Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 2, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 October 1858 — THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. [ARTICLE]

THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

The long article in the Expositor of last week, concerning cdunty expenses, is a tissue of of misstatements and misrepresentations all the way through. We will not stoop from the true dignity of editor and call them lic-s —such uncouth and ill-mannered terms we leave for the Expositor. Who penned the article in question we know not, neither do we care, it being of no importance to us; but Mr. Snyder has been reading a similar paper from the stump, saying that it was prepared by Mr. E. P. Hammond. | We hope, for the credit of this young man, I that this ig not true,-for it is no honor to anv lone to have that article imputed to him. The article commences by asserting that, four days after the contract was mane with Mr. ! Henkle for building the Court House, the Commissioners, Lyons and Sparling, issued j orders to “pay the contractor a bonus on his I contract,” in the shape of interest. This is not true. The interest was granted in the order accepting the bond of Henkle, and was part of the contract. The contract could not he effected without it. The order was granted on the 6th of May, 1854, and the contract was concluded on the same day and in the same order granting the -interest. Tt then goes on to say that there were to he placed two fire-proof safes in the Court House, which would have added $1,500 to the value of the building:, and that the house was accepted unfinished by the Commissioners. Pairt of this is true, and part of it untrue. The safes were to be of stone, which would have cost hut a few dollars each, instead of $1,500. Iron safes would not. cost | the half of that. But to explain why the I Court House was accepted unfinished.' On page 373 of Order Book we find recorded the following: “The contractor represents that he has, at a great sacrifice out of his own funds, placed the house in a condition that it can he occupied, and, in view of the fact that there is no money in the treasury, and no assurance that there will he any 'shortly, and that lie has been.subjected to great loss and inconvenience, on account of the failure of the county to make payment according to contract; he respectfully asks the Board, if the work is found acceptable to the Board, to re- j lease him from his contract, on such terms as the Board may think just and reasonable. Whereupon,, on examination, this Board, accept and approve of the work on said house, as far as completed, and order tha-t the Auditor deliver to,said contractor Iris bond,upon liis executing the proper release to the county, of two hundred, and sixteen dollars, of the amount heretofore ordered to he paid to him, and performing certain Work as per schedule on file marked A, to the satisfaction of the Auditor.” The schedule A referred to isms follows: “I will prune the seats.and bar, Judge’s seat, &.c., in the Court-room, finish what lacks in the lower rooms of painting the whole of lower story; two coat work; paint the tower blind, two coats, the last' green; put up four more jury scats, according to specifications, fill up the corner rooms with earth, covered with lime core, all as soon as possible to get the work done. “Sept. 2, 1856. B. Henkle,” So it will be seen that the county was do. ing great injustice to a private -citizen by not paying according to agreement, and the Commissioners released Henkle, on payment to the county of $216. The amount due the contractor at the time of accepting the Court House was $6,100, with interest. Does any one suppose that it would have hx-en justice to the contractor to compel him to finish the building, when lie could.not the money according to* agreement? Tne orders had to be shaved at twenty-five cents discount. As it was, it broke the contractor up, and he was compelled to make an assignment. This would not have been the case had the county paid up. Another part of the article says that j there were issued $13,507.36 on the ■ Court House. There is not one-word of truth in this. The whole amount of orders issued to Henkle were $9,100. lie received at the time the contract was entered into, SSC|O, cash in hand, and 200,000 bricks at s9ooj—making in all $10,500, $216 of which fie released to the county on one of the eiit- ! standing bonds. We pronounce, after a j careful examination of the hooks, any stafe- | ment going to show that Henkle or his asI signs ever received orders, cash, bricks and j bonds to an amount exceeding $'10,500 altogether, and $2 16 of that refunded, to he false in every particular. No such figures can he made out of the hooks, and “figures won’t lie”— if honestly handled. Again we find in the same article the |ollow ing : “We find an orderda*t<sd January 12, jsbs, Vl U J" r $ 2 >' 77 4-95 issued in blank to W. J. Laßue. \\ init docs this mean]” It means thpt. the individual who penned it is either a knave or a fool. The bond given to Henkle for-$3,100 was cancelled and two bonds issued for that amount instead of one and the $2,77 4.9-5 was assigned to |W. J. Laßue. Had the compiler of “figures that won’t lie”—if honestly handled seutinized, and not very closely either, the order to Laßue, No. 7731, he would have seen that it said on the face of it that it was part of order No. 6408, issued to Henkle for $3,100, which was cancelled. This one statement of the. Exjioditoc proves thati the compiler of “figures that won’t lie” is either too sharp or too dull. In either event; he missed bis ainv. Again, we find in the same article the following: ‘ some ten suits have been commenced against the. former Treasurer, (Markle) in

