Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1884-01-04
}1ortG obaceoGlm
PORT TOBACCO:
Friday Morning, January 4, 1884.
The Investigation Again.

bearing upon the CRITICISMS tne LINES
made last week upon the committees re-
port. We regret that Mr.. Franklin does
not become specific upon any point at all,
but contents himself with a general dis
claimer of all the objections we raised re-
gardlng the inconclusiveness of the report,
while at the4sam time admitting that from
its limited scope the investigation was
necessarily imperfect and inconclusive.
Mr.. Franklin takes serious exception to
our statement that the fact of the commit
tee having in their report referred indis-
criminately and in a confused manner to
expenditures made in 1881, as well as in
1882, affords proof that the commit
tee did not give proper attention to the
dates of the vouchers which were exhibit
ed to them, and thinks that this conclusion
must have been arrived at by course of
reasoning peculiar to the TINES We ar
rived at that conclusion very reluctantly
and regretfully, and only after deliberation
and care; and with all Difference to Mr..
Franklin, we must insist that the conclu
sion inevitably and irresis' IDLY follows
from the statements made ia the report of
the committee.
1t is not necessary for cur correspon-
dent to remind US of the fact that the
levy of 1882 was based upon some expen-
ditures already incurred, and others to be
incurred, which were levied for in advance
by estimate. This we are already well a
ware of, and have on several occasions
pointed out this feature of the levies in the
TINES. But we cannot possibly from the
report Of the committee escape the convic-
ton that the committee commenced their
investigations under the erroneous impress
sion that the levy of 1882 furnished the
whole basis of the expenditures for the en-
suing fiscal year, and therefore the basis
for their investigation. Hence the mistake
the committee made of running into the
expenditures for 1881, which had been ac
counted for in accordance with law, and
which had no bearing whatever on the
subject of their investigation.
Now the fact that the committee in their
report when they come to the recital of
the disbursement tor "Registration" refer
to it as made in the year 1881, shows that
this erroneous impression did not continue
with the committee to the end. Had the
committee made this reference to the year
1881 at the proper diriding line betueen the
md 900 rpbi oh onl1
have been at loss to know why they
made any recital of these irrelevant expen-
ditures of 1881, we should have been able
to avoid the conclusion that the commit
tee failed to properly note the date OF the
vouchers that were exhibited to them /; but
In ciew Of the fact that the committee did re-
cite in their report three large items Of erpen-
= diNres Belonging to the gear 1891, (viH, for
miscellaneous purposes" 1,7s0 IS; fer
collectors assessments and insolvences"
Sill As for ''extra road work" 1925 go
before they made Gny reference to the year
1891 ,couH seem to afford conclusiue proof
that the committee pere under the impression
that those three items Of expense amounting in
The aggregate to s2,717 rs, belonged to the
gear 1882, and, therefore, that they had fail
ed in the examination of the couchers for these
sums to note the dates Of the same. The
committee deliberately set these sums Of
money down as expended in the year 1882,
and say that they have ascertained them
to be 'legetima e" ETC., after "diligent in
quiry" etc, and examination Of vouchers.
Now these sums were in fact expended in
1881; it is presumed the vouchers for the
same bore date of 1881 !; therefore the CON-
mittee in arriving at the conclusion that
they were expended in 1882 must haze fail
ed to pay proDer attention to the dates Of the
vouchers. This seems to be sound To-
gic AMI no sophisry. The conclusion
seems to follow legitimately from the pre-
misses. There does not appear to be any
hiatus intervening; if there is We would
be glad if Mr.. franklin would point it out
We do not see how any one of ordinary intel
ligence who reads the report ofthe commit
tee can arrive at any other conclusion than
this from these facts. By a reference to
the asterisks we inserted in the fable of
the levy of 1882 published in the report of
the committee, as indicating items apper-
tanning to 1881, and careful reading of
the report which preceded it, every intel
ligent reader will see this Inconsistency in
the report.
JUbilo fhic cuhioof of wi m
of vouchers, we will refer to another in
consistency. 1t will be observed that in
their tabulated account of the expenditure
of the road fund for 1882, the committee
set down the sum of $414 SO for "extra
road work during the winter etc. )" and
lower down in the report they set down
the sum of 1925 SO for the same purpose
Now the latter sum corresponds exactly
with the sum levied for that purpose in the
levy of 1882, and must refer to the amount
thus expended in the year preceding that
levy; let US ask Mr.. Franklin whether or
not his committee was aware that the ex-
penditures for this purpose during the year
1882 had been levied tor in similar man
ner in the levy of 1888?
1t was wholly unnecessary for Mr.. Frank
lin to remind the TINES that the "grand
jury was not political machine" We
did not expect it to be such. The TIMEs's
standard of public morals, we apprehend,
is quite as high as Mr.. Franklin's. While
we should entertain the most utter con-
tempt for axy public officer who should
allow his official duty to he influenced by
political or other prejudices, we still do
not feel very high admiration for officials