Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1860-07-12

l. u Its said that portion OF The Democratic
electoral ticket In this Site is for Breckenridge
and his friends will have full ticket in nomina-
I ton BY the first of August.
/ - .n aaf9i nio' ni.i For the Republican
/ Reply to Ex-Anditor Mcdonald. 3
The last number of the Plymouth Week
ly Democrat contains an other article over
the signature of T. Mcdonald. in which
he attempts to reply to my communication
in the Republican of the 18th ult., He
| utterly fails, it will be observed, to reply
to several questions propounded to him.
The reason is obvious. He could not do
so without acknowledging he had acted
CONTRARY to law, as well as partially as an
officer. He acknowledged. it will be re-
membered, in his first communication,
that he made some short loans of the
school fund, on personal security. contra
ry to law. Some OF these loans are yet
unpaid, and as he acted contrary to law in
'Ethis respect, of course he irresponsible for
all losses that may occur on such loans.
l asked him why he did not treat all alike
in this respect. but he refuses to answer.
In his first letter he denied that he was
q defaulter. but acknowledged in his Sc
cond that he paid me seven dollars. This
is enough. He admits also that he neg
iecfed to credit the interest paid by Wyatt
Thompson, $685., and this amount with
manv others has remained idle either in
the Treasurer's or Auditors hands. when
they should have been drawn out long ago
to educate the children and wouid have
been had they been properly credited. He
denies that he admitted to me that he v as
responsible for the amount ofThompson's
interest. but am able to prove tina. he
did. He is certainly responsible for his
neglect as an officer. Esd sga i1tf
In regard to A. p. Thompson's Mort
gage, which he cancelled, without dollar
of it having been paid. he says another
mortgage was filled ont at the time, so
that his, Thompson's wife. could acknowl-
edge it before Justice of the Peace. Is
that the way for an officer to do business?
Why did he not require the second mort
gage to be duly signed and acknowledged
before he cancelled the first? Why did
he suffer it to pass ont of mind? Why
did he happen to "call it to mind" two
! years and two months after? Does not
1 the whole transaction from first to last
have suspicious look on its face? The
statement he makes in relation to making
thediscovery bnsselfis Incorrect. He came
10 my Office when l was temporarily ab.
sent. and when / returned found him
Hooking over the Mortgages. / asked
ihim what he was looking for. He re-
piled, A. p Thompson's Mortgage. |
asked him if he had found it. He replied
lno. Did you leave it in the office, l asked.
He said he did. Are you certain? asked.
Yes, said he, / know did. l then re-
marked to him, Twill convince you that no
such mortgage was left here. / then took
the mortgage record and showed him that
/ had checked off all that he had left in
THE office. / then remarked to him, Sir,
you cancelled that mortgage more than two
years ago. He looked perfectly dumb
founded and could not say word for some
time. He finally admitted that he had
cancelledit. and remarked that Thompson
was to have replaced it by mortgage on
another piece Of land, but had not done it.
This was, of course, the best and only
way he had of getting out Of the scrape.-
Fnpeat the question. as he cancelled this
mortgage, contrary to law, without a dol
lar OF it having been paid, is he not res
ponsible for the amount? If. so, in what
respect does he differ from defaulter? is
| it not neglect in public officer to dis
charge his duties and pay over monies in
his hands according to law, that consti-
Itutes embezzlement and defalcation? ae
The insinnation he makes that the
reason would no. accept the mortgage,
offised by Thompson because Thompson
and himselfare Democrats, could only be
made by one who had himself acted on
that principle, Had Thompson presented
. mortgage which considered sufficient
and paid up the back interest. / would
have been more than willing to have &C.
cepted it. Even If it is true that the land
] is worth three times the amount of the
loan over and above the liens, why should
!, there be any reluctance on the part of Mr..
lThompson's mother. now the wife Of the
ex-Auditor, to sign the Mortgage? Ifshe
will not trust her son why should /? II
may be that the land is worth all the ex-
! Auditor says it is. but does not every one
know that land encountered by a dover
never sells for one half its value if forced to
sale? Let the encumbrance be removed
and / will still accept the mortgage not
withstanding Mr.. Thompson's Demoera-
/ cy.
Mr.. Mcdonald is evidently anxious to
divert public attention from the matters
- :ss,.o honco Tho frivoloue and irr7lev n Mt