The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-03-30
Sl6.s6OOO

The committee have Deen unaOe W gam aly
information Of a definite character that would
tend 10 dsproye any of Mr.. Peck's statements
touching the amount OF money raised by him
as Treasurer, aside from the actual and known
deficit ON the Books of the Office. The protests
for non-payment Of his obligations rs Treasur-
err, that have fallen into the hands of the CON-
mittec, amount to Si9,63il2, whereas Mr..
Peck's voluntary statements cover sum near
liz twice as great--S35. 07S %. There Is, il is
true, q serious discrepancy between Peek,
Leayitt. and Smith, in regard to the amount
actually realized by Peck from the checks in
Norombega, and the committee have thought
IL best not To attempt decision upon the in-
teresting point OF yeracity between the parties,
but to give each the benefit of his own state
ment, In ITS place.
With regard to the use made OF this large
sum Of money by Mr.. Peck, the committee
have to say that il is not accounted for At all to
their satisfaction. The disbursements foot up
Sq23 "a less than the Acknowledged receipts,
and there are some large "lumpings " under
the expenses of the different years, which the
Committee would have been glad to see reduced
To more precise specifications. From the care
less aud reckless manner in which MIR. Peck has
been conducting his business, il is perhaps
difficult for him TO do more than give tolera-
bic guess" at some items of his expenditure,
and rs the Committee had no mode, either OF
certifying or disproying the exhibit he made,
they simply accept il as his own showing, and
let II 20 on its merits as such.
The reason assigned by Peck for charging the
Dow loan Of Sill 800 among the disbursements,
and not entering the avails OF the notes, endOrs-
sd by Dow, among his receipts, Is that Dow has
his (Pcck's) property in his hands to nearly
the amount of those notes, and that he will let
these facts Offset each other; inasmuch rs he
alleges that Dow has no claim on the property
in his hands, except as consideration for those
notes.-the paper which he originally guaran-
tied having been otherwise provided for. IL
will be observed, however, even admitting the
justice of the position of Peck, that the pro-
ceeds OF those notes, since paid by MIR. Dow,
were considerably more than the property in
Dow's hands, even according to the appraisal
Of Peck. The notes were given FOR sic. sos,
and Peck realized from them, he says, the net
sum of SIC, 500, whereas he values the schedule
of property in BOWS hands at S9,0ei. leaving
thus on his own basis of reckoning some ST.
Az wholly unaccounted for.
But II will be observed that while Peck Loan
ed the "sii 500" TO Dow, he received back
$40, sos as the avails Of the notes endorsed by
Dow, and since paid by him, and that the prop
erty in Dow's hands which he exhibited as an
Offset, was either owned by him before he was
elected Treasurer, or IL since acquired, is in
cluded in the schedule of" disbursements F" al
ready given; 50 that the SIC, sos must be add
ed to the amount received by him, thus increas-
ING the gross ss1n to Si40, SOS -, and leaving
unaccounted Tor in his disbursements the sum
or Sill ,4296t.
Il Is proper to state that after Peck made his
exhibit Of I" Receipts and Disbursements" he
acknowledged to the Committee that he had
paid one demand of $500. one note OF s333.
and still larger debt Of 50 500, not included
therein. lie said that these sums had all been
paid from his private means, obtained from the
dues on his newspaper establishment, sold AZ
the time he was Treasurer. The COMMITTEES
have satisfactory proof, however. that one of
these demands at least, 1.-THE irst mentioned, y
Was paid by an official check; as to how the
others were paid they have no evidence what
ever.
The Committee Intercepted Peck rs to the
amount of money still ut his command, and his
uniform assertion was. that he had not more
than $500 In the world. No evidence to the
contrary came before the committee, nor were
the committee able TO ascertain what became of
the amount unaccounted for by Peck.
With these convictions. and with renewed
expression Of disappointment that Mr.. Peck
could not have been more specific in the ac-
count Of his disbursements. the Committee pro
coed to examine 1888
TIE DEFICIT OF 1855.
Mr.. Peck furnishes the following schedule Of
his OUTLAWS in 1855, for which he drew on the