The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

GENTLEMEN,â€"â€"-Mr. Reesor now appears before you as candidate for the high honor of represent- ing you. He appears before you under false pre- tences, and enunciates principles contrary to those he has always advocated in his own organ, the flfarkham Economist. In his addreSs he advocates Dissolution of the Union with some Joint Authority, the continuum-e of Separate b’e/zools, and the aboli- tion of the Queen’s Printership. In his paper of June 24, 1858, he says that no constitutional changes are needed. Five weeks later, viz: July 29, he advocates Dissolution, pure and simple. In August 12th, 1858, he is in favor of the entire a60- lition of o'epgirtite Schools. In the same issue, he says that Representation by Population is the cu re for all the evils complained of, and adds, that the Bro wn-Dorion Administration would have obtained it. flfr. Reesor has now entirely abandoned it, as it is not. mentioned in his address. The Econo- mist of September 15, 1859, is against the Federal Union of Upper and Lower Canada. In July. .1859. he again agitates for Dissolution, pure and Simple, and threaten revolution if it is not obtainedâ€"as also in September 29. In November 24, 1859, he goes in for a Writ/en Constitution; and in Decem- ber 8, 1859, he urges in favor ofa Double Majority Sustainâ€"even as late as last January 3rd, 1860, he still goes in for _Di"'solution, pure and simple, and calls the celebrated Toronto Convention naral names because it did not decide in favor of that scheme.â€" Electors, are you prepared to give your votes to a man who has a new remedy,and new sets of opinions every six months? Ask Mr Irleesor what he means by changing so often, for the chances are that he“ may yet change to be a t/iie/s and t/n.i supporter of the Government ; for as a politician he is without principle. and entirely ignorant ofthe wants of the Province, and is even now charged by two brother Councilmen of peculution and flood; and has to stand on his defence,as an action has been entered against him in the Court of Queen’s Bent/i. Tun ariasâ€"toe son. ' From the Leader of August 26. TALL‘YRAND has said that “speech is given to “ man rather to conceal his thoughts than to ex- “ press them.” We would add, there is a species of advocacy which does more harm than good. bungling lawyer may do infinite damage to his client’s cause. When a case is bad. it is far better to say nothing about it, than attempt a defence which has no basis to rest upon. If Mr. Reesor had appreciated these plain truths he wpuld not have allowed the defence of his grossly improper transaction with the Markham Council, which ap- peared in the opposition organ in this city yester- day, to have found its way into the columns of that paper. 80 that we may. not be accused of garbling,or in any way mutilating'the nature of that defence, we copy it in its entirety, verbatim et litei‘utuni :â€" " The following appear to be the facts of the case :â€"Mr. Reesor is the proprietor of the Economist, a paper published in the village of Markham. It is the only paper puohshcd iu the township of Markham, or indeed in the East Riding of York. The Township Council, of which Mr. {ecsor is Reeve, and the Clerk~of that Cor- poratien, have been in the habit of ordering printing to be done for the Council at the Economist office, sometimes With and sometimes wiIhout the knowledge of Mr. leesor. This was done not for the advantage of the Reeve of IVIai-kham, but because it‘was for the in- terest of the township, and suited the convenience of the Clerk and of the Council; and it always received the sanction of that Municiâ€" pal body. During the time of these transactions, thouger theywvere fully known to the ratepayers and to every member of the Council, not; a murmur of dissatisfaction was heard either With the mode of domg the business. or with the prices charged at the Economist office.-â€"â€" What] the Economist accounts were before the Councrl, Mr. I’teesor declined to take any action on them personally; but left them en- tirely in the [lands of the other members of the Council. He said if they saw fit to pay them, well and good; but that they should ~never be paid if his ovvn vote was necessary to secure that result. 