OCR Interpretation

The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, April 26, 1859, Image 2

Image and text provided by Central Michigan University, Clark Historical Library

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016318/1859-04-26/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

The trial of this caso commenced oa Tuesday
last, and occupied until Thursday evening,
full report, mad by the editor of this paper, w
b found in this day' Republican. This report
is impartial, and from, it various features
testimony, arguments, and charge, the reader
may make up his own mind as to the facts.
In empanneling the jury, the defence had
maenificcnt advantage, it being a political case
Those among the jurymen who were Republicans
answered Dromptlv that thev had formed or ex
pressed prions about the case, while the Loco
focos who were called, to a nian, persisted that
thsy had no, while their neighbors stood ready
to swear that in many CMes, they had been pub
licly and repeatedly heard to declare such opin
ion. Thus it was that the jury was compose
of nine Lcd'u$ and three Republicans,
whom some of the form".- were unfit to sit upon
any jury from partisan malice and bitterness,
while others had better been off for other rea
sons, in a case involviug discrimination, close at
tention and intelligence. With this exception
the trial was fairly conducted on both sides, with
the most remarkable ability, so far as counsel
were concerned, arid the utmost fairness and im
partiality on the part of the Judge whose charge
wal a model of clearness and corn et law.
It will be observed in reading the testimony
which relates to the receipt given by Joseph ('.
Bailey to Mr. Peck, being that of the witnesses
Bailey, W hitney and Wiswell, that the utmost
iuinutenss of detail and particulars prevail, as if
they all by a preconcerted purpose, were swear
ing to a line of facts ; but when the usual cross
lamination was put to them, and their memory
tested upou facts of even date, they knew noth
ing they could not even swear whether the
transaction which they were swearing about took
place in the old Capitol or in the new brick buil
ding, although the State office! weie not remov
ed from the Capitol until a year and two months
after the point of time, on which, upon another
single topic, their recollection was fresh, viz :
August I'Jth 1 853. This circumstance, and their
manner upon the stand, were the only ones which
were observable, as taking from the weight of
their testimony. Though nominally defeated,
yet tho prosecution really enjoyed a triumph in
the verdict in favor of Mr. Peck. The record
hows that he had twice presented the claim for
450 to the Board of State Auditors, in his own
handwriting; that it had been twice allowed
within three months, that both warrants had
been receipted for by Mr. Peck, and that the
am had been twice paid out of the Treasury up
oa those warrants. It became the duty of Col.
Jones, who was at that time Auditor General, to
ue fur, and recover the amount of four hundred
and fifty dollars, and seven per cent, interest from
August 18, 1853, of Mr. Peck. The counsel of
r. Peck, in full court, before the jury admitted
that the suit was properly brought, and the rec
ord traced the missing money to Mr. Peck, but
their witness, Mr. Bailey, camo to his relief, and
wore that the money was offered to Mr. Peck,
that he refused it, but that he Bailey kept it
that it never went back into the State Treasury
where it belonged,but that it was in his, Bailey V,
pocket. Peck and Bailey are men of eijual
prominence in the Locofoco party, and if the
facts eiculpate Mr. Peck, and inculpate Mr. Bai
ley, or if Mr. Bailey is willing to Mtand self-incul-pated
in order to shield Mr. Peck, it is certainly
o affair of ours. The money was gone from the
Treasury, it was the duty of Col. Jones to recov
er it he traced it by the record into Mr. Peck's
hands it turned out to bo in those of Mr. Bai
ley, and he has in the language of a prominent
Locofoco, "aimed at the Crote and shot th'
Hawk it is much better than no shot at all.
.If !?, April ", 1S.V, )
b o'clock P. M.
Present Judge LawRCM'K.
ThoTeopI rs. Geo. W. Peck.
For tho People, Hon. Jacob M. Howard, At
torney General. Geo. I. Parsons, K.-.j., Pi ope
rating Attorney.
For Defence, Messrs. J. W. Lougycar, and V. C.
Whipple, and O. M. Bamcs.
Messrs. P. K. reck, C. C. Dodge, Calvin
llcCrary, S. W. Beverly, J. B. Dakin, were sworn
M to competency to sit.
Messrs. Dodge and Peck were challenged per
emptorily. Horace May was challenged for cause.
James Doolittle was examined as to compe
tency. Jonah T. Kent was examined as to competen
cy to sit.
William Hammond was examined as to his
competency to sit
Horace Wilkinson sworn and examined as to
his competency to sit.
Challenge by Defence.
Charles Fox sworn as to competency.
Arnold Walker sworn as to competency.
John Lewis sworn as to competency.
Charles Fox and Horace Wilkman challenged
peremptorily by defence.
Daniel L. Cady sworn as to competency to sit.
Daniel A. Hughes sworn as to competency.
StQlman Xoyes sworn as to competency.
Mr. Re iff excused himself, having formed and
expressed an opinion.
The following persons were then empannelled
eea Jury:
Jonah T. Kent, William Hammond, Daniel A.
Hnghes, John Lewis, Samuel W. Beverly, John
B. Dakin, Henry Asseltine, Stiliman Xoyes, James
Doolittle, Arnold Walker, Daniel L. Cady, and
Calvin McCreery.
The Attorney General then opened the case by
stating the formal cause of action.
The action, he said, was brought to recover
$430, unlawfully received from the Treasury of
the State. Mr. Peck, the defendant, being the
contractor for the printing and binding of the
State, and as such contractor, he Iwund 4,5
copies of the Session Law of 1853, for which he
received the contract price, 10 cents per copy on
May 18th, 1933, amounting to f 150, and the
next day, signed a receipt for the Auditor's war
rant on the Treasurer for that amount.
Three months afterwards, oa the 18th day of
August, Mr. reck presented a claim for 150 for
binding session laws of 1S53, being identical
with the claim which was allowed in May ISth.
Both warrants were issued, both were paid at the
Treasury, and both warrants were receipted for
by Mr. reck. It was, in short, double pay pay
twice over. Having had the money twice, the
State has a right to recover.
Mr. Howard offered in evidence Mr. Peck's
first account of $450, for binding, presented to
the Board of State Auditors, May ISth, 1853.
Hand writing admitted, body and signature
also, hia receipt for Auditor's warrant for $15
dated May 19th.
Wktiney Junes sicorn : Witness was Auditor
General cf Michigan in 1S5&-7-9. Found the
papets shown him, filed away as vouchers for
warrant Ko. 14355. They belong to the Auditor
General's Department. The first amount $150,
2d $ill,C5, 13250, total ?5fi3,10, dated 31st
1853, that being the settling day between the
Auditor and Treasurer.
