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

stitching and binding under his contract with
Smith & Co., or the State? Why if his was
| an honest and Just account, if he was q fair
| and upright man, what would he have done
What would any man do who had claim
against an individual. against q corporation,
or against the State, and wanted it settled !?
Wouldn't he make out his account? Wouldn't
| he make all his charges item by item as they
accrued, giving the dates, etc? Wouldn't he
give all his credits and make a fair, plain
| statement and exhibit of the facts in his case
so that you could understand it? Would he
go into all the business matters he may have
transacted with other men for the last eight
years? Would any of you, if it we're your
claim against the State, go and figure up the
stitching and binding, and the cash Smith 1
Co. and others had received from the State,
having no possible connection with your own
account or contract for eight years previous?
What has that to do with this claim. And he
goes on afterwards and says, balance to A.
j. Cameron for work in 1879, S69l.55 Now
Mr.. Cameron does not tell us how he got this
amount. If you have followed, me you will
remember l explained that this sum was OBJ
tanned by deducting the $1,000, which he put
in his pocket from the $1,000 paid him the 3lst
of December, 1879, by the fusion Governor,
and then taking the balance of S400 and de-
| uuCtlug IL lTOm uli WHICH Wdt TcauN
him of Sl09l.77, and the balance makes the
$69l So. read further from Mr.. Cameron's
original statement of facts, "Total balance
now due A. j. Cameron for 1879 and 1880 is
$S40.77." You see he claims it was all for
work in 1879, when the contract was for work
of 1873, except Sl49.22 for work in 1880.
And here is n statement on the same paper
where he says, paid to A. J. Cameron for
abstracts of Agricultural Societies doings for
1893, $l600." There, gentlemen, you see
that he, in his own handwriting, says that he
has had paid to him $1,000 for binding and
stitching these abstracts for which he now
claims pay. Who paid it to him? Where is
there any evidence that there was any settle
ment and he was paid for them? Here he
claims that he was paid $1,000, which was
never paid him by the State. In his other
account you will find he claims Ss40.77 due
on work for 1879, including the Sl4s.22.
One word more in relation to this mans
bill or statement as it oppears here to-day.
He undertakes to make us believe, and
probably has told every member of this
House with whom he may tave spoken, and
he has talked with many about the case, that
he was urged to bind these abstracts in the
fall of 1879; and he says he twas led to feel
'hOwever that if he was ordered by the State
"officials presumed or conceded to have the
authority to bind this abstract for 1873 he
twas obliged to do so by the contract which
chad been assigned to him by the original
contractors for 1873, and for which the
petitioner (Cameron) had given bond to
execute 1t is well known that the
Secretary of State had no authority what
ever to make any contract to bind these
abstracts, besides the Fusion Legislature
Mar. 6. 1879, repealed the law authorizing
appropriations for the publication of these
reports with special reports with special
reference to stopping all work on the Society
Reports or Abstracts, which had not been
even printed at that time. Bnt it 10 not true
so far as the evidence shows that Mr..
Cameron was solicited to bind these abstracts.
He solicited the Secretary Of State, Secretary
of the Board of Agriculture. His letters and
conversation and admissions show this fact.
1t was through his persistency as l under
stand that it was done, and there was no
intentional wrong npon the part of the Secre-
tary or Deputy Secretary of State, if he
believed he had authority to call upon the
Secretary of the Board of Agriculture to
furnish copy of the Abstracts to Mr.. Cameron
or to be printed for him to bind, although he
had no right to do so, and because he did so,
it does not follow that the Secretary of State
knew that Cameron had already received his
pay for doing this very work. There is moth
ing in the case that shows that the fusion
Secretary knew of this fact and it is fair
to presume he did not, Cameron goes on and
further says: "The petitioner has therefore
refrained from making any formal offer or
tender of the work to any State officer. until
the Governor and Council or legislature
should pass upon the matter" What did
Cameron do? You have found that he had
the money $4,000 the 3Ist of Dec. 1879 and
did not return it to the State Treasury. that
long prior to that date he had received his
pay for binding 5000 agricultural reports with
the abstracts for which he now calls upon us
to order paid over again, and give in ex-
change his abstracts bound separately in the
thin volume l have shown you. And you
will find in his statements which come under
later date, that he has undertaken to de-
ceve and confuse US all by his contradictory
and mixed up statements in regard to the
work done in years previous by himself and
others. (Mr. Freeman explains in what
way, also takes up Cameron's two statements
and in detail shows their contradictions, in
consistency, and further shows BY them the
falsity and injustice of his claims The re-
suit is that instead of the State owing Cam
eron S840.77, you find by his own figures and
statements here, Freeman exhibiting the ac-
counts which Cameron rendered to the coun-
Gil and the committee) clear and positive evil
dence that he is indebted to the State S759.23
besides the $500 or $500 which he has con-
fessed and his friends acknowledged he has
defrauded the State and also for money paid
him for binding the abstracts which were
never bound and delivered as contracted for
with Smith & Co. to whom the State could
look for a breach of contract, or to Cam
eron for money, paid him wrongfully for
work he did not do, in all l should say
he would owe the State. at least $500. I
would here state that your committee found
that Mr.. Cameron had bound five hundred
vols. of the reports with the abstracts for
which he had been paid Sl60, which perhaps
should be deducted from whatever balance
might be found due aud which I have not
mentioned before. [See House document
No. 80
Mr.. Speaker: thought it my duty before
this matter went completely out Of sight, be-
fore it came up again before a future council
or legislature, and while the facts were freeh
and proof accessible, to disclose the knowl-
edge had gathered upon the subject, that
we might understand exactly the nature of
this claim, severing it from all other consid-
erations.
If there is any one who can say that the
statements have made are erroneous and
II e. -.