Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1883-12-07
Slight MiSstatenent.

our previous intimatiOn to that effect, has
virtuous'y pro claimed for itself that is lis
not he organ of any man, corporation or
political party, nor the apolosist for any
body's misdeeds." We have pretty relia-
BILE information that the Maryland indie
pendent is the property of four of the chief
stock holders, directors and office holders
of the aforesaid political association or
corporation, and this, we believe, our vir-
tuous and independent neighbor does not
deny. We readily see, however now that
our neighbor has enlightened us, that we
were entirely wrong in assuming that these
office holders had purchased the Maryland
Independent for the purpose of making it
their organ or the apologist for their own
or anybody else's misdeeds. Of course not.
They only had disinterested wish to en-
ter the lucrative and delightful field of
Journalism, and a philanthropic desire to
establish paper which would be at all
times ready to expose official corruption
and peculation; a journal that would be
always rea ly to probe to the very bottom
of official irregularities and lay bare the
peculaions, if any should happen, of the
inpublican party of Charles county.
Had it not been for this information
thus derived, we fear we should have in
du ged in another of our wild charges
with regard to our neighbor's report of the
trial of the county commissioners, which
appeared in its last issue. We might, in
our impetuosity, have so far forgotten our
selves when we read our neighbor state
ment that "the epidence stotced that the state
ments published in the county papers in 1882
and 1888 tcee Of the same scope and particu
larity as all precious statements except that in
1870, ohen Capt. Page had charge Of til,
roads " as to have sugges ed that it wa:
the "apologist for somebody's misdeeds'
and thus have subjected ourselves to q
''suit for libel and SANDER" But, fprtu
nately for rs, we did not go so far.
We would like, however, meekly to say
that the evidence in the case did not prove
any such facts, or even tend to do so; and
could not possibly have proved them, fol
they are not facts. The only evidence
tending to establish precedent for the
action of the commissioners was with re
gard to the road tund alone, and was intro
duced by Mr.. Mitchell of counsel for de
tense, who offered the levy book of 1866 &c
show that the sum of $4,000 for roads had
then been lecied IN a}cance He did not
follow it up by exhibiting the statement
Of 1867 and showing that the money was
not then accounted for, and, therefore. the
evidence was totally irrev alcnt and had nc
probative force whatever. The prosecu-
ton offered, however. to exhibit the state
mems of 1868 and 1870, and show thereby
that the sums previously levied for roads
had been accounted for in detail, but the
court said it was unnecessary.
We regret that, owing to the fact iha'
a number of the files OF this paper have
been taken oct of the office by previous
management and not yet returned, that We
are unable to trace the practices of the
boards of commissioners relative to their
annual statements from 1860, when the law
first went into force, up to 1872, when the
negroes and their managers assumed con-
troll of the county affairs. The only two
statements OF that period We have been
able thus far to get our hands on are those
of 1868 and 1870. Both Of those statements
are in compliance Nth the lac.
No objection has ever been raised to the
exercise Of the power OF levying money in
advance, by estimate, for some contempla-
ted work, because that power is expressly
conferred by law; but that is power
which ought not to be exercised except
when absolutely necessary, and then, oil
course, the expenditure of the money must
be afterwards accounted for.
In former times nearly all the expenses
of the county were first incurred and after.
wards a levy was made to the use of the
parties to whom the county was indebted
to be paid to them by the collectors
Then the publication of this lery was obvi
ously substantial compliance with the
law requiring detailed statement of the
county expenses. 1t was, of course, not
necessary, as the Maryland Independent
contends, to make subsequent statement
showing that these sums so levied had &C
tually been paid over, it being presumabls
that, if they were not, the creditors would
be heard from The road fund in thos,
days was about the only sum levied in adj
vance by estimate, and this, as far as WI
can see from the two statements we hav,
referred to, was subsequently accounted
for. The pay of jurors was always Levied
to the use of the individual jurors in thu
collectors books, and accounted for in de
tail, until within the last two years, wher
the new regime began to put negroes OF
the juries, and, in order to provide fo
them, made the per diem of jurors payable
in cash. For this purpose the salary o
the clerk of the county commis sioners i
raised from $3.50 TO $500 year, the coun
ty has been saddled wi h debt of $4,000
and the sum of $4,000 is annually Levied
in advance and no account given of it.
The payments for "insane paupers" wer'
also itemized in former statements, and th,
amount paid to each hospital shown; blu
in 1882 and 1888 the commissioners hav,
levied the sum o. 81 900 in round numbe
for insane paupers while it seems that on
ly 1880 was paid tor that purpose.
From this it will appear that our neigh
Dor is not entirely accurate when it says
that "the evidence showed that The state
ments published in the county papers il
1882 and 1888 were of the same scope anC