Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1885-01-16
Mr.. f. B. PRETTY4AN AND THE
SENTINEL.

GLkuay AoTnluk '''-'' Jdhuaiy Aos How |
Mr.. Il. B. PRETTYHAN AND THE
SENTINEL.
Had II not been for the following state
ment, l. e., 1.-THE Montgomery County Sentinel
of December 10Th, 1884, has an editorial,
under the heading, THE Indexing Case Set
tied which in some parts is also false and
libelous," this paper would have no COM
ment 10 make upon Mr.. Prettyman's letter,
as it does not purposeto champion the Court
Of Appeals Or the solicitors engaged in the
case, believing that they need no aid from
us, but that they are faliy able to take care
of themselves. As public newspaper we
have always endeavored to present TO the
public the current news, and especially that
which we thought would be of most inter
est 10 our readers.
The cause recently decided by the Court
of Appeals is one Of more than ordinary
interest to the public, and for this reason
considerable space has been devoted 10 it in
the columns of the SENTINEL. AS jour
nalist we have had no feeling in the matter
We have expressed neither exultation nor
regret, but have only endeavored to present
the facts as they were developed during the
progress ofthe suit. Any predictions which
we may have made as to its final result
were based upon the opinions Of our ablest
legal minds, and it is needless to add that
these predictions have been fully verified.
Weeae not aut belieser thai, upon ma
tute reflection, Mr.. Prettyman must realize
the lac. .aat this case was not merely liti-
cation between individuals, but that it in
vslved question of whether he, as pub
lie officer, was entitled to receive the sum Of
six hundred dollars, and whether the Coun-
ty Commissioners were authorized to tax
the people Of this county for its payment
The case being of this public interest and
character, we felt it but due to the public TO
publish the opinion of the Court of APP
peals, with such comments as we deemed
proper under the circumstances to present.
If in our comments we have been guilty Of
libel, the courts are open to Mr.. Pretty
man for redress. We do not fear the matter
of damages
Mr.. Prettyman In his letter says he was a
warm friend Of the founder of this journal
and at his request wrote editorials for the
same This may be the fact. On the other
hand, during all his long term of twenty two
years, be has been supported at each election
BY this paper, has had his announcements
and other matters insertedinits columns,
and has also had unlimited space accorded
him for the defence of charges made against
his official extravaganza as presented to the
public by Mr. A. b. Davis and other promi
nent citizens of the county. For all this
work we fail TO find a single charge on the
books of this Office. So far as his political
friendships are concerned, they are liable to
sudden revulsions, as is evidenced by his
wild devotion to the fortunes of Gov. Hami-
ton and his course afterwards when the OPP
position 10 him promised the greater re-
ward. .se
As Mr.. Prettyman seems anxious to pose
as martyr to his own ignorance of official
duty, we think it advisable not only TO call
his attention TO the light in which the law
views such plea, but also for the general
Information Of public officers, TO insert an
appropriate quotation from standard Grim
inal work
~ man who undertakes a public Office is
bound TO know The law, and TO possess him
r.. al a..
enable him in given case To act prudently
and rightly. II he does not, and through
mistake OF law OF fact is guilty of negligence,
he commits penal offence This seems
hard law, but it is essential to the safety of
the State. Ii an officer enjoying the emol-
uments OF office and welding its occasion.
ally vast powers, would be able TO plead in
defence Of negligence that he mistook either
law or lact, there is not only no negligence
that could be punished, but ignorance and
7incompetenoy would be the masks under
which oil sorts of official pecnlation could
be sheltered, In municipal trusts, for in
stance, in order to plumber triumphantly, it
would only be necessary 10 secure officers
conveniently Ignorant and inert. But this
the policy OF the law does not permit You
are, boundsto know the law and the facts,
and If you lean ON advisers or subalterns
who mislead you, this is the very thing for
which you are TO be punished II is neees
xsary for the State that It should have at its
command knowledge and vigilance in the
guardians Of its liberties and treasures. In
those holding public office, want of either
Knowledge or OF vigilance, resulting in neg
iigen,e, is penal offence, and independ-
enty OF these views, II is general princi-
qile that wherever the law makes a naked
act indictabe, Ignorance as to either law or
fact Is no defence"
Mr.. Prettyman declares that he will not
turn Lobbyist, but that, il he Il not mistaken,
the people will see to it that the $400, bal,
ance due him for indexing, be paid to him
or " his heirs. Weinler that the source to
which be looks for relief is the General As
selnbly Now, the powers and duties of
that body are circumscribed within certain
and well defined limits. Il is not within
the psoyince of the Legislature to author.
lie the County Commissioners 10 levy this
amount. Under the late decision of the
Appellate Court, legislative Intervention Ia
the defendants behalf can be sought only ID
the extent OF the greater labor and expense
shoh tht ct1tutC cohtCutpiutti. III OtutT
words, the only part of the amount claimed
that can he paid is the excess OF the cost of
indcSing under The Campbell system over
sod ait,es tlftt us tio ,id method.
& II TIE silence Of Bench and Bar is 10 be
construed into sanction Of deferring the
making of General Indexes until after the
expiration Of the Clerks term, we would
advise the Court to execute its visitorial
powers, and mot order, We will not use tina,
noxious word) entice Mr.. Prettyman by
some promise TO make General Index TO
the Land Records running from 1877 to
1884
Aiter stating that he had made an index
for a century which was approved by the
Court, &c, he says be has received on &C.
,coupi OF that index the sum Of 5000, Does
Mr. Preiiyman propose TO deceive the PEG.
pie by confounding factss lie had already
srsreised H2,6o0 for iranscribinR the indexes