Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 22, Indianapolis, Marion County, 31 October 1850 — Page 2

of tin- la.!y. but it is contended that he is not on offiecr,

recaiisi' no is not req;nrel to tase an oatn of ollice. 11 thea tiie Frintcr be not an otScer of the Convention we nava no powar uoder the law to elect such a person, for we have only p. wer in oWt our olfiuers, the law clearly contemplating, th S.'ciitaiy, Doorkeeper, Sergcant-at-Arm, See. Tiiesa otfi.-ers we have to elect. lat tue Printer i employe 1 ly contract. Well sir, I fully concur with t'ie g.'iitlcio j from Ilt-nilrick-, t'uut tho Printer is ft Cuatnictor and n t an otfkvr, and that as such we have no power fc interfere aiih Iiis contract, but we are sitting h-re to r..ii)e t the people of the S:ate to set tin old Constitution aside and adopt a new one in its Staad. if we consider him eithur as an officer or a coaUactor, wj have no power ovrr him. It is said that rj luve power to elct all our olliccrs, and our Printer among tU rrt. but how will that tally with a proposition of this kin If Tue Attorney General for jour State is anofneer of the Mate. Is it necessary to appoint a L9W Attorney G .moral fr every et r.f cases that may nrisef Or shall i!ut officer bo at liberty to prosecute and defend ail suits that may nrisa as well as those in which the State is engaged at tha time of Iiis appointment? You have a S.-cretarv of State and you impose certain duties upon him. Shall ha only perform thosa duties whieh existed when !io was elected, or shall he perform all the duties halonging to that department? You have already ealied upon the Secretary of State to perform ser vices and you may yet have occasion to to call upon him to pei frm other services. Yoa may have occasion to caii upon me Au.istor ana upon me treasurer ior reports. 'Sliall wo say that it is necessary for us to elect all those UTi :crs, bacause we have occasion to avail ousclves of their service? Will vou turn Mr. Test out of doors and pat another man in possession of the Records and &aal of the State baeanse you came here with sovereign authority? I believe that n man will go so far as that, yet yoa tell m , that because you require ccrtaiu services "to ha rcn Ijretl by tha Printer it is necessary that you should elect him" Yon want the Printer to send in liero certain printcdinatter therefore, yon must elect him. Bat yoa uls.- waut the Secretary of State to furnish you with op:e of documents, yoa mast therefore elect him as we! I as the other. If tho present State Printer should fail to be in readiness to perform the work required by this Convention, there is no daubt ha woulj ba liable on his bond for tha non-per-f orra mcc of his duty to the State. Sir, we are not above tha Stat. of In Ii ma. We are not alwve tho Legislature of the State, and lot me say to gentlemen that if the people can at any time resolve themselves into a Convention for tha construction of a new form of govcrnnasnt. t!ey may also draw the sword and perpetrate revolution whenever they please. I know it is arnied that might gives right, and in that view all communities h ive the right to assemble in Convention, turn out ol l otiice s and elect new, but that is not the American idea. The id a is that one government grows out of auothar as naturally as the n?w shoot grows from the ss?d that is planted. "This doctrine was most ably can. wasseJ, in the great case of Rhode I In nd alluded to by tho gentleman from Hendricks. I happaned to hear the arguments in that caso in the Supreme Canrt. The isu was diracfly brought up as to the validity of the Dorr fovernmeaf. and it was argu.'d with great plausibility tliat the paaplc posses-d ig tha original sovereigntv,have a right to res Ivo themselves into a new form of government, and to abolish the old, without any preliminary steps having leeii taken by the old government. Tlie Snprema Conrt denied this hx-trine in the roundest terms. They held that even a majority of tho people of Rhode Island could not have, put in force any such Governm rnt. Well sir, let me ask the gentleman from Cass, by w hat authority ore we privileged from anrt? Are wo as members of this Cmvcntion privilege I from -irrest or ni J I perceive that the law provides that wo shall be privileged fr m arrest to the same extent that members of the Legislature are. Now without that provision of t'.te law, how culd we avoul the ordinary or usual arrest of our pcrso"s here? Wc are not the Parliament of Great Britain. We nr not the Congress of the United St if es nor arc we the Legislature of Indiana, in all of which exemption from arrest prevails. Mr. DIDDLE. I do not deny that as citizens wc arc nit amenalde to arrest, but I dany that by virtue of bein? momlicrn of sue'a a boily as this, we would necessarily ba privileg.il from arrest. As citizens we arc exempt by tha law of tho State. Mr. PETTIT. I kaaw as citizens wc are exempt by the law of last winter. Bat I will put this question: Sappasa we pas a resolution declaring that members of this lo ly saall lo exempt from arrest, not only to the extent tiiat members of the Legislature are? but further, is thorn ary Ju lg;! or lawyer in this room who would hesitate fo.- a moment t a say, that such an act of o irs would be a nullity as transcending our authority ? If we haJ not been privileged by law, we would not privilege ourselves. We minht by force protect ourselves from arrest, but it would be a lawless act. There can La no q::tion that we are amenable to all the laws that ire in iorce in this State. We can neither make nor suspend the operation of any law. If we can do that, we can just as well ordsr ourselves to be paid six dollars a day or any other sum we please. Tho present Constititian of the Slat provides that nuney shall not be drawn from the treasury, except in accordance with an appropriation mad j by law and it is the same Constitution un br which wc arc living for our meoting here has nat abrogate 1 it. Can it be said then, for a moment, that wc are w ithout the bhield, the protection of the Constitution of the State of Indiana? No one surely will catcrjain such an idja, or undertake to enforce it. The same Constitution says too, that no law shall be madj abrogating or impairing tha validity of contracts. Mr- Chapmia in at present the Slat? Printer. Ho en tered into a coatract to do all the printing of the State, j 4j4.ti t ' 'J ieikbiii äia vvv' v s uuu vi ivu i uv u maadsof the Legislature, undertake to do that which thosa who created ns could not do? Is the agent greater than tli8 principal? Is the created greater than the creator? Yet the dx-tri.ie is propounded here and argued with soma degrco of assurance, that we should take Jipon ourselves to impair the obligation of a contract. Now I have made these remarks at the suggestion of the gentleman over the way, and after it seemed to me that every gentleman here had said everything be desired to say. I disclaim anything liko feeling in regard to this qnes: ion: I am told bv those who are entitled to re.xp.