The warrant was then offered as evidence.
The first amount named in the warrant is the
same and identical with the amount received by
Mr. Teckon the U'th of Mav. The two are
made identical by the filii number.
Witness then proved the payment of Aug. IS,
1S53 of the came item of account, viz: 150 for
binding session laws, which proof is found in file
No. 1 1,445, in the shape of a receipt for Auditor
Generals warrant for binding 4,.'1 mo laws, at 10
cents, $150, dated Aug. H ; also, the endorsed
allowance of the Board of State Auditors. This
document is in defendant's handwriting, boil
body and signature.
The warrant of the Auditor, numbered 1 4,445
forf 1,42''. 4-J, dated Atigiit 31, 15", contain
ing the recond allowance of 4-V. This warrant
was cancelled, having been paid. Defence ad
mitted the identity of the Fum in the warrant,
with that cancelled bv Mr. Peeks claim of li)o
of August 1.
Theodore ll-iutrr srort: Is Denutv State
Treasurer, became fo in Sept. 1 UasTrcas
urers book for 1 S53, prove it. The warrant? of
Auditor General, when paid, are charged in this,
Proves payment of warrant for f.' 1,1' , Joseph
C. Bailey was at that date State Treasurer. Un
der date rf August 1353, 1,4J 4:! is charged
as paid, identical with the Peck warrant. This
entry is in J. C. Bailey's handwriting; no other
timilar account had that mouth ; uftcr payment,
the warrants are cancelled with a hammer, and
fled away i:i t!ie vault, each month by itself.
Saw the warrant of Mav '.'. fiist in th vault
where it belongs.
lieeorl ImjoI: of B,iri f Suto Auditors, v. .is
of, led, pr r. ii g two s. p.-r ite a:.d :i-ti:.ct allow
ances of jl5"lot binding Si sioti laws; of 183
one in August, the other ia "ay. Defence
admits that the two accounts are f r the Same
binding, ::rd that ;r:!y l,."ei copies were bound.
Deferuee opened by lion. Fred. C. Whipple.
He admitted the Itw as stated by the Attorney
General. It was also admitted that the allow
ance of f 1..0 h id been nude twice, as had been
clearly proved. The mistake aroe owing to the
fact that Mr. IVck's private books had not been
balanced, and the entry was ma le not by Sir.
Peck, who usually made the entries, but by Mr.
Hedges, who is dea l. Mr. Whipple siid that the
defence would rely upon showing, that the mo
ment Mr. Peck discovered the error or double
payment, that he at once made it known to Mr.
Bailey, Deputy Treasurer, and give a receipt for
it. Mr. hippie said that his business was to
clear his client, for if anybody else about the
Treasury was benefitted by the $ I'.o it did i.ot
concern this suit.
Joseph .'. D-iUe-i fiw',: Was Deputy State
Treasurer in ls.".:; Bernard C. Whitttemore was
State Treasurer ; remember of Mr. Peck's pre
senting accounts about August 1$;3. Identifies
account No. 1 1 X 15. II" presented piite a num
ber of allowances by the Board at that time, and
aruoi g them was an account of !. for binding
session laws of 1 53. Mr. Peck came in witti
his allowances into the Treasury, in all amount
ing to about "j,'HH, and I looked up the receipts
which he had given for advances, got the amount.
subtracted them, and Mr. Peck remarked that I
had not so many receipts as he had the State
credited for, into J5'. We look-'! the receipts
all over together, arid Peck sai l there should be
one of . ! etamined closely, but could find
no such receipt. I then settled accounts with
him, deducting $15" from his vouchers, over and
above the amount of his receipts. I think he
had his ledger then, but don't know that I ex
amined it. Mr. Pock gave receipts and formal
vouchers for the whole amount paid him, includ
ing the 15 ', which I did not pay him. Mr.
Peck sai l the Treasury should have a receipt for
f l.V which was not there, and that is the reason
that he gave me a receipt for S5", without get
ting the money. I gave Peck a receipt for his
receipt explaining the transition.
The practice in Treasury was to advance mon
ey from time to time, to State printers, clerks
and others, and to take receipts, to ! reckoned
as money, to be taken up wben the warrant was
settled. E. II. Whitney was present at the above
interview with Peck ; O. AYUwcI! pVputy
Auditor General.
1'. Mead :-rn I was iu the State f'r-
na office nearly all the time while it was owned
by Mr. Peck, from HSJto IS.Vi. lie sold to me
in Nov. I t'oo, his interest i:i the, pper, books
and accounts. Mr. Hedges was foreman in 1353,
and Mr. Welch for a short time, h:mJ then I be
came foreman, in April 1 . Tin; olli'v was
burned Oct. lth, 15T. Mr. Pe.k kept his
boks of account with the State, in the printing
office. Those books were bin ned with the office.
I know of a receipt given to Mr. Peck by Mr.
Bailey it was formerly watered upon the ledger
at the top of the page opposite the State ac
count for binding the session laws of l53 ; can
not state the words from recollection, but I have
a opy which I here produce. I know of no
item of State binding of the same amount ; know
Bailev's signature it was signed bv J. C. Bailev
Firt saw the receipt in the wiuter of 1S53-4 ;
the credit on the book in Miy was in C. A. Hedg
es' handwriting. Mr. Peck usuallv balanced the
books whenever allowances were made. In this
instance, the books were not balanced. Money on
slip receipts was credited to the State by cash; the
1 150 was so credited, I think, but cannot state
ith certainty, for I do not recollect. The books
were in my possession jointly with Mr. reck.
from April 1 S53, up to November 1554, after
which, until they were burned they were in may
exclusive control. The receipt was taken off the
ledger by J. P. Thompson in lS5t don't know
what for it was afterwards pinned upon the
ledger again. Mr. Thompson was the editor of
the Journal at the time.
CroJi e.w uln ?1 Went first to Landing in
184S, was a printer in Manger's office ; I after
wards worked In the same office with Ingals all
the while the paper was called the JoHrni?. I
am now in the Jtrrml office, in the employ of
Griswold, who owns it. I have been in the of
fice for eleven years, with exception of a few
months; Mr. Peck had control of the J-urnil
office in 1S53, and quitted it in 154; I was a
journeyman printer, and assistant foreman in
1S53; Mr. Welch had charge of the books ia
the latter part of 1 53 ; I had nothing to do with
tho books, ia the Spring of 1 S53 ; Welch is dead;
did not spend much time with the the books ;
never heard the receipt spoken of, but saw it
earlv ia the winter of IS53-J ; I was foreman in
1S54; did not become a joint proprietor until I
bought out the office ia Nov. 1S5C ; did owe Mr.
