Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1881-02-26
COMMUNICATED.
THE COUNTY COURT AND r. r.
TAX.


sum and substance of his communica.
tons, as is clearly shown by his last let
ter, are before the public, will only
set side by side those charges and the
facts to show how utterly malicious and
unsupported they are.
The first is, that "the .fudifor sent
the assessment of 1880 TO our County
Court, and ii ,Oas The duty cfihe Court
10 apportion this amount according 10
the number Of miles of road in the diff
ferem school districts. The order OF
the Court, quoted in my last letter,
taken from its records, shows that this
was done as early as May, 1879. But,
says another writer, "W," This must be
done tusry year." The Court did not
think So The division each year is the
same. The road neither grows longer
Or shorter, and why perform the same
duty every year when the result must
be the same! But if "W" is right, and
the Court is wrong, for courts are not
infallible, tie answer is, the Auditor
sent the assessment down November 4,
1880, after the Court had been voted
out of existence by the constitutional
amendment. So much for the first
charge.
Tie second charge is, "that the Au-
ditor Informs me that the Is. d y. Il.
X. say they have special arrangement
with The County Court OF Jefferson about
our county taxes, and that is the reason
the taxes of 1880 have not been paid oy
that company to the county The
records of the Court show no such ar
rangement; bnt, on the contrary, the
taxes of 1850 IRE now in the hands OF
the Sheriff for collection, having been
seut down TO him by The Auditor. The
only evidence offered by The hcJor 10
sustain his charge, IS the statement
contained in the letter Of the Auditor,
published by him, that the b. & o: Co.,
"declin,d to pay the county taxcs OF
1880, claiming that it had been or would
be settled with the county authorities.
Does the Auditor say anything OF
special arrangement existing with the
County Court! And where is the issue
between the Auditor aud myself?
The third charge was, "that the S.
V. Il. II. does not pay county or
school tax for the reason, as the Court
says, it being yet in the hands OF the
contractors, is not bound to pay. In
my first letter l said this charge was
not true. Every man OF common sense
knows that the Court can only act
through its orders entered Of record,
open to public inspection. Has The Na-
jor any order Of the Court sustaining
! his charged No: he well knows there
is no such order. THE Nojor does not
rely upon the order of the Court to sus-
tain this charge, but he tries to make
his proof from the letter Of the county
clerk to the Auditor. Mr.. Moore, in
that letter merely says, "the S. '. X.
K. is still in the hands aud under the
control of the contractors, as zoe are M
formed and 6ehue." Mr.. Moore writes
this in personal letter to the Auditor,
and bases il on Information and belief
But where does he say the Court order
ed, or the Court said, "h pays no t"r,
for the reason, il being in the hands Of
The contractors, is NOT ooundto pay?
Again, say there is 10 Issue with the
Auditor.
In els first communication, he says
SHE S. =. II. r. pays oil STATE farss
Jm does not pay county or county
school farss." thereby leading the pub,
lie 10 believe that the county would re-
ceive no tax from tie S. V. r. II. for
the year 1880, owing, as Mr.. Moore
says, "t 10 in The hands f The conirac-
tors, amdihat The clerk spoke by author
i,y, and did NOT assume The responsi-
b,iiy himself" How frivolous is such
u charge II Mr.. Moore had spoken by
authority, he would have said so, and
would have cited the order. But what
does the Auditor say, which falsties
! this charge, and that he did not act in
accordance with Mr.. Moore's belief
| Mr.. Moore's letter was dated November
80, 1880 On the 28lh ofJanuary, 1881,
I the Auditor, in letter addressed TO the
speaker OF the House of Delegates, aud
which the Nyor published in lis last
communication, says: 81, howtuer, made
an assessment upon The property Of each
Of said companies, (meaning the Is. Il
0. & S. V. X. RS for State and
county torss." Mr.. Travers, attorney
for the S. V. r. r., informs me that all
the taxes assessed against that road were
paid Is not the statement that "the S.
V. X. II. pays all State taxes, but does
not pay county tax" false. So much for
that.
The Mojor publishes the charges
against the County Court, and the bur
den is on him to prove them. The evil
dence is before the public, it can judge
if they be true or false.
In The Ngjor's last communication, in
speaking of the S. V. X. r.. he asks
"phy Was IL not asSessed?" l have
; shown above that the Auditor says it
; was assessed.
The llJOr is pleased to call me So
Ion, though have never read OF q So
Ion on the bench, but he was once
wouid-be Scion, among the lawmakers
in the Legislature, and he ought to
know, and it was his business 10 know,
the law he helped to make, and that
law tells him whose duty it was to as
sess the r. L. Companies, and that it
was no business of mine or the Court.
Now in regard to what the Mcjor is
pleased to call my side rnporings," /
will only say, if truly SUCH, they cannot
equal the 'swaggeriug inso!ence" of a
wantou calumniator, aud that fling as