The Hawk-eye and Iowa patriot. (Burlington, Iowa) 1839-1843, 1841-02-04


The small receipt of $500, is reported
by the majority in the precise language
of the witness. The minority reports it
correctly though in his own language,
both agree that there was no settlement,
but that the receipt was given by the fore
man, Mr. w. at the request of Mr. Swan,
report, pages 9, 10, and 81. "An-
other receipt" says the minority, " for
the sum of 1882, 23-l00, signed by Mr.
Woodwork, was given on final set.
tlement between him and Mr. Swan, and
covers the whole balance of his pay-rolls
for work, hauling, &C., together aoith
several receipts for hauling from Cedar
quarry-' The gentleman would here be
understood TO intimate, that !fe whole
amount of money was expended under
the supervision Of Mr. W. though the last
sentence is formed with such caution as
to allow an escape provided it should be-
come necessary. The majority after
stating the amount OF receipts for the
same time, august, Sept. and Oct.) TO
; be the same, the minority also state that
, the expenses under Mr. W., according to
} his pay-rolls, for the same time amount
, to only 1864. 3l-l0O, giving the precise
) figures which show the excess of re-
: ceipts to be audited over expenditures.
While the gentleman from Du Buque,
: employs an . &C. and the sentence .'to-
I gether a0ih several receipts for hauling
; from Cedar quarry,' to account for the
same Difference. See page 81. The
0 reason why the majority state the "a
Il mount of expenses to be less than the
: amount receipted for, is because the
: pay-rolis ani! receipts differed in the man
o .ner stated, and because the direct and
. express answer Of the writer is that his
: expenses for the time mentioned is
S "Sl964. 3l-lOO." See Testimony. page
: 10. If there is coloring here. it is the
colcring which the figures showed and
l. the witness corroboraIed.
It The statements Of the gentleman in re.
IS lation to this receipt so far as it goes,
e confirms the statement of the majority,
It and after examining both reports and the
c testimony, am willing any candid mind
5 should Judge whether we have sta;ec
v llIIS WHOiC tlutll. do w ott vi VI
;e whether he himself attempted an " eva
o sion which he has SO unscrupulousl J
ct charged upon lis. .....s....
le Without going through with all the re
re ceipts given by the different ''foremen.'
N | will call the attention Of the House Il
5 the accounts given by both reports of the
r, receipt given by Mr. Watt. while actin!
of as foreman in the month of October. Botl
a. agree that Mr. Watt receiped for s; 10
in 53-lOA and that the amount of expense
le under his supervision was "4l9. 9l-lOO'
e, and that the balance is made up OF eXpen
Sc SEES under Mr. Sheen. and 6. Swans &c
a. count of expenses amounting to 1916. so
u 100 through a period of time from Ma
le LIST 1899 to Nov. |, 1910. Now. iii
lg having shown that there is no esSentiC
re difference in the accounts given of tn
n receipts which were given by the fore
" men to enable the acting COMMISSIONS
is to draw money from the treasury, mu:
er say that the conclusions we come to as t
IT'S the proprielv Of his mode of doing bushes
is are widely different The majority cor
of ceive ihat there is manifest mproprlet
10 in using the name of foreman to draw
en money from the Treasury, when that fore
,s- man could not be acquainted with the e!
S. penditure. Mr. Watt acted as torema
ad for the latter part of the month Octobe
it. 1910, and is made to receipt for the pr
te- waite account of G.. Swan from May
re- 1889 to Nov. ]. $40. If there be an
err proprie,v in sending the name of a for
ate man to the auditor as evidence tn
ar. services have been rendered to the Terl
eet tory, then i, is proper that the exact su
the known to him to be due for service
sle- should be called for and no more. |! he
zen required to receipt for the amount ncce
tn sary to cover private accounts OF lndlvl
ace uals, he may with the same propriety
cry required to receipt for Il sum sufficient
by buy a lot in Iowa city, or a farm i'll job
me son County. The gentleman states son
sal of the items of this private account
lin C. Swan, while some of the question
is BILE parts of it seem for the sake of bre'
ces tv, to be cloaaed under a convene
on. 8 &c." such as $40. charge for extra So
of vice, $l55. to his son for clerk hi
So and $40, fer office rent. These item
$ of however, are mentioned in another p;
rge of the gentleman report, entirely d
lille connected from Mr. Watts receipt.
IN. though they: form part OF it. "
to does he not state all the items at I
by same time, if he state any, unless
90 so doing it would appear too plain
had that these questionable charges, inste
up of being presented and audited as til
,unt should have been, sought and obtain
re- the necessary amount of money to m
&c is them in an extended receipt of pill
.ure foreman. | can see no reason why In
ut.' receipts should be given ''to avoid
1t of inconvenience complained of.
100. Watts receipt covers three distinct tier
'ully his own pay-rolls. .Ir Skeen's pay-re
the and the account of c.. Swan, why
n,ed present each, and if The auditor was sa
re- fed they were all just, he would
re- questionably have issued the necess
RAUL warrants for the amount, and II he
Ga az, hoo, satisfied that narts of the