The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-03-16

The dates of these notes, according to the
concurrent testimony of Peck and Somes, does
not represent the times ut which the loans were
actually contracted. Somes says in his tcst.-
mony before the Committee:
81 got considerable Of the money in the
winter of 1858, and afterwards renewed the
notes. Some Of them were renewed the last OF
September, but dated back ofthat date but for
ward of the old ones. Some of them had been
renewed and some of them had been matured a
long time. think had $500 Of him about
the last of September. The last money / had
before that was in May or June, 1853.
did not give notes to Peck or assist him in
raising money during the latter part Of 1857, or
pay him any except what owed him. settled
with Peck and paid him up either just before
or Just after the close of the year 1857"
The last portion of the statement just quoted,
conflicts in some degree, with ,he testimony of
Peck already given. The morning after Mr..
Somcs gave the testimony just quoted, he
again appeared before the Committee, and
made revised and condensed statement Of
certain points, in the following language:
81 made all these notes the latter part OF
September-on the day the note for $4,000 ut
Atlanti, Bank was dated--or all except those
dated April 20. Mr.. Peck said to me in 1857,
it had been customary for the bondsmen to
have use OF State money without interest, and
that he should let other bondsmen have money:
| asked him II that would be legal. l had
$4,000 of him in bills, AFTER that conversation,
for which gave note, but think paid him in
terest. Am not aware this $4,000 belonged to
the State Treasury. / now remember that i'm
mediatcly after his election, the question came
up between me and Peck, whether he could lend
money to his bondsmen. Weexamined the law,
and Peck concluded that IL he could not loan
the money, he could deposit the money In
banks, and get his private paper discounted at
per cent. and loan it for larger interest.
generally paid him something more than per
cent"
II would seem from this statement, to give 1t
the most charitable construction possible, that
Mr.. Somes and Mr.. Peck had consultation,
and examined the the statutes to see by what
artful dodge the obvious requirements of the
law could be eyaded. Mr.. Somes therefore
maintained in his testimony that he always
supposed when Mr.. Peck loaned HIM money,
that II was obtained by discounting his own
note with Is. ID. Peck's endorsement, in such
banks as were favored with State deposits
Granting this to be true when the notes were
first given, IL is obvious according to the adj
missions OF Mr.. Somes that his renewed notes
were given after the originals had matured and
been paid BY Peck, and that it was quite mani
fest these notes must have been paid by State
money. Mr.. Peck says the money paid to
Somes on the original notes Sas State funds In
many instances, though Somes did not himself
draw them from bank with an official check. Peck
himself, in m ost instances, handed the money
directly to Somes. This point, however, Is
quite immaterial, inasmuch rs the Committee
can but conclude that Mr.. Somes, when he re-
ncwed his notes in September, knew positively
and perfectly that the previous notes had been
paid with State funds. Any other suppostion
would attribute to Mr.. Somes lack OF the
most ordinary intelligence, and would involve
as fat an absurdity rs the assumed ignorance
of the Canada spectators on the same point.
The Committee do not intend to charge Mr..
Somes with having obtained the money without
intention to repay 1t. They only aver that he
was the borrower of State funds from Is. ID.
Peck and that Ne sum has not been repaid. In
the month of October, 1853, Mr.. Somes failed
In his business and is understood to be hopeless
liz insolyent. When the crisis arrived, he seems
TO have made some feeble effort to protect Peck
by mortgage of some property to secure the
payment of the notes held by, him, and Peck
supposed for time that he was secured, in
part, IL not altogether. The security, however,
proved to be ola mere paper character, mas
much as previous mortgages, given to other
absorbed all the ayails ofthe proper
~ exhibited by Somcs.
The Committee questioned Mr.. Somes very
closely rs to whether he had used any Of the
money borrowed from Peck for political uses.
His denial OF any such use Of the money was
emphatic and comprehensive.