The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1859-04-26

"~ % bring political questions 70 tue A,su
rop' 900 do not propose to analyze
ssa'e character of parties. To do so is
SspS ,..se, and the gentleman who has just
h. right to do as he pleases' but l SEQ
Co., - for following his example.
s.s.oes appear to think that it is matter
,.. TIA. you should consider as incontro-
,,o,sd, al which Bailey, Whitney,
's'Ds 49,. and wiswell have sworn to. Such is
I'0 YOU are expected to weigh and sift !
90 ,..,iuOny, and make it stand to the circam-
ns. .. of the case, which cannot and do not lie' |
NV, pecL's account is to be believed he I'm
y. binding Of the laws on the 18th OF May,
s In eleven days more, his account would
'' loved by the Board, There is no proof
~, .lip receipt was given. Upon the face
a] .rovance. there is evidence enough that
~ this claim and allowance Of May
- IA had i. in his hands. He went before
D., nth IL. Mr.. Peck writes 10 Nerri-
y. Ian e2d, 1856, that if the proof had
a'' s,r,a the reply in the newspaper should
.,,e distinct ard explicit Mr.. Peck writes,
=. ,b,, he himself had drawn the money before
n.-.,ce was made. We therefore bring
:, Peck these two facts-that he male out
-, ,,sss accounts, and that he got the money
80. them. There is not word of proof that
a.d,es or anybody else, had been there to pre-
..count.. or to ret money. Mr.. Peck did
=. ,bo,e Of this business. IL was the only ac-
..,,, If Mr.. Peek with the Board in May
- uo,,ths afterwards on the 18th Of Aug,
God Mr. Peck carried before the Board Of
..s;,ocs claims amounting to s2,iI2 sc, in
-r.s amour, was included the $3.50 allowed
u.vIs. These claims having been allowed, Mr..
D. carries them 10 them TO the Treasury and
,,s.eo,s them to Mr.. Bailey. He went also and
,,,,,b, his book; and what sort Of a thing was
~, hook, Why did no; Mr.. Bailey look at it
r.. syures were there, both debt and credit, and
n, did not Bailey lock at the book and ask
Peel why did the $40 come again before the
Rosrd BY Peck's instrumentality- This whole
,,o,, i. improbable and incredible. The story
# Bailey is improbable for another reason. Mr..
R,iley charged the State with the entire OF the
.uoxanee of the Board, without deducting the
AKA although he saws that Peck did not take
the $3.50. Did he do 40 to get the money into
hi. own pocket? If 80, what is his testimony
rood for. He impeachcs himself, and ought nos
10 be believed.
II this transaction had been a. Bailey stated,
,hy did he not make memorandum, To show that
the 1850 had been paid. lie did not DO 80, but
CHARGED the State with the whole amount. T..
n. Whitney was a singular witness. He changed
color like kaleidoscope. You all saw his agits-
ted manner-his change of color and nervous
agitation. lie swore 10 conversation years ago
with this precious Mr.. Bailey, and made two
searches for slip receipt, covering this same
As0. He swears also TO matters OF great par
tcularity, of great minuteness-so great ~ to
make me believe that he has contrived the whole
story. No nan can recollect things for years As
he has stated .hem There is no 50 great proof
Of continuance, as the minuteDess OF the story
told by the contrivcr From 1883 to 1856 he
carries these facts in his breast, and all o! sud
den, suddenly recoIlec:s the whole circumstances
but he could not name man, woman, or child tc
whom he told the facts | believe the whole o
whtney's testimony, to be fabrication entirely
Mr.. Bailey does not recollect looking into III,
ledger
W,.u-aM v.onnarss thlnu- Ill,
recoects almost everything which his friends
told him. DO not believe he was present a
any such interview. do not believe any sucl
interview took place. The whole testimony is
fabrication, in my belief.
The witness Mead pre;ends tha, he saw tai
famous receipt on the ledger, in 1853, two year
and more before its pretended discovery b
Thompson. Here then again was great and SUI
picious Particularly. He could almost recOllec
the exact day when he read Il receipt which di
not concern him, after lapse of more THIN tw
years. He went with Thompson. in Januar!
1856, he went TO seach the book, and found III
receipt Mead had had the book in his hands hs
time for years, vet he was set to search wit
Thompson, and when they found it, they had
celebration. Thompson was happy-elevated-
gorgeous-but Mead was silent. These t7
Witnesses differ essentially az to the position
the receipt.
Mr.. Peck, upon being informed OF the receiE
treats it as a slip receipt instead Of such All o
as they now pretend it was. If the jury do n
believe that the receipt in question existed
the 10th of August, 1883, you must find for
people, as hard and severe a. that verdict N
be on Bailey, and he viii be in fact found su
Of a foul and wicked continuance. The TAXI
of, and FASTING or pining on the receipt up
the book, is suspicious. The misprinting Of t
receipt in the Journal is another suspicious c
cumstance. Up to the time when Peek Cal
home, the whole theory of his defence consist
in his having given a slip receipt to Mr.. Bale,
Mr.. Peck has demanded this investigate
and i, is important that it should be full a
thorough. II is due As well TO the State as
the defendant, tina, the whole truth should
elected, and fair ard just verdict given.
this investigation Mr. Peck has friends-ws
political and personal friends He may hs
had around him some who are not scrupuous
Who having concocted extrajudicial atfdavits a
sworn to them, have now come here to swt
the same thing through jury of lngham coun
Thompson carried the book TO Jones, with
receipt strongly wafered to it, as they prefer
bur Col. Jones swears sclemnly that no rece
vas wafered to the book II Mr. Thompson !
amotve in convincing Col. Jones, he had OF