Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-10-31
THE CITY VALUES.
Continued from Page Seven.)


honest and fair. / stated in my letter
Originally that | had no intent Of doing
don't know as l have anything moro u
say about II.
@. | understand You. to make It plain
that YOU are doing all these things with
out Knowing anything about technical
rules of evidence or the uses 10 be made
q It. Yon supposed you had 4 perfect
IsIt c 10 oo ~ o a: most asSuredl$ d.d
Knew II was not copy of my letter
v nat use this paper was to be put 10. as
stated before. l knew nothing about
whatever | supposed that would be eH-
planned
Mr.. Heath: Mr. Bakers connection
with the matter is for him to explain III
AR. Baker: May st please tic court 1
desire To iterate with somewhat more de
tan the statement that voluntarily
made in court when the matter was in
testimony. And in order to prevent any
possibility this time of any improper or
untrue report of what | said have put
The article in question contains what
purpnrts to be . report of the testimony
Of Hon. William d. Penncl OF Lewiston.
who vas called rs a witness and adverse
~ by the Edwards Manufacturing Com
pany in support of its petition 70: ahate-.
Intl.t of taxes assessed by the city vi
Augusta.
The essential allegations Of this report
are these.
!. That Mr.. PcnneIl. being requested By
the Edwards Company to examine ana
appriSe its plant as an expert and hGE-
ing embodied his general conclusions and
his values IN private letter written by
him to Mr.. Pratt, the Agent of the Con
panv. aftcrward. when about to testify IN
court. having no other memorandum OF
the details of his examination except
those embed Cd in this letter. charged the
figures of valuation which the letter con-
tanned from a total of $4,000 to new
total of S13S 800 thereby reducing the val
uatiou which he had originally placed up
on the nroperty by the sum of substan-
, That l. as one of the counsel for the
Edwards Company, voluntarily stated,
that these startling changes together
with various other changes Of rhraS"ol-
ney. which were admittedly made by Mr..
PennclD. were made at my suggestion.
3. That Mr.. Pencil testified that he
sat dowr with the sttnoeraphcr and him
self and that we three together went
over the original letter and made these
! changes.
The article in question nurports to he n
true report of the proceedings which took
place in this court in the presence anh
hearing of the supposed reporter. The
accusations it contains DO not bear III
earmarks of mere inodvert"rce or stupid
itv but bear the strongest internal "N'-
licinuslv made. and through the Columns
of the newspapers ir question h1vn been
given wide publicity. Tn Y seriously i'm
DlEit the 01'S F"SS ara fpltNS VIZ a Il''il'i
both of Mr. Ponncll and myself.
| desire to say her.. on my l"s?"0si
b!litv as a counsellor of this court. tina
in every particular they ar" u.ir ecrv"t
false, and are a Uanton perVCrSlon OF IN
sworr testimony in the cases gwen N
open court.
To deal with them in order:
As to III" first: 1t is rot tr',c that Mr.
P.uutI reduced the tigures of rs or =
al Valuation frorr $50 $50 to S1a3 ce1 The
fnal figures given by Mr.. Pennell on the
my /
800
It Is rot true that Mr. Pcrnen. when h"
! came to testify. reduced his original val
uaticn at all. but. on the contrary. Il"
rerCrt in THIS case already shows TINT in
t7stify;nc he ircrca sed his or ginal v0iu9-
ton by the sum Of $SCoo. the reasons for
which he fully explained.
The APPARENT difference between his
original valuat on of $50 go and his final
valuation of s753J 500, was Tue to the fact
that in his original valuation he had in
cIudn,, $50 900 worth of rerSonal property.
white in his testimony he was asked TO
give his valuation exclusive Of that Item.
that item being struck ont By common
cons"rt. Stree * related to q distinct and
different branch Of the case. upon which
no testimony has as yet been offered on
either side. All this the sworn testtirn1onHv
in the record already clearly eStaollS he'd.
As to the second: 1t IS not true that |
suggested to Mr. Pencil that h. should
MAKE these alleged and startling redut,
tons in his valuation. or that 50 St2t',d
in court in the first blaze because. as al
ready shown. Mr. Pencils original valu-
alton was not reduced IN testimony. but
was in fact increased by 5000: in the sec
ond place LeCalISo | expressly stated IN
court ard such is the literal fact mat
the only change suggested by IT" was that
if he intendcd To use his private letter 10
Mr. Pratt or any portions of il. as a
M r1orardnm from which to refresh ms
recollection as to detailed facts. he should
first go over il and eliminate any eX-
pr"ssinns which might seem to reflect
personally on the Assessors Of the CITY
of Augusta.
rrittrntc. that even this general suE-
gcsti1n was mad" by ne without having
Mr. PonnelTs original letter before me;
and without having read it for several
months previously. but having n general
i,nnrassnn from n"n"ry only (Which
find by subsequently, exam .nIng IN" letter
was carrecD that the original letter did
contain, remarks which might be con-
strued as rejecting on the care exercised
by the Assessors of Augusta il exanin-
ing the property for assessment
Aefd. from this. ] made no other SlIG-
gcstion to Mr.. Pencil whatever upon the
s,,h icct Of ch2ngcS. II co%niZing fully. az
nvcrvnn" does. that i is TIC absolute
to rov-'Se in his own way til" phrlsnoogv
used w him in describing tn" cond lions
IF the nrcnertv SO that IL" word he iinal-
" adnnte chall nhotoPranh most accu- /
rnt.,v To- the henrcr tn" aCtnal condition
which 10 fndl 'ho rrnnnrtv to y" IN
IS TO IL" third: II Is unHunlth"dry
ADD tho etn~O,rrn rher and suggested or
won't over the changes which Mr.. Powell
actuallv ,r1ado IN his own r"porG ndrr1.
or any single one of those changes. or
thot WIS cvcn rDreSnnt when an,' owe OF Z,
those changes wcro being made or thnt I
had even knowI"G~e # thcn1 after they
were made. until they appeared frcm the
teStir7onv in court.
It is cOuHl1v U"trIc that Mr.. PennPN .
r1vn any test rnOnV. ether in terms or
substance. that I vas present at the :
", king Of anv one Of those chanr"s The .
alleged rnrort OF his test 'r1Orv in tbs re- !
e--0' e # '"'''h n malicious Suppression 4
of his testimony. (
The fact IS that the only conversation .
between Mr. Pcnnell and NE on tn" siih-
iCct 1t all was in the court room while |
was busy with the examination of wit
nessoS. and when | made to him the SIN
elr suggestion before stated. that If ne
were tC use his letter or any nart Of II =
a merloran dum from which to testify IN
court all illusions to the Assessors oi
Augusta should be omitted rs Il matter ~
taste. Che fact Is. further. that al
charges made were made, not in the
Court room. where | was. but outside,
vherc 7 was not; that the changes were
I'll made nv Mr. Pcnnell and coD ed ny
tn. stonorra pher on Water street. wh9l
was encaCed in the exam!nation Of wit
rpSSes in the court room; that after the
comics w.,re pcrfected in the form which
Nr. Penren wished. the cop'es w"re il"al-
IL handed to me by the StenoSranher
" hile I was thus engaged m the trial
and were not in fact even orened or read