Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-04-01

"
let you know-or take il elsewhere"
Thereupon a copy of the paper was
produced and the following colioquy
toak place, in the hearing of seven per-
sons, two Of whom are not connected
with the paper. The questions and
answers were:
mir. Van Dugteren, did the reporter
say to YOU, 'Nr. Paa DugtTea, 4 beiieye
YOU rsads ths exainiaGtioa Of he books ia the
eitg hsasxrsr's o5see at the time Of the Perry
froabies'"
''Yes, sir"
What answer did you maker
"fes, sir"
'.p.d the reporter ask. Did you 90
back Of ire isst ,ro years Of Perry's admiais-
.TotioR ia that eran,inatioa'
''Yes, slr."
What was your answer
No, sir, 4 did aot.'
Distinction and Difference.
add the reporter ask, Why didn't
you 20 back into the JSrst tro years OF his ad-
ssiHe9rassou'
"les, SIR"
"What answer did you make?"
al HAD NO ORDERS To-"
THE reporter says In his report that
Mr.. Van Dugteren answered II hod or
Ggrs not 20.
"Dld the reporter ask From whom
did you receive those orders%
"Yes, SIR"
"Whgt was your answer"
"Ncsor UM."
Had Time to Consider.
IL will be seen from the above that il
the reporter made any error 1t was In
writing his answer 81 had orders not
TO-" which Mr.. Van Dugteren changes
10 II had no orders to-" This may be
a vital difference, but inasmuch as Mr..
Van Dugteren had the benefit OF coun-
sci and further consideration IN regard
to the effect OF nis interview. THE HER.
AID will be pardoned X IT insists that
the reporter was right.
A reporter was also sent to see Mr..
Raiguei, who admitted that eight of the
a,estions and answers were correct but
asserted that the ninth and tenth were
wholly wrong. OG the other hand the
reporter stands ready tc make atidavlt
that his report Is correct.
A reporter was also detailed TO see
Msvor Uhi. but he could not be found
in hrs oiiice.
Again THE HERALD denies that II is
actuated by sinister motives IN calling
attention to this matter. Mayor Uhl
declared that the city "hss lost not q
dollar by The dishonesty OF democratic
officials The IiTRxLp SIMPLY wants
TO know how ne knows this is true. Ii
he knows il TO be true it Is an easy task
TO make the source of his information
public.
Only Half Examined.
The common council ordered an
investigation OF Treasurer Perry's
books and aIso ratified the action
of the mayor III employing the
two experts. The mayor certainly
acted with eommeudab,e dispatch
when his attention was called 10 the
alleged crOoksduess III Perry's office.
That investigation covered a period ex-
tending from the first Monday IN May.
1889. ta the 10Th day Of Nav, 1891.
The experts saw they did not examine
the books fer Pcrry's first term because
they "were not ordered to-" aud the
mayor says be acted officially" in
rlving instructions TO the experts.
Notwithstanding the order OF the
council that full investigation be
made, il was limited 10 two years.
Where q THE difference between telling
nan officially TO examine set of
books covering four years. for two
years only, ard IN telling INN to
examine for certain perlcd7
VIII Mayor Uhl and the two experts
hide behind so triflIug aisarranginens
of words or misqaotsiion To escape
responsibility for wnst u believed 20 ne
offcisl negiectf Mr. Van Dugteren
asserts that be aud Mr.. Rsgnei did
not examine the hooSs OF Treasurer
Perry for his FIRST tefm because che
had 90 orders to, and yet inslsss that
because the types made il sppesr II
was ordered not 10" that the article
was misleading"
Wer. These Nisesdfnss
Was 10 misleading" for these ex-
rerts hv and with the krovledge OF
Mayor Uhl to report that the sceounts
Of Treasurer Perry balsncssi when IN
fact he had stolen not $4,000. bat ovsf
f2o GOO from the city tresFury' When
these experts made the discovery aad
not tili then was the deficit made good
bv Gis bondsnless.
Was Il ssnsisleadinze when Nssor
rhg ard these experts Deliberately re-
lporte.s 10 the eeunell a state Of ssTalfs
that practically exonerassd q fhsrf sfsd
srabazzfpr wiisa fses knew be bs3
stolen aud sgent ever fze,eeo u eity