Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1872-04-16
That Inrestioation Again T.,


tains another article from 3D." ostensi'
bly, rs a REPUTATION of my former article,
but in reality, simply a rsitcration OF the
truth OF his old charges, without any
new evidence, accompanied by his ex-
cuses for the few errors that he acknowl.
edged He sets forth therein with that
civility and courtesy that usually charac-
terizes those. who. feeling their iounda
ton rapidly crumbl:ng beneath them,
strike out blindly in every direction in
the vain hope OF strengthening their
position, that my pretended corrections
of errors in The Report are themselves
mistakes" and again, near the close of
his article congratulates himself that "lhe
deficit still stands. and the correctness Of
thcReport is unimpeached. As he makes
these statements deliberately, il is but
lair to conclude that he has at east con.
vinced himself of their truth. Taking
that for granted, n little examination OF
his reasoning on these points may throw
some light upon the question as to how
much proof ii took TO convince him in
other matters connected with the in-
vestigatiou, and wha, weight should be
given to such convictions.
pointed out what | considered to be
five errors in the Report "B." has
taken them up one 10y one. and. il we
may Judge from his statements, in his
opinion has eflectuslly disposed OF them.
Let US examine that disposition. The
first error charged by me was that he had
stated the net proceeds OF the State Bonds
ut $27l.S3 more than they really were.
In reply to that, "B.n admits that it may
be So. he don't know surc-but ut any
rate they took the figures they gave from
the Auditors report for 1871, and they
thou:h Int that ought 10 he right. Every
the purpose Tor which the Committee was
chosen, was to investigate and see ii
these reports were right. What depend
ence can be placed upon an investigation
where they take part oil the Selectmen
or Auditors report for granted. even If
they investigate the remainder II will
take but little loaven 10 leavcn the
whole lump. No attempt whatever is
made TO disprove error No. one.
Tho mex: error charg ell by me, was
that the Committee had failed 10 allow in
their expenditures the sum OF S5SS.21 Tor
which notes were issued to pay town ex-
penses, and Tor which no money was re-
ceived. "B. 5" treatment OF this error is
very original and unique, and the cool
ness with which he winds up his ex-
PLANTATION thereof. with the assumption
that he has eiiectually disposed OF ii, Is
very refreshing lie would have il APP.
pear that had reckonsd therein the note
of $500 given to A. Bennett Tor building
bridge when the Committee had OK.
pressly stated in their Report that such
note was not reckoned by thom IN The
amount oi notes issued. Now although
"B has seen lit to ring the changes up
on the fact that happen TO hold the re-
sponsibe Office OF Town Clerk-yet |
hope that melancholy fact does not rem
der me incapable OF reading plain
English, or comprehendiDg plain state
ment. | think there was nothing IN my
statement that would lead any ono 10
think that bad any reference 10 that note,
YET rs III must dispose OF it somehow,
no probably took the first $500 that oc-
Cured to him, and argued strongly OF
the absurdi;y of allowing it among the ex-
pendlures. The odd SS3.27 he could
not account Tor, but conJectured i
might possibly have got into muddle
and charged the interest received on the
! Town Bonds as u note. That WAS very
| charitable conclusion, prompted, no
| doubt by his own experience in similar
| eases. As he desired the names oi the
| parties 10 whom these notes were issued,
am happy TO comply with his request.
! The notes were as follows:
| Miss Viola y Weber, s212j
| Mis-. {. Il Andrews, 5000
Scion Royal, 2ttoj
! Arba Thsysr, 1900