Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-05-02

Garfield, Glass, Holplbs, Key, Mccall, New.
man, Orr, Pssish, Psitill, Potts, schleich and
Those who voted in the negative vere-
Messra. Hafyison, Harsh, Jones', Laskeys
Monroe, Moore, Morse, PotWir, Ready, Smith,
Sprague and Stanley--12. " -
Mr.. STANLEY moved division Of the re.
The PRESIDENT decided II ont OF order.
Mr. STANLEY appealed from the decision of
the chair. ST3 fL{f tf
The question was again debated, and the deci.
sion of the chair was sustained-yeas 20, nays
IL. t--t..--,.
Mr. Smith moved to lay the report Of the
Conference committee on the table. Lost
yeas 90, naysl2. =
Mr.. MONROE said he was in favor of the
passage Of the bill leasing the Public Works at
public letting, because he thought il fairest Yet
be would vote for II in the present form rather
than see It defeated. But he would like to make
another effort to get the House to agree to a
public letting. For this reason, he would vote
against the bill In the present form, and ask for
another conference. He would reserve to him
self the right, however, to vote for direct let
ting when he is convinced public letting can.
| MI. PARISH agreed with Mr.. Monroe with
one variation. He would say that before he
would vote for the bill in its present shape, he
would defeat it IL he could. He was go dis.sat'
istied with the operations Of the bidders In this
particular bill that he would not consent to lease
70 them.
| Mr.. MOORE said that the bid Of Howard &
Co. should be substituted because II is higher
| bid.
Mr.. FERGUSON said the terms of Howard
&, Co. differ from those in the bill.
! Mr.. SMITH understood Howard & Co.would
/ take the lease upon the same terms with Med
berry & Co., at higher bid.
! Mr.. MOORE held that If the Public Works
are to be directly let, they should be let to the
highest bidder. He did not like this mode Of
bidding. Public letting is the true principle.
| He had been Informed that members of the
House had threatened they would not adjourn
unless this bill passes. Mr.. Moore could stay
tered from voting as he thought right, by any
threat. He was opposed to any letting; but II
he must choose, he would say let them publicly
Mr.. HARSH was opposed 10 leasing. He be-
lieyed proper management Of the canals would
make them self sustaining. He doubted wheth-
er Senators are influenced by personal consid-
erations Ifhe were, he would vote for leasing,
because he considered that leasing is a step
towards abandonment Of the canals. Ifthey were
abandoned it would greatly promote the interests
of the principal towns in his county. But he
believed in keeping the canals, and that the
State should keep control Of them.
n Mr., CUPPY adopted as political principle
that no government should own public works, or
} engage in enterprises which belong properly tt
, individuals. The Ohio canals are an illustra-
ton Of the inability Of government to manage
such enterprises He had been in favor of tn,
State disposing Of the canals, because it would
promote public interests. And he is in favor oi
leasing the canals at public auction. He lveI
in canal city and county, and he believed i
for their benefit that the State should surrende
Its control Of the Public Works. The canal
have been public burthen for years. The
have impaired the prosperity ofrailroads and oh
; structed private enterprise. They have bee
and are beneficial to the State, but he was i
favor of making them more beneficial by leas'
! ing them. .sntA'" %
Mr.. CUMMINs was opposed to the State sur
rendering control Of the canals, and oppose,
4 the leasing bill, aud charged that improper in
duences were brought to bear in the disposition
/: Of the subject.
The Senate took recess until three O'Clock