly or indirectly reaching and touching every election district in State. He would be able to break party lines asunder — to promote the interest of any group or faction — to punish any adversaries — to cater to any class and sacrifice the rights of minorities — to substitute his will or caprice for the policy of his party — to permit waste and extravagance — to dictate who should be his successor. A competent candidate for 5 Doc. 'No. 37 Governor who would be so well known and tested as to be safely relied on to resist this temptation would indeed be a rare phenom- enon. If history teaches us that there is anything certain in human nature, if experience, which is of far more value than any mere reasoning, has again and again demonstrated any practi- cal and eternal truth in politics, it is that unrestrained power inevitably leads sooner or later to abuse and tyranny, and that no one ofBcial, be he emperor, king, president, or governor, can safely be entrusted with any such power. We should bear in mind that the extreme advocates of the short- ballot would make the Governor supreme and independent of the legislature, even more independent and powerful than the Presi- dent is under the Constitution of the United States, by eliminat- ing all requirement for the approval and consent of the Senate in regard to the appointment of heads of the great State depart- ments. I sincerely hope that the Convention will not make this grave mistake. The number of State elective officers should not be reduced to less than four, namely. Governor, Lieutenant-Gover- nor, Comptroller and Attorney-General. The Comptroller should be made an auditing officer charged with supervision as such over the various departments of the State and independent of the appointing power. The Attorney-General should be made the head of a Department of Justice and the responsible legal adviser of the Governor and of every State official. And the heads of all the great departments should be appointed by the Governor with the approval and consent of the Senate. iSTo Governor should be given the unrestrained power to appoint or remove the heads of all departments. The requirement of the consent of the Senate is a necessary and salutary restraint upon all Governors, good and bad. It is better and safer that Gover- nors should be compelled to submit to some obstacles than that absolute power should be vested in even the best and ablest and purest of men. The principle of a short ballot is the decrease of elective offices, but not necessarily the placing of absolute and unrestrained power in the hands of one man. It is quite true that a State Constitution should deal only with permanent and fundamental provisions and not attempt to regu- late matters "of detail which can be adequately dealt with by ordinary legislation and which are in their nature such as ought Doc. No. 37 6 to be readily changeable. I am in full accord in this, as in other respects, with the platform which the Republican Party adopted in 1914 and on which the Republican delegates to the Constitutional Convention were elected. Subordinate and non- essential matters of mere regulation and detail ought not to be embodied in constitutions. But I venture to assert that in reason and sound policy there can be no more important, per- manent or fundamental constitutional provision than one relating to the manner of selecting the highest. State officers in whom all the executive and administrative powers of our State govern- ment are to be vested. This is a subject eminently fit and proper for a constitution to deal with. If this convention cannot solve the problem of establishing a sound system of nomination for elective State offices, at least in outline and cardinal features, no legislature can be expected to do so. In any event, the new Constitution should declare emphatically that the right peace- ably to assemble in a political convention composed of duly elected delegates or representatives for the purpose of nominat- ing candidates for public office, State or local, should not be abridged, as in effect it is abridged by the present Election Law. I further venture to assert that the question of nominating candi- dates by delegate conventions involves in its essence the perpetu- ation of the fundamental principle of representative government and of the republican form of government which the Founders intended to establish and to guarantee to each State of the Union. The one great contribution which the English-speaking race has made to the science of politics has been the representative princi- ple. It has been truly declared that every lasting advancement made in politics during the past two centuries, every lasting lib- erty secured for the individual, and every lasting reform towards stability in government and permanent effectiveness in adminis- tration have been by and through the representative system. The subordination of public officials to the law and their liability under the law for every illegal act sprang from the representative principle. The independence of the judiciary, that great bul- wark of liberty and of the rights of the individual, has followed upon the growth and success of the representative principle. The vivifying spirit and essence of that great principle are the deter- 7 Doc. No. 37 mination of all questions of practical government by delegates or representatives chosen by the people, who it is assumed can act more intelligently than a multitude of voters dispersed over an extensive territory and who can best discern the true interests of their country. Government under the representative principle includes not merely legislation by the chosen representatives of the people but the practical conduct of the executive and administra- tive branches by officials selected by the representatives of the people. Despite all attacks upon our political institutions and mistakes and maladministration, the sound common sense of thoughtful citizens still confirms the judgment of the Founders that the only safe path to better government was to follow the representative principle. This is as true today as it was when the Federalist was written. The direct nomination of executive or judicial officers is in utter disregard of that principle. Now, if the function of legislating be in the long run best and most satisfactorily performed by a representative body composed of men coming from every locality and every part of a State, and if it would be unsafe to vest the law-making power in the executive branch, does it not likewise follow that the equally important func- tion of selecting candidates for executive and judicial office and formulating party policies and platforms will be best performed by a representative body, such as our delegate conventions were, instead of being left to the mass of voters ? If in legislation more intelligent and wiser action be still likely to result from a repre- sentative body than from the confusion of a multitude of voters, is it not also likely that more intelligent and wiser selection of executive officers will be made by chosen representatives as in nominating conventions than by the people at large? It should be borne in mind that our system of republican gov- ernment differs from other representative governments in the practical and effective separation of powers. In England and in France the legislators, that is the delegates or representatives elected by the people, appoint and control all executive and admin- istrative officers and carry on the executive and administrative branches of government. There the legislative and executive powers are practically united in the same body. Under our system the legislators do not elect or appoint executive officers. It is, Doc. 1^0. 37 8 therefore, essential, if the representative principle is to be main- tained, that executive officers should be nominated by duly quali- fied representatives. Nomination of executive officers by direct primaries will in- evitably be subversive of the true spirit of the representative sys- tem, and the secrecy of the vote in the nominating primaries v?ill ultimately be destructive of all sense of responsibility. The en- rolled voter marking his ballot in secret -will frequently feel no sense of responsibility or accountability to his neighbors and fel- lov?-citizens, and will frequently fail to appreciate that the vote is a sacred trust to be exercised for the good of the community. The secrecy of the primary vote thus does a great moral mischief in destroying the sense of political responsibility and accountability. A public declaration in connection with nomination for office, in- volving as it does a recommendation to other voters of fitness and qualification for the particular office, is a much more effective restraint on corruption and perversion of the popular vote than any scheme of secrecy which leaves no one publicly responsible for unfit and improper nominations. In my judgment, the primary system tends to promote the nomination of self-advertisers, dema- gogues and wire-pullers by irresponsible minorities, groups, fac- tions, cabals, or secret societies, generally composed of persons acting mostly in the dark and dominated or controlled by leaders who cannot be held to any accountability, however much they may prostitute the political power they exercise. The practice of nominating candidates for public office, whether national, state, or local, by means of party conventions, caucuses, or conferences, was introduced and long existed without any statu- tory regulations. This practice sprang up normally and from ne- cessity as soon as the increase in population rendered it impracti- cable for the voters to come together in mass or town meeting. The body of voters, who could not spend the time necessary to investi- gate as to the qualifications of candidates or attend political de- bates, and who could know little or nothing of the qualifications and character of candidates, naturally recognized that the best and safest course would be to elect delegates or representatives from each neighborhood, who, meeting delegates or representatives from other districts, could exchange views, criticize, discuss and 9 Doc. Xo. Zl agree upon policies and nominations, and thus act more intelli- gently, advisedly and wisely than was otherwise possible. The growth of constituencies, the multiplication of elective offices, and the neglect of their political duties by the majority of electors led to many abuses in the conduct of nominating con- ventions, and legislation became necessary in order to prevent frauds in connection with the conduct of primaries and conven- tions. In promoting this legislation, it was argued that, if citi- zens were assured the right to be enrolled in the party to which they desired to belong and to vote at primaries and freely to ex- ercise their choice for delegates to conventions, they would be stimulated to take part in the primaries, and that this would re- sult in preventing party nominations for office from being con- trolled by those who made politics their business or used improper or corrupt methods. Hence the primary reform measures intro- duced by legislation in our State in the nineties. These measures, it is true, proved to be very disappointing to many of their promoters. This was not because the statutes were in themselves defective or inadequate, but because it was found to be impossible by mere legislative enactment to induce a majority of the electors to enroll in their parties or to take any active part or interest in polities. Although under these primary laws the nominating conventions could at any time have been readily con- trolled by the electorate at large, had the voters only taken the trouble to enroll and vote at the primaries, great dissatisfaction was fomented or manufactured, and a clamor arose for the total abolition of the convention and the introduction of the experiment of a direct primary system, upon the notion that this would stimu- late greater political interest, enable the enrolled voters to control and elect their own candidates, bring nominations closer to the people, and curtail and ultimately destroy the power of the poli- ticians and bosses. The new experiment was based upon the as- sumption that if enrolled electors could vote directly for candi- dates instead of for representatives to nominating conventions, they would thereby be induced to take a more active interest in politics, to overthrow the control or domination of bosses and pro- fessional politicians, and to make better selections than had ever been made before, — in a word, it was assumed, in the face of all ex- Doc. No. 37 10 perience to the contrary,, that, if the voters had the direct power, they would perform their political duties, that better qualified and more competent and independent candidates would offer them- selves or somehow would be brought to the attention of the elec- torate, and that nominations would then represent the will or choice of the majority in each party, and not the will of minori- ties or the choice of bosses. How the majority were to ascertain the qualifications of particular candidates and co-operate to secure the nomination of the best qualified were left in the air. It seemed to be thought, following the absurd and exploded doctrines of Rousseau, that the people would always want, and, by a process of political inspiration, would intuitively and instinctively select the best men for public office. The result so far has refuted all these assumptions, hopes and promises. The people at large do not take part in the primaries and the political machines are more powerful than ever. Thus, in K"ew York County, the Republican vote for Governor at the direct primaries of 1914 was only 23,305, out of a total enroll- ment of 56,108 and a vote in jSTovember of 85,478 ; the Democratic primary vote was only 48,673 out of a total enrollment of 132,- 693 and a vote in November of 90,666, and the Progressive pri- mary vote was only 6,972 out of a total enrollment of 19,705 and a vote in November of 5,604. It will be readily perceived from these figures that a very small minority of the voters in each party took the trouble to participate in the direct primary elections, even in the case of the nomination for Governor of our State, as to which there was an exciting contest in each party. An examination of the figures throughout the whole State will show that the voters in nearly all districts took no more interest in direct primary elections for nominations than they were accus- tomed to take under the old convention system and that the con- trolling power is still being exercised by the organization, but now acting in secret and utterly irresponsible. For example, the Re- publican primary vote for Governor in Bronx County was 5,276 against a Republican vote of 29,865 in November, and in Rich- mond County the Republican primary vote for Governor was 984 against a Republican vote of 5,477 in November. It is probably correct to assume that not one-half of the Republican or Demo- cratic voters now enroll, and that, on the average, less than one- n Doc. Xo. 37 luilf of the enrolled voters take the trouble to go to the primaries even when there is a serious contest, as was the case last year fur Governor. As there were then three proposed Republican can- didates — Whitman, Hedges and Hinman — tbe result was that a one-sixth of the Eepublican vote in JSTovember might have been sufficient to carry the primaries, the total Republican vote for Gov- ernor having been 686,T01 as against a total primary vote of 226,037 for the three candidates. Under the present direct pri- maries, the voters of a small portion of the State can put a can- didate in nomination by petition; any number of names can be put on the official primary ballot, and a candidate may be put in nomination by a very small minority vote confined to one locality. In fact, twenty or more names can be placed by petition on the official primary ballot of any party as candidates for any elective office, and the name of the person receiving the most votes will be that of the candidate of a great party, to whose support the party will be committed and for whose conduct in office the party will be responsible, although the successful candidate may be entirely unknown to nineteen-twentieths of the voters at that particular primary. Under the primary system, in view of the small number of those participating in primaries, an insignificant percentage of the voters at a primary could nominate a candidate of whose qualifications and personal character the majority of the party were wholly ignorant, or a candidate whom an over- whelming majority would repudiate. Sulzer came very near carrying the direct primary of the Progressive party. This shows how readily the direct primary system engenders factions and ir- responsibility, and how unfit it is for securing the expression of the intelligent and instructed will of the majority of any party. Moreover, there is no way of ascertaining for whom petitions are being circulated; no publicity is required even after the time for filing petitions, and the great majority of enrolled voters generally have no idea of the candidates for office on the official primary ballot until they open the official primary ballot at their polling place. The press is either unreliable or partisan, or it fails ade- quately to discuss the qualifications and character of the can- didates. I submit that it is absurd to claim that such a method of nom- inating State officers to administer government for a population Doc. ISTo. 37 12 of over 10,000,000 is more likely to secure competent and trust- worthy candidates or to express the real preference and the sober and intelligent judgment of the majority of the voters of each party than the method of nominating State officers by public con- ventions composed of delegates and representatives of the voters from each assembly or election district of the State, proceeding in the open with full opportunity for investigation, discussion and criticism. The Direct Primary Law of 1911 (L. 1911, ch. 891) abolished all conventions in the State of Ifew York except the State con- vention, and the Direct Primary Law of 1913 (L. 1913, ch. 820) abolished the State convention, striking the article on conventions and even the definition of a convention from the text of the law. Although the new law contains in section 45 a provision that noth- ing therein contained shall prevent a party from holding a party convention, to be constituted in such manner and under such powers in relation to formulating party platforms and policies and the transaction of business relating to the regulation of party affairs as the rules and regulations of the party provide, not in- consistent with the Election Law, it was clearly the intention of its framers that such party conventions should not deal with the most important sul)ject which parties had theretofore dealt with, namely, the nomination of candidates for public office. Indeed, section 4G, as amended in 1913, expressly provides that designa- tions of candidates for party nominations shall be " by petition only " in the manner provided in the law. The conventions of the two great political parties held at Sara- toga last year, at which the party platforms in respect of the ap- proaching Constitutional Convention were adopted and fifteen delegates-at-large " recommended," were wholly unofficial and un- regulated by law. What was practically the nomination by the con- ventions of candidates for delegates-at-large was unauthorized and operated only as a mere recommendation. They had to be nom- inated by petition as fully as if the conventions had never con- vened. These conventions thus nominated delegates because they realized and every thinking man in the State appreciated that it would be absurd to leave the selection and nomination of fifteen delegates-at-large to the mass of enrolled voters who would have 13 Doc. Xo. 37 no opportunity for conference and exchange of views in respect of the qualifications and character of such candidates. Some informed, responsible and representative body of men had to act, and therefore the conventions acted. They, hovi^ever, refrained from considering candidates for the great office of Governor, on the theory that it would be violating the spirit and intent of the Election Law to take any action in regard to candidates for that ofiice. That most important and vital subject was left to the hazard of petitions circulated among the enrolled voters through- out the State. There was no organization of any kind among the voters, or means of communication and exchange of views or debate, except what is known as the political organization; but it was confidently anticipated that the organization of each party would determine, or at least would have it within its power to determine, who the candidates of that party should be. Such proved to be the case. No candidate was nominated at the direct primaries for a State office unless he was supported by the regular organization or machine of his party. And that, I believe, will be the practical result of direct primaries in nine cases out of ten, and more readily and frequently and unsatisfactorily than under the old convention system. Careful observers of the operation of the primary law last year in this State, and in other States for several years, are convinced that the result of this so-called reform has been not merely to increase the power of the regular organization or lua- chine but to render it utterly irresponsible. The organization now acts behind closed doors and without accountability to anyone except its own inner circle. The leaders have only to whisper their orders over the telephone to the workers in each district, preserving no record, and the desired result is accomplished. If an unfit and improper nomination is made, the leaders can dis- claim all responsibility and say that such is the will of the sov- ereign people. As the vote at the primary is. secret, no one can be blamed ; there is no individual or group of individuals upon whom responsibility can be fastened. If it be argued that there is actual responsibility and that everyone knows it, then I answer that this is only by admitting that, after all, the secret machine or boss is in fact responsible and still rules, and now more effectively than ever. Doc. ?To. 37 14 As has been pointed out by many able writers, the convention system in the past has been of inestimable service in this country. It afforded the highest test of a political representative institution in a democratic community and the soundest and purest applica- tion of the principle of representation or delegated authority; it operated to bind party elements firmly together, to afford full opportunity for the exchange of viev?s and criticism and debate, for the propagation of principles, for the conciliation of factions ; it inspired enthusiastic party life; it was, if honestly conducted, a thoroughly representative and deliberative body, and it lay at the foundation of party success and the maintenance and per- petuation of party principles and policies and political faith and devotion. In a word, the convention was and still is the best instrument ever devised for securing concert of choice and re- sponsible and intelligent action by large bodies of voters belong- ing to the same political party and believing in the same political faith, principles, or policies. I am not at all blind to the fact that there have been great abuses of the convention system, and that conventions have been corruptly organized or conducted. Btit I know of no forms of abuse or corruption which could not have been remedied by ap- propriate and intelligent legislation, or which could not have been prevented by action of the voters if the legislation of the past twenty-five years had been generally availed of by the ma- jority in each party. The control of all nominations was in the hands of the majority if they had only taken the trouble to enroll and vote at primary elections for competent representa- tives. There is no practical remedy for abuse of power, fraud, or corruption in nominations for office but the participation in politics of all voters as a duty of citizenship. The notion that the direct primary would eliminate the professional politician and the boss has been shown to be false in every State where the scheme has been tried. Indeed, quite the contrary has been the result, and the last condition is worse than the first ; for to repeat myself, manipulators, wire-pullers and political bosses now work in secret and by underground channels without any responsibility or accountability whatever, and are, nevertheless, able cynically to point to the direct primary as the expression of the people's 15 Doc. Xo. 37 sovereign will — a primary which may be carried by a very small minority of the party. I assume that all the members of the Constitutional Convention believe that the existence of political parties is essential to the success of free government and to permanence and stability of political policy, and that the perpetuation of party government is desirable for the welfare and best interests of this State. Men cannot secure results and compass their ends in politics, any more than in most other himian concerns and matters requiring concerted action, except by co-operation, discipline and responsi- bility. The value of the service rendered to the American people by the great political parties is incalculable, and if these parties are to be disrupted and their organization and cohesiveness under- mined, the result must inevitable be the most serious injury to the body politic. Whether we regard political parties as organizations of men believing in the same political faith, principles and poli- cies and uniting to introduce or uphold those principles and poli- cies, on the one hand, or regard parties merely as organizations to secure office and administer government, on the other hand — both of which aspects present patriotic motives — it is desirable for the permanent welfare of the people of every free country that parties should be maintained, and particularly that there should be two great responsible parties, each striving for control and ready to assume the responsibility of government and of the adop- tion of particular measures. A public official who belongs to a great political party and owes his preferment to that party is under a double sense of responsibility for efficiency, honesty and consistency in public office. He has a sense of responsibility and duty to the State as a whole, and he has a sense of responsibility and duty to his party, and both are moral factors of inestimable worth in securing integrity, efficiency and industry in public office. The movement in favor of abolishing the convention system and introducing direct nominating primaries, in its real origin, sprang not from a desire to reform the existing political parties but to subvert and destroy the American system of government by political parties. The movement was later taken up by men who sincerely desired to reform party management and correct party abuses, who conscientiously despaired of reform within Doc. ISTo. 37 16 the parties themselves, and who conceived and finally came to believe that betterment could only be brought about by uprooting and casting aside all the party machinery, organization and dis- cipline v^hich the practical experience of over a century had built up. The plea of bringing the government back to the people was catching and plausible, and it found ready response in the deeply rooted dislike of party machinery, party discipline and party con- stancy on the part of those who habitually neglect all attention to politics and the political duties of citizenship except during peri- ods of popidar excitement and upheaval. Although I am one of those who believe in independence in politics and in the right and duty of every citizen to vote against his party if in his judgment the public interests so require, I profoundly believe that party government and party organization and machinery are absolutely essential under our form of government. Political parties in America have given stability to govern- mental policies and have created the only effective restraint upon disintegration and individual caprice or demagogism. There must be coherence in political forces ; there must be concentration and direction of the political energy of communities; there must be some systematic and practical method for investigating the com- petency of and selecting public officials; there must be stability, harmony and co-operation in governmental policies. These can only be secured in the long run by and through permanently or- ganized and disciplined political parties. No other means has yet been discovered by which effectively to express political opinion, to secure stability in governmental administration and policies, and to effectuate the real and permanent ju-dgment of the people and promote their best interests. The President of the United States some years ago, in referring to attacks upon party government in the United States, used the following striking language, which I think should be recalled : " I know that it has been proposed by enthusiastic, but not too practical, reformers to do away with parties by some legerdemain of governmental reconstruction, accompanied and supplemented by some rehabilitation, devoutly to be wished, of the virtues least commonly controlling in fallen human nature; but it seems to me that it would be more difficult and less desirable than these amiable persons suppose to conduct a government of the many by 17 Doc. No. 37 means of any other device than party organization, and that the great need is, not to get rid of parties, but to find and use some expedient by which they can be managed and made amenable from day to day to public opinion. Whatever their faults and abuses, party machines are absolutely necessary under our exist- ing electoral arrangements, and are necessary chiefly for keeping the several segments of parties together. * * * It is im- portant to keep this, in mind. Otherv^ise, when we analyze party action, we shall fall into the too common error of thinking that we are analyzing disease. As a matter of fact the whole thing is just as normal and natural as any other political development. The part that party has played in this country has been both necessary and beneficial, and if bosses and secret managers are often undesirable persons, playing their part for their own bene- fit or glorification rather than for the public good, they are at least the natural fruits of the tree. It has borne fruit good and bad, sweet and bitter, wholesome and corrupt, but it is native to our air and practice and can be uprooted only by an entire change of system. I, therefore, urge upon the Constitutional Convention the res- toration of nominating state conventions for elective state offices. I do so because I believe that they are the best means of main- taining political parties, of formulating their principles and poli- cies, of purifying and disciplining their management, of stimu- lating political enthusiasm and disinterestedness, and of selecting and nominating fit and representative individuals as candidates for high public office. I further suggest that the nominees of any such convention should not need any further designation than the filing of a certificate by the proper convention officers. If it be felt, however, that the direct primary system should be continued for the purpose of party nominations, then it should be provided that the name of the nominee of the convention should be placed on the official primary ballot with the designation " nominated by convention." This would enable the enrolled voters to ratify or overrule the action of the convention. I am, however, convinced that this nominating primary would impose an unnecessary burden upon the electorate, and that it would be a mistake to increase the number of elections. We would then have three elections; first, of delegates to the nominating convention, second, at the official primaries, and third, at the general election. It seems to me that it should answer every purpose if adequate provision were Boc. No. 3Y 18 retained for independent nominations by petition. This would enable voters belonging to any party to place candidates in oppo- sition to the nominees of the convention if they were dissatisfied with those nominees. Assuming that we are to continue the system of electing judges to our highest judicial offices, that is, judges of the Court of Appeals and justices of the Supreme Court, then I submit that candidates for these very important offices should be nomi- nated by conventions and not by direct primaries. I regard this as even more essential for judicial office than in the case of nomi- nation for executive office. The qualities required in a candidate for high judicial office are knowledge of the law, love of justice, high personal character, calmness, impartiality and independence. Mere popularity, oi what so often is necessary to popularity, good-fellowship, is the last quality we look for in a judge. The self-seeker and self -ad- vertiser is seldom qualified by temperament or character for judicial office. It requires the most thorough investigation as to the professional learning, career and conduct of a candidate and the most sifting exchange of views before any one can select a judicial candidate intelligently and wisely. For want of adequate means of acquiring information, the public in such large con- stituencies as the whole State of New York (in the case of judges of the Court of Appeals) and as the various judicial districts (in the case of justices of the Supreme Court) cannot intelligently estimate the qualifications of judicial candidates. It seems to me preposterous to argue that in parties composed of hundreds of thousands of enrolled electors dispersed throughout the State, the voters can investigate, or exchange views, or intelligently act in regard to the qualifications of lawyers who are proposed as candi- dates for judicial office, — almost as preposterous as if we were to select judicial candidates by lot from the names placed on the official primary list. The test of fitness for judicial office should indisputably be higher and more technical than for other offices. That test must require special capacity and character, to be ascertained by careful investigation, exchange of views, open discussion and comparison of merits by responsible delegates or representatives charged with 19 Doc. No. 37 that particular duty and acting in public and personally account- ale for mistake, perversion, or corruption. This test can be best secured by the convention system ; practically it cannot be secured at all by any system of secret direct primaries. Eeform in the selection of judges, if their selection is to be by election, lies not in schemes to reform human nature and to destroy publicity and responsibility, but in making the voters appreciate that the government is theirs, that political power is theirs, that theirs is the duty to send competent representatives to conventions, that theirs is the responsibility of electing com- petent men, and that they are vitally interested in having a com- petent, impartial and independent judiciary. Political conven- tions will be reliable and responsive if the people will only see to it that competent, honest and patriotic men are elected to represent them. There is no other course unless we uproot our whole system of republican government. Ten years of experimenting with our Election Law have pro- duced the present hodge-podge under which no election is con- ducted without error and without inviting a lawsuit and from which all but experts and professional politicians turn away in irritation and disgust. The net result has been to complicate our elections and make them less and less responsive to the best public opinion, and more and more subject to the control of professional politicians, wire-pullers and bosses. In conclusion I earnestly submit that there can be no greater menace to our political institutions and to government by the peo- ple than the prevailing tendency to weaken and impair the repre- sentative principle in our governments by attempting to nominate executive and judicial officers through direct secret primaries instead of through public conventions composed of delegates or representatives duly chosen by the enrolled voters of the party and charged with the duty of selecting competent and honest candi- dates and directly accountable to the locality they represent for the failure to perform that duty. These delegates represent the peo- ple of the vaxious districts of the State; they come together in public ; they exchange and discuss views, or at any rate have full opportunity for debate and criticism ; they vote in public for this or that candidate, and then they return to their neighbors, to those Doc. 'No. 37 20 who sent them and whom they represent, and face accountability and responsibility. How much more likely is such a proceeding to secure competent and honest candidates than the present sys- tem of leaving the voters at large to slip into dimly lighted booths anid secretly place a cross on unideintifiable ballots! The con- vention system is sound and should be preserved; it alone will make our parties and form of government live, and in casting the representative principle aside, as is necessarily done in the direct primary system of nominations for state and judicial ofSce, we are beginning a process which, if not checked, will end in what Lincoln called political suicide. REMARKS OF D. CADY HERRICK The Chairman. — Gentlemen, we will now hear from former Justice D. Cady Herrick. Justice D. Cady Heeuick. — Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I don't know that I can add a great deal to what has been said from time to time upon the question of personal registration. I am only here because of the insistence and persistence of Mr. Saxe, who thought, perhaps, that because I had argued two or three cases in the Court of Appeals in relation to personal reg- istration, possibly I know something about it that the rest of you do not. In that I think he is mistaken, but there are a few things that I might call your attention to which may possibly be new to some of you, possibly not. The general subject of registration is considered at a good deal of length in the third volume of Lincoln's constitutional history of the State, which you have in your convention library, and which doubtless you resort to from time to time, so that it is need- less for me to go into any discussion of this subject at any great length. Of course, we all realize this, that it is of the greatest impor- tance, under our form of government that our suffrage should be pure, that our elections should be honest ; that only those who are honestly entitled to vote should be permitted to vote, and, for the purpose of insuring those results as far as possible our registra- tion laws have been enacted from time to time. 21 Doc. Xo. 37 The principle underlying it is undisputed. The application of it has been different in different parts of the State. In some parts of the State personal registration is required ; in other parts of the State the inspectors of election can put upon the registry list for the coming election all those who voted at the last elec- tion, and add such other names as they see fit. Now, of course the opportunities that are open for fraud by any defect in the registration law can be availed of in any part of the State, whether it is in the city or whether it is in the coimtry. One of the learned, but simple minded, judges of the Court of Appeals, in discussing this registration question, drew a great distinction between the inhabitants of cities and the inhabit- ants of the country, that fraud was much more apt to prevail in the city than it was in the country ; dishonest practices were more common than in the country. Some years ago, possibly things have changed since then, but some years ago I had occasion to have some practical knowledge of polities and of the working of the election law. The only dif- ference I could find, because human nature is the same all over, the only difference I could find between dishonest election prac- tices in the city and in the country was that the countryman, as a rule, was more intelligent and clever than the politicians of the same grade in the cities. And I thinlc that will hold true today. I think, that there is more corruption outside of the big cities than in them on Elec- tion Day. My observation in the past, and what I have heard of recent years, is that the great amount of moneys that are raised to be used on Election Day are used outside the great cities, and not in. If there is any protection to be cast around the ballot box, if there are any safeguards against improper registration, it is just as much needed in one part of the State as it is in the other. In times past when the question as to whether there should be personal registration in the country districts was being discussed it was said that it was inconvenient for many people to go person- ally before the boards of registration, that in many instances it would require miles of travel and that was too much to ask of them to go to the polling places first to register and then upon another day to vote. Doc. TSTo. 37 22 In addition to that, it was said that the country people knew each other; knew whether they were entitled to vote or not and that the inspectors of election knew. As Mr. Guthrie said a little while ago in the course of his speech, that down in Nassau County they all knew each other, and knew whether they were entitled to vote or to have their names placed upon the register. Since this question of personal registration was first discussed many years ago, the character of the population in the interior of this State has greatly changed. You take in many of the counties, many of the election districts, it is possibly true that formerly the people knew each other fairly well, and knew as to whether Herrick resided upon that farm and Smith upon another farm, how long he had resided there, and whether he was a citizen and whether he was not. But take it today, there are thousands and thousands of farm laborers in the State, and all you people who i-eside in the country know that. I have some knowledge of it, because I am interested in farm properties; they are engaged by the month, two or three or four or five or six months, and then they flit to some other place. Possibly in the same town, possibly in the same coitaty, possibly in another part of the State, or an- other State, and they are here, there and all over. How are you going to keep' track of them ? They appear and rightfully appear, upon the registry this year and vote, and their names are carried over to the registry list next year. Then they may be far distant, who knows? They may be still entitled to vote there, although they are not on the same farm where they were employed this year. So that conditions I think in the country have largely changed from what they were years ago. We cannot go back very well to the old halcyon days when politics were pure in this State, and when they used to run the State barge up the canal with 25 or 30 people upon it, and vote at every election district as they went along, the elections continuing for three days, but we can return, I think, to some of the things that used to be done years ago. We can enact a law which permits personal registration without the inconveniences that have been complained of so much, and which liave prevented the enactment of laws for personal regis- tration. '23 Doc. Xo. 37 Personal registration is almost a necessity, if we are to have clean registry lists. When some one else is authorized to place my name upon the list and does so, and it is improperly there I. cannot be punished, so that one great means of enforcing the purity of election is lost. The possible inconveniences that may result to voters by compelling them to apply in person should not be permitted to interfere with the principle that lies back oX the requirement for personal registration. It seems to me that personal registration should be required all over the State but if you are not prepared to go to that extent, let me suggest this to you : That, upon the eve of every Presidental election, within a given time before that election, personal registration should be required all over the State. So that once in four years, at least, we can start with a clean bill of men who personally appeared, and have personally had their names placed upon the registry list. You cannot punish a man today because his name appears upon a registry list, and was placed there by somebody else. And you cannot punish the inspectors very well because they can say, " We always supposed that man lived out there, and was entitled to vote." You can dear that up by starting out with a clear registry list at least once in four years. It is not in line with what I was called upon to discuss, and possibly not within the purview of what you think you can embody in the Constitution, but I made this suggestion to the Legislature some years ago as one means of providing for personal registration in the country districts. There is not any man who is entitled to vote in any of these districts but what once in a while goes to the post office or to the grocery store in his election district. If at any time after the first of Januaiy, we will say, in each year, you provide that he can go before an election officer and, by maliing the requisite affidavits, and filing