Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1840-02-13
SELLING WHITE MEN ro

by some OF the reckless panderers of tho To-
coioco party, against Gen. HARR,soN. ,bo, no
whilst in the Senate of Ohio, voted tn .ssoIl
poor white men for debt" is again reiterated
by many of the Locoioco presses-we deem
it proper to refuts the base SANDER. nv re-
publishing the following letter on the subject
from General HARRISON, in answer to ono 70
him from MIR. PLEAsANTs of Richmond. We
hope, that all who may wish to arrive ,t tho
truth, will give it their perusal:
RIcHMoNMD, Sept. Is, 1896.
DEAR SRI acknowledge the recent If
your FAVOR OF this date. have before heard
Oh the accusation to which it refers. On my
way hither, L met yesterday with yonny
gentleman of Maryland, who informal mo
that a vote OF mine in the Senate of Ohio had
been published, In favor of law to sell nor
sons imprisoned under a Judgment for debt.
LOT term OF years, if unable otherwise To dis.
charge the execution. did not. for y mo-
nent, hesitate to declare that had never uiv-
en- any such vote; and that if a vote of that
description had been published and ascrihed
10 me, II was an Infamous forgery. Such an
act would have been repugnant to nv feel
ings, and In direct conflict to nv opinions.
Puoiic and private, through the whole course
Vi my ne NO such proposition was ever
submitted to the Legislature of Ohio. none
such would, for a moment, have been enter
talned-nor would any son others have dared
TO propose it.
90 lar from being willing to sell men for
debts which they are unable to discharge,
ans ana ever nave been, opposed to all inn
prlsonment for debt. Fortunately have il in
my power to show that such has been nv o.
tapiished opinion; and that, in public capaci-
'y, avowed and acted upon it. Will those
who preferred the unfounded and malicious
accusation refer to the journals of the Senate
oil the United States, I'd Session, 10Th Con-
gress, page 325 1t will there be seen that
L was one OF the Committee which reported q
bill to abolish Imprisonment for debt.LXNben
the bill was before the Senate, | advocated its
adoption, and on its passage, voted in its ia
vor. See Senate Journal, LIST Session. Goth
Congress, pages l0l and lO2.
Ii Is not little remarkable that, ifthe eff
tort L am accused of having made to subject
men to sale for non-payment of their debts.
mad been successful, | might from the state
OF my pecuniary circumstances at the time
nave been the first victim. repeat, the
charge Is avlle calumny. AT no period of
my life would have consented to subject the
poor and unfortunate to such degradation ::
nor have omitted to exert myself in their
behalf against such an attempt to oppress
them.
IL is sought to support the charge bymeans
OF garbled extracts from the journals of the
Senate of Ohio. The section of the bill which
IS employed for that purpose had TO manner
OF reference to the relation of creditor and
debtor, and could not by possibility subject
the debtor to the control ofhs creditor. None
knew better than the authors of the calumny
tlat inc alleged section Is utterly at variance
WI I.h -
upon 1t; and that, so far from a pronosi,;on
to invest creditor with power over the lib-
efty OF his debtor, 1t had respect only IT. the
mode OF disposing of public offenders. who
mad been found guilty by jury Of their fell
iow-cltiZens of some crime apainst the lave
oftheir State.-That was exclusively the i'm.
port and design of the section of the bill nm
on the motion to strike out which, voted in
the negative. so you perceive that in the
Pidce OF Young TO enlarge the power of credi-
tors, the vote which ! gave concerned alone
the treatment of malefactors, convicted of
crimes against the public.
1t would extend this letter to an inconve-
nient 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 offend
ers who would have fallen within its opcro-
| TONS, nor Is such as expose called for. Tho
! measure was by 10 means Il novelty in other
parts OF the country. In the State of Della
ware there is an act now In force in similar
! words with the section of the bill before the
| Ohio Senate, which has been made of late tho
pretext of such invidious inyectiye. I,au.S
OF somewhat similar provisions NAV probably
be found IN many other of the States. In
practice the measure would have amelioratad
| the condition OF those who were under con-
demnation AS the law stood, they wero
| liable under the sentence TO confinement In
| the common Jail. where offenders of yariors
degrees OF proilgacy-of different ages. soy
ana color, were crowded together. Under
slch circumstances, 1T is obvious that the had
must become worse, whilst reformation conId
hardly be expected in respect to any. The
youthful offender, it might be hoped would
be reclaimed under the operation of the rro-
posed system but there was great reason to
rear his still greater corruption amid the con-
taglon OF common receptacle of vice. Re-
SIDES, the proposed amendments of the law
Pre-supposes that The delinquent was in con-
iihement Tor the non-payment of fine and
costs OF a prosecution-(the payment ofwhch
was part OF the sentence) it seemed. there
fore, humane, in respect to the offender 70
relieye him from confinement which denriv-
ea MN oi the means Of disChdIgin tIlc pcn-
atty, and to place him III situation in which
he might work out his deliverance. even at
the loss for time of his personal liberty.
But torbear to 90 further in the reasons
winch led me sixteen years ago, as a mem-
Der of the Ohio Senate, to entertain = favora-
bic opinion OF an alteration which was pro-
posed in the criminal police Of the State. II
is certain that neither in respect TO myself. or
those who concurred with me, was ;he opin-
ION at the time, considered as the result of nm
friendly bias towards the poor or unfortunate.
Ne,,, al. IL Il