The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1821-11-07

the Court express an opinion which they will
hasten TO dsown.
The practice in the Office from the date of
the law laying the duty, to the time Doct. Fiske
was chosen, term Of about 80 years, was to
tax the duty on such instruments as he ex-
cepts. Doct. Fiske has, therefore, taken up
on himself to adopt rule variant from the
practice, and must assume the responsibility
which flows from the measure, and be charg-
ed with the loss of 1879 to the County,
When he altered the practice and adopted
rule to suit his own views, and gave to the
law an Interpretation which cannot be sup
ported, whereby the County, according to his
own statement, must lose s 1885, Qor he says
ne has not taken duty on Deeds when the
law says it was has duty to do it, he violated
the trust reposed in him as puhiclI officer,
and gave strong evidence of the want of suit
able qualifications for the Office. 1t is imma-
terial whether he has received a cent of the
duties on these 1,ll2 Instruments or not-he
has caused the loss of the amount % the Coun-
ty, and thus stands responsible or misman-
agement.
heartily wish this branch of the inquiry
might rest here but the publick ought not to
be deceived by misrepre sentation of facts
amined what Sheriff. Deeds and Assignments
we have met with, and we find the iufy charg-
ed or all that have come to hand-not a sim
gle Instrument appears otherwise indeed.
they are all considerably overchaged, after
reckoning the duty and all the other fees 1t
is not as - Plain TRUTH states respecting the
Liz instruments; Doct Fske has taken the
duty on Sherifs' Instruments and Assignments,
Al
OF the Court allowing Pain Truth'sn state
ment. lie, therefore, hods money belonging
to the County-money which ought to have
been paid out on his settlement with the
Treasurer, and which he avows in the face of
the law he has right to detain. For the
truth of these facts appeal to every person
who has SherifFs' Deed and Assignments
Let whoever holds any count them, and he
will find it so. This vii be the most con-
Vincing evidence that can be furnished; Tor
facts Cannot ie-men may.
A. Because Doct Fiske and his friends
have abused and malreated MIR Ward. his
Clerk, or caused it to be done. Doct Fiske,
IN his letter TO the pubick last Spring, repre-
sented MIR. Ward as a most faithful, assidu-
Gus, and accommodating Clerk, who was
placed near the door o the Office, that peo-
pie who came to do bu.iness might have easy
access to him, "a pretty fair acknowledge
ment, by the way, OH the part of Doct. Fiske,
thai he was inGapacitaed to do the business
himself) But he nov endeavours to throw
all the odium arising frora misconduct IN the
office, upon Mr.. Ward. Are excessive fees
charged? Mr.. Ward acts contrary to his or
ders. Are duties Improperly demanded -
The fault is Mir. Wards. has the Doctor
been guilty OF any oticial misconduct whatev-
er.-1hey at oDce aver that Mr.. Ward has
publickly proclaimed, 1T is all right, and he
(Mr. Ward) were he in Office, should do just the
same thing" believe they have not, as yet,
set forth a promise from Mr. Ward to become
deaf in case he should be elected; but they
affirm what is tontanoumt to it, by alleging
that he would become very Doct. Fiske him.
self. The deduction they make from all this
IS, that MIR. Ward ought not to be elected
and why! Because, forsooth, he says he shall
do just as Doct Fiske has done.-This is a
most unfortunate argument for Doct. Fiske, for
1t proves him unsuitable from absolute miscon-
duct; but it proves nothing against Mr.. Ward
but promise to do wrong, and a promise
which he never made to Doct. Fiske or any
other man.
Doct. FiSke tells the publick that Mr.. Ward
is honest and had no temptation to be other
wise, as he was paid by the day. 1t could
make no difference with him, whether Deed
was charged at one cent or one dollar, or
whether duties were charged or not; for
although the fees might have swelled to
thrice their lawful amount, yet he was in no
manner benefited farthing by it. Is it to he
credited, then, that ARENAS. Ward charged
more for Deeds than the law allowed without
direction from Doct. Fiske, or took duties
without his direction? No: no such opinion
can be entertained for one moment, unless YOU
can believe that MIR. Ward sins without mo-
tive, and without reward. -Doct. Fiske enters
every Deed on the Duty Book, and compares
every one with the Record, and has a full
knowledge OF the amount received thereon
but has he ever told you that he has not re-
ceiVei all the money paid? No: Has he ever
dared to say that he ever demonstrated with
Mr.. Ward for charging higher than he direct
ed No: Has not he, and all Others in the
Othce, charged after the same ratio2 Yes
and all who have Deeds, if they will exam
inc, will find it so. What, then, is the NIGH
ty crime Of MIR. Wards Why, it is following
the directions of Doct. Fiske. laid down as
rules OF the Office, and from which he had no
liberty to depart. lie had no alternative, and
therefore no responsibility rests upon him.
Doct. Fiske was sworn to discharge the du-
ties OF his trust faithfully and honestly and if
he has mistaken the principles of law, or a.
dopted an erroneous mode of computing fees,
the fault is his, aud his alone.-But it is said
Mr.. Ward has declared he should conduct the
Office upon the same principles. Of this, de-
NAL has been made in the papers !; and if there
had not been, those who know Mr.. Ward
would give no credit to the assertion; for they
know him to be an honest, conscientious man,
and that poct. Fiske's bad example would