600 



NEW YOKE. 



of the Hepburn Committee, reported in 1880. 

 It provided for the appointment of three com- 

 missioners by the Governor, by and with the 

 advice and consent of the Senate, and defined 

 their powers. The bill was kept in the hands 

 of the Kailfoad Committee without action un- 

 til the 23d of March, when, on motion of Mr. 

 Baker, it was taken from the committee to be 

 considered by the House. The opposition was 

 then directed against the provision giving the 

 Governor the power to appoint the commis- 

 sioners, and a long political wrangle ensued. 

 Mr. Armstrong, a Republican, proposed an 

 amendment naming the commissioners in the 

 bill. Mr. Haggerty, a Tammany representa- 

 tive, proposed that there should be four com- 

 missioners, and that the Governor be required 

 to take two from each political party. Another 

 proposition was to postpone the selection un- 

 til January, 1883, in order that the existing 

 Governor might not exercise the power of ap- 

 pointment. Then Mr. Haggerty modified his 

 amendment, so that it provides for three com- 

 missioners, to be appointed by the Governor, 

 one of whom "shall be selected from the 

 party which cast at the last general election 

 the greatest number of votes for Secretary of 

 State " ; one " from the party which cast at the 

 last general election the next greatest number 

 of votes for Secretary of State, one of whom 

 shall be experienced in railroad business " ; and 

 one "upon the recommendation of the presi- 

 dents and executive committees, or a majority 

 of such, of the Chamber of Commerce of the 

 State of New York, the New York Board 

 of Trade and Transportation, and the National 

 Anti-Monopoly League of New York, or any 

 two of such organizations so represented, in 

 case of disagreement." Following this was a 

 substitute proposed by Mr. Welch, Democrat, 

 that the commissioners be elected by the peo- 

 ple. On the 6th of April the bill was ordered 

 to a third reading, all amendments affecting 

 appointments having thus far been defeated, 

 by a vote of 69 to 55. When the bill finally 

 passed the Assembly, on the 19th of April, 

 however, it was with the amendment making 

 the commissioners elective. This was adopted 

 by a vote of 66 to 57, and the bill then passed, 

 106 to 15. When it was reported in the Sen- 

 ate, it was with a change embodying the Hag- 

 gerty proposition in regard to the appointment 

 of commissioners. A proposition to restore 

 the Assembly provision was defeated, 13 to 

 14; a motion to give the Governor an un- 

 trammeled choice was lost, 9 to 14 ; an effort 

 to have the commissioners named in the bill 

 failed, and for some time final action was pre- 

 vented by the refusal of the Democratic Sena- 

 tors to vote. The opposition was based mainly 

 on political objections to giving Governor Cor- 

 nell the power to name the commissioners at 

 all. Finally, after a long straggle, in which 

 the various propositions were repeatedly voted 

 on, an amendment retaining the Haggerty, or 

 anti-monopoly, method of appointment, but 



postponing the exercise of the appointing 

 power until a new Governor had been chosen, 

 was agreed to, and the bill passed both Houses 

 in that form on the 25th of May. In the Sen- 

 ate there was but one dissenting voice on the 

 first vote, that of McCarthy, of Syracuse, and 

 in the Assembly the vote was 75 to 39. Ef- 

 forts were made to secure a veto of the bill, 

 but it was signed by the Governor. 



The powers given to the Railroad Commis- 

 sion were chiefly those of inquiry and super- 

 vision, all enforcements of law having to be 

 effected through the action of the Attorney- 

 General. Its main purpose was to secure pub- 

 licity, the investigation of all complaints, and 

 full reports to the Legislature. The Commis- 

 sioners receive $8,000 a year each, and have 

 allowances for assistance and expenses. The 

 yearly cost, which must not exceed $50,000, is 

 to be borne by the railroad companies ; one 

 half in proportion to net income, and one half 

 in proportion to length of main track. 



A bill which attracted a good deal of atten- 

 tion was one providing that the elevated rail- 

 road companies of New York city should, in 

 lieu of other public charges, pay a tax of 4 

 per cent on their gross receipts, and relieving 

 them of a large amount of taxes already due, 

 though disputed, on their property. The bill, 

 as first submitted, was understood to have 

 the approval of the Mayor and Comptroller 

 of the city ; but it was materially modified, 

 and they not only withdrew their approval, 

 but earnestly opposed its passage, on the 

 ground that it unjustly discriminated in fa- 

 vor of these particular corporations, and de- 

 prived the city of a large amount of revenue 

 rightly due to it. After the bill had passed 

 both Houses, several members professed to 

 have voted for it under a misapprehension, 

 and a resolution recalling it from the Governor 

 passed the Senate, but was defeated in the As- 

 sembly. The bill was vetoed by the Governor 

 after the close of the session, although the 

 companies made strenuous efforts to induce 

 him to sign it, ex-Senator Conkling acting as 

 their attorney in the matter. Another bill 

 that attracted considerable attention was a 

 general act providing for the construction of 

 street surface railways. It was claimed that 

 it covered certain schemes for street railways 

 in the city of New York, without providing 

 sufficiently for the protection of public and 

 private interests. This bill also passed, and 

 was vetoed by the Governor after the close of 

 the session. A bill compelling the elevated 

 railroad companies to reduce their fares to five 

 cents passed the Senate early in the session, 

 but action upon it was prevented by its oppo- 

 nents in the Assembly. 



Among the bills passed was one for the reg- 

 ulation of primary elections, but it was so lim- 

 ited as to apply only to the city of Brooklyn. It 

 contains stringent provisions against fraudulent 

 voting and false counting in primary elections, 

 and empowered inspectors at such elections to 



