New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-02-23
,oush signed in blank by the COMMISSIONER,

It appears further that the checks Of these issues
under ffty dollars were Cancelled at the bank at
the time of payment The larger checks, of fifty
and one hundred, were preserved entire and were
sent by the bark to the Canal Office, where they
were counted, invebtoried, packed IN box nailed
ND ard sealed, and sent back to the bank for SAT,
keeping. There this box rem,ined TIL in 1913
or ls49, Col Oakley, then Canal Trustee sent
for it and had it conveyed 10 the Canal once IN
Chicago. Here il remained tai 1903, when an
order came from Matteson, then Governor, to send
all the cancelled check, and certificates to Spring
field, to be deposited in the State Department.
This box was then in the Canal Office with its seals
unbroken. Upon the receipt of this order, it was
opened and the contents taken out, AID, along with
other cancelled evidences of State debt, they we're
packed, partly in trunk and partly in shoe box,
re,eaed. and directed to Gov. Mstteson at Spring
field. ard actually delivered into his custody.
Search having been made in the State Department,
the trunk described by the witnesses was found,
sealedup and utdisturbed but the shoe box does
not appear.
The case set up by Gov. Mstteson is this: That
he has been for some time past great buyer OF
State Indebtedness, and that be innocently bought
these checks at sundrS times of divers unknown
parties, who must have obtained them in some
fraudulent manner out of the missing shoe box, or
have received them from those who did. But
there are several very serious obstacles IN the way
of this theory. In the first place, so far as appears,
e1 Gov. Mstteson first became large purchaser
of State indebtedness in the Winter OF lS56-7-the
very tine, that is, when he began TO be in funds by
means of money obtained on these very checks.
In the second place, no other purchaser of State
Indebtedness ever happened to meet with any of
these checks.
In the third place, thirty of them have special
Endorsements on their backs, which render them
non-transferabe, and would have been quite
sufficient to put any purchaser on his guard sganst
them.
In the fourth place. hundred aud FIVE Of these
checks are not only unsrimmed and without the
name of any pyer, but they are regularly num-
bered in undisturbed succession, so az to lead
to the inevitable conclusion that they were handed
over in lump to be funded just as they were
takeh from the shoe box without ever circulating
at all.
1t would seem that as the case stands the ex-
Governor does not think he can hold on to the
$500, 600 and odd which he obtained! His couu-
sell it appears, have made proposition in his be-
half, that he shall furnish within thirty days Sc
curity for the repayment, within five years OF all
the money be has so used, the bonds lodged as So
curity for the issue of the ex.Govemor's bank to
be from time to time replaced BY other securities,
and as fast as they are withdrawn to be Cancelled
and destroyed.
If there is any truth in the testimony Of the Gov
ernors ssn.in.law put into the case that he makes
SlO6 600 year BY his business as a banker, we
should think that somewhat better terms might be
afforded, but we are afraid that these profits were
principally derived from the funding of canal
checks. Few will doubt upon the evidence that
ex. Governor MattesOn knows a great deal more
about the missing shoe box than anybody else. The
above-stated proposition of his looks are little too
much like asking for five years use of States
money, fraudulently obtained, and enjoyed for two
years past AS TO the bonds, the State already has
them, or the greater part in possession, but the
difficulty is that the Governor has doubtless issued
bank notes to their full amount, of which the hold
ers, if deprived Of the security of these bonds,
might find it difficult to obtain payment.
Ore might suppose that, instead of getting a
fye.years' credit on the money thu, obtained the
e1 Governor might Re called upon to answer to an
indictment for fraud and embezzlement, if not for
larceny, though, perhaps, in that case he
might set up that he had the box in his custody
as Governor, and in that even if he did help
himself to the contents, it was only breach Of
trust. The lawyers, doubtless, would further set
up, by way of answer to the charge Of larceny,
that as the checks had been paid, and were Of no
value, il was not stealing to take them.