Richland beacon., 1877-08-25
RAYVILLE. =. LOUISIANA,
Saturday, August rs, 1877.
DIR. TOLER'S REPL I.

IOicr, III Which W icI"s W ".N''
card of Major w. I. Oliver and an
editorial paragraph that appeared in
our las. issue, in tie same spirit Of
hberalily and fair-play that we admit
ted that card and, in order that there
might be no possible cause of COM
p!aint of our having changed the
meaning O: his letter, we publish it
as nearly as it is written as it could
possibly have been done, unless 1t had
been Autographed.
We are not absolutely certain that
We understand all Of Mr. Toler's let
ter. and we are sure he did not under
stand our editorial, else he certainly
would not speak Of our "indigna,ion.'
for if there is a single expression of
indignation in that editorial, then we
signally failed to express our feelings;
nor can we vet find thought in it
that will bear such construction in the
remo,est degree. But as he pro-
pounds few questions TO US, we will
proceed to answer them as briefly and
conciscly as possible, begging our
readers pardon for inilicting so much
of one subject on them at once, and
that, too, Of SO unpleasant a nature.
|. lie wants us to "namc the line
in the report that even alludcs to the
School Board OF which w. /. Oliver
was treasurer and secretary &c.
Now if the CHARGING Of one of its
members with defalcation is not an
allusion TO the Board, and an inveSti-
CATION of its acts, we are at loss to
know what to call it. And, besides,
he asserts in this letter that the report
was based upon the records and min
utes Of that Board. Now if the bas
ing of such report upon the records
of a body does not imply very rigid
investigation OF its acts, we cannot
understand " hat it does imply. We
do not understand that the committee
was appointed for such purpose, for
we think their business was only with
the last treasurer, who had not beer
released from his bond
3. We cannot see yet what good is
to be derived, to the public, from the
investigation nor the publishing of
Oliver as a defaulter, four years after
he and his b N d IN n had been
released from his bond as treasurer
y and certainly Mr.. Toler will not deny
that they were released, although
there was not quorum Of the Board
present when the resolution ordering
the cancellation of the bond was pass
3D. We do not profess to be as learn
ed in the law as our distinguished
legal friend-for We have never been
admitted to the bar nor had any hand
in enacting laws but it strikes u:
that bond would prescribe by limita
ton in course of time, if the proper
authority failed to demand settlement
of treasurer. The law fixes til,
time at two years, if we are not mis-
taken--and we express this belle
with all due Difference to the opinion
Of the learned attorney. If the absen
members were not satisfied with thu
action of those who ordered the bont
cancelled, they had ample time il
which to enter an objection, and thei
silence expresses satisfaction with th,
settlement. Besides, we had distric
attorney pro tempOre, who has AWAY
been very watchtul of the interests o
the parish, and we very natural.
presumed that if there had been an,
dcfalcation, either he or The distric
attorney would have discovered
when the books were in the hands G
the Grand Jury.
3. We had no intention of "pitct
ing into" any one; but there is vas
difference in reporting a treasurer
dcfaulter after be and his securitie
have been released from bond, and
reporting a tax collector in defau
while his bond was still in full force
and in a matter that came dlrectl
before the present Board, with no il
tervening time on which 10 claim PR
!. scription. And the same rule apple
to the suit brought against Oliver an
his bondsmen. If the police juryme
discovered defalcatiOn it was the
duty as public servants to bring su
on the bond to recover the money d.
the perish, while there was an oppo
tunity of doing so; and it was L
part Of our duty as public journal
to interpose any contumacious ohje
ton to the proceeding, nor to NAL
any remarks calculated to bias d
cision one way or another. We hay
thus answered this query, althoug
the cases are not parallel, and Il
question, therefore, irrelevant.
4. This question is answered abov
The records show that the bond W;
cancelled and, although the record
used such language in recording Il
cancellation as showed doubt rs
the legality of the order of the pre-:
dent of the board, and thus left Il
matter open to contest, yet no oil
saw IL TO interfere. and the right