The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1869-12-14

Mr.. sampson has held the position of keeper
OF the house for about six years and vet no ex.
| animation of his accounts and transactions is
| made by the Overseers until he presented him
sen as candidate for reelection for the year
1869, and when spoken to by one of the Over
| seers In relation to an examination of his
| books, he informed this Overseer that he re-
| CARDS it as a id insult for any one to ex-
| anime his books. Now undoubtedly this was
| his honest opinion. Such an unusual proceed
ing might not warrant the use of so wicked a
| term as DID," but the idea of an examina-
ton OF his books was so singular that it is not
to be wondered that his dignity was disturbed
The testimony of Mr.. Sampson and some of
| the Overseers satisfy the committee that this
department has not received that care and at
tention which it deserved. The evidence shows
| tnat Tor past three years at least Mr.. Sampson
managed the house as he desired no wish.
orier or direction being given to him by the
Overseers
He bought, sold and contracted for produce
and articles which went from and into the
house; he received the money from articles
sold, and with it (f be wished) purchased other
articles Ii he purchased articles for the house
with money he had on hand he made no en-
tries of such transactions, and unless this in
formation was impaired to the Overseers thew
were no wiser for it.
They did not know whether Mr.. Sampson
had ten or one hundred dollars belonging to
the city. They did not know whether he pur-
There was no entry of such transaction he
made Lo account of 1.-THE was not called on
to account When it pleased him he paid to
the treasurer whatever amount he pleased
and there was nothing to show whether be
paid the full amount or not. The Treasurer
entered on the books of the Overseers what
Charles Sampson told him to enter. Now out
SIDE OF the reckless method in which these
transactions were performed, they were done
in direct violation of law and the provisions of
the city charter. Mr. Sampson, when he re-
celved money from the sale of property belong
ing to the city, had no right to spend it; the
Overseers, if paid to them, had no right to use
it. 1t was not his or theirs 1t was their duty
to see that this money was accounted for-that
1t was paid into the treasury of the city, where
and where only it belonged. 1t is high time
that the servants of the city should under
stand that proceeds from the sale of property
OF the city is not for them TO use as they may
judge right, but that the only person legally
entitled to receive it is the Treasurer OF the
city. If public officers do not understand what
their duty is respecting funds which come into
their hands, it is far better for them and for
the city that they either resign or make such
inquiries as shall make them perform their
duties Alright and in accordance with the laws
of the State.
The Overseers could not, or rather did not,
tell the committee anything whatever about
cash received or paid out, unless from informa-
ton obtained from Mr.. Sampson. They made
no inquiries of him in the past as to the pro-
ceeds from the sale of eggs. butter and other
articles raised and sold. They ascertained not
as to the number of pigs raised, or what be-
came of them. They cannot tell whether the
pigs died or were sold or given away, and they
have gone so far as to report to the city the
valuation OF property at $17, 1892, that valua-
ton being the opinion of Mr.. Charles Samp-
son, which not only did not meet the approval
but received the disapprobation of members of
the Board, and in some instances Mr.. Samp-
son may have informed the Board the price he
could obtain should he dispose of the property
Of the city, and ask for their advice; but for the
most part MIR. Sampson managed the concern
according to his own views and without re-
garding any one else. No one but Mr.. Samp-
son can inform the committee what quantity
of hay was raised, what number of pigs were
owned by the city, what revenue was derived
from the bull, or what sums were realized from
the farm.
Take for instance the pig department. Sure
ly 1T was easy to ascertained what number of
pigs were owned by the city and what number
were sold, what number died or were used BY
the inmates, or were given away. For the
year 1868 only 18 pigs are accounted for as sold,
averaging about So apiece, yet we understand
that thus far for the year 1869, $1,000 has been
realized from the sale of pigs to date. Truly,
"the pig account of 1868 is dark, and that of
the bull is not altogether clear" The revenue
of the bull of the city is small, though it is ad-
mltted his labors were great. No instance is
reported but that the bull was master of his
position, gracefully and modestly receiving the
praises of his keeper for his careful and eco
nOmical management of his department, and
that neither the city or his visitors have
suffered neglect from his services. Every dol
lar from his labors may have been accounted
for, yet how small the compensation derived
from his exertions, how meagre the revenue
derived from the "ardent original efficiency
of this noble beast!
