Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1860-10-04
From the Ohio Democrat.
HELMICk'S DEFENCE.
"YOu Scratch My Back and I'll Your
Elbow Claw"

and other partners and parties in the Ed
wards claim, in violation OF the fule OF
law that parties to the crime are incom-
petent wituesses.--The port story.
Helmicll has made his defence in the
Coshocton Age in an s column communi-
cuton-and upon through investigation
of the charge and defence, the charge of
Helmick's connection with the Edwards
Plunder Bill is clearly established.
1st BY the public records at Wash
ington, which show that in 1854 Capt.
Edwards and associates only claimed
S25, so of the Post Office Department,
for the identical service for which Hell
mick, Mcllvaine & Co., as the friends of
Edwards d. Co., afterwards claimed $50, =
405 %, and that the Post Office Depart
ment refused to give them one cent.
I'd. By the Record of tho Court of
Claims, which show that in June, 1855,
Capt. Edwards and his associates sued in
said court, claiming Judgment for $780,
OOO, for the same service for which the
claimants in 1854 only asked S25, $50,
(nearly doubling their demand between
1854 and 1855, and that upon fyl hear
ing of the case the court decided against
the claim refusing to give a cent.
3D.. By the records of Congress which
show that Bill Helmick, as a member OF
the Committee on Post Office and Post
Roads reported in favor of the Bill "for
the relief Of Arthur Edwards and his as
sociates," by which said Edwards and his
associates were to receive said $50, ,405 13
that said Bill passed both Houses
that Helmick voted for the bill.
4th. BY the veto message of President
Buchanan, which shows up the iniquity
of Helmick's plumber bill, and riddles the
fraud fore and aft.
5th. By the letter of Hon. VIM. Smith
of Virginia, written by request Of Hell
mick, in answer to a letter from IIelmick
to Smith, which shows that lIelmick in
Washington represented to Smith that
the amount paid under the bill if it became
n law would not exceed twentyeight
hundred dollars, when lIemcll at the
same time knew the amount would exceed
eighty thousand dollars, and that Smith
oppose the bill if it did not exceed TWEEN
ty-eight hundred dollars.
9th. BY the crushing fact acknowl
edged by McIlvaine's letter in the Coshoc-
ton Age, that when Capt. Edwards want
ed II lawyer-not one of the two hundred
lawyers of Washington City would an
swer the purpose-not one of the thou
IL a.
Washington City to Capt. Edwards
home would answer the purpose-not one
Of the two hundred lawyers located at the
very points where the service is alleged
to have been performed would answer the
purpose, but Geo. w. Mcllvane, the
townsman, former aw-partner, political
supporter and conscience keeper of VIM.
Ilelmick the member Of Congress who re-
ported in favor Of tho Edwards claim,
did answer tho purpose.
7th. By the overwhelming fact that
the bill vetoed by the President shows
that there was no earth y use of lawyer
at all because by that bill the Postmas-
ter General is directed to "audit and set
tie the account of Arthur Edwards and
his associates" without taking any evil
dcnco for or against it--without esta blsh-
! ing the Justice of the claim-without
proving that dimes worth of service
was ever performed by Edwards & Co.,
because it was by the subsequent or
last bill that the taking of proof and the
establishing the amount of service became
necessary. What, then, was Mcllvaine
employed for?
Srh, By the unanswcrable fact that by
the first bill vetoed by the President, 9Th,
Postmaster General is directed to audit
and settle the accounts of Arthur Ed
wards and his associates for transporting
the mails" DC. thereby leaving the Post
master General no discretion to reec,
any part of said claim which he may
know to be fraudulent, but directing him
to audit. settle and pay the whole amount
claimed, that is $50 900 without requir
ing the claim to be established by proof
whereas by tho second bill or resolution
"the Postmaster General is directed t
examine and adjust the claim of Arthur
Edwards and his associates and to pay
such sum of money as shall be found tC
be equitably due them, &c. Now. the
difference between the vetoed bill and tn,
subsequent bill is this, that by the vetoel
bill Edwards q Co, would without proc
get $50, 900, and by the last bill or reso
luton Edwards q Co, would not get ex
cceding $4,000 with proof. and mos
probably not one cent.
9th. BY the black fact that Helmicl,
when called upon by his friends to defend
himself, muSters up the following list Of
parties for witnesses.
Captain Edwards, principal claimant
George w. McIlvaine, Attorney fol
Edwards and Keeper Of lIelmick's con.
science.
l.. A. Price, captain of Edwards Il Co.'S
boat Suutaerner,
A. S. johnson, clerk of Edwards q
Co.'S steamboat Baltimore.
S, II, Atwood, Master of Edwards &
| Co.'S steamboat Arrow.
George ID. BaptiSte, employee of Ed
wards d. Co., on boat Arrow
The above list of witnesses reminds MS
of a case tried in one of the courts of Hi
nois, whore a prisoner was put on trial
for stealing pork. The proof was over
whelming against the priSoner--th charge
OF the Judge severe. The prisoners law
yer was about to give up the case, wher
! Il. \ \ L. i