0n the 30th December last, the accounts for 1858 and 1809 were, by the unanimous action of the other four members of the Council ordered to be paid, and this, too, on motion of Mr. Marsh, who is the osten- sible author of the present hubbub about the matter. It should be added that, during these years, all the other members of the Councrl were politically opposed to Mr. Reesor. Every fact that is known to them now, was known to them then, and what some of them pre- tend now to regard as heinously wrong, they then felt to be fair, just, and for the public advantage.” We might well allow the matter to rest here, but a few remarks in reference to it will not be out of place. We have, first, the admission that Mr. Reesor is the proprietor of the Economist. See- ing that the statement was at one time made that Mr. Mansfield was the lessee of the office, it 1S well to have the contradiction come from head- quarters. Besides, since we wrote last on this sub- ject, we have received information, based on indis- putable facts, which clearly establishes that Mr. Mansfield is not the lessee of the office ; that he is a hired servant of Mr. Reesor, and receives a stated wage. , Then we have, the fact admitted that printing was done at the Eponomist office; but, says the Clear Grit apologist, it was not done “ for the advantage of the Reeve of Markham,” but to suit the “convenience of the clerk,” and because it was for the “interest of the Township.” Now that it could not be for the interest of Mi. Reesor, and he the proprietor of the office, is some- thing which most people will fail to comprehend, and as for the other part of the defence it amounts to very little indeed. If it were not to show the utter hollowness of the defence which Mr. Reesor l has to set up, we might well allow all we have said so far to pass ; for that the money was due to Mr. lleesor, as proprietor of the printing office, is admitted in the next sentence or so. When the accounts were brought before the Council, we are told Mr. Reesor “declined to take any action on “them personally; but left them entirely in the “ hands of the Council. He said if they saw fit to “ pay them, well and good; but that they should ‘.‘ never be paid if his own vote was necessary to "secure that result.” That surely is enough to show that the money was due to Mr. Reesor him- self for work done by him for the Corporation, and not to any other person. If this is not the case, why such delicacy on the part of Mr. Reesor? In the face of this fact alone, the public will be slow to believe, with the advocate of Mr. Reesor, that he has not been guilty of the “slightest moral wrong in the transacthan.” Again the apologist of the Warden says :â€" “ In regard to the: contract for 1860, the organs will have it that Alp. likesol‘ must have an llllerent therein; but they are mistaken as llSllJl. in order to accommoda'e the Council, and to avoid even the appear-arias of wrong in the case, Mr. Mansfield Was allmred to make a tender for the printing entirely upon his own rcsponsrbility. and in it Mr. Reesor personally has no manner of interest ivliatevcr. He was not consulted by Mr. lV’lansficld as to what. kind of lender he should make, nor was be consulted by the Township Clerk, in refer- ence to whose tender should be accepted. \Vith it; .\.l r. .llc-csor had nothing to do. and in the contract he has no personal interest whatever, directly or indirect”. If anytl'iing is In be made or lost by it, My, Maud-item alone is the party who reaps the benefit or antlers the consequences. ’ Were it not ridiculous, this would be exceed- ingly funny. How Mr. Reesor can have no inter- est in the “ contract for 1860,” and be the proprie- tor of tl e office, we fail entirely to see. He was delicate about tendering, so he got Mr. Mansfield to do it. And why? In order we are told “to accommodate the Council” and to “avoid even the appearance of wrong.” Could iniquity go farther? Mr. Reesor, having the fear of the law before his eyes, would not send in a tender in his own name, but to “avoid the ap earancc of wrong,” got his paid foreman to do it for him. A more barcfaccd piece of corruption ; a more disgraceful plot to avoid “the appearance of wrong, and a compli- ance with the requirements of the law, it is hardly possible to conceive.” Mr. ltcesor, however, was not always so char-y about transactions of this nature. On the 26th of Deeember, 1859â€"â€"â€"the day on which the last meet- ing of the