The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1847-08-07

IL was tdhen up Ill tilc llOuSe,- VII
February 10th, 1914, the vote was taken
upon its final passage. Mr.. Thomas vote
was recorded in the negative. blouse
Journal, page 1927 The bill became a
law, and may be found CHI. 207 ofthe acts
Of December session, 1913.
Mr.. Thomas, was therefore, opposed
to the Governors having the power to
appoint collectors whore the county au-
thorlties refused to do so.
On January 10th, IA, bill was re-
ported, entitled can act to authorize the
commissioners of Somerset county to ap-
point a collector of the county levy, sep
arately from the collector of the direct
tax"
(which was read.
"NIr. Johnson moved that said bill be
referred to the Committee on Ways and
Means,
"Mr. Walters, of Somerset, moved to
amend said motion by adding the words
"with instructions forthwith to prepare
and report bill authorizing the levy
courts and commissioners of the several
counties, sc. to appoint separate collcc-
tors for the collection of the county, city
and direct tax"
"Mr. Yellott moved the following Or
der, which he offered as a substitute for
the several amendments proposed
cord cred That the bill be referred to the
Commit ee on Ways and Mcars, with instruc-
tons TO report bill to repeal the 4lh scctlou Of
the act If 1912, ch. 900" (being the section
uniting the collection the two laxes) sand to
proride more e6ectuaiiy for frcng the payment
Of The State tares, in The @rcral counties If this
State"
The question being put, and the yeas
and nays being called, the House accept
ed the substitute; Mr.. Thomas, Of Talbot
voting in the negatiye!! journal; P. ll6
117.)
Mr.. Thomas was, therefore, opposed to
enforcing the collection Of the tax in the
detaulting counties in any manner at
all
This last was test vote, which can
not be misunderstood. We find him adj
vocating the repeal Of the only force bill
then on the statute book; opposing the
bill proposed by Mr.. Johnson; off; ring
no substitute OF his own; and when Mr..
Yellott's order was submitted, calling up
on the committee to repealthe objection
able feature in the act of S42, and to re-
port bill to provide for enforcing the
collection of the tax in some other mode,
we find the same gentlemen voting still
in the negative,
We might give other votes cast by Mr..
/ Thomas, during the SINE session, of the
like imports but deem it unnecessary.
If any one doubts for a moment as to the
meaning Of the votes referred to in this
chapter, we would refer him to fuller
explanation, to the BILL otltr, d by Mr.,
Thomas, on the next to The last dly OF
the session, and published in our last
communication. If he >hould still hesi-
tate, we wo I'D mention the circumstance
that when the yeas and nays were called
at various times upon the numerous bills
acted upon during the session, relating
to the collection of the States revenue.
by most singular coincidence, Philip
rancis Thomas, Esq, of Talbot, and ia.
cob Powder, Esq, OF Carroll, were found
almost uniformly voting on the same side
The latter gentlemen never feared or hes
itated to ayow his opinions in reference to
the State debt;-and we presume that
there are few voters in Maryland who
are not perfectly familiar with them,
/ BY reference to the last chapter, it will
be found that Mr.. Powder was one of the
eiorous eighteen who voted for Mr.. Thorn
as most 'nglorious bill.