History of the city of Columbus, capital of Ohio, Volume II, Part 2

Author: Lee, Alfred Emory, 1838-; W. W. Munsell & Co
Publication date: 1892
Publisher: New York and Chicago : Munsell & Co.
Number of Pages: 1196

USA > Ohio > Franklin County > Columbus > History of the city of Columbus, capital of Ohio, Volume II > Part 2

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

FIRST YEARS AS A CITY.

and marshaled his militia forces to meet the crisis; Governor Lucas, equally determined, appointed a commission to definitely locate the Harris line, and directed John Bell, Major-General of the Seventeenth Division of the Ohio Militia, to meet him at Perrysburg, April 1, with a force sufficient to protect the commis- sioners in the discharge of their duties. Pursuant to this command General Bell assembled a force of about five hundred men on the frontier, but the intercession of a peace commission from Washington prevented an actual outbreak of hostili- ties. Nevertheless nine members of the Ohio surveying party were seized by the Michigan militia, and the boundary commissioners were obliged to fly to Perrys- burg. Thereupon Governor Lucas summoned the General Assembly to meet in extra session beginning June 8, and directed his Adjutant-General, Samuel C. Andrews, to ascertain what number of volunteer cavalry and mounted riflemen could be raised and equipped who would be willing to march out at a moment's warning to defend the rights and honor of the State to sustain our civil authorities in the dis- charge of their duties, and to protect our citizens within the constitutional limits of the State.

Responding to the recommendations of the Governor, the General Assembly passed acts to " prevent the forcible abduction of citizens of Ohio ;" created, in part from the disputed territory, the county of Lucas, with Toledo as its seat of justice ; appropriated $300,000 for war purposes, and authorized a loan of $300,000 more if needed. In harmony with these measures, Adjutant-General Andrews reported that he had a foree of ten thousand men ready for action. Public opinion fully sustained the Governor and the war feeling ran high. " Our citizen soldiers," said the State Journal of August of 28, "are prepared to turn out en masse." Mean- while Governor Lucas dispatched Noah H. Swayne, William Allen and D. T. Disney to Washington to present the Ohio case to President Jackson, who, without assuming to exercise other authority in the matter than that of mediator, exerted such influence as prevented further aggressions from the Michigan side. On June 29, 1836, Governor Mason was removed from office, and in June, 1836, Congress form- ally confirmed Ohio's claim, but, as an indemnity to Michigan for the loss of disputed territory on her southern border, presented to her the great mineral and timber region now known as the Northern Peninsula.

For a long time after this trouble was allayed, the adventures of the " Michigan War" were favorite themes for popular jest and raillery. In the General Assembly this disposition to make merry over the matter found vent in various prosposed amendments to a bill, pending in 1837, to organize and discipline the state militia. Among these amendments was the following humorous pre- amble offered by Mr. Quinby :

Whereas, our warriors, in days of yore, Went forth from peaceful scenes To try the tug of furious war Among the Wolverines ;

And whereas, most villanous traps and snares

Were then prepared to catch them ;

HISTORY OF THE CITY OF COLUMBUS.

Black swamps to swallow them unawares, And briars and thorns to scratch them ;

And whereas, most wonderful feats of arms, And legs, were then performed, Whilst raging owls sang forth alarms And the brambly battle stormed ;

Therefore that we may emulate These deeds of chivalry, And equal glories perpetrate, Let it enacted be.

On January 26, 1838, the General Assembly passed an act for the erection of a new statehouse. Full particulars as to this measure, and the structure for which it provided, are reserved for the chapter on the history of the Capitol. Present reference to the subject is made because of its relations to a formidable effort soon afterwards put forth for the removal of the seat of government. Antecedent to the formal manifestation of this effort an expectation seems to have taken root in various towns in Central Ohio that after expiration of the period for which the State was bound by contract with the Starling syndicate to keep the capital at Columbus, a chance would be offered for its location at some other point. As early as 1837 signs of this expectation assumed the form of open suggestions of removal, coupled with various labored allegations as to the shortcomings of Columbus. One of the most conspicuous accusations with which that inchoate city was railed against was that of putting on " metropolitan airs." To this insinuating charge was added the assertion that the ffamed " high bank opposite Franklinton " was, in fact, one of the most unhealthy locations that could have been selected, besides being, as was alleged, too far from the geographical centre of the State.

