Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1853-06-30


Elisha Cox, David Croker
z. Ill. Trufant, C. B. Lemont,
L. w. Houghton, F III. Morse,
Samuel Eames, John Larrabee.
1t will be observed that the above paper is
signed by majority of the members who were
present at that meeting and that the signers
are gentlemen who sustain high character
in our community for probity and intelligence.
| might here rest the case but to- avoid any
misapprehension hereafter, / proceed a little
farther. The closing paragraph Of Reporter is
so worded, as to lead any one not conversant
with the facts, to suppose that he was disin-
terested and impartial observer of the doings
of the Common Council and not most ex-
cited member of that body-one who has
strongly taken sides on the questions which
have agitated the Council.
The latter. however, is the truth in regard
to the person who avows himself 10 be your re-
porter and presume is no less true in regard
TO the real authors of those reports.
In making those remarks on the LIST instant,
the great point which made was that the pa.
pers had read were not the report of the fl
nance committee although they were signed
by the Mayor as Chairman Of that committee,
because they were not in accorC ance with the
instructions of the committee. Out Of that
has grown all this controversy and excited
feeling.
Now, I ask. was I right in taking that
ground! Sufficient evidence in favor of that
ground is afforded by the fact that after full
debate il has been decided in both branches of
the City Council that those papers toere not the
report Of the finance committee.
At the meeting of the Council on the 18th
instant, after l withdrew my decision of the
previous meeting, motion was made "that
the papers purporting to be report of the fl
-
mttee, &c." A motion was made TO amend
by striking out the words 'purporting to be a.
and the reasons urged in favor of tile amend
ment were, that it was casting slur upon the
Mayor to retain those words and that the pa
pers pere the report of the finance committee.
| In this debate your reporter warmly participant
| ed in favor of the amendment-but the Coun-
Gil by decisive vote rejected the amendment
and passed the original motion thus declaring
most clearly and uneqvivocally that those pa
pers were not the report of the finance commit
tee. and sustaining fully the position l had
taken upon that point
Those papers, with that endorsement, were
sent up to the Board Of Aldermen, and were
by them referred in concurrence; thereby af-
firming the decision of the Common Council
on the point at issue.
The Mayor, as Chairman Of the finance conf
mittce called meeting of the committee on
the next evening, 10th instant, which attend
ed with all the members of the committee who
were in town except the chairman, the pleas
ure of whose company we did not enjoy that
evening We agreed upon report, however,
which was made to the City Council the next
evening. and passed both branches without
dissenting voice. Thus ends this famous
port affair as far as the action Of the City
Council is concerned.
| wish to make this article as brief as posi-
BILE; but it is necessary TO touch upon few
more points in your reporters remarks In or
der that the public may fully understand all
the questions of Importance which are at ISSUE
In his third paragraph in relation to my re-
marks respecting the action of the Board of
Aldermen on the amendments made by the
Common Council, your Reporter says, "As l
may have occasion again to revert to this error.
| pass it with the single remark that the re-
port in question contains mo such endorse
ments." And in his next paragraph after the
one commencing Error No 4, he says, Il now
ask the public to decide, if any all of the in
accuracies which the President has discovered
viewed in their worst light equal to that
Of his already alluded to in relation to the
Board Of Aldermen" This, presume, is what
he refers to in his last paragraph but one, when
he charges me with shaving uttered that which
was untrue" Let US now see the full extent of
my awful guilt in this particular. The exact
words endorsed in that report are as follows
Common Council, May 18th.
Read and amended as on fly leaf.
Read as amended and passed. sent up for
concurrence. A. R. MITCHELL, Clerk.
In Board of Aldermen. May 18th.
Read and non-concurred and insist on for
mer vote. WM ToRREY, Clerk.
/ did not then think it necessary to parade
all of the above on paper, but expressed the
thing in as brief manner as possible; and l
now ask any candid man to judge whether the
expression used does not convey the same
idea as that above. II will be borne in mind
that the Common Council passed a number Of
amendments and sent up the papers to the AL
dermen, who read and non-concurred. Nom
concurred in whats In the amendments. and
nothing else for they had passed the report
without the amendment, and insisted on that
same vote. Did not my statement convey in
brief manner the idea which the whole en-
dorsement exhibits. viz that they passed upon
all the amendments ''in one fell swoop o.
Where now, is this prodigious error or false
hood, which according 10 your reporter, ex-
ceeds all his errors and misrepresentation COM
binedi
A few more words upon his errors. He as
sumes the position Of reporter, and gives as
reason tor SO dong that the publishers of our
city failed to consult their duty" They must
feel highly complimented; but that is their af-
fair, not mine. He assumes position and
processes to perform its duties. I assume no
such position, not believing myself qualified
Now when point out inaccuracies and per-
versions in his report, he replies by calling up
on the public to decide whether all those err
rors of his are equal to my remarks stated
above, which have shown gave the true sense
Verify. the gentleman must have an idea OF the
discrimination Of the public peculiar to him
SELF
But not content with rhisrepresenting me in
his report published June 9th, as the above dec
laration signed by majority clearly shows; he
comes out with new charges in your last num-
Der. He says of me " He does not deny that
he charged the Mayor with making false re-
port without the possibility of mistake " &C.,
SC. How could deny a charge that had new
er been mades Now that it is made, do deny
it. stated most unequivocalIy that from my
own knowledge the papers in hand were not
the Report Of the Finance Committee. Any in
ferences which he may draw from that the gen.
tleman is welcome TO-. I am satisfied in having
that position Of mine sustained not only by the |