State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-10-04
Gen. VIM. II. Harrison.

JOHN II. PLEASANTS.
Gen. VIM. II. Harrison.
Richmond, Sept. Is, 1886.
Dear Sri acknowledge the receipt of
your favor of this date. l have before
heard of the accusation to which it refers
On my way hither, met yesterday with
young gentleman Of Maryland, who mfor-
med me that n vote of mine in the Senate
Of Ohio had been published, in favor of
law to sell persons imprisoned under a
Judgment for debt for term of years, if
unable otherwise to discharge the execu-
ton. l did not, for a moment, hesitate to
declare that had never given any such
vote and that if vote of that description
had been published and ascribcd to mo- it
was an infamous forgery. Such an act
would have been repugnant TO my feelings,
and in direct conflict with my opinions,
public aud private, through the whole
course of my life. No such proposition
was ever submitted to the Legislature of
Ohio-none such would, for moment,
have been entertaincd-nor would any son
of hers have dared to propose it.
SO far from being willing to sell men for
debts which they are unable to discharge,
am, and ever have been, opposed to all
Imprisonment for debt. Fortunately, !
have it in my power to show that such has
been my established opinion; and that, in
public capacity, avowed and acted upon
it. Will those who have preferred the I'M
founded and malicious accusation refer TO
the Journals of the Senate of the United
States, I'd session, 10Th Congress, page 1926?
1t will there be seen that | was one of the
committee which reported bill to abolish
Iah hn L.;
was before the Senate, | advocated its
adoption, and, on its passage, voted in its
favor. See Senate journal, LIST session,
20th Congress, pages l0l and l02.
It is not u little remarkable that if the
cHoI, l am accused Of having made, to
subject men TO sale for the nonpayment of
their debts, had been successful, | might
from the state of my pecuniary circum-
stances at the time, have been the first
victim. | repeat, the charge is vile cal
umny. At no period of my life, would
have consented to subject the poor and I'M
fortunate to such degradation nor have
1 omitted to exert myself i'll their behalf
against such an attempt to Cypress them.
1t is sought to support the charge by
means Of garbled extracts from the Journals
of the Senate of Ohio. The section of the
bill which is employed for that purpose had
no manner of reference to the relation Of
creditor and debtor, and could not by pos
sibiity subject the debtor to the control of
his creditor None know better than the
authors of the calumny that the alleged
section is utterly at variance with the
charge which it is attempted to found upon
it; and that, so far from proposition to
invest creditor with power over the lib
erty Of his debtor, it had respect only to the
mode of dsposing of public offenders, who
had been found guilty by jury of their
fellow citizens of some crime against the
laws of their state. That was exclusively
the import and design Of the section of the
bill upon the motion to strike out which,
voted in the negative. So you perceive,
that in place of voting to enlarge the power
of creditors, the vote which | gave con-
cerned alone the treatment Of malelactors,
convicted Of crimes against the public.
Ltwould extend this letter to an incon-
venent length to go fully into the reasons
which led me at the time to an opinion in
favor of the proposed treatment of that
class Of offenders who would have fallen
within its operations, nor is such an expose
called for. The measure was by no means
novelty in other parts of the country. In
the State of Delaware, there is an net now
IN force, in similar words with the section
OF the bill before the Ohio Senate, which
has been made Of late the pretext Of such
lnsdious invectiye. Laws with somewhat
similar provisions may probably be found
IN many other Of the States. In practice.
the measure would have ameliorated the
condition of those who were under con-
domination.
AS the law stood, they were liable. I'M
der the sentence 10 confinement in The com
mon Jail, where offenders Of various de-
gress of prohigacy, of different uges, sex.
and color, were crowded together Under
such circumstances, it is obvious that Me
bad must become worse whilst reforlna.
ton could hardly be expected in respect to
any. The youthful offender, it might be
hoped, would be reclaimed under the one
ration of the proposed system; but there
was great reason to fear his still greater
corruption amid the contagation of n com.
mon receptacle of vice. Besides. the nrn.
posed amendment Of the law presllpposed
that the delinquent was in confinement Gn,
the non payment ola fine and costs Of
prosecution-(the payment of which WINS
part OF the sentence;) it seemed, therefore,
humane in respect to the offender to relieve
nun IRON confinement which deprived him
OF the means of discharging the penalty
and to place him in situation in which lie
might work out his deiverance, even al n
loss for time Of Ills personal liberty,