Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1874-04-30

CouSrY ARD TO RArLRoAps." Our
brother Of the Port Tobacco Times, in re-
Spouse to certain recent statements Of the
BE.coS on the above subject. INDUCES in
quite lengthy criticism in his issue Of the
I7th Instant on our facts and figures. both
and an Of which he earnestly objects to. and
supplements with su ch tables and aecoonts
Of his own ~ make some rejoinder at our
hands both necessary and Imperative
This rejoinder should have appeared in our
last issue but had to be postponed from
causes here unnecessary to name. and in
making it to-day. We are much less con-
cerned. We can assure our brother. about
the damaging effects Of his criticism upon
''us and ours" than we are. to initiate aud
come up to the gentlemanly courtesy With
which be has delivered it.
There are only too points made BY the
Times which il interests % TO refer to.
Our original prorosi,ion-the proposition
which the Times objects to and seeks to
eonirovert-was. that our county had IL.
ready contributed Sl63. 900 to the South.
crn Maryland Railroad. and that Charles
and Prince Georges had, as yet. contri-
huted nothing. To this. the Tines re-
spends that. before INDUCING in any self
praise Of our liberalisy to the road in ques-
tion. we should have shown sehere 1--WE"
60. she money from. Pray. SO far as the
road is concerned. Why should we have
shown il? To what issue was it material ?
Under .hc law. this railroad fund Of ours
had been set apart for the construction Of
works Of internal improvements in our
cnunty-we had absolute control its dis
posal and could have elected to give it to
any corporation for the purpose named that
had pleased MS or to have withheld it from
any. We gave it to the Southern Mary
hand road in preference to any other and
upon terms 50 liberal that We did not take
the precaution even to protect our own in.
tcrest. But. admitting for argument sake.
that VIC ,rere the almoner Of other peoples
bounty and not the dispenser Of our own.
xe still submit that we arc entitled to be
released from ''imrortunities" for further
aid to this road until counties which are to
benefited by it. like Charles for example,
shall have contributed, as almoners or 9th.
crwisc. = fair pro rata share Of tho costs
necessary to its construction. But we We
hemen,ly protest against the whole almo.
ner theory Of our brother. We claim that
the Sl63 600 in question was not gif Of
the State but vas in the nature Of q
repayment. 1t was go considered by the
trainers Of the Constitution Of ct, and
it is demonstrate truth. whether it was
so considered or rot. We had coutribu-
ted of our means in our days of prosperi-
ty to build up the waste places ofthe Wes-
tern section Of the State and to stabilisate
the prosperity Of Baltimore and other places,
aud the fund in controversy was no more
than an equitable return Of what We had
invested for the advancement of the Sec
ton and places just named.
Of the remaining point made by the
Times, We shall say but little. Treating
the statistics Of our brother as correct. We
do not gainsay that Charles pays more
taxes into the State Treasury than we do.
nor do We. as q consequence Of this. ques-
tion the further fact. tha. she paid. under
tho assessment laws. larger proportion Of
the $500. 900 retained BY the State to the
counties Of Charles. St. Mary's aud CAL
vert for works Of internal improvements
therein, than We did-nor arc We concern
cd to conceal the crushing development
that she contributed under the same laws
more towards the payment Of cur proper
ton Of this fund than We contributed our
selves. Unharpily for our brother, how
ever. he overlooks the important fac's.
that whilst Charles paid more than We did
Of this fund, she received more. and. also.
that. whilst she was contributing to aid q
work within her limits as we'll rs ours, for
her benefit rs we'll as ours. re were con-
tributiug to aid a work beyond our limits
and within hcrs-a work in which We had
and have only the remotcst interest. In
the cases named. moreover. the contribu-
ticns Of both counties we're involuntary
aud forced. and We were thinking and
speaking only Of srataitous favors when
VIC wrote the unhappy paragraph which
has caused oil this ink wasting and which
is here. for want Of a better. reproduced
as our peroraiion to the present discussion
- II should not be forgotten. however.
that We have already contributed $685.
600 to this work. the larger proportion of
which has perhaps been expended outside
Of oar limits. whereas our sister counties
Of Charles and Prince Georges. though
nearly as much interested in this work rs
ourselves. have as yet contributed nothing.
We wish not to be misunderstood. We
are no, complaining Of these counties nor
advocating the imposition Of any addition
al tax turthens upon them. Il would be
imrer,inent in Us to meddle with their To-
cal affairs, but, We think. at the same
time ,ha, oSr people should be released
from opportunities for additional aid to :he