Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1901-07-23
A PIECE OF NONSENSE.

Inc treasury department ID PioP"A
ing a new set of rules and regulations
regarding the redemption of mutilated
currency. Hereafter, when mutilatee
treasury note or silver certificate Is sem
in for redemption, it will have to be &C
companied by certificate from the
sender, stating Of whom he received II
and on what date, also a certificate from
each person who has ever had 1t In
possession, stating substantially the
same facts, and a certificate from the
engraving company which made the bill
and each of the workmen who did any
thing on it.
Now that may seem like burden
some and unnecessary process, and the
Democrat states frankly that the above
statement is not fact. 1t is merely
guessed. It is not, however, so wild
statement as might at first appear, but
is fair assumption, considering the
regulations which have been established
by the department regarding the re-
demption of unused revenue stamps.
When the revenue reduction law went
into effect July 1st, of course it left a
good many people with more or less
stamps on hand for which they had lit
tie or no use. The treasury department
established regulations for the redemp-
ton of those stamps, but so tied up
with restrictions and conditions that 1t
is a difficult and troublesome process to
get your money back. Stamps are not
redeemed in less quantity than two dol
lars, and they must be accompanied by a
certificate stating when they were
bought and of whOm-and that they
were bought within two years, as only
stamps bought within that time will be
Nor is the process so simple as that
statement may seem. Behold the num-
Der of knots that may be tied in a string!
AS an instance:
About year since business man of
South Paris ordered check book with
revenue stamps imprinted, at tho Demo-
GRAFT office. The checks were printed
here and sent to Portland firm to be
bound, accompanied by a check to pay
for the stamps. The Portland firm, &C
cording to their regular method of doing
business, sent the checks to printing
firm in New York which was authorized
to imprint revenue stamps. The stamps
were imprinted, the checks were re-
turned to Portland and bound, and the
book was sent to the Democrat Office.
Now the owner of the check book,
having three or four dollars worth of
stamps left, and desiring to redeem
them, sent the remaining stamped checks
to the collector of internal revenue for
this district, with certificate which he
was sufficient. His claim was,
of course, promptly returned for cor
rection, and as nearly as can be made
out at the present stage OF the instruc-
tons, the following documents are es-
sential to the redemption of the stamps:
A certificate from the owner of the
checks (duly sworn toy, stating when
and of whom he bought the stamps.
A certificate from Atwood q Forbes,
printers of the checks duly sworn toy,
stating on what date the money for the
stamps was forwarded.
A certificate from the Portland firm
which forwarded the checks to New
York, (duly sworn toy, stating we don't
know exactly what.
A certificate from the printing concern
in New York which imprinted the
stamps (duly sworn toy, stating we don't
know exactly what.
With all these documents furnished,
It is understood that the money for the
stamps will be forthcoming.
But do you ask why the possession of
genuine revenue stamps is not sufficient
evidence of ownership? And why the
holder should be required to prove that
he did not steal or counterfeit them be-
'ore they can be redeemed9 Ask some
BODY that knows. No reasonable ex-
planation has ever been made public.
As for the scheme outlined in the first
above, regarding the re-
lemption of mutilated currency, it is
logically the next thing that will be at
tempted by the bright minds who fix up
regulations in the treasury department.