These and similar tales were beginning to produce some impression upon public opinion when an incident took place which gave them sufficient force to precipitate a crisis. During the legislative session of 1839-40 Samuel Medary, the State Printer, was blamed by certain politieal antagonists for having appro- priated to his own use as a perquisite the outside quires -casse or "quasi " quires, as they were called - of each ream of paper purchased for the State. In the House of Representatives charges that the Public Printer had sold as his own a quantity of broken quires or " quasi paper " were referred to a special committee of which R. P. Spalding, of Portage County, was Chairman. This committee reported justifying the Publie Printer in appropriating the casse quires, on the ground that such paper was " not suitable for the Publie Printing " nor " for any other printing of an ordinary character," and that it had " long been an estab- lished usage among printers to appropriate it to various subordinate and inciden- tal uses about the office, and to consider it as one of the perquisites of their calling."

The discussion of this subjeet elicited proposals for the execution of the State printing on contract at lower rates than were then being paid. These proposals were presented to the Senate and there referred to a select committee from which

FIRST YEARS AS A CITY.

majority and minority reports were made, the first declaring that the publie printing was being done more cheaply in Ohio than in other states and as cheaply as it could be properly done; while the minority report took the opposite view and condemned the perquisite of the casse quires as an abuse which should be discontinued. All this nettled Mr. Medary, who lost no time in making things interesting for his persecutors. As a means of giving these gentlemen something else than the casse quires to think about, charges were brought against one of their party associates, William B. Lloyd, member of the House of Representatives from Cuyahoga County, of having surreptitiously altered certain accounts against him which had been assigned to a third party. By a partisan vote, Mr. Lloyd was pronounced guilty of these charges, and a motion for his expulsion was made, but failed to receive the votes of twothirds of the members, and was therefore lost. Thereupon a friend of Mr. Lloyd's drew up the following paper, which was circulated in the town for signatures:

COLUMBUS, February 13, 1840.

William B. Lloyd, Esq ..

DEAR SIR: - The undersigned, convinced beyond doubt that the charge lately circu- lated against yourself is totally unsustained by the testimony relating to the matter, and the act charged one of which it is impossible you should be guilty, beg leave respectfully to assure you of our undiminished confidence in the integrity of your character and to express to you our sincerest wishes for your future happiness and prosperity.

On the evening of February 17 the State JJournal published this document with sixtythree names attached to it, among the signatures being those of such wellknown citizens as George M. Parsons, William A. Platt, Alfred Kelley, J. N. Champion and James Kilbourn. As is usual in such cases, most of the names had been signed thoughtlessly, without intention to give offense, yet such was the resentment provoked by it, and by Mr. Lloyd's reappearance in the House of Representatives, accompanied to the lobby by some of his partisans, that on the following morning, eighteenth, a bill to repeal the aet providing for the erection of a new statehouse was reported from the Judiciary Committee by Mr. Charles B. Flood, member from Licking County ; and Mr. R. P. Spalding, member from Portage County, presented, a few minutes later, the following resolution :

That a select committee of five be appointed to inquire into the expediency of remov- ing the seat of government of the State from Columbus, in Franklin County, to Newark, in Licking County. Delaware, in Delaware County, or Mt. Vernon, in Knox County, and that said committee report by bill or otherwise.

The proceedings which followed are thus reported in the State Journal :

Mr. Spalding wished to have the seat of government removed to some place where the members of the legislature could be free from insult and interference.

Mr. [C. B.] Flood moved to amend the resolution so as to instruct the committee to report such a bill.

Mr. [Moses B.] Corwin [Champaign County] defended the citizens of Columbus from the imputation cast upon them by the mover of the resolution.

Mr. Spalding maintained that the subject should be inquired into. A bill had been introduced to repeal the act authorizing the erection of a new statehouse, which would unquestionably pass the houses. It was time to take this course before it would be too late.

HISTORY OF THE CITY OF COLUMBUS.

The New Statehouse had not progressed so far that inquiry or loss would occur to the State by the removal of the seat of government. The people had talked about the matter. Mr. S. remarked that the people of Columbus had already received enough from the hands of the government of the State. They had hung like leeches upon the body politic, and were filled to surfeiting. Mr. S. alluded to the " loving satellites of the lobby," but the drift of the remark was not perceptible.

