Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1840-06-06

that when they could not pay the fines and costs
which are always part of the sentence and punish
ment, their services should be sold out TO any per-
son who would pay their fines and costs for them.
This was the clause that passed, as believe, by
a unanimous vote of the House, and stricken out in
the Senate, in opposition to the twelve who have
been denounced. A little further trouble in exam
lining the journals would have shown your cores
pondent that this was considered as substitute for
whipping, which was lost only by q single vote in
the Senate, and in the House by small majority,
after being once passed.
think, Mr.. Editor, have said enough to show
that this obnoXio 5 law would not have applied to
unfortunate debtors of siXty-fOur years." but to
infamous oGenderS who depredate uuon the proper
ty Of their fellow citizens, and who by the Consti-
tuition OF the State, as well the principle Of exist
ing laws, were subject to Involuntary servitude
must confess had no very sanguine expectations
Of yeGefcial effect from this measure as it would
apply 10 conyicts who had obtained the age Of ma
turity; but had supposed that woman, or youth
who convicted of an offence, remained in Jail for
the payment of the fine and costs imposed, might
with great advantage be transferred to the residence
of some decent, viruous private family, whose pre-
cept and example would gently lead them back to
the paths of rectitude.
would appeal to the candor of your correspon-
dent to say, whether, if there was an individual
confined under the circumstances have mentioned.
:Or whose rate he was interested. ne would not glad
y see him transferred from the filthy enclosure of
Jail, and the still more filthy inhabitants, to the
comfortable mansion of some virtuous citizen,
whose admonitions would check his vicious prOpen-
sites, and whose authority over him would be no
more than is exercised thousands of apprenti-
ces in country, and whose bound servants which
are tolerated in our, well as IN every other State
in the Union! Far from advocating the GbOn,inable
principles attributed to me bV uOur correSpoa9ent
tbnfJ n.
Stances but that where fraud is dledged Is at tcar
ruth The best principles Of our constitution and ought
to be abolished!
l am, sir, your humble servant,
WIN. II, HARRISON.
North Bend, Dec 81, 1921
In 1886, the charge was revived, and while Gen
Harrison in Virginia, the following correspond
ence took place.
RICHMOND, Sept. 10, 1896.
Dear Sir:-Your political opponents in the State
of Maryland have, for some time, been actively urg-
ing against you charge, that of SELLING
WHITE MEN, which probably had no inconsderable
effect in the recent elections in that State and which
is evidently much relied upon to influence the ap-
preaching elections throughout the United States.
enclose you paper (the Baltimore Republican,
continuing the charge in full, and beg of you, as
an act of justice to yourself and your faends to
enable me to refute charge against the uniform
tenor of your life, which, am well aware, has been
repete with instances of distinguished private lib
erality and public sacrifice.
With the highest respect,
have the honor to be,
Your fellow citizen,
JOHN II. PEASANTS.
Gen. WIN. H. HARRISON.
RICHMOND, Sept. Is, 1896.
nonrS ir- r nnyp ~, tbo Of
favor Of this date have before heard Of the accu-
sation to which it refers. On my way hither, |
met yesterday with young gentleman of Mary
land, who informed me that vote of mine in the
Senate of Ohio had been published, in favor of a
law to sell persons imprisoned under a judgment
for debt for term Of years, if unable otherwise to
discharge the execution. [ did not, for a moment,
hesitate to declare that had never given any such
vote and that, if a vote Of that description had
been published and ascribed to me, it inta-
nous forgery. Such an act would have been repug-
nant to my feelings, and in direct conflict with my
opinions, public and private, through the whole
course of my life. No such proposition ever
submitted to the Legislature Of Ohio--none such
would, for a moment, have been entertained--nor
would any son Of hers have dared to propose it.
| So far from being willing TO sell men for debts,
which they are willing 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
| a public capacity, avowed and acted upon it. VIII
those who have preferred the unfounded and mali
cous accusation refer to the journals Of the Senate
of the United States, I'd session, l9lh Congress,
page 1925 1t will there be seen that was one of
| the Committee which reported bill TO abolish i'm
prisonment for debt. When the bill was before the
Senate, advocated its adoption, and on its passage,
voted in its favor. See Senate Journal, lst session,
Doth Congress- pages l0l and 1902.
1t is not little remarkable, that if the effort
am accused of having made, to subject men to sale
for the nom payment of their debts, had been sue
cessful | might from the state Of my pecuniary
circumstances at the time, have been the first VIC
tim. | repeat, the charge is vile calumny At no
period of my life would have consented to subject
the poor and un fortunate to such degradation
nor have | omitted to exert myself in their behalf
against such an attempt TO Cypress them.
1t is sought to support the charge by means OF
rarbled extracts from the journals Of the Senate OF
! Ohio. The section of the bill which is employed
for that purpose had manner of reference to the
relation of creditor and debtor, and could not by
possibility subject the debtor to the control of his
creditor. None know better than the authors of tho
caumny that the alleged section is utterly at vari-
ance with the charge which it is attempted to found
upon it and that 50 far from proposition TO invest
creditor with power over the liberty Of his debtor,
it had respect only TO the mode of dispoSng Of pub
lie offenders, whoS had been found guilty by jury
of their fellow citizens of some crime against the
laws of their State. That was exclusively the i'm
port 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-