The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1889-10-19

for 1882 and this, although all the
items properly belonging to the &C.
counts of 1890 and 1881 were not en-
tered up and included in them. The
largest contingent fund levied was
sc, $50. 81 in 1877. more than one sew
enth of the total levy for that year.
at which time Mr.. G. W. Merrill the
Democratic candidate for House of
Delegates was Clerk to the County
Commissioners, but as to this fund
and we may say as to all the contin-
gent funds levied we have never un-
til recently heard the slightest init
nation or suggestion that they were
wrongfully levied, excessive In
amount or improperly disbursed.
The next highest levy was SIS, So
in 1882, to the account of which the
deficiency in 1880 and 1881 funds was
carried as stated, In 1884 during
the administration of the Mullen or
Democratic board, Mr.. Merrill.
clerk, the contingent fund was 49,
743.13. and in 1885 it was S3,643.16.
The account for those years when
balanced left insolvent and delin.
quent taxes returned by r. Il.
Browning, Collector for those years,
to the amount of S779.39, which ought
to have been entered in those ac-
counts, but were not, to be otherwise
provided for by subsequent boards.
This amount of S779.39 properly dis
tributed and entered, would have
shown a deficiency in the fund of
1884 of $346.09, and in that of 1885 of
$432 80. Insufficient had been levied
In those years to have covered these
amounts, there would have been in
1884 fund of 81, OS9.22. and in 1885
one of S4,075.76, and yet, up to this
time no complaint has found its way
into the Democrat or Democratic
platform or conventions. or else
where, about the leyying and dis
bursement of these funds, and why?
Because it was Democratic admin
istration. Now, however, that we
have a Republican Board, and cam
paign in progress and political ma
terial must be had to work on, has
the cry been raised. Is it not singu-
lar, that. if the views expressed on
this subject by our Democratic friends
be sincere, the present Board alone is
censurable for and guilty of miscon-
duct in this matter and for the year
1889, when all their predecessors have
committed the same sin?
In 1888 a fund of S3,571.72 was lev
led, less than in either 1884 or 1885,
but that, too, was found to be INSULT
cient to meet the increasing and UNI
foreseen contingent expenses. Out of
this fund had to be paid and was paid
a deficiency of 1919, in the Court fund
for May Term, 1888; SLIPS In dis
counts on taxes collected during the
discount period was herein provided
for. and also 1851 for insolvencies
{this being less than one half of the
insolvencies for the year 1888-the
others not yet having been returned
and entered), and these items, alone
TO S2,628, Independent of
any other items which had to be paid.
With this experience. with the eX-
perience of the Mullen Board and al
other Boards which preceded them,
and taking into consideration the adj
ditional contingent expenses, the
largely increased amount of discounts
under the Treasurers' law as shown
by 1888 collections, the providing of
ins0lvencies of 1888 not covered by
the fund of that year, as well as those
of 1889, the deficiency in the Court
fund for May Term 1889. flor at the
time of the levy in April there was
only 1916 left of the levy of 1888 to
pay May Court expenses which was
entirely insufficient for the purpose),
it was necessary and the Commits
sioners were warranted and justified
in levying large contingent fund
for 1889 and did levy the sum of
S4,9lS.17. an amount which with the
most economical and judlcious dis
bursement will not be more than
sufficient to meet the expenses for
the year, and only shout 5000 more
than was necessary to meet the con-
tingent expenses for each of the years
1884 and 1885. But this increased
amount was needed. because, as
already stated, of greater demands
on the fund than for those years.
For instance. the discounts on taxes
in 1884 were S659.09 and in 1885.
S569.55. while under the present sys.
tenn of collecting, the discounts for
1889 amount to 81, 299. 70, S63S. GA more
than in 1885. Then again a deficiency
in the Court fund (Which whenever
it occurred heretofore was always,
except in 1888, levied at the next sue
ceedinp levvl for Nav Term. 1890. of