-ct, that the entire profit to le derived from tlic printing of the Coavention, cannot exceed $750, and it does scoai torn? that that is a matter not worth a great leal of scrambling after. Sir. I am slad of the opportunity w!:ic!i is accorded nie in the debate of avowing my opinions np.an tha subject. Thev will explain the vote that I shall give. I shall vote against concurring in the report, believing that a printer is provided for us. Nor do. I agree with the gentleman as t" the appointment of another ofiicer I mean the Stenographer who was appointed to report the debates of this Convention. And I ask, is it in our power to reject this otliccr? . I bold that we have no such power. The Legislature created the office and tho Governor commissioned the officer." It is nit for us to rem ve him ; wc cannot even inquire into Lisrirhtto hold offi.;e. I will put a case: Suppose the L?gisl ttur Ii id said, that th Governor should appoint a:i iu livi bial to sit here from 9 o'clock in the morning a itil 9 o'clock in the evening, and keco a vigilant eye upon our procecd'ngs. and taka down, in stsnograph- j to notes, every articulate sound that was uttered, could they not have done so? It appear: to me they could, n 1 that we would have had no right to interpose. The Leg!l V-urc directed the Governor to apjoint and commission a Stenographer. Tin Governor did o, and ho is as necessarily a portion of tins Convention as ai y man on I'd floor, and wc have no power to remove him if wc desired to d o, except for uuh cause as I will not suppos 5 will ever occur namelv, disturbance or disorder on tha part of that gentleman, but in such case only won! I we brj at liber' v to expel Win or anv other ofiicer of this C riven ion. 1 t.a'o it that we nit here, as I have iid, with li ni ed pawers in all rfep.Tts except one we h ive the nnliioii-cl power of making projxiwition. IJ'it who nretend that wo can dopt a Constitution and rialtJ itbiniUnj npon the perple of th's State without the'r ermci-renee. I it not provided that OTT work shall be submitted to the people? Can we revoka that provision, and enforce obedience to the instrument we m7 frame? No oni will preten'l it. Yet if we had the sovereie;nr that itisallccrcd we posse, vre conld unquestioiiab'y do this. No sir, wc have been sent here to devise a niaa or form of .government to lc snhmittcd to the people, to ba by thin dix-ijod npon, and it will be for them todetermine whether they will tUk their fortunes and thfir futnre lives under it or not. Mr. XILES said, that a mere abstract question of law, he tliought tho report of th committer correct. It might le mot prrrper to employ the. State Printer to do their printing, hot h did not think that ho was no. .-Csarily and ex fliocio printer to the Convention, lie did not c laim that tho Convention was alve law or could !iregard Oio act under which it was called into exist ence. V itn tnft gentleman from lippeennoe. .air. P;t:i: hs e.-inourred in the argument of Mr. Webster, and the pinion of the Supremo Court of the United State, in tin eaio f Dorr, that under what may c called the American political system, changes in the forni of a gTvernmo-it canot Iks effected by violence. While he sy.nfuthise 1 with progress and reform, he frprecife t revolution; and be was glad to hnow that were anvhing of the kiid attempted, not only tho popte, b'it tha coirts wonhl place their seal of condemn tioT nion it. Ha admitted that had tho leginlafure deignate 1 the peron by whom or j,irtted out the manner H which their the Convention's plating should be done, it ought to be conclusive. . Th-? fr'mtleman from Tippecanoe continued Mr. Nib's, insi.t t'iat we were bound to employ the State p.-mer, mo'-ely b -canno he i a State officer ; and inqnires whether wliavr ftM or fo inerense onr own pay, as if the aenrer to hat oitioti v-tt tlie nthf-t point. B'tt I . ha'" no tt'n-U power, sfmptv bcrviie onr fit of c-orr.pnlMln has bfcn fix'l by th I g:.slature. yTe bttTJ sx dirrWKtj tlwt iHjcJ. Vit "r? are al

lowed the widest discretion upon many subjects, including the incidental expenses. The twelfth cetion of the act providing for the call of this convention, in part reads thus: " The meni!crs of said Convention shall receive three dollars per day while actually attending npou the sittings of said Convention, and shall be allowed the like compensation for their travel ns members of the general assembly are allowed by law; and their secretaries, officers, and attendants shall be paid the same compensation as the oflieers of the general assembly of this State are paid for similar services; which pay together with the pay of a competent stenographer to report the debates; which stnograper shall bo appointed by ilu Governor for that purpose, trna tye other txpentcB of the Convention, shall te certified by the piesident of the convention, and shall le paid by the Treasurer of this State, on the warrant of the Auditor of Public Accounts." IV )W suppose we should employ additional clerks and direct thein to make duplicates" of papers, to bo distributed upon tho desks of members, would not the expense be paid on th order of the President? We might in this war, supercede any absolute necessity for a printer. So I apprehend, wo may empby anv printer wc choose, to do the same work, or we may fct it out to the lowest bidder. I do not conceive that this Convention is in any sense the State, as that term is used in tho law relative to a State Printer. Neither would our entire population, if now assembled en wiwe to remodel their organic law, be the State in any such sense. It is the governmcnt proper, which represents the State, and it is tho printing lor that government, which the State Printer is appointed to do. Suppose the legislature at its last session, had appointed a board of commissioners to look after any of the public interests, with the same discretionary powers which the act under which we aro convened, confers npon ns. And suppose that board were now in session here or elsewhere, and in need of the services of a printer, is it not clear that they could employ ono or another at their discretion? If such a body could, so can we. The gentleman from Tippecanoe asks whether wc propose to dismiss the Secretary of State, and other State officers, and employ other persons in their stead. I answer, that they are doubtless the proper persons n I the seat of government with whom we should commnnictc ns occasion requires. If we need information from the the clerks and auditors of the various counties, it is unquestionably proper to apply for it through the proper stato officers. But we might in our dicretion, employ other persons to procure such information, nnd make them compensation Cor their services. Mr. N. thought this a matter perhaps of little practical importance, but he was inclined to concur in the opinion expressed in the report. Mr. HOLMAN remarked, that in order to arrive nt a satilactory adjustment of the question, it should first be decided whether the state printer was really nn officer of the State or not. By referring to the Revised S.atntes, page 100,'it would be found that the election by a rtia roce vote, was thero provided for Ly law, of a prorecuting attorney, a State Printer, and other officers. Thus there was a direct provision of law under which this officer was elected. He was an officer of the State so rccegnized by the law of the State. He took it for granted then." that if this State Printer was an ofiicer of the State, they must look at the law providing for his election, . to ascertain thepurpos of the IcL'Ulature in his election. If he was e'ecttd for a specific purpose, why then, in the