Mr. [Alexander] Waddle [Clark County], who thought the object of the resolution was to manifest a vengeance against the people of Columbus for daring to express their opinion, made the following amendment :

And that said committee be instructed to report a bill prohibiting the citizens of Ohio from expressing their opinions on the proceedings of the legislature in other terms than of unqualified approbation.

Mr. Lloyd asked to be excused from voting, as he had just come in, and did not under- stand the question fully. The House refusing to grant him leave, he voted, remarking at the same time that such legislation was above his comprehension.

Mr. Lloyd moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Waddle by inserting the following : "And that said committee be instructed to report also a bill for the removal of the Peni- tentiary."

Mr. [Andrew H.] Patterson, of Delaware, moved also to insert " the Lunatic Asylum."

Mr. Lloyd observed that he would suggest in the most polite manner possible to the gentleman from Delaware that this institution was one in which the gentleman had no kind of personal interest, for, said Mr. L., to those to whom the Almighty, in his wisdom and benevolence had denied preception, such an institution would never become necessary, and would never need the benefits of a Lunatic Asylum.

Mr. Patterson said he could not reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Cuyahoga, uttered either here or elsewhere.

Mr. Lloyd begged the gentleman from Delaware not to be alarmed, as they were not now on the other side of the Ohio River.

Mr. Patterson moved to add the following :

And that the members of the legislature shall first consult the citizens of Columbus upon all matters of importance that may be presented for their action, at least so far as the expulsion of a Whig member may be concerned.

Mr. Waddle moved to strike out "Columbus," as possibly the legislature might sit here- after at Delaware.

Mr. [Samuel] Reed [Ross, Pike and Jackson counties] moved to lay the resolution on the table 'till "the House should get cooler."

The amendment offered by Mr. Flood was lost by a tie vote, 32 to 32, the Speaker (Thomas J. Buchanan, Clermont County) voting in the affirmative. The amendments of Messrs. Waddle and Lloyd were both lost by a vote of three yeas to sixty nays. The resolution offered by Mr. Spalding was then adopted, with- ont amendment, by the following vote :

Yeas-Messrs. Bartley, Blair, Downes, Fisher, Flood, Hanna, Henderson, Hite, Hoag- land, Hubbard, Jenkins, Johnson of Monroe, Johnsou of Jackson, King, Leedom, Leonard, Lepper, Lloyd, McAnelly, Mitchell, Moore of Hamilton, Morris, Purviance, Ravenscraft, Reed, Riblet, Rogers, Shideler, Shreve, Spalding, Warner, Way, Welch of Seneca, West, Whittlesey, Wilson of Perry and Speaker-37.

Nays - Messrs. Ackley, Adams, Baskin, Bliss, Carpenter, Casad, Comstock, Corwin, Davis, Dunham, Everhard, Godman, Harrison, Howe Miller, Moore of Guernsey, Morse, Patterson, Pollock, Powers, Scott, Sellers, Smith of Stark, Spencer,. Waddle, Wilson of Wayne and Worth-27.

FIRST YEARS AS A CITY.

The Flood bill repealing the act of January 26, 1838, providing for the erec- tion of a new statehouse was passed by the House February 25, and by the Senate March 10, 1840.5 It therefore became a law, notwithstanding the fact that over forty thousand dollars had already been expended in the construction of the new capitol building. It set back the erection of a new statehouse nearly a decade.

Immediately after this repealing act was passed the advocates of capital removal renewed their agitation of the subject, and obtained its reference in the General Assembly to a joint select committee. The report of this committee, sub- mitted to the House on the thirteenth and to the Senate on the sixteenth of March, argued that a removal of the capital would not be a breach of faith, inasmuch as the act of February 14, 1812, by which the seat of government was fixed at Colum- bus, expressly provided that the legislative session should continue there until May 1, 1840, " and from thence until otherwise provided by law." The report con- cluded by recommending the adoption of the following resolutions :

1. That the Governor be requested to issue his proclamation setting forth that the period has arrived for the permanent establishment of the seat of government, that all portions of the State may have an opportunity of offering such inducements as they may deem proper for the permanent location at such point as may be designated.

2. That all propositions for the permanent establishment of the seat of government at any point in the State be sealed and directed by the persons making the same to the Gover- nor by the first day of August next, who shall open and communicate the same to the next General Assembly.

