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

NAuihh bhut ITO hOtAo 40 oubJttt W lily
order as Controller, to be expended
by the Board of Cemetry Commits
sioners.
Fowth-As to vacating a street II
the Cemetry grounds, i say the Board
has not changed any plat of tho Gem
etry. They did report by vacatinQ
one OF the streets, not deemed neces,
sary, GO lots have been added TO the
Cemetry to the value of $3.50. 1t i.
submitted that by this, neither the
Board nor the controller have done
any act worthy of censure.
Fyth-As to specializing in city
orders, L have bought no city orders
except of Mr.. Talbot, paying full
market rates for them, buying them
because Mr.. Talbot said he had tried
elsewhere to sell them and could not
and that it was necessary for him to
sell them and get the money to enable
him TO so on with his work, and al
his urgent request, and in order that
the work might proceed, L purchased
the orders. But claim that / am at
liberty to buy orders, the same as any
other citizen, using my own money
for that purpose. L knew that at
least one officer and one Alderman of
the city have purchased or speculated
las it has been termed) in city orders,
and | am not aware that any charges
have been made through the Council
against them. l did not, nor do
now, deem my action in buying the
orders from Mr.. Talbot wrong it GER
tainly did not, nor could it any way
prejudice the interests of the city.
Slrth-As to having new orders
issued, the clerk has in one instance,
taken from me large orders and given
me smaller ones, in lieu thereof on
the same fund. 1t was because there
was some money in the treasury, to
the credit Of this fund, but not enough
to pay the.whole order. surrender
ed the large orders and took smaller
ones to the same amount and on the
same fund, and there has never been
objections made by the Council to
dividing orders in this manner; deny
that this is official misconduct.
Serenth-As to the charge of specu-
lating out of the City in buying sand,
l deny the charge. / have not, nor
never had one dollar interest in the
sand dredged or to be dredged from
the Saginaw river.
Eighth--As to the charge that while
acting as such controller L agreed with
the late city treasurer to pay u claim
he owed the city, and the other mat
tiers in such charge stated, / deny
them as stated. 1 did buy a lot as
agent for another person from Mr..
Leidlein, and he consented that if l
would pay a certain amount to the
city he would give credit for tin trade.
| had a conversation with the finance
committee, and other officers of the
city in regard to taking city orders in
payment Of the claim held by Leid-
lein against the person for whom l
was agent, and it was paid Mr.; Leid-
lein and credited on his account with
the city, but this purchase was not
made by me as controller, nor was the
city in any manner interested in it,
except in getting their pay from Mr..
Leidlein sooner than they otherwise
would have done.
l deny that my action in relation
to this matter was official misconduct.
Nmth--As to the charge of unfaith-
full performance Of duty in not open
ing an account with each street of
highway moneys, L reply that it is
impracticable, and l understood it to
be so conceded by the Council. The
ordinance does not require it nor the
charter. Therefore it is not part of
my duty. But | am and have been
at all times willing to accommodate
the Council, and will open such an
account if they deem it necessary or
desirable.
Respectfully submitted,
M. JEFFERS, Comptroller.
After the answer was read, Aid.
Gage the presenter and prosecutor,
and Judge, proceeded to sum up the
case. No person was called upon to
make any statement in regard to the
charges, save one, and his statement
had no bearing upon the questions at
issue; the argument of the Alderman
was of that impudent, overbearing
style, peculiar to himself, Astounding
in misstatements invective and false
coloring, and when any attempt was
made to correct him by the Controller
or his counsel they were promptly
suppressed by the tool Of the Alder
man, the Mayor. After occupying
nearly the entire session some 3 hours,
VIM. l.. Weber Esq, Counsel for
the Controller, was graciously granted
as a matter of courtesy, the privilege
of the floor for one hour to present
his views upon the case. The argu-
ment of Mr. Weber was clear concise
and to the point, showing conclusively
that the action taken by the council
in the proceedings was without pre-
cedent in proceedings at law or in the
action of parliamentary bodies.
His argument would have carried
conviction to the minds of any set of
men who had not already prejudged
the case and pledged themselves to
remove the Controller with or without
cause. After the remarks of Mr..
Webber-Ald. Collins offered the fol-
lowing resolution, which was laid upon