Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1884-03-07
A Tempest in a Teapot.

| V@icatcu III tHe HOUSE vi DtleSdteS on
Thursday Of last week. At this the SIMS
volatile correspondent at Annapolis and
the Suns able editor in Baltimore become
irate and indignant. The defeat of the
measure is regarded by that journal as an
egregious blunder in craftsmanship and a
most culpable derelction in legislation.
All kinds of unworthy motives are charg-
ed upon those who defeated the measure
and the Sun in leading editorial gravely
and omniously intimates that the downfall
of the democratic party in the State may
result form this great and far reaching blum
der. 1t must be said in justice, however at
the chief evil which the Suns correspon-
dent sees in the mat er, and one which
the Sun also recognizes editorially, is that
the action of the Baltimore city members
in daring to oppose a measure introduced
by a Republican Senator and solidly sup
ported by Republicans will probably re-
suit in alternating the Republicans in the
Legislature from the Suns pet measure of
annexing the "Belt" to Baltimore city.
Aroused by the Suns fiery protests,
the republican papers in Washington have
taken up the cudgel and in leading edi-
terials have roughly handled the obsti-
nate Legislature that dared to retain a
tax which is common to nearly every
State in the Union, which turns $27 900
annually into the State treasury and about
which not one breath of complaint had
been heard within the limits of the State.
except perhaps in Montgomery county.
This suddea and unusual agitation re-
minds one very much of the traditional
tempest in the teapot" or the mole hill
that was magnified into a mountain
With all Difference 10 the able editors and
Senators, whose Quixotic zeal has been
enlisted in this great and momentous
cause, we believe that eheir arguments
are Tor the most part fallacious and foun-
ded in great measure upon an errone-
Gus unders andipg of the existing law
The present charge for marriage IL
cense in the State is $3.50, fifty cents of
which is retained by the clerk issuing il
and the remainder paid to the Safe rrea-
sury. The amount received into treasury
from this source during the last fiscal year
was little over $4,000, End about that
amount is annualy derived therefrom.-
This tax has been in exis ence ever since
the colonial times, dating back to the year
1777. We believe that no tax that was
ever imposed has been paid less grudging-
ly and with greater alacrity. As we have
said, no complaint was heard regarding
it until two years ago. when the Senator
from Montgomery county Introduced a
bill for the purpose into the Senate
1t is said th At many people in Montsom-
cry have been accustomed to go to the
neighboring city of Washington to have
the matrimonial knot tied and ob ain the
license there at a cost of 81. The first
complaints against the marriage license
tax is said to have arisen among the rev.
erend clergy Of Montgomery. who thought
that, if the license tax in Maryland were
as low or lower than in the District of
Columbia, that matrimonialIy inclined
people would have the business done at
home by a resident minister, and this,
while diminishing the States revenues
would have contrary influence upon the
exchequer of the resident reverend clergy
These facts being communicated to the
redoubtable Mr.. Moore, then about to as
sumo his senatorial robes, he promptly a
dopted it as his hobby.
Mounted on bis aforesaid hobby, the
Montgomery Senator had no sooner made
his appearance in the legislative halls than
he introduced his hobby to the Senate in
the shape of bill to reduce marriage IL
cense fees. This bill was regarded during
the last session as merely the hobby of the
Montgomery Senator; and as such it af
forded subject of humorous comment to
the press of the Sta'e and in due time went
to sleep quietly in one of the pigeon holes
of the Senate committee rooms. The san,
like all the rest Of the papers OF the State,
failed at that time to see the momenteus
Importance of this measure or the great
moral principles involved 10 it.
This session, however, the measure has
been pushed with greater vim, the great
moral aspect of it has been developed and
a singular change seems to have come over
the spirit of the dreams of our esteemed
luminary. 1t is now said that it is griev-
ously wrong for the State to discourage
matrimony by imposing tax thereon and
it is argued that many of the poorer class
es and especially the co'ored population
are prevented from entering the holy estate
by this unholy tax and are encouraged to
cultivate immoral relations between the
sexes. 1t was this argument, faIlacious
as we think and founded upon ignorance
of the existing law, that has caused most
of the Republican members to support the
measure.
1t seems to US that al the arguments in
support of the measure have been based
upon the false major premise that, under
the existing law, the obtaining of license
is made necessary condition precedent
to being lawfully married. Such is not
the case. The existing law provides that
mo person within this State shall marry
without license, or be fore the names Of the
parties intending to marry shall be thrice
published in some church or house Of religious
soorship, in the county where the ,ooman re-
sides, on three several Sundays, by some min
lister residing in said county," Here is an
alternative which is LETT open to the poor
est couple in the land, by which this al