In the House, on March 14, these resolutions were adopted by a vote of 34 to 20; in the Senate, on March 16, they were referred, together with the report recommending them, to the standing committee on Public Buildings. A majority report adverse to the resolutions was presented from that committee by its Chair- man, Hon. John L. Green, March 20, and was laid on the table. The report thus disposed of makes an elaborate review of the legislative history of the act of February 14, 1812, locating the seat of government at Columbus, and makes num- erons citations from the records to prove that the location was intended to be per- manent. Referring to the clause in the locating act which provides that the legis- lative sessions shall continue to be held at Columbus until May 1, 1840, and " thenceforth until otherwise provided by law," the report states that this clause was added by way of amendment after the bill had been engrossed for third reading, and also subsequent to the execution by the proprietors of their penal bond. Unfortunately for this argument, the amendment referred to was not attached to the bill until after the proprietors had submitted their supplementary proposition pledging themselves to comply with the terms of their bond, then already executed and delivered, provided the capital should remain on the lands offered by them until 1840. In his History of Franklin County, IIon. William T. Martin says that neither the advocates nor the opponents of capital removal seem to have been aware of this supplementary proposition, and accounts for this by stating that the document had somehow got lost from the files of the State Treas- urer's office. This welltimed accident - if such it was - Mr. Martin thinks, "was possibly the means of saving the seat of government to Columbus."

HISTORY OF THE CITY OF COLUMBUS.

The following paragraph from the report of the committee is still pertinent :

It is said that the City of Columbus and the County of Franklin have derived great pecuniary advantages from the location of the seat of government here. This is true to some extent. But it is also true that the real property of the city and county has been assessed higher, on this account, by at least a million and a quarter of dollars. On this increased assessment the people of Columbus and of the County of Franklin have been com- pelled for years to pay taxes as well for state purposes as for corporation and county purposes.

In support of these allegations the report makes the following citations from the annual report of the Auditor of State:

Counties.

Number Acres.

Value.

Value of Town Property.

Total in each County.

Franklin

337,410

$1,839,174 00

$1,255,969 00

$3,065,141 00

Licking

418,360

1,746,542 00

459,520 00

2,106,062 00

Muskingum

404,293

1,279,003 00

799,040 00

2,078,043 00

Fairfield

320,256

1,389,327 00

487,727 00

1,877,054 00

While partisan resentment and expectation of profit from the seat of government seem to have had much to do with the repeal of the act providing for the erection of a new statehouse, the repeal was doubtless due in a much larger degree to the monetary stress then prevailing. The problem of providing the means necessary for continuance of the work was a serious one to a state treasury already fearfully embarrassed. In another chapter the financial depres- sion which prevailed during the last of the thirties and first of the forties has been described, and the tact and resolution by which the State was saved from the dis- grace of repudiation have been referred to. The condition of the state and gen- eral finances in 1841 is thus portrayed in a private letter written by Colonel Noah HI. Swayne to a correspondent in the East :

I am greatly alarmed by what you say in regard to the prospect of raising means to pay our interest. Stocks dull at 75! The London Agents forbidden to make advances! The banks pressing for the payment of their temporary loans! Money tight beyond example, panic and paralysis universally prevalent, everything covered with gloom and despondency, and tending downward to the lowest point. It is a crisis calculated to quail the stoutest heart.

That the construction of the new capitol should have been suspended at such a time is easy enough to account for aside from the complications of contemporary partisanship. That the repealing act went farther than merely to suspend the work is true, yet evidences are not wanting that a strong disposition to renew the work as soon as circumstances would permit still lingered in the General Assembly. On February 20, 1841, Mr. Probasco reported from the standing committee of the House on Public Buildings a bill to provide for the erection of a new statehouse. After rejecting a proposed substitute appropriating 81,500 to put a new roof on

FIRST YEARS AS A CITY.

the old statehouse, the House passed this bill, March 10, by a vote of 34 to 25 On March 15 the Senate postponed it indefinitely by a vote of 20 to 15.

