Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1884-08-07
Cs,Aoiie Columbian.

NaAhoAANt ncs1NNlc ~ WV AoA
Grover Cleveland.
CGiAoiie Columbian.
A valued correspondent in the West re-
Gently sent us the following query; Why
should Catholics not vote for the Democrat
ic nominee for the Presidency? In reply
we would state that as far as We have in
vestigated, and we have given the subject
! no little thought we know Of no reason why
as Catholics, other things being equal, they
should for moment hesitate to do so. We
say this in face OF the objections that have
been trumPhed up against the candidate,
for on mature examination, we have found
them to be entirely groundless, or, at least,
capable of a very different Interpretation
from that put upon them BY sore-heads and
malcouteuts. The most prominent of these
we shall note for our correspondents en-
hghtenment.
1t is charged against Cleveland that he
vetoed the Fiye-cent Fare Bill as against
the interests of workingmen and in favor Of
monopoists That he vetoed the bill is
true, but the motive attributed is false. The
veto never did and does not now affect the
workingmen, seeing that before and after
the introduction of the bill workingmen dad,
and still do ride for FIVE cents on the ele-
waited roads. Where is the discrimination
The other facts in the case are simply these:
| The Governor vetoed the bill on conStitu-
tional grounds, and not because Of opposi-
ton to its provisions 1t was, and is, we'll
known fact that had not the bill been vetoed
the case would have gone before the Su-
preme Court aud Judgment rendered in &C
cordance with the grants Of the charter. If
there was wrong, it should be saddled up
on those that granted the charter and not
upon the Governor whose oath Of office COM
PEELED him to act as he did. From this
statement of facts it will be readily seen
what desperation must have prompted the
objection, and how far short Of ammunition
the gunners must have been when they
charged their guns with such wet powder
The other objections advanced will bear
Just as little scrutiny. Let us take the most
formidable of them in their order. 1t is
objected that Governor Cleveland vetoed
the Freedom of Worship Bill, which, of
course was interpreted as a direct insult to
Catholics, and leveled solely against them,
there being no question of the sects. That
he has been falsely represented in this, too,
will be seen by the following correspondence,
which was elected in response to the direct
inquiry made By different parties of the
| authors. The first is from Senator Herman.
whose veracity no one will impeach, and
whose religion no one will question. As its
words import it is direct answer to the
question and objection involved
CrlcA, n. Y, July l6, 1884
DEAR SrR-Your letter of Yesterday is re-
eeived. The bill you refer to was known as
| the Freedom of Worship bill. Governor
| Cleveland never vetoed it. 1t did not pass
/ the Legislature. 1t was passed by one
house, was not passed by the other.
Yours respectfully,
FRANCIS KERSAY.
Daniel S. Lamont, Private Secretary Of
Governor Cleveland, answering the same
query, writes in reply as follows:
ExECUrrE CHAMBER,
ALBANY. n. Y, July l6, 1884.
DEAE. SlR-Mr. Manning has handed
| me YOUR letter. A bill known as "the Free
| dom of Worship" bill was vetoed by Gov
ernor Cornell. but no such measure has ever
been before Governor Cleveland. 1t was
introduced in the two last Legislatures, and
defeated in both.
Very truly yours,
DANIEL. S. LAMONT,
Private Secretary.
As the above correspondence indicates
the first bill asking for the freedom OF wor-
ship in State institutions was vetoed by
Governor Cornell, an out and out Repubh-
can and that it was smothered to death by
| a Republican Legislature the second time
the attempt was made to secure its passage.
DO the circulators of such infamous lies
take it for granted that Catholics are set
of such unmitigated iguoramuses as to be
besottedly ignorant of eycuti that affect
them so nearly as these? Their action
would imply that they do, but they will Ind
| 70 their bitter cost that such is not the case.
The next veto affecting Catholic rights
purportinC as coming from Governor Cleve-
| land and used BY his enemies as cam
neigu argument to steal few votes from
| the ignorant and uuwary is that OF the
WestcheSter Protectory appropriation. The
fact is as charged-he did veto this olll,
INT as in an instance already mentioned, 1t
was on constitutional grounds, and not be-
| cause of personal antipathy to the object or
| cause claiming it. We can bring the most
| incontrovertible evidence to show this. The
reasons assigned by the Governor when he
gave his veto to the measure should at least
no received as the expression OF honest con-
| v;ctions. unless the contrary were clearly
spnarent from aud established by, extrane-
ops facts. With all the malevoleuce that
| has been shown towards the gentleman
since his nomination for the Presidency, no
one has been found with sufficient efron-
terry 10 even suggest this. His reasons
were plainly stated and the arguments that
led him into them are so conclusive that
even the advocates of the bill exonorate
him from all blame, anddo not hesitate over
their own signatures TO assert that he could
mot BY virtue of his solemn and binding
oath OF office have acted otherwise.
The following extract from letter writ
ten by the President of the Board OF the
Protectory ought to be sufficient to put an
eseetual quietus on the charge of bigotry
on this score \
We never doubted the sincerity OF the
motive which induced Governor Cleveland
10 withhold his signature TO the spp'oprla-
ton to the Protectory. We thought then
and think now that he was not setuated by
any feeling of bigotry or hostility to Catho-
lies or Catholic institutions. On the con-
trary, Governor Cleveland is liberal in the
extreme. and we are of the firm belief that
be was led to Withholding his approval Of
the appropriation solely by sense of pub
lie duty as he viewed it.
HENRY L. HoGUET,