Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1874-10-16
WILYERT.S CoMmEsSuovEES.


missiouers .......... 1890. .... 60. SOC l.
Total amount received. ........$ So 4O3 u
The above we take from the receipt col
umn IN the Report DemocrGt0' last 'rcek.
We clip the above from a much labored
leader in the last weeks Dea.ocfGt. In
this article it was attempted to be insinua
ted, in reply to Il candid statement Of facts
which did not reflect much credit on the
democratic officers who preceded the pre-
| sent board of Republican Commissioners
in Office, that the latter had not wisely or
honestly managed .he sales of certain tax
titles to certain lands held by the county
for many years, and that they had not
fully and .Airly accounted for tie moneys
received from such sales.
1t seems mauilestly 10 have been intend
C& by The writer Of that article that the
/ reader should perUse only the caption for,
otherwise, it could scarcely have escaped
his attention that the gruuudlessness OF the
insinuatIoD must have been detected by
any even the most cursory-reader. Note
the language Of the Democrat itself: 1.-THE
above we take from the receipt column OF
the Auditors') Report" Does this not
expressly contradict the insinGaSion intend
ed This is an official report Of the legal
iy constituted agents OF investigation, the
peoples own detectives, especially appoint
ed and elected for The express purpose Of
, g. ha md
expenditures, Of the County Commission
ers, and their verdict is that every dollar
has been honestly and faithfully account
ed for and paid into the peoples treasury.
What better proof can an honcst officer de-
size Of his fidelity 10 ais trust than that
the Democrat has been obliged to furnish,
because this public record, made by the
taxpayers own censorS, would tell no other
more appalling tale ,? Il speaks loudly in
praise of !.I0se the DemOcrQt would have
condemned.
Bet why did not Ike Democratic Com
misSioners who were III power during, and
who managed the sales of, 1867 furnish some
evidence to those same agents, or to the
people themselves who surely have not
forfeited ali their right to enquire into and
to know, as 80 what was done by tkcGt
while in Office and power, or as to how
much money they received from their sales
OF the most available aud selected of all the
tracts Of hand which took place that year ?
Why DO they still refuse to cnlightcn the
taxpayer as to how much "the column of
re@;pts" should in justice and common
right have shown for that year?
What must the honest voter, the lair
minded reader, infer from the profound ST.
lence observed then, and which they stub
bornly keep up still rs to this matter,
though, in the very article to which the
Dsm0crGt SO bombastically attempts the
reply referred TO. they are especially chal-
lenged to explain their Gland transaction
of 1861 - But that there may be no doubt
as to our cali for explanation in this re-
gard, we now repeat, let the Democrat eX-
plain what the nature of the transaction
was under the Democratic Commissioners
sales of 1867 ? and let them inform their
| readers how much of the peoples money
was received from those sales and how
much of the whole sum went into private
pockets We would like to have the pep
pie see the list of the names of the purchas-
ers and how much purchase money they
paid, and to whom il was paid.
Those honest Democrats have lcfl no
such papers on file in the Office of the Com
missioners, where ge would naturally ex-
pect to find them, and therefore we call for
light Is it possible they carried away,
deep down III their private pockets, those
papers, As well as the large sums of money
they are fairly presumed TO have received
Where are those evidences which alone can
throw light on "these dark transactions ~
Why can't we fiud an Auditors Report
on these public duties of the Democratic
Board of Commissioners performed in 1861
in reference to the sales of the peoples
lands effected by them? The editor of the
Democrat has quoted the statement at the
head of this article from the Auditors Re
port on the public conduct Of the RepubH-
can Commissioners as to the sales Of 1873,
and why not favor the public with n SINH
lar quotation from the Auditors Report
as to the transactions of the Democratic
Commissioners of 1867? Haven't the pcO-
pie as good and inalienable a right to re-
quire a strict account from the latter rs
the former
When did they relinquish this right to
Democratic Office holders?
May they, therefore, not inquire how
much money was received by the Demo
cratic Commissioners in 1867 with the
same propriety that they have been fully
! informed how much was received by the
! Republican Commissioners in 1873 ? Are
| they not both equally accountable TO the
! people, and one not whit more than the
other
But the large sum Of money which the
Republican Commissioners realized for the
people and actually paid into their treasury,
is isattempted to be deprecated by the article
/ of the DemOciut To effect this. the editor
/ descants at great length on the magnitude
/ of the expenditure while acknowledging, rs
! the records referred to obligc him TO do,
that the receipts are much larger and more
/ highly crcditable 50 far as concerns the land
| transactions Of the Republican Commits
! siouers. He cannot blot out that from the
/ sales Of 1873 and 1874, the large sum OF
nearly Sll, 900 above all expenditures con-
nected with the transaction, has actually
! been paid into the county treasury, and al
ready appropriated TO the uttcrextinguish-
ment of the ancient county debt contracted,
and sluggishly diminished under Democra-
tic rule
1t is the faithful application Of this fund
as we'll as of all others belonging TO the
peoples treasury that The Republican Com
missioneys, though in power less than two
years, have been cuabled to accomplish
| ,b:s ,,,st ,,ratifNiuu rpsulf IL is tho same