Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1883-12-28

the commencement o. the Investigation,
assured Us of their purpose to do this,say-
ing that he did not see how they conid
make an intelligent report in any other
way and what the reason was that indnc-
81 49,
course. alter they determined to hold
star-chamber session, we are wholly TN
able to understand. One thing is certain.
and that is that now that the public mind
has been directed to this matter, it will
not be satisfied with this most inconc'u-
sive and unsatisfactory report, and unless
it be supplemented by some further and
more satisfactory explanations of some of
the points It presents that more thorough
Investigation should certainly follow.
The committee set out with the declar-
alton that they have been deputed t. in
vestigate the books. accounts and expen-
ditures of the county commissioners from
the first day of July 1882 to 4 first day
of July 1898, and yet We find them in he
body of the report which follows referring
iudiscriminatev and in a confused man
ner to expenditures made in the fiscal year
1891 and prior to July 1882. about which
there had never been any question. and
which have no bearing whatever upon he
expenditures made in the period they
claimed to have Investigated This affords
conclusive proof of the fact that those we'll
meaning gentlemen who undertook. unas
sisted Though authorized to employ an
expert 10 make the examination IF the
official papers Of the county commission
ers, did nof properly comprehend the task
that was before them, and further. that in
the examination Of the vouchers that were
exhihi ed to them they failed 10 pay any
proper attention 70 The da'es Of the same.
As imperfect, however, a, their exami-
nation manitestly appears to have been.
the report of the committee fully substan-
tia es the charges which had been made
by the TIMES. that there were considerable
uneXpended balances resulting from the
SIS 600 jury loan, the 81 900 eyied Tor in
sane paupers, the $4,000 jary fund and the
| IS, 900 road and bridge fund They tind
that only S7,2iS 81 Of the $4,000 was ex-
pended for roads and bridges during the
fisca year, that up to July Is. 1888 only
S1,17S 81 of he $4,000 Jury fund had been
expended, while, after paying the charges
for insane paupers for TIRE years. there Was
still an uueXpended balance Of 1869 - left
of the 81 900 levied for that purpose, and
that of the $4,000 jury loan, 1882 IL was
not expended for that purpose. The bal
ance from the road fund they allow to he
more than taken up by deficiency" from
the previous year, and the balance of the
jury fund was outside oft the scope Of their
investigation.
Tn balance of 1892 ii from the jury
loan the report says was carried to he
contingent fund of 1Ss2,'' as was also the
balance OF 1868 Is from the insane pauper
| fund. These two sums are added to the
/ : 600 levied as a contingent fund" in
/ 1882, the $500 for bond interest ard the
1921 81 resulting from overrating in that
/ levy, which makes grand contingent
fund" of s3,793 81. The committee then
90 to work and satisfy themselves from
vouchers and other evidences" that the
extraordinary sum of 81 .062 80 had been
actually paid out, or charged 10 sIil con-
tingent fund" during the year 1892, leaving
"a deficiency in said contingent fund to
be provided for in the levy of 1888 oil
$500 So The committee fail entirely to
specify what proportion of this large sun
of money was actual Y paid out" for con.
tingent purposes during the fiscal year Of
1882, and what portion was merely ''eharg,
ed to said contingent fund" They also
fail to make it plain what satisfaction il
VIII be to the taxpayers to know hat this
money has been enlarged to the said con
tingent fund or where the money SO charg-
ed is at present.
1t must be admitted that this statement
of the committee that the extraordinary
sum of S4,0G2 90 was expended for con
tingent purposes in one fiscal year is very
remarkable disclosure and the fact that
they coolly make this statement, without
any attempt to explain the unusual con
tingencies which required the expenditur,
of so large a sum for that purpose, is an
other proof that these gentlemen did not
we'll comprehend what was expected o
them. 1t has never been deemed neces
sary, we believe, in the past history of this
county, to levy more than $1,000 as a con
tingent fund in any one year, while fire
uuently no such sum at all has been levi
: ed. Under the old Democratic ru' e it USED
, to amount to $500 year, but since thu
: republicans have Jeen in power it has gen
orally amounted to 81 900 year, excep
in 1879, when on'y $500 was levied, anG
in 1881, when no levy at all was made fo
? that purpose 1t will be seen, too, by
: reference to the levy of 1893, that not oni,
7 did the commissioners not find it neces
e sary to provide 50 large a ''contingen
: fund" for the current fiscal year, but tia
e they did not make any provision at al 70
5 that deficiency of $3.50 SO, which on
e committee discovered. They merely levi
r ed the usual 81 900 as ''contingent fund
: It will be seen, therefore from these fact
8 that it will be incumbent on the member
D of the investigating committee, the clerl
: of the county commissioners, or some on
e!se to supplement the report of our investi
eating committee by statement sho wiz!