The pilot and transcript. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1840-1841, 1840-07-07

| q ~ D
9. Those who were poor and destitute; for
they could procare their discharge from prison,
BY making it appear, to the satisfaction of the
board of county commissioners, that they were
,snable to pay, according to the 9th section
g. Nor could it extend to those who might be
willing to pay the fine by labor OF the highways,
according to the provisions OF the 10th sectioa5
already quoted.
4 Nor TO those whom the court might sem
tense to s.hard Labor under the provisions of
the Nth section before referred to.
s. Aad, lastly, it could by no possibility reach
the case of am honest maE
Thea, on whom would it operate, yeu will ask!
Sir, | will tell you on whom it would operate;
it would take effect as it intended 1t should
on that class of sturdy offenders who, by .ffa't-
dllent saleor cOnceais,ent OF their property, had
placed il beyond the reach of execution, thereby
adding to- their original Offence the preparation
of fraud. Persons of this description having
property, but refusing to surrender it up1,or APP
ply it in payment of their fines, could not and
ought not TO, be relieved as parsons unable to
pay. No enc can fail to see that the 37th sec
tion is comprehensive enough in its remeasial
provisionss ts,cmbrace the case o8 every offender
who does not by his own fraudulent, act depSiye
himself of its Rrofiered benefits.
To those only, who preferred fraud. and eva
sion to probity and fair dealing, in. the appllca-
ton of their property to the discharge of fire
imposed for a criminal offence, could the 18th
section of the bill have been applied
But it is said that assaults andbatteries, though
breaches eli the law, do not, as most other of
fences, imply any neral turptude in those who
commit them; and yet they are not exempted
from the operationof that section. True, they
are not. But, i'll regerd to offences OF that
kind | have already shown that they might DO
disposed of under the provisions of the bill that
contained the section objected to, in two differ
ent ways: list By a, plea of guilty before JUS
tice of the peace IDLY. BY amicable agree
ment and compromise between the parties.
Then, if these methods OF adjustment failed,
prosecution by Indictment was discouraged by
the provisions that required the prosecutor to
endorse the idictmert for costs, and the party
accused to be recognised to appear before the
court
Under these various, regulations, obviously in
tended, or indeed their effect was, to discourage
prosecutions for assault and battery, but few
cases, and those only of aggravated kind,
which tn: parties could not arrange before anna
gistrate or settle between themselves, were ever
likelyto be carried into court.
Suppose, however, a person imprisoned on
account of fine for assault and battery-anevent
that could never occur under the legal enact
ments to which | have referred without Il more
than ordinary degree of delinquency-he could,
nevertheless; procure his enlargement by any
of the means before indicated. And If he did
not avail himself OF them, but chose rather to be
disposed of under the 10Th section, it would
clearly beshis own fault.
In conclusion OF my remarks on this branch of
the case, would ask gentlemen to compare the
18th with the 18th section, with viewto adjust
their relative claims upon our appreciation. If
am not greatly deceived the latter section coniers
a power far more likely to prove dangerous and
oppressive in its exercise than the tnrner. and
yet it passed by silent vote, and without oppo-
sition from any one.
Finally, what is the offence of Gcn'l. Harrison
in the premises ? Why, sir, in 1921, the House
of REPRESENTATIVES, of the Genaral Assembly of
Ohio passed certain bill, by vote of two to
one and sent it to the Senate, where motion
was made to strike out particular section, and
Cen Harrison, with other intelligent and patrio-
tic gentlemen, voted against the notion And
this, if you will believe me, is his offence F.! \
vote given nearly tweAty years ago against re-
iecting proposition that had received the delib-
arate sanction of an immence majority OF the inn
mediate representatives of the People, and on
question concerning which different opinions
were and might be very innocently entertained,
is now brought forwerd as matter of grave ac-
cusation, and one that ought to arouse the whole
American People with apprehensions for the safe
ty of their liberties. On the contrary, shall be
greatly mistaken if they do not with me, regard
the whole affair as utterly insignificant. Al
though no discussion required to vindicate
the vote Gen'l. Harrison gave, yet some explana-
ton seemed to be necessary to correct the wan
ton misrepresentation in regard to it and that
correction, it is believed, has been eifectualy APP
Piled by plain statement, showing what that
vote was, and the circumstances under which 1T
was given.
/ said, in an early part of my remarks, that
intended to say few words in regard to the es-
tination in which this charge was held BY tee
people of Ohio. How they have hitherto con-
sidered it, will appear from few historical
facts The honorable Thomas Morris, late SEN
ator of the United States, and who was elected
by the Van Buren, party in the Legislature of
that State, is the author OF the famous 18th sec
ton, and presume he has no cause to be asham-
ed Of the paternity. He was member at the
time Of the popular branch, in which the bill
originated, and, for the support he gave this sec
ton, neither he nor any one of the majority with
whom he acted, was ever called in question:
On the contrary, many of that number have since
been honorcd, in various ways, with the conf
dence and appreciation of the people.
Among tAose who voted with Gen. Harrison
in the Senate, against the motion to strike out
the section, was Eli Baldwin, whose name you
will find in the journal have read. WAen
Gen. Harrison was a candidate, in 1856, for the
Presidency, this same MIR. Baldwin the can
didate of the Van Buren, party in that State, for
the Office Of Governor. During the canvass,
which was very animated one, the charge was
made by the Van Buren, party, that Gen. Harri-
SOn mao voted 10 Sell WHite men uSbL' A'ut
when it was discovered that Dir Baldwin had
given the same vote, the federal leaders changed
their tactics, rather, the scene for displaying
them; and they caused the charge, with all its
known fllsehood, to be put in travelling condi-
ton and sent off to Maryland, in the hope that
it might receive there, from the hands of strn-
gers, more hospitable reception than it had
met with at home, where it was better known.
Notwithstanding his vote, Mr.. Baldwin
ceived the Jealous and undivided support of the
federal loco foco party in Ohio; and by that sup
port, we are furnished with test of their sim
cerity in making the charge they now use against
Gen. Harrison Did they believe in the truth Of
elect Mr. Baldwin TO the first Office in the Slater
Here Mr.. Duncan of Ohio, rose and said that
he would give it as his deliberate opinion and
belief, that MIR. Baldwin lost his election on ac-
count Of the vote he gave in the Senate of Ohio
in 1921