Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1861-02-28
Letter from Columbus.
Work of the Session--DistI'icti ri citing
the tstate--E'ubIic Works--R Rer-
sonal Liberty Law of 1S57--"Jhe
Irrepressible" Nigger In the
COLUMBUS. Feb. %, 1861.

COLUMBUS, Feb. 23, 1861.
DEAR CHRONICLE: Nothing Of very
striking Importance Or interestha transpired
since my last letter; the routine of legisla-
ton is Of course kept up from day to day,
and while all the measures under considera-
ton are of more or less interest to people in
many parts of the State, there is but little
of sufficient importance to need more than
a. passing notice. The important business
Of the session has not yet been seriously
touched, and probably will not be until af-
ter the Inauguration of Lincoln. The work
of the session will not be fully accomplished
until the State has been districted for Con
gressional purposes some action taken ON
the Public Works question; and some legis-
lation for the State Bank. These things at
least demand some attention, and until they
recciveit, this General Assembly will not
be ready to adjourn.
Some action has been taken on tho Dis
tricting question, in the appointment, by a
resolution offered by Mr.. Welsh, of Com
mittee of nine on the part of the Senate, and
thirteen on the House, to report a bill district
ing the State for Congressional purposes. =
Numerous plans are on foot for re-district-
ing, and every man seems to have desire
to make the whole thing to suit his own dis
trice that n mayhave somechance for Con
gressonal promotion himself All plan:
seem to agree that Belmont must be detach
ed from Monroe to which, of course, you
will echo "Amen!' One plan makes dis
trict of Belmont, Guernsey, Noble and Mus
kingum; another makes Belmont, Harri
son, Jefferson and Tuscarawas; all plans
however, put us in Republican district. -
Much trouble is anticipated in cutting loose
from Monroe, as all other counties object t.
being weighed down with such Democratic
incubus.
On the question of lease or sale of the
Public Works, much has been, and can bt
said on both sides. The friends of the least
measure argue that inasmuch as the Works
have ceased obe selfsustaining, they shoulc
forthwith be divorced from the State, 81
that those counties which derive no direc
advantage from them shall not be taxed fo
Their support.
The friends of the Public Works main
tain that, strictly speaking, tho Works ar
not burthen to the State, for the reasol
that tho tax duplicate Of the counties il
which these Works arc located is so largel
increased, as to contribute much large
proportion Of the general expenses of tn
State, thus relieving the other counties fror
a heavy taxation to support the State Gov
ernment Some idea Of tho advantages dc
rived by tho counties from these Works, an
by the State through these counties, ma
: be gained by comparing the wealth of som
4 Of the wealthy counties on the line Of th
: Public Works with others possessing equi
natural advantages, but away from any Al
, tifcial means Of transportation for their SUI
. plus products. With such comparison
, they maintain that the State should nc
i lease these Works, but continue them, an
L foster the iHduffy a these oounlics, whic
is the wealth Of tho State.
As an offset to this position the lease Q
sale men argue that since maintenance q
the Public Works is ofsach vital limportanc
8 to these counties, then should they have tn
Q entire control OF them, and express wi
!. lingness TO yield them up TO tho oountis
: through which they pass.