an intrusion that he should pass near
her at all. He still saw her face as he bent over Katie.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

* * * * *

GOVERNOR CLEVELAND AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PROTECTORY.

BY CHARLES COWLEY, LL.D.

It is not often that a Governor's objections to a measure, which his
veto has defeated, become, even indirectly, the subject of judicial
consideration. Such, however, has been the experience of Governor
Cleveland in connection with his veto of the appropriation, which was
made in 1883, to the Roman Catholic Protectory of the City of New York.
And it must be gratifying to him as a constitutional lawyer, to see the
principles of that veto entirely approved by all the judges of the Court
of Appeals, as well as by all the judges by whom those principles were
considered, before the case, in which they were involved, reached that
august tribunal, the highest in the judicial system of that State.

By an amendment to the Constitution of New York, adopted in 1874, it is
provided that, "Neither the credit nor the money of the State shall be
given, or loaned to, or in aid of, any association, corporation, or
private undertaking."

It would hardly seem possible to mistake the meaning of a prohibition
like this; but this prohibition is accompanied by the following
modification: "This section shall not, however, prevent the Legislature
from making such provision for the education and support of the blind,
the deaf and dumb, and juvenile delinquents, as to it may seem proper;
nor shall it apply to any fund or property, now held by the State for
educational purposes."

The question, how far this qualifying clause limits the proceeding
prohibition, arose first in the Court of Common Pleas, and afterwards in
the Court of Appeals, in the case of the Shepherd's Fold of the
Protestant Episcopal Church _vs_. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
the City of New York.[A] The Attorney-General of the State had given an
official opinion, tending to the conclusion that the prohibition is
almost entirely neutralized by the modification. The Judges of the Court
of Common Pleas, and the lawyers who argued this case in either court,
differed widely upon the question, whether money raised by local
taxation by the City of New York, under the authority of the State law,
for the maintainance of the children of the Shepherd's Fold, was, or was
not, "money of the State," and therefore included in the terms of