Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1886-05-28
The County Levy.

couhty levy. Mr.. Cox discusses the ques-
ton at some length and gives his views of
the change he proposes with clearness and
force. He specifies several objections to
the present system and points out several
defects in it as operated by the late board
If commissioners and their predecessors in
recent gears, which he thinks are of such
grave character as to warrant an imme-
diate change in the mode Of levying and
discussing the county taxes.
His objections to the present system
may be summarized under four points
1st, the commissioners under its operation
are unable to obtain proper vouchers for
the payment of the county expenses; 2nd,
they have no knowledge as to whether the
sums levied to the use of the creditors on
the books of the collectors are ever actual
~ paid, and are, by consequence, unable
to keep their books so as to show that the
county expenses have been actually dis
bursed; 3rd; they are unable to properly
publish an annual statement, as required
by law, showing each particular item of
expense and for what and to whom paid;
4th, by shifting upon the collectors the
duty of paying over the money to the diff
ferent creditors of the county the commits
sioners charge them with the duties of
disbursing officers when their legal func-
lions pertain only to collecting the taxes.
Wb;1o ho TIurs rr;U - g 10000 L,
understood as advocating the present sys-
tenn, yet with all Difference we do not be-
lieve that these objections, which our cor
respondent SO clearly points out ia the
system as recently operated, are inherent
in it or unavoidable under it, as he con-
tends; but incline to the opinion as sug-
gesied in our last article, that they result
rather from the negligent operation OF the
present system.
First, under the present system the COM
missioners can and unquestionably should
require the collectors to take from each
creditor at the time Of the payment to him
voucher for such payment, aud turn
as the voucher and acquittance of the COL
lectors for the sums levied upon their
books. 1t is an exceedingly Loose system
of accounting with these officers that will
permit of any other course. 1t will read
lily be seen that these vouchers, when so
rendered to the commissioners by the col
lectors, would furnish proper legal veuch-
ers of the expenditures to which they per-
tain and at the same time give them pro-
per knowledge of the actual disbursement
of said expenses. This accomplished, and
there would clearly be no obstacles in the
way of keeping the county books in pro-
per shape and of rendering the annual
statement itemized in conformity with
the law. The County School Boards are
made by law the custodians and disburs-
ers of the school fund and the Trustees OF
the Poor, of the pauper fund. A voucher,
therefore, showing the payment of these !
funds to these respective boards would be |
all that would be required of the commits
sioners by the law
The other objection to be examined is
whether or not the duty of paying over
the county revenues to the order of the
commissioners and not directly to them,
which has heretofore immemorially been
imposed upon the collec:o rs and has al |
ways been accepted as part of their duties,
is an illegal requirement not warranted by
the statutes regulating the duties Of those
officers. We do not think it is. BY the
statute regulating bis duties the collector
of taxes is required to collect and pay
over, within aspecified time to the county |
commissioners or their order all county
taxes levied in his district, and the Ian |
guage of his official bond is of the same
tenor and effect. 1t is manifest, therefore,
that in requiring the collectors to pay
over the county expenses to the persons
indicated in the levy, the commissioners
have not been violating either the letter
or the spirit of the law.
There does not seem to be any objection
either in law or in fact to vesting the du
ties of collecting, and disbursing officer in
the same person, or any valid reason that
these two functions should be invested in
distinct and different officers with cumu-
as we are informed, in all of the counties
of the State where they have q County
Treasurer, he is invested with the tunc-
tions both of a collecting and disbursine
officer and gives an official bond for the
performance of these duties They have
such an officer in Prince Georges and sew
eral of the counties of the State, and in
the counties where that system is in ope-
ration their taxes are collected and dis
bursed by such officers, we think, for a
less commission than that paid to the COL
lectors in Charles. 1t might be well for
our people, in considering the question Of
change in their financial system, to duly
examine the merits and practical opera
ton of the system existing in the counties
to which we have referred.
The TIMES still maintains the opinion
that the defects and inconvenience in the
present system which have been pointed
out, are not Inherent in it, but result rather
from its faulty operation; and they are
not of such grave character as to war
rant it's immediate abandonment before
some other more efficient system has been
determined upon and duly regulated by
law 1t would be wiser, we think, to ma
turely consider a proper change in the
next two years that will intervene before
the next session of the Legislature and
then procure the passage of law giving |