The proposition to enlarge the liability of the State.

The fundamental law will thereby be completely overturned and the Legislature divested of all control tending to the State's special protection. This is contrary to the constitutional provisions of every other State in the United States.

Full power exists under present laws to provide for payment of equitable claims against the State, limited only by the provisions of the existing Constitution, viz.: Statute of limitations, extras, etc. Special cases may thus be recognized by specific acts wherein the amount of the recovery can be limited. Every such claim is thus subjected to public scrutiny and must receive legislative and executive sanction. "The power of the Legisla ture is not restricted to claims founded on legal liability enforceable as against an individual by action, but in special cases, where in its judgment justice requires, it may give power to the Board of Claims or other tribunals, to disregard defenses strictly legal, and to hear and determine claims against the State, founded in right and justice." (Cole v. The State of New York, 102 N. Y., 48.)

The amendment will throw open the courts for suits without limit or restriction, by scholars in State institutions of learning, by patients in State hospitals, by persons engaged in navigating the canals, by employes and appointees in the several public offices and public works, by contractors, and in cases of riot and injuries to or by the members of the National Guard, claims arising in the Indian reservations and by convicts in confinement.

The result will be an appalling number of actions added to a calendar of claims which already practically commands the undivided attention of one of the Deputy Attorney-Generals of the State.

The extent of the damages will be thrown open to juries of the vicinage or to referees. Delays will be encouraged for the accumulation of interest.

The spirit of extravagance which so often actuates juries in actions against corporations will be further extended against the State, which, they will reason, can afford to pay liberally.

Private corporations now protect their interests in litigations only by unceasing efforts of vigilant defenders. The State, with ever-changing assistance in the capacity of both counsel and witnesses, will fail of even this protection.

All previous constitutional restrictions in this State have had solely in view to restrain and limit the power of the Legislature to extend the liability of the State. This proposition seeks to deprive the Legislature of all power of protecting the State in the direction of limiting its liability.

II.

The proposition to transfer claims against the State to the Supreme Court.

The Board of Claims has now exclusive jurisdiction of these proceedings. It holds four stated sessions at the Capitol. Extra sessions at such points throughout the State as the convenience of witnesses demands are also held at such times as the engagements and preparations of the Attorney-General, State Engineer and Department of Public Works will permit. This concentrates the business for the State's counsel to an extent and with advantages that need not be described.

Under the new liability as proposed, within nearly every county in the State one or more of the conditions which furnish occasion for the bringing of actions will exist and be taken advantage of. The force of the Attorney-General's office will be inadequate to follow the various circuits and the resulting appeals. The creation of new State officers in each county, or devolving the duty on existing county officers, would increase the State salary list, and yet fail to provide concert of action in the State's behalf. The -co-operation of the State Engineer's office and that of the Department of Public Works, which are required in ninety per cent of

such claims, would be demanded from divers parts of the State for different claims at the same dates. Many concurring circuits must then fail to give any relief, resulting in delays injurious and expensive to the State and vexatious to claimants. Under the present system it is rarely that any claim filed cannot be heard at the ensuing session of the Board of Claims if the claimant is ready.

The existing complaint of insufficient opportunities for the disposal of business in the Supreme Court would be intensified. Claims frequently arise in classes and number hundreds at one time and place. Court calendars would thus be overloaded with preferred causes, which, if tried, would hamper the disposal of private litigation, and if not, would jeopardize the State's interest. Trials during the term of office of officials and employes of the State, who are witnesses, is a very essential feature of the State's proper defense. Memory fails more quickly out of office than in it. Local sympathy as against the wealthy State of New York would decide the question of damages always against the State in favor of the neighbor. Where a number of claims of the same class existed, this and other more serious influences would be encountered.

If not heard before the jury the court would relieve itself by the appointment of referees. The extent of the responsibility here is not always satisfactory in point of sympathy or influence. The expense of maintaining a corps of referees throughout the State would afford to the bar an unlimited source of revenue from the State. A single serious canal overflow with a few hundred claims in suit dragging through several years would probably entail more in referees' and stenographers' fees, than the annual appropriation for the maintenance of the Board of Claims. Costs, allowances, witnesses fees and disbursemnts will

add to the State's liability.

The Attorney-General would be hampered by the use of pleadings. These are not now required of the State. The change of a whole staff of deputies such as the new business would require, following elections, would leave the State's interest poorly protected. The change of judges who would hear the various claims would open the door for frauds which would be detected or not attempted before a tribunal accustomed to such classes of cases and having sole charge thereof. The familiarity of the Board of Claims with the methods of claimants and with the witnesses who repeatedly appear against the State for them, which secures

justice for the State would be completely wanting when that jurisdiction was spread and that experience lost. The State would always be found appropriating the best land in the farm at a fancy price.

The view of the premises now exercised by the Board of Claims, a highly essential power, would not be practicable.

Responsibility for awards against the State is at present well defined, resting upon the Attorney-General and the Commissioners of the Board of Claims. How different would it be with juries as against the State, where between methods of arriving at ver dicts by "splitting the difference," etc., etc., the only responsibility would be that of the State to pay? The practice in other States is here summarized. In none is it placed beyond legislative power to limit the State's liability or change the procedure to a like extent. In Massachusetts and Nebraska, where jurisdiction is given to the courts, no such liability as is proposed is placed upon the State, and consequently no such classes or numbers of claims can arise. In the following States constitutional provision is made that claims shall be allowed as the Legislature shall determine: Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Washington, and the statutes of Iowa similarly provide.

The Constitutions of Alabama and Illinois forbid suits against the State. In the following States statutory provision alone is made, and provides for Auditors, Comptrollers or Boards of Examiners: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia.

In the following States, by legislative provision only, and hence necessarily subject to change and limitation, courts have jurisdiction of claims against the State, namely, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina.

In Massachusetts, the Superior Court, without jury, has jurisdiction, and when the amount exceeds $1,000 to be tried by three justices.

In Nebraska an appeal lies to District Courts from State officers. In North Carolina the court can only hear and recommend to the Legislature.

BILL OF RIGHTS.

MINORITY REPORT

FROM MR. WOODWARD, FROM THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE AND BILL OF RIGHTS, PROPOSING TO AMEND THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, ALSO ADD NEW SECTIONS TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

PREAMBLE.

We, the People of the State of New York, hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are born free and equal; that all governments are founded upon one or the other of two principles. Upon equal rights or upon exclusive privileges. That our gov. ernment, both State and National, is founded upon the principle of equal rights.

That grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure those rights and the blessings of liberty, we do establish this Constitution:

Sec. 2. The State of New York is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States, within its legitimate sphere, is the supreme law of the Land.

No person has a right, in this State, to incite others to the commission of crime or violence, or to advocate in public doctrines, tending directly or indirectly to overthrow or abrogate the rights of the people to enjoy property, life, liberty, or the pur. suit of happiness.

Sec. 8. Every citizen of this State shall be free to obtain employment whenever possible, and any person, corporation or agent thereof, unlawfully or maliciously interfering or hinder. ing in any way, any citizen or person from obtaining or enjoy. ing employment already obtained, shall be deemed guilty of a crime, or misdemeanor, depending on the means used.

Sec. 9. The rights of the laborer shall receive just protection, through laws calculated to protect him in his labors, and to promote the industrial welfare of the State.