The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1878-09-12

excess is without any authority of law,
and that the balance of said excess has
been allowed under a construction o the
first section of said act which the COM
mittee believes to be erroneous.
The above report was signed by Mr..
Paine, Mr.. Atkinson and myself. Then,
had Mr.. Paine made up his mind, when
under oath he signed tlat report, dur
ing the committee meeting? l think
Mr.. Paine's statements concerning the
facts in relation to the action of the COM
mittee are in the main fair, yet he is GER
tainly mistaken when he says that he
was unsettled in his mind as to that
second $1,000 Mr.. Paine further says.
"The committee did not report any
amount, and did not agree as to what the
proper amount was. In conversation in
the committee, | said to Mr.. Aleshire
that if he desired, we would 60 over the
books, and itemize in our report the
amounts which, in our judgment were
not properly drawn, and in accordance
with this suggestion the books were ex-
amined by Mr.. Aleshire and myself Mr..
Atkinson being otherwise engaged) and
the amounts drawn by the Auditor ascer-
| tained but for some reason, which | do
not now remember-probably because the
committee were not agreed on the $1,000
item-these items were not inserted
If it be true, that the committee did
agree that the balance of said excess had
been allowed under construction of the
first section Of said act, which the COM
mittee believed to be erroneous could it
be probable, even, that the reason that
the amounts drawn by the Auditor, were
not inserted in the report, was because the
committee "were not agreed on the
$1,000, item.
The true reason that it was not insert
ed was, because Atkinson said it was use
less.
Mr. Paine further says:
"If Mr.. Patterson has overdrawn in any
amount it ought to be paid back, which
he is willing l understand to do. In this
connection it might be well to state that
| presume, although l have made no ex-
animation Of the books that the state
ment and table of Mr. Aleshire's in your
issue Of August Sth, concerning the mis-
cellaneous fees drawn by Mr.. Patterson,
is correct The question whether he has
so overdrawn or not is in the main de-
pendent upon the construction of the 1st
section of the law of April "a, 1877, and
the question involved in its constitution
ality."
If the question, whether Patterson has
so overdrawn or not, depends upon the
construction of the lst section of the law
of April "a, 1877, and the question involv
ed in its constitutionality, as Mr.. Paine
says then, there is but one way left to
determine that question, and that is te
bring an action for the recovery of thai
money and have the question of its con
stitutionality and construction decided
Mr.. Patterson could not object to that i
he is willing to pay what he has over
drawn, if any, as they say he is-it woulc
settle this question.
Now, in order to show you, and the
people, that am in earnest in this mat
ter, l make this offer. If the Prosecut
ing Attorney, C. A. Atkinson (the only
legally authorized person that can bring
such an action) will bring an action fol
the recovery of that money, and draw VI
his pleadings so that trial of the case
can be had on its merits, and such trial ii
had and recovery is not made from Mr.
Patterson, and the county is adjudged tt
pay the costs, l will pay the same, ane
save the county harmless. If Mr.. Atkin
son has any delicacy in taking my wore
} upon this matter, will enter into a writ
ten contract, to that effect and give gooe
security for the faithful performance o
the same. Yours, &c,
j. A. ALEsHIRE