Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1851-06-02

V.
From the Ohio Statesman.
Wing Central Committee and the New
Constitution.
EDITOR OF THE Ono SsATEsMAN:-
Sir: The edict of the Wing Central Com
mittee of May IL, which presents to tie
whig party the strong points of objection TO
the New Constitution, is "rare bird" in
its way.
Looking at the high source from which it
emanated, and the intelligence of those to
whom it is addressed, we would naturally
expect manly, vigorous, and honest expo
sition Of serious evils, which would, by
reasonable deduction, follow the adoption
OF that instrument; the cause Of which
would be the provisions of the instrument
itself. | say in finding the names of Gallo
way, Mason and Olds affixed to that paper
We had right so to expect; but upon care
full examination of the whole address we
are compelled to admit that such expecta-
tion is most miserably disappointed. The
Central Committee find three main causes
of objection to the new Constitution in the
provisions which relate to internal improve
ment, State credit" and "apportionment;"
and infer from the closing paragraph of
this address, if these causes of objection are
removed, they are then content with the
whole instrument.
Ipropose replying briefly to the sopbis-
tries of the address: and @Elihu" like, de-
liveripg "mine opinion" Following the
course pursued by the address, the first topic
for reply is the chapter on internal improve
ments, the provisions of which, says the
address" are such that every practical man
will admit, that in future every thing of this
kind will be completely stopped" Why docs
this result necessarily follow the adoption
of these provisions? Because says the
address, they include indiridaal liability
for de BITS, and su6jection to repeal. In
order to sustain this position the address
assumes, first: that all subscriptions for
stock in works ofinternal improvement, are
mere gratuities on the part of the subscri-
bers; to which they are urged by motives
purely patriotic,and second: that suck works
seldom pay dividends to make profits
Admitting this to be true-for the purpose
Of the rgument-how easy is it for the
generous subscriber, to carry into operation
the noble dictates of his patriotism, and
avoid all responsibility. If he truly acts
from pure, unmixed benevolence towards
his fellow citizens, in devofing his funds to
the construction of highways and bridges,
and seeks no selfish gain, present or future
in the investment, let him not take out a
certificate to the amount be has subscribed
let not his name appear as stockholder
in the company, and he will incur no liabil-
ity for the debts of the company. This
procedure is just and proper, for if he seeks
no gain, he would require no certificate of
investment; if public works of the kind
make no profits, certificate of investment
is useless.
Now if men are unwilling to act thus, it
follows that the position assumed by the
address is sheer falsehood, aud | dare
venture the assertion, that the State of Ohio
does not contain one hundred men who
would so act.
The truth is, men in this day always
expect profits from investments, and with
out strong and probable presumption in
favor Of profts-they do not invest, and
this rule holds good, as well in the construc
tion of works Of public improvement, as
any other business transaction. True the
profit may not be directly derived from
dividends, which urges the subscriber to
take certificate of stock, and thus make
himself stockholder.
The greatest profit from such investments
arises in the enhanced value of the lands
through which such works are built and
the large increase of trade which they
create, and experience fully shows that the
expenditure OF twenty five per cent. of the
value of lands, in constructing good dura.
able roads, and bridg ges, by which distances
are diminished, and the approach to and
facilities for markets are increased, is as
wise and prudent an investment of money,
as land owner can make, although such
road, or bridge should never pay one cent
of dividend.
Now as these investments are made for
profit, and as they are profitable, and
largely SO, why should the maker of the in
vestment not be liable for the debts of his
company?
Mr.. Editor, have never yet seen any
man, who could assign any good reason,
why man should not be liable to pay the
debts which he has contracted, either in his
own person or by his agent. If you have
discovered any one possessed of such genius,
you will confer favor by making his
name public.
Yet this liability for debts, is the great
reason urged by the address against the
new constitution, reason, founded neither
in honesty, or honor.
If it be true that works of public i'm
provement cannot be made honestly-and
the address assumes that as fixed fact
if it be true that in order for their oonstruc-