It seeks to add to the act authorizing the justices. of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Department to retire employees for incapacity and providing for their compensation a provision authorizing the surrogates of New York and Bronx counties to retire their employees under certain conditions. The bill is a local bill and there is nothing in its title to indicate that it provides in any way for the employees of the surrogate's court. The title is deceptive and would leave one to believe that it related only to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Department. It, therefore, violates section sixteen of article three of the constitution, which provides that "No private or local bill, which may be passed by the Legislature, shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." The bill is also defectively drafted in that it should not be included in a law providing a system of pensions for supreme court employees, but should be a separate act. For the above reasons, the bill is disapproved. (Signed) CHARLES S. WHITMAN. TO AMEND THE TAX LAW IN RELATION TO TAXABLE TRANSFER STATE OF NEW YORK-EXECUTIVE CHAMBER ALBANY, May 13, 1918. Memorandum filed with Senate Bill, Introductory No. 448, Printed No. 1744, entitled: "An act to amend the tax law in relation to taxable transfer." NOT APPROVED: The purpose of this bill is to amend Section 220 of the Tax Law, relating to transfer taxes, so as to include in the property taxable under that section the stock in a domestic corporation held by a non-resident decedent. This section was amended in 1915 and 1916. The inclusion of the former amendments rendered the section difficult of construction and the inclusion of the present amendments would probably result in the courts declaring the provisions in regard to the taxing of the transfer of the stock of a domestic corporation owned by a non-resident decedent to be unconstitutional. The section, as amended, would provide for the taxing of non-resident decedents on the transfer of shares of stock, bonds, notes or other evidences of interest in any corporation, joint stock company or association wherever incorporated or organized, when the property represented by such shares of stock or other intangible property consists of real property which is located wholly or partly within the State of New York in such proportion as the value of the real property of such corporation, joint stock company or association bears to the value of the entire property thereof. Thus, under the provision cited, the stock of a domestic corporation owning real estate would be taxable on a proportionate basis according to the rule set forth above. If the amendment had affected only this one provision, the discrimination would have been less obvious. The proposed measure further provides, however, that shares of stock of any corporation organized under the laws of this State or the proceeds of sale of such stock shall be taxed upon a full value basis, subdivision 8 of said section providing that it shall be taxed upon its clear market value. It is obvious, therefore, that two different bases are provided for the taxation of the transfer of the stock of domestic corporations owned by non-resident decedents, the distinction being based upon the ownership of real property. Thus, all shares of stock of non-resident decedents in domestic corporations are placed in a class for the purpose of taxation, but all members of that class are not treated alike, the statute bearing heavily upon some and lightly upon others, in the same situation. " The proposed law would seem to violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibit any state from making or enforcing any law which denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Court of Appeals in the case of the People ex. rel. Farrington v. Mensching, 187 New York 8," held that the Act of 1906, amending the Stock Transfer Tax Law, which sought to impose a tax of 2 cents "on each share of $100 of face value or fraction thereof," of the stocks sold was unconstitutional, because it arbitrarily taxed the transfer of shares of stock having a par value under one hun dred dollars at a rate higher than it taxed the transfer of shares of stock having a par value of one hundred dollars. For the above reasons the bill is disapproved. (Signed) CHARLES S. WHITMAN. TO AMEND THE LIEN LAW BY ADDING NEW MEN STATE OF NEW YORK-EXECUTIVE CHAMBER ALBANY, May 13, 1918. Memorandum filed with Senate Bill, Introductory Number 461, Printed Number 1088, entitled: "An act to amend the lien law, in relation to contractors, sub-contractors, laborers and material men generally and applicable to the entire State, outside of the city of New York, by adding to chapter thirty-three of the consolidated laws and the acts amendatory thereof a new article, to be known as article twelve of the lien law." NOT APPROVED: The purpose of this bill is to provide a new and different lien law, applying only to that portion of the State outside of the City of New York. It adds a new article, known as Article XII. While there is no doubt that a situation exists which requires some remedial legislation, nevertheless I feel that the enactment of this bill would render most uncertain and doubtful a law which, to be effective, should in its terms be clear and concise. For instance, Section 2 of this bill provides: "The foregoing provisions of this act shall not apply to real property within cities having a population of two million or more inhabitants." Section 3 provides: "All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed * * Thus, in a proceeding affecting property outside of the City of New York, it would be necessary to compare all of the present provisions of the Lien Law with those of this proposed measure, in order to ascertain whether or not they were inconsistent. It will be seen, therefore, without calling attention to other defects, that these provisions alone, if enacted, would make the Lien Law vague and confusing in its operation. I desire to make it clear, however, that my objections are due to its unworkable features, and I believe some relief should be afforded the proponents of this measure. The bill is therefore disapproved. (Signed) CHARLES S. WHITMAN. OMNIBUS VETO NUMBER TWO STATE OF NEW YORK-EXECUTIVE CHAMBER ALBANY, May 13, 1918. Memorandum filed with bills specified below: NOT APPROVED: The following bills are not approved because they are either duplicates or unnecessary, or defectively drawn, or are embraced in or in conflict with bills already signed, or are unconstitutional, or are for |