Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1884-06-27
A FlimSy Excuse.

OF general superintendent OF the road
service. This rather remarkable docu-
ment is signed ~ Mr.. c. f. Harmon, alone,
as president of the board, but we under
stand that there was only one dissenting
voice to its adoption-that of Mr.. Mont
gomery, who was in favor of granting the
most reasonable and forcible petition of
the tax payers.
We understand that the court house
clique used it's earnest influence against
the adoption of the measure recommend.
ed by the petition, fearing that when a
conscientious superintendent was appoint
ed, who would carry discipline into the
road service, that it would seriously i'm.
pair its value as political machine. The
five colored supervisors also put ia their
earnest protest against it. They under
stood that they had received their places
in consideration Of services already rem
dered ode party" and vehemently protest
ed against the appointment of a superin-
tendenr who would require them to rem
der honest labor for the money they re-
ceive.
These were really the influences which
prompted the refusal of the commissioners
and if they had had the frankness to ad-
NIT it, instead of resorting to the false and
fiimsy excuses put forth in their paper,
they would have placed themselves In a
less ludicrous and censurable position in
the eyes of the people of the county than
they now occupy.
Read in the light of their previously ex-
pressed willingness to appoint superin-
tendent, if recommended by respectable
number of tax payers, their paper presents
a remarkable Inconsistency. The three
points they attempt to make in justifca-
ton of their action are all entirely incon-
sistent with each other and with their
previous overture, and are all of them
wholly untrue in point offact The points
they attempt to make are: LIST, that the
condition of the roads "at TIE per,'o nam
ed" in the petition was due to the extra
ordinary weather; end, that the only coG,-
plant against the road service has been
its large cost, and that the appointment of
a supervisor would increase the cost; 3rd.
that majority CT the tax payers are op-
pos,d to the measure. OF these in their
order
They say that the petition referred to
the condition of the roads during the past
aotnter' and go on to give a trivial expla-
nation OF the condition of the roads "dur-
ing the period named" Now the petition
referred to no such period or particular
time, but commented on the great ineffi-
cheney of the road service since Capt. Page
ceased to hare charge Of the roads" 1t is
evident, therefore, that the individual
who fixed up that evasive paper did not
know, and probably did not care what
the petition really did express
The next point attempted to he made is
that the cost of the present system is the
chief cause of complaint This is not true.
The petition did not complain of the large
cost of the system, except to say that, ow-
ing to its unskillful direction, it does OF
produce results commensurate with The
outlay. We have never heard any judici-
Gus tax payer say that the county should
spend less than $4,000 year on the roads
The whole contention has been that this
amount should he inte'ligently and econ
omlcaily expended, and this was the bur
den of the petition. The commissioners
paper says that the proposition of the tax
payers is in effect to add another feature
requiring an additional outlay of $1,000,
without any assured, or eeea commensurate
advantage Now. in The first place,
there is no proof that the appointment
of the superintendent named in the pei
ton would have involved any additional
outlay at ali. The opinion of many of the
more judicious tax payers is that i, would
not, and the only proof to the contrary
would have been two years experiment
In the second place the tax payers did
not expect anything more than 'commea-
surate' advantage to result from the addi-
tional outlay, if any was necessary.
All who are aware of the number and
the character of the gentlemen who signed
the petition of the tax payers and the
general public feeling in the county upon
the question, will be amazed at the auda-
city of the statement that majority of the
tax payers of the county are opposed to
the appointment requested in the petition.
If this statement be true, that is if tax
payers representing the majority of the
taxable property of the county are opposed
to the measure, then the commissioners
are fully justified in their action an 1 need
ask no other excuse. But they should
not expect the large number of highly re-
spectacle tax payers who signed that Pc
tition to accept their mere assertion of a
fact which is generally believed to be I'M
true. 1t would be an easy mat ,er for them
to require their clerk to ascertain from his
assessment book the amount of property
represented by the signers of that petition,
and then let him sum up the amount re-
presented by such as have regretted their
inconsiderate action" and such as have
signed any counter petition or orally ex
pressed their opposition, and then publish
both lists with the assessed property of
each. This would furnish interesting
reading and in the name Of fairness and
justice we call upon the commissioners to
do this.
The Coming Man.
The New York State Democratic con-