Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1881-07-07
COMMUNICATED.
COUNTY PRINTING.

COUNTY PRINTING.
Messrs. Editors I'm my cOmmuni-
cation published 10 the BEACON OF the
23rd OF last month, plainly and as
clearly as | could gave my construction
Of The statute of 1878 relative TO our
county printing. threw aside all par
tisan feeling, for such should not have
the least control in performing such a
work. No Que could or can infer any
improper motive or bias from anything
said IN that article. On the contrary,
my construction would have brought
about justice TO all parties concerned
first to the county and next TO the pa
per having the largest circulation, which
ever that might be. conlended that
under the law, after the Commissioners
had found outthe least amount for which
the printing could be done, il was THEN
duty 10 Offer the contract loi the work
TO the paper having the largest circula-
ton. Under this view, If the Rspu6.
Hcaa had the largest circulation, that
paper was entitled 10 the offer. Is there
anything partisan 10 this view Can
any ialr man find anything IN i, except
a desire that the county ia this case and
on all future occasions should be protec.
ted by having before the County Com.
mI,sloncrs correct construction of the
law My construction, so far as news
papers were concerned, had equal bear.
ing upon all, whether democratic ORE.
publican, Bat the argument OF the
communication dgned Taxpayer 10 the
RepuJiican, urges that II will be entire.
~ wrong TO protect the treasury OF the
county when the republican newspaper
IS concerned, but the Commissioners
should give lis proprietor 1925 more
than the work can be done for, because
il it was not given TO him, "lhey ran
the risk OF driving the said republican
paper Out Of the county" that il, they
must pay him extra for The honor OF his
company. Certainly this is not a very
correct construction Of the law, and
trust the Commissioners will not find II
among their duties to be controlled 10
their practice by such corrupt advice.
They should recolleci that though their
election TO the Office they hold was a
political and partisan election, yet when
they take their seats, they become
Judges, and under oath must mol be
controlled by partisan feeling, but take
care OF the interest Of The county with
out doing the least njustice TO any having
legal and jusl claims uponit From what
has been written above, as well from
my former communication, any one can
see how unjust il Is in Taxpayer to at
tack my motives in writing that paper,
end how contemplate il must appear
for writer TO adopt such course in
replying TO an argument which, with
out any personal reference whatever,
simply undertook to construe a statute
of our State. My motives, good, bad or
indifferent, had nothing to do with the
matter. II he could have shown that
my construction OF the law was errone.
Gus, be should have done so, land il would
have been more instructive on the sub
jectJ by legal argument than by an
attack upon motives or by the introduce
ton of outside facts which had no bear
ing whatever upon the points involved.
Taxpayer has made several assertions
IN regard TO the law, 5u; can find no
argument from him and after the
threat in the previous number of the
Republican that my views would be an.
initiated, and after the article thus
promised, am still Of opinion that my
construction ofthe law is the true one.
am also of the opinion that Taxpayer is
no lawyer, but has such high notions oil
his talents that he will readily venture
10 elucidate what he knows nothing
about.
Did any one ever hear of Judge Ia
king oral testimony TO show The con.
structon of a statute That ever any
member of the legislature, whether the
mover Of the law or not, could be al.
lowed to give his opinion SO as to bind
any Court as TO what the intention oil
the Legislature was in passing the law
yet this wild rule is adopted BY Tax-
payer He relates something that Mr..
Key, the mover Of the law, SAID in re-
gard to the intention of the legislature
IN passing it. Mr.. Keys declaration OF
the intention of the legislature can have
no more weight than that OF any other
member Of the Legislature. Ifthis rule
of Interpretation were adopted, every
member Of the legislature might be
summoned to enlighten the Court and
give about an hundred different inten-
tons in voting for the law, SO that the
Court would be unable TO come TO any
conclusion whatever Yet Taxpayer
blames the Commissioners for not send
ing for Mr.. Key TO tell them what the
intention of the whole legislature was
in passing the law. How could he or any
other man do il except from the terms,
expressions and provisions Of the law
itself? think Taxpayer himself upon
reelection will see that he is led into an
absurd position, Tor though moi law