As the money, appropriated to the Roman Catholic Protectory, was unquestionably money of the State, "being raised by general taxation throughout the State," that appropriation was unquestionably in conflict with the prohibition of the Constitution, which the Governor was sworn to support.
Of the courage and independence displayed by Governor Cleveland in thus vetoing a measure in which so large a number of his political supporters might be supposed to feel so deep an interest, this is not the place to speak. But it is creditable to him as a lawyer that alone without a single precedent to guide him, relying upon his own judicial sense, and rejecting the opinion of a former Attorney-General, he challenged "the validity of this appropriation under that section of the Constitution." The Protectory, he says, "appears to be local in its purposes and operations." And being a sectarian charity, he adds, "Public funds should not be contributed to its support. A violation of this principle in this case would tend to subject the state treasury to demands in behalf of all sorts of sectarian institutions, which a due care for the money of the State, and a just economy, could not concede."
In the higher and broader field of public service—"the grandest throne on earth"—as the Presidency which he is about to enter, has been grandiloquently called, let us hope that he will display the same honesty, capability, and fidelity to the Constitution. We shall then be assured that the interests of the Republic will suffer no detriment at his hands.
Notes
Stark’s History of Dunbarton, p. 178.
Parker’s History of Londonderry, p. 180.
New Hampshire Adjutant General’s Report, 1866, vol. 2, p. 95.