Pardons.

the House of Correction for three years. Pardoned Oct. 31, 1883, because of the fact that Riley was in an advanced stage of phthisis pulmonalis, there being a probability of speedy death.

No. 40. STEPHEN HENNESSEY. Convicted of breaking and entering, Superior Court, Suffolk County, April Term, 1881, and sentenced to State Prison for four years. Pardoned Nov. 19, 1883, to take effect at the expiration of three years of his sentence, it appearing that the sentence imposed was excessive.

No. 41. BERNARD BOLAND, alias RICHARD HUGHES. Convicted of murder in the second degree, Feb. 13, 1873, Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County, and sentenced to State Prison for life. Pardoned Nov. 20, 1883, because of error of the Court in imposing sentence contrary to the provisions of chapter 215 of the Public Statutes.

No. 42. WILLIAM H. MAY. Convicted of robbery, Superior Court, Worcester County, October Term, 1878, and sentenced to State Prison for life. Pardoned November 29, 1883, because of the doubt in the minds of the Governor and Council of the guilt of May.

No. 43. ELLEN DUNCAN. Convicted of maiming, Superior Court, Hampden County, December 26, 1882, and sentenced to a term of ten years' confinement in the Reformatory Prison for Women. Pardoned December 5, 1883, because it appeared by evidence produced before the Council that it was impossible that she could have committed the crime in the manner it was alleged against her.

No. 44. SAMUEL B. KENNEDY, alias WHITE, alias HARRIS. Convicted of setting fire to a building, Superior Court, Middlesex County, February, 1867, and sentenced to the State Prison for life. Pardoned July 18, 1877. Convicted of larceny, Superior Court, Suffolk County, November Term, 1879. Sentenced to State Prison for three years, which sentence expired July 2, 1882. Kennedy was then remanded to the State Prison for the term of his natural life for violating the conditions of his pardon. Pardoned December 20, 1883.

No. 45. CHARLES POTTER. Convicted of adultery, Pardons. Superior Court, Essex County, January Term, 1883, and sentenced to the House of Correction for two years and three months. Pardoned December 20, 1883, because of errors on the part of the prosecution at the time of trial and conviction.

No. 46. WILLIAM H. PORTER. Convicted of larceny and receiving stolen goods, Superior Court, Essex County, November 1, 1877, and sentenced to State Prison for nine years. Pardoned December 20, 1883, it appearing that the sentence was an excessive one.

Par

No. 47. JAIRUS P. KEENE. Convicted of larceny, Superior Court, Suffolk County, May Term, 1882. Sentenced to the House of Correction for two years. doned Dec. 20, 1883, upon the recommendation of the Board of Public Institutions and the probation officer, there being, in the judgment of the Governor and Council, circumstances tending to a mitigation of the offence.

No. 48. GEORGE H. RICHARDSON. Convicted of murder in the second degree, Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester County, Dec. 19, 1882, and sentenced to State Prison for life. Pardoned Dec. 20, 1883, it appearing to the Governor and Council that the death was the result of accident, and that Richardson was not therefore guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree.

No. 49. JOHN MORAN. Convicted of murder, Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County, Jan. 12, 1867. Pardoned Dec. 21, 1883, it being the belief of the Governor and Council that his case was not fully presented to the court and jury through accident requiring change of counsel.

[To the Senate and House of Representatives, Jan. 14.]

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of a joint order of the two branches, requesting information as to what action, if any, has been taken by the executive under chapter 48 of the resolves of the year 1883, concerning certain claims upon the Troy and Greenfield Railroad and Hoosac Tunnel. I desire to say in reply that it does not appear of record that any action has been

Rhode Island boundary.

Forestry.

Death of Hon.
Charles R.
McLean.

Water supply

for Watertown.

taken by the Governor and Council on the subject-matter of said resolve.

[To the Senate and House of Representatives, Feb. 26.]

I have the honor to transmit herewith the report of the Commissioners on the Rhode Island Boundary, with plans, engineer's field-book, vouchers of expenses, and other papers.

It appears from the report that the commissioners have completed the work assigned them, and that the governors of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, in December last, inspected the same, and pronounced it satisfactory.

I invite your attention to the need of providing for the payment of a just and proportionate part of the expenses incurred in establishing the boundary line and setting up monuments thereon.

[To the Senate and House of Representatives, Feb. 29.]

