The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1879-03-14
Continued from, last t0celt. }

e~AAthNN hNARAN AAAP betRAN Va AhAfAeNA
auditors during the time they were en-
gagged in auditing the war claims. My
attendance was by order of the board,
as appears by the following extracts
from the minutes of it's proceedings on
May /, 1874.
"ordered That Major Quincy A. Brooks,
assistant quarternastor general, attend the
sittings OF the board, to furnish informa-
ton and assistance in reference t0 tho claims
aforesaid" Also, "Ordered, That tho
clerk, with the assistance OF Major Brooks,
prepare an abstract of all the claims or ac
counts referred to, ia accordance with tho
form agreed on by the board" otc.
/ trust that the above orders will be
regarded as sufficient reason for my
attendance.
With the view of throwing discredit
upon the board, the committee falsely
asserts that it (the board) accepted my
explanation MS TO the correctness of
each voucher as conclusive. This is II
handsome compliment to me, and one
for which | should feel very much fiat
tered, it it were properly supported by
facts, but it is not There were five
claims which | did all in my power to
have rejected by the board, but they
were every one allowed in spite of my
opposition.
The Committee asserts that the "aud-
iting board would allow no extra pay
for private soldiers performing extra
duty, when such duty WAS actually per
formed" This assertion is wholly false.
The following allowances to privates for
extra duty were made by the board, as
appears by the record Of its proceed
ings, viz: George Wells, private, Co.
+, for 20 days extra AZ cook James l..
Pyburn, private, for So days extra duty
as packer; VIM. +. Woodsou, private
Co. +, Sc days extra duty ms packer
Howard Turley, private, Co. L, FOR 80
days extra duty as hospital steward ;
VIM. Adams. private, Co. c, for Il
DAYS extra duty as expreSsman.
The committee appears to be very in
diguant because three illegal claims for
extra duty were disalIowed. Thosc
claims were utterly devoid of any merit
whatever, and the reason which gov
erncd the board in making the disal-
lowances are explained by reference to
one OF the rules { No. 81 adopted BY the
board for its government in auditing
these claims.
The committee are quite compliment.
taIy III their attentions to me, assert
ing, among other things, that I was a
great favoritc with the late state al
administration, and was employed by j;
in a number Of capacities. | am sorry
that | cannot plead guilty to this "SgtI
impeachment" never was n favor
ite" with the late admins. ration or any
member of it, nor WAS employed by
it in "nurnber" Of capacities / was
employed only in one capacity. {
that of agent of the board Of land
commissioners for the selection d
swamp lands in Lake county. In thi,
capacity | was instructed by the boarC
to represent the state in all contests II
the u. S. district land Office, involving
the right Of the state to lands in tht
| klamath basin claimed by the stat" 81
swamp. These lands had been select
ell by the state in accordance with TIN
survey of ID. p. Thompson. Afte
the lands had been so selected, ant
after they had bee.. sold to differen
individuals under the state law, the,
were Jumped" by persons who under
took to, hold them under the Homestead
and pie-rmption laws. Hence thes
contests, and there were quite mum
ber of them. They gave me goo'
deal of trouble, and never was full
paid for my time and services, for tn
board cut down my bill about $500
The committee are heavy on abuse, an
if the members had only known c
this matter feel certain that the
would have roundly abused the boar
for not allowing me that little $500
Such a course would have been equal
gratifying to my feelings and creditabl
TO the committee.
The committee says that "numerou
contests were had before the board b,
tween @. A. Brooks and settlers, II
garding land filed on by Brooks, au
by them invariably decided in Brook
favor"
The puerile driveling and silly cha
acter of this document is more clearl
illustrated by the above quotation tina
by any language could possibly en-
ploy. The word "them" in this pas
, age, it it means anything, means "se
tiers" and the committee states tn
they invariably decided in Brook
favor" Now, if the "settlers" deci
ed in Brooks favor, what right har
the committee or ''any other man"
complain. 1t is true l have had OF
and onl y one contest before the board
but it was not instituted by nae, n
was it with "settler." 1t was broug
against me by a man Who desired
purchase a small piece of land that
had previously purchased from Il
board as swamp. The case was deci
ed in my favor by the board, and
now pending in court Perhaps this
what is meant; if so, it will be to t
. interest of one of the committee til
the case be decided in my favor, oth'
wise it will establish the fact that
P. Thompson was guilty of perjury
I, returning the land in question
"lake."
The committee, in referring to t
subject of swamp lands, asserts that
4 lections were made of large tracts
land as swamp (which were not 81
and that "these selections are SO nj
gled with those that are really swan
: and overfowed q that they are of
: value, and do not constituteseven st
q in the direction of securing title to t
state The inconsistency of this stai