The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1896-05-15
vanced on levies of
1896 to build bridges
and school houses.
Cash in the Cit. Nat |.
bank of Laurel, to
the credit of the Com
miSSIOnerS .........
.).S.i.I. ~

missioners .... 1866 --
sl2,65o.G.
How much is left of 1892 bond money and
and to what it applied: If no current rN-
penseS why does it require Il full tax levy
to meet current expenses each year
since:
Answered in statement, and to meet
eNigencieS as they may arise: such as
building new bridges, building and re
pairs of school houses. not provided for
in the annual levy and the amount paid
out for such purposes are levied the en-
suing year to keep the balance of the
bond money, 1892, intact, to enable the
Commissioners to incur no liabilities
ganst the county without having the
money to pay for all work ordered and t"
keep the county on rs near Il cash basis AS
possible.
Why is there no "full statement pub
liShed' in each annual statement OF the
affairs of Prince Georges county as to
condition of sinking fund and of sccuri-
ties thereof as required by law:
We have no sinking fund until 1892,
| Chapter J3c, Section 6.
What was the old Indebtedness comros-
| ed of in the years from 1874 To 1891 and
| the amount thereof
County paper, filed for dividend a> per
| How much has been levied to pay in
terest and sinking fund for Court House
bonds and how much yet is due, if any :?
Twenty five thousand four hundred and
twenty dollars, levied to pay Court House
| bonds and interest. Bonds taken VI and
cancelled.
Why was the amount increased from
| SJ0, 900 in 1890 to S16 900 to pay old i'll
debtedness:
Under the Act of 1892 Charcr %
Section ).
| What in your judgment caused old in
debtedness from 1874 to 1881 when full
tax levy was assessed and paid each year?
| BY insolvencies and non payment of
taxes promptly due for the respective
| years.
| Have $1,000 of 1888 bonds been paid as
required by law in 1892:
| The bonds of 1888 (S2, O00) due .Iuly lSt il,
| 1893, paid and the same cancelled.
| In Rogers the expert accountant) report
of 1887 what amount was due the county
and what amount did the county owe:
| Mr.. Rogers, the expert accountant,
made no report in 1887, but was employ
ed by the County Commissioners in Feb
ruarv, 1888 and made his report in March,
which report was ordered to be published.
| can find no copy of same. | do find
|
| book that the Commissioners had par
tal settlement with James T. Perkins,
| Trustee, on November Goth, 1899, and
there stated the amounts due according to
| Rogers report.
How much of the amount due has been
! paid
All settled.
What items composed the surplus t"
be accounted for of 1896 in 1875 state
| ment.
The Commissioners passed and paid
! bills ourside of levics against the county
and paid them out of surplus of 1913,
amounting to S:i,5GS92, and they now
have SSjS.69 to their credit to meet insol-
vencies for said year.
If for road deficiencies why does not the
town of Laurel receive its proportional
| share of the same as the law reads THE
| entire amount of road tax levied shall he
refunded less cost of collection, Get. ::
The County Commissioners paid the cor
| poration of Laurel 500 for rebate
of road tax for 1898, which
is upon basis of about S12o, 1000
of aSsessablc property in the corporate
limits of Laurel Amount paid out of
License fund for the repairs of public
roads in Laurel district, 1895, sea-
Why does not the town of Laurel re
ceive its proportional share of the License
fund for road purposes:
The amount paid to the Clerk of the
Circuit Court for liquor licenses are for
the use Of the pHbHc rod'is in Prince George :
county, Act 1884, Chapter PSI, Section ).
| Why does the cost of Public printin" as
per 1895 report exceed the amount
| fixed by law:
The excess was $3.50. this is made up
| by charge in printing Sheriff. License
notice in April before the contract was
awarded, also for publishing Sherilf'S No
tice of Election to comply with the law,
and for printing registration lists sent by
the Registration Officers to the Matiborn'
| Gdzeftp
Is it or is it not Il violation of the Law
1890, Chapter -, Section 2i., to levy near
| ~ S22 900 dollars this year for roads and
bridges when the above mentioned act
states that the County Commissioners
shall not incur liabilities or expenditures
in any fiscal veal levy more than $l3,ooo
for roads and bridges:
The Act of 1890, Chapter -, Section
2S1 mot 90. as stated authorizes the
County Commissioners to levy Sl5, 900 for
the rri,airs of roads and bridy-~, and is 81
| lent as to building ner bridge<, which the
| Commissioners as of necessity have to
provide for.