Upon calling the attention of Mr.. Sampson
to an amount he had received for load of hay,
not accounted for, Mr.. Sampson excused the
non -payment OF the amount by saying he re-
ceived it at the time he was writing at the
house. and afterwards placed the money be-
tween the leaves of the book used by him to
eater the coming and going OF Inmates of the
house. His attention being called to it, he
went to his book, found the amount and paid
it over.
Upon calling his attention to an amount due
the city for a hog sold, he says he accounted
for it the day he received the money, making
the entry between other entries, giving as an
excuse that he did not wish to enter this trans
action on new page, as he was soon to 60 out
of Office.
Some of the overseers believe that Mr..
Sampson has not accounted for the sum of
$31 % received by him for butter and veal,
sold in 1868, there being entry of sach
sales on his books, or upon the books of the
overseers. The overseers find that some per-
sons purchased goods to that am punt of Mr.
Sampson, but Mr.. S. says every cent received
by him has been accounted for either by pay
ment of the amount to the Treasurer of the
Board or else by spending it for articles need
the loose method in which the affairs have
been conducted and managed, and it is evil
dent door might easily be opened whereby
the city's interests might suffer if these tran
sactions as heretofore done and performed Civ
ing the keeper unlimited power are continued
| and there is no way by which the city can as
certain if it is defrauded or not
The overseers cannot plead ignorance of the
state of proceedings. They cannot say we left
everything pertaining to this Department to
Mr. Sampson. knowing that it could not be in
better bands-they cannot say we, never
thought of making change or our attention
was never called to the peculiar method of Mr..
Sampson, for it appears that Mr.. Morris at
least called their attention to it. he openly
| objected to the method of conducting this de-
partment, he told them in his opinion it was
| not right, that it loose, underlined, not
| business-like, liable to fraud, and asked the
| overseers for a change. He wanted the daily
/ transactions at the house entered in a book ev-
| cry day. If articles were sold to whom, for what,
/ and when. If articles were purchased of whom,
/ when, and for what. If goods were in hand, or
produce raised, or revenue derived, let 1T APP
| pear Have day book wherein should be
| entered by the keeper an account of his stew
| ardship-and yet Mr.. Morrs's motion for
| change was voted down by the overseers by a
large majority; his system repudIated; and
matters allowed to flow on in the same chan
| mel as before.
Can this committee, then, under this state
of proceedings, countenance or approve them
Is this the way in which the interests of the
city are looked after by its servants? If so,
the sooner refOr nation the better. Whilst,
then, the committee censure Sampson for tax
ing so much responsibility upon himself, and
| for the careless manner in which he performed
his duties, let them censure him for spending
money of the city which belonged to the City
Treasury; censure him for not making the
| proper entries in his books at the proper times,
| and paying over the money to the city when
| he received it; censure him for the careless as
| pect of his entries-they equally, perhaps
| more, censure the Board of Overseers for al
| lowing these things to continue. Your com
| mittee believe there has been great neglect o
| their duties.
| There is not a man upon the Board wht
| wOuld allow his business to be so conducted
| There is not man upon the Board VIM
would NOT be ashamed to have it appear tina
| his was the character and style OF transactin,
his business. and in the opinion of the com
mittee the disclosure as presented OF tne stat
7 of affairs at the Almshouse Tor the past rev
years is lasting disgrace to the CITY OF t .a
| land and deserves the censure. disapprobation
l and emphatic condemnation of the committee
: IN lusGecation to Mr.. Sampson 1t shoul
y aPpeaI lhae ne emphatically denies having re
ceNeu uoiiar not accounted fo.~ ostS @f III
n that he mas looked after the Interests "a :.
city ana given his time and attention " ~
Of welfare. That the first three wears he was tn
n | keeper, whilst the house was under the dire(
" ton OF the Overseers, the expenses incurred i
" the charge of the house Were over 1878 900. Th
vs. last three years, while under his supervision
he the expenses were 1867 600. The income deri,
|? ed the first three years was SIT 211 IS; the la
re three $3O195.78.
n. Admitting this to be the case it does not a
re | tor the character of the transaction.