it was politic for the State to impair the company's revenues. If the fares could be reduced to five cents, they might be reduced to three cents. But the faith of the State was also seriously involved. The fares of the New York Central had been fixed at two cents a mile by an act passed thirty years before. The fares of the other railway corporations were also limited by law. It was not to be doubted that the capital by which these great works had been constructed was furnished upon the belief that the legalized rates of fare would be continued, and certainly that no change would be made except in accordance with the provisions of the statute, which declared that the rates of fare should not be reduced unless the comptroller and the state engineer should ascertain that the corporation was earning a profit greater than ten per cent. upon the cost of construction. For a commercial community like New York to disregard the implied obligation which had arisen between the State and its citizens, and between the State and citizens of other states and countries, would have been, in the judgment of many thoughtful men, a dangerous and pernicious act. This latter view was taken by Governor Cleveland, in the following extract from his veto message:

"But we have especially in our keeping the honor and good faith of a great State, and we should see to it that no suspicion attaches, through

any act of ours, to the fair fame of the Commonwealth. The State should not only be strictly just, but scrupulously fair, and in its relations to the citizen every legal and moral obligation should be recognized. This can only be done by legislating without vindictiveness or prejudice, and with a firm determination to deal justly and fairly with those from whom we exact obedience."

Mr. Edson, the Mayor of the city had earnestly advised the Governor not to sign the bill, and Mr. Erastus Brooks, a member of the Assembly, and a citizen of great consideration and distinction, warmly approved the veto. The Rev. Dr. Anderson, President of Rochester University, and a political opponent of Governor Cleveland, wrote to him in warm terms of approval. In a letter which he addressed to Governor Cleveland, on the 4th of March, 1883, he said:

"I cannot, in justice to my convictions, refrain from expressing my gratitude for your veto message, which I have just read. I have no personal interest in any of the great corporations which were directly or indirectly affected by the bill, from which you have so wisely withheld your approval. But the just and statesmanlike position taken in your message, seems to me a most fitting rebuke to the demagogism which is ready to trifle with those sacred rights of property guaranteed by our State and national constitutions. In these safeguards of property, the poor man has a more vital interest than the capitalist, for they make secure the poor man's savings, which constitute his only means of support.

"I have taken occasion to commend your message to the careful consideration of my students as an exhibition of the principles which should govern their actions should they be called to fill public station in their future lives. I trust you will pardon me for obtruding myself upon your attention. As a teacher of young men, I feel grateful to any public functionary who illustrates in his person the lessons which I am so anxious to impress upon their minds. Again I thank you for the courageous and worthy action which you have adopted to secure sound government for our great State."

Andrew D. White, the President of Cornell University, in writing to a friend, used the following language:

"I will say to you frankly, that I am coming to have a very great respect and admiration for our new Governor. His course on the Elevated Railroad bill first commended him to me. Personally, I should have been glad to have seen that company receive a slap. But the method of administering it seemed to me very insidious and even dangerous, and glad was I to see that the Governor rose above all the noise and clap-trap which was raised about the question, went to the fundamental point of the matter and vetoed the bill. I think his course at that time gained the respect of every thinking man in the State."

Whatever the public opinion was as to the points of law stated by the Governor in his veto message, or as to the wisdom of his action, no one doubted his sincerity, nor was there thenceforward any doubt whatever as to his firmness and courage.

There were many who had advised him to let the bill become a law without his signature, and to leave it to the courts to decide whether the law was constitutional or not. But it had never been customary for the Governors of New York to shirk their duties, and Governor Cleveland was not willing to set a bad example. He said in his message, "I am convinced, that in all cases the share which falls upon the Executive regarding the legislation of the State, should be in no manner evaded, but fairly met by the expression of his carefully guarded and unbiased judgment."

It may be doubted whether there were any, even among those who most loudly denounced his action, who did not have a higher opinion of him after the veto than before. By the owners of property throughout the whole State his conduct was received with approval.

Soon after the veto, the railroad commissioners were instructed to examine and report as to the cost of running the elevated railroad. Their report showed that a reduction to a five-cent fare would, at the number of passengers carried in 1882, so reduce the income of the companies as to prevent them from providing for the interest on their bonded debt. It also appeared that the rate of fare during what are known as commission hours, to wit, from half-past five to half-past eight in the morning, and from half-past four to half-past seven in the evening, was five cents; and that trains.

were run at those rates upon the two principal roads, at intervals of forty-five seconds. It was manifest, therefore, that the laborers who go to their work before half-past eight in the morning, and who return before half-past seven in the evening, had no interest in the proposed reduction. Had it taken effect, it would have operated almost entirely in favor of the wealthier classes, who use the roads during the mid-day hours, and would have been a severe blow to the surface roads and all their employees.

On the 9th of April, 1883, the Governor sent to the Assembly another veto which attracted great attention. An Act had been passed amending the Charter of the City of Buffalo, the object of which was to reorganize the Fire Department of that City. Less than three years before the Fire Department had been placed under the control of three Commissioners, who were appointed by the Mayor. The proposed measure abolished the Commission and placed the department under the control of a Chief, who, with his assistants, was to be appointed by the Mayor. The resignation by Governor Cleveland of the mayoralty of Buffalo had, of course, produced a change in the personnel of the city government; and the plain object of the bill was to give the new Mayor control of an important department, and to place a considerable patronage in his hands. The Governor promptly vetoed the bill, and closed his message as follows: