The Hayti herald. (Hayti, Mo.) 1908-1922, 1915-08-26
BACK AT HIS OLD TRICKS.

BACk All HIS OLD IRlCkS.
and j. A. Bigham was
named as owing 81, ,lS9 Al. At
the requestot Mr.. Bigham, a SECOND
auditing was had of his books and he
was given credit for S6,9l6 rs for cash
payment and cancelled warrants, put
ting him PRACTICALLY IN BAL
ANCE. E.-Carithersville Argus.
Anything wrong about the
above? Is there the least cause
for criticism of MIR. Bigham?
Certainly not. When the auditors
checked his books he was treas.
urer of Pemiscot county. AT the
time the auditors made their re.
port Mr.. Bigham had not taken
credit for certain warrants he
had paid. When he was given
credit for these his books bal
anced. That was all there was
to it. The same condition would
be found with every treasurer
the county ever had or ever will
have. There has been no other
system devised for transacting
the business of this or any other
county. 1t did not require audit.
ing to discover this, nor is cent
Mr.. Bigham paid in making final
settlement due to the auditing.
All would have been adjusted, as
it was, in due course of regular
settlement with the county as re.
quired by law. No one knows
this better than the editor of the
Argus, yet he, on previous oc.
casions, and again at this late
day, tries to make it appear that
Mr.. Bigham had stolen S6,9l6.25
from the county, and that due to
the auditing the same was re.
stored.
After making the statement
quoted above, practically true,
and which casts no reflections
upon Mr.. Bigham, the editor of
the Argus, in the same article.
like the sly fox trying to deceive,
doubles back on his trail and
hands the public this:
The total payments to the persons
doing the auditing were 81, 53O.9o,
while the amount of cash and war
rants turned over by Mr.. Bigham in
making his final settlement, according
to the report of the auditors, was
$6,9l6.25.
Here are two statements from
the editor of the Argus. In one
breath he gives Mr.. Bigham JUS
tice, barely so, niggardly so; in
the next he eXerts his proficiency
in innuendo to make it appear
that Mr.. Bigham stole S6,9l6.25
from the county, which he re.
funded, and which more than
paid the expense of the auditing.
THE auditing cost S4,53O.9S
but the county was gamer be.
cause Mr.. Bigham paid in
$6,9l6.25." That, though false
as sin, is what he wants the pub.
lie to believe. He does not want
the taxpayers to know that he,
the daddy, nanny and wet
nurse of the auditing, caused the
expenditure of $1,000 of their
money for something worse than
nothing. So desperate is he that
he would prefer to blacken some
mans good name rather than
have the people know the truth
about the useless waste his fanati-
cism has cost them. Hard up,
indeed, is the man who will re.
sort to such nefariOus methods
in order to deceive the public.
All this, however. is nothing
new. 1t is only threshing over
old straw. Most people will re,
member how fully this matter
was gone into by the newspapers
at the time. 1t will also be re-
mem bered that Mr.. Bigham per-
sonally called the editor to ac-
count and that a half, hearted re.
traction was made, as the files of
his paper will show. 1t is the
same falsehood that caused Carl
Bigham to slap the EDITORS face,
after which he remained quiet
until now. That his falsehood
then was malicious is proven by
it's repetition. But it is nothing
at all. Same old howl,
same old falsehood-all there is
or ever was to the auditing is
and what it cost the