The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1866-04-12


to make up the said amount, is the receipt
for $4,000, of May 9th, which included
the money of Mills, and part of Pottawat-
tamie counties.
And yet, the next item that he gives
himself credit for, is the Treasurer's re-
ceipt for Sl2,546.62, for this same, Mills
county, which Orwig states Holmes had
executed TO the Governor when the money
was paid by him (Holmes) to said county.
1t will be seen that Orwig here, in this
manner, gives himself double credit for
81, ,546.a2 the. money due Mills county
ceipt of the Treasurer of Mills county.
Another credit that he gives himself in
this statement is the amount of certain
checks paid to Holmes for drafts given Or
wig for collection, $l4,35O 90. COPIES of
these checks found i'm the statement of Or
wig hereinbcfore embedied). Now let us
compare this part of his showing with his
statements in his cross-examination. In
the first part of his answer he undertakes
to state what disposition he made of drafts
for counties mo. !, Tama, No. 2, Louisa,
No 3, Cedar, No 4, Clinton. No 5, Boone,
No 6, Story" and states that they were re-
ceived in JAN ~ yand delivered to Holmes
That in ApriI Holmes gave him for collec-
ton Nos 4, 5 and 6, that he deposited them
April 81, and OH April IL paid Holmes
check on account thereof for $500, and
poid him sl,f0a in money May 18th, Now
this check of April II and this alleged pay
ment of May 18th are two of the checks
which are included in the same credit of
checks for 1880, which is hereinbefore
embodied, Now turn to the nine receipts
for which he credits himself as aforesaid
and which are set out in his statement, and
it will be seen that included in the one for
81, ,2l0 % is the amount for Clinton county
of Sill 30. In this wise Mr.. Orwig has
given himself credit twice, rs clearly shown
from his own statements for the said a
mount of $lll So, first by including it in
the nine receipts, second in the checks of
April ~ and May II.
Again, in the same part of said answer,
he states that those numbered 2 and 3 (Ce-
dar and Louisa counties) were given to
him by Holmes January l3, by him depos-
tied and paid to Holmes by checks of JAN
uary 81, February and 10, and March 25.
These checks by which he claims he paid
Holmes for said Cedar and Louisa counties
Nos and y are also included i'm the said
credit for checks before referred to, and the
amount to the aggregate sum of $500.
Now turn To the credit for the nine re-
,.ni, he l,.fn &c hot
included i'm these receipts ara the receipts
for these same counties of Cedar and Lou
isa.
Here and in this manner Mr.. Orwig has
given i'm this account current of his, CT edit
twice for the amount of said checks S.
900 0o. First-In the nine receipt credit in
which are included the receipts for the two
Second-In the credit for the said checks
which he swears were given to Holmes on
account of the proceeds of the drafts for
those identical counties.
This duplication of credits, amounting in
the aggregate to S2l ,I57 9S, may be in ac-
cordance with some newly invented sys-
tenn of double-entry hook keeping not
generally known, and with which the COM
mittee are not familiar, but viewing it
from an ordinary standpoint, and with
what light we have, we are of the opinion
that this duality of credits is unjustitiable,
andsmost seriously affects the faith and re-
liability of Mr.. Orwig's whole theory and
statements. But let US further examine
this accodnt current of Mr.. Orwig's. In it
he further gives himself credit for the fol-
lowing item: "Check to VIM. Baker, Agt.
for Bremen County, 81 900 So" 1t is to be
borne i'm mind that he claims this as credit
to himself as for that amount in his ac-
counting for the ,Sicamp Land Funds traced
into his hands, and yet it is abundantly
shown in the evidence that this 81 900 50
was taken by Orwig from the Contingent
Fund. Mr.. Orwig states, ''of this sum to-
tai, 81, 900 SO is due to the Governors con-
tingent fund, from which the check to VIM.
Baker was paid and has not been rein,burs-
ed.' (The italics are ours.) II then this
amount was from the continent fund,
which has not been reimbursed, and not
from the Swamp Land Fund, Mr.. Orwiss
account is certainly unauthorized.
Another item for which Mr.. Orwig gives
himself credit i'm said statement, is "Check
to State Treasurer on account of Bremen
county, $4,000 co."
Now Mr.. Orwig states that he received
Bremen county draft June 1st; that he de-
livered it to Holmes; that Holmes return
ed it to him to get the rloney tor it; and
that on account thereof, he gave Holmes a
check for $1,000 90.
Now, aside from this statement of Mr.. |
Orwig itself, there is no evidence of it's
truth. 1t is not corroborated by any cir |
that the committee have been
able to find in the evidence. If Orwig |
gave it to him why did he not take a re- |
cept for the draft or for the $1,000 when |
paid to him? There is no such receipt
Besides ii is abundantly shown in several |
parts of the evidence that during the sum- |
lner and fall after he alleges that he receiv- |
ed the Bfemer county draft, he at differ |
ent times and on several occasions, posi-
lively denied ever having received said |
draft. Orwig states positively and une-
luivocally that he never, with Holiness
knowledge or consent, did convert or use /
any Swamp Land fund for any private pur-
pose whatever. Now, then, ifthis was the
Ease, why did Orwig continually deny,
Lhrougha "A period Of several months, that
he had received the Bremen county draft,
# it is u TACT, as now claimed, that he re-
,eived it in June and paid it or its proceeds
over to Holmes?
Mr.. Holmes states that he did receive of
Orwig check for $1,000 i'm payment or as
he proceeds of the January drafts which
no claims were all the drafts he ever dpliv-