Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1883-03-19

his figures show the sum of Sl09l .55 to be
| all the work left undone under his contract
with the State for work of 1879. Mr.. Cam
eron did work in addition for the State in
1880 under the contract for 1880, amounting
| to Sl49.22 about which there is no dispute,
which sum makes up his claim of SS40.77.
Since Mr.. Cameron settled with the State
Dec. 30th, 1879 he has never brought in any
other bills than the two mentioned, viz: one
for sl09l 90 and the other for Sl49. %: from
that time to the present, never has produced
| any bill for any other work before the Coun-
ell, the Committee on Claims, or before any
tribunal whatever; and shall further show
the truth Of it by Mr., Cameron's own hand
writing. But what surprising and unheard-
of act did he do: Why. beneath his bill of
Sl09l.55 for his unfinished work of 1879.
done in 1880, he makes this record or men,
orandum, "Credit for cash on account, Dec.
''3l, 1879 $1,000. less expense of binding alb.
''stracts $780, Balance due A. j. Cameron
ION the account carried to 1880 account
"s69l .55." Now you will see gentlemen, that
he has made no charge for stitching and bind
ing abstracts, does not even state how many
there are for which he has taken the small
sum of $1,000. He simply brings in his ac-
count of Sl09l.55, giving very particularly
the items which make up that sum and then
at the bottom Of the account makes the men,
orandum have read to you. He settles him
self with A. j. Cameron, and puts in his own
pocket $1,000 without leave or authority from
any one, makes no bill, exhibits no vouchers
How convenient and easy It is for a man to
audit his own claims and settle
with himself, and put his hand into the treasury
and takes his own pay with no one to object.
He does not even say how many abstracts he
has bound; but he takes his pay a second
time for binding abstracts for which he had
received his pay prior to July 1879, and puts
the $1,000 in his pocket as l have said; and
after taking out from the $1,000 the $1,000,
leaving $40O, he deducts that sum, S40O, in
his settlement with himself, and without au-
thority, from the elO9l.55, and makes due
him. as he claims on this account, S69l 55.
So you will perceive, gentlemen, that he has
tried to make us believe that the S69l.55 ad-
ded to the 1922 for work of 1880, making
$S40.77, is the balance due him for work of
1879 for which he should receive his pay.
Didn't the 50 900 pay all the honest and just
accounts which he had and presented against
the State? Didn't that pay the Sl09l 55 and
the Sl4922, making his whole bill only
$l24O.77, which deducted from the $1,000
left due the State S759.23? He should be,
and would have been paid for his honest ac-
count had he presented his bill to the proper
persons. and then accounted to the State for
the balance. Instead of that he appropriates
$1,000 and takes the S400 (balance of the
S2OOO) and deducts that from the Sl09l. 80
and gets his $69l55. What right had he to
take the $1,000 and put it into his pocket and
not account for it, or asking to have it al
lowed him? What right had he to say that
he should receive his pay the second time for
binding these abstracts? And what right had
he to settle with himself in the manner he
did?