Peck for the office, but do not now owe him ; I
saw the receipt in 1$5", in 154 and 1I5G; Mr.
Thompson and I looked on account of a letter
received front Mr. reck, ftating that such a re
ceipt existed. A copy of the receipt was pub
lished ia the Journal. I don't remember wheth
er the book was ever Uken to the Auditor Gen
eral's office. Troduces cpy of the Journal of
Jan. SI, 1S55, also Jan. IT, 1855, in the rt of
which a copy of the receipt was published.
Adjourned for dinner, one hour.
I first saw the receipt on Mr. Teck's book ahoct
December 1 $53 ; 1 read it at that time; I read
it afterwards, bet not until after did not
mention the existence of the receipt to any per-J
son during 1553-54 or '55 ; no person mentioned
it to me during those years. The receipt was
there when I bought the office ia 1855 ; I made
an affidavit on this matter, before Mr. Cutler;
ihe body of the affidavit is in the handwriting of
C. J. Fox ; Mr. Teck requested me to make the
affidavit ; I was called down to Cutler's office,
Peck was there ; attended Peck's meeting; don't
know that I ever conversed with Bailey about
the receipt; I have taked with Mr. Peck about
the receipt ; never talked with him previous to
January 1356; never saw any other receipt pas
ted to the day-book ; Peck wrote that he tho't
there must be something ia the book, explaining
the 450. Have heard Teck say to others that
he put the receipt in the ledger. Mr. Feck Lai
the ledger at the public meeting.
lie-examined: Cannot tell when Mr. Peck
came home from Washington, but think it was
near the middle of the month of February.
By Mr. Howard Don't recollect handing the
ledger to Mr. Thompson to take to Col. Jones.
The receipt was wafered upon page 221.
J. C.fiaUey examination continual: Mr.
Thompson brought the receipt to my office ; I
then examined it ; it was about the time the firrt
article in the Republican w as published. Proves
the extract ma le in Feb. 1S2'J; made the affida
vit in my building in Lansing. Geo. W. reck,
J. W. Longyear, and E. H. Whitney were pres
ent. In August, when I give the receipt to
Peck, he sail he had t5' which he hai not
teen charged with I said I was glad of it, for
our cah account was short. Don't know wheth
er Wiswell was present. Don't know whether
Peek had presented any other accounts in the
month of August.
J. C. Dalley crf txomineJ by Mr. Howard.
My ca-h wa shoit August 1", lN"3, and I so
told Mr. Peek. Proves cash bixjk. Can't tell
whether cx-h was short ou that day by looking
at this book looking at another book I find the
cah in.'t short, but over '27i 'J I. The receipt
was counted as to math money on hand, but no
money was paid to Mr. Peck upon it.
P.ij th-- Court Although the money had in
frfct been paid, it would not have appeared upon
the ca-d book.
I cannot desigimt'5 the allowances brought to
me by Mr. Peck on the Isth of August; I look
ed in the safe for a slip receipt for 1 150 ; found
no such receipt there, but looked nowhere else ;
If I had looked at the book, and then at the files,
I should have found the payment, but I did not
look. It appears that it is a misentry in the
books, as the State had credit for the money
twice, in my own handwriting. Never had an
other case of the kind. Never called the atten
tion of Mr. Peek to the fact that both binding
bills were in his own handwriting. The nine
vouchers were all paid to Mr. Peck, and 1 paid
them all except the 150 ; 1 nettled the Treasury
account with Holmes ; I never explained the
matter to Mr. Whittemore, nor ever paid any
money to him; I turned over the Treasury to
Mr. Holmes on the basis of these books; I sup
pose I received the benefit of the 1 5 ; I had
the money, if anybody had ; I have offered to
pay it, conditionally ; I told Mr. Leach thr.t I pre
sumed I had the benefit cd the money, and that
I would pay the money if Mr. Peck was willing;
Mr. Peck was not willing, but wished a legal in
vestigation. He preferred that the State should
bring emit ; I aw the receipt first, when the
Lansing Republican article against Mr. Peck ap
peared, or a day or two previous when it was un
derstood that such an article was to appear ; I
did not show the book with receipt attached to
Col. Jones, because Mr. Thompson said lie had
shown it to Jones ; don't think I told Col. Jones
that I would pay tho money if Peck would not.
Col. Jones M-ct his Deputy to me to demand the
money, and I declined to pay it ; I don't know
why I did not tell Col. Jones about the receipt.
Reexamined bif Mr. Whipple I cannot ex
plain more fully how the double charge took
place. When Mr. Peck came with his vouchers,
I figured them up, and thyn Mr. Peck said he
had ?l5f which did not appear. I supposed
this was a flip receipt, and tok no further trou
ble abont it. It was not a -dip receipt. I firt
discovered the er.-or in January 1S5". I did not
examine myself, but others did. I never spoke
to Mr. Peck about it until after his return from
By Mr. H-acard The endorsement upon the
allowance is in Mr. Peck's hand writing. If I
had looked for the paper showing the payment
of the ?15' in August, I could have found it in
two minutes. Mr. Peck ca'iie home from Wash
ington in February 1 S "5.
Edict if. Wfiitntt acorn I was a Clerk in
the State Treasurers Office in 1853. I remem
ber that Mr. Peck came to tho office with is
vouchers as allowed by the Board of State Au
ditors in August 1S53. He had a balance struck
between his receipts for advances, in order to
show what he claimed from the Treasury. Mr.
Bailey fooled up the total amount of the vouch
ers, then wciit in search of the advance receipts
of Mr. Peck in the vault, and to k the amount
from the allowances, and found a difference of
45' between his footings tiul tho-e of Mr.
Peek. Mr. Peck then went to his office, snd
brought his book, an 1 exhibited the credit entry
of 1 150 on his book. I assisted Mr. Bailey to
search for a slipor advance receipt to correspond,
but could not find it. Can't tell the date of
credit for ? 150, on Peck's book. The account
was adjusted ip accordance with Mr. Peck's fig
ures, and a voucher for the amount was given
by Mr. reck. Mr. Bailey remarked that he
would like to find about 150, f r his account
was short. Bailey toll ma that I must have
paid I'eck the money, and forgit to take a re
ceipt, but I'eck insisted that Bail -y paid the
money to Beck, in person. An explanatory re
ceipt wa then given, by Bailey as Dep. Treasurer,
in case the first receipt should ever be found.
The next I saw of that receipt, was ia Mr.
