The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1875-10-23
MR.. WOOLFORD AND SENATOR EARLE.

more than one way to annlhllate them.
c. w.
MIR. WOOLFORD AND SENATOR EARLE.
Messrs. Editors Baltimore american:
The charge against Comptroller Wool
ford of having attempted to procure the
passage of a bill improperly dsposing of
public funds has naturally and properly
attracted much attention. In common with
many others, formed an opinion in 1874,
when the charge was first made, adverse to
Mr.. Woolford, and until the publication of
the letters of Messrs. Waller, Dennis and
Roach, had no reason to doubt its justice
Those letters puzzled me considerably, and
in order to test the accuracy of my recol
lection of the charge and it's attendant cir
cumstances, l have taken the pains to
examine the Senate Journal of 1874, with
the view of comparing the record with my
recollection of the proceedings of the Sem
ate in regard to the Revenue bill, which
was the occasion of the charge.
1t is fair to suppose that if my memory
reproduced correctly the proceedings of the
Senate which were entered on the Journal,
it would be equally accurate in recalling
the rather remarkable circumstances at
tending this charge, made at the same
time, against Mr.. Woolford. Finding my
recollection of these proceedings fully borne
out by the Senate Journal, l have not the
slightest doubt of the accuracy with which
l recall the facts simultaneously occurring
which were not entered on the Journal,
such as the charge and personal explanation
made by Mr.. Earle. am therefore forced
to the conclusion that these letters of
Messrs. Waller, Dennis and Roach were
written under a misapprehension of the
facts, and refer to some other and entirely
different matter than that contained in Mr..
Earle's charge. Otherwise, l am utterly
unable to reconcile those letters with what
personally know to be true.
| have DO acquaintance with MIR. Wool
ford, have not now and never had any per-
sonal grievance against him, and until
had good reason to the contrary thought
him a good officer and worthy man. l
think my present unfavorable opinion was
formed impartially and on sufficient ground.
Certainly l have no cause or desire to do
Mr.. Woolford injustice, and in order to
prevent it and to elicit the whole truth
authoritatively from those who must know,
will state what saw and heard in Anna
polls in 1874, upon which judged Mr..
Woolford guilty.
That we properly understand the matter
in all its bearings, it is necessary to revert
to Mr.. Woolford's recommendation in his
report of 1872, that revision of the reve-
nue. laws should be made, which resulted
in joint resolution No. 10. (See Act 1927
That resolution requested Mr.. Wooford
"to revise and systematic the revenue
laws of this State and report the same to
next General Assembly," Accordingly Mr..
Woolford prepared and had reported in
House of Delegates in 1874 what was
known as the Revenue Bill" which was
intended to repeal and take place of all
then existing revenue laws.
was in attendance very frequently upon
the session of the Legislature in 1874, and
very much to my surprise heard Mr.. Wool
ford repeatedly denounced by the Demo-
cratic members of the House for what they
termed his unwarrantable interference with
legislation-especially in connection with
the "Revenue bill.' Certainly that bill
was not acceptable to many Democratic
members of the House, and to avoid crit-
cism and debate Mr.. Woolford managed to
have it disposed of in caucus, so that it
was passed in the House without debate.
Nobody will deny this, think.
The bill then went to the Senate, and on
March 9th, 1874, Mr.. Earle, as Chairman
of the Finance Committee, made the ad-
verse report, which will be found on page
1853 of the Journal. This report was adopt
ed and the committee discharged, which
would have ended the matter, but for the
reconsideration which Mr.. Woolford, by
renewed effort, was able to secure.
On Saturday, March 2S, 1874, there was
read in the Senate Mr.. Woolford's COM
munication, which will be found ON page
7s5 of the Journal, urging the passage of
the bill on account, among other things,
of an empty treasury. On March 80, the
next meeting of the Senate page 1877 of
the JournaD, on motion of Senator Fields,
of Caroline county, the return of the bill
from the House WHITTIER it had gone on its
rejection by the Senate) was asked. The
bill was accordingly returned the same day,
and on further motion of Mr.. Fields, the
previous action of the Senate was reconsid-
cred, and the bill recommitted. page S22
of the Journal.
1t was on the occasion of the reading of
this communication of Mr.. Woolford's
March 90, 1874 that Mr. Earle denounced
Mr.. Woolford, stating, in effect that Mr..
Woolford's assertions that the treasury was
empty were untrue, that proper efforts had
not been made to recover defalcations, and
that if the whole truth were known, Mr..
Woolford would be damned in the estima-
ton of every honest man.
Mr.. Earle was mere interrupted Dy a polnC
of order made by Mr.. Fields and added,
as if in continuation of the previous SEN
tence, "And the Senator from Caroline is
covering it up
At the next meeting of the Senate, which
was on Monday, March 2Sth, 1874, Mr..
Earle, in a personal explanation, said that
he had been advised by friends that his
language at the preceding meeting, in ref
erence to the Comptroller's communication