OBJECTIONS REPORTED TO BUT NOT SANCTIONED BY THE COUNCIL, TO BILLS WHICH CONSEQUENTLY BECAME LAWS. CITY OF NEW YORK, April 26, 1785. Present - Governor Clinton; Morris, Chief Justice; Hobart, Justice. A bill entitled "An act for the payment of the salaries of the several officers of government, and for other purposes therein mentioned," was before the Council. Chief Justice Morris reported the following objections, viz.: For that, by the thirty-fifth section of the Constitution of this State, it is ordained, determined and declared "That such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the Colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said Colony, on the nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the Legislature of this State shall from time to time make concerning the same." That, by an act of the Legislature of this State, while it was the Colony of New York, passed the 18th of October, 1701, entitled "An act for allowance to the representatives," it is enacted "that the wages or allowance to each representative of the people from the first day of that session, and forever, thereafter, should be six shillings current money of the then Province per diem, to commence from their coming out, till their return home; always provided it should not exceed eight days after their adjourning, proroguing or dissolving the same, and that each respective city and county throughout the then Province should bear and defray the charge of their own representatives, which charge or allowance, as aforesaid, should be paid to the respective representatives by the treasurer of each respective city and county by warrant under the hand and seal of the mayor of the respective cities for the time being, and by warrant of any two justices of the peace to the treasurer of the respective counties, after the return of the said representatives from the Assembly, within ten days after the collecting of the public and necessary charges of each respective city and county:" which law was altered so far as it respected the quantum of the daily wages of the representatives of the city and county of Albany, the county of Suffolk and the county (then called) Tryon county; the one passed the first day of November, 1722; the other the 12th of July, 1729, and the other the 8th day of March, 1773the first entitled "An act for paying the representatives of the city and county of Albany;" the second entitled "An act to ascertain the allowance to the representatives for the county of Suffolk, and for other purposes therein mentioned;" and the other entitled "An act for fixing the allowance to the representatives of the counties of Tryon and Cumberland;" which several laws remained in full force on the 19th day of April in the year 1775, and are still unrepealed, and therefore the provision in the said bill for the payment of the representatives of the people in Assembly, and not declaring it to be in satisfaction for their services, each, sixteen shillings per day out of the treasury of the State, and not from the respective treasuries of the respective cities and counties of the State, from which they ought in justice and by law to be paid, if intended not as abundant gratuity but as pay, is expressly so far against the said laws and contrary to the Constitution of this State, and provides the payment of sixteen shillings, with the six shillings, which is near fourfold the former provision. That if it is intended as an abundant gratuity over and above the allowance established by the before recited laws, and called for by the enhanced prices of every necessary of life, it is against the good of the people and impeaches the generosity of the Legislature that the same liberality of sentiment which they extend to themselves should not be extended to the other servants of the people (whose duties are more than doubly increased since the Revolution, some of whom have been greatly injured by the war) to enable them to live with decency and reputation in their respective offices, and support those appearances that create respect to government and esteem in the people. And further, to that clause of the bill, vacating the judgment obtained by Rosena Rush against Garret Ackerson, Isaac Coe and John Deronde: First. For that the subject matter of the said clause has no reference whatsoever to the title of the said bill or the general contents thereof; and, Secondly. For that, the Legislature must have determined the matter upon partial evidence, unless the said Rosena Rush has been called in with her witnesses to be heard before the Legislature; and in such case the Legislature would be assuming to themselves judicial powers with the Legislature, which by the Constitution, for the safety of the good people of this State, are wisely separated: should the said Rosena Rush, and her witnesses not have been called in before the Legislature, the clause now objected to, must have been formed upon partial testimony, a precedent in its effect extremely dangerous to the rights and liberties of the good people of this State, and subversive of that equal justice which every citizen expects from the known law of the land. It is to be presumed that the court in which the said judgment was obtained have done their duty, and if a judgment by default that the defendants had not sufficient matter for their defense; or if they had neglected or omitted such defense, relying on the interposition now made by the Legislature, thereby making the Legislature the handmaid of their default: and thus in either case, if the judgment is right, unreputable to the State that the Legislature should interfere, if wrong, improper that they should be employed to remedy evils arising from individual neglect for individual advantage against the known law of the land, thereby tacitly impeaching the reputation of the court wherein the said judgment was obtained, raising the presumption that the court had done wrong, and that the interference of the highest authority of the State was necessary to correct its errors, and in its effect destroyng the confidence of the people in the law of the land, and the ribunal established for the distribution of justice. The Council adopted the objections to the bill, found in the body of the work, at page 278. |