In my inaugural address I discussed at some length the subject of forestry and referred to the action of a convention of delegates from all sections of the United States held at St. Paul, Minnesota, in August last.

I have the honor to lay before you a communication received by me from Honorable George B. Loring, United States Commissioner of Agriculture, accompanied with a copy of the memorial adopted by said convention, and invite your consideration of the suggestions therein contained.

[To the Senate and House of Representatives, April 14.]

It is with deep sadness that I announce to the legislature the death of Hon. Charles R. McLean of Boston, a member of the executive council from the third district, at his home after a brief illness on the afternoon of yesterday. Not alone the councillor district that called him to the high public office, but as well the whole Commonwealth, suffers the loss of an able, independent, upright, earnest and devoted servant, whose zealous concern for the best interests of the people characterized his words and acts.

[To the House of Representatives, April 15.]

Upon revision of the bill to supply the town of Watertown with water, I deem it my duty to withhold my

approval thereof, and therefore I return it, with a state- Water supply ment of my objections, to your honorable body, in which for Watertown. it originated.

The bill authorizes the town by a majority vote to accept the act, and also to incur an indebtedness of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, payable within thirty years.

The legislature of 1875 expressed in a statute the general judgment of the people in favor of regulating and limiting municipal indebtedness, and the subsequent enactment of the Public Statutes preserved the restrictions in the provisions of section 7, chapter 29, requiring a two-thirds vote for the incurrence of any debt except for temporary loans in anticipation of the taxes of the year in which the debt is incurred and of the year next ensuing. By section 18 of said chapter 29, originally enacted in 1876, a city which at a meeting of its voters has accepted by a vote of two-thirds any act to supply said city with water may, by a majority vote of each branch of the city council, contract debts and issue bonds for the purposes and to the extent authorized by such act. This is the only amendment affecting the portion now in point made to the original statute; and but two other propositions for a change have been brought to the consideration of the legislature since 1875, and these were rejected without a count. The policy of the Commonwealth is indeed well settled.

I believe that the taxpayers in the towns and cities rely with great confidence on the maintenance of these safeguards against unnecessary and extravagant expenditures, and that if they be ignored or destroyed a most dangerous precedent will be established and serious consequences become probable.

Referring to House document No. 175 of the current session, I find that the committee on the judiciary, having the bill in question under consideration by special reference, advised the House that the general laws, hereinbefore cited, apply to any indebtedness authorized by a special act unless there be express provision to the contrary; and they further informed the House that since the passage of the act of 1875 no exemption from the operation of this general law has been granted to any town.

It is evident that in the opinion of said committee, a

Water supply for Watertown.

town's power to contract permanent debts for water supply purposes depends, not upon the acceptance of the special act in accordance with its terms, whether by a two-thirds vote or by a majority vote, but upon the authority of the general laws applicable thereto, unless otherwise specifically declared in the special act. This view of the law shows clearly that the special acts for Taunton, Hingham and Middleborough, giving original rights to take water, passed in 1875, 1876 and 1879, respectively, are not in point to prove that the legislature has set aside the general rule. It will be found further, upon examination, that the Hingham Water Company was created in 1879, and given the right to take the same sources that were granted to the town in 1876, and under the later act a two-thirds vote is requisite to enable the town to purchase the company's franchise. A similar course has been taken with the town of Middleborough, as will appear by the terms of chapter 59 of the acts of the present legislature.

The

My own careful investigation confirms the report made by the committee. More than one hundred special water acts have been passed since 1875, a full proportion of which have become laws during the present session. statutes conferring upon fire districts, water supply districts and other closely populated communities within towns the power to furnish water, are not affected by the general laws in force and for obvious reasons; but nevertheless, in nearly all these the two thirds vote is required. So remarkable concurrence of judgment and 80 repeated affirmations demonstrate that a departure from the approved course is justifiable only upon the clearest proofs of necessity.

The

I am unable to discover that the circumstances or needs of Watertown are exceptional to that degree that a plain distinction can be made between it and the other towns that have supplied themselves with water in conformity with the existing provisions of law. committee on the judiciary, to whose report I have called attention, state that from evidence introduced at the hearing the inhabitants of Watertown “are practically unanimous in desiring a water supply, but that they are so divided as to the proper source of such supply that the act in question would probably prove nugatory unless the town be authorized to accept it by a majority vote."