Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1837-1839, 1838-05-12

interested, Il would probably not beamis< 10 have
tho votes ON These questions published record
ed on tho Journals. il is veil known to mauv
that Nathan Smith has stated both publicly asd
privately that he voted for Increase of The
Capital Stock Of the State Bank If Indiana, in
which the people Of Wayne County, as conceive,
are deeply interested; in much the bill pro-
vid'ng for an increase Of the capital stock, pro-
vided also that the interest arising from said stock
should go Tor iiquidafing the int, est on Internal
Improvement loans Of the State, ans thereby not
only keep off oppressive taxation; whicn certain
iy should have been an object, witt ooe feeling
80 much interest in the welfare OF the "dscqr poo
pie" rs Nathan seems to; but would also enable
our Banks to compete with others, which under
present circumstances she is not able to do in
diana having much less banking capital employ
ed in proportion to her population and commerce,
than any State IN the Union; but isotwithstand-
ing all the advantages which would result from
such . measure, you will find BY referring to the
Journal Of the House Of Representative page
ia AID us that the name Of Nathan Smith Is
recorded against IL, in every instance. Ho has
also stated, that had his colleagues voted with
him for what he terms Bennei's notification bill,
that the White Water Canal would have been
finished in two years; but they would not 60 with
him, when it would but have taken their three
votes to have passed the bill; this is indeed
grave charge and one which would seem to need
some explanation. In fact, it seemed SO strange
to me that | have been curious enough % exam
inc the Journal on the subject, knowing that Ne
than was in the habit Of stretching Iatle when
it would best suit his purpose. find in.hc Jour-
nal, page 10 this bill was introduced NJ IS and
passed to a second reading. The next We see Of it
IS on page l2l, bill No. 66 was read the second
time, ''when Mr. vandiveer moved that said bill
be referred to the Committee canals andinternal
improvements Mr.. Miiroy moved Il amend
said motion 20 - 10 commit to n select COM
mittee; divisioo a the question being eled for,
was first put striking out, the committee on
canals and internal improv ousat, and ne yeas
and nays being called for, the vote stand AZ for
striking out land 80 against it, Williams, hwkins,
and Hubbard against striking out, and Smith for
il. $50 said amendment did not prevail Mr..
Henley a member who stood at the head Of the
Notification party, and Smiths room mae, and
suppose bcdfcllow, moved to amend the PROPOSE
ton to commit, by adding the following nsiruc-
tions. Gto strike out the part which relate to the
time Of the completion Of the white watercanai,'
and the ayes and nays being requested, byAessrs-
Henley. and Howell those who oted in th.af1irm-
alive; there will give names to show 'ho the
true friends Of the whtewater canal are) wee mes
srs. Arnold, Bennett, Blair, Booa, Beown, Burns,
Ferris, Garrigus, Glenn, Gregory, Haddes Hen
lev, Hooker, Howell, Hurst, Huston, Jckson,
Kenton. Lewiston, NcCrillis, Miller. Milroy Nick
III. Noel, Pcaslcy. Porter, Roe, Shook. Wlpooi,
Williams Of Lawrence, Wilson, and Zcnc, 81;
all Of whom arc avowcd Classifiers but bac one.
Now If these men are SO very anxious tocarrv
one two works only they avOw, wbystrikc
| the Whitewater canal on, of their ow n bill when
il is admitted on all hands to be Que Of th best
works in the State, according to its l6gth
and the following vote shows that it stand high
with internal Improvement men. Those whOotcd
in the negative were Messrs. Berry, Boyd, fyce,
Carlton, Chombcrln, Champer, Crume, Cunning
ham, Davis, bowling, Eldridgc, Gadis, Grt,am,
EIammel, Hanna, Hawkins, Hartman, Hayrond,
Helmcr, Hendricks, Hood, Hubbard, HUFF, Jncs,
Judah, LINE, Lee, Macy, Major, Marshall, Nat
( lock, MCinrc, Morrison, Murphy, Noble, O9orn,
Peabody, Pcrinc, Proffit:, Reeve, Ritchic, Ris-
tine, Robin, Sims, Smith, of Wayne, Sndth.
of c., Stapp, TannchiIl, Thompson of A. ''nnp-
son OF F. Vandivccr, Watson, Whitman. Viianis
OF r. Williams of w. Wines of G. and w Wines
Of V. Wyman, and Mr.. Speaker, CO. The question
r then recurring to commit the bill TO tho Commit
tee canals and internal Improvement, il was
carried bv II vote of 81 to AZ.
The reader will discover, that there vas &c
vote taken on the merits Of the bill cxceptthe one
which proposed to strike out that which rehteo
TO the Whitewater canal, and that, the iItana
improvement men with very few exception:
went for retaining that part OF it. The ,vewet
object Of the to refer to select cor,mtte.
(before the vote taken on striking out tn,
Committee canals, &c..) was to strike out tina
part which related to the Whitewater canal, thci
who acted the most consistently after hearing thi
avowal in the House by the mover in his ilace
those who voted for or against striking out Nor
anon.
FAIR Play.
*Query--in as much the motion to srik
out that part Of the bill which related the White
watcr canal was made by Smiths room mate an
voted for by nearly the whole party with who's
| he commonly acted, but which on this occasion
he seems to have deserted, and is found actin
with party which he, on all occasions SO nuc
, denounces. Is it not strong Prcsumptive evidenc
that the Classification party did not know that th
provision was in the bill, in as much as the move
toa select committee, one of tine leaders Of the part
avowcd his object in making the motion, was ,
strike ont. or that it was understood betwee
Smith and the party who introduced the Bill, thu
this provision be striker out in the Hnus'
and that Smith should be allowed on this occa
ion to act with the internal improvement Part,
in order for hume consumption, and retain h
standing with the party, with whom he had con
monty acted either horn Of the dilemma seems ba
enough F.K.
. Richmond, May 10th, 1888.