exercise of the power delegated to him, he must be confined within the limits prescribed by the legislature. It would be observed on relen ing to the Revised Code, that this officer was to be elected tricnnially, and that among other things it was provided tiiat he should discharge tho duty of printing for the State. In connection with this provision, theie were two other sections stipulating as to the manner in which the work should be done. The onlj- question to be decided then, wis, what was the design of the legislature in creating the f.flie.e of State Printer? As lie had before said, the Revised Statutes prescribed the duties of this officer, viz: that lie should execute the printing of the two Houses of Assembly and of the principal officers of the Statebut nowhere was it stated th:tt his duties extended anyfurther. Tho office of State Printer was created seven years ago, and the duties that devolved upon him were clearly laid down by tho State Legislature. Inasmuch then ns the piinting of this Convention was net then contemplated, and no provision Lad been made for the printing of tho eonvention in the rotuine of duties prescribed to the State Printer, it must undoubtedly be concluded that the printing of that convention was not a part of the duties of the State Printer, prescribed to him by the State. Mr. FOSTER said, that as it was his intention to vote to concur in the report of the committee, he should briefly give the reasons that influenced him in pursuing such a course. Being no lawyer, he would not attempt to reply to the legal arguments of the gentleman from Hendricks, Mr. Nave, who had spoken in opposition to the report of tho committee. But, with all due deference to the opinions of gentlemen who had spoken, he must bo permitted to say on tho present occasion, that ho di til-red with them materially in regard to the rights and powers of this Convention. For one, ho did not consider this Convention as a mere creature of the Legislature, although such an opinion had been advanced in certain public prints of this city and elsewhere, nd also by members ol the Convention. He regarded the Leg. islatnrc as one of the agents of the people of the State of Indiana, and an agent, too, which in establishing all the forms that preceded the election of the Delegates to the Convention, only acted in accordance with the will of the sovereign people. In like manner this Convention was an agent of the people. He had been greatly amused on reading the act of the Legislature with regard to tho Convention, to observe the condescension with which they provided that the Convention might elect a President, and such other officers as they deemed propv-r. Why, sir, said Mr. Foster, this Convention possesses the inherent power of electing all its officers, a public printer among their number. The celebrated case of Dorr liad been cited by the gentleman from Hendricks, Mr. NaveJ. to sustain by inference, the position he had taken that the Legisla'tnre exercised a supreme controlling power over a Convention chosen by the people. Ho could not but think that gentlemen had misapprehend -d the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court on that point, because the point they sought to sustain was not taken into consideration by that Court. Gentlemen would not contend for a moment that the adherents of Dorr had assembled peaccab'y ami lawfully in Convention. Yut had not the people uf Indiana nssembled peaceably and lawfully and sent Delegates hereto revise the Constitution? " The Dorritcs in Rhode Island were in a state of anarchy; they were revolutionists. Nat so with the action of the people ef Indiana in raising this Convention. They had invested thein, ns a Convention, with the power of revising tho Constitution, nr.d for one, he, as a Delegate from the p-ople from Monroe, intended to exercUe fully and fearlessly the power invested in him. There were one or two facts having a bearing upon the question before thiin, to which he Would briefly allude. In the State of Oiiio, the Legislature had passed an act convening tho Convention that had assembled thereto r;vise the State Constitution similar in cfTect to the act authorizing the assembling of this Con rcution. When the question came up before that Convention upon

the election or a State Printer, w hat did they do? Mr. F. here quoted from tho proceedings and de'nates of tho Ohio Convention at some length, to prove that the State Printer there was elected Printer to the Convention, not because he was the State Printer, but from the fact that the Democratic party had a majority in the Convention, and also because they knew him to be a good printer. A a express provision wa made in the stipulation entered into with him, that the printing should be done at fur and reasonable rates, those rates being clearly deiined. They thus elected their own Printer, and he contended that this Convention had a similar right. Some gentle men, however, had said, that they could not annul the contract made wLh Mr. C.inpman. This statement be would emphatically deny. An example of high authority w as to lo found in the case of Blair tc Rives, w ho were formerly printers to ib.3 United Stares S mate, and who had a contract made af one session of the S mate rescinded at the succeeding session of that body. Yet Btair?c Rives did not attempt to sue far damages. In connection with this point, he would read tho opinions of a legal gentleman who, with all due deference to tho learned centlemeo around him, had not his superior if he had bis equal upon that floor; lie referred to Judge Hitchcock of tho Supreme Court of Ohio. Mr. F."bcre read from the debates 'of the Ohio Convention, a summary of Judge Hitchcock's views upon the question of the election of a Printer to tho Convention. Jndare H.'s position was, that the Convention was authorized to make use of a certain sum of mney for th5 expenses of the Convention, and as they could not get along without having a printer they had the riaht to elect a printer, and compensate him out uf the contingent fund from which were defrayed the oi her expenses of the Convention. Thusj continued Mr. F., I have given some of the reasons that will influence, me to rote for the report, of the committee. Common sense teaches me that we derive our power directly from the people, and that we, as members of this ConvcBtion, are delegates of the people. Why, sir, it is a common thing to le elected a member of the Lecislafnre, lmt it i an uncommon thing to be elected a delegate to a Convention raised for the purpose of revising I-. -. - ti .;,...: tr ' i.t t ,.i.t ...t r rirtic t;nr.Ltitii ii.ii . iivt- art) niwfiiinii:ii nwir; uiiu learned gentlemen from various parts of tho State, who, I doubt not, would reject with contempt the offer of be ing made a member of a body that met once n yesr, to legislate for what they would affectionately term the 'dear people.' (Lauuliter.) Here are assembled grave Congressmen and learned judges who have hoen rusticating for a season, and who have now come here to give us the lienefit of their more matured wudoin, anj their grent legislative experience. . With regard to. the arguments of gentlemen on this ffor. wt o hre fntevored foobtn-fn the election of the present State Printer its Printer to this Convention, I nwst ny briefly in ffply, they ctnnot ccmo it over me.

