your honorable body with my objections to granting special charters in cases where there are general laws providing for the same general purposes, and to express my opinion that they are unconstitutional. These objections seem to me to apply with as great force to a bill extending an existing special charter as to a bill granting an original one. Upon this subject I approve this language used by Governor Fish in 1850. He says: 'The question then presents itself whether an act extending the duration of an existing corporation is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, which prohibits the Legislature from creating by special act a corporation with similar objects to that which it is proposed to extend. Had the charter expired, there would be no doubt of the want of power in the Legislature to create by special act a corporation for the objects contemplated by the act which it is proposed by this bill to extend. And I cannot persuade myself that the fact that the charter of the company in question has not yet expired, can give the Legislature a power which it clearly would not possess had the charter expired before the attempt to exercise such power. The Legislature of 1850, has no power under the Constitution with respect to granting acts of incorporation, which may not equally be exercised by the Legislature of 1853. The charter of the Schoharie bridge company will have expired by its own limitation in the year 1852. After that date, and so long as a general law applicable to the formation of similar corporations shall remain in force, there can be no pretence of a power in the Legislature to pass a special act giving an existence for twenty-eight years to the company for whose benefit the bill is designed. In my opinion the Legislature cannot merely by anticipation exercise prohibited power. I do not doubt that the Legislature may constitutionally alter or amend by a special law an existing charter granted prior to the adoption of the present Con 1 Const. 1846, art. 8, § 1. stitution, and in a case in which a corporation could not now be created, except under a general law, so as to enable the corporation the better to accomplish the objects of its creation, and with this view may modify its corporate powers. There may also be cases in which, in order to protect existing rights, an extension of the charter is proper.' Entertaining such views, I am obliged to return the bill for reconsideration, simply adding, in the language of Gov. Hunt, that if the corporation decide to continue the exercise of their corporate privileges for an additional term of years, it appears to me that they should comply with the general law which has made ample and convenient provision for such cases.'" [See next special message.] April 18. To the Assembly: เ "ALBANY, April 18, 1859. "Since the transmission to your honorable body of the message stating my objections to the bill relating to the Port Byron and Conquest plankroad company, my attention has been called to the fact that the Seneca river, which this road crosses by a long bridge, has been declared a public highway. Had I known this fact I should have given to the bill my approval; for I take it to be clear, that a company organized under the general plank road act cannot originally erect a bridge across navigable waters, and that there is a doubt whether a company so organized can rebuild and maintain such an existing bridge after the expiration of the special act which authorized its erection. In view of this doubt, and of the inconvenience which would result to the public if the bridge were permanently removed, I request that your body will, if consistent with your rules, return the message and the bill to me, that I may give to the latter my approval. E. D. MORGAN.” This bill was approved April 19, and became chapter 482. April 19. To the Senate: Veto of a bill entitled "An act in relation to the duties of the assistant clerks of the New York Police Courts." The bill "imposes upon them no new duties, but raises their compensation about four thousand dollars in the aggregate. The present salaries were fixed only a year since by the supervisors of the county, and the same body possesses full power to increase them. Without the sanction or intervention of these local authorities an attempt is now made to increase the salaries and to place them beyond the control of the supervisors. In signing my name to this bill I should be called upon to give my approval to that which I believe to be radically wrong in principle. Where the local authorities possess all necessary powers and there is no complaint of any unjust refusal to act, and no public grievance is shown to exist, I cannot sanction with my signature any attempt to overrule or interfere with the powers of the local authorities." The bill was not passed over the veto. April 19. To the Assembly: Veto of a bill entitled "An act for the relief of the personal representatives of Chapman Church, deceased." “I am quite unable to see the justice of the claim sanctioned by the bill, and I feel sure that the facts could not have been properly understood by your honorable body. As I understand the case presented by the petitioners, the Comptroller, in 1853, sold a certain parcel of land for unpaid taxes, and it was purchased by one Goodyear, who assigned his certificate to one Kidder. In 1855 the land was properly redeemed, but through some mistake, the proper entry was not made in the Comptroller's office, and a deed was subsequently irregularly given to Kidder. He sold to Chapman Church, (whose heirs now seek relief,) for the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars. The land having been properly redeemed, neither Kidder nor Church got any title to it. Under these circumstances the heirs of Church ask the State to repay to them the one hundred and twenty-five dollars paid by him to Kidder, with interest, although the amount the State received from Kidder was less than five dollars. If the claim should be sanctioned, it would, I fear, prove the entering wedge which would lead to large drafts upon the treasury, and introduce great abuses. The person who buys a tax title knows that he buys a doubtful title, and with that knowledge ordinarily pays much less than the value of the land. If his title fails, the utmost he can claim from the State is the amount the State received, and if he has paid more than that, he should look to his vendor. I therefore return the bill for reconsideration." The bill was not passed over the veto. April 19. To the Assembly: Veto of a bill entitled "An act to authorize the First Congregational Church and Society of Cambria, Niagara County, to sell and convey their parsonage property." The act " gives the power to do what can be accomplished under an existing law, which has been many years upon the Statute Book, and which has only recently been declared ample by the Court of Appeals.* The law is to be found on page 610 of the second volume of the fifth edition of the Revised Statutes, and gives the Supreme Court power to order the sale of any property belonging to religious corporations, and to direct the application of the proceeds to proper purposes. I therefore return the bill without my signature." April 19. The Legislature adjourned without day. * See Wheaton v. Gates (1858), 18 N. Y. 395. 1860. JANUARY 3. LEGISLATURE, EIGHTY-THIRD SESSION. EDWIN D. MORGAN, Governor. ANNUAL MESSAGE. TO THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY.- It is especially incumbent upon all who are engaged in public affairs to acknowledge their dependence upon the author of all good, and to supplicate His favor and blessing. Let us, therefore, in proceeding to the discharge of the highly responsible trusts which have been committed to us, invoke His divine aid that He will crown with success all the efforts that shall be made in any department of the government for the material, intellectual, and religious improvement of the people. Conforming my action to a requirement of our written Constitution, I now proceed to communicate to the Legislature the condition of the State, and to recommend the adoption of such measures as I deem expedient. The Canal Debt, paying interest, is as follows: 1. The debt referred to in article seven, section one of the Constitution, being the debt in existence at the adoption of that instrument and to the payment of the principal and interest of which the surplus revenues of the canals to the amount of $1,700,000 annually are devoted...... $11,665,098.99 [151] |