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

that the said $1,000 credit of Mr.. Orwig'
is not substantiated,
The other credits i'm said statement of
Orwig respectively for 5000 and $500
at the close of recapitulation, Orwig does
not himself claim as credits on account OF
Swamp Land drafts that came into his
hands. We do not therefore feel called up
togive them any examination or to speak
of the testimony relative to them, prefering
not to touch upon those matters not rela-
tive to the main object of the investigation
leaving every one to draw his own cosclu-
sions upon all irrelevant points from the
testimony reported.
Having thus examined the items ofcrcd-
its contained in Orwig' statement let us for
n moment review them and see what ones
are substaptiated. .....
The first one for warrants endorsed to Sa.
very, S22,6l3 25; the second for those paid
to Immigration Co., $l6,O04 ss; the third
for the nine receipts of Treasurer. SIS, ,73l..
%; he is entitled to; indeed, about these
warrants there is no dispute. Their sum
total is, $ll7 ,349 SO. None of the other
items are suhstantiated by the evidence in
the case for reasons hereinbefore specific-
ally pointed out. -a.
Deduct from the sum total of the 32 coun-
ties received in 1866, Sl5l, 344 10, the afore-
said amount, sll7 ,349 36, and we have de-
felt identical in amount with the aggre-
gate amount of the warrants for the unac-
counted for counties enumerated i'm the
first part of this report, to-wit: S33, ,a94 SO.
For this amount of the warrants for the
said unaccounted for counties that came
into the hands of Orwig, the Committee.
from the weight of testimony, unanimous
ly conclude he has not accounted, and that
said deficit is with and in the hands OF said
II. q. Orwig.
Without endeavoring to go into details
ofthe testimony or point out the inconsis-
tencies, discrepancies and contradictions
in and bearing upon Orwigs testimony.
We refer to Orwig's letler to the Govern
or, the following portion of which we here
quote:
Des Moines, Iowa, June 2s, 1865.
"DEAR GOVERNOR: Mr.. Holmes tells
me that you have wri ten to him for a
statement ofthe Indemnity claim account,
and wish me to give such information as
there is in the Executive Office relative to
the same.
''The whole amount of drafts received at
the Executive Office is S7s, 1868 4S. Of this
amount the State Treasurer has receipted
xynI for " 1x4 lx0ll
not yet endorsed and for which he cannot
receipt to you until they are endorsed for
Sll $3.50 H."
Now it is shown from the evidence that
at the time Orwig wrote this letter to the
Governor, there had been forwarded to
and received at the Executive office
Swamp Land drafts for all the counties
forwarded to the Executive during the
year 1865, mot including the endorsed to
Emigration Co.. being 26in numberand
to sll2,726 O6 instead of SIS, ,26s-
As as stated by Orwig in said letter. Here
was a false statement to the Governor of
the amount. Why did Orwig make it?-
How far was it false?
Take the amount actuallyre-
ceived Sll2. .726 O6
And deduct the amount repor-
ted to be received by Mr.. Or
wig 7S,36S 4s
And we have difference of 34,357 IS
About the amount of the de-
ficit.
If we take exact amount shown to have
been paid to the Treasurer at the date of
said letter SIS, ,73l %
From the said amount received ....--...
at the Executive Office 1925 Of
And we have a difference of S33, ,S9t So
the exact amount of the missing warrants.
On its its face unexplained, this showing
proves conclusively from out of Orwigs
own mouth that at the time he wrote that
letter he had, the amount of this deficit in
his own hands never having paid it over to
the Treasurer, and that he misstated to the
Governor in order to cover it up.
Let us see what explanation Orwig gives
How does he receive himselffrom the posi-
ton?
Orwig SAYS: "I did not at the time Of
writing this letter know that drafts were
sent by North direct to Holmes, suppos-
ed the amount of drafts he reported to me
to be in his hands to be drafts that I had
given him, and to the extent that he had
drafts from North, my statement to the
Governor was erroneous. because had no
Of them whatever" .... ....
Is this explanation satisfactory? Let
rs examine it. He says in this that he did
not know that any drafts had been deliv-
cred by North direct to Holmes, and that
the reason of his error was that he did not
include the amount of the drafts so deliver
by North because he "hand no knowledge
,fthem whatever" Now the evidence
shows conclusively that he did include the
amount of drafts delivered by North to the
reasurer-that they We're all included in
he S2l, $3.50 IA, given in the part of the let
.er before quoted which he says was the
amount of drafts held by the Treasurer
mot yet endorsed, and for which could
lot receipt until endorsed Thisi is proven
rom the following facts:
During the year 1865, there was received
It the Executive Offie drafts for26 counties
not including of course the drafts of the
Emigration Company these were all the
traits received, and they were received all
If them prior to date of Orwigs letter; all
If these drafts came into the hands of and
we're endorsed by Orwig to the banks ex-
'ept three. These were three for Butler,
and Clayton counties.
North says. ....a .....
"All the Warrants that came to me du-
ing Governor Stones administration,
With the exception of these three last men,
ioned Butler, Alnmakee :and Clayton
We're delivered to Orwig with
mt any information from me to Governor