The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1875-09-17
IUDGE RUFRNATs DEFENSE.

GAA
act Of. courtesy, we publish elsewhere in
a defense of his action in the premises.
This is proper, and the public could even
have hoped that it had been made soon
er, before it had so much the appearance
of having been made, reluctantly, under
the stress of a pressing necessity.
He prefaces his statements with q
stump speech with regard to how he has
done his duty as Probate Judge, and
ends with the consolation that he has a
clear conscience. He is the keeper of
his own conscience, and we would not,
for moment. desire TO ruffie the serene
and placid satisfaction with which he re-
CARDS his official life. But as it is with
his acts, and not with his conscience
that the public have to deal, we would
remind him that his conscience does not
enter as factor into this problem.
The case stands jusr thus: On the
9th day of August last we charged that
either Judge Huffman or the editors of
the Courier had suppressed portion of
the report of Geo. f. Pendleton, Esq,
as to the condition of the County Treas
ury.
The Courier at once Indignantly de-
MED it, but neither it nor Judge Huff
man offered any public explanation OF
the matter, though the latter did say
privately to us that the copy of the re-
port as published was in the hand-wri
ting of Mr.. Pendleton, thus giving the
impression that he (Huffman) was not
responsible for the omission. Mr.. Pen
dleton, however, still insisted that the
published report was not a true copy OF
the report as made by him, and the
copies of the report on file in the Audit
or's, Treasurer's and Probate Judges
Office corroborated his statement, so that
this evasive Ito call it no harsher name)
explanation seemed very unsatisfactory.
After giving them two weeks to ex-
plain the matter to the public, we again
charged them with surpressing a por-
ton of said report, and inasmuch as the
Courier had denied Its completely in the
transaction, we called upon Judge Huff
man to clear his skirts. Whereupon the
Judge, having failed to evade the issue,
either by showing the responsibility upon
the shoulders of Mr.. Pendleton, or ST.
lence, comes into court and pleads gull
tn to the charge we made, but attempts
to justify it Oh the ground that the part
suppressed had mo proper place in the
report. He says:
'tOn the question being raised between
myself and Mr.. Pendleton, touching
said note, he said to me that the Treas
urer was not charged with the note Oh
the Auditors books. We then agreed
that it was not part of the Treasury,
and therefore, had no proper place in
the report" ETC.
Now, if Mr.. Pendleton "agreed that it
had no proper place in the report, " why
did he not erase it. 1t was his report !;
not yours; he, and not you, was testify
ing to its accuracy, and he and not yOu
was the person to decide what should
be embodied in that report. Your duty
began when you appointed Him to ex-
anime the Treasury and make the report,
and should have ended in the furnish
ing of duplicate copy" of such report
for publication.
But MFR. Pendleton says positively
that he did not agree that this note had
no proper place in the report; on the
contrary, that he claimed that it 1OaS
properly part of the report, and the
fact that he included this note in his re-
port corroborates his statement. Again,
Judge Huffman says:
"In my best Judgment, / deemed it
wrong to thrust in a report for publica-
tion matters that did not belong there"
We agree with you there 1t was
wrong for yOn to "thrust" anything in
that report, and it was just as wrong for
you to 'thrust" anything Out oft. Your
whole and sole duty with regard to that
report was to furnish a true copy of il
for publication. This, by your own
you did not do. Why you did
not, you know best, but under all the
it will be difficult for the
public to escape the conviction that
some personal or polical interest swerv-
ed you from the faithful discharge of
your duty as a public officer.
We still hold to the opinion that the
intentional suppression of any part of
the sworn report of any legally appoint
I'd public officer can only be fifty char
ierized as an "iGfdmOUS transaction"
which can only be excused on the
yround of the ignorance of the officer
guilty of such an.aet. There are other
grounds upon which it may be account
I'd for, but not excused.
With regard to your failure to appoint
IN accountant to examine the Treasury,
we hold that the law gives you no discre-
ton in the matter so far as making such
every six months is con
cerned. If you can give publicly any
of the law which gives you
such discretion, we will give you all the
credit to which such a construction en-
titles you. Second reason-that ''no
ma faarad that IIncIa Ran GGHubarfS
were not right" is the most
balderdash. The law is no
of persons, is general in its
and should be enforced, with
out regard to who is Treasurer. No
eulogy can be pronounced upon the
honesty or capacity of "Uncle Ben,"
that we will not fully endorse, but his
honesty or capacity has nothing to do
with the enforcement or non-enforcment,
Of the law by Judge. Huffman. The
simple statement of such an excuse is
largely upon the ignorance of
those whom you address.
We have made no charge against Mr..
Huffman, that we have not substantial
ted. In fact, we have simply published !
the records on file in his own Office, and
the law concerning his,duties.
If the note for 1904 in the Treasury |
safe does not belong to the county, as
Tudva Huffman aSSarfs Drov t0 whom