East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1866-04-11
THE JEFPERs CASE.

Controller letters to the charges pro-
duccd against him on the recent pre-
tended trial which we repeat, was
purely p0rtizan inquisition without
authority, dignity, cause or decency
to inset, at the expense of law, right
and every principle of common court
esy pressing exgency in local poll
ties" together with some Of the dis
gushing particulars of that most un-
mitigated outrage, the perpetrators Of
which one and all, if they have the
remotest seriblance Of honor in their
natures will never cease to regret the
,mmanly part they have been induced
to take, for only the poor remuneration
OF political triumph.
At an adjourned meeting Of the
Common Council he'd Thursday even
ing, March Goth, the charges against
Michael LETTERS, Esq, Comptroller
were called for and read by the Clerk;
after which ]. b. Dillingham;, Esq,
as counsel for the defendant filed the
following answer Of the Comptroller
which was read:
10 Me Honorable, the Mayor and The
Common Council Of tie CITY Of East
Snglhatr:
GENTLEMEN:-I have been served
with copy of charges which were pre-
scented against me by ID. w. @. Gage,
Esq, at recent meeting OF the Coun-
Gil, in which L am charged with Off
cial misconduct and ineiticieney as
Controller, and also with a notice that
an answer to the charges was to be
made by me on the 18th inst.
For what end L am arraigned and
called upon to answer, unless to graft
fly private malice, / cannot say. If it
be claimed that l am to account to
the Council for my official conduct,
and that at their pleasure l may be
removed, either with or without cause,
my answer is an emphatical denial of
the right Of the Council to hear and
determine any such question, / am
only accountable to the same tribunal
as yourselves, to the people and the
laws, If / have been guilty of Off
cial misconduct, l freely admit that l
am subject to indictment and trial and
conviction, before competent tribu-
MI. But the question must be tried
by jury and in a proper court. l
might with as much propriety call
upon you to answer before me for
your official conduct, as for you to
call upon me for that purpose. When
the section i'll the charter under which
it was supposed Mr.. Gage presented
these charges, was passed, the con-
trollcr was an elective officer, and
therefore not within its provisions;
when by subsequent act the office
was to be filled by appointment, the
same act expressly limits the term of
the Office to three years, and no APP
pointment can be again made until
the three years expires. 1t was the
Intention of the act to make the con-
troller, in the performance of his du-
ties, entirely independent Of the
Council, he is not subject to their di-
rections except as they may By Ordi-
nance prescribe his duties, Gin relation
to the finances and accounts Of said
city" His duties are prescribed by
law, and except in regard to duties
prescribed by ordinance as aforesaid,
he is as independent Of the Council
as is the Mayor or Recorder and it is
necessary and proper that this should
be so to enable him to properly per-
form the duties of his office it is his
duty to refuse to obey the directions
of the Council, should any be given,
20 sign bonds or warrants which may
be unauthorized, and this is strictly in
accordance with the position of the
controller in most cities.
But while thus indicating the in
dependence of the office, which for
the time being is vested in me, l say
to you, gentlemen, that l am willing
at all times and places, las all public
officers should be) to answer as to my
official conducts; and as the charges
above alluded to have been published,
ask as an act of justice to me that
my answer should also be published.
This answer ! make, not to you alone,
bat to the public, for, as Ihave above
denied your authority to arraign me,
40 do l still insist, that the charges
demand of me no answer, except to
1he citizens of East Saginaw, and to
them through you say:
FTSt--I deny that l;~as Controller
and Treasurer of the Board of Gem
etry Commissioners, paid out in 1865
1855 81, or any other sum whatever,
without the authority of said Board.
iSecoad-I deny that l as Controller
and as member of the Board of
Cemetry Commissioners without or
yanizing the Board, and in conjunc-
tion with one of the Cemetry commits
rioners alone, expended in 1865 more
than $500 in improving the Cemetry
grounds, without authority from or
consent of the Common Council. /
admit that there was expended by the
Board Of Cemetry Commissioners in
1855 greater sum for the improve
.,nent of the cemetry than $500, but
the members of the Council were
knowing of the expenditure and as.
sented TO it. The expenditure was
absolutely necessary, as all conceded,
nnd il is not claimed but what all the
money was judiciously expended
Ill the vouchers have been examined
Ly your committee and found correct.
,rheordinanee defining the duties of
The Cemetry Commissioners requires