Council of that year was held, and at which the resolution was passed to pay Mr. Ree- sor the $6177 {litâ€"Mr. Reesor, we are informed on the best autlrodty, handed in a tender, signed by himse f, for printing bills in reference to the hold- ing of the then approaching election for the suc- ceeding year. His tender was so high, however, that it was not accepted, and the work was given to another party. Will Mr. Reesor venture to deny this? ‘ As the Globe seems so dreadfully insensed be- cause any one dares to doubt the impeccability of Mr. Reesor’s character, and the purity of his runs-actions in 1860â€"whatevcr may be said of former yearsâ€"we will endeavor to discover how far the facts will. bear out this Opinion of Mr. Reesor’s character. We would ask Mr. Reesor, did he not in'the beginning of the present year print at his own office, 200 copies of a by-law, repealing a former by-law of the Council, in reference to tavern-licenses? \Vere tenders accepted for the printing of the Work ? Again, is it not true that Mr. Reesor drew up the by-law himself, and that when asked by a member of the Council, whether he was not going to give the work out by contract, he replied that as he had the trouble of drawing out the by-law, it was but right he should have any profit that would accrue from the printing of it? We may state that in addition to the statute law of the land, which we quoted, on a former occasionâ€"â€"providing that a Councilman shall have no interest in any ccntract with the Corporation of which he is a member, there is a by-law of the Township Council, which re- quires that all work shall be given out by contract. So that in printing these 200 c0pies ofthe by-law, Mr. Reesor contravened the law of the munici- pality as well as the Statute law of the land. The organ-in-chief endeavors to quibble about the word “ contract,” and says there was nothing “in Mr. Reesor’s ielation to the affairs of the “ t. founcil that would interfere in the least” with the declaration required by law. It is not ne- cessary in order to make a contract binding that it should be in writing, nor yet that there should be an agreement between the party getting the work done, and the party doing the work. If the Corporation gave certain printing to Mr, Reesor’s office to be executed, of course the understanding was that the work should be paid for. Although there was no agreement, verbal or written to that affect, there was nevertheless a contract between the two parties in the legal sense of the word.â€" As our contemporary appears to be ignorant on this point, we give him the necessary information, and shall not ask a fee for doing so. Chitty ~- who, We. doubt not, will be considered an autho- rity in the matterâ€"thus defines What a coil- tract is :â€"â€"â€" « . “ The term contract comprises in its full and more liberal significa- tion, every description of agreement, obligation or legal tie, wherein ' of the King’s Division. one party binds himself, or becomes bound, expressly 0r iinpfied'y, to another to pay a sum of money, or perform or omit to do a certain act.’ So much on this point. We are glad to find that the matter has already been placed in the law courts, and we hope that a decision may be had before the lapse of many months. Such miscon- duct should not be allowed to go unpunished; . such iniquitous scheming in order to avoid a plain declaration of law, must have its pr0per reward meted out to it. MflnflflEMMk A ND THE I ,5» i 'r L a .v , . ...-. The singular proceedings of the Markham Council, to which we called attention a. short time ago, have, as might be expected, caused a deep feeling of indignation iu the minds of the electors That the Chief Magis- trate of the County of York should have so de- graded his position as to be guilty of something very near akin to perjury, thereby securing to him. self the seat of Reeve and of warden, and gain- ing a paltry advantage over a business rival, to the tune of «$38, is truly distressing. But Mr. Reesor, who by his acts has laid himself open to a crimi- nal prosecution, not only has had the indecency to attempt to stifle inquiry by his own vote, but he now endeavors, through his paper, the Economist, by multiplicity of words, to raise a side issue, and to divert the attention of the public from the true merits of the case. To defeat this dishonest pur- pose, we shall, in a few plain words, endeavor to lay the whole matter clearly before the public.