that so it is upon the record, that his name can be placed upon the registry list; and then provide also for your meetings of the full board as is required now, when names can be stricken off that are not properly on, and additions can be made of those not registered. I don't know as I have anything further to say upon this sub' ject. It has been discussed in the books and in our Constitutional conventions in former years, and it seems to me almost the work Doc. N"o. 37 2i of supererogation to come before you and say anything in relation to it; but I would like to add one thing in relation to the sub- ject that Mr. Guthrie discussed, and that is upon the question of holding conventions, and the representative form of government, with all of which I fully agree. Another thing I wish to call your attention to is this. If you will recollect in the old days when we elected delegates to assem- bly district conventions, and then elected delegates from the assem- bly district conventions to the State conventions, and then from the State conventions to the ^National conventions, you will remember how curiously they were graded. The ones that were elected delegates to the Assembly District conventions were a little above the average of the men who voted for them, a little better stand- ing in the community, a little higher degree of intelligence. So when you come to elect your delegates from the Asseimbly District conventions to the State conventio'ns, there was another gradation up, there was another selection of selected men ; then, in turn the delegates who were elected by the State convention to the l^ational convention were still, as a rule — I am speaking of the roll of delegates that you sent to the !N"ational convention — were a higher class of men than those you sent to the State conventions, and you got in those days, too, a class of men to go to conventions that you could not induce to go to the Assembly or to the Senate, or even to Congress because they could not spend the time. Just as there are many here in this convention who are glad to cO'me here, and proud to come to the convention. They sro willing to give up some considerable degree of time and thought and study to it, that you could not induce to go to either branch of the Legislature. I will venture to say that there are a number of men of that type in this convention. Selected men to pass upon the fundamental law of the State under the convention system, you had selected men to pick out State officers and judges, I agree perfectly with the gentleman who is suggesting the thought, Mr. Guthi'ie, that the direct pri- mary may be workable in small districts, where people know each other or if they have no personal acquaintance with a man who is a candidate, they can inquire from their next door neiglibor and ascertain from them what kind of a man he is; but under 25 Doc. So. 37 present conditions, it is impossible to find out. If you make in- quires in these days — it has always been so, in heated political campaigns, the stories that you hear about candidates from way off counties, you charge that to political gossip and political malice. He is on your ticket, and you vote for him. You will recall that all our old writers, upon our form of government, starting out with Be Toqueville, then with Jefferson, even Bryce, laid great stress upon our town meetings where people gathered together and discussed public affairs; that that was the back bone of our form of government; that it was the school of government where they learned about governmental principals, and the needs of the country, and found out incident- ally about each other. The same way, Mr. Chairman, — because you used to go to conventions in your younger days, and so did I — the gathering together, not simply of the delegates but of the people who come from all parts of the State was an immense educational value, you got to know the people who took an interest in politics, you discussed the politicians, and party platforms, you discussed the public men, and public men had an opportunity to make them- selves known to the people of the State. With your direct pri- maries and no conventions, in 5, 10 or 15 years from now how will a man of ability in Albany or Cattaraugus or St. Lawrence, or any of those counties, become known to the people of the State ? He may be well and favorably known in his own county, or per- haps in two or three surrounding counties, but imless he has been sent to Congress or sent to the Senate or some place of that sort, where he can make a name, he will not be known. In the old days that was not so: He made himself known to the people of the State by the part he took in the State conventions. But I am going beyond the thing allotted to me to talk about, and I am going to stop. Gentlemen, I thank you. The Chairman. — Would some wish to ask Judge Herrick a question ? If not. Judge, thank you very much. Who will you call next, Mr. Saxe ? Me. Saxe. — Our fellow delegate, Mr. Wickersham. Doc. No. ST 26 REMARKS OF GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM Me. Wickeesham. — Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak this morning on the first part of the bill under consider- ation, but I should like to make a suggestion in passing, and that is with respect to the question of personal registration. I have not had the priyilege of listening to the discussions before the committee on this bill and, therefore, I don't know whether the suggestion has been made, but there is one perfectly conclu- sive method of identification for the purpose of determining the right to vote, and that is the thumb print. A registration by thumb print is so conclusive that the authorities who have studied that subject are of one accord and testify that, curious as it may seem, no two thumb prints have ever been found to bear the same tracery. So that the indisputable and conclusive method of de- terming the identity of an individual is found in the thumb print. I was present a few days ago at a dinner when the police com- missioner of New York was talking on that subject and he said that, a day ov two before that occasion, a gentleman had come into the department and said that he was going abroad on busi- ness, and that it was essential, for certain business purposes, that he should establish the fact that he was in the city of New York on that particular day, and he asked to leave his identification thumb print in the police department so as to establish that fact conclusively and beyond any controversy, and his thumb prints were taken and recorded. The police commissioner said that there were no possible means of disputing the fact that the man who made that thumb print was at that office on that day and at that time. Now, that would solve the problem with which I confess I have always had sympathy, i. e., the voter whose occupation carries him away from home at registration time. He may be a conamercial traveler, he may be an employee of the government who is not able to come home and register, or who finds it burdensome to come and register as well as to come and vote. His identity could be established beyond any peradventure for purposes of registration by sending a registration card duly signed and identified with hip thumb print. 27 Doc. No. 37 But, Mr. Chairman, I did not come hecre to speak particularly on that phase of the problem before you. Mr. Saxe's bill proposes to re-establish as a constitutional right the' power of the people to assemble in convention to nominate those for whom they wish to vote at general elections. It is curious that in the effort to prevent abuses of the rights of the people they sometimes resort to a remedy which means the destruction of their fundamental rights. For ages the tra- ditional method which English speaking people have adopted in solving their problems of government has been to meet in assembly of one kind or another to debate the questions before them, and to come to conclusions as a result of those discussions. Previous speakers have spoken to you of the educational effect of that sys- tem of government, of the development of national character, of national characteristics which have been the outcome of this tra- ditional method of meeting in assembly and debating, discussing, and agreeing. It is true that that system was abused. There is no system conceivable, there is no plan of government that has ever been framed that is not susceptible of abuse. Benjamin Franldin long ago said that government, like clocks, go by the motion that men give to them. And yO'U can never establish a scheme of government which will work automatically and which will not be susceptible of abuse. But of all the extraordinary methods of government adopted by a free people to remedy an abuse, I under- take to say none more extraordinary was ever adopted than to put into the statute law of the State a provision that any body of men constituting a political party or a group might not meet together and agree upon the name of persons for whom they propose to vote at any ensuing election. ISTo more preposterous idea ever found expression on the statute books of a State. Of, course, it is true that the power of the convention was at times abused. We are familiar with the story of the inner group that assembled at one of the great political conventions, and when the " slate " was handed out there was one blank left, the ques- tion was asked who was to fill that place and the answer of the boss was: "Well, we will leave that to the convention." But whose fault was it ? It was all in the hands of that convention. Doc. No. 37 28 All that was necessary was that a majority of that convention should have lost confidence in the directing committee, and its power was gone. And every member of that committee had the right to rise in his place and express his opinions; every member of that convention. And sometimes on notable occasions slates were broken and conventions nominated their own men, and if they did not, it was because the committee represented the views of the conventions, and the members acquiesced in the direction of the Committee or Leaders. We have embodied in our fundamental law of this State the right, which the Legislature may not invade, of the people to freely meet and petition the government, or any branch of it, for redress and grievances. Shall we not embody in it the right of the people to meet and agree upon those for whom they will vote to iill the offices of the State at any ensuing election ? I would not go as far as Mr. Saxe does in this bill, in limiting the nominations to party convention, because I think that errs on that side just the same as the present law does on the side to which I object. If any respectable number of citizens desire to put in nomination by petition — Mr. Saxe. — That is not this amendment. This is only as to party nominations. Mk. Wickeesham. — ^That is one thing. Mk. J. Gr. S^AXE. — This does not prevent independent nomina- tions. Me. Wickeesham. — Then I withdraw my comment on it, be- cause I am speaking of the right which is the traditional right in- herited by us from our forefathers, which should be jealously pre- served, to meet in convention, have our delegates chosen by an appropriate method which safeguards the right of the voter within the party to choose the delegate to assemble in convention, to nominate the persons for whom they desire to vote at an ensuing election. Me. J. G. Saxe. — I agree with you absolutely on that proposi- tion. My bill would be unconscionable if it prevented independent nominations. Me. Wickeesham. — Then we agree upon that. There is no reason I think of why that traditional method should be impaired. 29 Doc. ISTo. 37 It has been impaired by the Legislature of this State in response to a momentary sentiment, I believe a very mistaten sentiment, a sentiment founded upon abuse. But I think no more important work can be done by this Convention than to restore the ancient privileges of the free people of the State of New York, by re- moving the obstruction to their acting in that traditional method in selecting those for whom they propose to vote. The Chairman. — Would any of the gentlemen desire to ask any questions of Mr. Wickersham? Me. Owen. — ^Would you extend that further than is extended by Mr. Saxe's bill, to assembly districts? Me. Wickeesham. — I see no reason why people of assembly districts should not have the same right as the people of the State at large have. I think the conventions of the Assembly districts have served a most useful purpose. I agree with Judge Herrick. I can go back in my recollection to the time when I served, as a very young man, as delegate to assembly district con- ventions. It is especially valuable in the cities. In a great city like New York, where as Mr. Guthrie says, we do not know our neighbors, I found a great helpfulness in going to the city con- vention where I met my neighbor, who lived around the comer of the block; I had only known him previously by the sign on his door, but he seemed to be an intelligent man when I came to meet him and I hoped that he felt that he gained something in knowing me as I knew I gained something from knowing him. And I think those associations of the delegates in the different conventions constitute a most useful aid in obliterating the sharp animosities of caste which grow up in our complex civilization, and tending to make people of all classes unite in a common in- terest in the good government of their community. For that reason, among others, I am in favor of having the convention system in the small subdivisions as well as in the large ones. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 38 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL INTERESTS AND RELATIONS, RELATIVE TO THE SEVERAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AiTJGUsT 9, 1915 Mr. Parsons, from tibie Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations, to which were referred the following Proposed Amend- ments, providing for the inclusion of occupational diseases as a sub- ject for workmen's compensation : JSTo. 23, introduced by Mr. Aiken; JSTo. 383, Int. JSTo. 376, introduced by Mr. Foley, and No. 569, Int. No. 554, introduced by Mr. Eisner, reported by Proposed Amendment entitled " Proposed constitutional amendment to amend Sections 18 and 19 of Article I of the Constitution, in re- gard to damages for injuries causing death, laws for the protection of the lives, health or safety of employees, and workmen's com- pensation for injuries or death, from accidents or occupational diseases" (Int. No. 714), which was read twice and said com- mittee reported in favor of the passage of the same, which report was agreed to and said Proposed Amendment ordered printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole. The Proposed Amendment adds occupational diseases to acci- dents as a subject of compensation to workmen and is in some Doo. ISTo. 38 2 respects an amendment as to form of the present workmen's com- pensation provision. Although it may be that illness from an occupational disease is a subject for compensation under the present constitutional pro- vision for vi^orkmen's compensation, that is not certain. This will make it certain. The theory of workmen's compensation is that injuries happen in industry, and that it is better for the employers and the em- ployes, for the industry and for the public, that " a more just and economical system of providing compensation * * * to em- ployes " should be substituted " for wasteful and protracted dam- age suits, usually unjust in their results either to the employer or the employee, and sometimes to both." (Opinion of Judge Miller writing for the Court of Appeals, in Matter of Jensen, Document No. 19.) Occupational diseases are as likely to happen in some lines of work as accidents in others. The same arguments apply for com- pensation for occupational diseases as apply for compensation for injuries for accidents. Occupational diseases may be due either to the substances with which workmen have to do, or to the conditions under which they must do their work. The substances which are injurious to workmen are the metals, particularly lead, certain acids and soots. Of the conditions of work which lead to disease, the best knovTn is the so-called " bends ", the disease of the sand-hog or caisson- worker. It would be for the Legislature to enumerate the diseases for which compensation would be given. Your committee submits that it is better draftsmanship to amend Section 18 in the manner now proposed than in the manner in which it is now done in Section 19, where it is supposed that Section 18 is amended by the provisions that the right to com- pensation under a workmen's compensation law is exclusive of other rights or remedies and that the law may provide that the amount of such compensation for death shall not exceed a fixed or determinable sum. HEEBERT PARSONS, Chairman. 3 Doc. No. 38 Mr. Parsons, from the Committee on Industrial Interests and Kelations, to which was referred Proposed Amendment intro- duced by Mr. Eranchot (Printed No. 766, Int. No. 131), entitled " Proposed constitutional amendment to amend Article V of the Constitution, by striking therefrom the provisions of Section 8 of said article, prohibiting the creation of offices for the weighing, gauging, measuring, culling or inspecting any merchandise, prod- uce, manufacture or commodity whatever," reported as follows : The Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations recom- mends the passage of the said Proposed Constitutional Amend- ment, with the following amendments: In the title in line one, after the word " amend " and before the word " article " insert " section eight," ; and after the comma, following the word " constitution ", strike out the residue of the title, and insert in place thereof the following : " in order to permit the non-compulsory inspection and grading of food products." Page one, line seven, place brackets abotit the word " created ". which report was agreed to, and said Proposed Amendment ordered reprinted as amended and referred to the Committee of the Whole. This section was inserted by the Constitutional Convention of 1846. Prior to that time there had been legislation which pro- hibited the export of certain articles unless they were first in- spected. There was a fee for each inspection. The legislation was designed to give to products of New York State an advantage over products from other States through the supposed superiority of those from New York State. An army of officers grew up under it, and it became a most offensive provision. It was repealed by statute, and so strong was the feeling that this clause was inserted in the Constitution. It, of course, was intended to prevent officers for the compulsory weighing, gauging, measuring, culling or in- specting of merchandise, etc. The word " compulsor}'," however, was not inserted. It is the opinion of the Attorney-General's office that the pres- ence of the section in its present form might tend to defeat desir- able legislation in order to protect producers and consumers of various food products. If, for instance in the large centers to which products are sent, it is desirable to establish a public market, in order to deal with the cost of living, to eliminate some of the Doc. No. 38 4 middlemen, and for that purpose, to have goods brought to that market, classified according to standards which the market may establish for the convenience of both sellers and producers alike, it is doubtful whether, under this provision, the State could pay any officers who were selected to do such inspecting and standardizing. Under such an arrangement, it would not be compulsory upon anyone to submit their products to inspection, but unless they did so, they could not sell them at the market. 'We could not, for instance, under this section as it now reads, adopt the system which prevails in Illinois, where there are State officials with some such powers as these, and where the Chicago Board of Trade allows nothing to be sold upon it except under the standards and classifications determined by the State officials mentioned. Under the Illinois system, the situation there is said to be far better than the situation which, under the present provision of the Con- stitution, is possible here. This will merely make possible that system and will continue the constitutional provision with respect to food products in the form in which it was really intended to be, as adopted in 1846, where it was aimed to eliminate comjmlson inspection, etc. At a time when the problem of reducing the high cost of living is so acute over the entire country, it is in the last degree advis- able, in the judgment of this committee, that the Legislature should be left free to meet that problem in such manner as it sees fit after a full and complete investigation of conditions. It is apparent from the hearings had before this committee that one of the most likely remediable measures to be adopted will be the establishment of local municipal markets under governmental control, and it was clearly demonstrated that no such market could be useful without the ability to fix grades and qualities of food products dealt in thereon. Section 8 of Article V of the Consti- tution in its present form stands directly in the way of any pro- vision for this useful function. HERBERT PARSONS, Chairman. Mr. Parsons, from the Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations, to which was referred Proposed Amendment introduced 5 Doc. No. 38 by Mr. A. E. Smith (No. 194, Int. No. 193), entitled " Proposed constitiitional amendment to amend article 3 of the Constitution in relation to minimum wages," reported in favor of the passage of the same, with the following amendments : In the title, strike out the word " minimum " and insert in lieu thereof the word " living ", and after the word " wages ", insert the words " to be paid to women and children ". In line 5, strike out the words " minimum or ". In line 6, strike out the word " or ", and insert in lieu thereof the word " and ". v/hich report was agreed to, and said Proposed Amendment ordered reprinted as amended and referred to the Committee of the Whole. The number of poor persons in this State who are dependent upon public charity is markedly on the increase. In the year ending September 30, 1913, the number of persons supported in county, city and town almshouse institutions, or receiving tem- porary relief in the several counties of the State, was 403,991, and the expense therefor was $8,401,318.43. This enormous expense was incurred in pursuance of our historic policy of having the State responsible fox the poor, a policy which is now set forth in the language of Section 2 of the Poor Law, that " a ' poor person ' is one unable to maintain himself, and such person shall be main- tained by the town, city, county or State * * *." The number of such persons who were objects of such public charity had in- creased 24 per cent, in number in the three years from 1910 to 19i:!, and the expense had increased 37 per cent. In the twenty years from 1890 to 1910, the number increased from 175,341 to 32r),(i53, an increase of 85 per cent., and the expense increased from $3,319,865.25 to $6,096,958.95, an increase of 83 per cent, although the population of the State in the same period increased only 52 per cent. Legislation which will require that living wages be paid in industry is one method of checking and reversing this increase in number and expense. To what extent in this State do employees receive less than a living wage, by which is meant a wage sufficient to supply the necessary cost of healthy living ? We do not know. We do know, however, that there are many thousands. The State Factory In- Doc. No. 38 6 vestigating Commission, which was authorized by the Legislature after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in Hew York city, studied the cost of living, and also gathered the wage schedules of 105,000 employees in certain trades. The conclusion reached by its investigators was that a living wage in New York city for a woman living independently should be $9 a week. Out of 45,000 department store employees receiving $50 a week or less, there were 13,000 women eighteen years of age or over who earned less than $9 a week. Fifty-three per cent, of all female employees of eighteen years of age or over in stock and sales received less than $9. Four thousand women of eighteen years and over employed in industrial lines were getting less than $8 a week, and averaged $5.79 a week. In half of the wage-earners' families that were investigated there was no male wage-earner. One-half of the people discovered in the investigation received less than enough to live properly and independently. The following is a budget of the average expenditures for a girl who received $8 a week: Average for clothes $1 50 Eoom rent 2 00 7 breakfasts and 7 dinners 2 00 6 lunches 90 Carfares for 6 days 60 Allowance for insurance and medical care 25 Dues, reading and amusement 50 Savings 25 $8 00 Department store women are required to be neat in their ap- pearance, so that the item of clothes is an important one. It will be noticed that the lunches average 15 cents each, and that if each breakfast averages 10 cents, each, there is not quite 20 cents for each dinner. Insufficient wages mean that food is cut down below the level of healthy subsistence. This is illustrated by studies of family budgets. In a study of 200 families made some years ago in the Old Greenwich village section of New York city, it was found that in most families about a dollar a week for each person in the family not an infant was spent for food, except in the very poor 7 Doc. No. 38 or more prosperous families, that in the week in which the rent was paid, the allowance for food was frequently cut down, and that if a new pair of shoes or a new coat was necessary for one of the children, the food was apt to suffer. The 23 families whose in- comes were less than $600 a year and who were independent of organized charity " were underfed, poorly clad and usually wretchedly housed." Most families lived from week to week. One hundred and fifty-three out of the 200 families had a deficit or just came out even at the end of the year. A family of this char- acter is therefore " constantly on the verge of dependence — if not on the charity society — then on their relatives and friends, in case of any long unemployment or industrial depression." Insufficient food means a weakened body, a less efficient worker and a greater predisposition to illness. Workers receiving such small wages have nothing to spend by way of preventing illness, and when it comes, nothing to spend to cure it. Less than living wages are therefore breeders of illness and dependency. It cannot be definitely said that low wages lead to immorality. It is obvious, however, and investigation has confirmed it, that the temptations are less easily resisted when wages are insufficient. The Factory Investigating Commission's investigation also showed that to raise 5,000 women in the large department stores who were receiving less than $9 a week to the $9 standard would mean an addition of only one-third of 1 per cent, in the selling price, and that to raise the mature women in the neighborhood stores to a wage of $9 a week and girls under eighteen to a wage of $6 a week, would only necessitate pricing articles at a full dollar instead of 99 cents. Wages vary greatly. One department store paid 86 per cent, of its saleswomen $10 or more, and another paid 86 per cent, less than $10. There is a lack of standard of women's wages. In principle, the li^-ing wage is not new. We apply it in government. Neither the Nation, the State nor any subdivision of the State offers employment to persons at the lowest wages they will take, — at wages insufficient for healthy subsistence. On the contrary, they fix v/ages which they believe will be fair. It would seem a stupid as well as inhumane policy for the State to employ Doc. No. 38 8 labor at less than living wages, as it would mean that the laborers were likely later to become dependent upon the State. The living wage is applied by many of our largest corporations. They do not seek to obtain labor at the lowest wages possible. They fix a not less than living wage for all employees. The more enlightened employers find that higher wages mean greater production. One effect of the policy of allowing only living wages to be paid would be to compel the employer in his competition to strive to get the more efficient help and to employ only that which is efficient. We have sought in the interest of the general welfare to pro- tect employees by requiring that their work be carried on under sanitary conditions and that machinery be so guarded as to pre- vent accidents. We have prevented all competition among em- ployers along lines not up to such standards. The living wage is designed to aid the general welfare by requiring that workers shall receive wages sufficient for healthy subsistence and to exclude from the realm of competition between employers, competition for labor at a less cost than what is a living wage to lator. How does it serve the general welfare that people should be employed at less than living wages ? What is to be gained by allowing competition for labor to be paid less than a living wage ? If it is against public policy, as we declare that it is, to allow an em- ployer to engage a woman to work excessive hours or under insani- tary conditions, is it not equally against public policy to permit him to engage her for wages insufficient to provide the food and shelter without which she cannot continue in health? From the point of view of the employer one way of increasing his expenses is the same as another, while to those concerned with the public welfare, the permanent efficiency of industry, and the maintenance of national health, adequate food is at least as important as reason- able hours or sanitary conditions of employment. Most employers desire to pay a living wage. Xo living wage legislation would be necessary to bring the small employer to pay living wages to the few people whom he employs and therefore well knows. His human interest in them assures them of living wages. In large industries, however, the employer knows little about his employees. His relation is not human ; it is impersonal. 9 Doc. No. 38 When it is brought to his attention that he is not paying a living wage, in most cases he proceeds to pay it. Many employers have welcomed the suggestions of the Factory Investigating Commission in this respect. There are, however, some employers who v.'ill pay the lowest wages they can. They must be dealt with by law, just as in connection with sanitary and accident-preventing regulations in factories, they have had to be dealt with by law. The minimum wage is an Anglo-Saxon development. It started in ISTew Zealand in 1894, and then was taken up by the various states of the Australian Commonwealth. In 1909 it was enacted in Great Britain, first being applied to only the ready-made and wholesale tailoring, cardboard-box making, chain making, and lace finishing trades. In America it has, in very recent years, been enacted in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ne- braska, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Except in Utah, where the statute fixes the amount of the wages, the legisla- tion usually provides that a commission or board, siich as the Industrial Commission which now exists by statute in this State, shall ascertain, sometimes with the assistance of an advisory board made up of employers and employees in the industry, the minimum wages needed to supply the necessary cost of proper liv- ing, and establishes them as the minimum wages to be paid, making it a violation of law for an employer to pay less than such wages. In all except Wisconsin such legislation is only for women and children. There is generally a provision in the law that a license may be issued to a woman physically defective by age or otherwise, and authorizing her employment for a special minimum wage less than the regular minimum wage. In the application of minimum or living wage legislation, it is recognized that the cost of living varies according to localities. It is also recognized that many people who enter industry are at first only apprentices, and that they are not to be treated as ordinary employees. One of the arg-uments made against living wage legislation is that it drives people out of employment. If such legislation has the effect on industry of confining those employed in it to those who are efficient, it has, in that respect also rendered a service. Doc. No. 38 10 Experience has shown, however, that the number who are driven out of employment is small. Sometimes they are cared for by the system of special licenses mentioned above. They are, moreover, the inefficient, and are those most likely to become dependents of the State. From the point of view of the taxpayer, it is cheaper that these few inefficient be driven out of employment, if the many others who, because of insufficient wages would be in danger of be- coming dependents, are through the payment to them of living wages prevented from becoming dependents. The machinery necessary to carry out living wage legislation places some burden upon industry in that it will take some of its time and attention. We are told that the living wage plan " inter- feres with business, and business is having a hard time." But that is no argument against the principle. It may appeal to our sympathies, but it should not be allowed to prevail. It is a century old as an argument, and if admitted to be conclusive, none of the beneficent labor legislation that has been enacted during the past century would ever have been enacted. The burden placed upon our public service corporations by rate legislation is consider- able, as is the burden placed upon manufacture through the requirements of our labor laws in regard to sanitary conditions and protection against machinery. But in each case the good has far outweighed the burden. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall hold that the minimum wage law of Oregon, the constitutionality of which has been argued before it, is not in violation of the provisions of the Federal Constitution, it may be that without this direct provision our own Court of Appeals would hold that such legislation is within the police power and not in violation of similar provisions of the State constitution, and there is encouragement for this view in the language used by Judge Miller in his recent opinion in the Jensen case. The Court of Appeals in .the Ives case, however, flatly disagreed with the then recent definition of the police power given by the Supreme Court of the United States, and for that reason the Constitution should give to the Legislature the power to enact minimum wage legislation. HERBEBT PARSOlvTS, Chairman. 11 Doc. Xo. 38 Mr. Parsons, from the Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations, to which was referred Proposed Amendment introduced by Mr. Parsons (No. 417, Int. No. 405), entitled " Proposed con- stitutional amendment to amend Section 19 of Article I of the Constitution, in relation to legislation affecting employees,'' re- ported as follows : The Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations recom- mends the passage of the same without amendment. which report was agreed to and said proposed amendment referred to the Committee of the Whole. While the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals m the Matter of Jensen^ Document No. 19, in which the present Workmen's Compensation Law is held not to be in violation of the Federal Constitution, may be considered to indicate that it is the intention of that court, in interpreting the police power and in construing due process clauses, to follow the lead of the Supreme Court of the United States, it is eminently desirable that this uniformity of decision should be made certain. This object is accomplished by the amendment. The legislation to which it refers would have to pass the test only of one due process clause, namely, tliati of the Federal Constitution, instead of two, which though identical in language have been construed differently by the Supreme Court of the United States and our own Court of Appeak;. In the case of Ives V. South Buffalo R. JR. Co., 201 N. Y. 271, in which the former Workmen's Compensation Law was declared imconstitu- tional as in violation of Section 6 of Article I of the State Con- stitution, our Court of Aj)peals indicated that it diifered in its construction of the due process language in the State Constitution and of its converse, the extent of the police power, from that of the Supreme Court of the United States' in the case of Xohle State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. lOi. An attempt to lead to imiformity of constitutional decision was made by the Congress of the United States in the passage of the act of ]\[arch 3, 1911, which amended section 237 of the Federal Judiciary Act so as to provide that the Supreme Court might review a decision of a state court which had held that a state statute was in violation of the Constitution of the Doc. .:No. 38 12 United States. But unless this amendment is adopted the result of this extended right of appeal may be to make^ more glaring the difference of construction given by the two courts. Let us suppose, for instance, that the Ives case had come after this right of appeal had been gxanted and had been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that that Court had declared that it was not in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, although the Court of Appeals of this state had declared that it was in violation of the due process clause, identical in language, of the State Constitu- tion. We would then be in the anomalous position of having a law of great interest and moment held constitutional by the great- est court in the country but held unconstitutional by the greatest court in the state, in construing identical constitutional language. The State Court's opinion being supreme as to the State Consti- tution, the statute would thereby be made inoperative. Such a situation is to be avoided so far as this legislation is concerned, it would place 'New York in the same position as New Jersey and Wisconsin, neither of which has a due process clause in its State Constitution. HEEBEET PAESOI^S, Chairman. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No, 39 MINORITY REPORT ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT No. 417 (Int. No. 405) August 9, 1915 Mr. Leggett presented the following minority report on " Pro- posed constitutional amendment to amend Section 19 of Article I of the Constitution, in relation to legislation affecting em- ployees." (Is^o. 417, Int. No. 405.) The minority of the committee opposes the approval of this proposal for the following reasons : That it would make the Constitution of New York unique among American Constitutions, because in effect it would contain no restriction whatever on the power of the Legislature. The constitutionality of no enactment could be questioned in the courts unless the Legislature forgot to declare that it was " necessary for the protection of the lives, health, safety, morals or welfare of employees." ,T. C. LEGGETT. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 40 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNOR AND OTHER STATE OFFICERS, RELATIVE TO THE SEVERAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS August 11, 1915 Mr. Tanner from the committee on Governor and Other State Officers to which was referred proposed amendments as follows: Int. No. 85, Pr. No. 85, by Mr. E. N. Smith; Int. ISTo. 110, Pr. No. 110, by Mr. Brookes; Int. No. Ill, Pr. No. Ill, by Mr. K. B. Smith; Int. No. 125, Pr. No. 125, by Mr. C. NicoU; Int. No. 172, Pr. No. 172, by Mr. Bernstein; Int. No. 179, Pr. No. 179, by Mr. L. M. Martin; Int. No. 186, Pr. No. 186, by Mr. Lincoln; Int. No. 222, Pr. No. 224, by Mr. Pelletreau; Int. No. 293, Pr. No. 296, by Mr. Leggett; Int. No. 300', Pr. No. 304, by Mr. Dunlap ; Int. No. 404, Pr. No. 416, by Mr. Latson ; Int. No. 418, Pr. No. 430, by Mr. Wadsworth ; Int. No. 43-6, Pr. No. 448, by Mr. E. B. Smith; Int. No. 472, Pr. No. 484, by Mr. Deyo; Int. No. 498, Pr. No. 510, by Mr. J. G. Saxe; Int. No. 540, Pr. No. 555, by Mr. J. G. Saxe; Int. No. 552, Pr. No. 567, by Mr. Eisner; Int. No. 635, Pr. No. 651, by Mr. Donnelly; Int. No. 668, Pr. No. 684, by Mr. Braokett; Int. No. 694, Pr. No. 727, Doc. No. 40 2 by Mr. J. G. Saxe, reported by proposed constitutional amendment entitled "Proposed constitutional amendment repealing sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and Y of article five and creating a new article five in relation to state officers." (Int. No. 716), which was read twice and said committee reports in favor of the passage of the same. AVhich report was agreed to and said proposed amendment ordered printed and referred to the committee of the whole. Mr. Tanner from the committee on Governor and other state officers presented the following majority report. Mr. Tanner, for the Committee on Governor and Other State Officers, makes the following report to the Convention: The Governor and Other State Officers whose powers and duties have been referred to your committee for consideration are pro- vided for in Articles IV, V and VIII of the Constitution, and in a great number and variety of statutes. There were 152 depart- ments, bureaus, boards and commissions which, on the first day of January, 1915, constituted the executive branch of the State government. In numerous instances these overlap in. jurisdic- tion, and conflict in operation. This evil has been apparent to the public in the multiplicity of inspections and conflicting orders coming from unrelated and independent bureaus. Except in some specific matters and to a partial extent, these agencies are independent of each other and not subject to the in- spection, supervision or control of any superior authority, unless it be the Governor himself. It is manifestly impossible for the Governor personally to exercise direct supervision over such a multitude of agencies. They are, therefore, practically free from effective control. They cannot practically be held accountable for what they do, or fail to do. The Purpose of the Committee The purpose of the committee has been to provide for a sys- tematic plan of departmental organization; to simplify and co- ordinate the administrative machinery of the State; to subject every executive agency of the State government to practical ac- countability and to fix responsibility for the execution of the laws. Your committee has conferred with the other committees hav- ing in charge related subjects and has sought to conform the 3 Doc. No. 40 article now reported to the several plans outlined in their re- ports. The present Constitution, article IV, section 4, provides that the Governor " shall take care that the lavi's are faithfully executed." It is the opinion of your committee that the executive machinery placed at his disposal is not well suited to the pur- pose, and makes economy and efficiency in the administration of such laws practically impossible. The Ceiticism is of Systems, not Individuals The changes recommended in this report are not a criticism of any individual either in this or in previous administrations. The criticism is of the defective system under which our public ser- vants have labored at great disadvantage to render public service. The machinery of government is built wrongly and no one under present conditions can make it work well. It is this condition to which President Taft referred when he told the committee that a study of the government of the State of ISTew York aroused in him feelings " of profound admiration for the political adaptabil- ity of the people to make a machine work that nobody who had any real business sense would think would work under any con- ditions." Remedy must be Provided by this Convention The situation described cannot be cured by the Legislature alone. It must be provided for by constitutional enactment'. The existing plan of State government is not a creation by design, but is a growth by accretion. In 1894, when the last Constitu- tional Convention sat, the number of departments, boards, com- missions, etc., was 39. Since that time, there has been addition after addition until now the number in the executive branch is 152, an increase of 113 or nearly four-fold. Within the same period, the cost of government, exclusive of interest on the canal and highway debts and of the free school fund, has increased as follows : 1895 $12,066,646 97 1900 17,696,398 85 1905 24,511,946 95 1910 34,791,576 01 1914 42,408,488 24 Doo. No. 40 4 The growth of expenditures from 1895 to 1914 is approxi- mately from $12,000,000 to $42,000,000, whereas the growth in population during the same period was from 6,513,343 to 9,899,- 761, and the per capita cost of State government rose from $2.47 in 1895 to $5.41 in 1914, an increase of 235 per cent, dur- ing the last nineteen years, whereas the population of the State in the same period has only gained 53 per cent. While due allowance must be made for this increase because of the extended activities of the government and a bad financial system, yet it is the opinion of your committee that this unprec- edented growth is due in great part to the faulty and wasteful system, or lack of system herein referred to. Your committee has, therefore, addressed itself to the task of formulating a plan which would check the constant rise in the burdens of taxation and enable the people to exercise a more direct control over their public servants. The plan proposed does not change the functions of the State, but is confined to the methods of performing existing functions. To phrase it more simply, your committee is not trying to determine what the State should do, but to find a better way to do it. Failuee of Peesent System Recognized by Both Political Paeties This failure in the present system has been recognized by both of the great political parties of the State in clear and explicit terms. In 1914 the Republican State platform, framed especially with a view to this revision of the Constitution, declared : The inefficiency, extravagance and corruption which have characterized our state government reveal the necessity of locating the responsibility for misgovernment in such a way that the people of the state can more certainly hold known officers to accounta- bility and condemnation. In this way the people can best secure the satisfactory accomplishment of their purposes and due re- sponsibility for wrong doing. "We recommend a substantial re- duction in the number of elective officials by the application of the principles of the short ballot to the executive offices of the state. To prevent multiplication of offices we recommend that the various administrative functions of the state, so far as practicable, be vested in a limited number of departments. The present dupli- cation of effort and expense in the public institutions of the state should be remedied by the establishment of a simpler and better organized system. 