Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1840-06-25
Gen. Harrison's letter to John II. PleaSantS.
RICHMOND, Sept. Is, 1886.

| Gen. HdrriSOnS letter TO John IL. FLedSdhtS. ]
RICHMOND, Sept. Is, 1886.
Dear Sr:-l acknowledge the receipt oil
your favor of this date. have before heard
of the accusation to which it refers. On my
way hither, met yesterday with young gen.
tlemen Of Maryland. who informed me that a
vote of mine in the Senate of Ohio had been
published in favor of law to sell persons inn
prisonod under a judgment for debt, for term
Iof years, ifunabIe otherwise TO discharge the
execution. | did not for moment, hesitate to
declare that had never given any such vote;
and that if a uOte of that description had been
published and dScribed TO me, II acas an INFAMOUS
FORGERY Such an act would have been re-
pugnant to my feelings, and in direct conflict
with my opinions, public and private, through
the whole course of my life. No such PROPOSE
ton was ever submitted to the Legislature of
IOhio-none such would, for a moment, have
been entertained-nor would any son Of hers
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 imprison-
ment for debt. Fortunately have it in my
power to show that such has been my establish
ed opinion; and that, in public capacity, |
avowed and acted upon it. Will those who
have preferred the unfounded and malicious
accusation refer to the Journals of the Senate of
the United States, Cd Session, 10Th Congress,
page 1876? 1t will there be seen that was one
of the committee which reported bill to abol-
sh Imprisonment for debt When the bill was
before the Senate, advocated its adoption, and
on its passage voted in its favor. See Senate
Journal, LIST session, Goth Congress, pages lOl
and lO2.
1t is not little remarkable that, ifthe effort
am accused ofhavng made, to subject men to
sale for the non-payment of their debts, has
been successful, might, from the state Of my
pecuniary circumstances at the time, have
been the first victim. repeat, the charge is
a vile calumny. At no period ofmy life would
have consented to subject the poor and unfor-
tunate to such degradation; nor have omit
ted to exert myself in their behalf against such
an attempt to Cypress them.
1t is sought to support the charge by means
of CARRIED 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 possibility subject the
debtor to the control of the creditor. None
know better than the authors of the calumny,
that the alleged section is utterly at variance
withithe charge which is attempted to be found
ed upon it, and that, so far from proposition
to invest a creditor with power over the liber-
ty of his debtor, it had respect only to the mode
of disposng ofpublic 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 concerned alone the treatment of
male(actors, convicted ofcrime against the pub
lie.
1t would extend this letter to an inconvenient
length to 60 fully into the reasons which led
me at that 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 Dslaware there IS
an act noo in force in similar wOrdS lcith the
section of The bill before the Ohio Senate, Vhich
has been made Of late the protect Of such inUidu-
Gus inrectire. Laws with somewhat similar
provisions may probably be found in many 9TH
er Of the States In practice, the measure
would have ameliorated the condition of those
who were under condemnation. As the law
STOOD they were liable under the sentence to
confirmation in the common Jail, where often.
ders of various degrees of prohigacy-of diff.
lerent ages, sex and color, were crowded to-
gether. Under such circumstances, it is obv-
GUS that the bad must become worse whilst re-
formation could hardly be expected in respect
to any. The youthful offender, it might be no.
ped, would be reclaimed under the operation Of
the proposed system; but there was great rea-
son to fear his still greater corruption amid the
contaglon OF common receptacle of vice. Be-
sides, the proposed amendments Of the law pre-
that the delinquent was in confinement
for the non.payment of fine and costs Of prose-
payment Of which was part of
the sentence3 it seemed, therefore, humane in
respect 10 the offender, to relieve him from
confinement which deprived him of the means
Of discharging the penalty, and to place him
in situation in which he might work out his
devcrance, even at a loss for time Of his per-
Sonal liberty.
But iorbear to 90 further into the reasons