Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1870-09-09
REVISION OF THE STATUTES.

To the Editor of the Kenne6ee Journal:
An article in your paper of 9th inst. signed
by Joseph Baker, and purporting to be state
ment of facts in reference to the part borne
by him and me, as Commissioners under Re-
solve of March IL, 1862 contains so many I'M
founded allegations, and asserts falsehoods so
gross about my share Of the work, that l ask
the privilege of replying, briefly, through your
columns.
Mr.. Baker says his removal by the Govern
or and Council was without the slightest notice
to him--that he was arraigned when absent
tried without hearing, &c.
When it is known that he misrepresents
wilfully in these declarations, so that the
broadcast charity cannot find palliation for his
misstatements, it will not seem strange that
he attempts to divert attention from his crime
by reckless accusations against me. The de-
fence made by him, in writing, under date of
June q, 1870 in substantially the same terms
as his published defence, has become part of
the records in the Office of the Secretary Of
State, and am therefore at liberty to refer
to it, and to the action taken thereon, as con-
victing him of foul wrong in his statements
relative to his removal.
Mr.. Baker is insanely or corruptly wrong
in his charges against me, scattered so freely
through his q defence" The cry of injured
innocence by which he seeks to attract sym
pathy, will not avail for concealment of his
wrongs, nor allow him to escape through this
notorious subterfuge of criminals.
Without following him further, at this mo-
ment in his TRADE against me, wish to call
attention to some facts concerning his posi-
ton.
He was member of the last Legislature
chairman of tue committee to whom the Leg
isature committed our work for examination
and stated to the members of that commit
tee, and the Judiciary Committee, Jointly con-
vened near the close of the session, for the
express purpose of considering our Report,
that the whole work had been faithfully ex-
amined, and recommended its enactment.
Does Mr.. Baker mean to say that he stated
what was false Hen' Or does he hang on the
other horn of his self-imposed dilemma, and
now say that he did not know, at the close of
he Legislative session, OF errors in the work !!
If he states truly now about my short comings
before the session, how does he justify his un-
qualified endorsement of the whole work at
its close!
| But to whom did he ever communicate his
intention to change the Act until after its ac-
eomplshment? Certainly not to the Secre-
tary of State, the responsible custodian; not
to the Governor and Council, who had it in
charge to procure the publication of the Act
nor to either of his associates in the commits
sion.
In his defence of June 81, after asserting
in the language of low blackguardsm, that he
"went through it, he says-"I freely admit
that such changes teere not contemplated BY
any authority granted to the Commissioners
5y the Legislature. / understood that be-
FORE"
With this avowal of a deliberate forgery OF
a public Act, he has the impudent effrontery
to ask exultingly-"Who, then, is harmed?"
If the legal profession and the citizens gener-