Of the efforts to remove the seat of government from Columbus we hear nothing more until the legislative session of 1842-3, when the matter was brought up again by reference of a memorial praying for the removal to the Senate stand- ing committee on Public Institutions. The memorial thus referred was that of a meeting of citizens of Licking County held at Newark, and was presented to the Senate by Mr. Parker, December 20, 1842. It was accompanied by proposals to erect public buildings without expense to the State provided Newark should be selected as the seat of government. The members of the committee to which the memorial was referred were Senators Nelson Franklin, of Pickaway and Fair- field ; Samnel Lahm, of Stark ; and James Parker, of Licking. A majority and a minority report were made from the committee, the former by Messrs. Franklin and Lahm, the latter by Mr. Parker. The majority report reviews the legislative proceedings germane to the location of the capital in 1812, and bases its argument almost exclusively upon such facts as support the theory that the location was intended to be permanent. "In the face of all this," concludes the report,

Could the legislature make a removal without a manifest violation of the faith of the State, and a direct outrage upon the rights of the citizens of Columbus? A majority of the com- mittee think not ; and believing, as they do, that the honor of the State is of more importance than the paltry sum in dollars and cents which it is believed by some could be saved by a removal, they here express their decided disapprobation of any legislation designed to accomplish that object.

The minority report, like that presented in the House by Mr. Flood, of Lick- ing, in 1840, lays great stress upon the limitation of time inserted into the loeat- ing act of 1812, but neither Mr. Parker's report nor that of the majority refers to the voluntary acceptance of that limitation by the original proprietors.

In the course of his argument, Mr. Parker puts forth this appeal :

The time is not distant when the present dilapitated and inconvenient Statehouse must be replaced by one more commensurate with the wants of the legislature, and consistent with the rank and importance of the State. Indeed, so obvious was this a few years since, that the legislature commenced preparations for building a new capitol on a scale of princely magnificence which was only prevented from adding one or two millions to the burden of the State debt which now oppresses us, by the offer, on the part of some other town, to erect the public buildings at their own expense on condition of becoming the seat of government, and the increasing wants of an exhausted public treasury. The minority of your committee doubt whether at any time the erection of a palace, at the expense of millions to the people, is consistent with the genius of that people or the simplicity of our institutions. But he sub- mits, that at a time like the present, with a people already borne down by taxation and debt, as our people must necessarily be for years to come, they will not be inclined to submit to an addition of a million or a million and a half to their already oppressive burdens, to beautify and adorn the city of Columbus, particularly when other places as conveniently situated for the interests of the State are willing and have offered to erect all the buildings necessary for the proper accommodation of the different departments of the government, free of expense to the State.

The report concludes by recommending passage of the resolutions quoted in a preceding part of this chapter which were presented and recommended by the

HISTORY OF THE CITY OF COLUMBUS.

Joint Select Committee of 1840. On March 6, 1843, these resolutions were adopted by the Senate, yeas 18, nays 16.6 On March 7 they were taken up in the House and rejected, yeas 29, nays 36.7

This decisively adverse vote of the House of Representatives gave to the capi- tal removal project its final quietus. From that hour to this no such scheme has again been seriously broached.

NOTES.

1. Jewett Letters.

2. History of Franklin County.

3. The Postoffice was at that time located in one of the Buckeye Exchange buildings, on West Broad Street, where it had been since its original establishment, and where it remained until it was removed to East State Street. basements reap of till bowe.

4. Ohio State Journal, February 2, 1836.

5. In the House the vote stood :

Yeas .- Messrs. Bartley, Baskin, Blair, Downes, Dunn, Filson, Fisher, Flood, Henderson, Hite, Hubbard, Jenkins, Johnson of Jackson, King, Leedom, Lepper, MeAnnelly, Mitchell, Moore of Hamilton, Morris, Purviance, Ravenscraft, Rea, Reed, Riblet, Rogers, Shideler, Shreve, Smith of Montgomery, Spalding, Warner, Way, Welch of Seneca, West, Whittlesey, Wilson of Perry, and Speaker-37.

Nays .- Messrs. Ackley, Adams, Bliss, Carpenter, Casad, Comstock, Corwin, Davis, Dun- ham, Everhard, Ford, Harrison, Hoagland, Howe, Lake, Miller, Moore of Guernsey, Morse, Patterson, Pollock, Powers, Scott, Sellers, Smith of Stark, Waddle and Worth-26.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of the city of Columbus, capital of Ohio, Volume II, Part 2

Author: Lee, Alfred Emory, 1838-; W. W. Munsell & Co Publication date: 1892 Publisher: New York and Chicago : Munsell & Co. Number of Pages: 1196

Author: Lee, Alfred Emory, 1838-; W. W. Munsell & Co
Publication date: 1892
Publisher: New York and Chicago : Munsell & Co.
Number of Pages: 1196