Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1859-07-14

exposing what il is pleased to term "sem
'egregious errors" of the Auditor IN hi
Annual Exhibit. in regard to the indebted
ness and current expenses of the county
The article is mild and yeniiciaanly in tont
snj we intend our response shall be of tn.
same character. We take no exception e
ats calling IN question the statements o.
acts Of any public officcr;-that is a right
we have exercised whenever we thought il
cur duty to- do so, without regard to wha,
Insight he said OF ;hought by the off
Ger OF his political fricnls. and we freely
accord the same right to others
The Democrats article was evidently
written or dictated by the cx-Auitor. but
that IS OF little Consequences. only SO far
as it shows that his corns hal been trod
on. AM that he felt i: necessary to make
svlne explanation. The writer. whoever
nc may be. starts out with the assertion
that when the auditors report had sp-
rcased. hasty examination Convinced us
that II contained some GORGEOUS errors
IN the same paragraph he further remarks:
-r. We ito not wish TO be understood as
ccnsuring the Anlitor. aud charging him
with certifying to statements which lac did
not believe 10 be correct, but will explain
what We conceive To be the true canse,
which IS. that our -Au.liser is not infalli-
bic. and that there is still roo for him to
learn something IN regard TO county af-
tafss and the duties incumbent on him.
Whether the writer has succeeded in es-
tablishinS the fact that "our Auditor is
not insalliblc" orno., one thing is evident
lls showed beyond controversy that the
ex Aulitor was mot infallible," and that
although he was in office eight years
th1re was still room for him to learn
something in regard to county affairs" or.
that lac corruptly covered up the county in
icbtedness, in his last years Annual Ex-
liihit. for the purpose of dcceiving the peo-
pie. We do not charge corruption upon
che ex-Auditor, for 1--WE entertain none
but the kimlliest feelings toward him, but
no explanation Of the omission to report
he depreciation of the Rail Roal stock
crelited at the time it was purchased as so
much cash. or the sccruing interest on
that amount of outstanding Orders. is at
tempted. Why? Was 1t unintentional-
" overlooked? IF SO does it not demon
stgats that be. at least. lis not infalli5le"
sass that H. f,ilel during an experience of
eight years to learn some very plain Gu
ties connected with that Office? We know
tina. many are Of the opinion that tho ex-
Auditor was not ignorant Of the true state
of the county finances. but feared to make |
full exhibit of them lest the people. in |
whom MS party profess to have SO much |
confidence but never manifest any in prac-
tice. would call thenr toaccount for squan-
dering the county revenue upon few pets |
AMI favorites, to enable them to live high. |
rldc fast horses anil escort fancy ladies a.
bout the country, but VIC shall not attempt
any such imputation of his motives in the
case. We leave every one to draw his |
own differences.
The statement the writer makes in rela- |
tion to the library fund debt is very unsat-
isfactory. to say the least. anil shows con-
elusively that the duties Of the Office du-
ring the past administration were attended |
to In very loose manner, anil that
change of officers did no. take place soon
eaough by -four years at least for the well
fare of the county a further change next /
October viii demonstrate this. fact still /
clearer to the understanding of the people. |
we think. But. 10 return to the County |
Library de5t.. The writer in the Demo
Graf says: u
ia the next place we wonld remark in /
reference to the Library orler of $500,
that some of tho former county officers /
were of the opinion that as the order, or
'lraft. was not numbered. that it had not /
been reported in the annual exhibit, but by
examining the old receipt book. we find it
has nulnber. and has been reeeipted as /
other orders, and checked off. which is
primo faeis evidence that Il has been re-
ported."
"Prisra fac'e" signifies on the 6rst
face.-6rst view of an affair. but is never
considered conclusive or certain; the In
fersnes may or may not be trne. Howev-
or that may be in this case. the fact that
County Orders to the amount of So. 100
including the County Library Or,ler and
interest Oh all. arc known to be outstand-
ing IN tlse hau-ls Of only two persons. Is
prsns1 yscis evidence that If it ever was re-
porte.l in the annual exhibit it has either
boon since entirely overlooked. scciIeutal-
ly or .lesignedly. or that there has been a
big leak seraewhere. IL the writer is correct
in his statement that the county indebted
nssssis less than 81. 600. not inclnaing in
ierest on outstanding orders. Besides the
two persons refered to as having IN their
L. s<.rIs r go