The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1869-10-30

Money $S,61S, 5000!
Democratic County Tax for
Cecil in 1863, $99,648.66
Same Board for 80, 85,7O9.35
Democratic Extravagance-Who Spends
5e the Money!
Tho Democrat of last week contained a
wonderful editorial article; wonderful in
length (three columns;) wonderful in men,
dacious arithmetic-or making figures lie;
wonderful in the unblushing effrontery
with which it parades statements and fig
ures that have not the slightest foundation
in fact; wonderful in everything unenvia-
bic, and for everything but truth and can
dor
Singular as it may seem, however, this
wonderful article contains a solitary SEN
tence, the truthfnlness of which is undenia-
BILE, and which will be SO endorsed by the
tax-paying people of Maryland. This SEN
tence is" What the people feel is taxes"
Very short-a grain of wheat among bush
els of chaff. but it is true, and oh how
true. How many taxpayers unite in say
ing ''pity tbs tits true"' If there be any
thing felt lately among the people of Mary
land it certainly is ''taxes.' They "feel
taxes as never before in the history of the
State and county, and it is not very proba-
BILE they will feel them less while State and
county governments are in the hands of the
party who now manipulate the purse
strings.
We shall not attempt thorough expose
of this wonderful editorial. Time, space
and inclination are all wanting for it; nor
would our readers be much benefited in
any respect by showing up THE Demo-
Gratis adcaptandum, sophistical and grand
Eloquent style of argument-heaven save
the mark Some of its features, however,
claim attention. We have referred to the
unblushing effrontery with which it pa
rades figures and statements having no
foundation in fact.
1t attempts to prove that the last Repub-
lican Commissioners "threw over every
expense they possibly could to be met by
their successors in order /" to influence
the elections by show of light taxes" by
giving, as from tho Lepy List, statement
of the items thus thrown over amounting
to $751; $50, two of which items, viz: $500
deficit for bridges and $4,000 for a note due,
are not Included in the Levy Statement of
1868, as published, at all, and another,
$4,000 for deficit for road repairs, we are
certain is overstated at least $4,000; in other
words the deficit was not over $4,000 if 50
much.
The entire statement as to the Republi-
can Commissioners throwing upon their
successors what they should have provided
is, of course, as false as the figures relied
upon to prove it, as may be seen from the
fact that the list of 1867 contains very near
ly the same sums as deficits as the previous
year QS66) for the items of Road Repairs
and Aims House, showing that nothing
more was left over than was usual and una
voidable. Had the Democratic Board not
increased the Levies in advance for Aims
House $500, and for Roads $4,000, in 1868,
over what those Levies were for 1867, we
should have seen, in the List for 1869, quite
as large deficit as existed before, and thus
have had additional proof of our assertion
that these deficits were usual.
Another evidence of The Democrats au-
dacity is to be found in the statement that
"there was no levy made for the four mil
Rows - for Dafapoo To,p
and that we know it." The only infer
ence to be drawn from what The Democrat
states on this subject is, that although the
Legislature of 1868 made this appropria-
ton of four millions to go into the pockets
of the Bounty Brokers and former slave
owners who controlled that Democratic
body so VIGOROUSLY, yet the people are not
to be taxed in order to raise the money
If The Democrat did not intend this infer
ence to be drawn what did it intend9 fit
did, will it be kind enough to define the
difference between such deception and a
lie? 1t will not deny, we suppose, that 81
cents in the 800 of the 10 cents State tax
of 1868 and 1859 were levied to create a
sinking fund out Of which to pay the loan
authorized by the Bill making this four
million appropriation.
To wind up this three columns Of won
der we have a table of the rates of State
taxes for the years 1862 to 1869 inclusive,
which, The Democrat says, shows the expen-
diture Of the State as it appeals 10 the
pocket of the taxpayer Debt, it argues,
is no account to the taxpayer except as he
is called to pay it. Well, it is easier to
pay a debt in instruments of 90 or % per
cent, but we incline to the belief that tax
payers would prefer having no debt, and no
annual instalments of debt to fork over to
the Collector.
Remarkable as Tie Democrats article is
for its distortion of truth and mendacious
manipulation of figures, it is even more re-
markable for what it does not say, what,
indeed, it tries to suppress. In all it's re-
ferences to both State and county taxes
there is no recognition of the very mater
ial fact that, in 1868 and 1869, since Demo-
cratic palms have ticllled with the touch of
the public moneys, the basis of taxation 10y
the new assessment has been increased
nearly double, and that, in conse-
quonce thereof, the rates of tax for both
State and county purposes should have
been very little over half what they were
under the six or seven years of Republican
administration Immediately preceding.
To apply this to the county taxes let us
take the rates for 1861 to 1867 inclusive
For these seven years the aggregate, we
find, was, exclusive of the Special Bounty
Levy of 1869, $5.03. During these years,
however, there were s23, 500 levied as
bounties outside of the special levy refer
red to, which, with collectors commission,
would require rate of about 25 cents in
the 500. Deducting this from the aggre-
gate above would leave 81. 70 total rates OF
seven years Republican rule, which, divided