“Very hard,” assented Colonel Pepperrell, whose glance, having more penetration, had at last brought a look of sympathy to his face.  “Let us go up to the poor thing, she stands so alone, and I’m not clear that she has not the worst of it.”

“Oh, no, indeed, not that,” returned his wife as they moved forward.  But before they could reach her, being stopped by several who spoke to them, there was a change in the group in that part of the room.  Katie had fallen, and there was a cry that she had fainted.  Stephen stooped over her, lifted her tenderly, and carried her from the room.  He was followed by Mistress Archdale and his own mother.  As he passed Elizabeth their eyes met, his glowed with a sullen rage, born of pain and despair, they seemed to sweep her with a glance of scorn, as she looked at him it seemed to her that every fibre of his being was rejecting her.  “You!” he seemed to be saying with contemptuous emphasis.  In answer her eyes filled him with their haughtiness, they and the scornful curl of her lip, as she stood motionless waiting for him to pass, haunted him; it seemed to him as if she felt it 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.”