Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1860-10-04
c.. l.. P!Oorman,
ESQ.,, our Can
didate for Audi
tor.

The last number of the Independent Re-
publican, devotss two columns to our excel
lent Auditor, Mr.. Poormsn, and processes
to have found short dozen Of errors in. the
card from him which appeared in our last
issue. Some things in the Republicans re
ply to Mr.. Poorman's card demand q reply
at our hands.
First, in relation 10 Mr.. Poorman's visit
to Columbus last winter. and his successful
lobbying for his own interests while there.
The charge Is, not only in the article under
consideration but in other articles from the
same quarter, that through the instrumen.
tality of Mr.. Poorman, our Representative
was induced to vote against the Auditors
fee bill. This is false. "Senate Bill No.
80, TO regulate and limit the fees of county
Auditors" (being the one alluded toy passed
the Senate and came to the House, where
after being amended in divers ways came
10 q vote on its engrossment, which was
made a test vote, ON the 18th Of March. 1t
was lost on its engrossment, but Mr.. Welsh
uoted in the affirmative This vote was re-
considered, and again on the 20,h oIMarch,
it came up again, and on . motion to post
pone it until the First Monday 10 January,
1860, the ayes and noes were ordered, and
the bill was po,tponed-Mr. Welsh voting
in the negative. So much for Mr.. Poorman's
lobbying with Mr.. Welsh. But again, he
says, in effect, that q bill to reduce the
Treasurers' fees was passed, because, as his
brillian: mind suggests he (our Treasurer ;.
was not a"Black." This is another canard
The only bill passed by the last Legislature
affecting the pay of county Treasurer's il
any manner whatever, was "House Bill No
100, limiting the fees OF county Treasurer.
in certain cases." This bill was introduced
by Dir. Woods. OF Licking, the scknowl
edged leader o: the Democracy in the House
As II is but brief we give it:
"Sec. /. Be It enacted, etc. That M
county Treasurer shall BE- entitled to any
percentage, commission, or fec, on moneys
! received by him from the Treasurer Of State
| anything in any law 20 the contrary not
withstanding."
!, We never heard any very serious com
plaint on the part Of county Treasursrs, ol
any one else, on account OF this law, ant
therefore don't think they are very ssrious!,
| oppressed thsrsby. .as .-...s.
The other charges q gaipst Mr.. poormaI
are 90 puerils until we come down to "Prin
No. o." that they need no relu,a,ior. No
9. however is entitled to notice. lie charge
, Mr.. p. with omltting to charge the county
/. S57 for correcting the Assessors' books
An awful crimo against the tsx.payers!-
Capt. Chsrlesworth was never known &c
omit charging the county in any cases wher'
he had the least ground for It, and Ia som
cases where he was not eatirely clear, h
n took good care to err on the safe side, an
ovsrchargsd. But he goes on to say that
n Mr.. p. charged the Assessors $500 pc
). township, and then allowed them to charg
Q tho county "for extra days which they nsve
4 performed" Now this is totally and ur
qualitiedly false. The only rsmunerstio
Mr.. Poormsn received fot any work cor
nected with the Asssssor's books, was 70
making out Jfus Assrsso1s books. for whc
= he received $4,000 mot from the county bu
!. from the ASS sss0s tssmselsss.
u Mr.. Poorman does not feel "todchy
a about his "officisl character" when II is y
viewed BY honest men in an honest wsy,b'
!, when mousing seribblers undertake
!. ialsehood. to iniurs that character, duty I
|, his no sts Of friends 10 this county rsquit,
,hst he should reply to those attacks.