â€" Taking the resolution, moved by Mr. Marsh, and Seconded by Mr. Bowman, which contained the gravarnen of the charge against Mr. Reesor, and which we have already published, and dividing the same into three distinct heads, we shall more easily arrive at the trutl . In the first: place, Mr. Reesor is charged with being disqualified from holding his seat, inasmuch as, at the time of the annual election, he had a monetary claim against the corporation of $177 90 for printing done at his office. From the ( olonist. “In the second, that Mr. Reesor did receive the said sum of $177 90, on the 21st of February last, while holding the office of Reeve, and in the third, that, on being sworn into office, he did de- clare that he had no interest in any contract with, or on behalf of, said corporation. To the first charge, Mr. Reesor pleads guilty.â€" He, however, makes a lame excuse, by saying that the Council voted the payment of the accounts.â€" True, the Council did, but it was unfair, to say the least of- it, and against the express will of the Council, that Mr. Reesor should moiiopolize the whole printing business of the body of which he was the head. He was not only greedy enough to take all the work, and to be guilty of all these.- ir- regularities, in express violation of the statute, but the barefaced manner in which these things were done, would surprise and shock any other person, saving, perhaps, a pure-minded Clear Grit like Mr. Reesor himself. ' We find that on the 29th of October, 1859, the following resolution was unanimously agreed to: “That the Treasurer be authorized andlrequired to pay the proprietor of the Markham Economist the sum of $60, for advertising Auditors’ report, 1858.” ‘ Again, we find another resolution, passed 30th December, 1859, “ That the Treasurer be, and is hereby instructed to pay all accounts authorized by this Council, or balances remaining unpaid.” Secondly, we find on that day there was due to Mr. Reesor the sum of $177 90, which sum was paid to hlm on the 21st of February, 1860, and for which Mr. Reesor gave his own receipt in the fol- lowing words :â€"â€"°‘ Received payment of the within account, $177 90, signed, David Reesor.” This was also certified by the Clerk as being the ac- count for printing various items for the years 1858 and 1859. And thirdly, we find that Mr. Reesor, on being sworn into office, did declare in the face ofall these undeniable facts, and while the money voted was still unpaid, that he had no interest in any mo- mentary transactions with the corporation, the truth being, that at the time this declaration was made, there was due to him and almrst within his grasp, the sum of $177 90! The following certi- ficate, lodged with the County Clerk, shows an- other singular feature in the transaction :â€"-â€" CERTIFICATE. " I, H. P. Crosby, do hereby certify that David Reesor was duly elected Re‘e‘ve of the Municipal Council of the Township of Mark- ham for the present year. and that he has made and subscribed the declarations of office and qualifications according to law.” (Signed,) ' ‘ . “ H. P. CROSBY.” “ Dated this 19th day of January, 1860, in presence of (Signed) “ DAVID Reason, JP." He thus himself takes the deposition of the Clerk certifying that he was duly elected Reeve, and had made the declaration required by law,- whicn we have just shown to be fradulent. Are not these facts conclusive? It is shown that Mr.- Reesor was disqualified from being elected an ac-' count of the contract existing between him and the Council. That he did receive a sum of money for printing done in 1859, and that he did declare that he had no interest whatever in any monetary transactions with the corporation, which declar-- ation is disproved by his own receipt! Can any-. thing be more plain or more simple than the above (7 ll’e contend, that in justice to all parties cOncem-" ed, the matter cannot be allowed to drop here.â€" The reputation of the county is at stake through- the character of its chief officer, and the matter must be thoroughly investigated. No-amount of? verbiageâ€"no amount of special pleadingâ€"can. wipe out these ugly facts ; let the matter be calmly and dispassionately discussed, and a just concl-u-' sion arrived at. As regards the printing for 1860, Mr. Reesor” brings to his aid the Clerk, who, in his anxiety, proves too much. Mr. Eakin says that he acceptv ed Mr. Mansfield’s tender, and that it was never seen by the I‘leeve. Very possibly this is true.