Longy ear's office, at the time I male the affidavit
which was published. Don't recollect that Mr.
reck drew any other money ia the month of
August 153. Wiswell, the Dep. Aul. General,
stood athis desk during the whole interview above
stated, about six or eight feet from where we
stood. The reason no money was paid, when the
receipt was given by Teck, was to make the books
Crv$s-exaiineJ ly Mr. Ifo'.cjrd It is niv im
pression that o i- cash was p!w?rt in August.
rroves the cas'i book. This book shows a dis
crepancy at August 19th and at another date ia
August, not given there is a virplut of f 278
V6. From August 1S53, I was ia the Treasury
till March 1S54, and ia the State Lanl Office
from that time ti3 April 1S57. I saw the receipt
signed, hesl It read by Bailey, and saw it deliv
ered to Mr. Tick. I never saw it again 'till I
made my affidavit. I have conversed with Col.
Jones, but I forgot about the receipt, until it
was shown to me at Longyear 's office, in Febru
ary 1S56. Can't tell all with whom I talked. I
forgot about the receipt, until I saw it. I can't
state whether Teck's book was at Longyear's
office. The subject being talked of in the streets,
recalled the mst'er of the receipt to my miad.
I recollect Mr. I. ach's article of Jan. 15, ia the
Lansing Rpul' 'can. I did not then call to
mini the receipt. Doa't recollect that CoL Jones
ever asked me f go and see Bailey. We used
Arnold's writing Suil altogether ia 1S53, it was
used exclusive'. It is blue when first put on,
but turns black in a week or less, according to
thepspsr. Rejects when Mr. Teck returned,
from Washington. He requested me to go to
Longyear's office, and make the affidavit which I
swore to. The receipt was in Teca's hand when
I saw it at Longyear's office.
Oliver C. Wtstcell tvorn I was Dep. Aud.
General ia 1S53. I was present when I'eck set
tled with the Treasurer, ia August 1S53. Mr.
reck came in about 10 or 11 o'clock A. M. with
a lot of vouchers, to settle with the Treasury,
and take up his receipts for advances. Mr.
Bailey went to the safe and hunted up his ad
vance receipts. Mr. l'cck said, on Bailey's ra
mir.g the amount, are you sure you are right I
have got you credited for 150 more than the
amount you name. They then searched again,
and Mr. reck then went to his office, and
brought his Ledger. Mr. I'eck then Settled,
and allowed Bailev 45 more than Bailey claim
ed, and toll Mr. Bailey that his (Peck's) bof ks
showed it. Mr. Bailey gave Teck a paper to
guard again?t a future payment, but I did not
hear or see the contents. Never saw that re
ceipt. Crott-examlned ly Mr. lloirird I was ia
Detroit in the winter of 1S50. I received a let
ter from Mr. Teck in February, 1S50, asking me
"for God's sake if he had any friends to have
them come out and vindicate him." I went to
John H. Harmon with the letter, and he answered
it. I have the letter at home. I did not ex
hibit the vouchers in my possession, show ing the
payment of f 150, which I might have done, be
cause it was not with my department that Mr.
Feck was settling I had the book on my desk,
and could have shown the very payment, in a
Reexamined ly Mr. Whipple I never made
any scrutiny ct allowances of Board of State
Auditors. 1 had no knowledge that the amount
of j .". had been embraced in another previous
warrant. M. Billey got out Lis slip receipts for
money advanced, but could not find the allow
a:i e of I5 ). 1 do not recollect that Peik sta
ted a hat the 150 was for. 1 cannot tell why
I drew a warrant for the sum on Aug. 31st inclu
sive in the allowances, except that 1 forgot the
occurrence between the ISth and 31s. of Aug.
Jn. J', lliotn jiKi.n irr,m I was formerlv as
sistant editor of the Lansing Journal, firu the
spring of 1S5I. I become editor in the summer
of 151. I have seen the receipt forlroirt
evidence. I first saw it fn January l.'o. It
was wafered upon Peck's ledger, at the pages
containing his account with the State. It was
in Bailey's hand-writing. It read as has been
shown in evidence. I looked over the ledger
account, f 45" for binding session laws of 185:;
was charged, and tho same amount credited to
the State. The account was continued d-iwn
the page. The credit was not in Peck's hand
writing, nor in Mr. Mead's. 1 took the receipt
from the book, for the general purpose of exhib
iting it to his friends. I discovered the receipt
just a day or two before the Republican s article
on reck appeared. I showed the ecceipt to dif
ferent citizens of the village. I think I took the
hook up and showed it to Col. Jones. 1 replaced
the receipt ngaiu on the ledger. There was no
other tl5' charge. The receipt was wafered on
page 225.
('ront-examincd by Mr. l-narll never had
any interest iu the Juurva' office. I identify this
newspaper showed to ine, a the licf,ib!ic,i
containing the attack upon Mr. Peck, l.mnor
gave out that an article against Mr. Peck was to
appear. I got a proof of the artie'e in advance
and sent it to Mr. Peck at Washington. 1 found
the receipt in the ledger, by looking for it.
Mead and I were looking through the book.
Mead said he had Si-en that receipt beor -, but
had never under-tood the effect of it. I re.jues
ted Mr. Leach to suspend the publication of the
article. I am quite confident that I exhibited
the book and receipt to Mr. Leach. I wa at
that time editor of the State Journal, and tin
editorial referred to is mine. I did not then puMi-li
the receipt. I called upon Col. Jones with the
book and receipt. I detached the receipt on
the day I discovered it. Dn't recollect whether
I showed the receipt to Col. Jones I showe.l
the receipt to quite :i number of persons to II.
II. Smith, D. L. Case, Merritilel 1 and Fox. I
identify the letters handed to me m written by
Mr. Peck. The two letters are distinct ; and
never were the sa'iie ; I think I showed this
letter to Col. Jone- Don't recollect how long
Col. Jones kept the letter. D-vi't know who re
turned it to me. Don't know where the balance
of the letter it. I sent these letters back to Mr.
Peck, within a months. Don't know why I erased
a part of tho letter. I showed Co'. .1 ne-s th
book, aftur I discovered the receipt.
Adjourned one hour for tea.
Eccninj Tliomon rtnn'd. I f'oin-l the
receipt a dav or two before th- appeartt.ee of
Mr. Leach's fir,t articlo. My impression is that
Mr. Peck wrote me to Io)k through the looks,
and something would be found. I crm t tell
when I showed the book to Col. Jones, but it
was before Mr. Leach's anicl-j appeared, and I
requested that thea:ticl-j h u! I be po-tponed.
