Spirit of the times. [volume] (Ironton, Ohio) 1853-1858, 1854-06-06

tcue df0ocsoeie bcueto1o-Whcm you name
we're sssiast ,he repeal. which is esnsinly an,
true. ssi knsv thst several ethsn were oppo.
ssd b ~ rspeal. and auits enough. hare no
doubt. n dsisat n.,,..-s,esss,-.,.-..-.3,----ss
Sou say che houss wss tips &c astioR on
The bill. iftheseby you intend 70 convey ths
lmvfes:en that thshsuss wss Committed II q.
vof Of repeal. q evsa inclined that way, deny
The assertion. havins st least % good means Of
knowing the genesai sentiment Of membcn m
this sub,sc, a yourself Il would be strange
indeel. II Il were - you state. You bad prefer.
rcd under the sanctity ofsn oath. ccrtain spe-
cifc charges against tue company. and asked
he repeal Of il chsrtef. Those charges wese
met. and proved 10 be grouudlsn and unwor-
thy Of consideration, BY evidcnos which 10 on
record, and speaks f,r itself; and consider It
a slander upon the intelligence and discrimina-
ton Of the members Of the House, 10 say that
they were "ripe for repeal. Let any one ex.
anime the evidence. and then Judge whether
on such case. on charges 80 rccklessly made.
30 poorly sustained. and - clearly rcfuted. the
House was likely to be 80 eager for action Is
yoa intimated.
Al to the members Of the House whom you
nsmed-Messs Allen. Huston Logue, and
/ smpbe!l, award to them all honesty Of pur-
pose. whether for or against repeal. but know
that one Of them, and have every reason 10 be.
lieve that another would not have voted for
the bill. Your having named these gentle.
men, in order to conrast their course on this
subject with mine, is my apology to them for
thus dragging their names befure the public.
As 10 my own course in this after; have
no apology tomnke. leave its proprety or i'm
proIr ETY. to b, judgel Of by the good sense o.
my constituents. to whose decision will sub.
nit with all Difference and respect. ,.,.,, =.
S,ath Point O. May 20. Isl ...
The above letter Of Hon. Benjamin
Johnson. will undoubtedly DO read BY
others ss il was by US. with unfeisnet
establishment. not particularly becaus'
Of his position, but that he should ssel
a personal controversy with US. In al
candor, we are forced to say that VI
have never entertained TO ward Mr.. John
son any other feelings than those o
friendship and respectful consideration;
and our expression Of rsgre, at his po
si,ion on the repeal question was mad
moro in sorrow. than in anger" from
tho fact that we confidently expected ,e
find him on the side Of equal rights
rather than lending his influence to per
pe.uate a grand monopoly Of corporat
privileges, ani a perpstuity Of chartered
rights.
! Yet in choosing such q position vi
concede to him q perfect right to do 80
at the Same time we claim for ourselve.
the same undoubted right to choose for
our. elues the opposite course, and feel
sl,ogsther unwilling to make sny per
sonal quarrel with tho Judge because o.
such difference. '- t" p.
He does not complain that We have
mista,sd his position on the RepeaI
question. We supposed the, ws stated
truly the position Of the other member
named en- the same question. II vi
have not done SO, in respect to either o
those gentlemen. we will take great plea
sure in making the corrcc,ion-on tn
proper authority.
| The probabilities Of Repeal in tn
Senate. can be judged Of by the vote o,
the motion to strike out, which was re
jcctcd by a vote Of 10 to Is. This e5u
li,ion Of the Judge seems to Us. to b
tho effect Of the awk wa rdnees Of his po
sition, on question involving the prin
ciples that this one does. We do no
think i. is right in him to try to avoid
responsibility by assuming that the "spe
ci6c charges asains, tho Co., in our ai
flsvit. were "groundless and unwor,h,
Of consideration" The charges M al
by Us and o:hers, sgains. the corporation
are most unqucstionsbly either true o
false. Neither their truth nor falsit
can be shown by thoir acknowled gemen
or denial by other persons. but only b
a comparison Of the charges made will
the facts. and the transactions Of 'h'
Co., as they ore known 10 exist by thi
community. - .--
\ The principal charge was. that .ai
Co. had opened land Office. and b.