â€"â€"- Pray, how does Mr. Eakin know this? What 1113-- cessity was there for showing the tenders to the Reeve? We are told that Mr. Eakin, without waiting until the time expired when tenders- should have been received, opened every one as it came to hand, thus putting himself unfairly in possession of facts he had no right to knowâ€"a most unusual. and dangerous proceeding, and liable to gross abuse and favoritism. There is another curious feature in this job open to animadversion and requiring explanation. The Council met on Saturday, 7th of April, ZlIr. Ree-r sor’s tender, through M’r. Mansfield, is made on Sunday, the 8th day of April, while Mr.- Eakin’s notice for tenders is not dated till the 10th ()pri‘il. Mr. Mansfield thus actually gave in his offer two days previous to the clerk’s aotice being made public. At the Council board Mr. Reesor declared that he had never spoken to Jl’lr. Mans- field on the subject; that he was ignorant of anv such offer having been made. We are at a loss to' reconcile these strange statements. Perhaps they may be accounted for from the fact that Madame Davis, the clairvoyant, had, at that period, a do-- ,micile in Markham village, and it is understood that the Reeve was in consultation with her as to thingsin general. With regard, however, to this tender, the law expressly declares that no member ofa corporation shall either by himself, his part-' ner or agent, enter into any contract for work with that corporation. It isimpOSSible in this case that we can, without further proof, regard .Mr. Reesor’sv foreman as other than his agent. He is so to all intents and purposes, and therefore the taking of this contract by him is in direct violation of the law, and ought to render lllr. Reesor’s seat forfeit. And yet the man who has been guilty of all these‘ enormities is the chosen champion of the Clear’ Grit party in the important constituency of the King’s Division. We trust that the electors will, show by their votes that they, at any rate, are no party to such proceedings. THE annso From the York Herald of August 31'. JOB. As the Oshawa Vindicator and Toronto Globe seem not to understand the above affair, we will give them the following facts to digest, premising, however, for the Vindicator’s information that the Elijah Stanley cones- pondencc never appeared in’ the York Herold, so» that its- statement that we copied it from: the Whitby Chronicle is false. Fact No. l.â€"Mr. Mansfield is Mr. Reesor‘s hired serv vam, and therefore Mr. Reesor is bound by his con- tracts just the same as ifhe contracted himself; indeed Mr. Reesor himself admits that he gave Mr. Mansfield only that “one job,” as see Globe of the 27th inst. Fact No. 2.â€"â€"Mr. Reesor awarded to himself the printing of the By-laws regulating tavern licenses, this. last May, contrary to a standing resolution of the Mark-v ham Council. Fact No. 3.â€"â€"â€"Mr. Mansfield sent in a tender for printing instructions to Patbmasters this year, and as Mr. Reesor, ac- cording to the Globe, gave him only “one j.ob,"Mr.- Reesor is responsible for that tender Fact No. 4.-â€"â€"Relative to the printing for 1858 and 1859, it is admitted that Mr. Recsor received the benefit ac-r cruing therefrom. Fact No. 5.-On‘ the 23rd of December, 1859, Mr. Reesor, whilst Sitting. as Reeve. handed in a tender in writing for printing the By-law-for‘holding the Munici-r pal Elections for 1860. ' ' Fact No. 6.â€"--â€"Mr. Reesor has invariably receipted all accounts in his own name, and admitted that Mr. Mans. field is not the lessee of the office, but simply a servant. We hope that as the above facts are such as cannot be gainsayed, the Globe, W'cilc/iman and Vindicator, will ex- plain how it is that Mr. Reesor can do these jobs and not break that law, which says that “ no Reeve or Court- cilman, having by himself, partner or‘ agent, an interest in any contract, with or on behalf of the corporation, shall be qualified to be a member of the Council.” We confessthat it seems to us as clear as the day that the law has been broken, still we are open ioconviction, and therefore call upon Mr. Reesor and his friends to en- lighten us and the electors of King’sDivision at once. ‘