Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1896-06-13

10 Otfeet committee.
Mr.. Nickel moved that there be an
Ordinance prepared 70 grade Union
street where grade had not already been
given. Carried
Bailiff Bowen reported collections
for the month ending May 81, 1896:
Taxes, 1884 Observation-Disclosures 10 65
lS94-5.... 81 81
- 1885,. ..... ......... ....... IA II
Licenses. ............. ................ Ill 10
Special tax, 1896. ............... 81 96
Total. Observation-Disclosures. S5l2 IS
Clerk Armstrong reported issuing
licenses to the amount of $ll1.75.
Water superintendent Jeffries re
ported that during the month of May
he ha / supplied 9 families with water
from the town works. He had also
placed water meters on the lines run
ming to the farm of the Union Mining
company and on the Chinese laundry,
on Broadway; had put water IN hose
houses on Bowery and Federal Hill.
He had also run two lines of pipe to
the third floor of the new hotel. There
is 12i feet of water in large reservoir.
Treasurer Nickel reported as fol-
lows:
RECEIPTS.
Ex-Treasurer Schofeld ....S S739
Balhff BoWen.... 4S3OS
First National Bank. ..... 100000
s1,57o.47
Bailiff on account of
Special IaX...... 1888
Water rents. 25S.OO
Iotal. .......... .Sl, oU Az
DisBU hsEMENTs.
Corporate fund. 81 1887
Water fund. 174.51
--S1 ,313.4S
Balance in hand
corporate fund :. S431 SO
Same-Water fund. 1892
Total. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. 1,S67.40
Clerk reported the assessable basis
for the year to be 81 ,67S,653.
Mr.. Nickel moved that the tax rate
be fixed at so cents on each $780,
Carried.
1t was ordered that the Mayor go
before the Board of County Commits
sioners to ask for the annual appyo-
priation for roads.
Mr.. Nickel moved that the Clerk be
instructed to have notice printed in
MINING JOURNAL IN reference to water
rents. Carried.
Bills to the amount of $656.99 we've
read and
On motion of Mr.. Shuckhart, Or
dered paid
Mr.. Shuckhart requested the Mayor
to read Section Is, page 10, of the
Code, which was done.
Mr.. Smeltz said that the reason he
was not present a: the appeal session
was on account Of sickness in his
family.
Mr.. johnson moved that Mr.. Smeltz
be excused. Carried.
Adjourned.
Mr.. Anthony was clearly right in
his argument against the presumption
that Mr. Smeltz is disqualified by his
alleged removal from town. The
property qualification set out in Sec
ton of the Code, which affords so
much trouble to the Mayor and others
is for elective eligibility only. Hence,
as long as Mr.. Smeltz claims his resi-
dence here he is not disqualified. In
the judgment of the JOURNAL, there
fore, the Mayors own right to hold his
seat is more assailable than Mr..
Smeltz's. The latter was clearly
eligible schen he seas elected J. the Mayor
was confessedly not.
Again-Mr. Shuckhart evidently
misinterprets the tenor and object of
Section 16, which, written in the plural
number all the way through, applies to
the Mayor and Councilman as 5oay,
and not as individuals. If as body
they do not hold the meeting pro-
vided for and thus deny any citizen
the right of appeal from what he may
deem an exorbitant assessment, ''the
said Mayor and Councilmen, unless
prevented by sickness or unavoidable
accident, shall each forfeit the sum of
So" 1t is the failure to meet-not the
failure of one member to be there,
that is prohibited. All, therefore, that
Council can do with Mr.. Smeltz's alb
sence at the appeal session is to deny
him his per diem. And as he was not
present even to ask that his name be
stricken from the books, it is to be
doubted whether under the practice in
all other cases of keeping as many
names on the books as possible. Coun-
ell had the right to dsqualify him UNI
heard.