The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1880-04-10
THE PLAIN ENGLISH OF 1T.


>wer to Tax Payers" exhibit of the
county bonded Indebtedness. On the con-
trary. we hold that the reply of Tax
Payer" published in another column in
to-day's issue of Tile Wig, will he sus-
tanned by every impartial citizen of the
county. Disguise the situation as adroit-
ly as our contemporary may. Evade the
real issue by as speciously drawn Argyll
ment as his ingenuity may suggest, and
yet, in spite of his complacent assurance,
that the treasury of Cecil county is in
phenominally healthy condition, the fact
is as apparent as it is unwelcome, that.
under an tlnwarrantable and deceptiouS
system of iinauciering, the people of Cecil
county owe to-day Il bonded indebted
ness of $50, 300, which they have every
right to suppose had been cancelled, for
the liquidation of which both principal
and interest they have been once taxed
but upon which they are still annually
paying interest To offset this statement
as Enthusiastically correct as mathematical
accuracy can make it, our contemporary
in the dual capacity Of Clerk and parti-
san cditor-ignoring for the time his
higher legal and professional reputation,
makes parade Of what he is pleased to
term "a balance sheet. AS a supposed
rcfutation OF the charge Of misapplcation
of public funds rs made by Tan Pay
cr," it cannot but be apparent to the
mcalcst understanding. tlrrt this admlra
bic specimen of subterranean book
keeping is at once insufficient and irrcva-
lent. prevalent. however. to the issue
as it may be. it is nevertheless worthy of
note as a supposed exhibit Of the county
liabilities 1t contains nine items only.
among which the interested tax payer
will look in vain for one item of some
importancc-viZ.. the outstanding, but
not yet matured. school bonds, amount
ing to Sl2 900, but not itemized or treat
ed as liability. And why? Simply,
we presume. because not being due. our
financial editor does not consider them 4
present. or what he terms dfmdndah!c,
liability.
Paid already really. not levied for
as such. it is true, but still i'll amount
levied for, although the monies more
than sufficient to meet them have.
without authority "i law. been ap-
piled to other known and unknown uses,
yet are they amy the less il Nadtlity, and
to be entered as such i'll any correct state
mcnt Of the county! monetary obliga-
tiunS: Would Il merchant or any other
business man. in discovering his liabili
ties to his creditors. recognize only such
Of his obligations as we've maturcd? Are
not his outstanding promises to pay. both
III law and reason. as fully and in every
sense a liability. and to be entered in the
~chcdule of his Indebtedness rs his ma
turcd on protested paper' The only Oh
.i"ct. then. i'll withholding this item of
indebtedness, is to avoid an unwecome
deficiency. which. by the clerical editor 5
Own showing, should be increased from
n2nc to twcIty-onc Thousand dollars. But
IS it not REALLY greater? Take his trinity
ot assets which he so ecstatically parades.
The first item-amount due from eX-
collectors si.513.3t How about il = Pre-
sent that amoun: to any money-lender in
Gecil count in the shape Of 4 Joint prom
iSSory note of the cx-cnllcctors as draw
ers-endorScd, if you please, by their
surcties. and. in view Of the contingent
ces and costs OF its collection what would
De the face discount of the paper? Pos
sibly as high as fifty per cent. Then on
this first item Of assets, state the net
value OF the asset at one-half.
On the second item-amount in the
hands of collectors 500, 304. Sc. Does the
editor of TIE Demorrat ask us to believe
that this fri amount out of last year $
levy. and still uncolected, will be. or
can be, applied. or any considerable pro-
portion of it. to the boHdcd indebtedness
of the county. Was it so intended to be
applied?
The levy of last year included only
$1,000 on bond account. Upon what
ground can it be argued that more will
be paid?
Is it not exceedingly predetermined
whether one dollar of these "nre0!i=ca
assets will he applied to bond account
Is it not much easier to believe that as
heretofore (unlcss there be a radical
change down StairS) this entire amount
will he necessarily appropriated to other
county expenses which do not appear as
levied for?
BY what inference can we suppose it
will lie applied when the usage and prac-
| tice has been to subvert it to other uses ?
Does not the Editor of the Dcmocrat
clearly argue that the Commissioners
can-and that legally -suhvert it to other
uses?
What is his argument'
Not to be offensive; simply the plea
that sharp special pleader would make
on demurrer to an indictment for en-
! beZz!clnent.
Notice this line Of reasoning.
See Dcmocr0t of last week, 411th line,
third column.
Nor does it matter that the Commits
sioncrs each year in making up their
''basis of levy included certain amount
''as intended to pay maturing bonds
:" They might have embraced every penny
they levied as for the payment of ma
= turing bonds, or they might have speci-
. fed every penny for contingent ex-
"penses, or general distribution, Or what
mot
Here he pleads an unlimited discretion,
under the general authority TO levy for
all needful taxes. to apply monies raised