Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1866-10-18
Why the Orphan Asylum Bill wns
Vetoed.

Why u Orphan Asylum Bill wns
Vetoed.
VIRGINIA, October IL, 1866.
EDITOR GOLD HILL News You have
criticised Gov. Blasdel for his action in
vesoing the Orphan Asylum Bill. His
veto has been popularity ascribed to his
prejudice against the Catholic church and
every institution connected Herewith.
Now, I am q Catholic. I think I have
concisely stated the proper premises for
the brief communication which 10 to fol-
low. lie. Justice be done, though the
Orphans suffer or the heavens fall.
I am credibly informed that Gov. Bias
del said he vetoed the Bill because he had
been counseled so to do ''by a Judge OF the
Supreme Court, who is q good Catholic
A citizen Of this city, whose word none
can doubt, told me, a short time ago, OF
this statement; addingthat Gov. Blasdel re-
marked that Judge Brosnsn had said to
him that il the Bill became a law it would
probably come before the Supreme Court
on an injunction" and he (Brosnan) did
not think It was constitutional. These
being facts. ought not Gov. Blasdel, in all
fairness. to be relieved from further cen.
sure in the premisssl This question l
submit to your candid judgment. Catho-
lie as I am, 1 will not knowingly let
my religious attachments, or, if you
please, my sectarian prejudices, stand
between mo and nv dealing in fairness,
and with credit or blame bestowed as is
intrinsically and altogether proper. Gov.
Blasdel having been advised by 4 Judge
Of the Supreme Court, who is a good
Catholic" that the measure was unconsti-
t%utional, how could his Excellency do
other wi,e than refuse his sanction? Gov.
Blasdel says that this was the case ; and l
claim, not for his defense, but for the sake
Of honor and night, that this exonerates the
Governor.
In speaking Of this matter to friends OF
my faith, some OF them have expressed
increduli,y as to the truth Of the statement
in exculpation, which l have written
above. They have said that it wal I'M
likely that q Judge Of = Supreme Court
would give an opinion as TO the constitu-
,ionality of a law which had just passed
one or both bodies Of the Legislature,
when there was no regular official occasion
for his so doing. They have insisted thai
the Attorney General was the proper legal
adviser Of the Governor; and that Judge
Brosnan would, most Of all, hesitate to adj
wise on the known current Of the Execu-
tive's personal religious antipathies against
the church of his (the Judge's) faith -
(albeit there was properly no sectarian
issue or feeling involved in the whole
matter-the question being, legitimately,
only one Of charity.) But to this lack OF
belief in the explanation rendered, l have
to again oppose-and it is conclusive-the
declaration of his Excsllency : THAT he
vetoed the bill on the ground OF unconsti-
s~utonality; as he was advised to do so by
a good Catholic and q Judge OF the Su-
preme Court-Judge Brosnan."
l have met this objection, that some OF
the very ablest lawyers in this State open
" approved the bill as constitutional, and
asserted that it could not be held other
wise than warranted, if not commanded,
BY section l of article Is, which reads
institutions for the benefit Of the insane,
blind, and deaf, dumb, and such other
benevolent institutions as the public good
may require, shall be fostered and sup
ported BY the State, subject to such regu-
la,ions as may be prescribed by law" II
has been remarked that long after the bill
had been introduced and printed in the
principal journals OF the State, 1t was d.
rectly pe~,itioned forts passage and its
approval urged-by . majority Of the bar
OF this State, including the principal attor-
MES, whose professional reputation would
not be risked in indorsing a palpably I'M
constitutional measure. But all this,
surely, does not answer or offset the fact,
as announced by his Excellency. that he
was advised to prepare and transmit a
a veto BY Judge Brosnan, before whom
the bill, If it became a law, was likely to
be called in review, under challenge based
on IN Article Of the organic law.
commenced by saying-lest my posi-
ton be not understood-that l was q Cath
olic. I desire before I close to say that
am q Union man. If knew that Cover
nor Blasdel vetoed the Orphan Asylum
bill because merely of religious or secta-
rian prejudice. l should feel disposed to
take his name from the head Of my ballot
the next general election; but when he
states tina, he acted on this measure &C.
as he was advised by Judge Bros
I cannot hold him censurably re-
sponsible for the defea, Of the charitable
appropriation passed by both Houses OF
the last Legislature, JUSTICE.