MESSAGE

VETOING AN ACT RELATIVE TO PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF BOSTON.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, BOSTON, March 27, 1893.

TO THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: RETURN herewith with my objections a bill entitled "An Act relative to Persons employed in the Fire Department of the City of Boston," which originated in your body.

This bill applies to a single executive department of a single city of the Commonwealth, and undertakes to regulate therein an important detail of administration, which is at present wholly controlled by the executive authority of said city, and so by her citizens themselves. A general law, enacting the provision of this bill as a general policy for the State, applicable to all her cities, has been defeated by this Legislature.

I fully sympathize with the desire of the Legislature to lessen the hours of labor in this department, but I do not believe in the principle that the State, even to accomplish a desirable end, should interfere with the right of local self-government by the city of Boston or by any other community, or should undertake by special law to control a department thereof, or to regulate its details.

Against such interference I have constantly protested, both by recommendation and veto, frequently

declaring that the right of local self-government "should be carefully conserved," and recommending "that whenever and wherever possible this right should be left in or restored to her respective cities and towns, and that "as far as possible every local community should be left to govern itself, and to determine for itself questions of administration and public policy which affect its interests." I have earnestly urged that the control of the police, of which she has been most unjustly and unfortunately deprived, should be restored to the city of Boston. I am quite unwilling to sanction an attempt by the State to direct another of her departments, or to interfere with its control by the proper local authority. I can think of no department in which the citizens of Boston just now have a keener interest, or over which, through their chosen servants, they should have a more direct and unhampered control, than their fire department. They know its needs. and its wishes, and are vitally interested in its efficiency. They appreciate, I believe, the labor, danger, and faithful service of the men in this department, and are ready to grant them such relief from constant duty as is consistent with the public interest and safety.

Of these matters they are most competent and responsible to judge. I sincerely trust that their opinion, expressed through their officials, may agree with the opinion expressed by the Legislature in this bill; but I am unwilling, by approving the bill, to say that they shall have no power to control this matter, or that a hard-and-fast rule shall be laid down for them in the administration of this department, which, if adopted, places the matter beyond their discretion and supervision.

Nor does it obviate this objection that the Act does not take effect until approved by the mayor and city

council. If this leaves to them the same power they now have, then the Act is wholly unnecessary. If it does not, then it is an interference with the right of local self-government. It is clear, however, that if approved, the control of an important part of this department will not be within the discretion, as now, of the city of Boston, but will be defined by statute, which can only be changed by the Legislature. The amended charter of Boston places this department under the executive of the city, who is immediately responsible to the people, and subject to their control. Without any petition or request from him or the city council, or the department itself, but against the protest of the authorities in charge, this bill has been passed.

I regret to differ from the Legislature in this matter. The end desired commends itself to my sympathy and judgment.

The general tendency to shorten the hours of labor and improve the condition of all wage-earners has constantly received my official recommendation and approval. I shall be glad to co-operate with you in any wise measure or general policy, consistent with public interests, in this direction. But I believe it important also, as urged in a former message to the Legislature, "jealously to guard the right of local selfgovernment, preserve it when possible, and restore it where necessary."

MESSAGE

VETOING THE ACT TO INCORPORATE THE TOWN OF EAST LONGMEADOW.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, BOSTON, May 5, 1893.

TO THE HONORABLE SENATE:

I

HEREWITH return, with my objections, the bill entitled "An Act to incorporate the Town of East Longmeadow," which originated in your body. The bill provides for the division of one of the oldest and best of the towns of the Commonwealth, against the earnest protest of the inhabitants thereof twice formally expressed by a very large majority. Amendments to the bill providing that it shall take effect only when accepted by a majority, or even by one-third of the voters of the town, have been rejected. The evident and earnest wish of the town upon the vital question of its continued existence, in my judgment should be decisive in the absence of strong reasons justifiying its forcible division. I have carefully examined, therefore, the reasons urged for such action, the consequences which would result, and the general policy of the Commonwealth upon the subject.

I find that it is the established policy of this Commonwealth, as evidenced by its legislation for many years, to allow each community to decide for itself this question.

Usually the village seeking separate incorporation has come to the Legislature after formal application to the parent town and with its consent. While cases

may arise of such injustice and hardship that it is impossible to obtain such consent, and nevertheless inexpedient to deny the application, yet the instances have been very few where the Commonwealth has been willing to overrule the expressed wish of the community interested, and to disregard this right of local selfgovernment.

During the last fifty years, while there have been over one hundred and fifty petitions for town divisions, but five towns have been divided against their will. Forty-six have been divided with their own consent, and one hundred applications have been opposed and defeated. This very town of Longmeadow was set off from Springfield one hundred and ten years ago, with the consent and by the vote of Springfield. During the last thirty years but one town in its county has been divided, and then by vote of the parent town. This almost unbroken record of refusal by the Commonwealth to divide towns against their will makes it necessary, in my judgment, to prove strong reasons to justify such action. I do not find such reasons in this

case.

It appears that the town consists of two villages some three and one-half miles apart, and quite distinct in the life and occupation of their inhabitants. But this fact is true of numerous towns; and if sufficient to justify a forcible division of a town, would lead to endless subdivision of communities into small political units, where, if not constant friction, there would be difficulty and embarrassment in proper concert of action, the more necessary as better means of communication and common public interests in schools, institutions, etc., are bringing the people closer together. The town of Falmouth, for example, consists of seven or eight different villages, many of them clearly separated