My impression is that th.j receipt was in tho
book when I showed it t Col. June. The re
ceipt looked clean, it had a prcssel appearance,
and was on white piper. I found credits on the
book of Aug. 1. I have no positive reco'lec
tion about the ere I t items. D not tecoilect
the color of the ink in which the receipt was
written. There were two or three wafers part
left on the book, an 1 a part on tho receipt. I
published ehe receipt in the Joarnil, on Jan.
31, 1S50. Mr. Teck wrote that the receipt
should have published I published it. 1
carried a letter from Peck to Col. Jones and
handed it to him it ws dated January 1st. I
cannot state what has become of the hal.re. of
that letter. The missing part of the letter f f
letter of Mr. Peck, m te no reforeuc-j to Meal
said nothing about him. 1 found a charge au l
credit on the ledger for binding statutes $45 .
Can't tell what page it was on, except from the
testimony of others.
Re-examine I by Mr. WU'pple Dvn't know
whether Col. Jones returned the letter entire.
My recollection is that the fourth page as about
other matters Don't recollect of the credit of
45 wis the sj-ne dvte w'.th the receipt. The
books were settle 1 some time in August. Did
not exhibit the letters to Col. Jones by Mr.
reek's direction.
J. U. Lonyyejr txom I find no entry in fa
vor of Mr. Teck in record ef Board cf State
Auditors, from May IS to Ausrust 1, and none
between that date to Dec. 21 there is or.ly one
allowance of the date of Aug. IS of the atnount
of 1 4 50. I saw the receipt in February 15.
it was not then wafered to the book.
Croti-exi-nined Mr. Teck requested me to
draw the affidavits. Mr. Whitney was not sworn
the day the afSlavit was drawn.
Col. Jones by Mr. Whipple If the same
individual had allowances from different funds,
there wonll be separate warrants. The items
oa the book preen:l are all chargeable to the
General Fund.
Defence rest.
Cvl. Whitney Jonet ex J 'nine 1 ly tht PcnJe.
I saw the ledger of Mr. Feck ia my room at
the Auditor General's Office before the 15th of
January 1S56. It was brought to me by Mr.
Merrif ed, with Mr. Teck's letter to Mr. Thomp
son, by request of Mr. Thompson, who callel
next morning I examined the ledger and found
no receipt ia the book. I should have seen it if
there. If I bad eeea tho receipt I should tbouckt
no more cf the matter I saw no wafer marks on
the page of the ledger. The conversation between
me and Thompson, the next morning, never
could have taken place, if the receipt had been
there. There was an understanding that the
article against Teck should be postponed.
Thompson and I examined reek's book together
The first voucher was entered on the 1S21 page,
left hand at the top, on date of Mav 7th, in the
hand writing?of C. A. Hedges ?45' for binding
session laws ; oa the opposite side was a credit
fcir cash to balance. There was one voucher
which I could not find at all. Two voucher
were charged ia Hedges' handwriting, the rest
were iu I'eck's handwriting. I found all the
items allowed, except one of o,50 it was trea
ted as a scttl'd account. The charge f 450 was
not included in the footings of the 1 "21 psge,
the other items were carried to page 224-225
The credits were in detail I was shown the re
ceipts some two or tl.re-j weeks after the first in
terview My recollection is that Mr. Thompson
brought the rec ipt to me It ha I the appear
ance of havipg been very lately written. It wis
folded close and snug. I said when they talked
of having found the receipt in the book, that
they mut have forgotten that I had seen the
book. I went imaiediattly to compare the ink
on the receipt, with entries of even date on the
Treasurer's book. It wes rot the same. That
which was on the book was tho blackest. The
receipt had not the appearanco it age. 1 never
saw the receipt again.
Crt$ txamiHed by Mr. Whipple The first
item on page 1S2 w as the charge for the binding
session laws of 1S53. I think I Ino that it
was not carried to page 224. The balance sheets
were there. I never examined the book except
once. Mr. Peck made several statements after
his return, which did not coincide with my recol
lection. 1 Lave not been extraordinary in my
exertions iu this case. I l ad no hoM.le feelings
agaiust Mr. Peck, up to the time of the prosecu
tion, ail was nut influenced by hostile feeling,
and was ii.tluet vd by r.o such feeling. I advi-f-e
? the Attorney Gcnetal to commence the cu:t
befere Mr. Pack's !!'. v was burned, a'id h soon
as Mr. Bailey refused to pay the 45".
R'-eximiffd by Mr. llvir ird I caunot recol
lect exactly when I called your attention to this
case. I had a conversation with Mr. Bailey before
the burning of Peck's building. I recon:n:ca led
bringing suit, so soon S3 Bailey refuse! to pay
the 150 in the spring of 1 ;(. Have had r.o
quarrel with Mr. Peck on this subject. I'p to
the time of the examination of the books of Mr.
Peck, 1 supposed he had received the money by
mistake. As soon as I saw the books I changed
my mind, wing to th-j manner in which the en
tries were carried, fiom page 1S2 to page 224.
Stephen '. flliujham tcrn 1 am a Ixtoh
keeper iu the Auditor General's Office, and have
beeu since January, I s55. I s iw the receipt in
the Journal office, where I went at Mr. Thomp
son's request, about the hst of January, 1 51.
It was wafered upon page 2'J4 of Mr. Peck's
ledger. 1 fuw no wafer marks on either page. I
examined the receipt veiy particularly. My
attention was closely drawn to the receipt. It
wis written in mold's writing fluid, not yet
turned black. It was a bluish green. It -i:l
tutu black, in a m-uuli or t-t x wctks. I have
used tin ink four and a half yeata. The paper
was looking fresh and clvati. I never saw any
A'tiold's fluid thai iil not grow jet bliek, in
three months
1'r,,-eximintd i-y Mr. Whlppls Never paw
the receipt except at a ditamv. The examina
' tion took place mnh; time after the charge were
made. The eXH'iiiiia'ton 1- made by day-light,
j I co;!-.! the vouchers sa no pln-hohs in the
i paprr. Should have oen thein, if there had
' l.e.-n a;iv. All this was bet, ir the return of Jr.
Peck from Washington.
o'clock Thursday Morning, April 21, 1.V..
. ' '. f! ti!"j rr-calUd 1 was Dep. Treasuur
luring the whole of .:;, and pent tnv time in
office. .' i! J; tor's '.;i ' in same ro:n. We used
Arnold's writing Ilui'L Csed t.o other kind ex
cept to try a fe implc-nt (torn Detroit. No other
ink went upon the books, except Arnold's fluid ;
j no oilier was used for business purposes. I think
I saw the receipt in my office, on th dy or the
day before the article' ajainst Mr. Peck appeared
on the 15th Jsn. IS.'o. I don't know how or in
I what manner, the receipt was attached to the
J book. I never saw the ledger before that day,
inor fhice. Si no marks on the pace, showing
that a paper had be ti d;tatchl. I w rote the
! receipt on the day upon which it b.-ars d tte,
Aug. I., 1-53. 1 mule no entry !' the sett'e
I inent of Mr. Peck upon any book in the office.
