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


powers in such case rs this. II you call
refusing to appropriate money to carry out
fraud and speculation, because the agents
Of the State have mado such illegal and
fraudulent contracts, assuming Judicial pow
crs, then | am prepared to assume such pow.
ers, or any other power you luy choose TO
call it. The constitution vests in the Gen.
cral Assembly the control Of the peoples
treasury. No money can be lawfully paid
out without its assent. No citizen can sue
the State without n special act for that pur-
pose. Why all these guards thrown around
the public trcasuryl Why not let every
citizen, who thinks himself agrievcd by
the State, or has a claim against it, sue the
State without the assent of tho General As
semblyl This power was reserved to the
General assembly for the very purpose of
protecting the treasury from being plunder-
cd by just such fraudulent designs upon it
as the one here revealed to us. Can we
exercise no Judgment, no discretion in max
ing appropriations in such cascsG Are we,
indeed, bound hand and foot, TO the car of
the Board of Public Works, and bound to
to comply with all their demands upon the
Treasury, however fraudulent or illegal 3
| say no; and the people, when they como
to understand the subject will say no. The
Constitution rests the responsibility on us,
and it is our duty to meet it. II will not
do for us to evade that responsibility, by turn
ing the matter over to the Courts, thereby
giving this great combination an opportunity
to manage and pettifog their cases through
by means of eminent legal aid, and cor
ruption fund of 1921, 900 obtained from the
State by fraud and disregard of law. What
chance, Mr.. President, do you suppose the
State will stand in contest with such
combination? None at all, sir Could /
have my way l would follow the example of
New York under very similar circumstances.
Tho Legislature of that State being convinc-
ed that the contracts for cnlarging her ca
nails to the amount of some SS,00o,000, had
been let under a combination like tho one
here developed, set them all aside and relet
tho Works. The people approved the act.
Il was just and the only adequate remedy.
l am not aware sir, that the great State of
New York lost any credit by it, or that she
was in consequence of the act diSgraced in
the eyes of the world. think her bonds
will yet sell for as much in market as those
of Ohio have boen sold for, Notwithstanding
this horrible act Of reputation, The same
arguments were used there, in opposition to
the measure, that are now used here Gen
tlemcn abhored the idea of the Legislature
assuming judicial powers. The ghost Of
reputation was conjured up, and exhibited
with all its horrors and dcformity. Some
tremblcd and others tainted but the major
ity pursued the even tenor of its way, and
repudiated the whole "batch" of fraudulent
contracts; and, strange to say, the State Of
New York still survives!
There is one feature in the New York
case, which it may be we'll enough to no
tice. The law under which their Canal
Commissioners acted did not require the
contracts to be let to the lowest responsible
bidders, but "to such parties as should pro-
pose to perform the work on terms the most
safe and advantageous to the State having
due regard to price, the ability of the par
ties, and securities offered for the perfor-
nance thereof" Yet the contracts were
not only set aside, but one of the Commis-
sioners impeached, for abusing this wide dis
cretion, in not letting the contracts to the
lowest responsible bidders, having the abili-
ty to perform the work; and this abuse Of
the discretion was not any more glaring
than in the case which is now before us for
our action.
But the mostcurious phenomenon brought
to view in this discussion, is the position oc-
cupied by our friends, the Democratic Sen
ators. They eclipse even the Senator from
Franklin, in their opposition to what is call
ed Reputation, and in their devotion to
the sancity of contracts. 1t is queer to find
these Democrats on these questions, battling
side by side with the Ajax of the old Wing
party. For their benefit, will refer to a
few precedents, set by the Democratic party,
in the days of its glory. A Democratic
Legislature, in l843, upon the petition Of
the inhabitants along the road, repealed the
charter of the Columbus g. Sandusky Turn
pike Company, and appropriated their road
to the public, on the ground that the Com
pany had forfeited their charter. No testi-
mony was taken, and the Company was
refused the privilege of going into Court to
test the question. The Company had built
road through new country, expended a
considerable more than they had received
in toll or otherwise. All the stockholders
ask, is to be allowed to test the question of
forfeiture, and if the Court decides that the
charter was not forfeited, then that the State
make the stockholders whole for the money
expended in the construction of the road
Democratic Senators will not grant the
stockholders of this company the right to
go into court at all, but they are struck with
horror at the idea of refusing to appropriate
money on fraudulent contracts, before they
have been tested by Judicial trial.
The proper officers of State, in pursuance
Of law, let out by contract, the Legislative
printing. A Democratic House of Repre-
seniatiyes, in the next Legislature thereafter
in violation Of the contract and of the law,
directed their clerk TO give the printing to
Medary, for no other reason than because
the contractor was Whig and Medary a
| Democrat.
In 1850, the Legislature authorized the
Governor to use such means as he might
think best TO obtain certain lands from the
United States; provided, that the expense
should not be charged to the Treasury
The resolution evidently intended to give
the Governor authority to make contract