The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1889-10-12


penses of paupers, and pay and dis.
charge all claims on or againsl The |
county which have been expressv or
implicitly authorized by law"
By this section it will be noticed
the County Commissions are au.
thorized to make the LeUy in uhole
or in part By estimates" these words
being not only conspicuous by resson
of their import in the law. butalso
by reason of their absence from any
quotations or articles in the Dspao.
crat. although other portions Of This
same section are frequently referred
TO.
This law means. If it has anymean.
ing at all. that wherever the County
Commissioners have reason to be.
lieye that claims will come in against
the county, or Indebtedness will be
incurred or expenses will arise or
claims and demands will be presen.
ted of a contingent character and an
certain in their amounts, and which
it is not practicable to specify or
know in advance, such as insoIyen-
cies, delinquents and discouna on
taxes, and which they can only arrive
at by estimate, they have thefight
to provide fund for their Linda
ton and settlement by ley9yA
amount which in their jude6ept
will be sufficient for the purpose,
whether it be known as a "Pontin-
gent fund.-" contingent sccednt," or
by any other name you my choose
to designate.
Experience in this couny and in
all the counties of the State has
shown that such contingencies do
arise, that a contingent fund is not
only proper and essential for the con-
duct of the business ofthe county.
but an imperative necessity, and up
on that experience, not6f recent orr.
gin, but of many, man! years stand
ing, was and is based the custom of
levying such funds, and upon that
experience and customis founded the
law quoted. Under and by virtue of
that law, the contingent fund for
1889 was levied under and by virtue
of that law contingent fund has
been levied in each and every year
of Garrett county's existence, and
under and by virtue of that law long
prior to and ever since the formation
of Garrett county. Allegany and all
other counties in the Stale did levy.
have levied and are now leyying
contingent funds annually.
This being true, is it not strange
that never until now has the legal
right of the Commissioners to levy a
contingent fund been questioned in
Jarrett c0untyT
When we consider that at some
time each and every lawyer here in
active practice. with probably one
exception, has at some time'ks,R
counsel to the County Commiss0n-
ers, the author of the resolutionsand
the writer of the editorials, as we
have said presumably being lawyers
and among the number who offcia-
ted as such counsel, is it not remark.
able that they sanctioned such a
levy; cOmplacently looked on and
permitted the County Commissioners
to make their "unlawfuI levies,n as
now commended, without warning or
protest on their part? And not un-
til now, during political campaign,
and in need of political capital.
realize, as if by magic. the enormity
of the offense and cry out in we'll
assumed horror and indignation
against its iilegality? Is it not
strange that shrewd attorneys, if
they be sincere and honest in their
opinions, should pursue such course
and not have made them known be-
fore this?
But in support OF our views we are
not confined 10 our own construction
of the law or to the experience. prac-
tice or custom in this and other
counties.
The question raised here has
been considered and determined by
the Court of Appeals. We refer to
the case of Webster et.al. VS.. The
County Commissioners of Baltimore
county, reported in 81 Maryland Re-
port, page 1876.
In that case the County Commis-
sioners of Baltimore county in 1878
levied a contingent fund of $2Q.gQQ.
together with two other items, by
estimate. The plaintiffs. Webster
and others. as taxpayers of the
county, flleu a bill for an injunction
against the County Commissioners
TO restrain them. their agents and
servants from collecting those items.
The Circuit Court passed an order
refusing the injunction and dismiss.
ing the bill, and from that order the