The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-09-05


To the Editors Of the Mansfield Herald
In the Herald of the Sth inst you have
copied with approval a communication
TO the Cincinnati Gazette from Nenia, OF
July Goth, signed "Ero," relative to the
reorganization of the Ohio Soldiers and
Sailors Orphans Home, in which this
sentence occurs:
oFrom all this 1t is plaiuthat Mr.. Burns has vi
olated his oath of Office and ought to be impeacn
ed for as before stated the law expressly requires
that each member of the Board before entering
upon his duties shall take an oath to in all thlnBs
protect the interests ofthe state
do not care to reply to what may be
said of me politically, but when l am
charged with the violation Of an oath and
a fit subject for impeachment, l propose
to defend my honor, What l shall say
in this communication | say on my own
responsibility, and without consulta'
ton with the other members OF the
Board.
Let us see in what my "ofticial perjury"
consists and what are the facts:
When the Board met on the 10th of
May last to take the oath of office, they
found the Home without Superintend-
ent, the law having legislated Mr.. Shaw
out of office, so that it was not question
of removal but a question of Gppotntmrnt.
The second section of the law provides
that "Said Board Of Trustees shall assoon
as coaUnjent appoint Superintendent for
said institution" &c. So after the organi.
zation of the Board, we found that the
retiring Board had not held meeting for
two months, and large amount of bust
ness required attention, and which oCcu-
pied all the eattention the Board could give
at that time, las supposeit is well known
that the Trustees get no pay for their SER
yices) 1t was considered not best to act
upon the appointment of Snperintend.
ent at their meeting as the year was about
closing and arrangement for sending
home such of the children as desired to
90, was not entirely completed, Another
meeting ofthe Board was held on the Oath
of June, at which was not present land
what was done l know not, but the rec
ords of the institution will show,
The Board met again on the 10Th of
July. If what l have said is true, have
not surely violated my oath of office up
to this time, as l think all will admit
Now let us see what was done at that
meeting which can be charged as "vio'
lation Ofmy oath of office" and for which
l ought to be impeached After disposing
of large amount of business, it became
the duty of the Trustees to appoint mot
remove) a Superintendent, in strict COM
plianCe with our oath of Office. The
Board consisted of fUe members, four
Democrats and one Republican. We
found six candidates for the appointment
of Superintendent, all of whom were
Democrats but one, and that one was Mr.
Shaw. who had supplanted Democrat
(Prof. Kerr two years before, or, to putt
in plain terms, Republican Board of
Trustees had turned out Democrat to
make room for Mr.. Shaw, but now we
found him and his friends asking Dem
ocratic Board to reappoint him to the
exclusion of DemoCrat-toa an impartial
observer such claim would seem little
cheeky. We were required by law to APP
point a superintendent, and | admit |
was surprised when the vote was taken
and Mr.. Shaw had secured two Demo
cratic votes, and expressed my surprise
right then and there, but soon discover
ed the reason AS soon as one of the
Trustees, who had voted for Mr., Shaw,
SlgqeStsd that we proceed to make the
otnerappointments, called his attention
to the law, which provides that these ap
pointments could only be made ION the
nomination of the Superintendent" Mr..
Shaw was then invited into the room and
then for the first time was Unknown to me
that he SHAW had promised that if he
was appointed Superintendent he would |
nominate none but Democrats to fill the |
other offices. Upon being reminded Of
his promise by the gentlemen to whom |
it had been made, he began to pTeUdriCate |
he was not then prepared, and suggested |
the propriety of retaining one ofthe prin-
Cipal Republican employees, and said he
was authorized by the person suggested, |
to propose to the Board, that if retained |
he would remit or donate 5000 of his sal
ary to pay for the board of his family at
the Home. This proposition was at once
rejected by the Board whereupon one of
the Trustees who had voted for Mr.ShaW |
said he had been acting under the belief |
that the organization was to be fully COM
pleted that night, and if he had not acted |
on that belief he would not have voted |
for Shaw, whereupon either Mr.. Kirk
patrick or myself suggested that if he was |
I,cc, liaG al I, ~ opt,ll ronny.gtIa
ton, which he did at once, the question |
on reconsideration was taken and Mr. |
Stimson voted with kirkpatrick and my |
self and the vote was reConsidered. Five |
or six votes were then taken and no one |
having majority the Board adjourned |
until six o'clock. The next mornings dur |
ing the adjournment, Messrs. Stimson,
Kirkpatrick and myself had a conference,
as we had right to, and did agree, as we
had right to, to appoint Democrat. |
DR.. Blackburn still adhered to Mr.. Shaw, !
but said that if majority of The Board !
decided to appoint Democrat he would |
vote for him. So when we met in the
morning, Mr.. Stimson, Mr.. kirkpatrick |
and myself voted for DR.. Keifer, and be-
fore the vote was announced, DR. Black !
burn changed his vote and voted DR., |
Keifer, and he was appointed, and being
present accepted the appointment; has
since given bond in the sum OF $40 900 to
the acceptance of Republican Probate
Judge has taken the oath of Office, and |
is now in charge of the Home. When
the appointment Of Mr.. Keifer was made
Mr.. Stark, the Republican Trustee, said, |
"Gentlemen, YOU have made a most ex-
cellent appointment"
Now, if have detailed the transaction
correctly land challenge contradiction
where is the perjury for which l ought to
be impeached, or wherein l have failed |
to "protect the interests of the State" or
'jeopardize the interests of the Home ?"
Let the candid reader answer.
But who is DIR. Keifer2 l answer, a
most excellent and worthy gentleman. q