The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1875-05-06
The Confusion of Barnabas.

an eQlIOrlal, put Is So obviously INSPIRED
by the Collector, and is so pervaded by
his peculiar shutting evasion and falsii-
cation. that it cannot be regarded other
than as his only-as much so as though il
bore his sign manual We shall therefore
consider the production as his personal at
tempt at vindication. 1t purports to be q
defence-it is really confession.
One of the charges is that the Collector
violates the law by residing in another
town. The explanation which Barnabas
makes is this
In regard to the charge of non-residence the
statements We're that the Collector, though moi
technically Il resident of the city, exercised 8
constant supervision over the service OF the
Custom House: remained there when there
was any thing that especially required his ser
vices, and that at all other times, he was in
reach of the telegraph, and his presence could
| be procured at any hour when required.
The constant supervision Of a custom
house by collector WHO'S personally deal.
ING out Goldfish and molasses in grocery
ten miles away, is something amusing
The language OF the law is that "a col
lector shall be appointed to reside at Bel
fast, which shall be the only port Of entry
tor said district" The question here is
very simple Does the Collector reside al
Belfast? No. Then he violates the law
All the talk about technicalties and tele.
graphs is bosh.
81, "A .I,,,
and Rust stated that no stipulation or agree
ment was or had been made between either OF
them and the Collector, whereby he should rc-
tain any part of their salaries, or that any part
should enure to any third person, and that they
had never signed any vouchers for money which
they had not received in full.
This goes for what it is worth, If true,
the government pear is not quite so rotten
in that particular spot as had been sup
posed
Daniel L. Pitcher, Detective and Measurer,
stated that no agreement existed between him
and the Collector, that the latter should retain
any part OF his salary. Being asked if he had
received the full amount since he had held the
office, he replied that he had. as he considered
it. but a portion of it was in the Collector :
hands. which he considered lent money
This is entirely too thin, when it is no
torious that the Collector did retain and
pocket fully three tourths OF the pay of
that office 1t is confessed. as will be seen
further along, that the Collector retained
1925 a year from the pay of Mr. Parker, a
man who performed daily work at the
custom house. Then why could he not
retain three fourths Of the pay of a perfect
sinecure, who did nothing?
We copy entire the concluding portion
of the article
As to Collector Roberts arrangement with
Mr.. Parker. it is but just to bear in mind that
whatever disapproval his acts may be subject
to. they arise wholly from befriending the man
who has now turned his accuser; aman whose
abors had become no longer useful to the
church here, and who was out of employment
and to whom the favor was Godsend He
was informed by the Collector when he applied
for the place that he was under obligation to
other friends who were candidates for places
under him. and that he owed it to them to salts
fy them with something IN lieu of the place if
he should give it to him. TO this Mr. Parker
most heartily consented was glad to take the
office by thus helping to satisfy the other claim
ants, and further stipulated to resign any time
the Collector requested. As to the relations of
the Collector with the government, lie is re-
spOnsible for the management OF the office ;
gives bonds for the faithful discharge of its
duties; and is responsible for the mateasance
of those under him; they are hardly more than
clerks or assistants of his. He emphatically
denies, rs we understand. that he has put any
thing into his own pocket outside his fees or
salary, and the question is rs to how far he Is
to be considered culpabe for doing what is
done, and always has been done, in regard TO
political offices all over the country, under alt
administrations.
But how does the investigation leave Mr..
Parker? He is a minister Of the Gospel; Il
teacher of religion. He understands the nature
Of an oath. Ought we not to suppose when he
come to see the voucher he was re4MryeT "a. to
that he had receited 50 much neoney bei4g
the dn10unt Of his S0lory IN tW up to date,
that he would at once have refused to sign it.
and that he would have resigned the place in
righteous Indignation and have appealed to the
government? Then would have been the time
to prefer charges. But he did no such thing.
He signed; not one nor two only, but more
than forty, and would have kept on signing
them as long as he was retained in office. And
he is now filled with spite because he has no
longer the opportunity TO sign those vouchers
and draw his pay. We forbrar further com
mentS.
This is very specious argument - the
shallowest of sophistry. Granting, tor
the moment, all that it declares, and how
does the investigation leave Barnabas !?
He was appointed Collector at Belfast. a
position OF responsibility, of trust, and
with confidential relations to the govern
ment. He should be the representative
Of its integrity and fail dealing, its dig
nifty and power. He is pledged to fidelity,
incorruptibility, and vigilance in the dis
charge Of his duties. He is to be an eN
ample especially 80 his official subordi-
mates. Before entering upon his duties
he took the following oath Of office
/, Barnabas NJ Roberts, having been ap-
pointed Collector of Belfast, do solemnly, SIN
cerely and truly swear, that | will diligently
and faithfully execute the duties of said Office
of Collector, and will use the best of my abilities
to prevent and detect FRAUDS in relation to the
duties imposed by the laws OF the United States.
The friends of Mr.. Parker allege that
was never administered to him-that it
was purposely omitted by the connivance
of the Collector. 1t makes no particular
difference in considering the guilt OF the
Collector, which horn Of this dilemma he
takes. If he withheld portion of the
salary of a subordinate, as is admitted, he
was guilty of a gross piece of knavery; If
he took a fraudulent voucher therefor, he
was guilty of another piece OF knayery.
The vouchers We're either sworn to, or
they We're not. II they were sworn to,
the Collector knew they were false, and
that the oath was by his procurement and
command, and he was the guilty man
If they were not sworn to the Collector
was guilty Of gross corruption and fraud
And in either case he is convicted of VIC
lation of his trust and OF his own solemn
oath. Ii he alleges that such things hap
pened once or happened forty times, he is
selfconvicted of outrageous fraud every
time he makes the charge. There is no
escape from it. Why, look at it. The