J I kept no memorandum except the voucher. I
j never looked at the. books to see what trans i--.
! lions took place in the office on VaiX div never
j sent any one to ascertain w hat t-tok p!a-e in the
J office u'i that day. Shown th" ca.-h-book. Has
! no recollection of any particular ti auiaction.
Had no conversation ahout the receipt untd it
was brought to my office, itu anv person, ex
cept Mr. Merritield, who to! I ine a'e.nt to
vouchers, but I did riot fu"y underaut. 1 it, till
Thompson brought the book nd re(.cii'. I nev-
j er had any correspondent--r about t!;; matter
never wrote or received any letter a'.c-.'t .1. I
presnmo I had tl- benefit of the nei'.ey. I hud
the prineipal charge of the ntTice, and mad-: it
my business to keen it ii oo I. 1 la I s-ttlnient
with M'-. Peck, as often as th Board allowed his
accounts. I ma le n Iva-e-i 4 to Fech np.m work
j it hand, almo't every Sa'nrdtr r ij' '. The r'!-
! ceipt was nevr spoken of bvtweei- us. a n:-v of
tbe-o interviews. I nevr t- ! .t.r f.f M-.
J Peck, until Jan. 15.;.
j fi'-ex i nin'd b-i Mi. Will yle I jivs n-
j the receipt was written with Arnol.fi f; 1; j. j
j never thought of the receipt f-om the time i'
I was given, until January l)5o. I did not know
01 ine voucner 01 jiay 1-, i-.j-j. 1 t e reason
why I say that I Lai the bunt-fit of the 15o, is
that the money was tw:ce allowed, and only once
pai l the office thus received the 4 5' and i
l ad charge of the o!fi e, are! fuad up deficien
cies, a:;d icceivel what was oc-, a:. 1 nobodv
shared with
I cat.net fix daU-s ia my min 1 except by ref
erence to writing. I think we :novtl tho new
oifices in the summer of 1553 it m'rht Lave
been in October 1S54. I cannot tell whether
the receipt was given in the new office, or in the
oi l. I cannot recollect that Mr. Pock wect and
got Li book. He had the lok there. I do not
recollect lxk:ng for the slip receipts more than
Re examined by Mr. Wh ipjJe. These receipts
were frequently brouzht to the office, by Mr.
Uedges, the foreman.
J. P. T7tompon rC'xa-nlned I produce here
a Iftter to me from Mr. Teck, dated Jan. 156.
I had written to Mr. Peck half a dozsn times du
ring the month of January. I sjr.t him a proof
of the Republican artic's, a week before it was
published. I a'sj sent him a copy of the P.t
publican. I sent him a copy of th recVpt pret
ty soon after it was found. I 6ent it before Jan.
22 1 Mr. Teck refers to the receipt, in his letter
ct Jan. 21, aiiressed to E. R. Merrifield. I
knew cf no telegraph despatch, except that Mer
j riSeld told me he telegraphed. I did not write
! to Harmon. MerrifieM might have written to
him Don't know. There is an erasure in this
letter of Jan. 1, which I male myself I cannot
ull why. I cannot make out all the words erased
I can make out most of it. It looks Ilka this,
"J thick you did right ia going to Leach." A
part of this letter is gone the letter is unfinish
ed and had no signature. I think I showed
Peck's letter to Col. Jones. I now read Mr.
Peck's letter to me of date Jan. 5. 1"5'.. On
the receipt of this letter, I made a strict search,
and found the receipt. I now read the letter of
Mr. Teck to E. II. Merrifield, in which he com
plains that the Journal had not published the
receipt. This letter was received about 2;th or
2s of Ja
in. 1 5t'. I cannot tell w hat letter I re-
j ia the editorial article ot the Journal
f. r.l to
of Jan. 31. 1 now real Peck's letter to Merri-
tieid. of Jan. ! IvV? In t' is letter Vr Peek
reccleets the receipt of Balh-v. and that it was
tunned or nasted into the le,!.-er. I hold i:i rev
hand the Lansing Journal, tt Jan SI, l5t,
with my own editor::;!. I cannot tell why I used
the language of that article. Whitney told me
that if they had looked in the proper place, they
woul 1 have fourd the second voucher. Nobody
supposed that the 4 5') account had been twice
audited. Everybody supposed there was a slip
receipt, and one allowance by the Board of Stale
Auditors. 1 thought it best not to publi.h the
receipt until Mr. Vtk got home. I recollect
Mr. Bingham 'icing at civ office. It was about
5 o'clock P. M. I found him the rcce:pt. It
was on the right hand side of the book and page.
Saw nothing peculiar s'.ut the it k. Bingham
was in the office li;tlf or three quarters of an
hour. He looked r.t the receipt o'-ly a short
time. 1 ma ! the copy of the receipt from
which it was put in type.
Theodore Hunter rt called 1 am actmainted
with Arnold's writing fluid. I have used it three
and a half year. It is blui.-h-grccn, when first
put on the paper. It begins to change within a
day or two, and after some weeks it becomes per
fectly black say in four weeks. I should not
expect to se. the b! ii-h grccti tinge, after a paper
had been written two years p.nd seven menti s
such a thing could not exi.-r. 1 see. no tinge
f blue or green, on the page here shown to me.
( Vos examined by Mr. Wh j p'c Cannot tell,
merely by inspection, wl ith.r writing i in Ait:
ol IV fluid or not.
II. . Pintlti.y , I have used Arn
old's fluid more than three years. At first it is a
gieeni?h, bluish tint. Ii tun s black in three or
four weeks. A document writ'en in this tluid,
after three years, would be jt black, and there
would be no trace of either blue or green.
( rof exatnined by Mr. Whlpjdr. II ive used
the ink on the books of the Board of State Au
ditors ; 1 could not t- t Arnold's fmm Harrison's
ink, on the page.
A. R. -. ''' rt Airt.rn .- I have used Arnold's
fluid two years; at fir: it is of a greenish, blu
ish tinge ; a diM-irin-nt written two year and a
half would not exhibit the Liu? or green; it
wouli be jet black. !Ianison' ink becomes bis k
sooor than Arnold's.
