The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1841-09-18
TO THEPEOPLEOF MARY.
Ia ND.
NO. V.

We pause Tor moment, i'll our cXaml.
nation OF the appropriation Ac's, to rcpe
a charge that has been most singularly
and impudently preferred by the Opposi.
ton prints against the Wing Party. 1t is
alleged by those prints that undue lobby
influence was eXertcd over the Wing mem,
bers, whilst the celebrated Eight Million
BIZ of 1885 was pending in the Lcgisla,
turc. 1t seems that i'll conformity with /
practice that has prevailed in all Of oul
State Legislatures, and in the Congress O
the United States, from the commence
ment Of the Government, the Canal ant
Rail Coad Companies employed eminent
Counsel, who happened to be members o
the Wing party, to represent their inter-
csts, and by imparting the necessary in.
formation. by argument, and by full expo
sitlon of facts and calculations, to aid
them i'll procuring the appropriations alb
solutcly necessary to carry Oh then
works. 1t is no part Of our task TO de-
fond this practice, or to prove that the fees
paid by the Companies, in the particular
instances, TO which we arc abiding, were
or were not more than adequate to the
services rendered. But, if the practice be
wrong, or, ii the fees paid were too large,
the full lies between the contracting
parties, tie Companies and the Counsel
How was The Wig party then, or how is
1t now, to be blamed or held accountable
because certain incorporated companies
chose to employ Counsel to protect their
intercsts?-Yet, say our opponents, undue
influence was eXcrted over the members
Well, now, we do not believe any such
undue influence was cXcrtcd. Nay, we
are thoroughly persuaded none such was
But grant there was. Do you not per-
cclve thatllt must have been exerlcd to a
far greater encm over the Fan Buren,
members than over the UMg mcm6erS?-
We have demonstrated to you, heretofore
by an exhibition OF the yeas and nays,
(sec No. 4 of this series that whilst but
q very few more than one half ofthe Wing
members voted for the Eight Million,
Act, three fourihs of the Van Buren, mem
bers voted for it. TwENTY-sIx Van Bu-
rem members divided on the question of
the passage of that Act: NINETEEN of
them voted for it, and scrcn against i'll
The charge, therefore, signalIy rccoils
upon its unprinciplcd inventors and their
friends!
We now resume the examination of the
appropriation acts. BY the bye, we omit
ted to notice, in its proper turn, the acts
of 1892, CHI. 220, which authorized the
Baltimore and Susquchanna Railroad
Company to borrow $4,000, upon the
guarantee, by the State, of the payment of
the interest Oh the loan, equal to Sl7,-
500, at 5 per cent. per annum. The bill
was introduced to the House of Dele
gates (tI.J. 1872, p. IL by Charles Car
roll Harper, who was Il distinguished
member of tho Jackson party, and was
one of the delegates, for that year, from
Baltimore city. We ask permission, i'll
passing, by way of tribute to the memory
Ola personal friend, tosay he was gen.
tleman Of the most refined tastes and high
~ cultivated intellect, whose premature
death in a foreign cline wruug the hearts
of his numerous relatives and friends
Mr. Harper recommended the bill to the
House in an aSgumena,ivc report. which