5 Doc. No. 40 With the same realization of the necessity for action, the Demo- cratic platform of 1914 declared : There should be no divided authority or responsibility in executing and administering the laws of the state. The time has come to give the people control of their executive government. The responsibility should be centered in the governor. He should have the absolute power of removal. The various boards and commissions should be made subject to the control of the governor. General rules should be prescribed by the Constitution on these subjects, and for the organization of new departments. The people should be able to know whom to hold responsible for any failure in the execution, or mal-administration, of their laws, and not have their attention divided and distracted by a number of elective, executive and administrative officials, either elective or appointive, but be enabled to concentrate their attentions, and to devote their energies to the election or defeat of fewer officials; therefore, to center responsibility for executive and administrative action, and to give full force and effect to the power of the people, we favor an amendment to the Constitution providing for the election only of the governor, lieutenant-governor, comptroller, and attorney- general and we pledge ourselves to the preparation and submission of a scheme of constitutional amendment which shall concentrate responsibility for executive management, shall simplify the admin- istrative system of the state and shall provide general rules of departmental organization for the future guidance of the Legis- lature. Legislatuee Must Act Within Coststitutional Plan Peovided Clearly the demand for this change is not a partisan one. The problem has been approached in this spirit, and we herewith submit a grouping of all the related administrative functions of the State in a systematic plan of co-ordinated departments. All that your Committee has attempted to do is to provide on broad lines a departmental system, leaving the important task of the internal organization of such departments to the Legislature, giv- ing to it power to make readjustments therein whenever necessary and prohibiting it from creating any office or functions of State government not assigned to one of these departments. This will prevent the further growth of unrelated and conflicting agencies which has characterized the period since the adoption of the Con- stitution of 1894 and give to the general departments of executive government a stability beyond legislative disturbance. Doc. ITo. 40 6 The present Constitution contains an enumeration of elective State officers, but presents no plan of general organization. Tlie State Superintendent of Public Works and the State Superin- tendent of Prisons are made constitutional officers, but the Com- missioner of Highways, the Superintendent of Insurance, the Superintendent of Banks, and many others of equal importance, are statutory only, and subject to change by the Legislature, There is no logical reason why some departments should be included in the Constitution and others whose functions are often similar in nature, and of equal or greater importance, left out. The un- scientific arrangement in such departments as are mentioned in the Constitution, is illustrated by the present Article V, section 3, which provides that the Superintendent of Public Works shall hold office until the end of the term of the G-overnor by whom he was appointed, that is for two years, but provides that the depu- ties named by the Superintendent of Ptiblic Works shall hold their office for three years. Natural Geouping of Depaktments The plan proposed by your committee divides itself naturally into three gTOups, according to the general functions of the officers or departments described. Pirst, the Attorney-General, who is the law officer of the State and the adviser of the departments, and the Comptroller, who under the proposed system is a State wide auditing officer, are continued as elective officers. Members of the committee who favor the appointment of these officers have yielded their views to others who prefer their election. The basis of this compromise is to be found in the peculiar relation which these two officers hold to the people of the State as a whole. Second, the agencies of government which, from the character of their jurisdiction and authority, cannot be considered as purely executive arms of the State government. These boards or com- missions possess, to a large degree, judicial or legislative functions, and make rules and regulations under delegated authority from the Legislature. To this class belong the Department of Educa- tion and its Board of Regents, the Public Service, the Conservation, and the Civil Service Commissions. These sustain exceptional relations to the Governor. They serve for longer terms, and their removal has been made more difficult than that of the heads of purely executive departments. 7 Doc. Xo. 40 Third, the departments which are strictly executive in nature. These are the arms of the Governor by which he takes " care that the laws are faithfully executed," and for their acts he is held accountable. There was, accordingly, a strong sentiment in the committee in favor of the independent appointment and removal of these officers by the Governor. But a compromise was finally reached by providing that the appointments should be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The heads of depart- ments thus appointed constitute the group of advisers on whom the Governor must depend for carrying out the policies of his administration. His authority over them should be unquestion- able and direct. Few Changes in Existing Departments Of the nine civil executive departments referred to in section 7 of this article, little change has been proposed in the functions of six ; to wit, departments of State, Health, Agriculture, Bank- ing, Insurance, Labor and Industry, excepting that certain mis- cellaneous duties of collecting public revenues now performed by some of them have been transferred to the Department of Taxation and Finance, including the collection of the automobile tax now made by the Secretary of State; the tax on foreign insurance 'Companies now collected by the Superintendent of Insurance; the charges on foreign bankers now collected by the Superintendent of Banks. The Department of Public Works will include the functions of the State Engineer and Surveyor, the State Superintendent of Public Works, the State Commissioner of Highways, the State De- partment of Public Buildings and the State Architect. This con- solidation was recommended by the State Engineer and by the Superintendent of Public Works and by virtually the unanimous testimony of engineers, both within and without the State service. By the proposed Department of Charities and Corrections, the Committee has sought to retain the advantages of the present system relating to the care of the insane, by continuing the pro- visions of the present Constitution covering this subject. The State Board of Charities, the State Commission in Lunacy, and the State Commission of Prisons have been continued with their functions unimpaired, but it is the opinion of your Committee that better co-operation and greater accountability will be secured among the various departments and institutions having care of Doc. N"o. 40 8 the wards of the State by the provision for a Secretary of Charities and Corrections who shall have power of inspection and super- vision over these institutions. The Department of Taxation and Finance under the proposed plan will be devoted to the collection and care of public revenues. It is intended to be the financial arm of the state government. The Governor must look to the head of this department as his adviser on all matters of state finance. The Comptroller, under the proposed plan, will represent the people of the State, directly commissioned by them to keep a watch upon the acts of all the executive departments to see to it that the revenues of the State are expended in accordance with the intent of the Legislature; that all the safeguards and limitations prescribed by law are observed ; and it will be his duty to call the attention of the representatives of the people in the Legisla- ture to any wrongdoing upon the part of the executive officers, and if the wrongdoing is of such a character as to call for legal redress, it will be his duty to call it to the attention of the attorney-general. The vouchers representing the expenditures of the revenue of the State will come under his scrutiny and be subject to his action for the protection of the public treasury. It is manifest that the officer who performs these functions should not himself be an executive officer collecting and expending funds of the State. The two functions of the actor in financial transactions and the critic of the actor must be separated if there is to be efficient criticism. For this reason the proper functions of the Comptroller have been concentrated in the one officer, who, because of the nature of these particular functions, is to be elected by the people so that he may be independent of the whole executive government of which he is the critic and upon which he is the check, while the active functions of collecting and disburs- ing the moneys of the State have been vested in another officer who is called the treasurer as the head of the Department of Tax- ation and Finance. In the extensive hearings before the committee, no one ques- tioned the serious evils which have resulted from the defective organization of government in this State and no one suggested any general plan of improvement containing other general princi- ples than those incorporated in this report. In the opinion of your committee the Convention must adopt such a plan as this in sub- stance or must fail to give relief from the grave and unquestioned evils at which this plan is aimed. 9 Doc. No. 40 This is a complete revision of Article V excepting sections 5, 8 and 9 which are subject to a supplemental report after other committees dealing with these subjects have reported to the Con- vention. MINORITY REPORT Mr. C. NicoU presented the following minority report. With those recommendations of the Committee on Governor and other State officers which provide for the classification of the civil activities of the State into broad divisions, each under the control of an administrative head appointed by the Governor, I am in hearty accord. I dissent from the proposal only so far as the Committee has seen fit to depart from its excellent plan in proposing that two of the most important divisions of government, that of audit and justice, each headed by a single officer, and each peculiarly a part of the executive department and particularly charged with the execution of the laws, be omitted from the general arrangement. These offices, the Committee has provided, shall be selected in another manner, to wit: by popular election. Neither the offices of the attorney-general of the State nor that of the comptroller determine any policy of government in which the people at large take interest. Important as these officers now are and more important as they will be if the proposal of the Committee is adopted, the sole interest the people have in them, as well as in the other branches of the executive department, is simply that they be honestly and efficiently administered. The attorney-general should be appointed by and responsible to the Governor because an incident of the executive's duties is the enforcement of public policies by litigation. In fulfilling the mandate that the Governor shall take care "that the laws are faithfully executed," it is vitally necessary for him to have at his command the full legal force of the State. It is absurd to give the Governor full power to enforce the statutes of the State by means of the militia and begrudge him power to enforce the laws by the more peaceful process of litigation. Doc. :N'o. 40 10 Further, an appointive attorney-general: being in full confidence of the administration would act as legal adviser for other executive departments and furnish them expert legal assistance in the same manner as it is proposed that the Department of Public Works will supply expert engineering assistance to other depart- ments. His retention as an elective official means, on the contrary, the creation of another legal bureau or series of legal bureaus to provide counsel for the Governor and his department heads. The comptroller should be appointed because any other method of selection is a serious impairment of the Governor's responsi- bility to see that the moneys of the State are expended legally and in the manner and for the purposes, contemplated by the Legis- lature. The chance that the Governor and the comptroller might conspire together to defraud the State is remote and is fully guarded against, by the remedies of impeachment provided else>- where in the Article and in the Constitution. Through a comp- troller appointed by and responsible to the Governor, an audit would be provided, not independent of the Governor, of course, but which would be free of outside political pressure and, what is possibly more important, free of personal political ambitions. The election of a comptroller by popular vote to watch the executive and legislature is presenting him with a letter of marque to prey on other departments and is the creation of an official whose success will be measured in the public mind by his muck-raking ability. A Legislature to enact and an executive to enforce the laws are foundation stones of our government. Fear that by giving the executive full power to enforce the law he may do wrong is fear that the people have not intelligence or capacity to select their Governor or their Legislature, which may remove him. It is fear of popular rule ; of the hazard of democracy. Etile by the people can be better secured by giving to them simple means for exercising' control through a single efficient and harmonious executive depart- ment, rather than by dividing that department in a manner that will destroy its harmony for fear that the people may sometimes be unfortunate in their choice. Respectfully submitted, COUETLANDT NICOLL. 11 Doc. No. 40 MINORITY REPORT Mr. Baldwin presented the following minority report : I dissent from this so-called "Short-Ballot Bill." However admirable the purposes the means suggested are fallacious. The cure is worse than the ill. Centralized government might tend to economy, but it would inevitably bring discontent, and discon- tent destroys the mental poise of democracy. Popular government may not work for economy, but that is not sufficient reason for its destruction. If the Convention believe that oligarchy is better than democ- racy, let us be frank and tell the truth, and not deceive the people with a sugar-coated catch phrase. This plan would enthrone one man for four years. It would give him direct control of an army of more than 25,000 officers and employees. During his term he would direct State expenditures of more than $250,000,000. It would give such power as would have gladdened the heart of Alexander, the tyrant of Pherae, or satiated the cupidity of that modern dictator, Castro of Venezuela. The average voter does not understand the meaning of the " Short Ballot." It is a cunning phrase. As applied to the needs of the people, it is not suggestive of its true significance. It does not satiate ; it starves. It should not be called the " Short Ballot," but the " Short Ration." It does not give ; it takes away. It as- sumes incompetency, and proceeds on the theory that the people desire to surrender their voting rights. Pure democracy, with its direct ballot, is impossible with 10,- 000,000 of people. Its opposite, an aristocracy or monarchy, is contrary to all our traditions. Our fathers gave us a middle course, representative government. To this let us cling. The Constitution is the embodiment of the experience of the past. It needs repose, not change. ARTHUR J. BALDWIN. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 41 ADDITIONAL MINORITY REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNOR AND OTHER STATE OFFICERS August 12, 1915 Mr. Blauvelt presented the following minority report from the Committee on Governor and Other State Officers: It is not the purpose of the undersigned in submitting the fol- lowing minority report to disagree with the majority members of the Committee on Governor and State Officers on the fundamental proposition that the executive branch of our State government needs reforming. It must be conceded by all students of our ad- ministrative system that in the course of its evolution the system has become complex and unwieldy. This has been due, in a large measure, to the manifold activities which the State has embarked in from time to time since its creation, and to the fact that our earlier conventions have failed to provide such a scheme of ex- ecutive management as may readily be adjusted by the legislature to meet the constantly increasing needs of government along ad- ministrative lines. The majority members of the Committee, in submitting their proposed amendments to Article V, take the position that adequate Doc. ITo. 41 . 2 reforms can be accomplished and efncient and economical govern- ment maintained through the adoption of the following propo- sitions : (1) By a mandatory reclassification of all administrative func- tions of government into a few defined groups and the as&ignment of those functions, partly by constitutional provision and partly by legislative enactment, to the several civil executive departments named in the proposed article submitted by them. (2) By the adoption of the so-called " Short Ballot" proposal, in a modified form, whereby the governor shall have the power of appointment of all administrative heads of State departments, except the Comptroller, the Attorney-general and the heads of the Departments of Conservation and of Education. ( 3 ) By giving a discretionary power of removal to the Governor of the chief executive officers appointed by him whose duties are solely administrative. (4) By prohibiting the legislature from creating new depart- ments not named in the article and commanding it to assign such new functions as may be created, from time to time, to some one of the departments therein named. I am not opposed to the idea that there should be a reclassifica- tion and redistribution of the administrative agencies of govern- ment, but I do disagTee with the proposition that the Constitution should arbitrarily assign particular powers and duties to a depart- ment. Such an assignment must, in my opinion at least, neces- sarily imply a limitation on the power of the legislature to create a flexible administrative scheme to meet the practical necessities of government. This objection is not removed by the provisions of Section 19 of the proposed article which, among other things, - provides that " the legislature may from time to time assign by law new powers and functions to officers, boards or commissions .continued or created under this Constitution, and increase, modify or diminish the powers of such departments," for the reason that the power of the legislature in that respect is made subject to the limitations specifically defining the powers and duties of particular departments. I believe that the matter of reclassification and redistribution of powers should be left wholly with the legislature. 3 Doc. No. 41 I hold that the term " Short Ballot " is a misnomer and that administrative reform can never be accomplished through the mere shortening of the election ballot. I favor the most rigid reforms in our administrative system but I disagree with the majority of the Committee that such reforms can be accomplished through the centralization of complete executive power in the Governor by giving to him the power of appointment and removal of all administrative State Officers. I would not take away from the people the right to select those State officers, such as the Sec- retary of State, Attorney-general, State Treasurer and Comptrol- ler, whose powers and duties are and should be independent of the control of the Governor. Their independent action is frequently necessary to restrain the too often unwise exercise of power by the executive. I favor the proposition that the Governor should be given the power of removal of appointive administrative officers, but I dis- agree with the proposition that he should be given the arbitrary power of removing those officers, such as public service commis- sioners, civil service commissioners and the like, whose powers are or may be partly administrative, partly legislative and partly judicial. Lastly, I see no reason why the Legislature may not well be prohibited from creating new executive departments of govern- ment, provided sufficient flexibility of action is accorded to it in making assignments of new and additional governmental activities. I respectfully submit to the consideration of the Convention the following proposed amendment which, I believe, is better adapted to accomplish executive reform than any thus far pro- posed. "AKTICLE V. " Section 1. There shall be the following civil executive det- partments under the state government: Of state, of audit and control, of law, of finance, of public works, of health, of agri- culture, of charities and corrections, of banking, of insurance, of education, of labor, of highways and of internal affairs, re- spectively. The head of the department of state shall be the Doc. No. 41 4 secretary of state; of audit and control, the comptroller; of law, the attorney-general; of taxation and finance, the treasurer; and of each of the other departments, a commissioner to be appointed! as provided in this article, except that the department of educa- tion shall be administered by or under the direction of the cor- poration known as the University of the State of New York, which may have a chief executive officer as now or hereafter pro- vided by law." Section [l.J " 2." The secretary of state, comptroller, treas- urer [,J " and " attorney-general [and state engineer and sur- veyor] shall " continue to " be chosen at a general election, at the times and places of electing the governor and lieutenant- governor, and shall hold their ofiices, respectively," for [two years, except as provided in section two of this article. Each of the officers in this article named, excepting the speaker of the assembly, shall at stated times during his continuance in office, receive for his services a compensation which shall not be in- creased or diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected ; nor shall he receive to his use any fees or perquisites of office or other compensation. No person shall be elected to the office of state engineer and surveyor who is not a practical civil engineer.] " the same term as the governor. The state en- gineer and surveyor shall continue in office for the term for which he was elected unless sooner removed, and at the expiration of such term the said office is abolished." [§ 2. The first election of the secretary of state, comptroller, treasurer, attorney-general and state engineer and surveyor, pur- suant to this article shall be held in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five, aiid their tei-ms of office shall begin on the first day of January following, and shall be for three years. At the general election in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, and every two years thereafter, their successors shall be chosen for the term of two years.] " Section 3. Every commissioner at the head of a civil executive department hereinbefore provided for and the secretary of charities and corrections shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and be removable 5 Doc. JSTo. 41 at his pleasure. This section shall not apply to the head of the department of education. " Section 4. The existing public service commissions are con- tinued ani the commissioners now in office shall hold their offices until the expiration of their terms. The terms of their successors shall be five years. Each commission shall have the jurisdiction, powers and duties it now has, but nothing herein contained shall prevent the legislature from enacting laws not inconsistent with this section and article changing such jurisdiction, powers and duties; except that the legislature shall not enact any law pre- scribing a rate or charge or a standard of service, equipment or operation for any public utility until after it has received from one. of the commissions a report thereon made after investigation and hearing at which interested parties may introduce evidence, or until after the expiration of such time following a request for such report as may be prescribed by law. Decisions and orders of the commissions shall be subject to review by the courts in such manner and to such extent as the legislature may provide. Section 6. There shall be a conservation commission, to consist of nine commissioners, whose terms of office shall "expire in nine successive years, the first ending on January first, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen; and the terms of their successors shall be nine years." " Section 6. There shall be a state civil service commission, to consist of three commissioners. Their terms of office shall be six years, but the terms of the first commissioners shall be so classified that the term of a commissioner shall expire every two years after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen. Such commission shall see that the provisions of this article relating to appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state and of the civil divisions thereof and all laws enacted thereunder are faithfully observed and enforced. Section 7. There shall be a state workmen's compensation com- mission, to consist of five commissioners. Their terms of office shall be ten years, but the terms of the first commissioners shall be so classified that the term of a commissioner shall expire every two years after the first day of January, one thousand nine hun- Doc. No. 41 C dred and seventeen. Such commission shall see that the provisions of article one of this constitiition relating to compensation for injuries to employees and for death of employees resulting there- from and all laws enacted thereunder are faithfully observed and enforced." [Section 3. A, superintendent of public works shall be ap- pointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and hold his office until the end of the term of the governor by whom he was nominated, and until his successor is appointed and qualified. He shall receive a compensation to be fixed by law. He shall be required by law to give security for the faithfvil execution of his office before entering upon the duties thereof. He shall be charged with the execution of all laws re- lating to the repair and navigation of the canals, and also of those relating to the construction and improvement of the canals, except so far as the execution of the laws relating to such con- struction or improvement shall be confided to the state engineer and surveyor; subject to the control of the legislature, he shall make the rules and regnalations for the navigation or use of the eanals. He may be suspended or removed from office by the governor, whenever, in his judgment, the public interest shall so require; but in case of the removal of such superintendent of public works from office, the governor shall file with the secretary of state a statement of the cause of such removal, and shall report such removal and the cause thereof to the legislature at its next session. The superintendent of public works shall appoint not more than three assistant superintendents, whose duties shall be prescribed by him, subject to modification by the legislature, and who shall receive for their services a compensation to be fixed by law. They shall hold their office for three years, subject to suspension or removal by the superintendent of public works, whenever, in his judgment, the public interest shall so require. Any vacancy in the office of any such assistant superintendent shall be filled for the remainder of the term for which he was appointed, by the superintendent of public works; but in case of the suspension or removal of any such assistant superintendent* by him, he shall at once report to the governor, in writing, the V Doc. No. 41 cause of such removal. All other persons employed in the care and management of the canals, except collectors of tolls, and those in the department of the state engineer and surveyor, shall be appointed by the superintendent of public works, and be subject to suspension or removal by him. The superintendent of public works shall perform all the duties of the former canal commis- sioners, and board of canal commissioners, ae now declared by law, until otherwise provided by the legislature. The governor, by and vsdth the advice and consent of the senate, shall have power to fill vacancies in the office of superintendent of public works ; if the senate be not in session, he may grant commissionsi which shall expire at the end of the next succeeding session of the senate.] [Section 4. [A] " The present " superintendent of state pris- ons shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and hold his office for five years, unless sooner removed; he shall give security in such amount, and with such sureties as shall be required by law for the faithful discharge of his duties ; he shall have the superintendence, management and control of state prisons, subject to such laws as now exist or may hereafter be enacted; he shall appoint the agents, wardens, phy- sicians and chaplains of the prisons. The agent and warden of each prison shall appoint all other officers of such prison, except the clerk, subject to the approval of the same by the superin- tendent. The comptroller shall appoint the clerks of the prisons. The superintendent shall have all the powers and perform all the duties not inconsistent herewith, which were formerly had and performed by the inspectors of state prisons. The governor may remove the superintendent for cause at any time, giving to him a copy of the charges against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.] " Section 8. The departmeat of charities and corrections shall be administered by the secretary of charities and corrections. The state board of charities, the state commission in lunacy, to be hereafter known as the state hospital commission, and the state commission of prisons are continued with all the powers vested in them by this constitution on the first day of September, one Doc. No. 41 » thousand nine hundred and fifteen, and with such powers as have heretofore been vested in them by the legislature, subject to the powers of the legislature to increase, modify or diminish the same by provisions not inconsistent with this section. The office of superintendent of state prisons and the powers and duties attach- ino- thereto, as prescribed by law or by the provisions of this con- stitution as existing on the thirty-first day of December, one thou- sand nine hundred and fifteen, shall continue, subject to the power of the legislature to modify or enlarge such powers and duties not inconsistent with said provisions of the constitution, until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and the present incumbent, unless sooner removed and a successor ap- pointed under said provisions of the constitution, shall continue until that day, when such office shall be abolished. Thereafter such powers and duties shall continue and devolve upon the said secretary, subject to such power of the legislature to modify and enlarge the same not inconsistent with said provisions of the con- stitution or of this section. Such secretary shall have power of in- spection and supervision of all state charitable institutions, state hospitals for the insane, state prisons and other state correctional institutions. He shall take care that all the laws relating to such institutions are faithfully observed and shall perform such other duties in relation to the charities and corrections of the state and of any civil division thereof as may be imposed upon him by law. Existing boards of managers of institutions referred to in this section are continued until the legislature shall otherwise direct." Section [5] 9. The lieutenant-governor, speaker of the assem- bly, secretarj' of state, comptroller, treasurer [, J "■ and " attorney- general "," and " the " state engineer and sui-veyor " while such office oontinuas," shall ", unless the legislature otherwise provides,'^ be the commissioners of the land office. The lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, comptroller, treasurer and attorney-general shall, " except as otherwise provided in this article," be the com- missioners of the canal fund. The canal board shall consist of the commissioners of the canal fund [,J "and of" the state engineer and surveyor [, j and [the] superintendent of public works " while such offices continue." 9 Doc. No. 41 [Section 6. The powers and duties of the respective boards, and of the several officers in this article mentioned, shall he such as now are or hereafter may be prescribed by law.] Section [7.] " 10." The treasurer may be suspended from of- fice by the governor, during the recess of the legislature, and until thirty days after the commencement of the next session of the legislature, whenever it shall appear to him that such treasurer has, in any particular, violated his duty. The governor shall ap- point a competent person to discharge the duties of the office dur- ing such suspension of the treasurer. [Section 8. All offices for the we^jgbing, gauging, measuring, culling or inspecting any merchandise, produce, manufacture or commodity whatever, are hereby abolished; and no such office shall hereafter be created by law; but nothing in this section contained shall abrogate aliy office created for the purpose of pro- tecting the public health or the interests of the state in its prop- erty, reveniie, tolls or purchases, or of supplying the people with correct standards of weights and measures, or shall prevent the creation of any office for such purposes hereafter.] Section [9.] " 11." Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state, and of all th© civil divisions thereof, including cities and villages, shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, so far as practicable, by examinations, which, so far as practicable, shall be competitive ; provided, however, that honorably discharged soldiers and sailors from the army and navy of the United States in the late civil war, who are citizens and residents of this state, shall be entitled to preference in ap- pointment and promotion, without regard to their standing on any list from which such appointment or promotion may be made. Laws shall be made to provide for the enforcement of this section. " Section 12. The canal board and the offices of commissioners of the canal fund, as such, shall be abolished from and after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen and the powers and duties attaching to such office at that time, by this constitution or by law, shall devolve upon the department of public works, subject to the power of the legislature to enlarge or modify the same not inconsistent with the provisions of this constitu- tion relating to stich offices and board. The office of superin- Doc. No. 41 10 tendent of public works and tlie powers and duties attaching thereto, as prescribed by law or by the provisions of this consti- tution as existing on the thirty-first day of December, one thou- sand nine hundred and fifteen, shall continue, subject to the power of the legislature to modify or enlarge such powers and duties not inconsistent with said provisions of this constitution, until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seven- teen, and the present incumbent of such office, unless sooner re- moved and a successor appointed under said provisions of this constitution, shall continue imtil that day, when such office shall be abolished. Thereafter such powers and duties shall continue and devolve upon said department, subject to such power of the legislature to modify and enlarge the same not inconsistent with said provisions of this constitution. The powers and duties now exercised by any board, division, authorities or subordinates of the existing department of labor in relation to workmen's compen- sation shall on such date devolve upon the workmen's compensa- tion commission created by this article. " Section 13. The legislature shall distribute among the several executive departments and the respective commissions provided for in this article all the administrative powers and duties now exercised by the state through any boards, officers, bodies or com- missions thereof, not inconsistent with the provisions of this article which include particular powers and duties in the functions of a department or commission. Such distribution shall be made in such manner that no two or more departments or commissions shall have powers and duties relating to the same matter; but the legislature shall provide for the exchange of data, reports and information between departments and commissions where neces- sary to facilitate the work of any department or commission. Where state functions are or shall be exercised by local authorities with reference to a given subject, such authorities shall report and account to the department or commission having charge of the saane subject. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this article, the legislature may continue existing offices, departments, boards and conamissions or create new ones, but they shall be placed within and subordinated to the executive departments or 11 Doc. No. 41 the commissions created by this article. Except as otherwise pro- vided in this article, existing state departments, boards, offices and commissions are continued with their existing powers and duties, subject to the power of the legislature to enlarge or modify the same, until the legislature shall distribute their powers and duties as above provided ; but it shall be the duty of the legislature to make such distribution at the first session following the adop- tion of this constitution or as soon as practicable thereafter. Existing appointive officers under the state government shall hold office until the expiration of their respective terms, unless sooner removed according to law, but nothing herein contained shall prevent reorganizing their several offices by placing the same under any of the departments or commissions provided for in this article. " Section 14. The commissioners of the public service commis- sions, civil service commission, workmen's compensation commis- sion and conservation commission shall be appointed by the gov- ernor by and with the advice and consent of the senate. Such commissioners, except the commissioners of conservation, shall receive a compensation to be fixed by law which shall not be increased or diminished during their respective terms. Heads of departments appointed by the governor shall receive a compen- sation to be fixed by law which shall not be increased or diminished during the term of the governor making the appointments. Any commissioner or head of a department shall, vinless sooner re- moved, hold office until the appointment and qualification of his successor. " Section 15. All officers and commissioners named in this article may be removed from office by impeachment in the same manner as the governor. The attorney-general, comptroller, treasurer and secretary of state, afid commissioners provided for in this article whose appointment is made by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate for fixed terms, may also be removed by the senate by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected thereto, upon the recommendation of the governor, stating the grounds therefor. Section " 16." Vacancies occurring in the offices of attorney- general, comptroller or secretary of state shall be filled for the re- Doc. ISTo. 41 12 mainder of the term at the next ensuing general election happening not less than three months after such vacancy occurs. Until the vacancy be so filled by election, the governor, or if the senate be in session, the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate, may fill such vacancy by appointment which shall continue until the first day of the political year next succeeding the election at which such office may be filled. A vacancy occur- ring in a board or commission appointed by th® governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate for a fixed term shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as an original appointment, except tfhat a vacancy occurring or existing while the senate is not in session shall be filled by the governor by appoint- ment for a term expiring at the end of twenty days from the com- mencement of the next meeting of the senate." GEOEGE A. BLAUVELT. Mr. Bockes presented the following minority report from the Committee on Governor and Other State Ofiicers. Although favoring much of the majority proposal, I am unable to agree with that part of it which would prevent the Legislature from imposing additional duties upon the Comptroller and with that part which would prevent the Legislature from establishing any other separate subdivisions of government than those specified in the committee's bill. I fear that such restrictions would con- stitute too much of a straight- jacket arotmd governmental activity to allow for wholesome, natural growth. I am also unable to agree with that part of the majority proposal which would increase the relative power of the executive by appointment instead of popular election of all other important State officers except Attorney-General, as a cure for the present evil extravagance. I believe the cause of extravagance was the con- tintially increasing pcra^er of appointment given to the Governor until proper check and balance between Governor and Legislature Were gone and the Governor and his appointees became over- powerful to push his " my policies " through the Legislature, he taking the credit for the new idea and the Legislature taking the 13 Doc. ISTo. 41 blame for the new expense. If this is the cause the remedy is sure. It is to restore genuine co-ordination by the simple ex^ pedient of electing more administrative officers. This will not only restore the lost balance but also increase popular watchful- ness and interest. Agriculture, Highways, State Engineering, Public Works, Elections and ' similar matters which constantly stand out in plain sight of every voter of the State shovdd have elective rather than appointive heads if the people are still to be self-governing and watchful and willing to come out at elections and competent to approve or disapprove the record of the party in power. I fear that to make the Governor all powerful would make of elections a worthless wrangle over personalities instead of great educational campaigns. I fear still more the result of making the chief fiscal officer appointive. Respectfully submitted, GEOEGE L. BOCKES. