Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1843-01-27
MECHANlCSTOWN, Carroll Co !
Ohio, Jan. 10Th, 1913. (
Hon. JAMES T FARRAN,
CnooLo n tbo Gos,0Jo &c n

| AlO4s JAlbo AhhANt
Speaker Of The Senate Of Ohio,
SIR:
! have just received a copy Of
Report made by the judiciary commit
lee Of your honorable body, on the Cd
inst, which not only contains great iu
accuracies with respect to the objects
and merits of petition Of mine which
they have lately had under consdera-
tion, but which | conceive contains as.
sumptions of positions totally unwarranl
ed by justice and the Constitution OF the
State.
The Report states that my petition is
for the purpose Of having trial before
the Supreme Court so that | might be
restored TO my legal rights and privi.
leges, emitting altogether to mention
that it was for another purpose also, and
that was this, viz: That on my oDn dp
piicGtiom therefor, | might have trial
before the Court Of Common Pleas Of
Carroll county, so that might have my
own hard earned property, unjustly ia
ken from me last February, by a jury
of inquest on The plea that was insane
when ! was not insane, If upon such trial
before jury Of my country it should
appear | was fit 10 have the charge 81
my said property. By law, there is
now no appeal from the mistaken ver-
dict of the jury and can never have
another trial 10 get my property back
again uLleSS some OF nv friends should
make application to said Court Of Com
mon Pleas for that purpose, which they
will not do for tWO reasons. lst. Be
cause they are deeply interested to en-
Joy it ali themselves; and Cd. Because
they know if get it into my own hands
that | intend TO put one half of it to my
own private use in living apart from
my wife. The committee most absurd
ly arrive at the conclusion that, merely y
because | seek, by the only possible
mode in my power, to have my owl pro
perty, and enjoy my just rights in COM
mon with other citizens, that actually
, am insane! Surely they must be Soon'
IN wisdom! More than one thousand o
the most respectable people Of the
l neighborhnod IN which live, IA large
, portion Of Them intimately acquainted
with me aud present on my trial to
O insanity last winter,) among them min
a listers Of The Gospel. d Judge Of the Cour
I Of Common Pleas, one Of the very juror
who thought me insane but afterwards
n no doubt, believed me a wronged ma n,
y and five gentlemen Of the bar of m!
=, own county, have all joined in my re
> quests that may have the trials asl
4 Tor. But the committee pretend to ex
,s press surprise at this, as though the!
/, were triAng with the sacred right o
:. petition Most astonishing! They in
timate that the people were all in jest
! No such thing. Those respectable a.
dies anG gentlemen, who compose tina
!, number mentioned viii be indignant a
a The unjust attack of the committee .upo
r their honor.
9 In addition to this trial abou. my in
= sanity now (or falsely alleged insanil,
b Fought to say,) | asked in my petition
J mot 10 be restored to my legal right
y and privileges, as the committee false
It declare, and | appeal 10 the document
= in the Senate hall lor the truth of m
is statement,) but to be in the enjoymen
+. OF an inestimable constitutional righ
!. and priUilege, and that is, (alter | ma
Q be declared by the Supreme Court TO b
70 a single man) that can be in siuato
p. 10 marry to my mind, if after a fai
A. trial before a jury Of my country it sha
! appear that was insane when marie
a in 1919, as know | was. And tn
s same thousand people are in favor G
70 that trial also. And my documents Civ
$. the most irrelragabIe proofs that | wa
r, not insane last winter while they ar
Of equally conclusive that when was ma,
e. rled in 1919 ! wds insane, neither {
Q which class of proofs do the commlite
u pretend 10 say are not just as here dt
Be- clare, How then come the commltIe
Of 10 give the Senate such an unfair vie
'e OF the objects of my petition, and TO il
y suit me and some Of the best people
m the land?
~ But the committee, in substance, den
+" that the Legislature has righllul powt
a a to delegate the authority asked for.
!s the Supreme Court, which they ac
II knowledge that il | was married whe
u insane the contract would be VOID. Ce
- - talnIy it 'Oas altogether void in reGso'
II though it is actually binding in laV.