this
prohibition; and when one sees how much is done in the discussions of
the able counsel before the Court of final resort, and by the learned
opinion of Judge Rapello, to reconcile these differences, one can not
but wish that the Old Bay State had a similar Court of Appeals, to
revise and clarify the decisions of her Supreme Court. About twenty-five
per cent, of all the decisions of the General Terms of the Supreme
Court, Superior Court, and Court of Common Pleas, which are carried to
the Court of Appeals, are there reversed; and can any lawyer doubt that,
at least, as large a proportion of the decisions of our Supreme Judicial
Court ought also to be revised and reversed?

[Footnote A: See 10 Daly's Reports, 319; and 96 New York Reports. 137.]

The Court of Appeals says: "It seems to us that that section [to wit,
the prohibition above quoted] had reference to money raised by general
taxation throughout the State, or revenues of the State, or money
otherwise belonging to the State treasury, or payable out of it."

The money claimed by the Shepherd's Fold being raised by local taxation
for a local purpose in the city of New York, and not "by general
taxation throughout the State," the Court of Appeals holds that it is
not within the terms of the Constitutional prohibition, and therefore
reverses the decision of the Court of Common Pleas on that particular
point, while agreeing with it on the main question.

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 sub