Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1879-04-25
Reply to e. .. Davis. ESQ.

used 10 The Clerk Office, is utterly groundess.
Mr.. Davis begius by expressing surprise that
his hrs letter had provoked some feeling and
criticism" cannot conceive why he should
be surprised at '.eenng' excited BY a false
charge OF illegal action against nimber OF
respectable gentlemen, unless he assumes that
he mas some special right 10 make false charges
IN the newspapers and that when he speaks it
is the duty of everybody else 10 ;ameiy sub
init 10 iDputations upon their character with
out word of reply. | do not admit any
such assumptions. Or be may assume that
public officer ceases to have 'lee!iug' when
he accepts office, and becomes careless Of
assaults upon his reputation. lie is mistaken
in thai too, as il is the result o; my ohserva-
ton and experience that the officers of this
county are as worthy Of the respect of their
fellow-ciizens and esteem il as much as other
people.
Mr.. Davis next dsclaims the Interpretation
gave his expression, ''ihe law of morals"
and explains that he only meant to use
morals as opposed 10 wrongs, as synony-
nous with eight" Now, as h violation of
the law Of right would be, in my opinion,
immoral, do not see that his disclaimer has
any force, or that his explanation makes bis
original imputalions less offensive
Mr.. Davis is then pleased to institute a
modest comparison between himself cad me
as 70 cur respective advantages ui papcation,
ont Tue comparison, II correct, does not so far
as am able 10 see, tend logically toward the
conclusion he draws therefrom. when be as
serts that il ''srgues the folly Of wasting the
large sums OF money which we annually spend
10 our system of public school education.
MIR. Davis charges that my reply TO his al
tack was an attempt TO "confound and de-
slroy" him. ! had no such malicious intent.
simply wished 10 call public attention to az
existing law of the Stale which expressly au-
'horizes the action which Mr. Davis stated was
"wiihout warrant of law" This charge re-
minds me of The ancient fable of the wolf and
lamb. slIe makes the attack and he is endeav-
oring to muddy the waters, not /. II there
is any attempt TO "confonnd and destroy" it
is on his part, Of which | leave others TO
Judge.
Mr.. Davis in his next paragraph quotes in
full and correctly Art. 3, sec 45 of the Con-
siitution of 1861 which | shall endeavor to
discuss hereafter, and only notice now his
effort TO correct what he calls one OF my "mis-
takes" He attempts TO do so by stating the
'object Of the Constitution of 1864 in limit
ing the animal compensation of the Clerks of
all the counties of the State to So, 500, and of
the Constitution of 1867 in limiting said com
pensaion in all the counties to So, 900, was 10
keep doWn to that limit the enormous profits OF
that office in Baltimore. do not see the force
Of thai reason.
Mr.. Davis characteriZes the law of 1865
chapter 1877, as 'recent innovation upon the
practice and custom of the COM
w." ] respectfully suggest that ii is better to
Judge OF laws npon their merits and not from
the date of their passage. The system of pub.
lie school education which Mr.. Davis de-
nounces as a folly, in the support of which
we Waste large sums of money annually" is
also "a recent innovation upon the time hon
pred practice and custom of allowing the
children 10 grow up in comparative igno rance
do not think its recent adoption is n reason
or condemning the system of public school
education. Some othe: 'recent innovations
lpon time-honored practice and custom we
nay differ about, as deplore them aud pos
IDLY Mr.. Davis favors them, although Gin
iovations," &c. ] have in mind specially the
from taxation Of money loaned on
mortgages, and of money invested in certain
'onds- Some people think that the exemption
rom taxation of the large sums of money thus
invested, is contrary TO the provisions of art
of the Declaration of Rights which is
art of the Constitution of 81, where we find
he following. viz, every person holding
property in the State ought to contribute his
proportion of public taxes for the support of
Government, according 10 his actuaI north in
edt and personal property" Possibly, il that
octriue were enforced it would be unneces-
arv to arraign the Legislature of 1865 for
laking provision to repay Clerks the cost of
he Publc's record books, &C., in counties
here said Clerks salaries do not attain the
init allowed by the Constitution.
The fear that Mr.. Davis expresses in the
ext paragraph that 'words Of explanation
ill tend rather to obscure than to make clear
he true intent and meaning of art 3. sec
5. of the Constitution which he has just be-
IRE quoted in fnll-well, the fear is well
bundled unless Others understand bis explana-
ons better than do He endeavors to re-
ate the provisions of each clause of said |
sction, aud quotes the second pioviso four I
mes. Then he quotes from art. 81, sec. 4, |
'eaning doubtless sec. 81 of art. A, as the |
onstitution has only IL articles. As this on |
5 face provides only for Baltimore city il scarce
explains anything concerning The conn
es. 80 that all the explInation proper, which |
r. Davis furnishes, is grammatical comment
ry in which he says, 1.-THE word SHALL Mr.. |
rettyman knows better than do, is the aux
iary of a verb in the imperative (?) mood"
C. Now, ! do not know anything of the
,rt, and doubt whether an body else does;
of as may be rusty IN grammar we shall be
niged to refer to the teachers of the county |
Ie question whether ''shall" is the auxiliary
a verb 10 the imperative mood.
Nj. Davis quotations in the next para
'aphs from Lord Bolingbroke, Archdeacon
alley, and Judge Cooley, OF Michigan, are
'notless all right and are very forcible, as
1uhtless would have been those that might
ave been made from Madison, jefferson and
Tohsfar hufa "A |
'ecifnl OF Constitutions in my reply to Mr..
avs am unable to perceive their relevancy.
In attempting 10 tell us exactly what is
cant by the rather vague expression, Office
'peoses, Mr.. Davis does not seem TO recog-
ze The difference between public aud a pri-
a'e-office. He seems to think il was unrea-
nable for Clerk to expect the public 10 be
xed even to build and furnish a Clerk's of.
re or TO reimburse him for expense incurred
J the purchase Of record hooks aud dockets
'at must remain in the Office. the property of
ie public forever, and upon which every cii.
EMS title to his property depends. II Mr..
avis theory is correct then il would he prop
: for Judges to he required when elected to
nild and furnish Court Houses, for Sheriffs
} build and furnish jails. &c, &c II the pub
c were relieved OF such burdens and Of the
normous expense Of sustaining the public |
'hool system and a few other things IL ,coud |
lake cheap government, and we might well |
o without taxing mortgages and bonds
Mr.. Davis next quotes from the Comptrol- |
RS report for 'Ts "io ascertain the practice Of
ONE OF our sister counties - lie means, OF |
curse, the practice as to- stationery, record |
ooks, &c, in those counties. In the remarks
'hich Mr. Davis makes about his extracts
rom the Complroller's report and in the con-
lusions he draws lberefrom he simply demon
iraies that he does not understand what he Is
alking about, to say the very least. The on
y object OF the reports from Clerks published
n the Compireller's report is, TO ascertain
whether each Office pays the Clerk this full sal
ry Of $1,000, and to ascertain the excess over
that amount. which. when there Is any such