i nt'ir oiiorts nm me in imnii oi an mchicni laai oecyrreu

in the town of Auirusta some years tince, when there were not so many temperance men or temperance societies a there are now. It was customary there, when an individual wished another to drink with him, to say, ''Come, won't you go it." A gentleman on the poitvt of graduating linJ got in the habit of "going it'.' at rather an extensive rate ; at the samo time, he w as paying his addresses to a very amiable und sprightly young ladv, a resident of the town. This young gentleman," as remarked, got in the habit of ''going it," and while in full career, he graduated at the eollccre. After trrnduating, reflecting that he had lcn courting the yojng lady for some time, he thought be would pop the question. So rno day, with a palpitating heart, and with all due ceremony, he put the inlercstini query "Will vou have me?"' "Ah! Billy, Billy, Billy. ; replies the young lady, "while yon 'go it' yon can't 'come it.' " (Great Laughter.) Notwithstanding all that gentlemen have said, I have only to reply that they can't come it over me. (Laughter.) The question being taken on concurring in the report, it was decided in the, affirmative. So the report was concurred in, Wednesday, October 16. Biennial Sessions. The CHAIR announced tho business in order to be tne resolution submitted by Mr. Edmonston on the 14th inst , to-wit: - . Renoircd, That the committee on the Legislative Department bo instructed to insert a provision in the amendcd Constitution adopting biennial instead of annual sessions of the Legislature. . Mr. READ of Clark moved to amend the resolution by striking out the word "biennial" and inserting the word "triennial." - . The question being upon the adoption of the amend mcnt, ' The yea? and nays were demanded, and being taken, were as follows: Yeas. Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Balinirall, Blythe, Bowers, Bryant, Butler, Chenowith, Clstk of Hamilton, Coats, Cookerly, Dick, Edmonston, Garvin, Gordon, Hurbolt, riollidnr, Holman. Kelso, Kilgore, Lockhart, Iognn, March, Math'". McClelland, McLean, Miller of Gibson, Morrison of Washington, Murray, Nave, Pepper of Crawford, Prather, Read of Clark, Schoonovcr Shcrrcd, Sims, Smiley, Smith of Scott, Tagnc, Trimbley, Wheeler, Wolfe, Yocum, und Mr. President 43. Nays. Messrs. Anthony, Badger, Barlmur, Beach, Beard, Berry, Biddle, Borden, Bourne. Bracken, Carr, Carter, Chandler, Chapman, Clark of Tippecanoe. Cole, Col fax, Crawford , Davis of Madison . Davis of Ycrmillion , Davis of Parke, Dobson, Dunn of Jeflcrson, Farrow, Foley, Foster, Frisbie, Onotce, Graham of Miami, Grahnm of Warrick, Gregg, Haddon, Hamilton, Hardin. Hawkins, Helmcr, Hendricks, Hitt, Hogin. Hovey, Howe, HufP Johnson, Jones. Kent. Kendall of Wabash, Kendall of Warren. Kindlcy, Magnirc. Mather, May, McFarland, Mi'Jer of Fulton, Milroy, Mooney, Moore, Morgan, Morrison of Marion, Mowrer, Nafsmger, Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Pcttit,-Read of Monioe, Ristine, Ritchey, Robinson, Shoup, Sr.ook, Smith of Ripley, Spann, Steele, Stevenson. Tannehill, Terry, Thomas, Thornton. Todd, Vnnbenthusen, Wallace, Walts, Wiley, Work, Wunderlich, and Zcnor S3. So the amendment was not adopted. The question then recurring upon the adoption of the original resolution, Mr. DUNN of Jefferson said, he thought this a vcry importnnt resolution. He expected himself to voto for it. Still, he thought it ought to le duly and deliberately considered. To send to a committee so important a resolution and of an impcritive character, now when so many members were absent, he thought would ho rather a bad precedent. Therefore, he would move to amend the resolution, by inserting in the proper place tho words, " inquire into the expediency of." Mr. .KELSO said.it seemed to him that this matter had been sufficiently discussed before ihc people, and, so far as he knew, this change to biennial sessions of the Legislature was made a leading proposition throughout the State. He thought it might as well he ascertained to-day nc ntany other time, whether a majority were in favor of it or not ; and let the vote of tho Convention upon the resolution be taken as a sense of the body upon this subject. All he asked was leave to record his vote in favor of the resolution. The question being taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Jefferson, it wns not agreed to. Mr. GRAHAM of Warrick proposed to amend the resolution by adding a proviso to the effect that the Governor shall have power to convene the Legislature at any time, in case of an emergency. This amendment was agreed to. Mr. CLARK of Tippecanoe proposed to amend the resolution by sti iking out the word " biennial" and inserting in lieu thereof the word " annual." Mr. OWEN" suggested to the gentleman from Tippecanoe that a direct vote upon the resolution by yeas nnd nays would have precisely the same effect. Mr. CLARK of Tippec;.noe ac piiesced in the suggestion of Mr. Owen, and said he kr.ew this question had been moot.'d before all the peoole; but it depended upon other questions. He thought the reason why the people demanded biennial sessions of ihe Legislature, was th.-, frequency of change in local legislation. Now, it had been already proposed here, nnd he thought the peopla of the State nt large had determined, that the Legislature vhould bo retrained from the enactment of local laws; and that their deliberations should Iks confined to the enactment of laws of general interest laws in which a change would not be made, unless it were called fr by some pressing emergency. It was a proverb in free governments, that "where annual elections end, tyranny begins.'r The Legislature was the strength of nil the departments of the Government. The lawmaking power tlways exercised the most direct authority over the Government; and, if tho agents in this department, instead of lcing frequently railed to account were removed one year further from the supervision of the people, tucy would be so much more likely to abuse their power. Whereas, the more frequently they could be brough?. under the supervision of tho fieople, the more anxious they would be to do the will of the people. He apprehended that the objections to annual sessions, on the score of economy, would be entirely removed, if ihe Legislature were restrained from tho pas sago of local laws. The business of 1 gislation would then be confined to its proper split re; the sessions would not be so long, and consequently, not attended with such a vast expense for printing. Sec. An 1 besides, if annual sessions were continued, ti e Legislative body would act every year as a sort of committee of inquest upon the State officers; and there was a necessity for some such supei vision as this, which no other body could furnish; tncre coum te no substitute lor tbe legislature in tins matter. Moreover, in the event of the establishment of bicnninl sessions, there wou.d frequently arise a necessity for a call of the Legislature, in special session; and these special sessions would be found to cost as much as the regular sessions. Ho admitted that, so far as he understood the wishes of his constituents, they would be in favor of biennial it even triennial, sessions, if the Legislature were not restrained from tho passage of local laws, and confined to their proper sphere of duty. But, if, in this respect, tho Legislature were restrained by the Constitution, he believed that not only his constitucnts but the people of the State at large, would be in favor of annual sessions. . Hs necquieseed in the suggestion of the gentleman from Posey, (Mr. Owen) and witndrcw his motion to amend. Mr. WATTS proposed to amend the resolution by adding the following: "'"And the House of. Representatives shall consist of sixty-six members, and tho Senate ol tlarty-turee members." Tho amendment was rejected. Mr. PÄATH ER proposed to amerd by inserting a clause to tho effect, that the sessions of the Legislature shall be limited to a term not exceeding sixty days.. This antndment was also rejected. Mr. MILLER