we undertake to guarantee to any native born or naturalized citizen of ours whether he be imprisoned by order of the Czar of Russia or under the pretext of a law administered for the benefit of the landed aristocracy of England.

We do not claim to make laws for other countries, but we do insist that whatsoever those laws may be, they shall, in the interests of human freedom and the rights of mankind so far as they involve the liberty of our citizens, be speedily administered. We have a right to say, and do say, that mere suspicion without examination or trial is not sufficient to justify the long imprisonment of a citizen of America. Other nations may permit their citizens to be thus imprisoned; ours will not. And this in effect has been solemnly declared by statute.

We have met here to-night to consider this subject and to inquire into the cause and the reasons and the justice of the imprisonment of certain of our fellow citizens now held in British prisons without the semblance of a trial or legal examination. Our law declares that the government shall act in such cases. But the people are the creators of the government.

The undaunted apostle of the Christian religion, imprisoned and persecuted, appealing centuries ago to the Roman law and the rights of Roman citizenship, boldly demanded: “Is it lawful for you to secure a man that is a Roman and uncondemned ?"

So, too, might we ask, appealing to the law of our land and the laws of civilization: "Is it lawful that these, our fellows, be imprisoned who are American citizens and uncondemned?"

I deem it an honor to be called upon to preside at such a meeting, and I thank you for it.

THE

CHAPTER VII.

ADMINISTRATION OF A GREAT TRUST.

HE course of the new Mayor at a very early day demonstrated that he had said no more than he meant in the assertion that "public officials are the trustees of the -people and exercise their powers for the benefit of the people.' A series of veto messages to the common council, remarkable for their brevity of expression, vigor of thought, and courageous determination to limit expenditures to constitutional and necessary purposes, and to guard at every point the city's interests, followed his accession to office in quick succession. The amounts involved in many of these appropriations were not large, and the purposes were generally too local in their character to be of interest, if presented here in full detail. Underlying all, however, was the one vital principle of universal application in the United States that the people's money shall be used only for the people's good for purposes which they have themselves in their constitutions and charters defined.

A resolution, for example, was passed by the Common Council for the payment of certain clerks in one of the city departments for "extra services" said to have been performed. Mayor Cleveland determined to stop illegal expenditures in this direction and vetoed the resolution. "By the terms of the resolution itself," he said, "it appears that the extra services performed were fairly embraced in the official duties of the persons performing them. To examine the books and to restore order to the records of the office was, as it seems to me, peculiarly the business of the claimants. If the work could not be done in the regular discharge of their duties, additional clerks might have been employed;

but they having elected to do the work themselves, they must now be regarded as standing in the attitude of claimants for extra compensation for the performance of duties which really pertained to the business of their offices or positions. However meritorious these claims may be, their allowance by the city seems to be prohibited by law. I cannot, therefore, assent to their payment." The precedent once established that such drafts on the city treasury would not be allowed, a considerable source of leakage of the public money was at once closed.

In the fearless use of the veto power, and in the enforcement of strict obedience to the Constitution of the State and the charter of the city, Mayor Cleveland, of necessity, at times antagonized men and interests that had been accustomed to have their own way regardless of the inhibitions of the law. Each question, however, as it arose, was dealt with unflinchingly, and in strict accord with the oath of office the Mayor had taken.

Some of the projects for the expenditure of money by the city, which the Mayor checked, involved evident extravagance and corruption, but in others, sums were voted for purposes, proper enough in themselves, but in express violation of the charter or the Constitution. To refuse to allow such expenditures to be made was at times a difficult and ungracious task, and led to misconstructions and misunderstandings on the part of those who did not fully realize the sanctity of the popular will embodied in its fundamental law. Duty, however, in such instances was met openly, and fearlessly discharged. Beyond doubt the finest test to which Mayor Cleveland's courage and conscience were put was when a resolution diverting $500 from the appropriation for the Fourth of July to the observance of Decoration day was submitted to him. In a message, which commanded instant approval among thoughtful men by its sincerity and its conceptions of the purposes of taxation and the duty of public officers,

the resolution, with one involving like principles, was vetoed. The message was addressed to the Common Council, read as follows:

BUFFALO, May 8, 1882.

At the last session of your honorable body a resolution was adopted directing the city clerk to draw a warrant for five hundred dollars in favor of the secretary of the Firemen's Benevolent Association.

This action is not only clearly unauthorized, but it is distinctly prohibited by the following clause of the State Constitution:

"No county, city, town or village shall hereafter give any money or property, or loan its money or credit to, or in aid of any individual, association or corporation, or become directly or indirectly the owner of stock in or bonds of any association or corporation; nor shall any such county, city, town or village be allowed to incur any indebtedness, except for county, city, town or village purpose."

At the same meeting of your honorable body the following resolution was passed:

"That the City Clerk be and is hereby directed to draw a warrant on the Fourth of July Fund for five hundred dollars, to the order of J. S. Edwards, Chairman of the Decoration Day Committee of the Grand Army of the Republic, for the purpose of defraying the expenses attending a proper observance of Decoration day."

I have taxed my ingenuity to discover a way to consistently approve of this resolution, but have been unable to do so.

It seems to me that it is not only obnoxious to the provisions of the Constitution above quoted, but that it also violates that section of the charter of the city which makes it a misdemeanor to appropriate money raised for one purpose to any other object. Under this section I think money raised "for the celebration of the Fourth of July and the reception of distinguished persons," cannot be devoted to the observance of Decoration day.

I deem the object of this appropriation a most worthy one. The efforts of our veteran soldiers to keep alive the memory of their fallen comrades certainly deserves the aid and encouragement of their fellow-citizens. We should all, I think, feel it a duty and a privilege to contribute to the funds necessary to carry out such a purpose. And I should be much disappointed if an appeal to our citizens for voluntary subscriptions for this patriotic object should be in vain.

But the money so contributed should be a free gift of the citizens and taxpayers, and should not be extorted from them by taxation. This is so, because the purpose for which this money is asked does

not involve their protection or interest as members of the community, and it may or may not be approved by them.

The people are forced to pay taxes into the city treasury only upon the theory that such money shall be expended for public purposes, or purposes in which they all have a direct and practical interest.

The logic of this position leads directly to the conclusion that, if the people are forced to pay their money into the public fund and it is spent by their servants and agents for purposes in which the people as taxpayers have no interest, the exaction of such taxes from them is oppressive and unjust.

I cannot rid myself of the idea that this city government, in its relation to the taxpayers, is a business establishment, and that it is put in our hands to be conducted on business principles.

This theory does not admit of our donating the public funds in the manner contemplated by the action of your honorable body.

I deem it my duty, therefore, to return both the resolutions referred to without my approval. GROVER CLEVELAND.

To prove that he was in earnest in his belief that the expenditures for the observance of Decoration day should be, and could be, met by private contributions, Mayor Cleveland, on the same day, subscribed one tenth of the amount required out of his own pocket, and the balance was collected the same day without difficulty from leading citizens.

In illustration of the consistency, which has been one of the most marked traits of Governor Cleveland's public and private career, may be cited in connection with the veto given above, a veto message sent by him to the Legislature of the State a year later, and having several points in identity with it. The message was addressed to the Assembly and read:

Assembly bill No. 88, entitled "An act authorizing the Board of Supervisors of Chautauqua county to appropriate money for the purchase of land upon which to erect a soldiers' and sailors' monument," is herewith returned without approval.

It is not an agreeable duty to refuse to give sanction to the appropriation of money for such a worthy and patriotic object; but I cannot forget that the money proposed to be appropriated is public money,