Catoctin clarion. [volume] (Mechanicstown, Md.) 1871-1940, 1911-10-26
AN INJUSTICE TO CITY
TAXPAYERS.

"The annual county statement, just
issued, shows expenditures on account OF
roads and bridges in the county amount
ing to over $56, 900. This does not include
interest on bonds issued on account OF
roads and bridges, nor the amount levied
for the sinking fund for the retirement
of these bonds.> which has been accumu-
lating for number of years, and out OF
which the commissioners have appropri-
ated $38, 900 for the retirement of flood
and bridge bonds to that amount on the
first of the coming month.
"Of this money spent for roads and
bridges in the county, and for the pay
ment of interest upon and the retirement
of bonds issued in the past to raise money
for roads and bridges in the county,
large share comes from taxes paid by
residents of Frederick city who not only
do not use the roads and bridges in the
county, but are required to pay addition
al taxes to the city for the maintenance
of public highways and bridges within
the city limits.
''That the roads in the county should
be supported exclusively by those who
use them will not be argued; it is proper
that the taxpayers in Frederick should
bear share of the cost of maintaining
them, and reasonable ones will not grum-
BILE on this account. But it is only fair
to ask that out of the money raised for
the maintenance of public highways,
portion be devoted to the maintenance of
highways within the city's limits. For
residents of the city to be required to
maintain entirely at their own expense
the public highways within these limits,
while contributing also to the mainten-
ance of all other highways in the county,
is decidedly unfair.
1.-The Post, in speaking upon this sub
ject upon previous occasion, made use
of an example which illustrates the in
Justice of this: Within the city limits
are two bridges, maintained at the ex-
pense of the city taxpayers exclusively;
bridges across the same stream, outside
the city limits, are maintained at the
expense of the county, out of funds to
which the city taxpayers contribute; If
the city were not in existence, all OF
these bridges would alike be maintained
at the county's expense. To be sure, the
amount involved in this matter of bridges
is comparatively small, but the facts are
the same as regards the streets in the
city, and in the aggregate the amount
which is saved to the county by the sad
ding of the whole cost of maintenance
of streets and bridges inside the city
limits upon the city taxpayers is large.
In justice to the city taxpayers, por-
ton of the money which they pay an
nualIy to the county for the maintenance
of roads and bridges should be turned
over each year to the city government,
as payment towards the maintenance
of the sections of public highways inside
the city limits. Post.
TThe Editor of the Post thinks he sees
injustice from the aforegoing editorial.
He is in error in many ways, if he only
stops long enough to look into the mat
ter a little deeper. 1t is unfair to the
county taxpayer to attempt this equal
izaton" as suggested by the editor of
the Post, because the county taxpayer
can point to quite number of things
that he gets no benefit from. For in
instance there is a $4,000 High School
building that he is helping to pay for.
He has helped to pay for the large new
Girls High School, and many other
things we can mention that the county
men help to pay for in your city. Fred
erick is always glad enough to get the
countrymens dollar but for heavens
sake don't draw the line so fine Mr..
Editor.