East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1866-01-31
THE VOTE OF CENsURE.

against all of. the 10, at least, avail
myself of your paper for the purpose.
The Enterprise man complains of the
passage of a vote Of censure by the
board, but what are the factsp The
Enterprise agreed for certain sum to
publish the full proceedings of the
board, to publish each days proceed
ings, and to have them appear in the
next mornings paper, and to deliver
a copy Of the same to each Supervisor.
In its issue of the Oath, it allied to
publish the report of the dredging
committee and minority report, also
a communication from Mr.. Goddard,
all of which tho Board had ordered
printed. The Editor stated in a note
that he was unable to print them in
that issue, but would do so in the
next. But as tho next paper did not
contain the reports, and the balance
of the proceedings were very incor-
rectly published, and as some of tho
friends Of the Enterprise had said the
reports would not be published, Mr..
Lewis, seeing the Editor present, Of
fered resolution Of censure, and
called upon Mr. Joslin for an expla-
nation, intending to withdraw his res
olution had any satisfactory reasons
been given. The chairman who is q
personal friend of the Editor, and q
Stakeholder in the Enterprise, answered
that oil Mr.. Joslin wanted was for the
Board to pay him for what he had
done, and he would stop-and al
though another member (Mr. Hack, J
called for an explanation from Mr.
Joslin, there was no response, and the
chairman insisted upon putting the
question without debate; the result
was its passage by vote of l6 to 10
instead of Is to IL as the Enterprise
states. Upon the announcement of
the vote, Mr.. Joslin said he was glad
of it, and now he would give them
raking down, and this he has attempt.
ed to do in his own peculiar style.
He calls tho Board by all the hard
names he can think of, and designates
their place of meeting as the Bear
garden, (if this was the case it would
seem that it was no place for swine to
exhibit themselves,) and after at
tempting to DO severe upon one or
two of its members, he winds up by
saying he does not mean to be per-
sonal, and then undertakes to excuse
himself for not publishing the reports
by saying that the report was not a
report, that neither the committee nor
the Board had had anything to do with
it, but styles it Mr. Bnrnard's docu-
ment. Now the facts are the Board
thought the expenditure of hundred
thousand dollars of the peoples money
matter of some Importance, and at
its October session it referred the re-
ports of the Dredging commissioners
to select committee, who were d-
rected to examine the whole subject
matter, and to report the result of
this examination at the next meeting
of the Board, which they did through
their chairman, Mr.. IRE. The report
was quite lengthy, and recommended
the passage of an accompanying reso-
luton, the Board accepted the report,
ordered it printed and placed on file,
and then adopted the resolution rec
commended by tho committee. Mr..
Je6ers, one of the committee, present
cd a minority report and communi-
cation from the Engineer Of the COM
missioners which was also ordered
printed and placed on file. Now Mr..
Editor, Of the merits or dement's of
those documents do not speak, but
had the Enterprise man published them,
the public could have Judged for
themselves, but instead Of doing this
he chose to misstate facts, and tries to
create q prejudice against Mr.. Bar
nard, one of tho committee, and so he
ridicules tho report and says it is to
be printed in the Poker, instead of
the Enterprise, and said he could get it
whether this negotiation was
prompted by avarice or not, cannot
say, but as it is generally understood
that both papers are printed in one
office, and that the rates are much
higher in the former than in the latter
II will bear that construction, to say
the least. He also misstates the men,
Der, in his paper Of tho 25th. He
makes the report of the committee ON
county affairs to read Supervisors in
stead Of Supervisor, Chairman for