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 42 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED JUDICIARY ARTICLE A.UGUST 13, 191^ To the Convention: Your Committee on the Judiciary has had referred to it by the Convention 153 proposed constitutional amendments, almost all of which apply to some portion of Article VI of the present Con- stitution. It has given public hearings to the proposers and tci all others who have expressed a desire to be heard respecting these measures, as well as to representatives of the State Bar Associa- tion and of Associations of the Bar of cities and counties, with respect to these and many other matters concerning the administra- tion of justice. It has had the benefit of the personal attendance before it of the Chief Judge and of all the living ex-Chief Judges of the Court of Appeals, the Presiding Justices of two of the- Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, Justices of the Su^- preme Court, County Judges, Surrogates, and numerous other offi- cials and citizens, and has heard a full expression of their views upon matters within the competence of your Committee, besides- which it has invited and received written expressions of opinion from many other judges, lawyers and citizens. The statements, Doc. No. 42 2 views and recommendations thus submitted have been carefully considered, and your Committee has prepared and herewith reports an amended Judiciary Article to take the place of the present Sixth Article of the Constitution, and recommends its adoption. Before describing the proposed changes, a few words may properly be said as to the prime considerations which have controlled your Committee in its recommendations. Laws Delays There is no subject affecting the welfare of the people, which has occasioned more complaint in recent years than that of delays in the administration of justice, and your Conmiittee has given especial consideration to the present condition of the administra- tion of the law in this State, for the purpose of ascertaining, first, to what extent undue and avoidable delay occurs in the adminis- tration of the law; second, the causes of svich delay, and third, by what provisions these causes may best be removed. ]^o statistics are available from which to determine the extent of the undue delay which occurs after actions are commenced and before they are brought to issue and placed on the trial calendars of the courts. But that the Code of Civil Procedure furnishes ample opportunitisR for such delay through the various inter- locutory and procedural motions which it permits or invites, is well known to all practitioners. Delays in securing trial after a case is on the trial court calendars at the present time arc not so great as they were a few years ago, and these delays, iu the opinion of your Committee, are due in far larger measure to litigants and their attorneys, than to the organization and conduct of the courts. Nevertheless, even when both parties are ready and anxious for trial, it requires a period of from eight months to one year after a case has been placed upon the trial term calendar in the first judicial district and in several of the counties in the second and itinth districts before it can be reached for trial. About three months or less is required at special tei*m in the counties of New Tork and Kings, and a somewhat longer time in other counties in the districts mentioned. In the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and in the Appellate Terms, in the first and second departments, cases may be reached for argument at the monthly term to which the appeal is taken ; but in the first depart- ment, the volume of appeals and its continued increase are such, a Doc. N'o. 42 that your Committee is satisfied that without some radical relief the appellate courts camiot continue to keep abreast with the business before them. In the Court of Appeals, nearly two years necessarily elapse between the filing of a return on appeal and the hearing, unless the cause is preferred by law. The Court of Appeals has made up no calendar of pending cases since May, 1914, and on May 21, 1915, there were 622 cases pending un- determined in that court, including the undisposed of eases on the calendar and those in which returns were filed after the calendar was made up. Civil PpvOcbduee Underlying all these conditions, is a more fundamental cause with which your Committee has sought to deal, and that is the character of the civil procedure prescribed by law for courts of record in this State. The vice of this system lies, not simply in the enormous body of complex and conflicting legislative rules which constitute the Code of Civil Procedure, but in the un- certainty of those rules, resulting from constant legislative tink- ering. The entire legal profession, as well as representative public bodies of various kinds, have for several years past advocated a change in the present complicated and unwieldy system of judicial procedure established by the Code, and the technicalities and uncertainties resulting from constant legislative amendment of it. In recognition of this demand, the Legislature in the year 1913 constituted a commission which at its last session submitted a report embodying a short practice act in seventy-one sections, and a body of rules for the regulation of procedure in the principal courts of record in accordance with this practice act. The re- port was transmitted to the Legislature by the Governor on April 21, 1915, and, pursuant to his recommendation, the Legis- lature promptly appointed a joint committee to examine the same and report upon it at the 1916 session. While the time permitted for its examination has been too short to justify your Committee in recommending that the Legislature be required to enact this particular measure into law, yet the principles upon which it is framed are those which have been almost universally approved and advocated by the bar, and your Comndittee therefore feela jtistified in reporting a provision making it the duty of th6 Legis: ture to act upon the report' at its next session, and to enact a brief ' and simple practice, act, — whether that now recoinmended,.,,pr' Doc. No. 42 4 another — and adopt a separate body of civil practice rules for the regnlation of procedure in the principal courts of the State. For the purpose of ending the practive of constant legislative amendment, which hitherto has rendered the law of civil pro- cedure uncertain, and thus fostered and encouraged vexatious and unnecessary litigation and delays in the administration of jus- tice, your Committee recommends that the Legislature be em- powered at intervals of not less than five years to appoint a commission to consider and report what changes, if any, should be made in the law and in the rules governing civil procedure^ that the Legislature shall act upon the report of such commission by a single bill, and that subject only to this provision, the power to make and alter the rules governing civil procedure be vested in the Judges of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and the Legislature prohibited from enacting any law affecting the same except at the request of those Judges. The enactment of this provision will in the opinion of your Committee constitute a long step forward in the simplification of the civil procedure of this State. , Supreme Couet Commissioneks Your Committee has also provided for the appointment by the Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Judicial Departments of such number of Supreme Court Commissioners as they may deem necessary who must be members of the bar of not- less than ten years standing and who shall not practice law during their tenure of office. Such Commissioners are to have power to act as commissioners to fix compensation when private property is taken for public use, and to perform such other and further duties as may be devolved upon them by special order or rule of court. These commissioners may be utilized under the new practice rules to determine many of the questions of procedure that now occupy the attention of the courts to the exclusion of mora im- portant matters. Official Referees Your Committee has also provided for a continuance of the official referees, heretofore appointed pursuant to law from among judges whose terms of office have expired, and requires that in the future they be appointed by the Court of Appeals from among judges of the Court of Appeals and by the Appellate Divisions from among justices of the Supreme Court whose terms have 5 Doc. No. 42 expired and who at the time of their retirement shall have served at least twenty years as judges of any court of record, or at least one full term of fourteen years as justices of the Su- preme Court or judge of the Court of Appeals. In this way, the State secures the services of a body of highly trained judicial officars, at such compensation as the Legislature may fix; and on the other hand, a reasonable provision is made for the continued" employment of men whose vigor of body and intellect enables them to perform valuable services in the administration of justice, even although they may have passed the age limit set for their con- tinuance on the bench. Attorneys Closely connected with the subject of undue delays in the ad- ministration of justice, is the question of qualifications and rules regulating the admission to practice of attorneys and counsellors in the courts of the State. The Legislature has devolved this jurisdiction by law upon the Court of Appeals, and in the judg- ment of your Committee the Constitution should confirm this power in the court. Statistics Your Committee has experienced some difficulty in securing comprehensive statistics regarding the judicial business of the State, due to the fact that there is no provision of law requiring courts to prepare and furnish periodically to any public official, or to publish, statistics of the judicial business. A report pre- pared by the clerks of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department for the year 1914, furnishes a model which might well be followed by the courts in other departments, and in order that a uniform rule shall be established respecting this subject, your Committee recommends that the Legislature be authorized to provide for the collection, compilation and publication annually of the civil and criminal judicial statistics of the State. Organization and Jurisdiction of Courts For the purpose of providing the requisite judicial machinery ■for the prompt disposal of litigation without delay, your Com- mittee recommends a number of changes in the organieation and jurisdiction of the courts, and a slight increase in the number of judges. Doc. No. 42 6 The number of justices composing the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Department, is increased from seven to not less than ten nor more than twelve, and in the Second Department from five to seven. To supply this enlarged force, provision is made for two new justices in the first judicial district. The volume of appeals which at present come to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Department, amount- ing during the last year to upwards of 1,500 cases, besides 840 original motions, is far greater than the court as at present con- stituted can properly continue to dispose of. It is true that until the present time the remarkable body of men now constituting that court has been able to pass upon and decide that number of cases, but they have done so by labors which should not be con- tinuously required by the State of any body of judges, and which in framing the fundamental law of the State should not be as- sumed as the criterion of the amount of work disposable by any court of seven judges. No other court in the State passes upon much more than one-half the number of cases annually determined fey the Appellate Division in the First Department, except the Appellate Division in the Second Department which in 1914 decided about 70 per cent, of that number. The continued in- crease in importance of the city of New York as a great, if not the greatest commercial center of the world, brings into the courts in the First Department a constantly increasing volume of litigation, involving questions affecting, not merely the citizens of that depart- ment but those of the entire State and of almost every other State and Nation. The average number of cases disposed of (not includ- ing original motions in the court) by the Appellate Division of the First Department in each of the five years ending 1904 was 1,032 ; during the five years ending 1914, 1,389. The number of appeals decided in 1904 was 1,053 ; in 1914 it was 1,534. Your Committee feels great doubt as to whether or not even a court of ten or twelve judges, five of whom are sitting continuously four weeks in every month, can dispose of such a volume of business, and it has there- fore provided that the court may, should it find it necessary, sit in two parts, each composed of five justices, both under the direction of one Presiding Justice. It also proposes to authorize the Ap- pellate Division to call in other justices from the Supreme Court for temporary service in case of the illness or absence of one of the regularly assigned justices. The provisions in the present Con- stitution authorizing the Governor to assign additional justices to 7 Doc. No. 42 an Appellate Division on request, are retained, and the provisions for transferring cases from one division to another by vote of the Presiding Justices in case an Appellate Division is unable to dis- pose of its business within a reasonable time, are retained and made mandatory. Appellate Teems To further relieve the Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Departments, your Committee proposes to increase the number of justices assignable to the Appellate Terms from three to five, and to give to those branches of the court greater effectiveness by making the assignments for periods of one year. All appeals from judgments and orders in civil cases, made by County Courts within those departments, as well as by the City Court of New York', the Municipal Court of the City of New York, the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, and all other inferior or local courts, except those held by Jus- tices of the Peace, are required to be heard at the Appellate Term, and the Legislature is empowered to enlarge or modify the jurisdiction of that court and the right of appeal thereto. Your Committee considered a provision giving to the Appel- late Term jurisdiction of appeals from all interlocutory and pro- cedural orders, but decided that it would not be practicable sub- stantially to add to the volume of work now disposed of by this Court. The Appellate Term in the First Department during thfe year 1914 heard and decided 2,150 appeals from judgments and orders of the Municipal Court of the City of New York and the City Court of New York. The nieasure recommended by your Committee would give to it also jurisdiction of appeals from the Court of Special Sessions. By allowing the Appellate Division to assign five justices to sit at the Appellate Term, provision is made for relieving undue pressure upon the court. To add further to its jurisdiction, would require the permanent designa- tion of a larger number of justices and interfere with the neces- sary assignments for the Trial and Special Terms. The judges sitting in the Appellate Term are not prohibited from transacting any other business of the court, and are therefore available for interlocutory applications, but your Committee confidently expects that the result of the operations of the new practice rules, when adopted, will be very greatly to diminish the amount of litiga- tion from purely procedural matters. Doc. No. 42 CouET OF Appeals Perhaps tlie most troublesome question with which your Com- mittee has had to deal, is the composition and jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The Constitution of 1894, by creating the Appellate Divisions as courts of appeal of general jurisdiction, and limiting the Court of Appeals to review of questions of law only, sought to confine the Court of Appeals to the function of settling the law for the entire State in the interests of uniformity and public justice, as distinguished from the settlement of controversies between individuals merely. The Committee on the Judiciary in that Convention recommended a permanent increase in the number of judges from seven to nine, but that proposed increase was defeated in the Convention. Pro- vision was, however, made for the temporary assignment to that court by the Governor of not more than four Justices of the Supreme Court, and for several years past three justices have been sitting under such designations. Those provisions, it was antici- pated, would enable that court to keep abreast of its business. There was at the time of the Convention of 1894 an arrearage of about 175 cases in the Court of Appeals, and it was predicted by some of the delegates in discussing the report of the Judiciary Committee, that this number might be increased to between 300 or 400 by the time the new Judiciary Article became eifective, viz. : January 1, 1896. As a matter of fact, there is now an accumula- ftion of more than 600 cases pending in the Court of Appeals, and the average time required between the date of filing return and the cause being reached for argument, unless it is entitled to a preference, is about two years. The Court has made up no calendar since May 4, 1914, and the calendar then made up em- braced returns filed to April 20, 1914, only. The number of cases on that calendar was 714. During each of the five years, ending 1914 the Court has disposed of on the average 671 cases, and the average number of returns filed has been 769, so that each year adds on the average 100 cases to the number accumulating in the court. Your Committee agrees with the statement of principle made by the Judiciary Committee in its report to the Constitutional Convention of 1894, in the following language: " Every State is bound to give its citizens one trial of their controversies and one review of the rulings and results of the trial by competent and impartial appellate tribunal. When 9 Doc. No. 42 this is done, the duty of the State to particular litigants in- volved in a case is fully performed. There is no consideration either of public duty or private interests involved in litigation which requires a second appeal and a second review." Regarding, therefore, the judicial function of the Court of Appeals as that of settling the law for the whole State and main- taining one consistent and harmonious system of justice, your Committee reports provisions: (1) designed to dispose without further delay of the present accumulation of business in that Oourt, and to enable it in the future to dispose of undue aceumula- iions as they arise; (2) further to limit the jurisdiction of the court so as to prevent the impairment of the line of demarcation between the general appellate courts and the Court of Appeals. Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the number of per- manently elected Judges be increased to ten, and that the three Justices of the Supreme Court at present designated to sit as Associate Judges of the Court of Appeals be continued as such until the expiration of their terms. For the purpose of disposing of the present accumulation of cases, the Court of Appeals is required within three months after the new Constitution takes effect, to designate, for temporary service, not less than four nor more than six Justices of the Supreme Court to sit as Associate Judges of the Court of Appeals, and thereupon to divide the Court into two parts, distributing the permanent and temporary judges equally between such parts, each of which shall have jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the cases on the calendar of the court, which shall be distributed between them by the Chief Judge. When these .accumulations are disposed of by reducing the number of cases to 200, and. not later than December 31, 1917, the Supreme Court Justices are to return to their Court, and the Court of Appeals resumes its normal condition as a single body. Experience in the past having demonstrated that no matter what provision is made to meet the increasing business of the Court of Appeals, there is always danger of undue accumulations resulting in de- lays of from one to two years in reaching cases for hearing, the Court is further required to make up a calendar at least once in every year, and it is provided that if on the first day of January in any future year, there shall be more than 500 cases pending undisposed of on its calendar, the Court shall again call in the Supreme Court Justices and shall sit in two parts and dispose Doc. No. 42 10 of such accumulations, and when that is accomplished, and not more than one year later, the Justices shall again return to the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals resume its normal con- dition. For the purpose of enabling the Court to retain its maxi- mum strength at all times, provision is further made for calling in Justices of the Supreme Court to take the places of Judges of the Court of Appeals temporarily disqualified by absence or illness, but for periods of not exceeding six months. Your Committee recognizes the objection to dividing the Court of Appeals under any circumstances into two parts. But unless the Court shall be left to struggle with its constantly increasing ac- cumulation of cases, no alternative to that recommended presents itself, except the creation of a separate Second Division or Com- mission of Appeals, which in the past has proved unsatisfactory to the profession and the public. The alternative recommended by your Committee appears to it to avoid the objection to such division so far as possible ; first, by assuring the temporary character of the division, not only by prescribing that it shall cease when the number of causes has been reduced to a definite figure, but by fixing the time at the expiration of wiich the temporary designa- tions shall expire, this time being estimated to be somewhat more than should reasonably be required for the two parts to dispose of the accumulation of cases requiring the temporary expansion of the Court ; second, by providing that a majority of the Judges in each part of the Court shall be composed of members of the permanent court, thus reducing the probability of differences of view resulting in a divergence of opinion to the narrowest bounds of possibility, and third, by giving the Chief Judge control over both parts of the Court with power himself to sit in either of them. Your Committee recommends the following modification in the general prohibition against the Court of Appeals reviewing facts in any case, viz: Under the provisions of section 1317 of the Code of Civil Pro- cedure, the Aippellate Division on revei"sing or modifying a judg- ment is empowered to make, new findings of fact and render judgment thereon. In such cases, the Appellate Division in effect acts as an original trial court, and unless a review is allowed in the Court of Appeals, the litigant is deprived of the right, conceded to all other litigants, of at least one full review upon appeal from the judgment of the trial court. With this ex- 11 Doc. No. 42 ception, the present limitation of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to questions of law only is retained. The class of appeals which may be taken as a matter of right is also restricted and limited to the following cases only: (1) Where the judgment is of death; (2) From a judgment or order entered upon a decision of the Appellate Division which finally determines an action or a special proceeding directly involving the construction of the Constitution of the State or of the United States, or where one or more of the justices who heard the case dissents from the decision of the court, or where the judgment of the trial court is reversed or modified ; (3) From an order granting a new trial where the appellant stipulates that upon affirmance judgment absolute shall be rendered against him. The Court of Appeals is, however, empowered itself to allow an appeal in any case where a question of law is involved which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by it; but the power now vested in the Appellate Division allowing such appeals is taken away. Your Committee recommends one further modification in the jurisdiction of the court. Previous to 1894, the question whether or not there was any evidence to support a finding of fact or a verdict was regarded as one of law, but in the Constitution of 1894 there was inserted in Article VI, section 9, a provision that " no unanimous decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court that there is evidence supporting or tending to support a finding of fact or a verdict not directed by the court shall be reviewed by the Court of Appeals." The testimony of almost all of the judges who appeared before your Committee is to the effect that the practical operations of that provision have resulted un- satisfactorily; the New York State Bar Association, the New York Association of the Bar, the New York County Lawyers Association, and others, have united in the recommendation that this limitation be stricken from the Constitution, and your Com- mittee has, therefore, so reported. Briefly, it may be stated, as is done by the Special Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, that " this provision has frequently operated to preclude the review of what is essentially a question of " law, and it has applied unjustly to many cases; quite beyond the scope -contemplated by its framers." Doc. No. 42 12 SUREOGATES In 1913, the Legislature enacted a recodification of the law regu- lating the jurisdiction and practice of Surrogates and Surrogates' Courts, which vested them with much greater jurisdiction over the iidministration of the estates of decedents than theretofore had been •enjoyed hy them, including jurisdiction, in their discretion, in mij proceeding in which a controverted question of fact arises of which any party has a constitutional right of trial by jury, and in any proceeding for the probate of a will, in which a contro- verted question of fact may arise, either to conduct the trial by jury in the Surrogate's Court, or to refer the same to the Supreme Court to be tried at a trial term held within the county or in the County Court of the county. With some hesitation, your Com- mittee has reached the conclusion to continue the present juris- diction of the Surrogates as so modified, until otherwise provided by law. This will leave the whole subject within the discretion of the Legislature, and if experience shall demonstrate the need of some modification of the jurisdiction, the Legislature may act ac- cordingly. County Couets The jurisdiction of the County Courts in actions at common law for the recovery of money is increased from $2,000 to $3,000, and they are also given jurisdiction over actions against non-residents having an ofiice for the regular transaction of busi- ness within the county, upon cavises of action arising within the county. The existing Constitution prohibits a County Judge or Surro- gate in a county having a population exceeding 120,000 from practicing as attorney or counselor-at-law or acting as referee. Much criticism has arisen respecting the effect of permitting County Judges and Surrogates in other counties to practice law. The opposition to making a general prohibition of the prac- tice results from the unwillingness or inability of the counties to sanction legislative increase in the salaries of these officials to an amount which would compensate competent judges. After care- ful consideration, your Committee recommends an extension of the prohibition so as to apply to all counties having a population of 75,000 or upwards. This will result in extending it to thir- teen additional counties, all of them prosperous and apparently abundantly able to adequately compensate such officials for the loss of opportunity to add to their salaries by private practice. 13 Doc. No. 42 In order, however, to make it possible to secure competent men for those positions, in view of this action, the Legislature is to be further empowered at any time to consolidate the offices of County Judge and Surrogate in any county. The compensation of the County Judges is to be directly fixed by the Eoards of Supervisors of the counties, or other officials exercising powers similar tO' those now vested in siich boards, instead of through the Legisla- ture as at present, and except in case of such consolidation, it is provided that the compensation of a judge or justice of any court in the State, shall be neither increased nor decreased during th& term of office for which he was elected or appointed. COMMISSIONEES OF JuEOKS In conformity with the recommendation of a number of judges^ who have appeared before it, your Committee reports a provision for the appointment of Commissioners of Jurors in all counties having a population of upwards of 75,000 inhabitants, to be chosen by the Justices of the Supreme Court, their terms of office and compensation to be fixed by the Legislature, Avhich shall also pre- scribe and define their duties. Impeachment One of the arguments employed by advocates of the recall of judges has been that the proceeding to remove judges by impeach- ment was so cumbersome as to be impracticable, and not to afford a feasible remedy for the removal of an unfit judge, save in extraor- dinary cases of political significance. For the purpose of re- moving this argument and, without in the slightest degree detract- ing from the dignity and importance of trial by impeachment, but to make it conform with the reasonable requirements of practical judicial procedure, your Committee recommends a provision au- thorizing the Court for the Trial of Impeachments to order all or any part of the testimony to be taken and reported by a committee composed of members of the court, reserving, however, to the im- peached officer the right to testify before the court, if he so desire.. Court of Claims To end the recurrent scandals resulting from the Legislature dealing with the Court of Claims as a mere political football, your Committee has provided for the continuance of this court as a con- Doc. ISTo. 42 14 stitutional court. Two courses only appear to be open in dealing with this matter. One, to transfer to the Supreme Court the jurisdiction now exercised by the present Court of Claims, the other, to provide in the Constitution for the continuance of that tribunal as a court. The Court of Claims is the development of the Legislative Committee or Statutory Board of Audit. Its jurisdiction is essentially different from that of ordinary courts of justice. It should have power to exercise this jurisdiction in a simple summary manner, without being hampered by technical rules of law, and your Committee, therefore, recommends that it be continued as at present constituted, with power in the Legisla- ture to increase its members, the judges to have authority separately to take testimony in any case, but a majority of the court to concur in any award. Consolidation of Local Cotjkts Very greatly increased efficiency has been realized by the con- solidation of numerous small courts into single tribunals, so or- ganized that their entire judicial force may be kept occupied, and the business within the jurisdiction of the court fairly dis- tributed among its various terms and parts. Numerous and dif- ferent plans of consolidation have been advocated before your Committee, some even going to the length of urging the absorption of all the courts of the State into one great tribunal, having orig- inal and appellate jurisdiction. Without yielding to such extreme suggestions as these, your Committee has realized the force of the criticism of the unsatisfactory organization of the courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction in the city of New York, intermediate the Supreme Court and the courts of inferior civil and criminal jurisdiction. These latter courts recently have been reorganized, so that the court of limited civil jurisdiction, the Municipal Court is vested with jurisdiction throughout the Greater City, holding terms in each of the five boroughs, its judges, under the direction of its Presiding Judge, being authorized to sit wherever the busi- ness of the court requires, and that business being distributed as the requirements of its due and prompt determination may de- mand. The Court of Special Sessions, and the Magistrates' Courts in the city of New York, in like manner have been reorganized with jurisdiction throughout the greater city, and with provisions for the conduct of its business similar to those applicable to the Mu- nicipal Court. The Association of the Bar of the city of New 15 Doc. No. 42 York has recommended that the Legislature be empowered to abolish County Courts within the City of New York and to extend over the whole city, the jurisdiction of the Court of General Ses- aiors in and for the city and county of New York, so far as regards criminal jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of the City Court of the city of New York, so far as regards civil jurisdiction. In its opinion, such consolidated courts would relieve the Supreme Court of a great number of small cases, and would make homogeneous courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, respectively, which would better meet the requirements of the business in the city of New York than the existing separate courts. Similar consolidations have been made with very satisfactory results in other cities. In conformity with those recommendations, your Committee re- ports the following provisions : From and after January 1, 191Y, the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions of the City of New York is extended through- out the greater city. The County Courts of Kings, Queens, Richmond and Bronx are abolished, and their jurisdiction transferred to the Court of General Sessions, the judges of such County Courts becoming judges of the Court of General Sessions, the successors of the judges so transferred to be elected by the electors of the counties in which they respectively reside. Owing to the rapid growth of population in Bronx county, the Legislature is empowered to provide one additional judge from that county if it shall deem it proper so to do. One of the principal difficul- ties in accomplishing this consolidation lies in the difference in the salaries paid to the judges. Those of the Court of General Sessions at present receive salaries of $17,500 per annum, the County Court Judges in Kings, Queens and Bronx each $10,000 per annum and in Eichmond $7,500 per annum. Your Com- mittee has provided ,that the present incumbents shall continue to receive those salaries until the expiration of their respective terms, but that their successors, who shall be elected for periods of fourteen years, shall be paid a salary to be fixed by the Legislature. From and after January 1, 1917, the jurisdiction of the City Court of New York is extended throughout the Greater City, and the pecuniary~limit for which it may entertain actions for the recovery of money increased to $5,000. Provision is made for electing additional judges of the court, two from the county of Kings, and one from each of the counties of Bronx and Queens. Doc. No. 42 16 The Legislature is empowered to provide one additional judge from Kings County should it deem proper so to do. The amount of civil business in the County Court of Eichmond does not seem sufficient to require provision to be made for a judge of the City- Court from that county, but provision is made for a separate surrogate therein. Children's Couets To enable the Legislature to keep pace with modem theories of dealing with delinquent children, not as criminals, but as wards of the State, and of regulating domestic relations on a broader basis than the mere enforcement of penal laws, your Committee has reported a provision empowering the Legislature to establish inferior or local courts with territorial jurisdiction throughout the counties in which they are situated, and to confer upon them, or upon existing courts, power to try without a jury offenses of the grade of misdemeanor, and to establish children's courts and courts of domestic relations, with jurisdiction found to be essential for the successful administration of such courts. JuEY Exemptions Exemptions from liability to jury service have been granted by the Legislature from time to time to various classes of citizens. It is difficult to imagine any sound reason for the existence of some of these exemptions. Many judges who have appeared before your Committee have attributed to these exemptions difficulties experienced in securing in important cases juries of sufficient intelligence to comprehend the issues involved. Your Committee is inclined to the opinion that except in the case of physicians and surgeons in active practice, exemptions from liability to jury duty should be limited to persons employed in the public serv- ice; but recognizing the difficulty of fairly determining this question within the limitations necessarily imposed upon it, your Committee has recommended that no others be exempt unless and except the judges empowered to make the Civil Practice rules shall so provide. It is believed that this body, charged with formulating the rules governing procedure in the Courts, will be- better qualified to determine what classes of persons may be ex- empted from jury duty without impairment to the administration of justice. Soldiers and sailors of the United States army or navy, members of the li^ational Guard and volunteer firemen now 17 Doc. No. 42 serving as such or heretofore honorably discharged are excepted from this prohibition. ToEKENS Law The Committee has also recommended a provision authorizing the enactment of laws to provide for a system of judicial au- thentication and guaranty by the State or by any county of titles to real property, the determination of adverse claims to and interests therein and the establishment by means of fees or otherwise of protective funds to make such system operative, and to confer upon existing courts of record such administrative powers as are necessary in carrying out such system. The advocates of the so-called Torrens Law system have pressed upon your Committee recommendations for the establishment of separate land courts or land divisions in the Supreme Court and provisions authorizing the Legislature to confer upon administrative officers judicial powers in carrying out this system. Tour Committee has felt, however, that no separate Land Division or Land Court was either necessary or desirable, and it is of the opinion that it is inexpedient to confer judicial powers upon administrative officers. Your 'Committee has adopted and included in the article re- ported portions of the proposed constitutional amendments intro- duced by the following named delegates: Messrs. Clearwater, Steinbrink, Aiken, Eodenbeck, Baldwin, E. B. Smith, Cobb, Mandeville, Beeves, C. H. Young, Tuck, Sheehan, Fobes, Eosch, Lincoln, Heaton, McKean, Leggett, Ostrander, Coles, Brenner, Barrett, Dunmore, Angell, Wiggins, Green, Stimson. Your Committee gratefully acknowledges the valuable sugges- tions, explanations and information received from the gentlemen who introduced these amendments as well as from other proposals which furnished helpful suggestions. QEOEGE W. WICKEESHAM, Chairman. LoTTis Marshall, Adolph J. Eodenbeck, Albeet F. Gladding, A. T. Cleaewatee, Henet L. Stimson, William F. Sheehan, Chaeles H. Young, D. Eatmond Cobb, Meiee Steinbeink, Chaeles B. Seaes, William IST. Dykman, Edgae Teuman Beackett, Delancet Nicoll, (with some reservations), EoBEET F. Wagnee, John B, Stanchfield. Doc. No. 42 18 MINORITY REPORT Mr. Dunmore presented the following minority report: With profound respect for the judgment of the majority of this Committee and their report, I find myself constrained to dissent from it, but in one particular only, I am in perfect accord with all the provisions of the majority report excepting the pro- vision containing the Court of Claims. While that is called a court, it is made in fact merely a hoard of audit. While this coiirt annually passes upon greater property values perhaps than is passed upon by any like number of judges of the State, yet it is limited to fixing the value of the property, and is denied juris- diction, to determine the value of a small incumbrance upon it. While this judiciary article recognizes this court as good enough as between the State and the owner to pass upon the value of property worth perhaps a million of dollars, it is not recognized as good enough as between the owner and a mortgagee to pass upon the amount owing upon a mortgage for a hundred dollars. Consequently after a claimant has had his lawsuit with the State he must have another law suit with the other claimants before he can get his pay for property taken from him by the State with- out his consent, I think the Court of Claims should have juris- diction to determine the share of several claimants in any award. That would avoid multiplicity of actions and save expense and delay for claimants. Dated August 12, 1915. W. T. DUNMOEE. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION No. 43 ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT ELIHU ROOT, IN COM- MITTEE OF THE WHOLE, RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED JUDICIARY ARTICLE August 19, 1915 Mr. Boot — Mr. Ciiairman. The 'Claairmaii — Mr. President. Mr. Root — I want to say a few words which are stirred up by the appeal to memory by the gentleman from Saratoga. But in the first instance I want to suggest that if the gentleman from Sara- toga will not keep out of the record his references to a break by Brother Byrne, that he change his description of the place from Mount Ararat to Mount Sinai. I remember the conditions which existed prior to the adoption of the Short Civil Procedure Act of 187-5, going back a good many years before. I was in the thick of the controversy long before Mon-tgomery Throop charged it in his -great tome which was called " The Code of Civil Procedure," and the controversy was between the old common-law practice and the advocates of the reform pro- cedure which went all over the country. That reform was accomplished under the express direction of the Constitution of 1846. Doc. I^o. 43 2 I remember that Mr. Staughton, that able and eminent lawyer, never could speak of the code, when Mr. Field was anywhere about, without calling it " your d d code, Mr. Field." I remember once being in court in a case in which both Mr. Field and Mr. O'Connor were engaged, and Mr. Field put some question during the argument to Mr. O'Connor as to the effect of the pleadings and O'Connor turned on him and said, " I understand, Mr. Field, that under your code, the plaintiif comes in and tells his story like an old woman, and the defendant comes in 'and tells his story like another old woman." That was .all he could get out of O'Connor on this question of pleading. These were the conditions, and they ^are continually recurring. Under the old common law system practice had become so com- plicated and difScult that it was hard for an honest man to get his rights. There is a good deal of human nature in it. It has been so since the laws of the Medes and Persians were formulated ; it has been so since the day of Egypt's power./ Wherever a special class of men have been entrusted with the formulation and admin- istration of law, they tend to make it a mystery; they tend to become more and more subtle and refined in their discriminations, until ultimately they have got out of the field where they can be followed up by plain, honest people's minds, and some power must be exerted to bring them back^/ The Constitution of 1846 exerted that power to bring the practice of the law out of the discredit into which it had fallen because of the intricacy and the oom>plication and the technicality and the subtlety of the old common law practice. Mr. Field brought it back with the code, of three hun- dred and odd sections, which bears his name, and the reform in procedure went all over the country. 