Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1871-04-27
YfImaut Ghranifle,

>2RlMHM W1ts"ss"*'
ST. CLAIRSvILLE, OHIO.
THtJRspAY MoRNING, April q, 1871.
Lest. the impression become prevs.
lent that the articles with regard to
Auditor Clark, were penned from per-
sonal motives, we here disciaim any
such, inferenoes, and say that We had
reference to him only as public officer.
As we stated last week any impressions
drawn from our article of the 18th inst.
leading the reader to believe that Mr..
Clark was guilty of taking that which
was not his ownp were unauthorized
by either the language or ii'te'f of the
article. We aim to do justice to every
individual, whether in Office or not in
Office. What said article meant e2n
easily be determined by the candid
reader admonishsd Is he has been that
no charge of staling or embesklemsnt
was Intended therein. Why the pri-
yate character Il Nj. Clark should
suffer for what we have repeatedly
charged upon the Democratic party of
this County, namely, too little regard
for the financial condition of our treas
ury, imposition of heavy taxes and
other blunders, we cannot see. In
charging Mr.. Clark with getting osz
IS, 900 salary &c. we looked upon iiini
as leading member Of a party whose
mistakes he was bound to share. The
reasoa we selected the Office Of Auditor
for the first of such expositions as we
shall chooseto make, was that 1t b the
most important in the County. Now,
the reader should bear In mind that
while we do notand newer have charg-
ed Mr.. Clark with malfeasanee in Office
If we regard the Annual Statement
made by him as the one required by
law-we claim that we ourselves and
the general peadergiiase been left in en-
tire Ignorance by that statement as
to the real amount OF Salary &c. which
the Office of Auditor Is worth. II the
statement IS the one required by law
then the correspondence between said
statement and the Register may be
exact; at least, we do not question 1T:
exactness. In this case Mr.. Clark
would not even be chargeable with any
neglect, intentional or accidental, o
giving the exact official salaries. Mr.
Clark's familiarity with the affairs o
his office may lead him to over estimate
the satisfactory plainness So desirable
in such statements, and though n1ath
esnatieally correct, its arrangement ant
generalized form afford but little salts
faction to the general reader as state
ment published for them. While w
retract nothing from the intendet
meaning of our article Of April 18th
We say that any constructions places
upon the language Of that article, call
ing into question Mr.. Clark's honesty il
accepting the salary fees and allowance
of said Office are without foundation.
Mr.. Clark wishes us to state that u
che sumaing up Of orders msde by a
that there was an error of about $20o
and that these orders included al
amount due him from the Prevlou
year Of 81 $50. This viii leave his sal
AIRY for last year about u, $50. i5g. -po
With reference to Bridge contracts n
ferred to.in last weeks paper, we ca
esaybut little at present. While we be
iieved ourselves warranted in askin
questions as we did, we did not wis
Mr.. Clark to be In any way injured b
: them If answered in the negative. Hl
5answeft ftothemf IL an emphatic denial
any completely therein, add he hs
given as the privilege Of publishin
any evidence relevSnt to either his cor
yiction or justification. This, ofcourst
is, Air, and candid, and while we sha
mot abate oar effeEts TO arrive at ,th
truth-and we hope TO plaee the whol
matter before our readers ia . shol
fime-we shall fully record Nj. Clark
complete justification If facts authoriz
1t. Ne one cpuld ask for more. .',io
= u. sr---r-------- = -----------T-s sslAoI
Three weeksago the Gazette state