American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1824-09-24
TO the Editor of the Watchman.

l
| SIR Having seen the proceedings of meeting
held at Galbreath's inn, Brandywine hundred. on
the 18th inst: denouncing me pubtic defauLer,l
and understanding also, that Mr.. Victor Dupont
has openly asserted in the borough Of Wilmington,
that have robbed the county of Newcastle of 8oOl
or 1000 dollars, presume no apology will be he.
cessary from me fornotcing these statements in the
manner they appear to require The charge agnst
me, made by the Calbreah meeting. is explained
4 by part of their proceedings purportng 10 be
certificate of Caleb P. Bennett County Treasurer,
stating that GO stand charged'' on his books as
former collector of Brandywine hundred for the
Dog tnTes, OF the years 1872 13, Ia, and Is, of
that hundred. In making this statement Major
Bennett is correct. did at that time stand charg
ed on his books for the Dog taxes Of those years.
But Major Bennett has not stated, and he will not
SAY, that ever collected 300 or 1000 dollars, as
asserted by Mr., Dupont, will he say that ever
had one twentieth part of either sum. This asser-
ton will shew to be an invention on the part Of
! Mr.. Dupont. A brief statement of my agency in
regard to the Dog tac will prove that l am not
lpubic deanlter, and that do not owe one cent to
the county of Newcastle.
| | was collector OF Brandywine hundred during
4 five successive years. In the years 1912 and 8,
collected the dog tax 20 the amount of 40 dollars
This a0as the Uh0ie amount that came into my hands
ION account OF this tax. In consequence of an i'm.
Ipresson, which got abroad, against the constitution
llly of the law, derived | think from an opinion
lgiven by some member of the bar, (James r. Black
Esqr. belieye) the people refused to pay the tax,
and collected no after the year 1878, having
refused to take duplicate of the assessment for
: the subsequent years. | did not pay the money
had collected into the Treasury, because under
stood that no other collector in the county had done
so, and was advised to refund it to the persons
iron whom had received it, | have accordingly
Irctunded it whenever could find the individuals to
!, whom it was due; the balance amounts to IL dol
lars and 10 cents | have held, ready to pay when
fIever should be properly called upon for it. To
release myself however from all responsibility on
account of this paltry sum, called yesterday upon
II Major Bennett the County Treasurer, and after a
5 final settlement, have paid him this balance, and
,Itaken bis receipt in full, which is annexed.
I 1t is under these circumstances that have been
charged as public defautter, a robber, as Mr..
dupont would say of the county of Newcastle, to
The amount Of 800 or 1000 dollars; and submit
it to the Judgment of my fellow citizens to decide,
$ whether more unjust or ungenerous caumny was
ever built upon so baseless foundation.
In Withholding this money from the Treasury,
may have acted from mistaken view of the law,
but am sure that every candid man will acquit me
of fraud; the patriness of the sum, and the fact
that had refunded all eccept the small balance
which have paid to the Treasurer, will suAi-
cientiy retue such an idea in the mind of every
!. unpre JUDGED man. 10 Withholding that money, |
have acted almost every other collector in the
county had done. Ma jor Bennett, whose authority
will not be doubted, will give his certificate, if re-
qured, that, of trpntythree collectors of the
ty, since the year 1871 J., nineteen stand charged
ION his books for dog taces, two, three four,
and five years.. Only four collectors, to wit, Will
liam Herdman, Zacha,iah Jones, Je emah Bow
, man and myself, have made full and final settle
uent; all the rest stand lin the language of the
, cer6cate) charged ON the booEs of the Treasury
. for dog tares. But who is there so base to sg-
, mase these individuals public detautters,, on
robbers? have the charity to believe, that if any
4 money collected BY these individuals, and l
4 know there great difficulties in the collection,
they have refunded it TO the owners. for the same
rea sons which actuated me, and which have stated
4 above
Mr. Dupont has said that I have received 700,
800 or 1000 dollars for dog taceS from Brandywne
. hundred. To demonstrate the profound absurdlty
10 use the mdest term) of this assertion, l will
n state two facts. Major Bennett, the Urea
surer's books will shew, that the whole amount OF
dog tax paid into the Treasury of the county since
q the passage of the law in 1911, is S6l4 81. They
will also shew that the whole amount of dog tax
fl collected in the populous and wealthy hunded of
Christianna for three years, is $3.50: ask then,
/, whether, supposing there was no other evidence in
; The case it is probable, that the dog tax of Brandy
! wine could amount to 800 or 1000 dollars, when
that of Chrstiana, possessing five times its wealth
. and three times its population, paid but S1S0.-If
the fact could be ascertaned, will venture to say
that there was 1000 dollars of dog TAG COL
: lected in the county of Newcastle, much less in the
hundred Of Braudywne. With these remarks /
submit the to the candid judgment OF my fell
> low citizens. DAVID PENNY.
September IS, 1894.
s
: Received Sept %, 1924, of David Penny, for.
mer collector of Brandywine, seventeen dollars and
ten cents in full Of the receipts Of dog tax with the