Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-02-18
1.,,.e IN, - Jobn y. Allen Defeated

this city, 70 TEST the fdnuic - -
made between him and the late Gov. Ford, and
if that contract should be decided legal by the
Courts. then to claim damages for the breach of
IT ON the part of the State, has been indefinitely
postponed in the Senate by yeas &c, nays a
The case is briefly this. In 1880 the Legisla-
ture of Ohio passed the following resolution
Resolued, That the Governor is hereby au-
thorized to employ such means as be may deem
best for the interest of the State, to obtain
from the Government of the United States any
lands to which the State may be entitled under
the grants heretofore made by Congress for ca
nal and other purposes, and also any balance OF
money that nav be due to this State from the
sales of public lands, under the laws admitting
this Stale into the Union: Provided, that no
charge shall be made on the Treasury for carry
ing this resolution into effect.
Under the resolution Gov. Ford entered into
contract with Mr.. Allen to do the work con-
templated by the General Assembly, and agreed
that Mr.. Allen might retain one third part of
the lands he should obtain for the State, for his
compensation. Five years labor on the part of
Mr.. Allen obtained from the General Govern
ment l2O,s9 acres Of land for the State. 1t,
however, required the action of the Legislature
to secure to Mr.. Allen his share as per contract
with the Governor of Ohio Up to this time he
has failed to obtain the required legislation, and
consequently Mr. Allen could neither get his
land, nor could he force the State to pay him its
value, or to answer in damages for the breach
of the contract The case is a hard one for
our much esteemed fellow citizen, and he Ger
tainly is entitled to remuneration in some way
for the valuable service rendered to the State of
Ohio.
That the reasons given by Senators for de-
feating the House bill may be understood, we
add sketch of the debate on the bill from the
official report of proceedings;
Mr.. Smith made an elaborate argument
against the bill, as unjust and unwarrantable,
that had been repeatedly brought before the
Legislature and urged with singular pertinaci-
ty. The testimony relied on was manufactured,
and the dead had been referred to, because they
had no living voice. He moved to strike out all
after the enacting clause.
In consideration of the claim of John W. Al
len, Mr. Slade contended only for even handed,
exact and thorough justice. He went into an
examination of the case, and compared the po-
sition of Mr. Pugh, (nOt the SENATOR to that of
nostrum vender. He believed that Governor
Ford and Auditor Wood had not confidence in
the influential position of Mr.. Pugh. He ad-
verted to the authority given to the Governor,
by resolution of the General Assembly, as the
basis of the contract, which admitted one-third
over and above the amount of land recovered.
I'M Z ,1v, ffaI b-,
Gov. Ford and Auditor Wood. He read the
letter of the latter, to show that the business
might have been procured to be done cheaper
He contended as lawyer and merely demanded
even handed justice.
He turned to Gov. Woods opinion, that Mr..
Allen was doubtless entitled to compensation.
Mr. Allen only knocks at the door to be enabled
to have judicial investigation. 1t was beneath
the great State of Ohio not to grant the boon
asked, of submitting the claim to the arbitra-
ment of a judicial tribunal. He defended the
memorialist from charges against him, made
by Senators Let the bill pass through the
COMMITTEES and 60 to the proper Standing Com
mittee to be sifted, and with their report let the
Senate determine.
Mr.. Smith hoped the Senator felt better af-
ter the delivery of SO much fervid eloquence.-
He had not heard from any other than that
Senator that it was claimed the contract was
valid 1t comes with a poor grace from one
who had permitted the investigation to 60 by
default, to come up here and make the demand
he does He referred to the report of Mr.. Nor
gan as to completely He contended that the
apportionment of $4,000 acres to Mr.. Allen
was in violation of the compact with the Gov
eminent, which provided that the land should
be let in small parcels. He did not consider
that the claimant was entitled to recover one
dollar. Fortunately or unfortunately, in this
Legislature old claims had been brought up, to
which he would do justice, and. among others,
to John W. Allen.
M. Slade thought the Senator, however just
and candid, was swayed by prejudice, and would
not sit on Jury in the case. The claim of Al
len was based on the resolution giving authority
to Gov Ford to enter into contract. If the con-
tract did not follow the resolution, there was
nothing to apprehend. He did not believe that
this was proper tribunal to try the case. The
remuneration of Allen depended on the amount
he recovered. It was contingent fee and was
less than many such He resisted the charge
that this claim was urged by fraud and perjury
and manufactured testimony, and stated the ba-
sis and evidence of the claim. He was willing
that the claim should 60 to a committee-5ut
not of its enemies.
Mr.. Schleich said the discussion had taken an
extraordinary range and the gentleman from
Cuyahoga seemed to take an extraordinary in
terest in the passage of this bill. Mr.. Allen had
received his quietus by precedent Legislatures.
He deserved compensation for his excessive zeal
and persistence in urging his claim He had on
a few former occasions presented his claim, not
exactly in this form, which had been refused,
although it is the basis of our government that
it is Just Wien three preceding Legislatures
had Cenied the claim, it was but an honest in
duction that the bill should not pass.
He resisted the propnety ofopening the way
for claims to be instituted against the State. 1t
had been departed from but once (the canal con-
tracts) but if otherwise he only regretted that
such presidents had been presented. He ad-
veIted to the case of the Canal Contracts, as IN
settling public morals He hoped that Nj Allen
would be taught by this Senate, that his claim,
which had been adiudicated over and over again,
was worthless and unworthy to be pressed here
after.
Mr.. Westcott did not know the merits or de-
merits of this case, but he was opposed to the
State of Ohio permitting herself to be pursued.
He would examine it if referred to the Commit
tee of which he was a member, but was in favor
of striking out He alluded to the matter of
the canal contracts, which he trusted would
have no parallel.
Mr.. Slade rejoined to the argument Of the
Senate from Fairfield.
Mr.. Winans referred to the history of this
claim in the last session of the present Legisla
ture, postponing the claim till the Ist of January,
1889 He knew nothing of this claim but what
he heard then and now. but he was opposed to
bringing the State of Ohio into litigation. She
should Be and must be just; and urged that the
claim of John W. Allen should be presented to
the Legislature like other claims.
Mr. Phelps further argued this position, and re-
ferred to the harrassments offormer htigations.
He was willing that Mr.. Allen should be allow