'Curiousily enough, just about the time that England followed the example and adopted the re- formed procedure in her judicature act of 18Y3, we began to take ■a back track and Mr. Throop's attempt to condense in a volume which was called the Code of Civil Procedure a great number of particular and minute provisions regarding practice was the first great step in that direction, in the backward direction. ISTow, in the forty years which' have elapsed, we have been follow- ing in that same pathway until the people of our State have come to riegard the simplification of practice as one of the great issues 3 Doc. Xo. Vr> of the day. I believe there is no duty which is demanded from this Convention more generally than the duty to do something to make our practice more simple, speedy, inexpensive and effective. Why is it? A careful study of it reveals the cause, or the principal cause. I have listened to discussions and have taken part in them in the Bar Association of my ovm city, in the State Bar Associa- tion, in the American Bar Association, in countless conversations ■with lawyers and with laymen, and I say the cause of the prevail- ing discontent with our practice is to be found in the fact that year by year during all this period of forty years, there has been a continual addition, step by step, statute by statute, to the multi- tude of definite, certain, precise rules of prooedure, binding upon the men that sought redress of v^rongs in the courts. One of our most honored and beloved judges in the Court of Appeals said to me the other day, when I asked him how he thought this plan would work, " I have had since I came here to buy fifteen editions of the Code because it is so continually changed that after every session of the Legislature my last edition is useless," and he gave this plan his warm approval. The trouble is not in a particular provision. These pro\'isions that are put in are put in with good intent. The men who propose them in the Legidature are honest men ; they believe that they are useful, but they are not the result of any general view of the subject. They are the result of particular views of the needs of particular cases; and a provision that a member of the Assembly or the Senate may well honestly believe to be useful upon his experience in a particular case, may work very badly, interfering with the obtaining of justice in many other different cases. And when you come to put them all together, you have a great variety of statutory rights. Each one of these is a statutory right: I heard the other day a lawyer in l^ew York boast that he could postpone any litigation for seven years, and I asked a lot of friends as I came along whether that was true, and they all said they did not doubt it. How? Why, by compelling the honest fellow that comes into court to redress a wrong or to secure a right, to litigate one after the other these statutory rights that have been created by the Legislature. Courts cannot ig-nore them because they are rights given by law. The courts must observe the law, and Doc. Xo. 43 4 so the plain man -who wants to get a wrong -redressed has, bristling between his demand for redress and his judgment a dozen litiga- tions that he has to fight out before he can get to the end of his cause. My friends of the Bar, we have been making our system of pro- cedure here conform to the subtle, acute, highly-trained ideas of lawyers. That is not the true basis. The system of procedure, of course, caanot be simple, but as far as possible, it ought to be made to eonform to the plain man's intelligence and experience. It ought to be so that the farmer and the merchant and the laborer can understand it, and know why he is delayed in getting his rights; can understand that the processes to which he is subject have a reason and know what the reason is, otherwise you cannot have that respect for the law, that confidence in its justice neces- sary for the maintenance of a system of just administration. And furthermore the existence of this great variety of minute, detailed statutory provisions has been breeding up a great number of code lawyers, and by that I mean lawyers whose principal concern is with the statutory code of rights and not with getting justice for their clients. ISTow, we ought to get back, get back to the fundamental idea of our profession which is the administration of justice. These minute, particular Code provisions substitute rules, multitudes of rules for the justice of the par'ticular case. I agree with Mr. Brackett. I am old enough lat the Bar to have the men who were my partners, my juniors, my clerks, sitting on the bench, and I look at them from a different angle from that which I can recall forty or fifty years' ago when I looked' up to those men high up above — they are'men like the rest of us. But, my friends, they -are honest and just. They want to do justice if they can be per- mitted to. They will do justice if they are permitted to. This network of meticulous rules that are made by our Legislature with honest purpose prevent them from doing justice in the par- ticular case ; and the people of our State and of onr country under- stand this. They may not understand the details. They may not know why, but they feel that the pathway of justice is ob- structed. They feel that the honest man would better lose his claim than go into court and spend his time and money in the law's 5 Doc. ISTo. 43 pursuit which seems to have no end. And they lare indignant over it and restless and dissatisfied oyer it, and they look to us to do something. ISTow, what is it ? What can we do ? I can assure you that I have done the best I could for years to try to find some formula, some method by which the thing that the Constitutional Convention of 1846 did oould be done again, for by a different route we have come into the same condition with which they dealt and after most earnest thought, particularly as the result of the discussions in all these Bar Associations, I have not found any- thing that offered so much light as the proposal of our Judiciary Committee. Now, it is not simple, but show us something better. We must do something. We cannot go home and say to our friends and neighbors we have given you no relief in this matter that concerns you so deeply. Show us something better than that. What is it ? In the first place it requires the Legislature to act upon this report of the Commission on statutory provisions. It does not say how they shall act. We don't undertalce to interfere with them in that. In the second place, it requires them to pass some sort of a brief civil practice act and adopt some sort of rule of procedure; it requires these two divisions. That is following what our neigh- boring State of Connecticut has' adopted. They have a practice act that you can fold up and put in your side pocket. When the Legislature in its wisdom has done that, then two results are pro- vided, one is that the Legislature shall stop the eternal tinkering with the practice, stop passing laws which are brought in here by individual members upon a narrow view of the occasion for them ; shall stop ©very year pouring out a stream of amendments, and making new rules to cure the evils of old rules, and shall confine its action to periodical action upon the report of a commission. I agree with the idea that the Legislature itself has not the time to elaborate and work out a system. They have got too many other things to do. Accordingly the practice has become quite universal of having commissions appointed which shall prepare and present to the Legislature well-considered measures. The Legislature is given the fullest power; that is, it retains the fullest power to act upon 'reforms. It does not have to have the recommendation Doc. No. 43 6 of the Commission. When the 'Commission has reported, the Legislature can throw their recommendation out the. window if it sees fit; but the action of the Legislature is concentrated on the point where it has the report before it, so that it will act upon the subject and not "upon the ideas of A to-daj and B to-morrow and C the day after, upon particular rules but it will act upon a system of practice as a whole, upon the report of a commission of its own selection, and it will act once for all until another period has elapsed, and so you stop this meticulous interference with practice, and you have an opportunity to test the provisions which the Legislature adopts from time to time on the reports of its commissions. In the meantime the courts are authorized to pro- ceed with their immemorial function of amending and adjusting the rules subject to the practice act of the Legislature so that they will contribute to the doing of justice in the individual case and discourage these technicalities and subtleties which tangle justice in the net of form. Now, there is nothing that cannot be criticised ; nothing that cannot be doubted. Of course the judges when they come to make their rules may make rules that Mr. Wickersham would approve and Mr. Brackett vrould disapprove, or it may be just the other way. But if the judges make rules or amendments to the rules that do not on the whole seem to be right, at the next period, when the Legislature takes the subject up, it will put into its practice act a provision that will control the bad rule. This provision reported by the Committee is highly meritorious in that it compels the Legislature to act in the broad way upon procedure as a whole, and at the same time it enables the Legislature to control and correct any tendencies by the court to go wrong in either direction. I have seen and heard of no proposal to accomplish the thing that we clearly must accomlish which seems to be so effective as that proposed by the Committee. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 44 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STATE FINANCES, REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, TRANSMITTING PROPOSED AMENDMENT No. 815 (Int. 719) August 18, 1915 Mr. Stimson, for the Committee on State Finances, Kevenues and Expenditures, makes the following report: Your Committee presents herewith a bill which is intended to remedy abuses in the appropriations of public moneys for local improvements. ■Section twenty of Article III of the Constitution adopted in 1821 was probably intended to apply to all appropriations made for local improvements. The courts, however, have held that such acts are not private or local but public, " inasmuch as the general improvement of the public highways of the State, whether canals or riveTS that are navigable, is for the benefit of the State at large though some locality or some individuals may ba bene- fited more than others." Waterloo Co. vs. Shanahan, 128 N. Y. 345. The power of making such improvements in the interest of the State at large is clearly one which must be retained by the Legis- Doc. jSTo. 44 2 lature. The problem is to guard against its abuse, and the evi- dence that it is constantly abused is a'bundant. The debate on the budget brought out numerous specific instances of bills having been passed where the benefit to be derived by the State from the use of its moneys in the local improvement seemed extremely slender. Your Committee further finds that it is not uncommon for an appropriation to be made and an undertaking begun without the Legislature having in its possession full or complete plans and estimates of the cost of the improvement. Thereafter when it turns out that the improvement will cost very much more than the original appropriation, the fact that the work has been begun and expenditures already incurred is made a reason for pro- ceeding with a work which might never have been undertaken had the Legislature known its true cost. Your Committee has considered carefully the various possible remedies to check the evil. The methods suggested in the en- closed bill were adopted as a regulation by the Senate Committee on Finance under the Chairmanship of Mr. Higgins, afterward Governor, and resulted in a great diminution in the number of bills. Some similar methods are also in use in the ITational Congress in dealing with river and harbor appropriation. The Congress requires the Chief of Engineers to certify before under- taking a given improvement that the river in question is worthy of improvement at the expense of the Federal Government at that time. Your 'Committee believes that the introduction of these methods of ordinary business prudence and foresight; to require the preliminary formulation of plans and estimates and the certificate of the responsible ofiieer at the head of the department which has charge of State construction, will do far more towards checking excessive appropriations of this kind than the require- ment of a two^thirds vote in the Houses of the Legislature. Your Committee finds that under the present methods of the Legislature it is very easy for the two-thirds vote to be recorded without very great care being exercised to see that it was actually obtained and it finds further that popular legislators rarely have any difiiculty in obtaining a two-thirds vote, irrespective of party 3 D'oo. No. 44 lines. It therefore believes that the protection suggested in the accompanying bill will be much more effective in obtaining the desired end and vyill still leave the Houses of the Legislature under the control of the majority required by ordinary parlia- mentary procedure. Very respectfully submitted, HENRY L. STIMSON, Chairman. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 45 FINAL REPORT OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTI- TUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMISSION AuausT 28, 1915 Mr. M. J. O'Brien-, from tte Constitutional Convention Com- mission, presented the following report: To the Delegates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of New Yorlc: Gentlemen : — The Constitutional Convention Commission ap- pointed pursnant to an act of the Legislature (Lavfs of 1914, chapter 2-61) to collect, compile and print info-rmation and data for the Constitutional Convention of 1915, herewith res-pectfuUy summits its final report. The first work of the Commission was devoted to determining the character of the information which would be most useful to the delegates and which could be obtained within the amount appropriated for the expenses of the Commission. In its report to the Convention under date of May 19th, 1915 (Document No. 6), the Commission set forth fully the ten publica- tions AVhich it planned to supply to the Delegates, and it is a source of satisfaction to the Commission that it is now able to Doc. No. 45 2 report that all these i)ublications have been completed and dis- tributed to the Delegates together with an additional report on " The Eelation of the State to the City School System " which is included in the publication " ('ity and County Government " — ■' Special Topics." Of all these publications one thousand copies were printed, except Publication Xo. 6 which is a complete text of the New York State Constitution, as amended to January 1, 1915, contain- ing ample margins, wide spaces between the lines and alternate blank pages of which publication only five hundred copies were printed. After supplying the Delegates and those applying, who it was thought were entitled to copies, including one hundred and twenty copies of Publication No. 8 furnished the Westchester County Eesearch Bureau, and two hundred and fifty copies of Publication Xo. 3 furnished the Legislative Drafting Research Fund of Columbia University, which bodies so ably assisted the Commission in the work of those publications, there are now left about six hundred and fifty copies of most of the publications. The Commission now suggests, subject to the approval of this Convention, that the remaining copies bo distributed in the fol- lowing manner : First, to all Law Libraries and Public Libraries of the cities of the State ; second, to all the leading L^niversities of the country and, third, the remaining copies, if any, to the State Public Libraries throughout the United States. In this way, the valuable infoi'mation contained in these publications -will be pre- served for all time and will always be readily accessible. The amount originally appropriated for the use of the Com- mission was ten thousand dollars to which amount five thousand dollars was added by subsequent legislation, together with ten thousand dollars granted by resolution of this 'Convention, making a total of twenty-fi\'e thousand dollars at the disposal of the Com- mission for the expenses of its publications. Aninexed hereto is a financial statement showing the manner in which the above mentioned amount has been expended. From this statement it will appear that the Commission has kept well within the total amount appropriated and has at present a balance remaining on hand. This statement is respectfiilly submitted to 3 Doc. ISTo. 45 this Convention for its approval, and tlie Commission also requests that the Convention authorize the distribution of the remaining copies of the publications dn the manner heretofore mentioned. The Commission takes this occasion to acknowledge its indebted- ness to all the individuals, public officersi and bodies who have so generously co-operated in furnishing the data and information for the various publications and, in addition to the acknowledg- ments made by the Commission, to publicly express its apprecia- tion of all this invaluable assistance. The Commission, therefore, respectfully requests that the Con- vention adopt the resolution submitted herewith, thanking those who have contributed to the publications which have been prepared and supplied to the Delegates of this Convention and which we trust have been of service. Respectfully submitted, MOEGAN J. O'BEIEN, ' ; Chairman. Commission: MoEGAN J. O'Brien, Chairman, Robert F. Wagner, Edward Schoeneck, Thaddeus C. Sweet, Samson Lachman, John H. Finley. ISTew York State Constitutional Convention Commission. Financial Statement, August, 1915 Expenditures made from the sum of $15,000 appropriated by Laws 1914, chapters 261 and 530, and by Laws 1915, chapter 201, for material relating to the State in general. Publication 'No. 1 Lincoln's Constitutional History, 181 sets at $9.50 per set $1,717 50 Publication No. 2 New York State -Constitution Annotated, Parts I and II Printing 1,000-oopies 1,0d1 50 Doc. ]Sro. 45 4 Printimg 250 extra copies of Part II $62 50 Binding 250 extra copies of Part II in paper covers 5 00 Wrapping and mailing Part II 15 00 Binding 1,000 copies, Parts I and II, to- gether in black imitation flexible leather. . 300 00 Publication 'No. 3 Subject Index Digest of State Constitutions Legislative Drafting Eesearch Fund 1,000 00 Printing 1,000 copies. .- 3,295 50 Binding 1,000 copies in imitation flexible leather 300 00 30 sets of galley proof 120 00 Publication ISTo. 4 Government of the State of New York Binding 300 copies in imitation flexible leather 51 00 Printing and binding 700 additional copies. 700 00 Publication No 5 Revision of the State Constitution Academy of Political Science 1,000 00 Binding 150 copies, Parts I and II to- gether in paper covers 22 50 Binding 850 copies, Parts I and II sepa- rately in flexible leather 510 00 Boxing 300 sets of Publications ISTos. 4 and 5 and delivering 170 sets 64 00 Publication ISTo. 6 Interleaved State Constitution Printing 500 copies, binding 200 copies in flexible leather and 150' copies in paper. . 600 00 Publication No. 9 Constitution and Government of the State of New York — An Appraisal Bureau of Municipal Research- 733 85 5 Doc. No. 45 Printing title page, letter of transmittal and binding 100 copies in flexible leather $308 84 Proportionate share of secretary's salary. . . 720 00 Expended under secretary's direction for preparation of copy for Publications Nos. 2 'and 6, proof-reading, etc., stenograpiLic and typewriting work, clerical work in connection with secretary's ofiioe,, and stamps 1,31Y 34 J. B. Lyon Co. for printing stationery, cir- cular letters, etc 85 77 Thorpe's Constitutions, etc., 5 sets 10 50 Newspaper clippings 15 00 Dougherty's Constitutional History, 10 copies 25 00 Secretary's future expenses (estimated) .... 50 OO Future transportation charges for delivering publications (estimated) 400 00 Total $14,482 80 Expenditures made from the sum of $10,000 appropriated by Laws 1915, chapter 624, for material relating to city and county govemmient. Publication ISTo. 7 Government of the City of New York Academy of Political Science $75'0 00 Binding 1,000 copies 300 00 Publication No. 8 County Government of New York Printing 1,000 copies 2,359 43 Binding 1,000 copies in flexible leather. . . . 300 00 Publication No. 10 City and County Government 1 . Monroe County Printing 1,200 copies 156 14 Printing 200' copies in paper 2 00 $278 55 % OO 263 30 2 00 212 51 2 00 if Doc. No. 45 6 2 . City of Koc'bester Printing 1,200 copies Binding 200 copies in paper 3 . Nassau County Printing 1,200 copies Binding 200 copies in paper 4. Relation of State to City Sdhool System Printing 1,200' copies Binding 200 copies in paper Binding 1,000 copies of above 4 pamphlets in flexible leather and printing title page 303 56 Proof reading on city and county publica- tions 29 25 Proportionate share of secretary's salary. 480 00 J. B. Lyon Co., boxing and handling 1,000 copies of Government of City of ISTew York 60 00 Bureau of Municipal Research Cost of services in connection with the prep- aration of the report on the Organiza- tion and Functions of the Government of the City of New York 2,111 11 Cost of services in connection with the prep- aration of the report on the Revenues and Expenditures of the Government of the City of New York for the five years, 1910-1914 1,363 77 Total $8,975 62 STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 46 MINORITY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGIS- LATIVE ORGANIZATION, RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 836 (INT. NO. 722) August 28, 1915 Mr. Burkan presented the following minority report on Pro- posed amendment No. 836 (Int. No. 722). To the Convention: The undersigned respectfully dissent from the report of the majority recommending the adoption, among others, in Article III, Section 4, of the following provisions, to wit : " No county shall have more than one-third of all the Senators, and no coun- ties as now organized wholly contained within the limits of a single city, shall have more than one-half of all the Senators." This proposal extends the existing limitations upon the legis- lative representation of but two adjoining counties to all the coun- ties embraced within a city. The object sought to be accomplished by this proposal is to limit the representation of the city of New York in the Senate to not more than one-half of all the Senators, however large and Doe. No. 46 ' 2 increasing its population, and without regard to the number of counties within its boundaries. While New York city is not definitely named in the proposal, obviously it can only apply to the city of New York, as there is no other city which, within the next twenty years, is likely to come within its purview. The proposal denies to the people of the city of New York their rightful repre- sentation in the State government ; it deprives them of an equality of representation in the Legislature. The practical operation of these provisions requires that every Senator in New York city shall represent a much larger population than the average of Sena- tors from other sections of the State, for they prevent the city of New York, regardless of population, from electing a majority of the State Legislature. Thus a minority of the electorate of the State controls the State government, dominates its policies and is enabled to enact oppressive legislation affecting even the purely local affairs of the city. The reasons advanced for the extension of the limitation are that it will prevent the city with its pre- ponderance in population from dominating the entire state, con- trolling State affairs and committing sectional oppression. We are persuaded that the proposal is inspired rather by a partisan desire to continue the control of the Legislature in the hands of the political party dominant in the rural sections of the State, and to perpetuate the present oppressive control and interference in matters purely of local city concern. It was suggested in the debate before the Convention on the proposal to strike out the present limitation of New York city representation in the Legislature that the grievance of the city against legislative dominance and interference in local concerns would be corrected by complete, full and adequate " Home Rule ". The " Home Rule " article advanced to third reading signally fails to accomplish this object. The provision of the " Home Eule " article permitting the Legislature by joint resolution to nullify any charter or important amendment thereto adopted by the city, throws the most important local problems of the city into the mill of State politics. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) ' A. E. SMITH, NATHAN BUEKAN. Dated August 27, 1915. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 47 REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE RELATIVE TO THE SEVERAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS August 31, 1915 Mr. Rhees from the Committee on Civil Service presented the following report : REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE The Committee on Civil Service to which the following Pro- posed constitutional amendments were referred, to wit: Introductory JSTo. 29, introduced by Mr. Olcott. Introductory No. 53, introduced by Mr. Dunmore. Introductory No. 7Y, introduced by Mr. Phillips. Introductory No. 136, introduced by Mr. Unger. Introductory No. 138, introduced by Mr. Quigg. Introductory No. 142, introduced by Mr. Stembrmk (by re- ^^Introductory No. 237, introduced by Mr. Donovan. Introductory No. 263, introduced by Mr. Heyman. Introductory No. 281, introduced by Mr. Adams. Introductory No. 284, introduced by Mr. Mann. Introductory No. 351, introduced by Mr. Wood Introductory No. 427, introduced by Mr. C. NicoU. Introductory No. 508, introduced by Mr. Quigg. Doc. ISTo. 47 2 Introductory ISTo. 528, introduced by Mr. Steinbrink (by re- quest) . Introductory 'No. 614, introduced by Mr. Weed. Introductory No. 641, introduced by Mr. McKean (by request). Introductory No. 642, introduced by Mr. McKean (by request). Introductory No. 657, introduced by Mr. Khees (by request). Introductory No. 658, introduced by Mr. Khees (by request). report adversely upon the same. The committee has held public hearings on the different pro- posals submitted and listened also to several State and municipal officials of extensive experience in the administration of the civil service. The committee has also received many letters and volu- minous petitions both in favor of and in opposition to the various proposals referred to and has formed its conclusion after extended and careful consideration. The proposals submitted to the committee advocate the extension of civil service preference either in appointment, or in promotion, or retention, or in all of these, to veterans of the Spanish American War, to all honorably discharged soldiers, sailors and marines of the Army and Navy of the United States who enlisted from this State, to honorably discharged members of the National Guard and Naval Militia of this State, to exempt volunteer firemen, to all employees in the classified service of ten years experience in the employment of the State; and the extension to all civil servants of the right of trial and court review before removal from the service. The information submitted to the committee indicates that there are at present over fifteen thousand employees in the classi- fied service of the State and in addition about fifty-three thousand in the civil divisions thereof, a total of sixty-eight thousand places in the classified civil service. We are informed that there are some twenty-five thousand Spanish War veterans resident in the State, that there are approximately two hundred thousand volunteer firemen, that there are about thirty thousand honorably discharged members of the National Guard and Naval Militia in the State. Concerning the number of soldiers, sailors and ma- rines honorably discharged from the Army', and Navy of the United States who reside in this State we .^'w, no, information. These proposed preferred groups are nearly four times as many in number as there are places in the classified public service. 3 Doc. No. 47 Agamst the granting of any such preference in the civil service we have received strong protests from many heads of departments in the State government and from mayors and department heads of many of the cities of the State, as well as from superintendents of State and municipal institutions. All these men have had ex- perience in making appointments in the civil service, some of them for many years. With one voice they protest that preference for special classes works disaster to the morals, the discipline and the efficiency of the office for which they are responsible. These facts have convinced the majority of your committee that no change should be recommended in the present form of the civil service section of the Constitution. The dissatisfaction with the existing provisions which prevails in the minds of some advocates of a more thorough application of the merit system in the civil service, is due we believe to failures in administration, not to inadequacy of the constitutional mandate. To insure a clearer recognition of the need for consistent and faithful administration of the laws enacted to enforce that man- date of the Constitution, your committee has recommended that the Civil Service Commission be made a constitutional department of government, and the recommendation has been incorporated in the amendment proposed by the Committee on Governor and other State officers. The committee has been actuated throughout by a strong desire to reinforce the merit system in the administration of the civil service. That desire has led us after careful consideration of all proposals to report adversely to any change in the broad and com- prehensive language of section nine of Article V. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) RUSH RHEES, SAMUEL K. PHILLIPS, GEO. W. WICKERSHAM, CHARLES M. DOW, JAMES L. l^IXON, HOMER E. A. DICK, ANDREW P. McKEAN, E. CLARENCE AIKEN, FRANCIS A. WINSLOW. Doc. No. 47 4 The ixnanimous testimony presented to the committee by heads of State and city departments was to the effect that any further exemptions from the civil provisions of the Constitution would be detrimental to the efficiency of the civil service. For that reason I am compelled to unite in the recommendation of the committee that no amendment should be made to section nine of Article V of the Constitution. (Signed) ISRAEL T. DEYO. In my opinion the Constitution should contain provision for the continuance of the merit system, but should be free from any reference to preferences, leaving such matters entirely to legisla- tive enactment. I am. personally in favor of granting to war veterans preference in appointment only, but such preference should be extended only to those whose marks upon civil service examination are above a certain minimum, which minimum should be higher than the minimum required for passing the examination. In other words, if the minimum percentage requisite to admission to the civil service list is 75 per cent., any veteran who has re- ceived for example, 85 per cent, or more, shall be preferred in appointment over all others, even though such others may have received a higher standing. There is no reason why public offices should be filled by those whose attainments are mediocre and it would be far better for the State to adopt a system of pensions than to have its work poorly done by incompetent public servants. Probably it would be cheaper in the end. However, by adopting a rule which would raise the standard as above specified, so far as veterans are concerned, a method of reward would be achieved without an impairment of the civil service. This, however, should not be included in any constitutional enactment but left to the Legislature, and I therefore concur in the finding of the majority of the Committee. (Signed) MARK EISNER. 5 Doo. No. 47 Mr. Mann presented the following minority report : With a great respect for the judgment of the majority of the Committee on Civil Service, and a proper regard for its opinion, the undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Civil Service, find themselves unable to agree in all respects with such majority, and present, as a minority report, the following: I. We believe that there is no reason in logic or justice why there should not be accorded to the Spanish-American War Veterans, if not the same, certainly some of the privileges given to veterans of the Civil War. The patriotic motives of those who enlisted in the Union army in the Civil War inspired those who enlisted in the Spanish-American War. In our judgment, the efficiency of the Civil Service would be strengthened by the training which a military experience necessarily gives ; and a recognition of patriotic sacrifice will go far toward providing an incentive for similar service on the part of the youth of our land, should the emergency arise. We, therefore, urge the passage of amendment. Printed l^o. 630, Int. No. 614, hereto annexed. FRANK MANN, JOHN W. WEED, W. T. DUNMOEE. II. In addition to the foregoing, we submit that to make the Civil Service, in fact (as well as in theory) one of merit and fitness, no loophole should exist for political advantage or unjust preferment therein. The Legislature should have power to enact laws compelling the appointment of the candidate who procures the highest standing in competitive examinations, which power is denied to it in the case of People, etc., v. Mosher, 163 N. Y. 32. Else the Civil Service Article may be made to defeat its very purpose^ which purpose is the substitution of merit for political availability, and of fitness for nepotism. So, too, pro- vision should be. made fully to protect Civil Service employees Doc. No. 47 6 from arbitrary removal, or the political change of competitive positions to the exempt class. III. The Civil Service of the State should, so far as practi- cable, be from among residents of the State. " New York for ISTew Yorkers " is a maxim that can find its best application in the Civil Service. We know of no reason why the State or municipality should be permitted to support a horde of foreign dependents who draw salaries from the State of JSTew York to expend such salaries in the development of other States. It is unjust and uneconomical that our already overburdened taxpay- ers should indirectly be compelled to contribute to the revenues of such other states. It is difficult enough, in these times of fiscal stress, to meet the exactions of our own Excelsior State extravagance. Besides, it must be patent that a Civil Service employee will be most efficient in the service of his home State, the welfare of which is a vital financial and social concern to him and his. Therefore, We additionally recommend that (a) provisions be made permitting the Legislature to compel the appointment of the fittest candidate; (b) that safeguards be thrown about Civil Service employees to save them from unjust removal or " ripper " legislation; and (c) a preference be given to residents of this State in appointment and promotion ; or should that be inex- pedient, that only residents of the State be employed in its Civil Service. ALBEET BLOGG UNGEE, EUGENE LAMB EICHAEDS. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 48 MINORITY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON BILL OF RIGHTS RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 5 September 1, 1915 Mr. Reeves reported the following: The undersigned, members of the Committee on Bill of Eights, respectfully submit the following minority report to the amend- ment proposed by that Committee to Article one, Section five, which proposed amendment reads as follows: "On a conviction for a crime now punishable by death, the jury may by its verdict impose either the death penalty or life imprisonment and, in the latter event, no pardon cr commutation shall be granted uji- less the innocence of the person convicted be established." In our opinion, no change should be made in the Constitution on this subject for the following reasons among others : (1) The matter is purely legislative and not constitutional. If the proposed amendment were placed in our fundamental law for the next twenty years and found to be detrimental to the peo- ple of the state, it would become a great calamity. The states of this country have not, generally, dealt with this subject in their constitutions. Doc. No. 48 2 (2) There is no apparent demand for such a change. The general feeling, as we understand it, is that the administration of the criminal law should be strengthened wherever possible and not weakened by provisions which might encourage crime. (3) The proposed amendment involves a rule of men and not of law. It would not be fair to juries to place upon them a responsibility which fairly and logically belongs to the state. The jury should determine the guilt, but the state, by its, law, should fix the punishment. The reverse of this will cause dis- cord in the jury room and lead to many disagreements that other- wise would not occur and will cause a lack of uniformity in punishment. (4) The proposed amendment is, in effect, an attempt to abolish capital punishment ; for few, if any, juries will inflict the death penalty if they can avoid the responsibility. (5) The City of Greater ISTew York, with its varied and rapidly changing population, is the last place in the world in which to try such an experiment. (6) We believe that a certain death penalty is the greatest deterrent against murder and that it is the duty of this Conven- tion to conserve the safety of those who otherwise might be victims of that crime. If the retention of the death penalty will cause the murders in this state to be any less in number than they otherwise would be, it should be retained. The practically iinanimous testimony of those who are charged with the adminis- tration of the criminal law is that, in their opinion, this retention would have that effect. Dated, Albany, N. Y., August — , 1915. Respectfully submitted, MORGAN J. O'BRIEN, J. G. SCHUR^IAN, GEORGE A. BUNCE, ALFRED G. REEVES, FRANCIS MARTIN. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 49 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON MILITIA AND MILITARY AFFAIRS, RELATIVE TO THE SEVERAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Sbptembee 2, 1915 Mr. Latson, from the Committee on Militia and Military Affairs, presented tlie following report: Your Committee on Militia and Military Affairs has retained under consideration several proposed amendments -and begs to submit this, its final report. Printed No. 266, by Mr. Heyman. Printed l^o. 439, by Mr. C. Mcoll. The purpose of these bills was to accord certain Civil Service recognition to members of the ISTational Guard, who had received or might be entitled to receive a full and honorable discharge. Tour Committee favor this proposition, and it has been com- mended by all commanding ofiicers of the National Guard who appeared before your Committee. The prevailing opinion has been, however, to the effect that while such a measure would be Doc. ]^To. id 2 meritorious and just, it is a matter more properly for considera- tion by the Legislature than for Constitutional enactment. Printed Ho. 675, by Mr. Tuck. This proposed amendment contemplates compulsory military service. There has been a strong desire on the part of your Com- mittee to devise and offer some affirmative suggestion designed to awaken a greater interest in military matters and to impress upon our community the necessity now so earnestly urged upon us from many quarters. For example, it has been suggested that all males between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, who receive scholarships from the Department of Education, should, in return, obligate them- selves to devote an appropriate share of their time to military training. Again, it has been suggested that in our Educational Article, a provision might wisely be inserted to the effect that our system of public education include some teaching in military science. This would have a marked effect upon the coaming generation and, if carried into our evening schools, its influence would be felt upon many now available for military service. All siich suggestions, however, including the provision for compulsory military service would seem properly within the scope of legislation and it has been deemed unwise to embody any such mandatory provisions in the Constitution. Printed ITo. 452, by Mr. Coles. Printed Ho. 544, by Mr. Bayes. Your Committee has been very earnestly requested to report one or the other of these proposed amendments, particularly in view of the fact that pro.visions of a similar nature are to be found in former Constitutions of this State. Your Committee direct attention to the lang-uage of our present Constitution on this subject which recognizes " such exemptions as are now or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or by the Legislature of this State." The Military Law of this State specifically prescribes that all persons exempt from '■') Doc. Xo. 40 military service under the laws of the United States shall be exempt in this State. Congress has declared an express exemp- tion in this regard by the Act of January 21, 1903. The exemp- tion there provided, thus controls both the State Constitution and the State Military Law. These proposed amendments have been under consideration by the Committee on Bill of Rights, as well as by your Committee on Militia and Military Affairs. Both Committees recognize and approve the underlying principle of religious toleration for which these amendments stand, but. regard their enactment as unneces- sary in view of the existing pro.visions of Constitutional and Statute Law above quoted. Printed No. 435, by Mr. Curran. This bill has likewise been under consideration jointly by your Committee on Militia and Military Affairs, and your Committee on Bill of Rights A difference of opinion has developed. Whide the Committee on Bill of Ri^its have reported this measure favorably with a slight change in phraseology, your Committee on Militia and Military Affairs disapprove the same. There are many civilians employed to accompany a military force. All such civilians are subject to Articles of War and regulations governing the military forces. They are triable by Courts Martial. To deny Military Courts this jurisdiction would substantially destroy discipline. This is true with reference to civilian teamsters, civilian clerks, civilian mechanics, civilian farriers, civilian hostlers and many others who are as much a part of the military force for the purpose of its mission as are the officers and soldiers who constitute its military personnel. There are many military offenses which do not constitute a crime under the provisions of our penal law, and it would be difficult to determine how such offenses could be dealt with, if the juris- diction of disciplinary courts were removed. Respectfully submitted, ALMET R. LATSOl^, Chairman. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 50 ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT ELIHU ROOT IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THE SHORT BALLOT AMENDMENT August 30, 1915. Mr. Root — Mr. Chairman. The Chairman — Mr. Eoot. Mr. Root — I have had great doubt whether or not I should impose any remarks on this bill upon the Con- vention, especially after my friend Mr. Quigg has so ingeniously made it difficult for me to speak; but I have been so long deeply interested in the subject of the bill, and I shall have so few opportunities hereafter, per- haps never another, that I cannot refrain from testify- ing to my faith in the principles of government which underlie the measure, and putting upon this record for whatever it may be worth the conclusions which I have reached upon the teachings of long experience in many Doc. No. 50 2 positions, through many years of participation in the public affairs of this State and in observation of them. I wish, in the first place, to say something suggested by the question of my friend, Mr. Brackett, as to where this short ballot idea came from. It came up out of the dark, he says. Let us see. In 1910, Grovernor Hughes, in his annual message, said this to the Legislature^ of the State : ' ' There should be a reduction in the number of elective offices. The ends of democracy will be better attained to the extent that the attention of the voters may be focused upon comparatively few offices, the incumbents of which can be strictly accountable for administration. This will tend to promote efficiency in public office by increasing the effectiveness of the voter and by dimin- ishing the opportunities of political manipulators who take advantage of the multiplicity of elective offices to perfect their schemes at the public expense. I am in favor of as few elective offices as may be consistent with proper accountability to the people, and a short ballot. It would be an improvement, I believe, in state admin- istration if the executive responsibility was centered in the governor, who should appoint a cabinet of ad- ministrative heads accountable to him and charged with the duties now imposed upon elected state offices." Following that message from Grovernor Hughes, to whom the people of this State look with respect and honor, a resolution for the amendment to the Consti- tution was introduced in the Assembly of 1910. That resolution provided for the appointment of all State officers, except the Q-ovemor and the Lieutenant- Governor. 