Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1894-03-02
Canal Claims.

A dispatch from Annapolis, dated Feb
ruary 27th, says; "Messrs. w G, Deveomon,
Lloyd Lowndes, Geo. Martz, Patrick O'Con-
ner, John w. Avirett and others, from AL
legany county, were to-day before the COM
mittee on ways and means in reference to
the Lamar canal bill. Mr. Deveomon asked
the committee to amend the bill by includ-
ing all valid subsisting judgments as well as
all unpaid labor claims contracted for since
1878, and, instead of appropriating any
money to pay said claims, simply to waive
the States liens in their favor. Mr.. Deveo.
said the canal cost about $11,O00,000, Of
which the State of Maryland contributed
$7,O00,000, $5OO0,0O0 being subscription
to the stock and 100000 loan. That
the State had been amply repaid for its in
of value in land in the counties traversed by
the canal. That all the claims and judg-
ments now existing against the canal do not
amount to more than 100000 He read aft
davits from the holders of the judgments
and from Col. Horace ResleY, setting out
that all of said judgments are in the hands
of the original holders of the claims, the
very persons who did the work or furnished
the material, and are in no manner specula.
tive, but represent dollar for dollar value.
The States mortgages cover all the canal
property, and these claimants will have no
standing in the courts, but it is immoral and
unjust for the State, by reason of its mort
cages to take benefit and advantage of the
furnishers of material and performers Of
work, and the State ought to waive its mort
cages in favor of these judgments and CLAIMS
"George Martz stated that he had worked
on the canal for many years, and that the
company now owed him 800. lie said that
all the claims in and around Cumberland
were in the hands of the original holders.
He thought all claimants and judgment.
holders should stand ON an equal footing.
"Mr. Lamar opposed the effort to include
these judgments in his bill. He said that
while he knew nothing of the merits of these
old judgments, they were on their face of an
entirely different character from the claims
Intended To DC COVERED ny nlS DILL l ne COu-
tractors for the original construction Of the
canal cast their fortunes with the canal,
knowing its resources and taking the chances
OF their payment. These judgments are still
in force, and when the canal property is dis
posed of they can rest upon their legal rights
and demand payment. The labor claims,
on the contrary, under the provisions of the
charter of the canal are first claim upon
its revenues and resources. They amount to
only $4,000, $4,000 worth of which are for
labor done upon the canal during the years
1888 and 1889, and which the Legislature,
by the act OF March 81, 1890, made provision
for their payment under certain conditions.
The present bill changes these conditions,
so that these claims will be protected in any
event. and il is not fair TO these laborers to
have their claims complicated with the old
judgments OF different legal and equitable
standing, And in the interest of these
laborers he protested against the adoption
of the amendment, which he thought might
imperil the success of the bill before this
General Assembly"