N. '. recalled by f),j-ec: I rtatcd
yehterday, that the receipt was on the right hand
page I now htato that it wa 011 the leit corner
of the left hand page; it did riot look as if it
had been recently written ; I saw the receipt a
doen or fifteen times after the talk about double
pay; don't know what kind of ink Mr. Peck t.s
e 1 ; have talked with Mr. Thompson about this
m titer of ihe position of the receipt since yes
terday ; Mr. Peck hi I -om.; i-ustonieis ; the book
Containing tlie recent was in dai'v use; all the
job, advertising, and other accounts are in that
book, except the News subscribers account. I
settled with customers upon that book, posted it,
and drew off accounts fiom it in ls5f and 155.
After I found out what the pspvr was for, I km w
it was there : eati't t. II when Thompson and I
found the paper. The book was not out of my
possession, up to the finding of the receipt ; I
recollect that S. I. Bingham was in the office and
l.K-ked at th-receipt. I think if wi.s j.intied to
the b.X'k.
:'. Ji. Whitn'j rtcal'ed i;l lh f;ef Bailey
gave the receipt to Peck in the 0! I office ; caw
nothing pa.ticuhtt in the ink.
. ej.mnnrtl. Mr. Bailey read the receipt
afur having written it, and delivered it to to Mr.
Peck ; I atood '-lose by Mr. Bailey's -ide ; don't
reco'.iei t who 1 last toll about the rece'pt ; I
never mentioned the matter tit. til after the V-frubl'u-an
artVle, ail I did not then recollect the
receipt. I did i.ot call to tni id the receipt until
Mr. Peck wrote ab .e.t it; can't tt 11 who first as;,
ed ine nb out it ; I did not lead Mr. Peck's let
ters ; I never aw t! cm until now ; I called to
ruin 1 the receipt before I -aw t' e c.pv publish
ed ; I did not m -t.tion the receipt to Mr. Tread
well until after it appeared in my affidavit ; I
cannot swear that I told any folv about the re
ceipt until Peck'e return ; I had a n.iir. t s-tiion
with Col. Jones af'er 1 ma le my affi lav t.
Ib rts the testimony do-ed nn both m I sf and
ti e opening arg mient s made 'ei Hot). Jcon
M. II wR!. Attorney Gem-ial
Ibis is an action brought to re. a t i ,,o from
Mr. Peck, for a louM- payment, received A us.
I'J. l-.'.o. Iitstouhy immaterial Low the do
fendas.t g jL th- money, whether by artifice, or by
tnlst tk' a r -covry by ih.t :;.e umt !. hsd i i
either. It is not 1 eativ to charge Mr. Peck
withl-ifta 1 li'::t!n
it w t mistake.
Peck twic r-ct-iv.
fa. -is are i.a f...ii
.. the 7th I t..
onf a bill for bin-fin
ing to ft To. II... f
.t. hi
gh to show that
'ion is, .;d Mr.
' The !.
f Vy l
Mr. Peek ma !j
Z tic !ws of i 1
"tk t'.M bi'I to
the Dereitv
Secretary ot St.it
of the dob- of t
the boh th,
set. ted tVs b:!I ar
m l pi
ir.'d h:s Certificate
,e wor'r to c-n !jr.'d upon
,, on the lsth day of May, pre-
1 ccrtifi'-ate to the Board of
Mate Au 1'tors, and they allowed th? claim
The next day. May p.. Mr. P-ck ree. ive lthe
money up n th: allowance, a id give Lis receipt
to t ie Ma;.. Treaa irer. Tie-re
iO pretence
t:.at ttii was an a U'.;: ce Iro.a te ir.aijry to
Mr. Peck s u'i a t! i: t was talked about, but
there is not a or 1 of eviJence to support it.
Mr. Peek knew tl.a. it was rmt a s'ip receipt for
money alvat.ce I but t'.at it t a payment.
At the er. 1 of L .ree mov.hs, on t!., jmL
Augi.-t, Mr. PerV. pr. -.-Ms a claim ;:i the v
same words to Mr. i,!;s it;, I'. T. i'y Secretary of j Deputy to demand the money of BaSky, w
State, a:; 1 obt.tbs his certificate that the bin ling j l that Le wot.M pay the mosey if Jfr.
Lai bee?, done. Mr. Peck then presented his bill j would cotisect. Baih-y took the second vouch
with tU cenlfica-.c, to the B .r 1 of State Audi- j t, Jt JM r.ot know the esistct.ee of tie first doc
tors on the ram d iy, the Boar 1 allowed Lim the cher. If J'. Vk wj.hed to take four Lcudrrd
claim cf i lo ', a secor. I titre. On the same diy
Mr. Teck s:gr.e l a receipt f r awa.-ra't covering
this sa ne secor.l allowance. At this time there
were eiht oth-:r acco :nt of Mr. Peck in Lis
own Las! writing, allowed by the Board. He re
ceived hi? pay a second time, on the ISth cf Au
gust. On tho Slst, tie Treasurer, in Lis usual
course of business, ohu:nel a warrant for the
full amount allowed to Mr. Peck lo deduction
of 15 adaitted to have been twice paid. Mr.
Bailey is under no alarm about this second pay
ment. His own bxiks show the payment. Tho
face of the record shows that Mr. Peck got the
f45'J twice. The record itself fchows this the
dsftnee alailt this fct, and it is incontrovertible.
It is needless to dcll upon the evidence of the
defence, in the opening. Ii o.-dir to overcome
the record ma Jo by Mr. Bailey hini'.f, the de-
fence bring h":;n to convict himself of a f!-, de-
ceptive, an! un'awfjl entry, rna'e by L'm ;
as Deputy Treas irer '.f the State. Mr. Bailey!
made no effort to correct th:s error. It was Lis !
dutv to have a: one; pro;-.-cii to reclaim the'
money by d rain I, ar. I ult if neewsary. If Mr.
Bailey Lad gone to the pigeon-hole within Lis
arse tagtb, he would have found the eubsUo-1
tial receipt, showing the allowance of th
claim, on Mar lstb it. . .
7 . 1 ue took Tn
all iu the matter.
Adjourned for dinner,
J. W. Losaviat, Essj., opened for thete.
at 1 o'clock 20m, r. M.
