Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1860-06-07

Inc editor OF the Republican wants to kno,
: Wal Mr. Packard was about during his term o
once, that he did not fnd out his presiccessor,
oeiaicaion- In answes we viii say that We SUP
pose ne was attending to his own business, an,
moved ms predecessor would do the ane an
ae don Z suppose he regarded Mr.. Corbaley as n,
editor OF the Republican must,--a defaulter ant
emoezzler. Mr.. Packard was not trying to play :
dishonest trick nor dciraud anybody, and did moi
suspect Nh Cofbaey for trying to DO ANYTHING Of
the kind One more question for our consisten,
ana logical friend up street. Ii it was Packard's
business to search Cobarlcy's record, why was Il
that Pershing did not look over Packar,l's and
how win the County Commissioners Justify them
selves for paving William Kendall twenty dollars
Tor DONG what Pershing should have done IN.
C. Dem
Does not our neighbor creep out at mighty
small holel 1.-THE law did not make it Packard's
duty to search his predecessors record, having the
books belonging to the Office in his possession, and
having frequent occasion to reicr to them, it is
reasonable to infer that he could not have failed to
discover the defaleation. Every one believes he
was aware of the fact, but for obvious reasons
kept silent The tact that he came out in the
same fix proves one oft things-either he did
not know what the law required. or that he conclu
ded to practice the same game, for his own private
advantage But. what was the competent, Au-
ditor about that he did not discover Packark's
defalcaton as well as Corbaley's? Did he not
know what the law required in the premises The |
fact that there were no unclaimed witness or Jury |
lees paid into the Treasury, should, at least, had
he known Wat the law required, have induced him
TO inquire whether there were none to pay over
Will the editor say in reply to this that it was not
the Auditors business to see that the law In this
respect was complied with? The fact that he
Jailed to discharge his duty in this respect makes
him equally culpab.e with Packard and Corbaley.
Gould such man be very competent officer.
That Mr.. Packard should not have regarded
Ar Corbaley as defaulter is not at all strange
That wouldbe like the pot calling the kettle black
We have never charged either of them with en-
excitement. There is slight difference between
efalcation and embezzlement. But, if the Demo
rat, means to say that an officer is justifable in
claiming large sums Of money in his hands for
evcral years, which the law makes il his duty TO
ay over to the Treasurer, We beg leave TO differ d
nth him. That may be according to modern r,
emocratic usage, (it Is certainly practsed TO
alarming extent,) but the Republicans all repu- O
ate it with one accord 81
In reply to our neshbor's query at the close of ).
e above extract, We repeat that II the law did
Vt make it Packard's duty to search his predcccs
RS record, it did, positively, require him to
ake out on or before the first day of January of
ca year, and file with the Treasurer of the
unity, a complete list of all fines, Jury fees and
tness fees, which had remained unclaimed for
e year. assessed during the preceding year.
IN the amount collected, and pay the same
er to said Treasurer upon the receipt thereof,
iich he totally neglected to do, and thereby sub
ted the county to $50 expense in order to as
rtaln the amount of his defalcation Now saw,
ighbor, do you not think that in justice Packard
ght to refund that amount to the County? An.
or yes or no. We do not care which, NJ