3 Doc. No. 50 There was a hot contest upon the floor. Speaker "Wadsworth, " Young Jim," came down from the Speaker's chair to advocate the measure, and Jesse Phillips, sitting before me, voted for it. And so, in the practical affairs of this State, the movement out of which this bill came had its start upon the floor of the State Legislature. Hughes and Wadsworth, one drawing from his ex- perience as Governor and the other upon his observa- tions of public affairs, from the desk of the Speaker of the Assembly, were its sponsors. Time passed, and in 1912 the movement had gained such headway among the people of the State that the Republican Convention of that year declared its ad- herence to the principle of the short ballot, and the Progressive Convention, in framing their platform, under which 200,000 — it is safe, is it not, to say 200,- 000 — of the Republican voters of the State followed Roosevelt as their leader, rather than Taft. The Pro- gressive Convention, in framing that platform, de- clared : ' ' "We favor the short ballot principle and appropriate constitutional amendments." So two parties, and all branches of the Republican party at least, committed themselves to the position that Hughes and Wadsworth took, in the Assembly of 1910. In 1913, after the great defeat of 1912, when the Re- publicans of the State were seeking to bring back to their support the multitudes that had gone off with the Progressive movement, when they were seeking to offer a program of constructive forward movement in which the Republican party should be the leader. Re- publicans met in a great mass meeting in the city of New York, on the 5th of December of that year, 1913. Doc. No. 50 4 Nine hundred and seventy Republicans were there from all parts of the State. It was a crisis in the af- fairs of the Republican party. The party must com- mend itself to the people of the State, or it was gone. Twenty-eight members of this Convention were there, and in that meeting, free to all, open to full discussion, after amendments had been offered, discussed and voted upon, this resolution was adopted : '■' Whereas, this practice (referring to the long bal- lot) is also in violation of the best principles of organ- ization which require that the governor, who under the constitution is the responsible chief executive should be so in fact, and that he should have the power to select his official agents; " Therefore, be it Resolved that we favor the ap- plication to the State government of the principle of the Short Ballot, which is that only those offices should be elective which are important enough to attract ( and deserve) public examination " "And be it further Resolved, that, in com- pliance with this principle, we urge the representa- tives of the Republican party of this State, in the Sen- ate and Assembly, to support a resolution providing for the submission to the people. of an amendment to the constitution, under which amendment it will be the duty of the Grovernor to appoint the secretary of state, the state treasurer, the comptroller, the attorney-gen- eral, and the state engineer and surveyor, leaving only the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor as elective state executive officers." That resolution, I say, after full discussion was unanimously adopted by the 970 representative Re- 5 Doc. No. 50 publicans who had met there to present to the people of the State a constructive program for the party. Mr. Frederick C. Tanner is chairman of this Commit- tee on Governor and Other State Officers to-day, be- cause it was he who offered the resolution in that meeting that was unanimously approved by those 970 Eepublicans. He is executing a mandate. He is car- rying out a policy. He is fulfilling a pledge to the people. The time went on and the following winter, in the Assembly of 1914, a new resolution was introduced following the terms of this resolution of the mass meeting, following the terms of the Hughes-Wads- worth resolution of 1910, providing that all these State officers except the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor should be appointed. That resolution passed the As- sembly and every Republican in the Assembly voted for it. It never came to a vote in the Senate. Voting for that resolution were four members of the Assem- bly, who now sit in this Convention; Mr. Bockes, Mr. Eisner, Mr. Hinman, and Mr. Mathewson. Time passed on and in the autumn of 1914 a Repub- lican Convention met at Saratoga; an unofficial con- vention, we are told. Unofficial? Negligible! Here is the law under which it was called, Section 45 of the Election Law: " Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent a party from holding party conventions to be consti- tuted in such manner and to have such powers in relation to formulating party platforms and policies and the transaction of business relating to party af- fairs as the rules and regulations of the party may provide, not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. ' ' Doc. No. 50 6 That Convention was thus called more specifically and solemnly to frame a platform than any other Con- vention that ever met in this State, for that was its sole business. That is what it was there for, to define^ to declare, to set before the people the faith and poli- cies of the Republican party, and in that Convention there was a report from the Committee on Rules, which embodied deliberation, full discussion and mature judgment such as no report that ever came to a politi- cal convention within my experience ever had. The great mass meeting of December 5th, 1913, had directed the appointment of a Committee of Thirty to meet and consider and prepare for submission to the Convention a statement of the views of the Republican party regarding the new Constitution. That Commit- tee was appointed ; it met two or three days before the Convention in the city of Saratoga. It met in the office of my friend, Mr. Brackett, and there day after day it discussed the subject, reached and voted upon its conclusions and framed a report. Let me say here that Senator Brackett never agreed with the Committee. He has been consistent and honest and open in the declaration of his views from first to last, but he was voted down in the Committee of Thirty. Their report favoring a short ballot, among other things, was presented to the Convention. That re- port was referred to the Committee on Resolutions of the Convention, a Committee of 42 members, among them were twelve members of this Convention, and that Committee on Resolutions took up the report of the Committee of Thirty and discussed it all day and they voted upon it, and again Mr. Brackett 's view was voted down, and the Committee on Resolutions re- 7 Doc. No. 50 ported to the Convention the plank in favor of the short ballot that has been read to you. Mr. Brackett — Will the senator permit an interrup- tion? I know you have not intentionally made a mis- statement, but you will recall that a report of the Com- mittee of Thirty was not presented to the Committee on Platform until an hour before the Convention, in the little room at the end of the piazza — before the Convention met. The President — It is a fact, and that room was the scene of excited and hot controversy for a long period over the adoption of that report, which was in part adopted and in part rejected. Mr. Brackett — If you will pardon a suggestion, you said for a long period. It was, I think, about an hour and a half. Mr. Deyo — Will the gentleman give way? I think that lasted until the following day. Mr. Eoot — It did. Now, when it came to the Convention, there was no doubt about the subject we were talking on. The temporary chairman of the Convention had said to the Convention, ' ' The reflections which arise from con- sidering the relations of the Executive and the Legis- lature lead inevitably to another field of reform in State Government. That is, the adoption of the short ballot. That is demanded both for the efficiency of our electoral system and for the efficiency of govern- ment after election." And then, after stating the first, he proceeded: " The most obvious step toward simplifying the ballot in this State is to have the heads Doc. No. 50 8 of executive departments appointed by tlie Governor, etc. Still more important would be the effect of sucb a change upon the efficiency of government. The most important thing in constituting a government is to unite responsibility with power, so that a certain known person may be definitely responsible for what ought to be done; to be rewarded if he does it, pun- ished if he does not do it, and that the person held responsible shall have the power to do the thing. Under our system we have divided executive power among many separately elected heads of departments, and we have thus obscured responsibility, because in the complicated affairs of our government it is hard for the best informed to know who is to be blamed, or who is to be praised, who ought to be rewarded and who punished. At the same time that the Governor is empowered to appoint the heads of executive de- partments and made responsible for their conduct, there ought to be a general reorganization of the executive branch of our government." After that, Mr. Chairman, came the report of the Committee on Resolutions, and Mr. Brackett submitted a minority report, taking substantially the position which he has taken here. That minority report was read, and it was argued at length. Amendments were offered and discussed. Mr. Brackett, I repeat, was heard at length upon it, in what he then called the " great council of the party," and he was beaten; beaten fighting manfully for his opinions, but he was beaten. The Republican party went to the people at the coming election upon the declaration that it was in favor of applying the principle of the short ballot to the selection of executive officers. 9 Doc. No. 50 Now, let me turn to the other side of the story. When the resolution for the short ballot, simon-pure, making all the State officers but the Grovernor and Lieutenant- Governor appointive, was before the Assembly in 1914, Mr. A. E. Smith, the member of this Convention whose attractive personality has so impressed itself upon every member, moved an amendment to limit the change to appointment of the Secretary of State, State Engineer and Surveyor and State Treasurer, leaving the Comptroller and Attorney-General elective. Upon that amendment the Democrats of the Assembly stood, voting with him. When the Democratic convention met in that autumn they put themselves on Mr. Smith's platform, approved his action and that of the Demo- crats in the Assembly and declared in favor of exactly what he called for in his amendment — the election of the Comptroller and the Attorney-General and the ap- pointment of all the other officers. So you have this movement, not coming up out of the dark, but begun by a great Governor and advocated by a great Speaker, both of whom have received the ap- proval of their country, one by being elevated to the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States and the other to the Senate of the United States. You have the movement progressing step by step until it ha^ received the almost imiversal assent, the final and de- cisive action of the party to which that Governor and that Speaker belong, repeated over and over and over again, fully thought out and discussed; and you have the other party accepting the principle, agreeing to the application of it, with the exception of the Comptroller and the Attorney-General. Now, we must vote according to our consciences. We are not bound — no legislative body is bound legally Doc. No. 50 10 by a platform. But, Mr. Chairman, if there is faith in parties, if there is ever to be a party platform put out again, to which a man can subscribe or for which he can vote without a sense of futility, without a sense of being engaged in a confidence game ; if all the declara- tions of principle by political parties are not to be re- garded as false pretense, as humbug, as a parcel of lies, we must stand by the principles upon which we were all elected to this Convention. There is one thing, and, in so far as I know, only one thing, that the vast majority of us have assured the people who elected us we would do in this Convention, and that is that we would stand by the position of Hughes and Wadsworth. I, for one, am going to do it. If I form a correct judgment of the self-respecting men of this Convention, it will be with a great company that I do it. But, Mr. Chairman, don't let us rest on that. Why was it that these conventions, one after another, four of them, declared to the people that they were for the principle of this bill? In the first place, our knowledge of human nature shows us that the thousands of ex- perienced men in these conventions and meetings had come to the conclusion that that principle met with the opinion of the people of the State. It is all very well for Mr. Quigg to tell us what the men he met in Co- lumbia county said, for Mr. Green to write letters to his friends in Binghamton, but 970 men in that mass meeting on the 5th of December told you what their observation was, that they would commend their partj^ to the people of this State by declaring this principle. A thousand and odd men in the Eepublican conventions of 1912, 1913 and 1914 have given proof conclusive of what their observation of public opinion was. A thou- 11 Doc. No. 50 sand and odd men in the Democratic convention of 1914 iave given proof conclusive of what their observation 'Of public opinion was. Conventions don't put planks in platforms to drive away votes. Again I ask, why was it that they thought that these principles would commend their tickets to the people ■of the State? Why was it that the people of the State liad given evidence to these thousands of experienced men in the politics of the State that those principles would be popular? Well, of course, you cannot escape the conclusion that it was because the people of the State found something wrong about the government of the State. My friend, Mr. Brackett, sees nothing wrong about it. He has been for fifteen years in the ■Senate ; I suppose he could have stayed there as long as he wanted to. He is honored and respected and has his own way in Saratoga county. Why should he see anything wrong? My friend, Mr. Green, is comfortably settled in the Excise Department, and he sees nothing wrong. Mr. Chairman, there never was a reform in administration in this world which did not have to make its way against the strong feeling of good, honest men, concerned in existing methods of administration, and who saw nothing wrong. Never ! It is no impeach- ment to a man's honesty, his integrity, that he thinks the methods that he is familiar with and in which he is ■engaged are all right. But you cannot make any im- provement in this world without overriding the satis- faction that men have in the things as they are, and of which they are a contented and successful part. I say that the growth, extension, general acceptance of this principle shows that all these experienced politicians and citizens in all these Conventions felt that the peo- Doc. No. 50 12 pie of the State saw something wrong in our State government, and we are here charged with a duty, not of closing our eyes, but of opening them, and seeing, if we can, what it was that was wrong. Now, anybody can see that all these 152 outlying- agencies, big and little, lying around loose, accountable to nobody, spending all the money they could get, violate every principle of economy, of efficiency, of the proper transaction of business. Everyone can see tliat all around us are political organizations carrying on the business of government, that have learned their lesson from the great business organizations which have been so phenomenally successful in recent years. The governments of our cities : Why, twenty years ago, when James Bryce wrote his "American Common- wealth," the government of American cities was a by- word and a shame for Americans all over the world. Heaven be thanked, the government of our cities has, now gone far toward redeeming itself and us from that disgrace, and the government of American cities to- day is in the main far superior to the government of American States. I challenge contradiction to that statement. How has it been reached? How have our cities been lifted up from the low grade of incompe- tency and corruption on which they stood when the "American Commonwealth " was written? It has been done by applying the principles of this bill to city government, by giving power to the men elected by the people to do the things for which they were elected. So I say it is quite plain that that is not all. It is not all. I am going to discuss a subject now that goes back to the beginning of the political life of the oldest man 13 Doc. No. 50 in this Convention, and one to which we cannot close our eyes, if we keep the obligations of our oath. We talk about the government of the Constitution. We have spent many days in discussing the powers of this and that and the other officer. What is the govern- ment of this State? What has it been during the forty years of my acquaintance with it? The government of the Constitution? Oh, no; not half the time, or half way. When I ask what do the people find wrong in our State government, my mind goes back to those periodic fits of public rage in which the peo- ple rouse up and tear down the political leader, first of one party and then of the other party. It goes on to the public feeling of resentment against the control of party organizations, of both parties and of all parties. Now, I treat this subject in my own mind not as a personal question to any man. I am talking about the system. From the days of Fenton, and Conkling, and Arthur and Cornell, and Piatt, from the days of David B. Hill, down to the present time the government of the State has presented two different lines of activity, one of the constitutional and statutory officers of the State, and the other of the party leaders, — they call them party bosses. They call the system — I don't coin the phrase, I adopt it because it carries its own meaning — the system they call ' ' invisible govern- ment ". For I don't remember how many years, Mr. Conkling was the supreme ruler in this State; the Governor did not count, the legislatures did not count ; comptrollers and secretaries of state and what not, did not count. It was what Mr. Conkling said, and in a great outburst of public rage he was pulled down. Doc. No. 50 14 Then Mr. Piatt ruled the State ; for nigh upon twenty years he ruled it. It was not the Grovernor ; it was not the Legislature ; it was not any elected officers ; it was Mr. Piatt. And the capitol was not here ; it was at 49 Broadway ; Mr. Piatt and his lieutenants. It makes no difference what name you give, whether you call it Fen- ton or Cohkling or Cornell or Arthur or Piatt, or by the names of men now living. The ruler of the State dur- ing the greater part of the forty years of my acquaint- ance with the State government has not been any man authorized by the Constitution or by the law, and, sir, there is throughout the length and breadth of this State a deep and sullen and long-continued resentment at being governed thus by men not of the people's choosing. The party leader is elected by no one, ac- countable to no one, bound by no oath of office, remov- able by no one. Ah ! My friends here have talked about this bill's creating an autocracy. The word points with admirable facility the very opposite reason for the bill. It is to destroy autocracy and restore power so far as may be to the men elected by the people, accountable to the people, removable by the people. I don't criticise the men of the invisible government. How can I! I have known them all, and among them have been some of my dearest friends. I can never forget the deep sense of indignation that I felt in the abuse that was heaped upon Chester A. Arthur, whom I honored and loved, when he was attacked because he held the position of political leader. But it is all wrong. It is all wrong that a government not author- ized by the people should be continued superior to the government that is authorized by the people. How is it accomplished? How is it done? Mr. 15 Doc. No. 50 Chairman, it is done by the use of patronage, and the patronage that my friends on the other side of this question have been arguing and pleading for in this Convention is the power to continue that invisible government against that authorized by the people. Everywhere, sir, that these two systems of govern- ment co-exist, there is a conflict day by day, and year by year, between two principles of appointment to office, two radically opposed principles. The elected officer or the appointed officer, the lawful officer who is to be held responsible for the administration of his office, desires to get men into the different positions of his office who will do their work in a way that is credit- able to him and his administration. Whether it be a president appointing a judge, or a governor appoint- ing a superintendent of public works, whatever it may be, the officer wants to make a success, and he wants to get the man selected upon the ground of his ability to do the work. How is it about the boss ? What does the boss have to do ? He has to urge the appointment of a man whose appointment will consolidate his power and preserve the organization. The invisible government pro- ceeds to build up and maintain its power by a reversal of the fundamental principle of good govern- ment, which is that men should be selected to per- form the duties of the office ; and to substitute the idea that men should be appointed to office for the preserva- tion and enhancement and power of the political leader. The one, the true one, looks upon appoint- ment to office with a view to the service that can be given to the public. The other, the false one, looks upon appointment to office with a view to what can be Doc. No. 50 16 gotten out of it. Gentlemen of tlie Convention, I ap- peal to your knowledge of facts. Every one of you knows that what I say about the use of patronage under the system of invisible government is true. Louis Marshall told us the other day about the appoint- ment of wardens in the Adirondacks, hotel keepers and people living there, to render no service whatever. They were appointed not for the service that they were to render to the State; they were appointed for the service they were to render to promote the power of a political organization. Mr. Chairman, we all know that the halls of this capitol swarm with men during the session of the Legislature on pay day. A great number, seldom here, rendering no service, are put on the payrolls as a matter of patronage, not of service, but of party patronage. Both parties are alike; all parties are alike. The system extends through all. Ah, .Mr. Chairman, that system finds its opportunity in the division of powers, in a six-headed executive, in which, by the natural workings of human nature there shall be opposition and discord and the playing of one force against the other, and so, when we refuse to make one Governor elected by the people the real chief executive, we make inevitable the setting up of a chief executive not selected by the people, not acting for the people's interest, but for the selfish interest of the few who control the party, whichever party it may be. Think for a moment of what this patronage system means. How many of you are there who would be will- ing to do to your private client, or customer, or any private trust, or to a friend or neighbor, what you see being done to the State of New York every year of your lives in the taking of money out of her treasury 17 Doc. No. 50 without service? We can, when we are in a private station, pass on without mucli attention to inveterate abuses. We can say to ourselves, I know it is wrong, I wish it could be set right ; it cannot be set right, I will do nothing. But here, here, we face the duty, we can- not escape it, we are bound to do our work, face to face, in clear recognition of the truth, unpalatable, deplor- able as it may be, and the truth is that what the un- erring instinct of the democracy of our State has seen in this government is that a different standard of mor- ality is applied to the conduct of affairs of State than that which is applied in private affairs. I have been told forty times since this Convention met that you cannot change it. We can try, can't we I I deny that we cannot change it. I repel that cynical assumption which is born of the lethargy that comes from poisoned air during all these years. I assert that this perver- sion of democracy, this robbing democracy of its viril- ity, can be changed as truly as the system under which Walpole governed the commons of England, by brib- ery, as truly as the atmosphere which made the credit mobilier scandal possible in the Congress of the United States has been blown away by the force of public opinion. We cannot change it in a moment, but we can do our share. We can take this one step toward, not robbing the people of their part in government, but toward robbing an irresponsible autocracy of its inde- fensible and unjust and undemocratic control of gov- ernment, and restoring it to the people to be exercised by the men of their choice and their control. Mr. Chairman, this Convention is a great event in the life of every man in this room. A body which sits but once in twenty years to deal with the fundamental Doc. No. 50 18 law of the State deals not only for the present but for the future, not only by its results but by its example. Opportunity knocks at the door of every man in this as- semblage, an opportunity which will never come again to most of us. While millions of men are fighting and dying for their countries across the ocean, while gov- ernment has become serious, sober, almost alarming in its effect upon the happiness of the lives of all that are dearest to us, it is our inestimable privilege to do some- thing here in moving our beloved State along the path- way towards better and purer government, a more pervasive morality and a more effective exorcise of the powers of government which preserve the liberty of the people. When you go back to your homes and re- view the record of the summer, you wUl find in it a cause for your children and your children's children, who will review the Convention of 1915 as we have been re- viewing the work of the preceding Conventions, to say,, my father, my grandfather, helped to do this work for our State. Mr. Chairman, there is a plain old house in the Oneida hills, overlooking the valley of the Mohawk,, where truth and honor dwelt in my youth. When I go back, as I am about to go, to spend my declining years, I mean to go with the feeling that I have not failed to speak and to act here in accordance with the lessons I learned there from the God of my fathers. Grod grant that this opportunity for service to our coun- try and our State may not be neglected by any of the men for whom I feel so deep a friendship in this Convention. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 51 REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON REVISION AND ENGROSSMENT, PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF THE CONVENTION AND RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 4, 1915, PRESENTING THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE WITH THE AMENDMENTS THERETO ADOPTED BY THE CONVENTION, PROPERLY INSERTED, WITH SUCH CHANGES AS THE COMMITTEE DEEMED IT ADVISABLE TO INCORPORATE THEREIN September 9, 1915 To the Convention: Since the recess of the convention on September fourth the Committee on Eevision and Engrossment has been engaged in preparing a draft of the present constitution of the state and in inserting therein the amendments adopted by this convention. The draft prepared by the committee has been compared with the original draft of the constitution of 1894 on deposit in the state library and with the engrossed copies of the amendments sioo. Ifo. 51 4 Uniform, because it found that there was an appropriateness in most cases in using the particular form that was employed. Likewise the expressions " the constitution " and " this con- stitution " appear without any discrimination in their use. The committee, with one or two exceptions, has made the reference to the constitution read " this constitution ". In the following instances this has been done: Page 56, line 21; page 57, line 7; page 59, line 7; page 59, line 9 ; page 67, line 19 ; page 67, line 31 ; page 68, line 13 ; page 68, line 40. In amendments adopted by this convention the word " electors " has been substituted for the word " voters ". The word " voters " however occurs in two instances in the existing constitution, and in these cases it has been changed to the word " electors " to make the use of terms for the same subject uniform. This change has been made in the following instances: Page 8, line 14, and page 8, line 15. The word " people " has been changed to the word " electors " a/t page 51, line 37, the former word being plainly erroneously used. The words " constitute a quorum " which is the expression com- monly employed, have been used in place of the words " form a quorum". (See page 33, line 31; page 34, line 10.) Where the salary of an officer is specified the expression " annual salary " has been employed instead of the expression a specified salary " per year ", in order to make the language in this respect uniform. (See page 37, lines 1 and 2.) The prevailing expression used in the constitution in designating the month and the day of the month is, for instance, " the first day of January " and not " January first ". The former expres- sion has been used in the proposed draft of the constitution for the sake of uniformity. It seems imnecessary to call attention to these changes in detail. Likewise, the prevailing expression in designating the year is, for instance, " one thousand nine hundred and fifteen " and not . "nineteen hundred and fifteen ". The latter has been used in the recent amendments made to the constitution of 1894, but the com- mittee feels that in a formal document like the constitution of the state it is well to follow the expression " one thousand nine hun- 5 Doc. No. 51 dred and fifteen " instead of the less formal expression " nineteen hundred and fifteen ". The expression " yeas and nays " is the predominant one in the constitution in reference to voting in that manner and in the only instance where " ayes and noes " appears the expression has been changed to " yeas and nays ". (See page 46, line 12.) The spelling of the word " moneys " which in one instance is spelled " m-o-n-i-e-s " has been made to read " m-o-n-e-y-s " where it appears in the constitution. (See page 20, line 37.) The word " residue " as applied to the unexpired term of an office where a vacancy occurs has been changed to " remainder ", which is used in nearly all instances in the present constitution. (See page 12, line 30 ; page 40, line 6.) In view of the change in the language of the constitution relat- ing to the enumeration of the inhabitants of the state which will not require such an enumeration except where a federal census is not available, it became necessary to change the language of the constitution in some places. For instance, on page 1, line 35, the word "state" has been stricken out and the remainder of the line after the word " enu- meration ", and all before the word " electors " on line 36, and after the word " preceding " the words " federal or state census " have been inserted ", so that the sentence will read " In cities and villages having five thousand inhabitants or more, according to the last preceding federal or state census or enumeration ", etc., and on page 28, line 15, after the word " every " there has been in- serted the words " federal census or state " and there has been stricken out on line 16, the words " under the constitution, of the inhabitants of the state " so that the sentence will read " The legis- lature may alter the judicial districts once after every federal census or state enumeration," etc. Page 28, line 23, the words " state, or " have been omitted and the words " or state ", have been inserted after the word " federal ", so as to make the language uniform with the change made in a preceding part of the same section, and on page 28, line 26, the words "state or" have been stricken out and after the word " federal " have been inserted the words " or state " for a like reason. Page 28, line 20, the letter "s" is added to the word "dis- trict ". ■• Page 63, line 15, insert after the word "latest" the words Doc. No. 51 6 " federal or " and after the word " state " the words " census or " so that the sentence will read "All cities are classified according to the latest federal or state census or enumeration ". The committee has not in all instances brought the parts of verbs together, but an exception has been made on page thirteen in section ten, on account of the wide separation of the verb " may convene ", and has eliminated the word " may " from line one and inserted it before the word " convene " in line four. Likewise after the word " assembly " in line six the word " may " has been eliminated and inserted before the word " convene " in line eight. On page 15, line 35, a reference appears to article seven of the existing constitution. On account of the renumbering of the arti- cles it has been necessary to change this reference to " nine " ; and in order to make the reference specific it has also been neces- sary to add after the word " constitution " the words " or section four of former article seven thereof as in force on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ten." On page 17, line 26, the word " political " has been changed to " civil ", and again on line 28, to make the expression corre- spond with the usual term employed in the remainder of the con- stitution. Page 21, lines 30 and 31, the words " and the comptroller " have been stricken out and the comma after the word " governor " and the word " and " has been inserted after the word " gov- ernor ", because the comptroller has been made the head of one of the departments of the state government. Page 22, line 37, after the word " the " the words " head of the " have been inserted and the words " administered by " have been stricken out to make the expression uniform with the other subdivisions of section 2 in designating the head of the department. Page 33, line 15, the word " whom " has been changed to " which " to correct an obvious grammatical error. Page 20, line 11, the word " their " has been changed to " its ", to correct a grammatical error. Page 41, line 12, after the word " sessions " the words " in and " have been inserted to perfect the reference to the " court of general sessions in and for the city and county of New York" , which is the name of the existing court. Page 48, line 39, and page 49, line 1, the words " state commis- sion of highways" have been stricken_out_aTid the words " snner- Y Doo. No. 51 intendent of public works " have been inserted in their stead, be- cause under this constitution the superintendent of public works has charge of the highways of the state. Page 49, line 4, change the word " it " to " he ". Page 51, line 24, the word " ten " has been stricken out and the word " thirteen " inserted to correct a reference, which is made necessary by the renumbering of articles. Page 59, line 2, the word " supplying " has been stricken out and the word " filling " inserted in its place to correct a bad use of English. Page 62, lines 27 to 31, the language relating to the adoption of new charters by cities was confused, and the committee has in- serted in line 29 a comma after " seventeen ", and in line 30 a comma after " provide " and after the word " thereafter " the words " either at the general or at a special election ", so that the sentence will read "At the general election in the year one thou- sand nine hundred and seventeen, and unless its charter after one revision thereof shall otherwise provide, in every eighth year thereafter either at the general or at a special election, every city shall submit to the electors thereof, the question " Shall there be a commission to revise the charter of the city ? ". Page 67, line 26, the word " each" has been changed to the word " such ", to correct an obvious error. Page 69, line 22, the word " nine " has been changed to the word " seven " to correct the reference made necessary by the renumber- ing of the articles. On page 69, line 26, the words " such " and " seven " have been stricken out, and on line 27 the words " as amended " and there have been inserted after the word " article " the words " nine of this constitution ". Page 68, line 5, the words " next ensuing after " have been stricken out and the word "following" has been inserted. Page 45, line 13, the letter " s " is added to the word " office ". The committee found it necessary by reason of the creation of new articles and new sections to renumber the articles and sections in some instances. These changes appear in the schedule which is attached to this report, so that it is not deemed necessary to call attention to them specifically. All of the references in the proposed constitution have been checked up and are believed to be correct. Doc. No. 51 8 All the changes reported by the committee, it is believed, come within the power of the committee to correct inaccuracies and in- consistencies. The committee has made no intentional change of substance. Accompanying this report is a draft of the present constitution incorporating all of the amendments made by this convention and embodying all of the changes above indicated. This draft of the constitution is preceded by an index of the articles giving the subject of each and is followed by a schedule showing the source of the various articles of the proposed constitution, the distribution of the sections of the present constitution and also the source of the sections of the proposed constitution marked Schedules A, B and C. In pursuance of the rules of the convention and the resolutions adopted by the convention, the committee has directed the prepara- tion of an original draft of the proposed constitution on parchment and also has under preparation copies from the original plates which will be suitably bound and delivered to the members of the convention as soon as it can be done. The list of articles preceding the draft of the constitution and the schedules following it have been submitted merely for the convenience of the members of the convention and form no part of the original draft of the constitution reported by the committee. We desire to express our appreciation for the valuable services of Mr. Benton S. Rude, the parliamentary draftsman attached to the committee, and to Gfeorge W. Munson, its stenographer, and also for faithful services of Charles H. Clark, who has been in the service of the conxmittee during the past few weeks, and to Frederick D. Colson and John T. Fitzpatrick, who have assisted the committee in the reading of the proofs. EespectfuUy submitted, AdOLPH J. EoDENBECK, Chairman Lemuel E. Quigg, William S. Osteandee, Chables H. Betts, William E,. Bates, Haret W. Newbuegee, Timothy A. Leaet. Gommittee. STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONVENTION DOCUMENT No. 52 THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WITH THE AMENDMENTS THERETO, ADOPTED BY THE CONVENTION OF 1915, PROPERLY INSERTED, REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION AND ENGROSSMENT PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF THE CONVENTION AND RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 4, 1915 INDEX TO ARTICLES No. Subject No. Subject I. Civil rights. XL Corporations; municipal II. Elective franchise. debts; boards and com- III. Legislature. missions. IV. Executive. XII. Education. V. Appropriations and budget. XIII. Officers generally. VI. State departments. XIV. Military. VII. Conservation. XV. Cities and villages. nil. Judiciary. XVI. Official corruption. IX. State debts. XVII. Constitutional amendments. X. Taxation. XVIII. Time of taking effect. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution. AETICLE I. Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. Doc. No. 52 2 Aeticle I Section 2. The trial by jury in all cases in which it has been heretofore used shall remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law. Section 3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious pro- fession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all mankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of con- science hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state. Section 4. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require its suspension. Section 5. Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be in- flicted, nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained. Section 6. Except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land and naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of congress in time of peace, and in cases of petit larceny, under the regulation of the legislature, no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on pre- sentment or indictment of a grand jury. Any person may, how- ever, in the manner prescribed by law after examination or com- mitment by a magistrate, waive indictment and trial by jury on a charge of felony punishable by not exceeding five years imprison- ment, or of an indictable misdemeanor, all subsequent proceed- ings being had by information before a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge or justice thereof. In any trial in any court whatever the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel as in civil actions, and in any criminal case shall have the right to at least one ap- peal. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law ; nor be denied the equal protection of the laws ; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Article I 3 Doc. No. 52 Section 7. (a) When private property shall be taken for any public use, the compensation to be made therefor, when such compensation is not made by the state, shall be ascertained by the supreme court without a jury, but not with a referee, or by one or more supreme court commissioners or, within the third and fourth judicial departments and such part of the second judicial department not within the city of New York by not less than three commissioners appointed by a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law. Where the proceedings are instituted by a civil division of the state, compensation shall be paid before such taking, unless the supreme court, after hearing, because of public necessity shall otherwise direct. (b) Private roads may be opened in the manner to be pre- scribed by law; but in every case the necessity of the road and the amount of all damage to be sustained by the opening thereof shall be first determined by a jury of freeholders, and such amount, together with the expenses of the proceeding, shall be paid by the person to be benefited. (c) General laws may be passed permitting the owners or occupants of swamp or agricultural lands to construct and main- tain for the drainage thereof, necessary drains, ditches and dikes upon the lands of others, under proper restrictions on making just compensation, which shall be assessed against the property benefited thereby. (d) The legislature may authorize cities to take more land and property than is needed for actual construction in the laying out, widening, extending or relocating parks, public places, high- ways or streets; provided, however, that the additional land and property so authorized to be taken shall be no more than sufficient to form suitable building sites abutting on such park, public place, highway or street. After so much of the land and property has been appropriated for such park, public place, highway or street as is needed therefor, the remainder may be sold or leased. The legislature may also authorize cities, for the establishment of a uniform system of streets, to take real property within an aban- doned street or highway and to sell and lease it. Section 8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the Doc. No. 52 4 Aeticle I jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Section 9. No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted other- wise than by due judicial proceedings; nor shall any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or any other kind of gambling hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state; and the legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section. Section 10. The people of this state, in their right of sover- eignty, are deemed to possess the original and ultimate property in and to all lands within the jurisdiction of the state; and all lands the title to which shall fail, from a defect of heirs, shall revert, or escheat to the people. Section 11. All feudal tenures of every description, with all their incidents, are declared to be abolished, saving however, all rents and services certain which at any time heretofore have been lawfully created or reserved. Section 12. All lands within this state are declared to be allodial, so that, subject only to the liability to escheat, the entire and absolute property is vested in the owners, according to the nature of their respective estates. Section 13. ISTo lease or grant of agricultural land, for a longer period than twelve years, hereafter made, in which shall be re- served any rent or service of any kind, shall be valid. Section 14. All fines, quarter sales, or other like restraints upon alienation, reserved in any grant of land hereafter to be made, shall be void. Section 15. ~No purchase or contract for the sale of lands in this state, made since the fourteenth day of October, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five ; or which may hereafter be made, of, or with the Indians, shall be valid unless made under the au- thority, and with the consent of the legislature. The peace- makers' courts of the Tonawanda nation, the peacemakers' courts and surrogates' courts of the Seneca nation and all other agencies of the Indian tribes and nations in so far as they exercise judicial Aktiole I 5 Doc. No. 52 functions are hereby abolished, and their jurisdiction shall vest in the courts of the state. All actions and proceedings now pending in such courts and agencies of the Indian nations and tribes shall be transferred for determination to the proper courts of the state. Except as otherwise provided by the treaties of this state and the constitution, treaties and laws of the United States, all general laws of the state, now or hereafter in force, shall apply to all In- dians within the state. The legislature shall provide for the pre- servation of the judicial records of the Indian tribes and nations. Section 16. