618 



NEW YORK. 



.13. Expenditures on buildings and improve- 

 ments, $855,882.55 ; supervision and mainte- 

 nance, 7,627,544.41; total, $8,483,426.96. The 

 number of poorhouses and almshouses in the 

 State at that time was 64, and the number of 

 children in them was 1,131. The following is 

 a classification of the condition of such chil- 

 dren who were between the ages of three and 

 sixteen years: Healthy and intelligent, 111; 

 teachable idiots, 152; unteach able idiots, 105; 

 feeble-minded, 23; epileptic, 10; paralytic, 8; 

 otherwise diseased, 57 ; crippled and deformed, 

 50 ; blind, 9 ; deaf and dumb, 3. 



In answer to an inquiry of the Senate made 

 on January 16th, the Commissioners of the new 

 Capitol reported that it might be completed 

 and furnished ready for occupancy, and that 

 the grounds connected therewith might be laid 

 out and fenced, and the old Capitol and other 

 buildings removed, for the sum of $5,198,625. 

 The items of such expenditure are set forth in 

 the following schedule: 



Cost of building, including dome : 



Granite ............................... $1,429,55T 



Sandstone ........ '. ..................... 1,103,088 



Plumbing and gas-fitting ....... 55,445 



Tiling of roofs .......................... 59^350 



Iron-work. ............................. 208,680 



Carpenter-work ........................ 250,851 



Brickwork .............................. 233,292 



Plastering .................... . ........ 102,500 



Tiling floor ............................. 133,500 



Warble ................................. 19.425 



Heating. ... ............................ 83,000 



Elevators ............................... 120,000 



Terrace: 

 Granite ........................ $238,496 



Sandstone ...................... 379,829 



Brickwork. .................... 154,47 2 



Tiling ......................... 56,300 



Carpenter-work ................ 20,840 



Furniture .............................. 



Taking down buildings and laying out 



$849,937 

 400 000 



150,000 

 Total ............................. $5,198,625 



Immediately after this report was made an 

 act was passed by the Legislature making an 

 appropriation of $300,000 to continue the work 

 on the building through the winter. This mea- 

 sure put an end to all controversy relative to 

 completion of the expensive work, and insured 

 its early occupation by the State authorities. 

 This occupation took place on _ 



A bill passed both Houses of the Legislature 



to provide for the incorporation of pipe-line 



companies, and was sent to the Governor, who 



declined to sign it. but allowed it to become a 



v by the lapse of ten days. The purpose of 



these companies is the transportation of oil 



rom its sources to the points of general mar- 



t by its flow through a pipe laid on or near 



surface of the ground. The Governor said 



am of opinion that the power which it gives 



to the corporations which may be formed un- 



to take private property without the 



it of the owner, is unconstitutional. Up- 



this question I applied to the Attorney-Gen- 



an official opinion. From this opinion, 



wel as from my own examination, I find 



he judicial decisions upon the question in some 



conflict and confusion. Some of them go so 

 far as to practically destroy the old doctrines 

 in regard to the right of eminent domain. The 

 question is a judicial one, and I regard it of 

 great public importance that it should be au- 

 thoritatively settled at the earliest practicable 

 day by a decision of the highest Court in the 

 State. For this reason, and for the purpose of 

 enabling the matter to be brought before the 

 courts for such adjudication, I cheerfully allow 

 the bill to become a law by the lapse of the ten 

 days provided for in the Constitution." 



The legal aspect of the question is briefly 

 presented by the Attorney- General, A. Schoon- 

 maker, Jr., in the following extracts : 



The Constitution, which requires compensation to 

 be made when private property is taken for a public 

 use, implies that, under universally understood prin- 

 ciples of government, the power can only be exer- 

 cised for a public use. No consent is implied that 

 under this power private property may be taken for 

 a private use, for the plain reason that it would be 

 destructive of the very object of government, which, 

 is to protect rights of person and rights of property. 

 It is a fundamental principle that governments de- 

 rive their just power from the consent of the gov- 

 erned ; and implied consent embraces only the pow- 

 er necessary for the public purpose of just govern- 

 ment. A public use is therefore the only purpose 

 for which private rights of property can be invaded 

 and the owner displaced by the sovereign power. 

 This is a limitation on the power of governments 

 indispensable to the security and happiness of the 

 people. A public use, in the proper sense, is a gov- 

 ernmental use. It is some purpose relating to the 

 public defense, the public welfare, the administra- 

 tion of government, the means of communication 

 with all parts of the territory governed, and fa- 

 cilities for collecting and augmenting the public 

 revenue and for commercial intercourse. For these 

 purposes lands may be taken for the erection of 

 buildings for legislative bodies, for courts, for pris- 

 o>ns, for all police and sanitary purposes, for educa- 

 tional uses, and for public charities, as well as for 

 building bridges, roads, canals, and parks. 



"But the right of eminent domain does not, how- 

 ever, imply a right in the sovereign power to take 

 the property of one citizen and transfer it to another, 

 even for a full compensation, when the public inter- 

 est will be in no way promoted by such transfer." 

 (3 Paige, 73.) "A public use implies a possession, 

 occupation, and enjoyment of the land by the public 

 at large, or by public agencies ; and a due protection 

 to tlie rights of private property will preclude the 

 government from seizing it in the hands of the own- 

 er and turning it over to another on vague grounds 

 of public benefit to spring from the more profitable 

 use to which the latter may devote it." (Cooley, 

 Const. Lira., 531.) 



What constitutes a public use is properly a judicial 

 question to be determined ultimately by the courts, 

 although in some States it has been held that where 

 a statute in terms declares the use to be public for 

 which private property is authorized to be taken, the 

 courts will hold it to be such, unless the contrary 

 clearly appears (25 111., 540 ; 33 Conn., 55), and the 

 United States Supreme Court has given sanction to 

 tlie same doctrine (4 Otto, 113 ; ditto, 310). But 

 in this State the law is settled that a legislative 

 declaration can not make that a public uee which is 

 not so in its nature (39 N. Y., 174; 66 N. Y., 569). 

 The latter case is the latest and most authoritative 

 enunciation of the law upon this question. The 

 Court say that " where the uses are in fact public, 

 the necessity or expediency of taking private prop- 

 erty for such uses, oy the exercise or the delegation 

 of the right of eminent domain, the instrumentalities 



