Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1846-09-04
Fro. ne Oli8-sial, JowaaL.
ne STATE DEBT OF OHIO.

THE STATE DEBT OF ONO.
The Cincinnati Advertiser. beginning to feel
sensible Of the unenyiable position il and its par
" friends occupy in denouncing tax law framed
mainly to provide for the payment Of interest on
an enormous debt incurred by Locoloco Legisla-
lures and officers Of their appointment. FRAMED
100, so as 10 equaize the burlhens Of taxation and
thus make them less opprcsSiye.) makes a labor
cd effort to show that this debt was not incurred
by and cannot Justly be charged 10 the Locoioco
party. To say thai its effort is a lame one, and
that il utterly fails T. establish its point, would be
saying what every man would say beforehand,
who is acquainted with the facts in the case. Its
article only proves that the various works Of i'm.
proyemeni authorized by the Legislature, at the
session Of 1867, many Of which probably nev.
er will pay the interest on the sum spent in their
erection, were not authorized BY strict party
UOie. Now the labor spent in establishing this
point, is ihrownaway. Thepoint hasneyer been
controverted, and is one Of no moment. The
Legislature of 1867, which ''ordered the pur-
chase and completion Of the Warren County Ca
nal,-the completion Of the Miami Canal the
construction Of the Wabash and Erie Canal the
Hooking Caual,-ihe Walhonding Canal,-thc
Muskingum Improvement, and the Improvement
Of the navigation of Wills Creek was Il Loco
fOcO Legislature, in both us branches! The Le-
gislalurc that authorized the plumber law was LO-
cofoco. These are facts thai stand out, tangible.
substantial. Unless the Advertiser would make
the minority responsible for what was done at
those sessions, II must admit that the Locoioco
party is responsible for the undertaking Of these
works. According to It's own showing "A majority
equal 10 iiro-thirdS and hrecjoarihS of the Lo-
cOlocos of those Legislatures r0ted for these i'm
proyements-excepting the Wills Creek act
thus giving more distinctive Locofoco charac-
ter 10 what was done. Wings, it is true, voted
for them; but does that dlyesl the majority Of the
responsibility! Surely not. Who can say that
those works would have been undertaken had
there been a Wing majority! No man. The
responsibility Of what was done during those scs-
sions, rests Just as distinctly on The Locoloco par
~, as do the proceedings of the present Con-
gress. The Wings have had the responsibility
IN Ohio for two years. They are wlingto bear
it-they are willing to be heldresponsiblc for what
has been done. They cannot, if they would,
shift that responsibility on the shoulders of their
opponents. The amendments made 10 the tax
law in l8lI-5 were voted for by several Locolo-
COS. Did that prevent the party press and lead
crs from dcnouncing the law as a Wing measure!
il did not Minorilies, feeling that the response
bIlity rests not on them, frequently do things that
they would not attempted in the majority A
case in point: A large majority of the Wings of
the present Congress voted for the War Bill, be-
cause they could not defeat it and take such steps
as they desired, and were unwilling to obsruct
the movements Of the majority AT such time.
Who does not know that had there been a Wing
majority, the war would not have been declared.
Mr. Polk S recommendation would not have been
approved, and although provision would have
been made to relieve the army, the country would
not now have war on its hands. Just as soon
as il had been discovered that the army could sus-
tain itself, movements for raising n force would
have been suspended and the difficulties would
have been concluded bynegotiaon. Who thinks
Of holding the Wings responsible for the war and
war bill, because majority of them voted for it!
The attempt, then, to relieve the Locoloco par
" Of Ohio from the responsibility OF increasing
the State Debt from less than VS. 100000, to near
ly 100000 900, is an aborlive one. No man can
say that the Wings would have attempted these
works. hadlhey bcenin the majority; iorit is well
known that many of the eeading, lar-seeng Wings
of the State, denounced them NJ the time. Nor
can il be said that they would have failed without
Wing votes; for no one can say that the LocolO-
co votes would have been the same under one set
Of circumstances that they We're under another.
Individual members sometimes vote against pro-
position, knowing that it will prevail without their
votes, when if their votes were necessary to sue
cess they would be given with the party majority.
The main points are left untouched by the Ad-
verliser; those to which public attention is direc-
ted, and which most need explanation. The
works, above alluded to, Were prosecuted by LO-
cofoco officers! The estimates for them were
made by L0cofocos! The Legislature that un-
derlook them was assured that they would not
cost half the sum expended in their erection.
In some cases the expense of construction near
ly quddrupied the estimated How, and why was
this! Who is responsible lorSuchresults! How
does il happen that 400 miles of Canal and I'M
proyement made under Locoioco direction, cost
nearly double the sum expended in erecting un-
der Wing management 1907 miles of Canal!-
How does it happen that Canal was made under
Wing management for $4,000 per mile, while
under Locoloco management it cost S230O0!-
Look at the figures and explain to the taxpayers
how such results were brought about. The O.
hio and Miami Canals were undertaken and pros
eculed by Wings, the others were authorized by
a Locofoco Legislature aud erected under Loco
ioco officers:
Names Of p Works Length. Total cost Av per NJ
o. Canal aud branches, 333I $i,2li,J39 81 $l2,72S
Miami Canal 81 glSIS5 90 1912
Total, 10Ol So l62, ,72l 81 $l29I9
Miami Extension Canal, 1870 S3I95,lI3 80 so 0s6
Waha.h and Eric anal Oh7 III 4 GQE