with three questions on it, if we adopt the report of the committee, each of which can be voted on very quickly and very intelligently by every voter." Convention Record No. 93, September 10, 1915, pp. 4415, 4416, 4420, 4421. The views of Messrs. Young, Lincoln and Parsons prevailed, and no change was made by the Convention. Of course no individual views of the committee can override the intent of the resolution as obtained from the language actually used. But even should we admit that the language of the resolution does not expressly prohibit the use of voting machines, we still must remember that this resolution is not an act of the Legislature which could be interpreted in the light of the Election Law. Whatever was to be provided by the Constitutional Convention had to be provided by itself, and the provisions of the Election Law could only be incorporated into the resolution by adoption of the Convention. It did not adopt the Election Law, except in a limited way: "The provisions of the Election Law in regard to the counting and canvassing of votes on proposed constitutional amendments and questions submitted shall apply to the counting and canvassing of vote on the questions above specified except as herein otherwise provided." The phrase "except as herein otherwise provided" to my mind. means that the Election Law should apply except as to any provisions which would very the terms of the resolution, and, as we have noticed, the resolution calls for a paper ballot. As to the other amendments and the propositions having origin in the concurrent resolutions of the Legislature, and not the work of the Convention, the usual practice in the locality may be followed. If voting machines are used at elections, those questions may be voted for on the machine, this course being authorized under article 11 of the Election Law. It is, therefore, my opinion that there shall be a separate paper ballot for voting on the propositions submitted by the Constitutional Convention, and that voting machines may not be used for this purpose. However, voting machines may be used for voting upon the amendments relative to woman suffrage and State debt and the proposition relative to providing money for the canals, having their origin in resolutions of the Legislature and not proposed by the Constitutional Convention. Dated October 5, 1915. EGBURT E. WOODBURY, Attorney-General. To HON. FRANCIS M. HUGO, Secretary of State. BARGE CANAL TERMINALS IN NEW YORK CITY NECESSITY OF CONSENT OF BARGE In the selection of sites for any Barge canal terminals in New York city, the consent or agreement of the board of estimate and apportionment of the city is not a prerequisite except in cases where property owned by the city is to be taken in the construction of the terminals. STATEMENT Appropriations have been made by the State of certain lands for Barge canal terminals in the borough of Queens, New York city, at Rogers street, Hallett's Cove and Flushing Bay, and the records do not show that the board of estimate and apportionment of the city of New York have given approval to the location of these terminals. No step toward the construction of the terminals, other than the appropriation of the lands, has been taken by the State upon the premises in question. INQUIRY The State Engineer wishes to be advised" whether or not, under the provisions of the Terminal Law, the failure of the board of estimate and apportionment to approve the sites in any way affects the legality of the appropriation, and whether or not it could be considered that the State has any legal title to these lands on account of the failure of the board of estimate and apportionment. to give their approval to the acquisition of these sites for terminal purposes." OPINION Under the Barge Canal Terminal Act (chapter 746 of the Laws of 1911) specific provision was made in section 6 for the construction of several terminals in New York city, namely, a terminal to be known as the Port of Call at Dyckman street and the Harlem Ship Canal; a terminal at or near the foot of West One Hundred and Thirty-fifth street; one at or near the foot of West Seventy-eighth street; and one each of the following places: at the foot of West Fifty-fourth street (the old canal basin); at or near the foot of Gansevoort street; at the foot of Vestry street; at the canal basin on the East river; at the foot of Grand street; at Sherman creek; on the Harlem river in the Bronx at the Astor property or elsewhere on the river at the foot of East One Hundred and Thirty-sixth street; at Newtown creek; and at Gowanus and Jamaica bays. Various directions as to the construction of piers and sheds at the above sites are set forth in the separate paragraphs dealing with each terminal. As the foregoing locations are for the most part upon lands and lands under water owned by the city of New York, which received those lands in earlier years by grant from the State, it was enacted that such lands should not be taken by condemnation but should be ceded to the State by the city after agreement between the board of estimate and apportionment and the State Canal Board. The agreement was also to fix the replacement value of the city's existing improvements on those sites, and was to receive the approval of the Governor. In the precise location of the terminals the participating power of the city was defined in section 6 as follows: "The canal board may, subject