Quasqueton guardian. (Quasqueton, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1856-1858, 1857-08-08
PERSONAL.

PERSONAL.
~ Our readers will remember that
two weeks since, in giving evidences to
support charge we had made against
Mr.. RoszELL we offered the following as
evidence upon charge that the Judge
had tried to obtain control over the coun :
ty monies
''Some two months, at least ago, in
the course of conversation upon coun-
ty matters, with Mr.. G. l. CuMMINs, for
mer Treasurer of this county, man
whose character is as fair, to say the least,
as is Judge RoszELL's, and whose verac-
ity is as unquestionable-he made the
remark to us that he had but little to say
against Judge RoszELL The Judge
and [, said Mr.. CUMMINs, got along
pretty well. the only difficulty we had
being in reference 10 the county money,
the Judge wishing it kept in his Office
But, as he had no right to it, and | alone
was responsible for it, | of course re-
fused
That this was the substance of what
Mr.. CUMMINs told us, and as near as pos
sible the language used by him upon this
occasion, We never for moment doubt
ed. We were, then, somewhat surprised
when Mr.. CuMM1Ns came to us last week
and said that we had Inexperienced
him. He showed us Judge RoszELL's
letter, and stated the facts to be as we
gave them last week, which amount to
simply this: That when he stated that
the Judge wished to keep the county
money, he did not mean that he wished
to keep it in his Office but that he wished
to keep a portion Of it, at least, in his
pocket, and the only mistake we had
made, and the only injustice of which
we bad been guilty, was in placing a
too mild and favorable construction upon
his language. To use his own language,
A" What l have said before, and what
probably told you, was that Judge Ros-
zELL had sold county property, and done
other county business. and would keep
the money derived therefrom for weeks
and months before paying it to the Urea
surer, though he was not responsible for
it and was"
Believing, as We did, that Mr.. Cum
MINIS was man of veracity, and feeling
conscious that there was similarity
enough in the two statements to convince
any man that we were, at most, only mis-
taken, we told Mr.. CuMMINs that we
hoped he would answer the Judges let
ter, and that we should also correct the
statement, which we did. AS this was
on Monday, and the Civilian of the fol-
lowing Thursday contained no reply to
our article, we supposed that Mr.. Cum
MINIS had done us justice as well as the
Judge, and that Tie latter, finding the
correction even less favorable to him than
the former charge, had prudently with
held it. Jud gre, then, of our surprise,
when on Saturday afternoon the Extra"
of the Ciuilian was put into our hands,
containing Mr.. CuMMISs' reply. in which
it was plainly evident he intended to
charge us with an unqualified and DELHI
crate lie. No one who reads his letter
would suppose for a moment, that but a
short time before inditing it, he had
proffered the explanation we have given
above, containing the substance if not the
form, of our first assertion. Not man
who saw that letter could avoid the con-
cluson that Mr.. CUMMINs intended to say
that we were guilty of base lie. That
this was the general conclusion we have
had reason to know, and we therefore are
compelled in justice to ourselves to bring
this matter forward again, and clear our
character from an imputation which
above all others we dcspise. Mr.. Cum
MINIS letter is as follows
MoUNT SUMNER,
Buchanan County, Iowa,
Julv ooh 1877