Martinsburg statesman-democrat. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1906-1921, 1909-11-12

sibIe Fer Their Condition
Mr.. Editor:
Last week promised to review the
County Finances this week. Ii is a
matter Of both interest and curiosity
as to who pcrpetrated or offered that
stupendous joke 10 the taxpayers OF
Berkeley County, TO believe, ! mean
the snERiFF's SETTLEMENT. True it
Is signed and certified TO by some OF the
County officials. Now, let us take up
this settlement for an ansiysis. The
gentlemen who have so generously OF
fered tins grnesome hash to the tax :
payers Of the County, viz; "Balanc
due from Sheriff, s965i.i7." sou.
standing orders including iuteres
5000 Current accounts due and III =
paid, s581ll7 =
Will some lone please inform VI.
where this amount Of orders were; wi o
was holding these County obligations?
Usually where we country folks are
FAVORED sufficiently to be drawn as +
talesman on Jury and serve for tive
or three days, on being discharged,
Immediately make our way to the
sherifl7s Office and have the County
obligation converted into cash. WHO
WAS HOLDING THESE ORDERS THAT
THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 2ND, 1909?
Isn't Ii fact that between twelve and
fifteen thousand dollars Of orders
DRAWN BY THE COUNTY COURT WE'RE
HELD OUT OF THE AUGUST SETTLE
MENT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE CoUN-
TY COURT? 1sN'r 1T A FACT that
thousands Of dollars Of our County or
ders were farmed out TO persons WHO
are holding them, and to whom the
Court has promised to pay interest?
II this settlement IL correct, the tax
payers Of this County want to know
by wrat authority fifteen TO twenty
thousand dollars more orders were Is-
SUED than the levy for the year 1908
amounted to. Isn't fact that the bal
ance as reported as being due I he
County by the Sheriff Of S965l.l7 Is
NOT CORRECT? Correct, as far as the
figures 20. Correct, AS the Auditing
Committee knows, but, II not THIS a
fact, that instead Of the late Sheriff
owing the County $965l.l7, the Coun-
ty owes the Sheriff THOUSANDS OF
| DOLLARS, which was withheld from
the Settlement? Was not the same
methods employed with the Road
funds Of every District IN the County,
save one? 1 think that 1t is an uncon-
trovertible fact, that II the Road orders
already issued, eashed and held were
deducted from this years Road levy
($568.15) Of Mill Greek District, there
would not he sufficient balance to re-
pair the road from the Bunker Hill
postefiice to o. B. JeFeyre's Spring,
nearly six hundred yards.
Why was the County Settlement
not made at the time required by law?
Who withheld the settlement? Who
IL responsible for these conditionsy 1t
will be observed that it cost the tag
payers, including the Board Of Equal
ization ~ more than $1,000 to assess
the County against less than $1,000
under the old law.
Was 1t good judgment on the part
of the County Court when they MUST
HAVE known that they had incurred
debts amounting to thousands Of
dollars more than the levy would
yield, to contract for, let, aud build q
bridge over an out of the way ford
across stream, which, as rule, can
be easily forded, on All average Of $50
days In the year, to gratify the political
aspirations OF one man? / have been
| informed that one OF the County Com
| missioners has advised the people In
the northern part Of Martinsburg the
reason why the advocates Of the new
Charter wanted to enforce their COM
ing into the city was, ''that the City
| was very badly In debt and needed
their taxes 20 help pay their old obi
cations" Well, may the Lord have
mercy on the "town people, II they
are carrying greater load than the
one Illegally placed on the people 0!
the County.
There are several items Of County
expenditures thatlwill be taken upin a
separate article, and the people show n
what they are lpaying taxes for. -
the contentious in this article are true,
or in the abstract correct, the County
Court has fiagrantIy exceeded its au-
thority under the Statutes.
Apropos to the subject, let us see
what the law says. Chapter 10, Sec.
OF the Acts of 1908 reads. at shall be