to the foregoing provisions of this act, construct in the city of New York at the several locations hereinafter in this section designated, or at the alternative locations designated, or at such other locations as near as possible to the locations and alternative locations hereinafter designated, as may be agreed upon between the board of estimate and apportionment of said city and the canal board of the state of New York, to conform such locations to general plans of said city for the improvement of New York harbor. Agreement as to location of terminals and their construction, between said boards, shall not be required in cases where the lands to be acquired by the state are not owned in whole or in part by said city. In case the location of terminals shall be changed pursuant hereto and such change shall make advisable in the opinion of the canal board changes in the structures herein provided for terminals or alternative terminals designated, structures shall be constructed in accordance with plans to be prepared by the state engineer and approved by the canal board." There are mentioned in the above paragraph, it will be noted, three classes or kinds of locations, original locations, alternative locations, and locations as near as possible to original or alternative locations. In fixing any of these locations for a terminal, the city, as the statute makes quite apparent, has no voice except in case lands belonging to the city are to be taken. Now none of the city's lands, I am informed and I am to assume for the purpose of this opinion, are to be taken in the construction of the terminals at Rogers street, Hallett's cove and Flushing bay which the State Engineer is concerned about in his inquiry; and the question would give little difficulty were it not that the three locations spoken of are neither original locations for terminals made by the statute, nor alternative ones, nor locations as near as possible to those locations, but are in fact another class of locations termed additional locations or additional terminals, provided for in the final paragraph of section 6 of the statute: "Such additional terminals in the city of New York shall be constructed as may be agreed upon by the canal board and the board of estimate and apportionment of said city, and such additional terminals shall be constructed in accordance with plans to be prepared by the state engineer and approved by the canal board." The city of New York was not consulted in the locations at Rogers street, Hallett's cove or Flushing bay. Does the above phrase, as may be agreed upon by the canal board and the board of estimate and apportionment of said city," require the consent of the city before such additional terminals may be located or constructed whether they shall be on city land or not, or is the phrase quoted but a partial repetition of a prior expression in the earlier paragraph of the statute, and intending only to permit the city's participation in the selection of a site for an additional terminal in instances where city lands are to be taken in the construction of such additional terminal. I am inclined to the view that the agreement of the board of estimate and apportionment was not essential to the location and construction of these three additional terminals, and therefore the appropriations made are legal, though I arrive at this conclusion with some hesitancy because of the ambiguity of legislative expression in the statute caused by the many amendments to the bill in its different parts while passing through the Legislature. Following the Terminal Bill through its several printed Senate numbers, we find that the first draft, printed number 1538, contained original and alternative locations only. There was no provision for additional terminals. Alternative locations were provided in two instances, i. e., with respect to the terminal on the Harlem river the Canal Board might take the J. L. Mott property, or if that should not be deemed desirable, they might take an alternative location on the so-called Astor property on the same side of the river; and at Gowanus bay they were to take the Beard Estate property on the west side, or the property opposite the Beard Estate on the east side of the bay. No power was conferred upon the board of estimate and apportionment of agreeing with the Canal Board on the location of terminals when city property was to be acquired, except that at Gowanus bay the bill provided, as the statute still does, that the appropriate officials of the city of New York should be conferred with to enable the Canal Board to co-ordinate the terminal improvements "with the improvements now being made and which are contemplated to be made by the city of New York on the Brooklyn water front on Gowanus bay and the East river." The decision of the Canal Board with reference to the location of the Gowanus terminal was, however, to be final. Apparently at this juncture it was found desirable that the city of New York which had for years been systematically building up its water front, should be heard whenever its property was to be requested for terminals by the State, so that the plans for the harbor might not be seriously upset by any improvement the State was about to enter upon. Accordingly in the next reprint, Senate No. 1853, the city through its board of estimate and apportionment was given an equal power with the Canal Board to determine |