of Fulton moved to amend by inserting the lollowin'j: " "Provided, However, that the Legislature may. by a vote of tho p:ople, without a Convention for that pnrpofe. aller to ainua.1 or triennial sessions, having first provided for taking such vote." Which was decided in the negative. . The quostion recurring on tho adoption e-f the original resolution, ' Mr. READ of Clark said, being called on to vote upon tho resolution ptoposing biennial sersions of the Legislature, he desired to say one word. Upon this ques. tio.f altove nil others, be felt liimlclf to be instructed. He was satisfied that this proposition expressed tho unanimous wish of his constituents; and from his own experienoe in the Legislature, he felt the most abiding conviction of the expediency of this change. He found, also, that in nearly all the States where new Constitutions had been adopted, they had engrafted this provision. Such was the result of the experience of three-fourths of the States of this Union ; and this Convention should take ads tage of the lessons derivod from their experience. He ventured to affirm, that, if tho matter were referred to the people of tho State, nine-tenths of them would be in favor of biennial or triennial sessions. Let gentlemen reflect for a moment, and look back npon the session of last winter. During the session of tho last Legislature alone some seven hiinde I nets were passed, mostly of a local nature. Local legislation would creep into tr at bodv. It could not lie kept out. And then, another Legislature would come in and repeal and alter these new laws, in many cases, before the people, or even many of the lawvers, were awttre of tlicir existence. VV hereos. if the sessions of the Legislature were biennial, with proper limitations and restraints upon their powers, the Jaws would be better known and hotter executed ; and there would be saved a vast a'nount of tho public money. But s it was nr:w, tho Representatives danced and the people paid the fiddler. - . Mr. BIDDLE lai-I, hohadBO?exjrctedthat T:roT)tbis

iiucsu' iuc umenuu w uuiu i-iuuu iw & ic huw , uui

was he'very well prepared to discuss" it. He did ntTt know that Le could be very well -prepared for this discussion ; but he bad hastily noted one or two points, which, by the indulgence of tiic Convention, he would throw out. The gentleman who had just-concluded his remarks had had declared himself to be instructed in favor of this proposition, lie did not blame him, therefore, for the suport which he gave it. He (Mr. B.) should brobably do the same thing under the same circumstances; but that gentleman had expressed his lclief -that ft large mniority of the people of the State were in favor of biennial or triennial sessions. He (Mr. B.) was in favor of neither ; on the contrary, his course heretofore had shown hiin to be emphatically in favor of annual sessions; and the reason wtiy he desired to say a word upon this question now, was. because befeared the impression of tbe gentleman from Clark (Mr. R.) wasbtlt too true; and laloiing under the fear that the resolution would pass.he was unwilling to let it go to tho voto without saying a few words. It seemed to him that the success of this proposition would lo progressing in a retrogade direction. It would be impossible for any argument, such as he had yet heard, in favor of it, to convince him that this Would not be a removal of the power which belonged to the people further from its original source. 'What was the objection to annual sessions? It was, that they induced too much legislation. But be denied that the remedy was to make the sessions biennial. Why was it that they had too much legislation?. He affirmed that this evil was an incident to every new government. This newly settled State was made up, from year to year, of minus lateen irom every section oi ine C'nion, aim every part of the world; and it was inevitable that, amongst men educated under every form of government upon earth, there would be conflicts of opinion in legislation, till they should all become whole-hearted Hoosiers a designation which he was in tho habit of using, and it was one to be proud of. What was the object of legislation? It was to give form and expression to the opinions of the people ; and ho held, that tüe oftencr th?y could get that expression, the nearer they would approach toa perfect republican gouernment. He admitted that too much legislation was an evil ; but too much power to legislate never was, a?d never could he, an evil. He would allow the people to express their opinion as of ten as possible; and, absurd as Umiglit seem, he would, if possible, require tho Legislature to meet oftencr than once a year, whenever it was necessary. He desired gentlemen to distinguish carefully between the use and the abuse of a good thing; between making use of the legislative power for the advantage of the people, and curbing the power of the Legislntusc. He maintained that time would correct this evil, and that nothing but time could correct it. For if they made the sessions biennial, it would be found that tho Legislature would just do twice as much business in a session. Besides, the people would not like to suffer under the effects of bad laws for so long ft period as two years. Hasty legislation was atl evil, and therefore they should have a hasty method of remedying the evil, and this was one of the reasons why he would never cast a vote to restrain the power of legislation. It was an axiom in his notions of government, that tho moment delegated power was removed farther j. .. .. . . . irom us original source, mat moneni a step was taKen toward despotism. A despotism was nothing more than a governmen whero this power was so far removed from the people, that there was no remedy short of n resort to revolution. A pure democracy was impracticable; but he would not render it still more impracticable, by carrying political power still farther away from its rightful source. There was much room for ainplifn,ation in the point which bo hud taken, namely, restricting the powers of Icgislaiion. But he would not now detain the Convention Inelaborate it. The people themselves had the remedy in their own hands, against the excesses of legislation, i' the right of instruction. Did their Representatives make too many laws, let the people tell tliem so. and warn them against it. But if the accountability of their agents to the sovereign power were postponed two years, the evil would bo mado worse. The further the accountability of any officcr"was removed from the sovereign power, the wider was the departure from the true idea of a democracy or a republican government. He assumed that the popular expressions of opinion were the only true indices of what the law ought to le; and, as be had before said, if it were practicable, he would have it so contrived, that the expression of the popular will could be taken oftener than once a year. Tho oftencr these agents met tho sovereign power, the moro faithful would be the expression of the popular will. But, to seal up this expressiot for two years, would be to take one step in a direction t-dverse tö the progress of true democracy. He would give opjKrtunities for the most frequent expressions of the popular will. The oftener the better. And the higher the grade of civilization, the more necessity for the application of this doctrine. For, going into barbarous nations, it would be found that they have but few laws, handed down from generation to generation, but few notion of right and wrong which continue from age to ago. The more enlightened the "people, the more intricate were their wants. For this reason, also, he conld never consent to take tha retrograde step proposed in the resolution. He would keen the delegated power as near as possible to the sovereign power Why, it was one of the troubles in the judiciary of this country, that justice could not be obtained as speedily as desirable. And what was the remedy? Why, to make tho sessions of the courts as Irequcnt ns possible. Lnder the present judicial