The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1859-04-13
For the "Spirit. :"

paper contained correspondence of the
editor making an attack and certain char
ges upon me, that seems to require pass
ing notice. Iregret exceedingly that my
colleague has saw proper to make this at
tack upon me, for during the whole course
of our Legislative career, and during the
campaign. we have been upon the most
friendly possible terms and our extremein-
timacy and good feeling towards each
other has been the subject of remark by
others. Because some one has saw pro-
per to speak of our vote on the county
treasurers bill, for the editor to attack me
in the language which he used in his cor
respondence, take as any thing other
than kind. AS general thing we agreed
in sentiment and voted and acted together
but 10 the two cases cited by a Democrat"
and spoken of by the editorwe differed. l
supported the bill to allow county treas
urers certain per centage on all monies
by them collected. and mileage to Colum-
bus in making their second settlement, be-
cause l considered it mere matter of
justice to that officer. If the increased
labor and the vast increase of responsible
ty Of the county Treasurers are Of no mo-
ment and worthless then have 1 erred in
supporting this bill but 1 have yet to
learn that men ought to be compelled
to do double the amount of labour aud
assume double the amount of responsible
| ty that they were compelled to do and as
sumo under the annual collection law for
the same compensation. I opposed the
passage of the bill authorizing the semi
annual collection of taxes, because /
thought at the time, -(and experience has
demonstrated that was correct) that the
law would have q tendency to impose
heavy burthens upon the county officers
and increase the liabilities of the treasurers
and be an injury to the rural counties in
stead of a benefit and only favoring few
wealthy aristocrats, in the populous and
favored counties of the State, and give
spectators an opportunity to use for six
months, the money that ought TO be in the
treasury of the county. l suspected at
the time that the very money thus kept
out of the treasury would be needed to
carry on the educational interest of the
State. Experience has shown that my
fears was but too we'll founded 10 rem.
edy part of the evil tendencies of this
law, l supported the bill compensatiue
county treasurers. When this bill failed
[ introduced bill to repeal the law fol
the semi annual collection of taxes. The
bill came up on It's second reading and was
referred to the standing committee on tn,
Judiciary, which committee never reported
it back to the House. l am very Willing
that my action upon these Treasury ques
tions, as upon all others, should be care
fully scrutinzed and passed upon by m.
constituents. ,.. psi. rad. -'
The editor, in his correspondence, use
the following language: ...
"When the vote was taken on the pas
sage OF the law referred to, DR.. STOUT
for whose benefit the article seems to hav
been written, voted as l did, in tn
f affirmative. The amendment increasin
the Supreme judges salaries was voted o
late, on the last night of the last session
and my correspondence, believe contain
ed no proceedings Of that day."
S Now, I do not wish to use harsh Ian
guage towards my colleague, and charg
t that 'he Is inpossession of mind debaSe
: by petty ,jealousies;" but the above quota
: tion shows how mel can deviate from th
!; truth, ard at the same time have the ev
: dence before them showing to the contrar,
In speaking of the passage of the bill il
e creasing the compensation of Judges NJ
n Williams, says, "Dr. Stout, for whose bel
! eft the article seems to have been write
e voted as I did, in the Affirmative" Th
statement is simply untrue. By referene
e to the Journals of the House for sessic
J. 1853, page Gil and 6l2. it will be see
n that 1 did not vote at all. 1t is true ;
n stated that the vote was taken late on Il
n last night of the session, and I had mao
arrangements with my family (who we
then at my brothers near Cambridge)
l. get on the evening train to come home,
/ was under the necessity of leaving G.
lie lumbus on the afternc on of the last. day
= order to meet nay family. So the read
ir will see that vote was taken, and why II
'r friend should say that l voted as he d
r. on that bill is more than can devine, ce
te tainly his mind was not actuated by al
ID base petty jealousies. I was opposed
is the passage of that bill because it propo
De ed to give the supreme Judges one thou
III and dollars each more than was then gi
en-, making an increase of outlay of mo
ey of four thousand dollars. was sat
fed that the fees then paid the judg
s. (two thousand dollars each,) was "sul
n. ciient to command the services Of the best M
of IN the State" If my constituents we
70 not interested in the increase of the sala
N of Common Pleas Judges in large COZ
r. ties. they were interested in the bill
cause it contemplated to give out of t
r State Treasury, four thousand dollars,
their money. So it will be seen tha
did not vote on this bill as my colleag