The Attorney General has penttareQa
of an hour, m arguing to you what is not dU"
Ly the defence. The H..et ; .
course is to magnify unimportant circatasLf
j in order to cover up the real featurcsof t21'
A n"; j .ic.Vcase is made out ain v J'
t.t ft-.t ... ; ". W-Feek
v "-ouiiuir, ana uscectihl. J
bciue explained aw t. II.ibC.mv.j f
atf.iirJ tlmu .o,j t . -
expluired those facts away, U for the Jurt to '
All the defence's evidence in the re " . "
to explain away the prima facia oasecr J"
but that explanation. In order that' j"
may perform their duty, it i n0jui thattht w
timony should be s ummed up before you.
appearance of a claim against Mr. Pec j,
consequence of a mistake. If the ,t4t
had t een as Bailey and I'eck suppovd oa
ISth of August l13, there would hT b,
apparent claim against Mr. Feck. 4 ,
a-ainst the State, is obliged by l.Wf tj J
specific course: '
Presentation duly authorized to ft,
2d. To take the allowance to the Auditor Cy.
oral, and demand a warrant.
fid. Take the Auditor's warrant to the Trj.
ry and demand the money.
Convenience does awav this "J 1 ..
allowance is taken to the Treasurer, ardthm
ey is pa.a upon mat, an,l the allowance Ureck.
oned as money. In other cases, advance,
made, and tlip receipts given. This course .
taken by the Treasurer on his own resptSitv
But the rlip receipt isnotavouiher. Theti.
ding ot ihe laws was completed, and the cW
made May .th 1 The account as
May 1Mb. ButMipjK.se that account hl M
been allowed until August ImIi, and Mr. Peck
had drawn the money l y way of advance tW
upon that supposition, Mr. lVtk would have tb
nceived 1 is money upon a voucher aod a!W
ar.ee, according to law. Then the flip
are produced, and a settlement would Lave UfS
made upon them, and among those slip recsipt,
would have I wen one for $150. Then th
would have been or.lv one allowance. This roar-.
w:.s that which Bailey supposed L,J lc
ed. If they Lad been light in their supposition
Peck would r.ot have received any nrnnev he
did not receive any money as it wis, and this it
the only question. He hsd received it in J,T
if Le received it also in August, he should ptt
it back. The side ifu. s are f.r effect npootlii
It is a Lard case to say that men whose orl
is tUcn in the street, have perjured thtmseliej
in this case. The circumstances arc too slight U
cflVt ' grave a purpose. Mr.IngycarsiJ U
Lad t.o great respect for politics or politician!, u
such, and thought that politics should cot It
brought to boar upon the atanding of ritlxeii
Men d not write fraud upon the walls, tor
pritit it upon banners and no man would .
tempt the fraud f a double allowance unoatht
same book the two beingoi.lv three or four p
ges apart. The receipt may Lave been signJ 1
lay previous to the allowance. Mr. Howard, b
his opening, said that the d nible allowance ip
penting, il wa the duty of lh Auditor General
to prosecute, and so it was, but the question it,
why did they wait two years before they did pr
ccute. If it is not the duty of the Attoroej
General to pro.vute, what is here for, to pot tlx
enortnous sum of I. '.o in tho State Treasurf1
Where docs Le get Lis pay for His ervire.
Mr. Whipple closed for I he defence at 2 oWl
P. M.
lie t-ai i that tico. W. Peck Lad leen an ar
piaintance and friend for more than Isf jtvt,
and therefore Mr. Peck La i aAcd Lim to rocs
and defend Lim, aud so Le came. Be enterri
into some general remarks highly romplimecti
ry to Mr. Peck, and epoke w ith much feeding -He
stid that political strife is more bitter IK
than ever. The rl of detraction is raised otft
the Lead of every man of rmiuence.
There are facts Lt re upon the record, wbicfc
makes it necessary that there should lie a lepil
investigation. The Attorney General has stated
most correctly the real issue I accept it it s,
did Ieo. W. Peck receive the sunt of f 450ria
for binding the Statutes of 1 53 ? He bal tU
money in May 15f-.'. The account is in tiihcl
writing, but lie may not Lave received it hin
but that is not proof conclusive that he recfivfJ
the mor.ey in person. He often sent Lis forenaa
to receive the money. He may Lave done a ia
this instance. The ii ference to my mind thsl
:t was ao iu this instance.
Mr. Pet k Lad Lis pay, I admit, on the I tb of
May, and also on tLe lth day of August M:.
'e';k presented the f ame aerount, but mind Jt.
Mr. IL.-dgea, between the two dates, was ia Is
grave. But is it at all remarkable that a il
so largt husii.eas, a;i,j burdened with a great W
of wotk, -houll forget in three months, thef
eejitaiioii and allowance, of an accour.t of f ti'-'-If
Mr. Hedges Lad balanced this account, it
wo'd Lave avoided a great deal of trouhle.in cocrt
and out of curt. Mr. et k Las Lad thiimowj
b it once. Ueo. W. Vck is incapable of ukiif
a dollar unlawfully from man or State, bet
evieei;c must determine that fact.
If you believe the testimony of thrcs diss
t, rcste 1 witnesfc-s, you iroiit acquaint tbs dtftS'
dant of any design to take the money tic
Mr. Bailey is nnimpearfied ; Mr. WLitney tf--impeached,
and so is Mr. WisweU.
Jr'r. Vck is a man of pusceptible nator. B
ia the most "eimitive man I ever knew, slJ saci
j a nn Las rio business to le a jIitician. Ap-
it.c;an has r.o bu;t. with a Li art 1 ttw
Lave only a dried up gizzard. His letters iho
the tun. If you could read them, hich J0
cannst for the? are ail quail-tracks, yoa w
r a 1 the man. I do not deny that there ii W f
of 1 due. the tate. Mr. Bailey adnJu he Las t-
ney. CoL Jore-s, wuh great pomp, send t
and fifty dollars twice, why did Le Dot take
money from the Deputy Treasurer on the 1Kb d
August, when it was effiered to Lira ?
I: is a strong point against the prosecotknth
they did not commence the action sooner.
Peck strongly d!red a prosecution, ia ordef w
clear Lis own character, and that was the reason
that he rcf jsd to allow Mr. Bailey to pa r
the money.
The ink upon the receipt looked p3
to Auditor General Jones, ani green to JQ&l
Bingham I think the green was in their eyt.
and not ia the ii-k. . t
It is a great incoa veuiet.ee to go to trial
out the presence of Mr. Peck, bat be is sick &
cannot be Lere. And now I solemnly ask J9
to sav unon vour oaths, did George W. t
! ceive' that four hund-ed and fifty io
I expect therefore a verdict from 70a, '-
Jtfenuar.t. ,
Hon. Jacob M. Howard, commenced Lis
ing argumer t at 3 1-4 o'clock. u dJ
The real acd only important qnestioa is,
Mr. Peck receive the sum of four LunV.jj
fifty dollar twice. The whole subject
upoa tb aaount of credit wlicb yoa wfl

xml | txt