Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1859-04-07

From Cleveland nothing worth relating
occurred, until arrived at home, in Bour-
bon County, Kentucky; where found my
friends all in good health, my father ex-
cepted, who had gone 10 face the same enc
my from whom l had just made my es-
cape.
Gov. Ford ON the Ohio Senate.
% A short time since, after the appearance
of the investigation Committee Report,
the Senate, in defence Of its immaculate dig
nifty, passed resolution as follows:
WHEARAs, The members of this body
have read, with Indignation and surprise
statement of Thomas H. Ford, before
the Investigation Committee, as pub
lished in the "Ohio State Journal of
this morning, intimating his knowledge
Of the favorable sentiment Of the Senate,
towards the passage of bill, introduced
into the House of Representatives at The
last session of the Legislature, at the in
stance of the said Ford and R. G. Pen
ninington, for the relief of John G. Bres-
lin and Vim. H. Gibson and their secur-
tiles, which statement is false and base
ly slanderous TO every member of this
body, and tends to degrade the Senate
in the estimation of the public, there
fore,
Resolved, That Select Committee of
three be appointed, with power to send for
persons and papers, 10 inquire into the
reason for the statement of Thomas H.
Ford, in his evidence before the Treasury
Investigation Committee, that they the
said Ford and Pennington, "felt certain of
its (ihe billy going through the Senate" and
that said Committee report thereon at the
ealiest practicable period.
To Ibis resolution Gov. Ford replied as
follows:
LETTER CT GOV. T. H. FORD.
Letter of 7. Fl. Ford to the Senate Com
mittee formed to make inquiries as to his
testimony before the Treasury Investga-
ting Committee:
GENrLEEEN:-Your letter of the llth
inst, containing copy of resolution Of
the Senate of Ohio, came during my ab-
sence to the State of Michigan, and was re-
ceived by me upon my return home, with
as much indignation and surprise" rs the
Senate seems to have had when the pre-
amble and resolution were adopted.
You, gentlemen are charged with the
grave duty of inquiring why | thought the
Senate would concur in the passage of a
bill for the relief OF the sureties of John G.
Breslin and William H. Gibson. If l
followed. the example set by some of the
grave Senators, in discussing the Resolu-
tion, | mi ght properly answer that it is
none of your business. Ny reasons and
my opinions are my own. But l will be
more courteous.
In the first place never assisted in
either drawing or recommending the pas
sage of a bill for the relief of either Bres-
lin or Gibson. That allegation in the
Preamble is untrue, to use the chaste and |
beautiful language of the Senate. 1t is
"false and basely slanderous," and would
''tend to degrade" me, if the present SEN
ate Of Ohio have power to degrade.
The bill did advise au1 assist in draft
ing was for the relief of the sureties of Bres-
lin and Gibson upon their paying into the
State Treasury the neat little sum of two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars. These
sureties are men of character and position |
in the State, and acted openly as their
attorney.
The bill neither compounded with or
proposed to release either Breslin or Gibson
civiIly or crminaly
recommend therefore that the Senate
first inquire into the truth of the preamble
upon which your Investigations are based.
As TO inquiry, l repeat now what / tesli
fled; That l felt certain if the bill passed
the House it would also pass the Senate
II is indeed strange that private citizen
cannot express an opinion as to bill pass
ing your honorable Assembly without ex-
citing the "Indignation" of its members.
To illustrate. there is bill now pending
I believe, before your body to prevent
members from receiving passes from rail
road companies. If l should say the bill |
ought to pass-that Il would shorten your
sessions, and thereby save a large amount
to the State; would only say what is
known to be true, and vet could simply
express the opinion, trust, without excl
ting your ''indignation" that such bill vill
not pass, although large majority of
your members express holy horror and
jealousy of corporations whose passes they
use. -r-r
But, as you want the reasons of nv opin-
ion, III give them. The bill ought to
have passed. It was for the interests of
the State that it should pass. 1t is the
only way in which one cent will bs return
ed to the State. Such bills are common
both in Slate Legislatures and in Congress
such a law was passed in Congress
for the relief of citizen Sam Medary rs
surety tor John T. Arthur, even after judg-
ment had been rendered. The State has
not heretofore collected money of securi-
ties, and it is fact conceded by all that
not over one hundred thousand dollars can
be collected of these sureties even if all
their assets are exhausted. In both the
Senate and House of Representatives there
was Q majority Of the political friends Of
John G. Breslin, and then, and do now
believe, that they desired to shield him and
throw the blame on others. . ..g-s ..5
This. I think. is fully shown BY tbs factl