Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1872-10-03

National Bank nor the County Treas
ury could supply his wants. A large
surplus which ought to have remained
in the County Treasury had been abb
sorbed by him, and the sums of money
| advanced by the First National Bank
in SO to whitewash. the Commission
ers examination Of the County Treasu-
rY were to replace sums withdrawn by
the Ring, of which Mr. Schwab and
Lindley were members. At this time
Cornell and Philip Hughes, Cashier
and Director of the FIRST National
Bank, seeing that the finale was not
! long in the future, made application to
the Board of Commissioners to have
their names striken from Lindl6ys of
fetal bond, as Treasurer.
This was done in the fall of '69.
and from that time until the revelation
of the condition Of the Treasury, ,as hy
Reemelin made, there was war between
the Ring and the First National Bank.
The Ring went to the Bank and de-
manded loans under the threat that
the Bank would ''get the hot end of
| the poker" if it did not come down.
But it did not respond ...
A counter-mOve was then determined
uLon. The Ring, with what means it,
could gather from the County Treasu-
ry and from outside sources, bought
up a controlling amount of the stoc
of the Second National Bank in the
fall and winter of 50, and at the cleo
tion of January, 20, A. G. Sands was
made its President, andla Board elect
ed, the majority of which was in SYM
X with r nf
the Ring when this organization was
effected that it now had bank of its
own, and it Was its purpose to run that
bank as the first had run their bank
in connection with the County Treas.
ury, to which Office Lindley had been
re- elected for second term.
But before the Second National
Bank had gotten fully on it's legs, hard
ly fifty days after Sands had become
its President, MIR. ReemeIin dropped
into the Treasurer's office, pulled aside
the mask and disclosed, what had ex
: listed for long time, an empty Treas
ury
1t was death blow to the new and
corrupt com bination which had taken
possession of the Second National
Bank, and after brief season Sands
and his crowd folded their tents and
left the city, poorer by some thousands
of dollars than when they entered it,
1t has never been disclosed by whose
agency this exposure of the condition
OF. the Treasury was effected, but one
hundred knowing men have attributed
it to the First National, where one fool
ish person has attributed elsewhere.
During all this time, when the First
National was banking on the county
. money, loaning money to the Treas
l urer to Whitewash examinations, and
as report said at the time, schening to
ruin the Sands combination, because
: the golden egg had been taken from
: it-Mr. Sohn was director of the
t First National.
Once again: The defence made by
e the Joint committees in their Sd para
/, graph, that the monies deposited il
, the bank by Lindley and Brant were
e deposited by them as individuals, and
n not as Treasurers, shows that they did
) not regard the law the dead letter law
Y they are pleased to style it in the 9tL
P? paragraph The Bank and Mr. Sohr
. well knew that neither Mr. Brant no
1AIA1J WHY I1O1 vi LnCduS lIdO bnSO
n could carry deposits, aggregating a
/ times 100000 and 100000. Cornel
l. carried down to Lindley the $83,00t
n balance which Brant held over, an(
7, Lindley re-deposited the identical sun
knowing it to be county money. Wha
# -G0rueft and BraT1t and LindIey knew
q we have the testimony of Murphy
and the two Hughes that they alsC
IS knew, and whoever else might be ig
e norant of the kind of funds tn
S, Treasurers were depositing, the direc
g tors of the First National certainl,
al were not.
And yet, after denying, in the Stl
1T paragraph of their defence, that Mr.
r. Sohn had any knowledge of these lille
is gal proceedings, the committee set u
r in their 9th paragraph, as an addition
d al defence, that Mr.. Sohn must no
T. be judged harshly for these transac
Is tions for the reason that the law wa
a dead on the statute books and proba
bly, had been violated in every count
Of in the State.
I'd What sort of defence is this to cor
he done for Mr. Sohn's violation of th
u law by saying that other men hay
done the same thing as that charge
upon him.
rs If man steals horse, or commit
y. murder or does other unlawful ac
}, shall this Justify Mr.. Sohn in the com
ed mission of a similar crime? And
e a thousand banks use county none
X contrary to law, is-Mr. Sohn thereb
ed justified in violating that law. Is thi
IS the way reforms are to be accomplish
ur ed, and pure atmosphere to envelop
IN the administration of national affairs
rs And now let us see the conclusion {
TX this whole matter. Mr.. Sohn had bee
er a director of the First National Ban
1t, from the time the sub Treasury la
lis was first violated by BraEt to the tim
er it was last violated by Lindley.
1t The Treasurer who first violated I'll
law was a stockholder in Mr.. Sohn
of bank, and for while, his brother
}, rectors knew that the county none
n was deposited in their bank, and the
20, knew the. deposit was illegal; ell
ay why was it deposited by Mr.. j.
Lindley instead of Treasurer Brant, {
nix Treasurer Lindley?
as If Sohn had knowledge of the la
les and their deposits, he violated the la
on for the meanest of all purposes
of make little money. If he was ignC
ito rant of the law and of the deposi
nal during all these five years, when eve
be other man in the bank was cogniza
lld of the facts, how mean a capacity
must have? One of these two concl