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of such colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of such colony, and of the convention of the state of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered ; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and con- tinue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated. Section 17. All grants of land within this state, made by the king of Great Britain, or persons acting under his authority, after the fourteenth day of October, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be null and void ; but nothing contained in this constitution shall affect any grants of land within this state, made by the authority of the said king or his predecessors, or shall annul any charters to bodies politic and corporate, by him or them made, before that day; or shall affect any such grants or charters since made by this state, or by persons acting under its authority ; or shall impair the obligation of any debts contracted by the state, or individuals, or bodies corporate, or any other rights of prop- erty, or any suits, actions, rights of action, or other proceedings in courts of justice. Section 18. Except in the cases provided for in the next section, the right of action now existing to recover damages for injuries resulting in death shall never be abrogated and the amount re- coverable shall not be subject to any statutory limitation. Doc. No. 52 6 Article I Section 19. ISTothing contained in this constitution shall be construed to limit the power of the legislature to enact laws for the protection of the lives, health or safety of employees ; or for the payment, either by employers, or by employers and employees or otherwise, either directly or through a state or other system of insurance or otherwise, of compensation for injuries to or occupa- tional diseases of employees or for death of employees resulting from such injuries or diseases without regard to fault as a cause thereof, except where the injury is occasioned by the wilful inten- tion of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or of another, or where the injury results solely from the intoxication of the injured employee while on duty ; or for the ad- justment, determination and settlement, with or without trial by jury, of issues which may arise imder such legislation; or pro- viding that the right to such compensation, and the remedy therefor shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies for such injuries or diseases or death. But all moneys paid by an employer, by reason of the enactment of any of the laws herein authorized, shall be deemed a part of the cost of operating the business of the employer. AETICLE II. Section 1. Every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a citizen for ninety days, and an inhabitant of this state one year next preceding an election, and for the last four months a resident . of the county and for the last thirty da}'s a resident of the election district in which he may offer his vote, shall be entitled to vote at such election in the election district of which he shall at the time be a resident, and not elsewhere, for all oiBcers that now are or hereafter may be elective by the people; and upon all questions which may be submitted to the vote of the people, provided that in time of war no elector in the actual military service of the state, or of the United States, in the army or navy thereof, shall be deprived of his vote by reason of his absence from such election district ; and the legislature shall have power to provide the manner in which and the time and place at which such absent electors may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election dis- tricts in which they respectively reside. Section 2. JSTo person who shall receive, accept, or offer to receive, or pay, offer or promise to pay, contribute, offer or promise to ^^^"^^^ " 7 Doc. m. 52 contribute to another, to be paid or used, any money or other valuable thing as a compensation or reward for the giving or withholding a vote at an election, or who shall make any promise to influence the giving or withholding any such vote, or who shall make or become directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, shall vote at such election ; and upon challenge for such cause, the person so challenged, before the officers authorized for that purpose shall receive his vote, shall swear or affirm before such officers that he has not received or offered, does not expect to receive, has not paid, offered or promised to pay, contributed, offered or promised to contribute to another, to be paid or used, any money or other valuable thing as a compensation or reward for the giving or withholding a vote at such election, and has not made any promise to influence the giving or withholding of any such vote, nor made or become directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of such election. The legislature shall enact laws excluding from the right of suffrage all persons con- victed of bribery or of any infamous crime. Section 3. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence, by reason of his presence or absence, while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state, or of the United States, or of the high seas ; nor while a student of any seminary of learning ; nor while kept at any alms-house, or other asylum, or institution wholly or partly supported at public ex- pense, or by charity; nor while confined in any public prison. Section 4. Laws shall be made for the regulation of elections and for ascertaining by proper proofs the electors who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established and for their annual registration, which shall be completed at least fifteen days before each general election. Such registration shall not be re- quired for town and village elections except by express provision of law. In cities and villages having five thousand inhabitants or more, according to the last preceding federal or state census or enumeration, electors shall be registered upon personal application only. Laws may be made providing for special registration therein on personal application before such boards or officers as the legislature shall designate, on a day or days not more than five months prior to the day of election, of such electors as shall then declare under oath that they are engaged in a regular voca- tion or occupation which will occasion their absence from the Doc. No. 52 ' 8 Aeticle II county during each of the regular days of registration. Such laws shall require electors so specially registered to establish, on the first regular day of registration, their continued right to vote in the election district for which they were registered but shall not require further personal appearance. Electors not residing in such cities or villages shall not be required to apply in person for registration at the first meeting of the officers having charge of the registry of electors. Section 5. All elections by the citizens, except for such town officers as may by law be directed to be otherwise chosen, shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law, provided that secrecy in voting be preserved. ■Section 6. All laws creating, regulating or affecting boards or officers charged with the duty of registering electors, or of distribut- ing ballots at the polls to electors, or of receiving, recording or counting votes at elections, shall secure equal representation of the two political parties which, at the general election next preced- ing that for which such boards or officers are to serve, cast the highest and the next highest number of votes. All such boards and officers shall be appointed or elected in such manner, and upon the nomination of such representatives of such parties re- spectively, as the legislature may direct. Existing laws on this subject shall continue until the legislature shall otherwise pro- vide. This section shall not apply to town meetings or to vil- lage elections. AETICLE III. Section 1. The legislative power of this state shall be vested in the senate and assembly. Section 2. The senate shall consist of fifty members except as hereinafter provided. They shall be chosen for two years. The assembly shall consist of one hundred and fifty members, who shall be chosen for one year. Section 3. The state shall be divided into fifty districts to be called senate districts, each of which shall choose one senator. The districts shall be numbered from one to fifty, inclusive. The senate districts shall remain as at present constituted until altered as hereinafter provided. Section 4. Such senate districts shall be so altered by the legis- lature at the first regular session after the return of and based upon the state enumeration taken in the year one thousand nine Article III 9 Doc. No. 52 hundred and fifteen and slaall remain unaltered until altered as hereinafter provided. At the regular session of the legislature in the year after the tabulation of each federal census the senate dis- tricts shall be altered by the legislature. Senate districts altered as herein provided shall remain unaltered until the time herein appointed for another alteration. Provided, hovpever, that if a federal census shall not be available for any such alteration the same shall be based upon an enumeration of the inhabitants of the state, excluding aliens, and the legislature shall provide for such an enumeration for that purpose. In making such alterations the legislature shall so provide that each senate district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, and be in as compact form as practicable and shall, at all times, consist of contiguous territory, and no county shall be di- vided in the formation of a senate district except to make two, or more, senate districts wholly in such county. No town and no block in a city inclosed by streets or public ways shall be divided in the formation of senate districts; nor shall any district contain a greater excess in population over an adjoining district in the same county than the population of a town or block therein adjoining such district. Counties, towns or blocks which, from their location, may be included in either of two districts, shall be so placed as to make such districts most nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. ISTo county shall have four or more senators unless it shall have a full ratio for each senator. ISTo county shall have more than one-third of all the senators; and no two counties or the territory thereof as or- ganized on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five, which are adjoining counties or which are sepa- rated only by public waters shall have more than one-half of all the senators. The ratio for apportioning senators shall always be obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, by fifty and the senate shall always be composed of fifty mem- bers, except that if any county having three or more senators at the time of any apportionment shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator or senators, such additional sena- tor or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty senators, and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent. Section 5. The members of the assembly shall be chosen by single districts and shall be apportioned by the legislature at the first reo'ular session after the return of the state enumeration taken Doc. No. 52 10 Article III in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifteen among the several counties of the state. At the regular session of the legisla- ture in each year in which senate districts shall be altered such members of the assembly shall again be apportioned by the legis- lature. Apportionments of members of assembly shall remain un- altered until the time herein appointed for another apportionment thereof. Every apportionment of members among the several counties of the state shall be as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, excluding aliens. J5very county heretofore established and separately organized, except the county of Hamilton, shall always be entitled to one member of assembly, and no county shall hereafter be erected unless its population shall entitle it to a member. The county of Hamilton shall elect with the county of Fulton until the popula- tion of the county of Hamilton shall, according to the ratio, en- title it to a member. The quotient obtained by dividing the whole number of in- habitants of the state, excluding aliens, by the number of members of assembly, shall be the ratio for apportionment which shall be made as follows : one member of assembly shall be apportioned to every county, including Fulton and Hamilton as one county, containing less than the ratio and one-half over. Two members shall be apportioned to every other county. The remaining mem- bers of assembly shall be apportioned to the counties having more than two ratios according to the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. Members apportioned on remainders shall be apportioned to the counties having the highest remainders in the order thereof respectively. ISTo county shall have more members of assembly than a county having a greater number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. In any county entitled to more than one member, the board of supervisors or if there be none, the board or body exercising similar functions, and in any city embracing an entire county, or more than one county, and having no board of supervisors, the members elected from each county to the board of aldermen or if there be none, the body most nearly exercising the powers of a board of aldermen shall assemble on the second Tuesday of June, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, and at such other times as the legislature thereafter making an apportionment, as herein- after provided, shall prescribe, and divide each county into assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, ex- cluding aliens, as may be, of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable, each of which shall be wholly Article III 21 Doc. No. 52 within a senate district formed under the same apportionment, equal to the number of members of assembly to which such county shall be entitled, and shall cause to be filed in the office of the secretary of state and of the clerk of such county, a description of such districts, specifying the number of each district and of the inhabitants thereof, excluding aliens, according to the last preceding state enumeration, or if no state enumeration shall have been taken within a period of five years prior to such appor- tionment, then according to the preceding federal census; and such apportionment and districts shall remain unaltered until another federal census shall be made. In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be evenly divided among the senate districts of any county, in which case one more assembly district shall be put in the senate district in such county having the largest, or one less assembly district shall be put in the senate district in such county having the smallest number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as the case may require. No town, and no block in a city inclosed by streets or public ways, shall be divided in the formation of assembly districts, nor shall any district contain a greater excess in population over an adjoining district in the same senate district than the population of a town or block therein adjoining such assembly district. Towns or blocks which from their loca- tion may be included in either of two assembly districts shall be so placed as to make such assembly districts most nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. But in the division of cities except cities of the first class under the first apportionment, regard shall be had to the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, of the election districts according to the state enumeration of one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, so far as may be, in- stead of blocks. Nothing in this section shall prevent the division at any time of counties and towns and the erection of new counties and towns by the legislature. Assembly districts as at present con- stituted shall remain unaltered until altered as herein provided. An apportionment by the legislature or other body shall be subject to review by the supreme court at the suit of any citizen, under such reasonable regulations as the legislature may pre- scribe; and any court before which a cause may be pending in- volving an apportionment shall give precedence thereto over all Doc. No. 52 12 Aeticle III other causes and proceedings, and if such court be not in session it shall convene promptly for the disposition of the same. Section 6. The elections of senators and members of assembly, pursuant to the provisions of this constitution, shall be held on the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday of E^ovember, unless othervs'ise directed by the legislature. Section Y. The political year and legislative term shall begin on the first day of January ; and the legislature shall, every year, assemble on the first Wednesday in January. Section 8. Each member of the legislature shall receive for his services an annual salary of two thousand five hundred dollars. The members of each house shall also receive the railroad fare ac- tually paid in going to and returning from their place of meeting on the most usual route, but not of tener than once each week during any session of the legislature. Such railroad fare shall be repaid only on the verified voucher of the member entitled thereto after audit by the comptroller. Senators, when the senate' alone is convened in extraordinary session, or when serving as members of the court for the trial of impeachments, and such members of the assembly, not exceeding nine in number, as shall be appointed managers of an impeachment, shall receive an additional allow- ance of ten dollars a day. Section 9. A majority of the members elected to each house shall constitute a quorum to do business. Each house shall de- termine the rules of its own proceedings and be the ji^dge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members and shall choose its own officers. The senate shall choose a temporary president. The assembly shall choose a speaker. If the lieutenant- governor become governor, the temporary president shall become lieutenant-governor for the remainder of the term. If the lieu- tenant-governor be impeached or be unable to discharge the duties of the office or be acting governor, the temporary president shall act as lieutenant-governor during such impeachment or inability or while the lieutenant-governor is acting governor. If the lieutenant- governor refuse to act as president or be absent from the chair, the temporary president shall preside. If the speaker of the as- sembly be unable to perform the duties of the office or be acting governor, the assembly may choose a temporary speaker who shall act as speaker during such inability or while the speaker is acting governor or until a speaker is chosen. Aetxcle III 13 Doc. No. 52 Section 10. The legislature of its own motion, in the man- ner to be proviJed by joint rule which shall continue in force until abrogated or amended by both the senate and the assembly, may convene to take action in the matter of removal of a judge of the court of appeals or justice of the supreme court. The assem- bly of its own motion, in the manner to be provided by rule which shall continue in force until abrogated or amended by the assem- bly, may convene for the purposes of impeachment. At a meet- ing under this section no subject shall be acted upon except that for which the meeting is herein authorized to be held. Section 11. If any person shall, after his election as a member of the legislature, be elected to congress, or appointed to any office, civil or military, under the government of the United States, or under any city government, his acceptance thereof shall vacate his seat. Section 12. Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings and a record of its debates and promptly publish the same from day to day, except such parts as may require secrecy. The doors of each house shall be kept open, except when the public welfare shall require secrecy. Neither house shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than two days. Section 13. For any speech or debate in either house of the legislature, the members shall not be questioned in any other place. Section 1-1. Any bill may originate in either house of the legis- lature, and all bills passed by one house may be amended by the other. Section 15. The enacting clause of all bills shall be " The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows :" and no law shall be enacted except by bill. Section 16. No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage. No bill shall be passed or become a law, except by the assent of a majority of the members elected to each branch of the legislature. Immediately after the last reading of a bill the question upon its final passage shall be taken and the yeas and nays entered on the journal. Doc. No. 52 14 Article III Section 17. ISTo private or local bill, which may be passed by the legislature, shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. Section 18. No act shall be passed which shall provide that any existing law, or any part thereof, shall be made or deemed a part of such act, or which shall enact that any existing law, or part thereof, shall be applicable, except by inserting it in such act. Section 19. The legislature shall not pass a private or local bill in any of the following cases: Changing the names of persons ; Laying out, opening, altering, working or discontinuing roads, highways or alleys, or for draining swamps or other low lands ; Locating or changing county seats; Providing for changes of venue in civil or criminal cases ; Incorporating villages ; Providing for election of members of boards of supervisors ; Selecting, drawing, summoning or empaneling grand or petit jurors ; Regulating the rate of interest on money; The opening and conducting of elections or designating places of voting; Creating, increasing or decreasing fees, percentage or allow- ances of public officers, during the term for which such officers are elected or appointed; Granting to any corporation, association or individual the right to prove a claim against the state or against any civil division thereof ; Authorizing any civil division of the state to allow or pay any claim or account; Granting to any corporation, association or individual the right to lay down railroad tracks ; Granting to any private corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever; Granting to any person, association, firm or corporation an ex- emption from taxatio.n on real or personal property; Providing for building bridges, and chartering companies for such purposes, except on the Hudson river below Waterford, and on the East river, or over the waters forming a part of the bound- aries of the state. The legislature shall pass general laws providing for the cases enumerated in this section, and for all other cases which in its Article III 15 Doc. I\o. 52 judgment, may be provided for by general laws. But no law shall authorize the construction or operation of a street railroad except upon the condition that the consent of the owners of one- half in value of the property bounded on, and the consent also of the local authorities having the control of that portion of a street or highway upon which it is proposed to construct or operate such railroad be first obtained, or in case the consent of such property owners cannot be obtained, the appellate division of the supreme court, in the department in which it is proposed to be constructed, may, upon application, appoint three commissioners who shall de- termine, after a hearing of all parties interested, whether such railroad ought to be constructed or operated, and their determi- nation, confirmed by the court, may be taken in lieu of the con- sent of the property owners. Section 20. The legislature shall neither audit nor allow any private claim or account against the state or against any civil division thereof, but may appropriate money to pay such claims and accounts against the state as shall have been audited and allowed according to law. Section 21. The assent of two-thirds of the members elected lo' each branch of the legislature shall be requisite to eVery bill appropriating the public moneys or property for local or private purposes. No public moneys or property shall be appropriated for the construction or improvement of any building, bridge, highway, dike, canal, feeder, waterway or other work until plans and estimates of the cost of such work shall have been filed with the secretary of state by the superintendent of public works, together with a certificate by him as to whether or not in his judgment the general interests of the state then require that such improvement be made at state expense. This section shall not apply to the contributions of the state to the cost of eliminating o-rade crossings or to items in the budget for the construction of hio'hways from the proceeds of bonds authorized under section four of article nine of this constitution or section four of former article seven thereof as in force on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ten. Section 22. No money shall ever be paid out of the treasury of this state or any of its funds, or any of the funds under its manage- ment, except in pursuance of an appropriation by law ; nor unless such payment be made not later than three months after the close Doc. No. 52 16 Ahticle III of the fiscal year next succeeding that in which such appropriation was made ; and every such law making a new appropriation or con- tinuing or reviving an appropriation, shall distinctly specify the sum appropriated, and the object to which it is to be applied ; and it shall not be sufficient for such law to refer to any other law to fix such sum. Appropriations made by the legislature in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixteen shall be made for a period ending the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and thereafter the fiscal year of the state shall end on the thirtieth day of June of each year, unless otherwise pro- vided by law. Section 23. ~No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the annual appropriation or supply bill, unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation in the bill; and any such pro- vision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to such ap- propriation. Section 24. Every law which imposes, continues or revives a tax shall distinctly state the tax and the object to which it is to be applied, and it shall not be siifficient to refer to any other law to fix such tax or object. Section 25. There shall be in each county, except in a county wholly included in a city,, a board of supervisors, to be composed of such members and elected in such manner and for such period as is or may be provided by law. In a city which includes an entire county, or two or more entire counties, the powers and duties of a board of supervisors may be devolved upon the munic- ipal assembly, common council, board of aldermen or other legis- lative body of the city. Provided, however, that the legislature, by general laws, may establish different forms of government for counties not wholly included in a city, any such form of govern- ment to become effective in any county only when approved by the electors thereof in such manner as the legislature may prescribe. Wo local or special law relating to a county or counties except to a county or counties wholly included within a city shall be enacted except upon request, by resolution, of the governing body of the county or counties to be affected. Section 26. The legislature shall, by general laws, confer upon the boards of supervisor?, or other governing bodies, of the several counties of the state such further powers of local legislation and administration as the legislature may, from time to time, deem Akticle III 17 Do^_ ^^o_ 52 expedient. In counties which now have, or may hereafter have, county auditors or other fiscal officers, authorized to audit bills, accounts, charges, claims or demands against the county, the legislature may confer such powers upon such auditors, or fiscal officers, as the legislature may, from time to time, deem expedient. The legislature may confer upon any elective or appointive county officer or officers any of the powers and duties now exer- cised by the towns of any county or the officer or officers thereof relating to highways, public safety and the care of the poor. Section 27. No extra compensation shall be granted or allowed to any public officer, servant, agent or contractor, by the state or any civil division thereof or by any board, officer or other agency of the state, or of any such civil division. Section 28. The legislature shall, by law, provide for the occu- pation and employment of prisoners sentenced to the several state jirisons, penitentiaries, jails and reformatories in the state ; and on and after the first day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, no person in any such prison, peniten- tiary, jail or reformatory, shall be required or allowed to work while under sentence thereto at any trade, industry or occupa- tion wherein or whereby his work, or the product or profit of his work, shall be farmed out, contracted, given or sold to any person, firm, association or corporation. This section shall not be construed to prevent the legislature from providing that con- victs may work for, and that the products of their labor may be disposed of to, the state or any civil division thereof, or for or to any public institution owned or managed and controlled by the state, or any civil division thereof. Section 29. The legislature shall have the power to regulate or prohibit manufacturing in tenement houses. AETICLE IV. Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a gov- ernor, who shall hold his office for two years. A lieutenant-gov- ernor shall be chosen at the same time and for the same term. The governor shall receive for his services an annual salary of ten thousand dollars until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, after which he shall receive for his services an annual salary of twenty thousand dollars. There shall Doc. JSTo. 52 18 Article IV be provided for his use a suitable and furnished executive residence. Section 2. No person shall be eligible to the office of governor or lieutenant-governor, except a citizen of the United States, of the age of not less than thirty years, and who shall have been five years next preceding his election a resident of this state. Section 3. The governor and lieutenant-governor shall be elected at the times and places of choosing members of the assem- bly. The persons respectively having the highest number of votes for governor and lieutenant-governor shall be elected; but in case two or more shall have an equal and the highest number of votes for governor, or for lieutenant-governor, tie two houses of the legislature at its next annual session shall forthwith, by joint ballot, choose one of such persons so having an equal and the highest number of votes for governor or lieutenant-governor. Section 4. The governor shall be commander-in-chief of the military and naval forces of the state. He shall have power to convene the legislature, or the senate only, on extraordinary occasions. At extraordinary sessions no subject shall be acted upon, except such as the governor may recommend for consider- ation. He shall commu.nicate by message to the legislature at every session the condition of the state, and recommend such matters to it as he shall judge expedient. He shall transact all necessary business with the ofiicers of government, civil and mili- tary. He shall expedite all such measures as may be resolved upon by the legislature, and shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Section 5. The governor shall have the power to grant reprieves, commutatioais and pardons after conviction, for all offenses except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations, as he may think proper, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law relative to the manner of applying for pardons. Upon conviction for treason, he shall have power to suspend the execution of the sentence, until the case shall be reported to the legislature at its next meeting, when the legislature shall either pardon, or commute the sentence, direct the execution of the sentence, or grant a further reprieve. He shall annually communicate to the legislature each case of reprieve, commutation or pardon granted, stating the name of the convict, the crime of which he was convicted, the sentence and its date, and the date of the commutation, pardon or reprieve. Aeticle IV 19 Doc. No. 52 Section 6. If the office of governor be vacant the lieutenant- governor shall become governor for the remainder of the term. If the governor be under impeachment or be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office or be absent from the state the lieutenant-governor shall act as governor during such inability, absence or the pendency of such impeachment. But when the governor shall, with the consent of the legislature, be out of the state, in time of war, at the head of a military force thereof, he shall continue commander-in-chief of all the military force of the state. Section 1. The lieutenant-governor shall possess the same quali- fications of eligibility for office as the governor. He shall be president of the senate, but shall have only a casting vote therein. If the office of governor be vacant and there be no lieutenant- governor, such vacancy shall be filled for the remainder of the term at the next general election happening not less than three months after such vacancy occurs ; and in any such case, until the vacancy be filled by election, the temporary president of the senate, or if there be none, the speaker of the assembly shall become governor until the first day of the political year next succeeding the elec- tion at which the office of governor shall be filled. If the office of governor be vacant and the lieutenant-governor be under impeach- ment, or unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of governor or be absent from the state, the temporary president of the senate shall act as governor during such inability, absence or the pendency of such impeachment. If the temporary president of the senate be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of governor or be absent from the state the speaker of the assembly shall act as governor during such inability or absence. Section 8. The lieutenant-governor shall receive for his serv- ices an annual salary of five thousand dollars, and shall not re- ceive or be entitled to any other compensation, fee or perquisite, for any duty or service he may be required to perform by the constitution or by law. Section 9. Every bill which shall have passed the senate and assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the gov- ernor ; if he approve, he shall sign it ; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it shall have originated, which shall enter the objections at large on the journal, and pro- ceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two-thirds Doc. No. 52 20 Abticle IV of the members elected to that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent together with the objections to the other house by which it shall likewise be reconsidered; and if approved by two>- thirds of the meanbers elected to that house, it shall become a law notwithstanding the objections of the governor. In all such cases, the votes in both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the legislature shall, by its ad- journment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not become a law without the approval of the governor. I^o bill shall become a law after the final adjournment of the legislature, unless ap- proved by the governor within thirty days after such adjournment. If any bill presented to the governor contain several items of appropriation of money, he may object to one or more of such items while approving of the other portion of the bill. In such case, he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a state- ment of the items to which he objects; and the appropriation so objected to shall not take effect. If the legislature be in session, he shall transmit to the house in which the bill originated a copy of such statement, and the items objected to shall be separately reconsidered. If on reconsideration one or more of such items be approved by two-thirds of the members elected to each house, the same shall be part of the law, notwithstanding the objections of the governor. All the provisions of this section, in relation to bills not approved by the governor, shall apply in cases in which he shall withhold his approval from any item or items contained in a bill appropriating money. AKTICLE V. Section 1. On or before the fifteenth day of November in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixteen and in each year thereafter the head of each department of the state government except the legislature and judiciary, shall submit to the governor itemized estimates of appropriations to meet the financial needs of such department, including a statement in detail of all moneys for which any general or special appropriation is desired at the ensuing session of the legislature, classified according to relative im- portance and in such form and with such explanation as the gov- ernor may require. Article V 21 Doc. No. 52 The governor, after public hearing thereon, at which he may require the attendance of heads of departments and their sub- ordinates, shall revise such estimates according to his judgment Itemized estimates of the financial needs of the legislature cer- tified by the presiding officer of each house and of the judiciary certified by the comptroller shall be transmitted to the governor before the fifteenth day of January next succeeding for inclusion in the budget without revision but with such recommendation as he may think proper. On or before the first day of February next succeeding he shall submit to the legislature a budget containing a complete plan of proposed expenditures and estimated revenues. It shall contain all the estimates so revised or certified and shall be accompanied by a bill or bills for all proposed appropriations and reappropria- tions, clearly itemized; it shall show the estimated revenues for the ensuing fiscal year and the estimated surplus or deficit of revenues at the end of the current fiscal year together with the measures of taxation, if any, which the governor may propose for the increase of the revenues. It shall be accompanied by a state- ment of the current assets, liabilities, reserves and surplus or de- ficit of the state; statements of the debts and funds of the state; an estimate of its financial condition as of the beginning and end of the ensuing fiscal year; and a statement of revenues and expenditures for the two fiscal years next preceding said year, in form suitable for comparison. The governor may, before final action by the legislature thereon, amend or supplement the budget. A copy of the budget and of any amendments or additions thereto shall be forthwith transmitted by the governor to the comptroller. The governor and the heads of such departments shall have the right, and it shall be their duty when requested by either house of the legislature, to appear and be heard in respect to the budget during the consideration thereof, and to answer in- quiries relevant thereto. The procedure for such appearance and inquiries shall be provided by law. The legislature may not alter an appropriation bill submitted by the governor except to strike out or reduce items therein ; but this provision shall not apply to items for the legislature or judiciary. Such a bill when passed by both houses shall be a law immediately without further action by the governor, except that appropriations for the legislature and judiciary shall be subject to his approval as provided in section nine of article four. Doc. No. 52 22 Aeticle V Neither house shall consider further appropriations until the appropriation bills proposed by the governor shall have been finally acted on by both houses; nor shall such further appro- priations be then made except by separate bills each for a single work or object, which bills shall be subject to the governor's ap- proval as provided in section nine of article four. ISTothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the governor from recom- mending that one or more of his proposed bills be passed in ad- vance of the others to supply the immediate needs of government. AETICLE VI. Section 1. There shall be the following civil departments in the state government: (1) law, (2) finance, (3) accounts, (4) treasury, (5) taxation, (6) state, (7) public works, (8) health, (9) agriculture, (10) charities and corrections, (11) banking, (12) insurance, (13) labor and industry, (14) education, (15) public utilities, (16) conservation and (lY) civil service. Section 2. (1) The head of the department of law shall be the attorney-general. He shall be elected at the same time and for the same term as the governor. (2) The head of the department of finance shall be the comp- troller. He shall be elected at the same time and for the same term as the governor. Excepting the powers of examination and verifi- cation of accounts vested in the department of accounts, he shall have the present powers and duties of the comptroller, subject to the authority of the legislature to increase, modify or diminish the same. (3) The head of the department of accounts shall be the commis- sioner of accounts. He shall have power to examine and verify all accounts showing the financial transactions of the state and its several departments and officers. He shall also make such special examinations and reports as from time to time may be required by resolution of either house of the legislature. (4) The head of the department of the treasury shall be the treasurer. (5) The head of the department of taxation shall be a state tax commission. (6) The head of the department of state shall be the secretary of state. He shall be the keeper of the great seal and of the records and archives of the state, shall issue writs of election and certify the results. ^^"•^^^ VI 23 Doc. Xo. 52 STl- (7) The head of the department of public works shall be the perintendeiat of public works. He shall have the construction, care, maintenance and operation of the state's public works, including canals, highways, and all public buildings not from timeto time assigned by law to any other department, and shall provide for the needs of the several state departments in engineer- ing and architecture. (8) The head of the department of health shall be the com- missioner of health. (9) The head of the department of agriculture shall be the commissioner of agriculture. (10) The head of the department of charities and corrections shall be the secretary of charities and corrections. Tie shall have power of inspection and supervision of all state charitable insti- tutions, state hospitals for the insane, state prisons and other state correctional institutions. (11) The head of the department of banking shall be the su- perintendent of banks. (12) The head of the department of insurance shall be the su- perintendent of insurance. (13) The head of the department of labor and industry shall be an industrial commission or commissioner as may be provided by law. Commissioners shall be appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate. (14) The department of education shall be administered by the university of the state of New York. The chief administrative officer of the department shall be appointed by the regents of the university. (15) The department of public utilities shall consist of two pub- lic service commissions. Commissioners shall be appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate. The governor may remove any commissioner for cause after service upon him of a written statement of the alleged cause and an op- portunity to be heard thereon. Until the legislature shall other- wise provide, the existing commissions are continued with the jurisdiction and powers at present vested in them. (16) The department of conservation shall be under the direc- tion of the conservation commission. (17) The department of civil service shall be under the direction of a civil service commission consisting of three commissioners. They shall be appointed by the governor by and with the advice D()(j. Kn. 52 24 Article VI and consent of the senate, for tenns of six years, and shall be so classified that one shall go out of office at the end of every two years. The governor may remove any commissioner for cause after service upon him of a vs^ritten statement of the alleged cause and an opportunity to be heard thereon. The commission shall take care that the provisions of this constitution relating to civil service and of laws enacted thereunder are faithfully observed and enforced. Section 3. At the session immediately following the adoption of this constitution, the legislature shall provide by law for the appropriate assignment, to take effect not earlier than the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, of all the civil administrative and executive functions of the state government, except those of assistants in the office of the gov- ernor, to the several departments in this article provided. Sub- ject to the limitations contained in this constitution the legisla- ture may from time to time assign by law new powers and func- tions to departments, officers, boards or commissions continued or created under this constitution, and increase, modify or dimin- ish their powers and functions. Wo specific grant of power herein to a department shall prevent the legislature from conferring addi- tional powers upon such department. Jio new departments shall be created hereafter. Any bureau, board, commission or office hereafter created except assistants in the office of the governor shall be placed in one of the departments enumerated in this article. The elective state officers in office at the time this con- stitution takes effect shall continue in office until the end of the terms for which they were elected. Pending the assignment of the civil administrative and executive functions by the legislature pursuant to the direction of this section, the powers and duties of the several departments, boards, commissions and offices now exist- ing are continued. Subject to the power of the legislature to reduce the number of officers, when the powers and duties of any existing office are assigned to any department, the officers exercising such powers shall continue in office in such department, and their term of office shall not be shortened by such assignment. Section 4. The heads of all the departments and the members of all commissions unless otherwise provided in this constitution shall be appointed by the governor and may be removed by him in his discretion. Article VI 25 Doc. No. 52 Section 5. The attorney-general and comptroller may be re- moved from office by impeacbment in the same manner as the governor. A vacancy in the office of attorney-general or of comp- troller shall be filled for the remainder of the term at the next gen- eral election happening not less than three months after such vacancy occurs. Until the vacancy be so filled by election, the governor, or if the senate be in session, the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate, may fill stich vacancy by ap- pointment which shall continue until the first day of the political year next succeeding the election at which such office may be filled. The compensation provided by law for each of such officers shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected and he shall not receive to his use any fees or perquisites of office or other compensation. Section 6. All appointed heads of departments shall be subject to impeachment in the same manner as the governor or they may be removed by the senate by vote of two-thirds of all the members elected thereto. A vacancy occurring in a board or commission appointed by and with the advice and consent of the senate for a fixed term shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as an original appointment, except that a vacancy occur- ring or existing while the senate is not in session shall be filled by the governor by appointment for a term expiring at the end of twenty days from the commencement of the next meeting of the senate. Section 7. The lieutenant-governor, speaker of the assembly, secretary of state, attorney-general, comptroller, treasurer and superintendent of public works shall constitute the canal board and be the commissioners of the land office and the commissioners of the canal fund. Section 8. This article shall not apply to the military or naval affairs or forces nor to property from time to time devoted to military or naval purposes. AETICLE VII. Section 1. The department of conservation shall consist of nine commissioners to serve without compensation and to be appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate for terms which shall expire in nine successive years, the first end- ing on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and Doc. No. 52 26 Akticlb VII seventeen, and their successors shall be appointed for terms of nine years. