The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1866-01-06
Governor bradford

We commend the following remarks of the
Frederick Examiner to the attention of our Read
ers, and especially TO members of the Legislature.
Gov. Bradford lost his fine residence because he
was Governor Of Maryland Had Ne been pri-
vate citizen, his property would have been as
safe as any other PERSONS. He conducted the
State through the perilous season of his admins
traion with singular ability and fidelity. He
will soon return to his once pleasant home to
find his dwelling and all its valuable contents
reduced to ashes--the work of Rebel vandalism.
On the principles ofsmpe justice the State should
reimburse the loss which he sustained through
fidelity to her interests. The circumstances att
tending the destruction were aggrayating in the
extreme. The family were aroused from their
slumbers by the heartless incendiaries and while
they were putting on the necessary clothing, the
torch was applied to the lower part of the dwell
ing. The collected treasures of a lifetime were
consumed. Little was saved.
At the last session of the General Assembysof
this State, u bill was introduced to remunerate
Governor Bradford for the destruction of his
property by the Rebels in July 1864. 1t was de-
feated by tacking to it amendments so as to in
clude others who had suffered from Rebel spoil
ations quite as largely, it was said, as the Gov
crnor. To have passed this bill as amended,
would have caused serious, if not ruinous
pressure upon the State Treasury, hence it fell
I through.
When the propositionAo indemnity him was
under consideration last winter, our Legislators
were warmly sustained by the people in voting
against it but since then the subject has received
due reflection, and the propriety and business of
the claim are readily admitted. The question is
not one of dollars and cents merely it is one
| involving the principle ofright and justice to Il
faithful and honored public servent.
And why should not Governor Bradford be
compensated for losses inflicted by Rebel vanda-
ism To say that there are other loyal men
| throughout the State who have suffered to as
great and even greater extent than he, but for
whom no relief has been provided, does not
meet the principle involved. Had he not been
| Governor it is quite certain he would not bad
his property destroyed. Itwas the voice OF the
| people that called him to a position which ex-
! posed him to Rebel resentment, and invited the
| ncendiary, and it remains with them to say
whether he shall be unidentified He stood I'M
tfiinchnglJ athis post and by the people in the
dark hour of danger and dispair; il is now with
the people, whom he served regardless of pecu-
mary sacrifices, to determine whether they will
|
| Governorship of Maryland, knowing beforehand
that its acceptance would entail loss to the
amount of thirty or forty thousand dollars !?
! Very few, we imagine. Then, FIVE would not
have it at such cost, is it right to compel Gov
er nor Bradford to bearthe loss that is entirely
the result Of his occupying position from which
the most of men would have shrunk?
1t was argued, we'believe, by the opponen IS
of the bill that the case of Ishmael Day, of Bati-
more county, presented claims equally as strong
as those Of Governor Bradford. This is trne in
one sense, but there is this difference. The
former lost his property for resisting Rebel en-
croachnents, the latter for executing trust inn
posed upon him by the people. Mr.. Day sub
jected himself to loss by Drawing the hungry
marauders encompassing him. Gov Bradford
by his fidelity to the cause he was elected to sub
serve. Therefore, the argument that bars the
one, cannot, in justice, be applied to the other.