The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-02-25
Alleged Malfeasance.

We are disappointed. We expected to find
in the CarrolltoRidn of the 18th instant, an
expose of the alleged malfeasance in the
School Board of this county in the years gone
by. But we find nothing ofthe sort, although
we had respectfully asked that journal to give
to the public the facts sustaining its charges.
In lieu of anything of that sort it published
the following:
an the first place the Adrocdte asserts that which
Is not true in saying that since the School Commits
si0ners were made by appointment they have con
sisted of two Republicans and three Dem ocrats.
of 1867 the Democrats egisated out of the hands of
the people the right TO appoint the school CommiS
sioners and twelve Commissioners were appoihte
well as President of the Board.
What the CurrotitOnidn asserts is not that the
School Commissioners individually applied to their
own personal benefit any portion OF this schooi
fund but that the Board of School Commissioners
expended or exhausted a fund of $4,000 derived
rom The General Government and devoted it to the
erection of school houses which have long since
passed out of existence intending thereby 70
public sentiment by making II appear that THESE
houses being built as the fruits OF an economl-
cal administration the regular school fund accru
The 1drocate demands that the Carro1toRida shall
state specifically the facts on which II bases us
charges against the School administration OF by
gone days There is no occasion whatever for
wounding the feelings of an esteemed contemporary
BY referring in detail 10 records which are already
in that contemporaries possession. II the Adrocdte
is burning with cagerncSs to enghten its distraught
readers it do 50 at once by publishing the last
statement OF Secretary and Treasurer William ~
wampler, dated July 1867"
The CdTolltonidn charged that educational
funds had been applied to political ends in
the days gone by. We asked for the proof.
1t replies by virtually saying-Prove 1t your
self, by the publication of a certain report
made as far back as 1S67,-or by ''records in
our contemporary possession" The onus
proJandi does not rest upon us. The ADvo-
CATE is not required to prove the CdTroltto-
nians assertions. Besides, the records re-
ferred to, are not in our possession. Wewill
not make the retort courteous here, by saying,
in its own words,-the CarrOlitoaidn asserts
that which is not true" bat we will explain
its error by saying that the records it refers to
date back to period of nearly a quarter OF a
century past, before we were residents OF
the county, or in anyway identified with its
history. There are no newspaper files of that
period in our possession or to which we have
access. We suppose we could find the docu-
ment aforesaid by going to the School Com
missiouers' office and making search for it
among its archives. But that is not our bust
ness. 1t is more properly the duty of the
CarrOlltOnidn, which makes this charge against
the School Commissioners Of that day. II it
should publish that document, let it 60 back
further still, and publish the preceding report
10. fsan ka
found, the ADVOCATE will assist in the expose.
But has not the CarroitoRidn partially an
swered its own charge, which involves, it says,
''thc disgrace of ap ing educational funds
to political ends?'' let us see: 1t acquits
the School Board of applying the funds to
their own personal benefit, but says they sex
hausted fund of S75, 900, and devoted it to
the erection of school houses which have long
since passed out of existence" Well, what
else were they to do with this fund but to build
school houses and support the schools?
There were very few school houses in the
county at that time. Forty were built, we
understand, in the succeeding two years, and
no levy upon the taxpayers was made at all
for school purposes, for the first year, butthe
fund in question was applied, as far as needed,
10 the support of the schools. But the Car
FoHioRidR has put the sum too high. 1t was
less than SIS, 900 that was expended, for we
learn that 81, $50 of the $7j,0S5.79, never was
in the hands of the School Board, but in
stocks, and judgments with interest, some of
which never could be collected Every dol
: lar of the fund was properly. accounted for by
the Commissioners, and is of record.
But the school houses built by the School
Board, so long ago, have ''loug since passed
out of existence" says the Cdrrolltoaian,
Some of them have, and some others have
only recently been replaced by new ones. Is
a schoolhouse expected to last forever? Ger,
taiuly not In the very nature of things they
must decay as well as other houses,
The factis there is nothing new about these
charges just revamped in the columns of the
Carrolhonian. They have been reiuted in
the ADVOCATE two or three times, but ever and
anon they appear again, and always from the
same source; a source that, while entitled 20
our personal respect, is often unduly exercised
over these and cognaie subjects.
The CarToUtoRida twitted the Sentinel with
presenting in editorial garb the thoughts and
expressions Of another. Has il not done II
Similar thing in the very article from which
we quote? fit has not, then some peoples
opinions are very much at fault.
We assure our respected contemporary that
we appreciate its kind consideration for our
Feelings" But we beg to say that cur feel
Tags are in no way involved in this matter,
beyond desire for fair and square dealing,
and the rescue of official integrity from any
aspersions that even by implication may seem
to be cast upon it, especially when we believe
that such implication is unsupported by the
facts in the case.