Rensselaer Republican, Volume 19, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 September 1886 — Ex-Treasurer Adams beard [ARTICLE]

Ex-Treasurer Adams beard

The following card appeared in the Message of last week: Editor of The Message:—l handed the following card to the editor of the Rensselaer Republican for publication in answer to an attack they made on me two weeks ago, asking ah explanation in regard to a certain clique or ring in the court house. August 28, l»8tL 11. I. Adams. “Editor Republican;—Dear Sir: 1 sco in your last issue you ask me to arise and explain. I herewith submit the levies for county revenue for the years that 1 was in the {office of County Treasurer: In 1877, 40 cents, in 1878, 45 cents, in 1871 L 50 cents, in 11180, 75 cents. I paid during that time as near as I remember about §9,000 on the Kankakee grade and I think about §2,000 on the county farm (besides) several,.spiall {{bridges and running expenses &c. ' " Henry I. Adams.” August 14, 188 G. It will be noticed that in the intnxluetory portion of the above Card, that part addressed to the editor of the Message, Mr. Adams states clearly if not very grammatically that he .had handed the dower portion of the card to the editor of the Republican for publication. In view of the above positive assertion on the part l)f Mr. Adams, vix: that he handed the card to the editor of this paper, it will doubtless be a suprise to . some of our readers to learn that the editor of this paper never saw ‘nor even heard of the card until he saw it in print, in last week’s Message. By subsequent inquiry we have, indeed, since learned that. during tiie last absence of the editor, in New York, Mr. Adams called at this office and left a paper of some kind with one of the compositors, in the press

room. It was received too late for publication upon that week, and was laid aside and forgotten. Now we respectfully submit that the handing to a mechanical employe of this oflice a paper, while the editor was not within 500 miles, does not justify even Mr. Adams in saying that he handed such a paper to the editor; and especially is that the case when Mr. Adams is perfectly well acquainted with the said editor as has been for full five years, and consequently knew perfectly well that the person he handed the paper "was not the editor. , As to the matter in the card other than we have just noticed, we see but little that seems relevant to any issue that has been under discussion. A few words m regard to Mr. Adam’s allusion to the “attack” he alleges The Republican has made upon him. We-should invite Mr. Adams to specify in what way or manner and at what time we have ever “attacked him” only we know it would be a vain request., We say now and say positiv.ely that we have never attacked Mr. Adams, in any way, shape or manner, either in his capacity of a private citizen, or as a politician or as a public officer, and be - cannot point out any passage in The Republican which will belie our assertion. We did, indeed, point out to Mr. xidains a fact which --was patent to every clear headed and unprejudiced man; namely, that some of the assertions of the Message amounted in effect to an accusation of official misconduct-if not actual corruption on the part of Mr. Adams, as K former Treasurer of this county; but we did not and do not endorse the statements of that wicked .and unscrupulous sheet. How i is possible that Mr. Adams did not and does not see that this is true, did not see that” it was the Message that was his real, although covert and doubtless unintentional assailant, and not The Republican is a problem which admits of no solution except such as is found in an old but truthful saying: “There are none so blind as those That As to the facts which he states regarding the tax rates of way back in 1877, ’7B &c. we hardly see that thoy are relevant-to anything that has been under discussion. If he had explained for instance, how a “villainous county seat ring” could speculate on a balancein the treas-' ury and loan it at twelve per cent., (as charged by the Message ) and the Treasurer not be mainly responsible for such misdoing his card would have been some service to himself. We should also have been glad to have had him explain how, if a tax rate of 75 cents on the hundred is villainy and. mismanagement in 1886 the same rate was not also villainy and mismanagement in 1880. The sums which he mentions as haying been paid on budges and public improvements during the four years which he speaks of, furnish a very satisfactory explanation of why a larger county revenue has be 11 requyed since that time. The sum total of all that he can remember as having paid for public improvements during the whole four years is less than .has been paid for the same purpose in a single year, since that day. .