The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-03-30
S29,SO2 50

As the real deficiency for the year, is shown
by Peck to have been S3i, $3.50, 1t Will be
observed that he iails.in the schedule OF amounts
raised to account for the mode in which II was
all obtained. The % ,302.S9 falls short by the
sum of So ,3C0.6l, and the discrepancy is not
accounted for by Mr.. Peck, other than by say
ing s.it must have all been raised in the same
way;" but his minutes do not give the specif.
cations. As deficiency is thus admitted and
proved 10 have existed the year preceding
Peck's open defalcation, II becomes mutter OF
no small Importance to the State, as well as to
the bondsmen Of the defaulter, to ascertain
VINO II LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE ron TIE De-
rIcIEScY OF 1858!
II is quite indisputable that all the money
raised by Peck to carry him over the critical
era at the close of 1883, was taken directly from
the Treasury in 1859 to discharge the obliga-
tons he incurred in securing the necessary
amount. This fact is very frankly admitted by
Peck himself, and is indeed too evident to re-
ouire demonstration or gument. IL Is clearly
manifest however, that IL Peck had not been
reelected To his post, he would have had no
opportunity TO seize the money for the pay ment
OF the notes which he had procured TO be dis.
counted and on which his nameas ID. ID. Peck
appears either rs maker or endorser The
State funds would therefore have been in no
danger from that quarter, and the settlement
of those notes would have beenA question
entirely between Peck, the parties who united
with him in making them, and the banks that
discounted them. His bondsmen OF 1898 could
not have been held on them, the State of course
had nothing TO do with them, and the transaction
would have been treated rs u personal and not
public matter.
In regard 10 the official checks, however on
which he raised the sum OF $40, 200, the Com-
mittee apprehend that the case would have
been entirely different. These checks were
drawn by "B. ID. Peck. Treasurer, on the
State funds nj the Suffolk Bank they were
taken from Peek by various banks in the State,
ON the very last days of December so late in
deed, that 1t was impossible for the checks to
reach the Suffolk until the LIST or 2d ofJanuary,
even il there was M understanding with the
Banks To hold them back a few days which there
might have been. AS the States account with
the Suffolk was balanced up to December 81,
AMI an abstract thereof sent to the treasury
Othce, 1t Is quite evident that these checks could
not reach there IN season tn be reckoned in the
account oflS5S, but ifthey went there Mt all
were necessarily carried over to the account of
1859. Thus Peck succeeded in having the avails
of these checks carried to his credit in ls5s, at
the banks where they were discounted, while
he prevented them being charged against him
at the Suffolk IL they were charged there nj
all. utllll 1915. IL Hu'N PsSS'sSsNf
that the checks may never have been set TO
the Suffolk at all, as by an arrangement to
have them held over, Mr.. Peck could re-
turn the sums advanced on them, MS
soon as he was fairly installed for his new
term. However this point may have been,
II Is quite apparent that the dishonest but IN
penious device. enabled Peck to obtain false
credit ON the Treasury books. to the full amount
of the SIC, 200, and to obtain 1t too, by mort
gaging the funds of the State. These checks,
of course, would have been paid when pre-
sen,ed, and that too, without regard to whether
peck was reelected or not. The money was
therefore. lost 10 the State, by the act OF Peck,
I'm ISIS. and in this respect the case OF the
checks differs essentially from that OF the notes;
for had Peck gone out Of Office, OF the close OF
his second wear. the State could not possibly
have lost one dollar on the latter. The avails
Of the notes were actually paid into the Trasu-
~ without the State being pledged or any OF
its funds frandulently mortgaged for repay
ment, as in case of the checks. SO far ms the
note. are concerned, therefore, 1t was by his
action IN 1888, that the State was defrauded OF
Their amount, and by such action rs could only
or for 1889.
The town taxes received by Peck In 1858, and
withheld from entry at the Treasury Office,
constituted q fraud upon the State Of precisely
. the same kind praetiscd In the case OF the
checks. The town collectors having the
Treasurcr's receipt, could not, Of course, be
called on to pay these taxes again the bond