The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1856-03-12
D:
WEDNESDAY MORNING MARCH II, 1856.
@blp 4tgisIatmf.
CoLunBus, March 6, 1856.

SENArE-The bill to remove the ju.
risdiction of minor offences from the
Probate Court, was under consideration.
Mr. Mathews opposed the amend.
ment made in Committee of the Whole,
to empower the Prosecuting Attorney
ito prosecute such minor offences, in the
Common Pleas, by information, with
out the Intervention of the Grand Jury.
It was ~entrusting a power in the hands
of an individual which was dangerous,
and might be SO welded as to become
oppressive
Mr. Brazee moved to amend the
amendment so as to restrict the proceed
ing By information to cases sent up from
below on recognizance, or where the par
~ Is In custody for the offence charged
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to, and the amendment was
then adopted-yeas II, nays IL.
The amendment striking out the sec
ton which excepted certain counties
from the operation Of the bill was also
adopted. The amendments were order
ed to be engrcssed.
III. Griswold introduced a bill for
the election Of another Judge of the
Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga
county. Read the FIRST time.
Nj. Griswold explained that this
Judge would be necessary in conse-
quence of taking the jurisdiction of mi
nor offences from the Probate Court.
Mr.. Taylor reported back from the
Finance Committee the bill to repeal
the crow-bar law, and recommended its
passage. The bill was recommitted.
The Senate then went into Commit
tee Of the Whole, and considered sever
al bills Of no general interest: The com
mittee rose and reported them back to
the Senate, when they were laid upon
the table and the Senate adjourned.
HousE-The Honse went into the
Committee of the Whole and consider
ed several bills. The bill to ~relinquish
the stock of the Staten the Chillicothe
Turnpike road being before the COM
mittee, Mr.. Underhill moved to strike
out all after the cnaeting clause.
Mr.. Yaple defended the bill. He
said that the stock owned by the State
in this road would not probably sell for
IS cash. He admitted that upon its
face the bill seemed to vote away the
property of the State; but that had
really been done years ago, and it ouly
subjects tie State to liability to keep
the stock.
Mr.. Sawyer thought that this was a
very modest request. Why did not this
road pay? It was through a region
said to be the richest in the State or
anywhere else. The road had been con-
structed for the most part with the mo-
ney Of the State. 1t now held stock to
the amount of $4,000 in this road
and here was a proposition that this
should be distributed among the towns
and cities along the line of the road Ell
ther for their benefit or for the benefit
Of the road, as they might determine.
They had a road up in Auglaize which
paid twenty per cent. upon the invest
ment; and he believed that this read
would pay, if there was not some mis-
management in conducting its affairs.
When the separate districts of the State
were to be compared to the Scioto re-
gion claimed to be vastly richer than
the Northwest, but now the plea of pow
esty vas set up and the State was ask
ed to give up stock amounting to the
sum ofs70, 600.
The motion to strike out prevailed.
The committee rose and reported, and
the bills were referred to the appropri-
ate committees
Adjourned.