arrangements for the State, when the court meets only once in six months, a man's rights were liable to be delayed for that length of time. Whereas, whensoever justice was infringed, her sword should be ready to redress the wrong. This was the perfection of government in theory; and, although it could not le strictly attained in practice, yet it was lctter to approximate towards it, than to retrograde from it. Ho was willing to stand still in reference to the matter before the Convention; but he was unwilling to retrograde; he was unwilling to take a step in a direction contrary to the true remedy. He feared the result of the determination of this question by the Convention, and for that reason he had attempted, in this manner, briefly to deter them from hasty action. But, if gentlemen were instructed, they would", of course, vote accordingly ; and if their instructions were to adopt the proposition, he would be satisfied that the public voice had been expressed. But, nt present, he vrs slow to !clieve that such was the mini' of the people. His own opinions were well known in tbe canvass. - Ho had always expressed the views that he had now indicated that biennial sessions were not the remedy for the evil complained of; that the evil was an inherent one in all the new States, which time alone Would correct. Every man that came into the State from Pennsylvania, Ohio, or any other State, or perhaps some foreign country, brought along with him his own notions of law which he had imbibed in his childhood. Could uniformiiy of legislation be expected amongst such a people? or could gentlemen expect to attain to that uniformity by muzzling the voice of the people? Experience had already shown, that 'after a time this vibration of public opinion would gradually settle down upon the rule of right ; then he would let time do its work. He would not muzzle the popular expression, -much less would hs put such a principle as this in the organic law, which might not bi." again changed for a quarter of a century. But he would not detain tho Convention. These were his views. Thev were somewhat abstrnct, ho confessed, but they could be made practical. He had confined himself to a few general ideas, upon which he thought, perhaps, every man would find food for reflection. He could not expect to change the mind of an)' man w ho had maturely considered the subject. But he had some experience in dealing with the minds of others, and knew how to respect difference of opinion. He entertained these views as correct, beyond a doubt; and, therefore, he advocated them. He expressed bis opinions freely, '.nd if thry could benefit others he should he glad of it; and if not, at least bo enjoyed tho reflection ol havin? oisehargen his duty Mr'. ALLEN said, that he'was in favor of triennial in-1 stead of biennial sessions, luvt it seemed that a majority of the Convention were i I favor of biennial sessions, and tba Convention having voted down triennial sessions, of course he would now vote for biennial sessions The reasons urged by the gentleman from Tippecanoe, Mr. Clark, for annual sessions, were some ol tho very reasons why he would vote for biennial sessions, lie had no doubt, from the expression which he had heard from members, and from tho expression of tho people, so far as he had heard an expression, that amendments would be incorporated into the new Constitution prohibiting the Legislature from this miserable system of local legislation that now existed, and they would also be prohibited from the passage of special nets of incorporation, and Jhat the election of State officers and Judges would bo taken from the Lcglslafure and placed in tho hands of tho people whero it properly belonged. AH these amendments wonld, no doubt, be tho result of the deliberations of this body; and if this should be the result, many or tho subjects which now occupied the time of the Legislature would bo taken away, and the necessity of annual sessions wholly obviated. It was contended by the gentleman from Cass Mr. Biddle, that the change contemplated bv the resolution would be . retrograde movement and that its tendency was to remove the officers further from the people. Now, it did not seem to him that a change of the time of the sessions of the Legislature from annual to biennial sessions, as contemplated by the resolution, or a change of th manner of electing State officers, would produce any radical change in imr present system of government or in the manner of doing business in ihe Legislature. The question was simply whether tho Legislature could not perform all the business necessary to bo performed by them ami meet only once in two years; in other words would not biennial sessions meet the exigencies of that bra nc-- X our State government ? This, he thonght was beyond a question. He was satrsnro tnai wnen nie jjcgisimurc piumhi ck-uh'ih a : from their present system of local and special legisla. lion j srben ths election f Stat? otSeer should bo taken

from the Legislature and placed iu the hands of the people; when these and some other amendments should be engrafted into the new Constitution, taking away from the Legislature the consideration of so many subjects which now occupied so much of their time and attention, that the nccersity of annual sejsions would entirely cease and that the Legislature conld, under this new order ai things, meet once in two years and perform all thejr duties in less time than is now required, under their present system of legislation. He should, therefore, vote for the resolution. .

Mr. MURRAY observed, that the people in his part of the Slate were clearly and entirely iu favor of biennial sessions. It was a general complaint among them, that the laws of the State wer continually fluctuating. The changes mado were of such frequent occurrence that tho people did not know what tho laws were ; and, of course, they could not be obeyed by men who did not know when they bad violated them." That was impos sible. And a further evil resulting from this continual 1 change was, that they ware not administered a sufficient length or time for the people to ascertain whether their effect was good or evil. In all governments, a want of stability in the laws was considered a very great evil; for where the laws were fixed and permanent, the people became acquainted with them, and knew what they had to obey. If they found upon trial that they were stringent and oppressive tbey could then cause their Legislators to ameliorate them, and thus remedy the evil. With regard to the effect of this measure upon tho elections, be considered that on that point was to be realized one of the happiest results. The frequent elections that were held, kept men in a constant turmoil. The excitement attendant npon one election would hard!y subside lefore another election would come round and there was nothing but commotion and excitement among the people coT-tiiiaally. If the period of holding office vas also confined to one term it would do away with the present system of electioneering, so injurious to- tho faithful performance of the duties of office; fear if the period ol holding office closed after the first term had expired, there would le more of justice and impartiality in the administration of their duties. These reforms were not new and untried reforms. The election of all the officers of the State, and the system of biennial sessions, were measures that had been adopted in several of the States, and, so far as he knew, with the happiest results. Mr. FOSTER moved to amend the resolution by inserting the following: "And that the sessions or tho Legislature shall not continue longer thnn six weeks without reduction to one-half of the jer diem allowance of the memliers." The question being taken upon the proposed amendment, it was not agreed to. Mr. HARDIN moved to amend the resolution by adopting the following: "And the Governor, in Iiis proclamation convening the Legislature, shall state specifically the subjects which they shall consider, and no other subjects shall be taken into consideration at such special session.". The amendment was not agreed to. The question being taken upon the adoption of the relobition ! tu.' The yeas and navs were demanded, and were taken with the following result: Ayes Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Anthony, Badger, Balingall, Barbour, Bascom, Beach, Beard, Berry, Bickncll, Blythe, Borden, Bourne,"' Bowers, Bracken, Bryant, Butler, Carr, Carter, Chandler. Chenowith, Clark of Hamilton, Coats, Cole, Colfax, Cookerly, Crawford, Davis of Parka, Davis of Ycrmillion, Dick, Dobson, Dunn of Jefferson, Dunn of Perry, See., Edmonston, Farrow, Fisher. Foley, Foster, Frisbie, Garvin, Gootce, Gordon, Graham of Miami. Graham of Warrick, Gregg, Haddon, Holliday, Hamilton, Harbolt, Hardin, Hawkins, Hehn, Helmer. Hendricks, Hitt, Hogin, Holman, Hovey, "Howe, Huff. Johnson, Jones, Kelso, Kent. Kendall of Wabash, Kendall of Warren, Kinlty, Lockhart, Logan, March, Mather, Mathis, May, McClelland. McFarland, McLean, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Mooney, Moore, Morgan, Morrison of Marion, ' Morrison of Washington, Mowrer, Murray, Nave, Nofsinger. Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Prathcr, Read of Clark, Reed of Monroe, Ritchey, Schoonover. Shcrrod, Shoup, Sims, Smiley, Snook, Smith of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Spann, Steele, Stevenson, Tague, Tannehill, Terry, Thomas. Todd, Trimbley, Vnnbenthusen. Watts, Wheeler, Wolfe, "Work, Wunderlich, Yocum, Zenor, and Mr. President 124. Noes Messrs. Biddle, Chapman, Clark of Tippecanoe. Maguire, and Wallace 5. The Convention adjourned. The Fugitive Slave Law Opinion of Mr. Crittenden. Attokxey Geneiial's Office, September 13, 1S50. Ma: 1 liavo nau tue nonor to receive your note oi tins date, informing me that the bill, com naonly called the fugitive slave bill, having passed both houses of Congress, had been submitted to you lor your consideration , approval, and signature, and reouesting mv opinion whethex the tixt h section of that act, and especially the last clause of that section, conflicts with the provision of the constitution which declares that "the Privilege of the writ of habeat cori,- shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." It is my clear conviction that there is nothing in the last clause, nor in any part of the sixth section, nor, indeed, in any part of the provisions of the set, which suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas carpus, or is in any manner in conflict with the constitution. "The constitution, in the second section of the fourth article, declarps that 'no person held to service or labor in ono State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall lie delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may Ik due." It is well known and admitted, historically and judicially, that this clause of the constitution was made for the purpose of securing to the citizens of slaveholding States the complete ownership in their slaves, as property, in any nnd eveiy State or Territory of the Union into which they might escape. (Prigg rs. Com' monwealth of Pennsylcania, 16 Pet., 539.) It devolved on the general government, as a solemn duty, tomake that security effectual. Their powerwas not onlyclear and full, but, according to the opinion of the court in the above cited case, it w as exclusive; the States severally being under no obligation, and having no power to mate laws or regulations in respect to the delivery of fugitives. Thus the whole power, and with it the whole duty, of carrying into effect this important provision of the constitution was with Congress; and accordingly, soon after the adoption of the constitution, tho act of the 12th of February, 1793, was passed, and, that proving unsatisfactory and inefficient, by reason (among other causes) of some minor errors in its details, Congress are now attempting by this bill to discharge a constitutional obligation, by securing more cllcctually the delivery of fugitive slaves to their owners. The sixth and most material section in substance declares that the claimant of the fugitive slave may arrest and carry him Itefore any one of the officers named and described in the bill, and provides that these officers, and each of them, shall have judicial power and jurisdiction to hear, examine, and decide the case in a summary manner; that if, uponsnch hearing, the claimant, by the requisite proof, shall establish his claim to the satisfaction of the tribunal thus constituted, the said tribunal shall give him a certificate, stating therein the substantial facts of tho case, and authorizing him, with such reasonable force as raav be necessary, to take and cany said fugitive back to'the State or Territory whence he or she may ; have escaped, and then, in conclusion, proceeds as follows ; "The certificates in this ami the first section mentioned shall he conclusive of the right of tho person or nersoim in whose favor granted to remove such fugi tive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person-or persons by any process issued by any court, juj-re, magistrate, or other person whomsoever." . There is nothing in all this thnt docs not seem to me to be consistent with the constitution, and necessary, indeed, to redeem the pledge which it contains that such fugitives "shall be delivered up on claim" of their owners. . . " ' , The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the owner, independent of ony aid from State or national legislation, may, in virtne of the constitution and his own right of property, seize and recapture his fugitive slave, in whatsoever State he my find him. und carry him hack to the State or Territory'from which he escaped. (Frige rs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Pet., 539.) This bill, therefore, coufers no right on the owner of the fugitive slave; it only gives him an appointed and peaceable .-emedy, in place of the more exposed and insecure, but not less lawful mode of self-redress. And as to the fugitive slave, he has no cause to complain of this bill it adds no coercion to that which Itic owner himself might, at his ow n will, rightfully exercise; and all the proceedings which it institutes are but so much of orderly judicial authority, interposed between him and his owner, and consequently of protection to him, and mitigation of the exercise directly by the owner himself of hi personal authorily. This is the constitutional and legal view of the subject, as sanctioned bv the decisions of the Supremo Court; and to that I limit myself. ' , J 'The act of the 12th February, 1793, before alluded to, so far as it respcets anv constitutional question that can arise out of this bill, is identical with it. It authorizes the like arrest of tho fugitive f,lave, the like trial, the like judgment, the like certificate, with the like authority to the owner, bv virtue of that certificate as his warrant, to remove him to the State or Territory , from which he escaped; and the constitutionality of thnt act, ' in all these particulars, has been affirmed Ly the adjudi-

cations of State tribunals and by the courts of tho Uni ted States without a single dissent, so far as I know. Ballte ,' c. C. R., 577, 579.) Iconclade, therefore, that so far as the act of the 12tlr February, 1793, lies aeen held to be constitutional, this bill must albc Ke so regarded ; nnd that the custody, restraint, and removal to which the fugitive slave may be subjected, unA-r the provisions of this MI, ai-e all "law. ful, and that fte certificate to le granted to tlx owner is to be regarded as the act and judgment of a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction. With these remarks as to tLe constitutionality of th general provisions of the bill, and the consequent legality of the custody and confinement to which the fuyiiive slave may be snbjeeted uitder it, I proceed fo a brief consideration of the more particular question von have propounded in reference to the writ of kab'at corpus and of the lost clause of the tilth section, above quoted.

