The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-03-23
[ED1ToR AND PROPRIETOR.
NUMBER 10.

the last OF September. The last money I had
before that was In May or June, 1883. .
I did not give notes to Peck or Assist him In
raising Money during the latter part Of 1887. or
with Peck and paid him mp 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 aftsr Mr..
Somes gave the testimony Just quoted, he
again appeared before the Committee, and
made o revised and condensed statement OF
UI made all these notes tho latter part OF
September-on the day the note for $4,000 ut
Atisnti, Bank Was dated-or ell except those
dated April 20. Mr.. Peck said to me In 1887.
ithad been customary for tho bondsmcn to
have use or State money without interest, and
that he should let other bondsmen have money:
I asked him II that would be legal. had
$4,000 Of him In bills, afler that conversation,
for which gave note, but think paid him IN
the State Treasury. now remember that I'm
I mediately after his election, the question csme
up between me and Peck, whether be could lend
money to his bondsmen. weexamined the law,
and Peck concluded that II he could not loan
thcLmoney, he could deposit the money In
banks. and get his private paper discounted at
per cent. and loan II for larger interest.
cent" :.
Il would seem from this statement, to give Il
the most charitable construction possible, that
Mr.. Somes and Mr.. Peck had . consultation,
and examined the the statutes to sec by what
artful dodge the obvious requirements OF the
law could be eyaded. Mr.. Somes therefore
supposed when Mr.. Peck loaned HIM money,
that Il was obtained by discounting his own
note with b. d. Peck's endorsement, In such
banks as were favored with State deposits.-
Grnntng this to be true when the notes wero
first given, II Is obvious according to tho ad-
missions OF Mr.. Somes that his renewed notes
were given after the originals had maturcd and
been paid by Peck, and that Il was quite mani
fest these notes must have been paid by State
money. Mr.. Peck says tho money paid to
Somes on the original notes ~as State funds In
many instances, though Somes did not himself
draw themfrom bank with an official check. Peck
himself, In most Instances, handed the money
directly to Somes. This point, however, is
quite immatcrial, inasmuch as the Committee
can but conclude that Mr.. Somes, when he re-
and perfectly that the previous notes had been
paid with State funds. Any other supposition
would attribute TO Mr.. Somes o lack Of tho
most ordinary intelligence, and would involve
as fiat IN 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 T. they only aver rem that 10
Peck and that the sum has not been repaid. In
the month of October, 1883, Mr.. Somes failed
in his business and Is understood to be hopeless
iy insolyent. When the crisis arrived, he seems
10 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
A. sl.N L.. tss
part, II not altogether. The security, however.
proved to be ofa nero paper character, inas-
much as previous mortgages, given to other
creditors, absorbed all the ayails ofthc proper
ty exhibited by Somes.
The Committee questioned Mr.. Somes very
closely rs TO whether he had used any OF the
money borrowed from Peck for political uses.
Ills denial OF any such use OF tho money was
! emphatic and comprehensive.
Neal Dow was one Of Mr.. Peck's bOndsmen
during tho three years that the latter was
Treasurer. As soon as Mr. Peck was installed
In Office, Mr.. Dow says In his testimony, that
he learned OF his intention to loan the State
funds with o view to his private cmolument,
and lie at once cautioned him on the subject,
and earnestly enjoined him II he loaned the
money Mt all, !" 10 let no one have II except on
such security rs would command ITS return in
an hour when called for" Mr.. Dow consider.
ed loans to himself TO be of this safe character.
and accordingly In April, 1887, just before he
sailed for Europe, having need, as hc says, Of
turing ut the Manufacturers & Traders Bank,
he borrowed that sum from Mr. Peck. As 90.
curity for repayment, MIR Dow gave bis own
check on the Manufacturers & Traders' Bank,
endorsed by Ebcn Stecle-having made arrange
ments with Mr.. Steele to pay the money when
ever Mr.. Peck shouldcall for II. MIR. Dow con-
sidcred this as good rs the cash In Mr.. Peck's
4 L. D-<I<. .l,ll tfsNs Ill
convenient, until his return home In the Au-
tumn. In point OF fact, however, Dow says
that Peck collected II OF Mr.. Steele within 0
very brief period after Mr.. Dow's sailing for
Liverpool. Peck utterly denies that no mado
any arrangement whatever In regard to tho
time the check was to be kept, and that In real
ity he did not call on Mr.. Steele until aftcr Mr..
Dow had been absent some two or three months.
This point, however In immatcrial, and both
parties agree that this was the only financial
transaction between them during tho year
1857
In 1853, towards the middle Of the year, Mr..
Dow again borrowed sum Of money from Mr..
Peck-no< exceeding $4,000. Atthe end VI tho
year when Mr.. Peck was getting ready to close
his accounts, Mr.. Dow repaid In cash what was
due from him. Itappears by the joint testi-
the former had frequent occasion TO use the lat
ter's endorsement, and In that In this way Peck
wa, in the habit Of raising money whenever ho
had occasion to do 20.
AT the beginning OF 1880, In Mr.. Peck's Third
year Of Office, when Mr.. Dow was again about
to sign his bond, he says: 81 entrcated him
not to let anybody have money without .scuri-
diately, and to let no one have money without
letting me know, 90 that might judge Of its
safety. Within few ensuing months, Mr.
Dow borrowed from Peck At different times, .
sum total Of Sii 500, with tho admitted knowl.
edge that L. wns State funds. As an evidence
Of the Indebtedness he gave Peck his memoran-
dun checks on the Manufacturers & Traders
Bank, with the understanding that when tho
m ,ney was needed he Dow should be notified,
anl immediate arrangements would be mado
for payment. During the autumn Peck called
on Dow nt different times with thes> checks.
and gave them up-taking at the same tmo
Dow's Enforcement on certain Of his (Pecks)
| notes for similar amounts. Peck alleges that
he took these endorsements becsuse Dow was
| not prepare | 10 pay the money, while Dow say
that Peek never asked for the money, but pro-
posed himself to take the endorssmeut, ~ they
rould answer his purpose just a. well. When
thc checks had thus all been taken up In sx-
change FOR the endorsements. Dow gave Peck
naner reciting the amount and date Of the ssv.
erai checks. how they had been taken up, and
sckno oWIedging II Peck took care Of the notss
Peci's debtor to the full amount Of the ehse,
already described. The sum total Of tho notes
thus endorsed was SIC, sos, thus lacking seps
Of the full amount OF the checks for which they
were exchanged. The notes were I'll endorssd
during the months Of 0csobsr and November
last, and did not mature until January and
February ofths present year. Nj. Dow s9eEes
that Peck assured him that the svsih OF %
notes were 70 b applied 70 Trsasury nse., and
that every time Peek applied for his sndorss.