When Palmer was Governor of Illinois he made extenaive use of the veto power, and, having votoed one of the pet projects of the Quincy Whig, that paper "went for him " in tho following sarcastic Btrain : Gov. P. fimls tho " Iiord's Prayer " in a file of billa awaiting his approval, and, qogitating profoundly upon abstract constitutional points, writes out the following message : To the Hon. Wm. Smitli, Speaker of the House of Representatives : I am unable to approvo the bill for an "Aotto obtain daily supplies, and to avoid the paths of tempation." which has originated, as I am informed, in the House over which you preside. My objeotions to this bilí aro foundod upon constitutional grounds, and are as follows : 1. The presontation of the different subjocts matter in the title of the bill are a direct violation of constitutional enactment; and upon examination of the bill itself it will be found that solicitation is made not only for a supply of daily bread, and for an avoidance of "the paths of teniptation, but for the liquidation of dobts without due considoration - a gross and palpable infringement upon vostod rights and lawful obligations which are the very basis of free government. There can be no authority for " the forgiveness of debts in such manner as the debtor may relinquish his owu claims upon others," and the feature of the bill anords grounds of Buspicion that some mischievious and dangerous intenüon is in view. The third line of the first section provides that a certain " will " or authority be extended over the State of Illinois, as a portion of that planet upon which we reside, in the same manner and to the samo extent as the said authority exists in another and an nnknown sphere. This provisión is not only special legislation in its worst form, but actually tixes upon ub the dominatiou of uncertain and unconstitutional laws, and is a further proof, to iny mind, that the objects contemplated in tho bill &re simply the furtherance of private and seliish interests. I have had occasion heretofore to rnaintain the rights and dignities of the State of Illinois, when threatened by Federal usurpation, and I take this occasion to affirin the position set forth in a prior message to the Assembly. In the case now under oonsidoration, the proposition to subject the State of Illinois to a centralized power, possessiug a presumed deBpotic away, and which would completely oblitérate that inherent sovereignty claimed to be inalienable under our force of Government, is a measure fraugbt with the utmost danger to our liberties. There are further objections which might be consistently urgod against the measure herewith returned. The phraseology is not familiar or in proper form, while the legal effect of some portions of the bill not oommented upon above would, in my opinión, be subversive of private, as well as public interests. I may say, in conclusión, that if the bill had beeu eo amended as to apply only to cities of 100,000 inhabitants, and over, and an em ergency clause attached, I would have no hesitation in approving it.