Quasqueton guardian. (Quasqueton, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1856-1858, 1857-07-25

davit to that effect. This is the evidence
we have to offer in reference TO these
charges, and we think it is sufficient. Mr.
CuM1Ns states that the Judge did try to
obtain control over the county funds, and
Mr. HASTINGS that he had such control,
and did make use Of the money.
The Judge does not deny the charge
of tyrannizing over the officers of the
county, but thinks it strange that the Off
GERS have never complained. They have
complained, sir. We have heard one of
the Prosecuting Attorneys of this coun-
ty complain, and we can also give you
the evidence that Mr.. HASTINGS has COM
planned, and that more than once, at your
course of refusing to pay for labor which
he had himself engaged in his office, and
then thrusting upon him other assistance
hired by yourself at double the same
price. We can prove from his own fam
lily that he has complained of you for
this and we also know that he excused
himself to us from doing thing that he
voluntarily expressed a wish to do-that
he had perfect right to do-that it was
his bounden duty to do-because you
were opposed to it, and it was necessary
to conciliate you, as you could throw
many obstacles in his path, if you cared
to dose. These are facts, sir, and though
placed here unsupported, we are willing
that the people shall decide the question
of veracity between us.
Judge RoszELL denies that he has ever
sold the county property to himself
Strictly, he has individually, he has.
For what else can we call the selling of
lots to Mr.. BREWER, and then having
them decided back again to himself on the
same day, and at precisely the same
price ? And does he ever remember of
having sold to Mr.. Curtis two lots be-
longing to the county, and of having
stated to him that he (the judge) could
not then make out deed, but that they
should be marked as sold to Mr.. CURTIS,
and that he would make him out deed
at any other time when called upon.--
And does he remember of telling Mr..
| CURTIS, when, short time after, he call
ed for the deed, that he (the judge) had
no such lots, that he had sold them, and
refused to give any satisfaction in regard
to them ? Does he remember this If
not, we rather think his memory requires
jogging. This fact, too, comes from
what we deem good authority, and we
think helps sustain our charges. But is
it not strange that Judge RoszELL, in all
| his private transactions with the county,
should entirely ignore the existence of a
Prosecuting Attorney, who the law
requires to act as Judge when thai Off
Ger is absent, or incapacitated through
private interest from acting, and that he
holds close business relation with him.
to act for him We find that he has in
variably pursued this course, even when
the Prosecuting Attorney had his office
In close proximity with his own, and
could be consulted without any trouble.
| The law, as we understand it, does not
leave it discretionary with him to call in
either the Prosecuting Attorney or Clerk,
but makes it incumbent upon him, in case
Of his own inability to act, through in
terest, to notify the Prosecuting Attorney,
and if that officer is also absent or inca
pacitated, then 10 call upon the clerk to
act. But it is well known that the Judge
seldom, if ever, has called upon the At
torney in these cases, but always upon
his business partner. And the fact that
he has decided the county property to
Mr.. BREWER, with the evident intention
of having it decided back to him again
which was done upon the same day, and
at the same price-proves conclusively
our charge that he has done business as
Judge in cases where the law makes him
incapable by reason of personal interest.
The next charge which the Judge no.
tees, he refers to as follows:
Next it is charged that have refused
fair remuneration for labor done in one
case, or in some cases, and have then pen
stoned off my friends, at exorbtant prices,
on the same labor. l have racked my
memory and imagination, and can extort
nothing which will aid me in discovering
to what this charge refers. and have con-
cluded that it refers to nothing at all"
The Judges memory is evidently a
one-sided affair, and as his Imagination
has never been prone to seek the highway
of truth, it is not to be wondered at that
he could discover nothing in this charge
But let us light up somewhat his dull
comprehension.
At the commencement Of Mr.. HASTINGS
term OF office. he found it necessary to