Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1906-07-20
MR.. PRETTYMAN's REPLY.

q Newspaper controversy. DelleVe inns 10 tne
first time In my life have written personal
cause Mr.. Lee, In his letter published In your
last weeks issue uses, in relation to my con-
nection with the County Commissioner and
| with the Montgomery County National Bank
the following language: 'But in this case
Of conflicting interests all precedents demand
| there should be a special attorney" Inere
is here at least an intimation that was either
ignorant Of, or, in advising the County Com
missoners, wilfully disregarding we'll rec
oguized professional obligatio | have moth
ing whatever to do with Mr.. Lees opinions
az to the law of the matter nor with that OF
the other officials Of whom he speaks. Nor
have any personal interest in the anairs OF
the Montgomery County National Bank, l
am not a stakeholder therein, nor am
its Attorney except in the sense that am
usually consulted by my partner, who Is
Its Attorney, when he is called upon for q
| legal opinion, and, of course, share In what
fees he receives. Ny letter is, therefore, en-
tirely personal. 1t may be well to state the
| facts in the case as l understand them.
For some years have been Attorney to the
Board of County Commissioners and am paid
q salary. For this am expected to advise
the Commissioners, whenever requested 30 to
| do, upon legal questions arising in the course
Of their duties. About the goth Of June Mr..
with him to the Commissioners office as he
wanted to say something to them about the
Baltimore City stock held in this county: |
| told him | knew nothing about 1t and he
said, "Well, come on and will tell you some
things" When we got to the Commission
ers Office we found them busy with other
matters. They called me into consultation
about these questions and remained win
| them until the adjournment for dinner. As
| I had hx,af WAaliuQt0u
that afternoon and had no intimation from
the Commissioners that my presence was de-
sired, did not return. was afterwards In
formed by the Clerk to the Commissioners
that an opinion was desired by the Board
from me in regard to the matter OF Mr.. Lee :
request that the Baltimore City stock held
| by the Montgomery County National Bank
be valued and assessed for the current levy.
| When they met again on Tuesday morning
W emit before them as requested. They, with
great consideration and kindness. suggested
| that they did not want to embarrass me In
| the matter, as they knew OF my connection
with the Bank, and they stated that the cues
| ton raised related to taxation of the Balti-
more City stock held by it. replied that ii
| any controversy arose in which the Commls-
sioners and the Bank should occupy antago-
nistic positions, the embarrassment might
| arise and then | should be called upon to
=
serve, either of the contestants; that did
not think that condition had arisen as, in
my opinion, the question then before them
| had but one side.
| To understand that question, q word Of
explanation may be needed. II is provided
by the law that the State Tax Commissioner
shall assess, for purposes of taxation, the stock
Of all corporations; that from the value OF
such stock, the value of all real estate shall
| 4 .kaA ad 10 nth rQal
property. Then il is provided that such cor
porations shall be entitled to a credit for all
\ OF the State Stock debt, and Baltimore City
stock, upon which the City pays, or is liable
| TO pay, the State taxes, and certain other
classes of securities which may be held by IT.
| The Stste Tax Commissioner had fixed the
value of ihe stock of the Montgomery County
National Bank for purposes Of taxation. AS
then understood Mr.. Lees contention, he
desired the County Commissioners to assess
| to the Bank, In addition to the value oil It's
stock fixed as above, the value OF the Balti-
more City stock in which q portion Of the
| capital Of the Bank is said TO be invested.
| told the Commissioners that this could not be
| done. Mr.. Lee further contended that the state
| Tax Commissioner was in error In allowing
| an exemption Of this Baltimore City stock oil
the Bank. told the Commissioners that on
this subject | was not prepared to ad wise
but, If it were true, the matter could only Dc
| tested by some action taken to compel the
Tax Commissioner to revise his rulings, as
the Commissioners were absolutely bound by
his findings unless reversed. And, as the
levy must, by law, be completed BY July LIST,
there was no time, even II they SO desired, to
undertake such litigation. AS left the Court
House, met Mr.. Lee and he asked me TO re.
turn TO the Commissions office. declined
to do 30, telling him what had said TO tue
soufa H. IN nh
and told me the Commissioners had agreed
to hear him at o'clock, and that they re-
quested me to be present. / was there and
Mr.. Lee read paper in which he made the
contention expressed in his letter as allow
indicated, and In the course Of his remarks,
said that was not the proper person to give
any advice on the subject 90 l was connected
with the Bank. considered this an unwar'
ranted invasion of my relation TO my ellen TO-
the Commissioners, and replied with, posi-
bly,, more heat than the occasion called for
stating In substance what have said her,
After some discussion between Mr.. Lee and
myself, | wrote and handed to the Commits
sioners my resignation as their Attorney, not
as Mr.. Lee expresses 1t, ''if the Commission
ers wanted it," but IS an absolute severance
of my relation with the Board, stating thai
as the charge had been then openly mad,
that could not give them impartial and
|
siOners perfectly free in the matter Of seeking
such advice from others more competent than
TO advise. | said that 1t was their duty To
the people, who elected them, to use every
effort TO serve the interests Of the genera
public and, If my position as their legal ad
wiser, ia any way stood between them and
their bounden duty, there was but one thing
tor me, as an honorable man, to do, and tina
was to get out OF the way. then left the
room. | was, late that afternoon, Informed
that the Commissioners, by unanimous vote
declined to accept my resignation and de-
sired me to continue TO advise them. o.
course, was gratiied by that action. As To
the necessity or propriety of my signation
under the circumstances, am answerable only
to my employers. They have seen fit to re
assert their confidence In me, and Mr.. Lee'i
opinion does not very much concern me, en-
cept as | like to retain the good opinion o.
80 old and close personal friend.
| may say, In conclusion, that I am moi
now prepared to give any opinion as TO the
propriety Of the course Of the State Tax Com.
missioner in fixing his valuation upon the
stock OF the Montgomery County National
Bank, with special reference TO the reduction
on such valuation on account OF the Balti-
more City stock held by it.
In the opinion did EXPRESS think | can
say, know that was right, for 1t was based
upon Tue uociblOn OF tue OOuTt Oh Appobib III
the case Of The James Clark Distilling Go. vs.
Mayor and City Council Of Cumberland, '95
Maryland Reports. page 46s, In which this
very question was involved and the following
language was used by the Court In its de-
cision:
"There is no method OF making assessment
of shares OF stock for the purposes OF taxation
Of any kind, other than the mode above
pointed out as prescribed by Sections 1872 and
l4l' lot the Code |. 9. by the State Tax Com
missioner) land it consequently follows that
the valuation Of such shares so made by the
Tax Commissioner is the only val
uation upon which municipal taxes can be
levied. This being so, no municipality In
the State can place upon shares OF stock
which the Tax Commissioner Is requ ired TO
assess any valuation different from that VIII ich
has been fixed by that officer. This being so,