all of which they (the Commissioners) have suffered non-suit or dismissal rather than go to trial, and this at a cost to your county of not less than SI,OOO attorney fees, &,c., to support the Republican clique of Rensselaer]” Not one word of truth in the above. One trial was brought by the county against Markle,and in consequence of informality in the papers, it was dismissed and another was Commenced for the same, offence. The one dismissed, and the one now pending were the only ones brought by. the county. Eight falsehoods here—-two suits instead of ten. Governor Wright commenced two suits against Marble, and Governor Willard, he came into office, dismissed both of them at the expense of the State. What the expense was we know not; hut add the sums sued for, ($33,000,) and the expense incurred, and it will amount to something jrp.Xojir 83.>,000UC11 Ezra Wright commenced one suit against Markle, and lias another now pending, which will be at the expense alone of the parties interested. The State also has one now pending against Markle, he having made no settlement with the State for a year previous to his going out of office. How much expense'and loss to the State this will be no one can tell; hut if it is of a piece wit’ll the lormer ones, it will be immense. Again the writer undertakes tu make a body of the delinquent list, and says the county was to pay it, when eyery school-hoy knows that this is untrue. The person who allows his land to become delinquent has to i pay the expense—the county has nothing to do with it. Here the writer exhibits either gross ignorance, or a dishonorable intention to deceive. But granting, for Ahe sake of ! argument, that the county did pay the cost , of publishing the delinquent list, and what then? In the fall of 1854, Mr. McCarthy charged and received fifty cents per description, the whole amounting to $427; and he received the money two months before the work was done. In the fall of 1855, Mr. McCarthy was offered thirty cents per description, but this he refused, say inf lie could not live at such prices. It was printed at. twenty-five cents in Lafayette, including all expenses. In- the- fall- of ISSB, Mr. McCarthy printed the lis.t at forty cents, amounting altogether to $532. It the fall of 1857, the list' was printed in the Gazette at forty cents, amounting in al! to $337 20. So it will he | seen that the the. too sharp or 100 dull compiler of these figures “that won’t lie”—if honestly handled—censures the Auditor for allowing the Gazette the same that he had allowed the Banner the previous year, when the job was much larger, and could he doneJ for less in proportion, and ticenly-Jlve per ! cent, less than the Auditor . had paid theBanner in 1854. It would also he well to.! state that McCarthy advised the Auditor, if he gave the list to the Gazette, to allow it a living price. This was manly in Mr. McCarthy, hut his subsequent course was entirely the reverse, and we don’t know howto account for it unless lie was urged to it by outside pressure. We dislike to bring! up by-gones, but Mr. McCarthy must thank his own friends for opening this subject. When, he found out that, the printing es the list had been awarded to the Gazette, he proposed to print it for ten cents. This was done for buncomb and nothing else, and we were surprised and astonished at the time, that a brother editor should undertake to beat down prices, according to his own statement to the Auditor, to two hundred per cent, less than a living price. We have not the space to follow the writer further in his ■ labyrinth of falsehoods; hut we have noticed enough to throw discredit on everything that may emanate from the same quarter. As we expected, our opponents" have commenced the old game of misrepresentation on the eve of election, find we warn every one to consider well the source of any that may he made hereafter. We will stake our reputation on the correctness of our figures, and we value our reputation too highly to lightly venture it. Our “figures won’t lie.”