Gonstitutionality of Proposed Bond Issue 

 Several important constitutional questions arise in connec- 

 tion with this bond issue proposal. The most important of these 

 questions are (1) Does the proposed bond issue provide for a 

 single object within the meaning of Article 3, Section 7 of 

 the Constitution? (2) Is the provision for permanent improve- 

 ments to be regarded as a logical and necessary feature in the 

 development of a unified state park plan? (3) May the proposal 

 if approved by the legislature of 1923 be submitted to the people 

 at the election in the fall of 1923 ? 



The Committee has sought the benefit of the advice of dis- 

 tinguished constitutional authorities on these questions. These 

 authorities include Mr. Louis Marshall, Mr. George W. Wicker- 

 sham, former Attorney General of the United States, Judge 

 Samuel H. Ordway, Mr. Merton E. Lewis, former Attorney 

 General of New York State, and Senator Martin Saxe. These 

 gentlemen are all of the opinion that the proposed bill is con- 

 stitutional, that the provision for permanent improvements is 

 proper, and that the proposal may be submitted to the people 

 in 1923 if approved by the legislature. The committee wishes 

 to express its thanks to these gentlemen and to Mr. W. F. Mc- 

 Cormick, one of the state bill drafting commissioners, for their 

 assistance in the preparation of the bill. 



Financial Aspects of the Plan 



The bond issue bill calls for fifty-year serial bonds. The 

 bill is, of course, merely an authorization to the legislature, 

 and no monies from the bond issues may be spent excepting pur- 

 suant to legislative appropriations. It is anticipated that the 

 legislature will make appropriations from time to time as condi- 

 tions warrant in the course of the next seven years. No provision 

 need be made until 1925 for the retirement of such bonds or for 

 interest charges. The amount to be retired annually will not in 

 any one year exceed $280,000. Interest charges will run from a 

 minimum of two hundred eighty-five thousand dollars to a maxi- 

 mum of six hundred thousand dollars at the end of five or six 

 years, and will then be reduced gradually by approximately 

 one hundred fourteen thousand dollars per year as the bonds 

 are retired. In this connection it should be noted that previous 

 bond issues are being rapidly retired and that the new bond 

 issue will therefore impose only a very small additional burden. 



Another financial question is that of upkeep. Close exami- 

 nation of the suggested park extension and developments will 

 show that the increased cost of maintenance need not be a seri- 

 ous consideration. The conservation commission is increas- 

 mgly self-supporting. Other parks will also produce more reve- 

 nue as they are developed, and will not in any event require 

 large additional appropriations. 



