Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1857-03-27

houest statement OF this transaction.
have no doubt but that Mr.. Forrer is an
honest man, and speaks the truth as far as
no knows; but he has allowed his name to
be used, unconsciously, TO give character
and influence 10 nefarious scheme for plum
dering the State Treasury lie knew moth
ing Of the means used to obtain tho contract
or the agency Of Hamlin in the matter
He had not even seen the contract with
the State when he gave his testimony in
January last Although the leading name
in the firm, he did not know who his part
ners were, or who was their Attorney and
discussing agent, although that Attorney
and agent was to have one-half of the pro
fits for his services Mr.. President, the
whole truth has not been disclosed, and pro-
badly never will be. 1t is entirely incrcdi-
ble, that this Company estimated Mr.. Ham
Inns services so highly. No, sir, the one
half Of this contract which Mr.. Hamlin
claims 10 own, was floating in the air, but
designed TO fall upon parties who are left in
the back ground. Circumstances may
point them out to us, but positive proof new
or; because those who are capable of con-
-cocting such q scheme of fraud are capable
of swearing it through. am fully convinc-
ed, sir, that all these contracts, not except
ing section No. 3, let to Cooper; Shaddinger
& Co., are tho result Of fraudulent com
bination. Tho project itself, was conceived
in fraud, brought forth in fraud, and will be
sustained by fraud and even perjury if nee
essary. It is a monster with corruption
oozing out at every pore. l don't say that
every man connected with these contracts is
dishonest; not by any means, sir. On the
contrary, have tho utmost confidence in
the integrity of several of them. But they
were only taken in to give character to the
transaction, to lull the suspicion of fraud,
and to create an influence against any at
tempt to defeat the scheme. They were
kept on the outside of the ring 1t is evil
dent that this cunningly devised plan is sue
eeeding but too well. We sec its workings
on all sides. Much has been said about the
evidence of these frauds being ex parte. Is
it so9 What better evidence can you have
than the testimony of the contractors them
selves and the record of the proceedings
of the Board9 No other testimony is relied
upon; no other is needed. Do the con-
tractors expect to prove that they have thcm-
selves, sworn falselyl
1t being perfectly apparent to my mind,
that the Board did not comply with the law,
and that the contracts were obtained by a
combination among the contractors, and
others, to defraud the State, the question
recurs what is the duty of the Legislature
in the premises? If / could have my way
Mr.. President, l would set them all aside,
and let tho parties seek such remedy as
their eminent legal counsel, already employ
ed and in the field, could devise. But here
we are met with the horrible cry of Repudi-
alton The distinguished Senator from
Franklin sounds the alarm, and proclaims
that this course will disgrace the State and
impair its credit. In this he reminds me of
an anecdote have heard related, of
Dutchman who had erected, in his yard, a
scarecrow, in the shape Of a man, to fright
en- the boys at night One night the Dutch
man came home somewhat too full Of the
% be joyful and staggered up against this
man scarecrow. The consequence was, that
he fell over and commenced crying with
all his might "murder! murder! that man
is killing me; o take him away, quick p
His good woman ran out in great haste to
his relcif, and soon discovered the cause
"Why," says she, "Mike that is nothing but
dat man scarecrow you did make dar your
self to scare the boys away" Of course
the Dutchman was soon quieted when he
found that the awful man was of his own
creation and although horrible in appearance
was quite harmless in fact. The Senator
from Franklin, some years ago, got up a
scarecrow on the subject of the inviolability
Of contracts, for the purpose of frightening
the Locofocos from the Banks, and gave it
the horrible name of Reputation; and now
he is found butting himself against il, in a
case having no sort of parallel to repeating
charters. This cry of Reputation may
frighten gentlemen who are troubled with
weak backs and trembling knees, but it has
no terrors for me. Under some circum-
stances Reputation is not only harmless but
quite necessary and useful. There arc many
things which ought to be repudiated, and l
think these contracts are of that class. 1t
is but doing, on behalf of the State, what
every individual has right to do for him
self; that is refuse TO perform contract OBJ
tanned from him by fraud, or by an agent
acting beyond his power Of attorney. There
is however this difference: the State is not
so much like a man capable of contracting
for himself but more like minor who can
snly contract through guardian. 1t is a
well established rule, that the contracts
made by guardians, in behalf of their wards
are void unless in strict conformity to the
law; and that all persons, contracting with
guardians arc bound TO see that the law ha'
been strictly complied with. This rule APP
plies with equal strctness to public agents.
Judge Story, whose authority no one will
call 10 question, in his work on Agency, af-
ter discussing the liability Of individuals for
the acts Of their agents, wherein he lays
down the rulc which Senators on the other
eide of the question have cited as applicable
to this case, says: "But in cases Of public
agents, the government or public authority
Is zot bound, unless it manifestly appear.
that tho agent is acting within the scope Of
his authority" 'Indeed," says Judge Story
4this rule seems indispensable, in order tc
guard the public against losses and injurie;
arising from the fraud, or mistake, or rash
ness and indiscretion of their agents" ThC
samo doctrine was held by the United
States Court IN the ease Of Lee vs.. Monroe 4