wiiicn gives rise to ttiat question. Jty opinion, as before expressed, is. fhat there is nothing in thatclanseor section which confli.ts with, or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of th writ of kabpas corptt. I think so because the bill savs not one word aliout that writ ; liccause, by the constitution, Congress is expressly forbidden to suspend the privilege of this writ"unles when, incases of rebellion r invasion, the public safety may require it ;"and therefor the suspension by this act (there being neither rebellion nor invasion) would be a plain and palpable violation of the constitution; and no intention to commit such a violation of the constitution. of their duty and their oaths,ought to be imputed to them upon mere constructionsand implications; and, thirdly, Itecanse there is no incompatibility between these provisions of the bill and the' privilege of the writ of habeas ccrput. in its utmost ccn--stilutional latitude. Congress, in the case of fugitive slaves, as in all other eases within the scope of its constitutional authority, has the unquestionable riirht to ordain and prescrilie lot what causes, to what extent, and in what manner, perw sons may be taken into, custody, detained, or imprisoned.Without this power thoy could not fulfil their constructional trust, nor perform the ordinary and necessary du. ties of government. It was never heard that the eXer eise of that legislative power was anv encroachment' up on or suspension of the privilege of the habeat corpus. It is only by some confusion of ideas that such a conflict can be supposed to exist. It is not w ithin the province or privilego of this great writ to loose thoso w hom the law has bound. That would be to put a writ ' granted by the law in opposition to the law to make one part f the law destructive of another. This writ follows tho law and oitcys the Jaw. It is ifcsued upon proper complaint, to make inquiry into the causes of commitment or imprisonment, and its sole remedial power and pur-' pose is to deliver the party from "all manner of illtcal confinement." (3 Black. Com., 131.) If, npon application to the court or judge for this writ, or if npon its return, it shall appear that tho confinement complained of was lawful, tne writ in the first instance wonld be refused, and in the last the party would be remanded to his former lawful custody. The condition of one in custody ns a fugitive slave, under this law. so far as respectsthe writ of habe as corpus, is precisely the same as that of all other prisoners under the laws of the United Stotes. The privilege of that writ remains alike to all of them, but to Iks judged of granted or refused, discharged or enforced by the proper tribunal, according to the circumstances of each case, and as the commitment and detention may appear to l5 legal or illegal. Tho whole effect of the law may he thus briefly stated : Congress has constituted a tribunal, with exclusive jurisdiction to determine summarily, and without appeal, who aro fugitives from service or lalwir under the second section of the fourth arti.le of the constitution, and to whom such service or labor is due. The judgment of every tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, w here no appeal lies, is of necessity conclusive upon evetv other tribunal, and therefore the judgment of the tribunal of this act is conclusive upon all tribunals. Wherever this judgment is made to appear, it is conclusive of the right of the owner to retain in his ccstcdy the fugitive from his service, and to remove him back to the place or State from which be escaped. If it is shown upon the application of th; fugitive for a writ of habeas corr, it prevents tho issuing of the writ if upon the re turn, it discharges the writ, and restores or maintains ! the custody. Th's view of the law of this case is fully sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Ünited States in the case of Tobias Watkins, where the court refused to disci arge, upon the ground that he was in custody under the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, and that judgment was conclusive upon them. (2 Pet., 202.) The expressions u.-cd in the last clause of the sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded to "shall prevent all molestation" of the persons to whom granted, "by any process issued," &.C., probab'y mean only what the act of 1793 meant, by declaring a" certificate onder that act a sufficient warrant for the removal of a fugitive, and certainly do not mean a suspension of the habeas corpu. I conclude bv repeating my conviction that there is nothing in the bill in question whch conflict with the constitution, or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpvs. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, J. J. CRITTENDEN. To the Presitent. Railroads and their Effects. If any one doubts the beneficial effects ef railroads upon a country, to say nothing of the facilities they afford to travellers, let him pa.s down the Madison railroad, and look at the improvements that have been made already in the country and towns on the line, and he will doubt no longer. These improvements have the almost magic power of creating their own business, where there was apparently nono before. These thoughts wer suggested by conversing with a passenger who went op and came down the Bellefontaine road last Wednesday. He says that the road is beginning to give new life to every thing on the line; the train was well filled with freight and passengers both ways; more than 400 barreis of wheat and flour was received at the Pendleton depot alone from Madison, and a large amount from the way depots. Ho says that the effect produced by tbe road upon the farming interest is now being realized, and the farmers feel it sensibly, and are becoming more and more inteftsted in the prosecution of the road. At this time last year, the cost of conveying a barrel of flour from Pendleton to Indianapolis w as at the low ist rat's 50 cents, now the rate is 1'2 cents. Then the freight of a barrel of salt, from Indianapolis to Fendleton was 50 cents, now 12 cents, and all other articles, produced or used by the farmer, in proportion. With such effects upon the industry of our farmers it is Bot strange that they should bo the friends of such facilities. While all will feci the benefits of such roads, no portion of our peoplo will realize greater advantages from them thaa the cultivators of our fertile soil. - Great Railroad Meeting. The Directors for the Terre Haute and Richmond Railroad Company, east of Indianapolis, met the stock, holders and citizens in mass meeting on the 2Clb of Octolrcr, 150, in Greenfield. The object of the mooting was In iefly stated by Thomas Tyner, President of the Compaay, to be the propriety of an immediate action, and letting of a portion of the work. James P. Folet, Esq., was chosen Secretary of iha meeting. The meeting was then addressed by P. Johkstoit, S. MebepITH, Gen. J. Mir.aoy, and others. On motion of D. S. Geo ding, Ksq,, it was Resolved, To sustain and push forward, immediate??-, tho work, wi ill all possible energy : And was further Resolved, ns the ojiititofl of the meeting, that the read, when coinpIetd, will jmr ar large per- cent., and command tho great business from the Atantie to St. Louis, and will not be rivaled by any route fn the great West. A sufficient amount of stock was then taken, and it was ordered by the BotJ that the grubbing and grading, commencing at the depot at Knightstown, thence tr Greenfield, he let to contractors at Greenfield on Saturday tbe 23d day of Novcmlr, 150. Resohed, That the Indiana Sfac JomnaJ, tnd Senif. ncl, and tbe Statesman, at Indianapolis, be requested to publish the proceedings of this meeting. THOMAS TYNER, President. James P. Folet, Secntary. New York City. The value of real and personal estate iu New York city, by a late assessment, is Real estate $2o7,T7",3S Personal..... 87.RS2.540 Total $2S5,060676 Being nearly thirty sailüons more than the assessed value last year. ' C7 It is stated rh at there are five tbonanI men at work on the naKnishcil division of the New York and Erie Rail Road, and that it w ill lc completed by the 1st of May next, the period fixed by the compitry, Tlu western tcrminns ts tho Lake is at Dunkirk. r"The wrath of an apo and the threat of a Catterer should he regarded aUke.