The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1858-05-28
ks4y" In the last Free Press, IL G. Clapp

to evado one of the distinct charges which
we have preferred against him, in swind-
ling the County while he was officiating
as Sheriff in 1858.
The charge il, that in Junc, 1853, he
presented bill to the Board of Super
visors for his services and expenses up to
that time in which he clajmed only $50, 33,
that the Board refused to allow al of
that sum; that, thereupon he withdrew
his claim, and in October following, pre-
scented claim for services ond expenses
Prett.us to tie first Of Juac, amounting to
$l28, Al, and got it allowed; being $50, IL
mere than he claimed in June for the
s,n,e period Cf time, and, Of course, for
the seme serrjceS. lie attempts to yindi-
cate himself from this charge by an ap-
peal to his =" Ledger" where he says he
finds that the Services rendered correspond
with the bill as presented in October, &c.
He says:
Now, for the benefit Of the Northc,mcr
"and his co-adjutors, | will say that by
looking at my ledger, page AL, | find
Z" the charges with day and date, that the
"serciccS renRercd correspond with the
"bill as presented at the October session,
thus proving that the editor has made a
false statement, and that tho charges
presented at the October session for the
"Serrices rcndercd were the same as those
"prcsented at the June session, or my
books must be false, which / believe no
oman who has ever dealt with me in this
"county has ever charged"
Notice particularly his language, "The
SERVICES RENDERED correspond with the
bill as presented IN OCTOBER" dec. "Tho
SERVICES RENDERED WERE TIE SAME AS
THOSE PRESENTED At TIE JUNE SEES
SON." &c.
This, sir, is precisely what we charged,
viz: that in October you presented your
bill Of Sl28, A, for the "Soote scrvtccS"
for which you claimed only 1898 in
June. Now, sir, this is the very thing
you ought to explain. Why you charged
only sS9,33 in June, and $685. in Oc-
tobcr, for The same Services. Did you not
refer to your Ledger in June? Or did
not :" page III then show just the same
amount for services previous to June, that
it did in October? How is this?
Again, the Doctor says:
But the .Northcrner says that my bill
"wss wihdrarn. Then would ask any
reasonable person how he or his inform
cant klclr the charges were higher al the
October session than at tho June SEES
"sion!"
We will tell you, sir, how we knew
this. But first we will state, that We had
no injormont in this matter except the
Jonraol of the Board of Supervisors and
the bill on file The Journal shows that
H. C. Clapp presented bill in June for
services and expenses as Sheriff. and al
though the bill itself was withdrawn, the
journal shows the dmDuRt of the bill a.
claimed at that time, and also the amoUnt
which the Board voted to allow. ItShows
the amount clajmcd to be $780, and
and that the vote was to allow, ssh 3D.
And the Bill, GAS presented at the Octo'
Der session" shows that he claimed SIPS
n, for services and expenses prccious to
the first of June.
Now, if--as the Doctor aliirms-ths
latter was for the "samc services az those
presented 1T the session III june then it
does not require much cgpbcring, or a
very great degree Of mental acuncn to
discover "that the charges were higher
at the October session than at the session
IN June" How could the whole amount
be 50 much higher for "d,c soo,c serrices y
without the cLo,ycs were higher! Can
YOU tell us, sir!
There is another choice bit of igJormo-
ion in Mr.. Clnrp's remarks which we
1lust not omit, as it may be, Of true,) of
rrcat benefit to our readers lie says;
d" In Court of Justice, the book (his
Ledyc,jJ would be taken before the oaM
ofa,1opr, and especially the Norhcracr's
informant
If he had not claimed 80 much f5r his
Lcdgcr-.--"bcfore the oath of any o"c'----
we should not have noticed the balance of
the remark. We believe it is the yulygr
opipiga that even the look Of origiHoI