Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-03-26
Remarkable nversioa-T The Canal CUES.

Ken nrkable COnversiOp-The Cana Cues
The Enquirer denounces the proposition to
lease the canals of Ohio, which has passed
the House and is now pending in the Senate.
This is queer. All last Summer and Fall the
Enquirer was charging home upon the Re-
publican Party that it rejected a similar
proposition, and thereby subjected the peo-
pie TO a taxation of $4,000 to pay the deficit
in State management. Now that deficit is
shown to nave reached $3.50, 900, which, with
the specific appropriation of $25, 900 last year,
and the rent which was offered, makes about
$2o0,CC0 that the State has TO pay for not
leasing the canals, and yet the Enquirer OPP.
poses the acceptance of similar proposition,
from a company of at least as great compe-
tency, and which, considering the greatly
increased deficit in the revenue of the last
year, is certainly much more favorable to
the State.
We are surprised at the Enquirer. We
might suppose that it wanted the Repub-
lican Legislature to reject this proposition,
ard involve the State in another deficit of
$500. 600, so that it might nave that to charge
home upon them during the next canvass,
just as it did in the last for rejecting a prop
osition to lease the canals in precisely the
Same manner We say we might suppose
this, if it were not that the Enquirer says
that "if it desired party capital, it would be
pleased to have this Republican Legislature
pass into a law the bill now before it; but it
wants the interest of the State protected;
that is all"
This explains it. Last year the Legisla.
tuIe rejected just such a proposition to lease,
and the Enquirer made party capital of it.
This year it could make party capital if the
Legislature accepted the proposition. That
shows a versatility such as we should SUD-
pose practice in a Democratic journal would
give. But it don't want any party capital
against the Republicans; has become vir-
tuOus and can't bear to hear of anybody's
using cakes and ale but it wants the in
terest Of the State protected. That is all.D
Of course that is all. Only, it is queer that
a loss of 100000 by State management.
should make it the interest of the State to
reject a proposition just like that which the
Enquirer thought it was so much for the
interest of the State to accept last year.
We have not argued particular PROPOSE
tionR, eontenting ourselves with advocating
the divorce of the State from the public
works. But we have learned from the
Enquirer and other Democratic journals that
the act OF 1859 requiring the Board of Pub
lie Works to lease the canals at public out
cry, failed on account of the hostility of the
Board to giving up their control, who de-
feated the lease by their rigid construction
OF the conditions prescribed by the act. We
DO not youeh for the truth of this, but we
have IL on Democratic authority. We are
also informed on the same authority that
the present Board is unanimously hostile to
any lease. If all these Democratic argu.
ments are true, the same plan might fail
agsin.
Atany rate If such a plan is now adopted,
II must include the full annual appropria-
tons for the works, in case the lease is not
effected. There are Democrats SO suspicious
as TO say that if this were done, no lease
would be effected ia any event. We do not
know. All this is Democratic, and, of course,
liable to the suspicion which attaches to
Democratic arguments.
We have also learned from the Enquirer
and other Democratic journals, that the Re-
publican Legislature sacrificed the interest
Of the State for the sake of the party patron
age Of the canals, by rejecting just such a
proposition to lelse them last year.
This made our minds easy in regard to the
proposition which has passed the Fouse. But
now, when we see the Enquirer repudiatiRg
III its W teachings in this matter, we begin
% suspect that we have been the victim Of
nisplAoed confidence, and that We shall have
Q look up some other political guide.