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term. One commissioner shall reside in each judicial district. ISTo person shall be eligible to or shall continue to hold the office of commis- sioner, who is engaged in the business of lumbering in any forest preserve county or who is engaged in any business in the prosecu- tion of which hydraulic power is used or in which water is dis- tributed or sold under any public franchise or who is an officer or holder of the stock or bonds of any corporation engaged in such business within the state. They shall be subject to removal by the governor on charges, after an opportunity to be heard. Subject to the limitations in this constitution contained, the department shall be charged with the development and protection of the natural resources of the state; the encouragement of forestry and the suppression of forest fires throughout the state; the exclusive care, maintenance and administration of the forest preserve ; the conservation, prevention of pollution, and regulation of the waters of the state; the protection and propagation of its fish, birds, game, shellfish and Crustacea, except migTatory fish of the sea within the limits of the marine district, with the power, subject to the veto within thirty days of the governor, to enact regulations with respect to the taking, possession, sale and transportation thereof, which shall have the force of law, when filed in the office of the department of state and published as the legislature may provide, until and unless the legislature shall thereafter modify such regulations. The department shall also be entrusted with, the enforcement of the general laws of the state respecting the subjects hereinbefore enumerated and exercise such additional powers as from time to time may be conferred by law. The department shall appoint and may at pleasure remove a superintendent. It may also appo.int all other necessary subordinates. Section 2. The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter ac- quired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the trees and timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. The department is, however, empowered to re- forest lands in the forest preserve, to construct fire trails thereon, and to remove dead trees and dead timber therefrom for purposes Article VII 27 Doc. x\.,. 52 of reforestation and fire protection solely, but shall not sell the same. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the state from constructing a state highway from Saranac Lake in Franklin county to Long Lake in Hamilton county and thence to Old Forge m Herkimer county by way of Blue Mountain lake and Kaquette lake. Section 3. The legislature may by general laws provide for the use of not exceeding three per centum of such lands for the construction and maintenance of reservoirs for municipal water supply, for the canals of the state and to regulate the flow of streams. Such reservoirs shall be constructed, owned and eon- trolled by the state, but such work shall not be undertaken until after the boundaries and high flow lines thereof shall have been accurately surveyed and fixed, and after public notice, hearing and determination that such lands are required for such public use. The expense of any such improvements shall be apportioned on the public and private property and municipalities benefited to the extent of the benefits received. Any such reservoir shall always be operated by the state and the legislature shall provide for a charge upon the property and municipalities benefited for a reasonable return to the state upon the value of the rights and property of the state used and the services of the state rendered, which shall be fixed for terms of not exceeding ten years, and be readjustable at the end of any term. Unsanitary conditions shall not be created or continued by any such public works. Section 4. The legislature may authorize the use by the city of New York for its municipal water supply of lands now belonging to the state located in the towns of Hurley and Shandaken in the county of Ulster and in the town of Lexington in the county of Greene, for just compensation. Section 5. The legislature shall annually make provision for the purchase of real property within the Adirondack and Gatskill parks as defined by law, the reforestation of lands and the mak- ing of boundary and valuation surveys. Section 6. A violation of any of the provisions of this article may be restrained at the suit of the people or, with the consent of the supreme court in appellate division, on notice to the at- torney-general at the suit of any citizen. Doc. No. 52 28 Aeticle VIII ARTICLE VIII. Section 1. Tlie supreme court is continued with general juris- diction in law and equity, subject to such appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals as now is or may be prescribed by law not inconsistent with this article. The existing judicial districts of the state are continued until changed as hereinafter provided. The supreme court shall consist of the justices in office on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, and successors of the three justices transferred to the court of appeals as in this article provided, and of two additional justices who shall reside in and be chosen by the electors of the first judicial district, and their successors, together with such additional justices as may be authorized by the legislature pursuant to the provisions of this article. The successors of said justices shall be chosen by the electors of their respective judicial districts. The legislature may alter the judicial districts once after every federal census or state enumeration and thereupon reapportion the justices to be thereafter elected in the districts so altered. The legislature may from time to time further increase the number of justices in any judicial district except that the number of justices in the first, second and ninth districts shall not be thereby increased to exceed one justice for each eighty thousand, or fraction over forty thousand of the population thereof, as shown by the last federal or state census or enumeration, and except that the number of jus- tices in any other district shall not be increased to exceed one jus- tice for each sixty thousand or fraction over thirty-five thousand of the population thereof as shovm by the last federal or state census or enumeration. Section 2. The present division of the state into four judicial departments is continued. Once every ten years the legislature may alter the judicial departments, but without increasing the number thereof. They shall be bounded by county lines, and be compact and equal in population as nearly as may be. The appel- late divisions of the supreme court are continued and shall consist of not less than ten nor more than twelve justices in the first de- partment, seven justices in the second department and five justices in each of the other departments. The justices heretofore desig- nated shall continue to sit in the appellate divisions until the terms of their designations respectively expire. The appellate division in the first department may sit in two parts, in which case the Aeticle VIII 29 Doc. No. 52 presiding justice shall assign the justices who from time to time shall sit m each part. The presiding justice may preside in either part and he shall designate the justice to preside in either part when he is not present. In each appellate division or part thereof four shall constitute a quorum, and the concurrence of three shall be necessary to a decision. No more than five justices shall sit in any (jase. The governor shall designate the presiding justice of each de- partment, who shall act as such during his term of office and shall be a resident of the department. The other justices shall be desig- nated by the governor from all the justices elected to the supreme court for terms of five years or the unexpired portions of their respective terms of ofiice, if less than five years. From time to time as the terms of the designations expire, or vacancies occur, the governor shall make new designations. A majority of the justices so designated to sit in the appellate division, in each de- partment shall be residents of the department. Ten justices shall be designated to sit in the appellate division in the first depart- ment, but in case the presiding justice thereof at any time shall certify to the governor that the interests of justice so require the governor shall designate two additional justices to sit therein. In case of the absence or inability to act of a justice of any appellate division, the presiding justice thereof may assign any of the jus- tices of the supreme court to sit in the appellate division during such absence or inability, but no justice shall be so designated to sit longer than four months in any year. In ease the presiding justice of any appellate division shall certify to the governor that one or more additional justices are needed for the speedy disposi- tion of the business before it the governor shall designate such addi- tional justice or justices. Whenever the appellate division in any department shall be unable to dispose of its business within a reasonable time, a majority of the presiding justices of the several departments at a meeting called by the presiding justice of the department in arrears shall transfer such number of the pending appeals as the presiding justices may determine to be necessary from such department to any other department for hearing and determination. No justice of the appellate division shall, within the department to which he may be designated to perform the duties of an appellate justice, exercise any of the powers of a justice of the supreme court, other than those of a justice out of court, and those pertaining to the appellate division, or to the Doc. No. 52 30 Article VIII hearing and decision of motions submitted by consent of coiinsel, but any such justice, when not actually engaged in performing the duties of such appellate justice in the department to which he is designated, may hold any term of the supreme court and exercise any of the powers of a justice of the supreme court in any county or judicial district in any other department of the state. The ap- pellate division, except as herein provided, shall have the jurisdic- tion now exercised by it and such additional jurisdiction as may be conferred by the legislature. On appeals from judgments of conviction in criminal cases, the appellate division or the appellate term as the case may be may reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court or judge. It shall have power to appoint and remove a reporter. The justices of the appellate division in each department shall have power to fix the times and places for holding the terms of the supreme court therein, and to assign the justices in the de- partments to hold such terms. Section 3. There shall be an appellate term of the supreme court in the first and in the second department consisting of not less than three nor more than five justices of the supreme court to be designated annually by the appellate division of the supreme court in such departments respectively. Such appellate divisions respectively may designate justices to sit in the appellate term during the temporary disability of any of the justices previously designated. Three shall constitute a quorum, and the concurrence of a majority of the justices sitting shall be necessary to a decision. All appeals from judgments and orders in civil cases made by county courts within such departments, and all appeals from judgments and orders made by the city court of the city of JSTew York, the municipal court of the city of New York, the court of special sessions of the city of New York, as such courts now exist, or as hereafter consolidated or reorganized pursuant to this article, and by all other inferior local courts, except courts held by justices of the peace, city magistrates' courts, and courts of special sessions held by one city magistrate only, within such departments, shall be heard at the nppellate term. The legislature may enlarge or restrict the jurisdiction of the appellate term. Appeals to the appellate division from judgments or orders of the appellate term may be taken as of right only when the appellate term on reversing or modifying a judgment makes new findings of fact and renders judgment thereon. Appeals to the appellate division also may be allowed by the proper appellate division. AiiTicLE VIII 31 Doc. No. 52 Section 4. No judge or justice shall sit in the appellate term, appellate division or in the court of appeals in review of a decision made by him or by any court of which he was at the time a sit- ting member. The testimony in equity cases shall be taken in like manner as in cases at law; and, except as herein otherwise pro- vided, the legislature shall have the same power to alter and regulate the jurisdiction and proceedings in law and in equity that it has heretofore exercised. Section 5. The official terms of the justices of the supreme court shall be fourteen years from and including the first day of January next after their election. When a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of term in the office of justice of the supreme court the same shall be filled for a full term, at the next general election, happening not less than three months after such vacancy occurs ; and, until the vacancy shall be so filled, the gov- ernor by and with the advice and consent of the senate, if the senate shall be in session, or if not in session the governor, may fill such vacancy by appointment, which shall continue until and in- cluding the last day of December next after the election at which the vacancy shall be filled. Section 6. To secure a more simple, speedy and effective administration of justice, it shall be the duty of the legislature to act with all convenient speed upon the report of the board of statu- tory consolidation transmitted to the legislature by the governor on the twenty-first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and fif- teen, and to enact a brief and simple civil practice act and to adopt a separate body of civil practice rules for the regulation of pro- cedure in the court of appeals, supreme court and county courts. The legislature may make the civil practice rules or any part thereof applicable to such other courts as it may provide. There- after, from time to time, at intervals of not less than five years, the legislature may appoint a commission to consider and report what changes, if any, there should be in the law and rules governing civil procedure. The legislature shall act on the report of each such commission by a single bill, and the legislature shall not otherwise, or at any other time, enact any law prescribing, reonlating or changing the civil procedure in the court of appeals, supreme court or county courts, unless the judges or justices empowered to make and amend civil practice rules shall certify that legislation is necessary. Doc. No. r<2 32 Article VIII After the adoption of the civil practice rules by the legislature under the requirements of the first paragraph of this section, the power to alter and amend such rules and to make, alter and amend civil practice rules shall vest and remain in the courts of the state to be exercised by the judges of the court of appeals and the justices of the appellate divisions of the supreme court, or by such judges or justices of the court of appeals, the supreme court and the county courts as the legislature shall provide. Section 7. The court of claims is continued and shall be a court of record. It shall consist of the three judges now in office, who shall hold their ofiices until the expiration of their respective terms, and their successors who shall be appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate and who shall hold ofiice for nine years. The legislature may further increase the number of judges of the court of claims by permanent or temporary appointment but not to exceed five in all. The addi- tional judges heretofore appointed shall continue to serve until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, or such earlier date as shall be determined pursuant to law. The court shall have power to appoint and remove a clerk and such court stenographers and attendants as the legislature may provide. The judges shall continue to receive from the state their present compensation and allowances until the legislature shall otherwise provide. The court shall have the jurisdiction now exercised by it and such additional jurisdiction to hear and determine claims against the state or between conflicting claimants as the legis- lature may provide. The judges of the court may separately take testimony in relation to any claim, but no award shall be made except by a majority of the whole court. The court may establish rules to govern its own procedure. Section 8. Supreme court commissioners may be appointed as hereinafter provided, one or more of whom may be designated by the court to determine the compensation to be paid whenever pri- vate property is taken for a public use in the judicial department or district for which they shall have been appointed, when such compensation is not made by the state, and who also may respec- tively be designated as referee whenever issues are properly re- ferred for determination or report, and who shall perform such other or further duties as may be devolved upon them by special order or rule of court by the appellate division or by Aeticle VIII 33 j)oc. No. 52 the civil practice rules. The respective appellate divisions in the first and second judicial departments from time to time may ap- point for each of the counties therein within the city of New York such commissioners as they deem necessary and, with the ap- proval of the board of estimate and apportionment or its succes- sors, fix their compensation which shall he uniform in each county and a charge against the city of New York. The legislature may at any time authorize the appointment of supreme court commissioners in the third and fourth judicial departments and in the counties in the second department not within the city of New York. Such commissioners shall he members of the bar of not less than ten years standing. They shall not prac- tice as attorneys or counselors in any court of this state or of the United States. They shall hold office during the pleasure of the respective appellate divisions by which they shall have been ap- pointed. Supreme court commissioners during their continuance in office shall not hold any other office or public trust. Section 9. The court of appeals is continued. It shall consist of the chief judge and associate judges now in office, who shall hold their offices until the expiration of their respective terms, and their successors, who shall be chosen by the electors of the state, and of the three justices of the supreme court now serv- ing as associate judges of the court of appeals by designation by the governor, who shall be associate judges of the court of appeals until the expiration of the terms for which they respectively were elected justices of the supreme court, and their successors who shall be chosen by the electors of the state. The official terms of the chief judge and associate judges shall be fourteen years from and including the first day of January next after' their election. No more than seven judges shall sit in any case. Five members of the court shall constitute a quorum, and the concurrence of four shall be necessary to a decision. The court shall have power to appoint and to remove its reporter, clerk and attendants. In case of the temporary absence or inability to act of any judge of the court of appeals, the court may designate any justice of the supreme court to serve as associate judge of the court of appeals, during such absence or inability to act, but for a period not ex- ceeding four months in any year. For the purpose of disposing with reasonable speed of the accumulation of causes now pending in the court of appeals, the court on or before the first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, shall designate Doc. No. 52 34 Article VIII not less than four nor more than six justices of the supreme court to serve as associate judges of the court of appeals until the causes pending on the calendar shall be reduced to one hundred but not later than the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, vphen they shall return to the supreme court. While serving in the court of appeals, the justices so designated shall be relieved of their duties as justices of the supreme court. During such period the court of appeals shall sit in two parts, each of which shall consist of not more than seven judges, five of whom shall constitute a quorum, the concurrence of four being necessary to a decision. The chief judge shall from time to time designate the associate judges of the court of appeals and the justices of the supreme court serving as associate judges of the court of appeals to sit in the respective parts of the court, in such manner that the justices of the supreme court so designated shall be distributed as equally as may be between the two parts. The chief judge may preside in either part, and he shall desig- nate the judge who shall preside in either part when he is not present. The causes pending in the coTirt of appeals shall be dis- tributed by the chief judge as nearly equally as may be between the two parts of the court. The coiTrt of appeals shall cavise a calendar of appeals pending therein to be made and published at least once in each year. AVhenever on the first day of January in any year after the present accumulation of causes in the court of appeals shall have been disposed of as above provided, there shall be more than five hundred causes pending undisposed of on the calendar, the court shall in the manner above provided desig- nate justices of the supreme court to serve as associate judges of the court of appeals, and shall sit in two parts ; the pending causes shall be distributed between the parts for disposition until the number of causes pending on the calendar shall be reduced to one hundred, but not later than until the expiration of one year from the date of such designations, whereupon the justices so designated shall return to the supreme court. In case of the death, resignation or other disability of any of the justices of the supreme court designated to serve as associate judges of the court of appeals as in this article provided, the court of appeals shall designate a justice of the svipxeme court to serve in his place in like manner as if originally so designated. Each of the justices of the supreme court while serving as associate judge of the court of appeals as herein provided shall receive from Aeticle VIII 35 Doc. No. 52 the state the same compensation as the elected associate judges of the court of appeals. Upon the termination of the designation of a justice of the supreme court as associate judge of the court of appeals who when so designated was a justice of an appellate division, he shall return to such appellate division unless the term of his designation thereto shall have expired and shall not have been renewed by the governor. The appellate division may desig- nate other justices of the supreme court to sit in the appellate division during the absence of regularly assigned justices of such division serving as associate judges of the court of appeals, in case the business of the appellate division shall render such action necessary. Section 10. When a vacancy shall occiir otherwise than by expiration of term, in the office of chief or associate judge of the court of appeals, the same shall be filled, for a full term, at the next general election happening not less than three months after such vacancy occurs; and until the vacancy shall be so filled, the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, if the senate shall be in session, or if not in session the governor may fill such vacancy by appointment. If any such appointment of chief judge shall be made from among the associate judges, a temporary appointment of associate judge shall be made in like manner ; but in such case, the person appointed chief judge shall not be deemed to vacate his office of associate j^idge any longer than until the expiration of his appointment as chief judge. The powers and jurisdiction of the court shall not be suspended for want of ap- pointment or election, when the number of judges is sufficient to constitute a quorum. All appointments under this section shall continue until and including the last day of December next after the election at which the vacancy shall be filled. Section 11. After the last day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the jurisdiction of the court of appeals, except where the judgment is of death, or where the appellate di- vision on reversing or modifying a judgment makes nev/ findings of fact and renders judgment thereon, shall be limited to the review of questions of law. Appeals may be taken as of right to the court of appeals in the following cases only : (1) "Where the judg-ment is of death ; (2) From a judgment or order entered upon the decision of an appellate division of the supreme court which finally determines an action or special proceeding where is directly involved the con- Doc. No. 52 36 Article VIII struction of the constitution of the state or of the United States, or where one or more of the justices who heard the case dissents from the decision of the court, or where the judgment of the trial court is reversed or modified; (3) From an order of an appellate division of the supreme court granting a new trial where the appellant stipulates that upon afHrmanee judgment absolute shall be rendered against him. The court of appeals may, however, allow an appeal in any case where in its opinion a question of law is involved, which ought to be reviewed. The legislature may further restrict the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and the right of appeal thereto, but the right to appeal shall not depend upon the amount involved. The provisions of this section shall not apply to appeals taken to the court of appeals before the last day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, but the judgments or orders appealed from shall be reviewed under existing provisions of law. The court of appeals may determine the qualifications and pre- scribe the rules regulating the admission to practice of attorneys and counselors in the courts of the state. Section 12. The judges of the court of appeals and the justices of the supreme court shall not hold any other office or public trust. All votes for any of them, for any other than a judicial ofiiee, given by the legislature or the people, shall be void. Section 13. Judges of the court of appeals and justices of the supreme court may be removed by concurrent resolution of both houses of the legislature, if two-thirds of all the members elected to each house concur therein. All other judicial officers, except justices of the peace and judges or justices of inferior courts not of record, may be removed by the senate, on the recom- mendation of the governor, if two-thirds of all the members elected to the senate concur therein. But no officer shall be re- moved by virtue of this section except for cause, which shall be entered on the journals, nor unless he shall have been served with a statement of the cause alleged, and shall have had an oppor- tunity to be heard. On the qiiestion of removal, the yeas and nays shall be entered on the journal. Section 14. No person shall hold the office of judge, justice of any court or surrogate longer than until and including the last day of December next after he shall be seventy years of age. Each Aetiolb VIII 37 Doc. No. 52 justice of the supreme court shall receive from the state an annual salary of ten thousand dollars. Those assigned to the appellate divisions in the third and fourth departments shall each receive in addition the sum of two thousand dollars, and the presiding justices thereof the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars per year. The justices now in office or hereafter elected in the first and second judicial departments shall continue to receive from their respective cities, counties or districts, as now provided by law, such additional compensation as will make their aggregate compensation what they are now receiving. Those justices elected in any jiidicial department other than the first or second, and assig-ned to the appellate divisions of the first or second depart- ments shall, while so assigned, receive from those departments respectively, as now provided by law, such additional sum as is paid to the justices of those departments. A justice elected in the third or fourth department assigned by the appellate division or designated by the governor to hold a trial or special term in the first or second judicial department shall receive in addition twenty dollars per day for exj^enses while actually so engaged in holding such term, which shall be paid by the state and charged upon the judicial district where the service is rendered. The compensation herein provided shall be in lieu of and shall exclude all other compensation and allowance to siicb justices for expenses of every kind and nature whatsoever. The provisions of this section shall apply to the judges and justices now in oflice and to those hereafter elected. Except in the case of the consolidation of the offices of county judge and surrogate, or to make the compensation of the judges of the court of appeals equal to that of any justice of the supreme court, the compensation of a judge or justice of any court of record in the state shall be neither increased nor decreased during the term of office for which he was elected or appointed. Section 15. The assembly shall have the power of impeach- ment by a vote of a majority of all the members elected. The court for the trial of impeachments shall be composed of the presi- dent of the senate, the senators, or the major part of them, and the judges of the court of appeals, or the major part of them. On the trial of an impeachment against the governor or lieutenant- trovemor, neither the lieutenant-governor nor the temporary presi- dent of the senate shall act as a member of the court. The court for the trial of impeachments may order all or any part of the Doc. No. 52 38 Article VIII testimony to be taken and reported by a committee composed of members of the court, except that the impeached officer must be allowed to testify before the court if he so desire. No judicial officer shall exercise his office, after articles of impeachment against him shall have been preferred to the senate, until he shall have been acquitted. Before the trial of an impeachment the members of the court shall take an oath or affirmation truly and impartially to try the impeachment according to the evidence, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeach- ment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or re^ m.oval from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under this state ; but the party impeached shall be liable to indictment and punishment according to law. Section 16. The existing county courts are continued, and the judges thereof now in office shall hold their offices until the ex- piration of their respective terms except that the county courts in the counties of Kings, Queens, Richmond and Bronx shall be abolished and the coimty judges transferred as provided in this article. The number of county judges in any county may be in- creased, from time to time, by the legislature, to such number that the total number of county judges in any one county shall not exceed one for every two hundred thousand, or major fraction thereof, of the population of such county. The additional county judges whose offices may be created by the legislature shall be chosen at the general election held in the first odd-numbered year after the creation of such office. All county judges, including successors to existing judges, shall be chosen by the electors of the cotmties for the tei'm of six years from and including the first day of January following their election. Except as in this article otherwise provided county courts shall have the powers and juris- diction now prescribed by the legislature, and also original juris- diction in actions for the recovery of money only, v/here all the defendants reside in the county, and in which the complaint de- mands judgment for a sum not exceeding three thousand dollai-s. The legislature may hereafter enlarge or restrict the jurisdiction of the county courts, provided, however, that their jurisdiction shall not be so extended as to authorize an action therein for the recovery of money only, in which (1) the sum demanded exceeds three thousand dollars, or (2) in which any person not a resident of the county is a defendant, unless such defendant have an office Article VIII 3 > Report of the Committee on the Legislature, its organization, etc., m relation to raising the salaries of members of the Legislature 20 Minority report by Mr. Brackett, Mr. Quigg, Mr. Kirby, and Mr. Ford, dissenting from the report of the Committee in relation to the proposed increase in salaries of members of the Legislature 20 Minority report by Mr. A. E. Smith and Mr. Burkan, In relation to representation of New York City in the Legislature and in respect to home rule -~ 40 Legislative Powers, Report of the Committee on Legislative Powers and Limitations, in relation to power to license and regulate certain voca- tions 22 Lieutenant-Governor, Reply of the Lieutenant-Governor, acting as Gov- ernor, to resolution of the convention, relative to prisoners and pardons 12 Lindsay, J. P., Presents the report of the Committee on Legislature, its organization, etc 20 Low, Seth, Report as Chairman of the Committee on Cities, by amend- ment on self-government for cities and villages 36 Lowell, A. Lawrence, Address by, on budget system and short ballot 14 M Mann, Frank, Minority report in relation to civil service 47 Martin, Francis, Minority report in relation to bill of rights 48 Meigs, F. J., Minority report in relation to conservation 28 Memorials : New York State Federation of Labor, recommending several amend- ments to the constitution 17 Society of Tammany or Columbian Order, in relation to trials, judges and legislative representation 27 Militia and Military Affairs, Report of Committee on, makes no changes in present constitution , 49 Minority Reports : Minority report on bill of rights by Mr. M. J. O'Brien, Mr. Schur- man, Mr. Bunce, Mr. Reeves, and Mr. Martin 48 Minority report on proposed budget system by Mr. Wagner 35 Minority report on cities by Mr. Foley and Mr. Franchot 36 Minority reports on civil service by Mr. Mann, Mr. Weed, Mr. Dun- more, Mr. Unger and Mr. Richards 47 Minority report on conservation by Mr. Angell, Mr. Landreth, Mr. Meigs, Mr. Whipple and Mr. Austin 28 Minority report on debts contracted by the state, by Mr. Wagner 23 Minority report on industries and employees, by Mr. Leggett. .30, 31, 39 8 Index to Documents Minority Reports — oontinued: Nos. Minority report on the judiciary article, by Mr. Dunmore 42 Minority report on reapportionment, by Mr. A. E. Smith and Mr. Bur- kan 48 Minority report on salaries of members of the Legislature, by Mr. Brackett, Mr. Quigg, Mr. Kirby and Mr. Ford 20 Minority report on salaries of Public Service Commissioners, Second District, by Mr. Kirby 25 Minority report on short ballot, by Mr. C. NieoU, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Blauvelt and Mr. Bockes 41 N NicoU, C, Minority report in relation to short ballot 40 O O'Brien, M. J.: Substitute amendment in relation to right of electors to select can- didates '^^ Minority report in relation to bill of rights 48 Opinion, by Court of Appeals on Workmen's Compensation Law 19 P Pardons, Reply of Acting Governor Schoeneck to resolution of the con- vention in relation thereto 12 Parsons, Herbert: Report as chairman of the Committee on Industrial Interests and Relations 24, 38 Resolution in relation to woman suffrage 5 Printing Board, State, Report by 4 Public Utilities, Report of Committee on Public Utilities by amendment relating to Public Service Commissions 25 Minority report relating to salaries of Public Service Commissioners, Second District, by Mr. Kirby 25 Quigg, L. E., Minority report in relation to salaries of members of the Legislature 20 R Reapportionment : Memorial by the Society of Tammany or Columbian Order in relation to reapportionment 27 Minority report in relation to reapportionment by Mr. A. E. Smith and Mr. Burkan 46 Reeves, A. G., Minority report in relation to bill of rights 48 Replies : Attorney-General to resolution of the convention in relation to the Court of Claims 16 Clerk of the Court of Appeals to resolution of the convention relating to cases on appeal 8 Comptroller of the State to resolution of the convention relating to county treasurers 9 Index to Documents 9 Replies — continued: Noa. Comptroller of the State to resolution of the convention relating to sinking funds of the state 18 Lieutenant-Governor and Acting Governor to resolution of the con- vention relating to prisoners and pardons 12 Reports : Committees on: Bill of Rights, Minority report in relation to capital punishment. (For majority report see amendment No. 720, Pr. No. 870.) . . 48 Canals, By amendment Int. No. 710, in relation to all matters submitted connected with canals 33 Charities, Recommending no change in the present form of gov- ernment of 34 Cities, In relation to home rule for cities arid villages 36 Civil Service, Recommending no change in the language of the present constitution relating to civil service 47 Conservation, Recommending an entire new article in relation to conservation of natural resources 28 Finances and Expenditures, Recommending a budget system for the state, and in relation to debts contracted by the state. 23, 32, 44 Governor and Other State Officers, On several proposed amend- ments and recommend a short ballot 40 Industrial Interests and Relations, In regard to matters affect- ing employees, workmen's compensation, etc 24, 38 Indians, Recommending that Indian Tribal Courts be abolished. 26 Legislature, its Organization, etc., In relation to salaries and expenses of members of the Legislature 20 Legislative Powers> In relation to license and to regulate certain vocations 22 Militia and Military, Recommends no change in present consti- tution 49 Public Utilities, In relation to Public Service Commissions.... 25 Revision and Engrossment, In relation to all proposed amend- ments and the constitution with all amendments 51-52 Rules, Of the Constitutional Convention, including all amend- ments 3, 10, 21 Special Committee, On time and manner of submission of the revised constitution 53 Special Committee, To prepare and report a form of address to the people on the revised constitution 54 Reports, other than committees: Constitutional Convention Commission 6, 7, 45 State Printing Board 4 Resolution, In regard to woman suffrage 5 Rhees Rush, Report as Chairman of Civil Service Committee 47 Richards, E. L., Minority report on civil service 47 Rights, Bill of. Minority report on, in relation to capital punishment. (For majority report see amendment No. 870, Int. No. 720) 48 Rodenbeck, A. J., Report as Chairman of Committee on Revision and Engrossment, on revised constitution 51, 52 10 Index to Documejs'ts Eoot, Elihu, President: N'os- Address of, in Committee of the Whole, relative to the proposed amended judiciary article 43 Address of, in Comihittee of the Whole, on the short ballot amend- ment 50 Rules, Of the Constitutional Convention, including all amendments. .3, 10, 21 S Salaries : Report on, in relation to members of the Legislature 20 Report on, in relation to Public Service Commissioners 25 Schoeneck, Edward, Lieutenant-Governor and Acting Governor, reply of, relating to prisoners and pardons 12 Schurman, J. G., Minority report in relation to bill of rights 48 Short Ballot, Report on by Committee on Governor and other State Officers . .' 40 Sinking Fund, Answer of State Comptroller to resolution of the conven- tion relating to sinking funds 18 Smith, A. E., Minority report relating to reapportionment 46 Stimson, H. L., Report by as Chairman of the Committee on State Fi- nances, Revenues and Expenditures 23, 32, 44 Suffrage : Address by D-Cady Herrick in relation to suffrage 37 Address by William D. Guthrie in relation to suffrage 37 Address by George W. Wickersham relating to suffrage 37 Amendment offered by Mr. M. J. O'Brien in relation to the right of electors to select candidates for office 29 Resolution by ilr. Parsons in regard to woman suffrage 5 Short Ballot, for election of state officers, majority and minority reports on 40, 41 T Taft, William Howard, Address by, on state budget system and short ballot 11 Tammany Society of, Memorial from in relation to trials, judges and legislative representation '. 27 Tanner, F. C, Report by, as Chairman of the Committee on Governor and Other State Officers relating to short ballot 40 U Unger, A. B., Minority report by, relating to civil service 47 W Wadsworth, J. W., Report by, as Chairman of the Committee on Charities, recommending no change in present constitution 34 Wagner, Robert, Minority reports by, in relation to a budget system and to state debts 35, 23 Weed, J. W., Minority report by, relating to civil service 47 Whipple, J. S., Minority report by, in relation to conservation of natural resources 28 Index to Docujients 11 Wickersham, George W. ; Nos. Address by, in relation to suffrage 37 Report by, as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, relative to the proposed judiciary article 42 Report by, as Chairman of the Special Committee to prepare and report a form of address to the people relating to the revised con- stitution 54 Woman Suffrage, Resolution in regard to 5 Woodbury, E. E., Attorney-General, Reply to resolution of the convention relating to Court of Claims 16 Workmen's Compensation, Opinion on by Court of Appeals 19 ■i-. 1 \\i-~;-\V