The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1875-10-29
The SANDER Against COI. WooIford.

The SANDER Against Col. WOOlfOrd.
Mr.. S. Teackle Wallis, with the Radical
press and orators, persist in their charges that
Comptroller Woolford was guilty of an at
tempt to defraud the State of Maryland, by
endeavoring to procure the passage of n bill
to bestow pension on certain Noah
Webster, of Somerset county, who was not
entitled TO n pension. The charge has been
shown TO be false on the very best testimony
and those who have been so industrious in
circulating the SANDER should hide their
faces in confusion. The charge rested upon
the assertion of Senator Earle, who alleged
that during the session of the Legislature of
1912, Colonel Woolford appeared before the
Committee of Finance, of which Earle was
chairman, 10 urge favorable action upon
bill to grant a pension TO man from Somer-
set county, the bill having previously passed
the lower House, and having been sent to the
Senate was referred to the Committee on FL
| nance. Senator Earle further says that he
asked Col. Wooford if the man whose cause
he urged had ever been in the war of1S12 Col.
Woolford's reply was prompt and unhesia-
| ting, mo, he never was in the army
"Then that ends the bill" apgriy exclaimed
Mr.. Earle, folding up the papers he had in
| his hands. Col. Woolford then left the COM
mittee room, and the bill was reported on
unfavorably
AT the session of 1874 the very same bill
| passed the lower House, was sent to the
Senate and referred again to the committee
| of finance, who this time reported favorably
| upon it, and passing the Senate it became
law.
1t turns out that Senator Earle, who is as
liable as other people to make mistakes,
misunderstood the character of the bill al
| luded to. 1t was not bill for pension,
| but bill TO grant relief 10 Noah Webster,
whose case was simply this Webster, being
over As years of age and therefore not liable
to military duty,was twice illegally drafted by
the State of Maryland in the late war. He ap-
| piled 10 Governor Bradford for exemption,
but was refused. Being poor man, with wife
and children dependent upon him for support,
he was obliged to sell his home 10 raise $500 10
procure a substitute. His application to the
Legislature was to haye refunded to him
this amount, of which the State had illegally
deprived him. His claim was just, and Col.
| Woolford was perfectly right in cndeayor-
ing to procure justice for citizen of his own
county.
The proof of these facts is easy. 1t will be
admitted that the Journal of Proceedings of
the House of Delegates contains record of
the disposition ofcvcry bill coming before it,
in all its various stages, its first, second, third
readings, &c. Senator Earle says this bill of
which he speaks passed the lower House, at
the session of 1872, was sent to the Senate
and referred to his committee. Now, the re-
cords of the House of the session of 1879 do
not show that any application was made for
a pension for any man from Somerset coun-
ty The Journal does show, however, ulat a
bill passed the lower House praying for the
relief of Noah Webster, of Somerset county
who had been, MS before slated, illegally draft
ed that this bill was sent to tho Senate, refer
red to Senator Earles committee and I'M
favorably reported upon. Senator Earle's
misapprehcnson is thus easily accounted for
1t was bill for the relief of Mr.. Webster
that he mstook for pension bill Besides
if it had been a pension bill it would have
been before the committee of pensions and
not before the committee of finance. Sena-
tor Earle docs not rccollect the name of the
person to be benefited, and his charge there.
fore rests merely upon his recollection of an
occurrence and which he is unable to sub.
stantiate by the printed records If the bill
were such as he alleges, the Journals of the
Legislature would contain record of the
matter, and it would be easy to point out the
identical case. 1t cannot be done, however
, for no such case as Mr.. Earle alleges, can be
, found.
Senator Earle, MS an honorable man, should
furnish better proof than his own memory
when he brings such grave charge against
a man whose character, in private and in
public life is so unsulied as that of Col
Woolford The whole charge falls 10 tho
ground in the face of the facts, and Colonel
Woolford will be triumphantly vindicatcd a,
the polls next Tuesday.