The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1878-03-02
DOINGS AT ANNAPOLIS.
Special Correspondence baltimore County Union

ANNAPOLIS, February 9th, 1878.
1t ereepeth toward the end of the session and
Baltimore city only to-day reported the bill to
grab up the garden spot of Baltimore county and
take it to its capacous maw. The fact is Balti-
more city has so far been utterly worsted. 1t
wanted, with becoming modesty, to have the con-
sderation of the subject referred t0Aa committee
composed entirely of Baltimore city lelegates.-
This the House promptly refused to dsN, and gave
the consideration to commit ous-s thesf\ from
Baltimore city, three from Ba .tpSNVSsaAs nv nd
to one from the State at large. TSaeA AZ y
of the committee fell to the LOTT ~ arniNe
Alleghany-apparently verl Nc NC
honorable gentleman. On Mon :, 49,
had very lengthy session. Nj ,N,N
Mr.. Raynor had II big talk, Mr. ~
more, hetalked, and Mr.. Yellott 'NS
Then Mr.. Mckaig said his say. But before giving
you Mr.. McKaig's answer to the conumdrum be-
fore him, it had better be stated what was first
said in this wigwam council.
Mr.. Yellott declared that the city having come
here and asked the bill it must take the afiirma-
tive Baltimore city, Mr.. YellOtt continued very
properly, should show some reasons for this bill
in the absence of any memorials on the subject
Neither city nor county have presented petitions
on this subject Four years ago there were me-
MORALS the subject, and when the question was
submitted to the people it defeated two to one
The city had already three thousand acres of un-
improved land within the present limits, and the
proposed extension will give it double the amount
of territory it now has. Towards the eastern
boundary thirty three streets had been laid out OF
which but ten had been opened and improved, and
towards the northern boundary fifty had been laid
out but eighteen twenty of which had been
opened and improved.
So little has been the improvement in Baltimore
city that it has not been found to remove
any of the fire engines nearer to the borders not
one of which is located within mile and half OF
the limits. .
Another difference from the bill of 1874 is that
then the proposed extension was by straight lines.
Bv this any district may be taken from the coun-
ty that the passage of the bill and its adoption
by part of the people would make zigzag
boundary. But one precinct voted for it in lS74
and at the proper time he would show how that
was DONE The city now proposes to take 25,0OO
of the population of the county and One-third OF
its taxable basis. The capitalists at Woodberry
oppose it, and to take it would reduce Baltimore
to third or fourth rate county. There was no
reason why the measure should be introduced.
Mr.. Raynor was ready to speak, as usual, and
admitted that Baltimore stood on the affirmative
side. and finding apparently that he had no argu-
ments to offer for the extension of the city limits,
he wanted to relegate the duty of the committee
to the House where he said the merits of the bill
would be discussed. "The city," he said, "pre-
ferred to be before the Legislature in formal
a resolution directing her law officers to prepare a
bill" He said this had been done and petitions
could be obtained but he did not think that neces-
sary From some he had received letters favorlng
extension, and among these were John w. TAR
rett, William wilkins, and all who purchased the
old aims house property.
Baltimore city," continued Mr. Raynor, with
a population of 100000, asked for it, and Balti-
more county, without one man Directing to 1t,
throws itself into the negative of the ISSUE" In
reference to unimproved land in city Mr. Ray
nor said that that would be found in any large
city. He cited the rapid extension of the city
westward, and was satisfied that as many argu-
ments could be made for against the bill, which
was a very poor way of putting an affirmative
side, and closed by saying that he could see no
reason why the bill should not be reported favor
ably.
Mr. Yellott did not think that Mr. Raynor had
given any more facts than he had, and of all the
names mentioned Mr. CARROTS is the only one
that was not favorable to the bill four years ago.
Mr. Burton said that the committee at the sug-
gestiOn of the Baltimore county members had ad'
ourned to get the facts before them. Mr.. 1ellOtt
| suggested that Mr.. Geo. ii. Carman was here with
plats and facts to throw light on the whole sub
iect Mr.. Raynor objected on the ground that a
.'mere politician of the county had an Interest
| in the matter, and they had no testimony present
to contradict him. Mr.. Martinez would contra
| dict all Mr.. Carman would say. DIR. Burton SAID
that Mr. Martinez examined the plat four years
ago, and had to admit its correctness. Mr. Me
| Kaig said that from what Messrs. 1elott ant
Raynor said he could not determine, whether, OF
not, the report should be favorable. Mr.. Smiti
moved that the committee make favorable re
port.
beforehand. Here was the pity for BaItimorj
| eOunty-it did not know how Mr.. McKag stOoC
really and rather than have a favorable report a
| the county feared, Mr.. Yelott offered as n sub
stitute, that the bill be reported without recon
mendatons, and, Mr.. McKaig voting with Balti
more county, this was CARRIED. Mr.. McKaig
had the vote been taken on the original motion
would have voted to report the bill unfavorably.
The bill was duly reported to-day without re
concentrations, and read first time. The ruI
will be the second reading, and amendments thei
will probably pour in.