The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-03-23

When the Portland bondsmen received the
dispatch In regard to the safe, II appears In
evidence OF Messrs. Dow and Slackpole, that
these gentlemen accompanied cy spihcient
force Of men and team, went III the evening
10 Mr.. Peck's residence and removed the safe
arainst the earnest protest Of his wife-she
declaring that Mr.. Peck had written her that
no one must have access TO 1t. .Messrs. Dow
and Stackpole had, however, rs they aver,
consulted eminent counsel, (Hessrs. John Rand
and Edward Fox,) and they felt justified in
seizing the saf,n ON the ground that il contained
papers of pos ~ great value to the bondsmen
and which thoA engaged with Mr.. Peck in his
improper speculations might seize and misap-
propriate. Under these circumstances the
safe was removed and placed that night in the
ROOM of the Merchants Bank, and afterwards
taken TO the Manufacturers & Traders Bank.
The safe had been transferred from Peck to
Dow, by bill of sale. with other furniture, and
was afterwards transferred by Dow 10 that
bank. Mr.. Stackpole declares that he did not
see the safe opened until he did IL himself in
presence of the Legistiye Committee, (see page
AZ and has no reason 10 believe that any one
had access TO II between the time when Shirley
opened il and when he himself removed the pa
pers under proper authority. Mr.. Stackpole's
testimony on this point is Of course negative,
except rs refers 10 himself These facts, to-
gether with those detailed on the first few
pages of the Report, contain every noteworthy
circumstance connected with the removal Oi
the safe and the taking of papers therefrom.
Mr., Dow in his testimony before the Com-
mittee affirmed and repeated, that when he
endorsed the notes for Peck to the amount Oh
$40, SOP, IL was clearly understood that the
money 10 be obtained thus was tor Treasury
purposes, AMI that Peck SO stated without
qualification. Furthermore, that the paper he
gave to Peek was simply an acknowledgement
of his obligation to pay the notes, and stating
that If Peck paid the notes at maturity me
(Dow) would still be his debtor TO the full
amount borrowed OF him, .Nr. Dow further
stated that he had destroyed this paper-re-
moved from Peck's safe by Shrley-and that
his motives in so doing was "that he did not
desire his name to be mixed up in any way with
the natter" Mfr. Dow's own language ON
some ofthe points just referred to, was as
follows:
"Mr. Peek assured me at the time, and has
assured me since, that all the money received
ON these notes went into the Treasury. The
memoranda taken from Mr.. Peck's safe by Mr..
Shirley were Acknowledgements ofmy obliga-
tions 10 pay the notes 10 which | have referred,
and were yalueless against me, when / had dis
charged the obligations thus imposed. could
have paid the money just as well as given the
endorsements. but Mr.. Peck preferred the en-
dorsements. / knew nothing OF 1t
when the memoranda were taken from the safe
BY Shirley. told Peck wanted these memo
randa before he went to Bangor, and after
wards Shirley told me Peck had requested him
TO get them for me. should think had
not paid any OF my endorsements for the Sl0,-
sos when destroyed the memoranda"
Peck's contradiction of Shirlcy's statement
In the above paragraph has already been given.
He also fatty denies that he expressed prefer
ence for the endorsements, but that he really
asked for the cash, and Mr.. Dow could not
raise il, and that then he took his
as the next best thing.
Amer Mr.. Peck's dedication becaUc recog-
nized fact. and after Mr.. Dow had destroyed,
az he admits, the memoranda Ofhis indebted
ness, he proceeded To pay the notes on which
he was endOrser, amounting in the gross to the
sum OF Sl0,SO5. He did not wait for the ma
turity Of any Ofthesc notes, but anticipated
them all, and took them up during the month
of January. AS the sum total of these notes
did not equal the amount OF State funds he had
borrowed from Peck, viz, Sll 800, Mr., Dow
early in the month of Eebuary paid the differ
cnce, S695, into the Treasury. Even grant
ing that the avails of the notes had gone into
the Treasury, and that the States money was
thus properly restored. Mr. Dow does not seem
in this calculation, to have taken into account
that the discount on the notes must have been
and that less than their face was re-
allied upon them when they were first disposed
ofby Peck. This discount, according TO Peck,
at the rates the notes were disposed of, amount-
ell in the aggregate to S2o9, and this sum, ey.
Gu conceding the correctness ofthc hypothesis
on which aIr. Dow acted, would obviously be
due from him.
The Committee, however, could not admit
that this mode of payment TO the State was in
any respect proper or satisfactory. There was
no evidence before the Committec to show that
the ayails of the notes hal ever gone to the
benefit of the State. Two OF the notes, amount-
inc to s., 600, were purchased by |. II. Far
rington OF Portland, and the proceeds, so far
as the evidence shows, applied by Peek TO the
payment of other paper which was thea COM
Ing upon him most rapidly. Another of the
notes for 2,s05 was given to llinckley X Eg-
cry of Bangor, for machinery furnished To the
Canada mill. The fourth note, for $1,000, was
discounted ut the Market Bank, Bangor, and
the proceeds carried to the credit of the State
ON the bank books; though Peek, ut the time,
told the president of the bank that he wished
il so credited because he was about TO take n
similar amount State funds from Portland
Bank for the purpose oftransmitting it to Can
ada, and that the note was really discounted
for the benefit ofthe Canada concern.
Under these circumstances, the Committee
have been forced to conclude that the pay
ment Of these Peek notes by Mr.. Dow, can
not be regarded as tho payment to the State
Of the money borrowed from the Treasury
The loan was an improper and Illegal one in
any aspect, rs Mr.. Dow and Mr.. Peck must
both have known, and no subsequent barter Of
notes could in any way be considered as an
equivalent TO the State-and least of all when
the weight of evidence touching the proceeds
of these notes goes 10 show that the Treasur-
er did not apply them to public use. The
Committee, therefore, have concluded that
the whole sum of Sll.500 is due from Mr.
Dow TO the State, ard they have TO report
tina, he has paid $500 OF it into the Treas
ury, as will be seen by the following letter
TO the committee:
STATE OF MAINE.
TREAsURER's OFFICE,
Augusta, March 3, 1860.
To ns Investigating Comaittee:
GEXrLENEN Meal Dow. Esq, has paid in
90 the State Treasury. $685. in money, and has
deposited TO my credit in Portland, the sum Of
n, sos which sums are credited on the books Of
this office TO deficiency account of b. ID. Peek,
late Treasurer.
Youfs Respectfully.
NATHAN DANE, Treasurer.
by WM. CALDWELL.
Mr.. BOWS reason for not paying the whole
Sill 500 is that he conside's the avails OF the
50, 900 note, on which he was endorser, and
which he has since paid, as a fair credit TO him.
as the sum was carried TO the credit
Of the State in the Market Bank, Bangor. where
the note was discounted. The Committee
deem il proper to lie, Mr.. Dow define his own
position on this point, and accordingly insert
a letter which he addressed to the Committee: |
PORTLAND. March 2, 1860.
Hon. JOSIAH III. DRuNaoSD, Chairman, &C.,
AS YOU are aware, Mr. Peck. the late Treasur-
er Of State deposited in my hands the sum Of
ST. 900. In payment Of this amount. at his re-
nnest i cnhnrsnd his notes frnm time 10 time