The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1912-11-30
STATE ROAD WORK
in CECIL COUNTY
Report Not AT All Satisfactory--Will
The People Act

report OF the WOTk- OF UDe OTOLnSTa-
Tucker State Road Commission has CON
fined Itself to the revelations of the
Report as to the work of that Cpmnl's-
sion in Cecil county, whose people are
complaining bitterly of :he ina'elsed
bLTceu Of taxation entailed by the eS-
penditures of the Commission without
being able to. see any very notable or
satisfactory results from those expcn-
ditures. We have in previous article,
called attention to the fact that the
Report Is very unsatisfactory, so far as
bringing any enlightenment to the people
as to how the money was spent or why
the pittfuIly small amount of road mil
cage built in this county should have
eaten UP such an enormous amount of
money. The Report does not furnish the
detajls to which the tax payers are en-
titled, but whatever information the
Report DOES give, we herewith repro
duce for what it is worth:
Turning to the table of expenditures
in that report, one finds the statement
that total OF $159,019.14 has been ex-
pended by the Crothers-Tucker Com
mission on State Roads in this county
up to January /, 1912, including 2,172.-
Al assessed to Cecil county in payment
oI tne exceSs coSt OF tne SonSWihSo
Bridge.
Bear in mind, please. that these figures
represent what has BEEN ACTUALLY
SPENT IN THIS COUNTY up 10 jan
nary !, 1912. The report asserts that
there are in addition, two outstanding
contracts on the Chesapeake City road
amounting to $4t,629.45 what was ac-
tually spent by the Crothers- Tucker
n,,,;.o {ou
stated above); about $145, 900 Of which is
charged TO road building direct.
Two questions arise here that call for
investigation on the part Of the people
from whose pockets has come this fund.
O)--.WBAT HAVE THE PEOPLE OF
THE COUNTY TO SHOW FOR THIS
ENORMOUS EXPENDITURES?
Here is what they have, as the report
sets forth on p. as of the same:-- 3 110
miles Of road, Conowingo to Porter's
Fridge; ia miles Rising Sun to Cal
vert; 2 is miles EMt0n to Singerly;
little over a mile on the Chesapeake
City -Elkton road In other words FOUR
SMAlI. PIECES OF UTTERLY DBTACH-
ED ROADS 0ACaGTuIfGATING LESS
THAN NINE MILES TOTAL) have been
built under an Act of the Legislature
calling for a "CONNEJGCTBD SYSTEM
OF HIGHWAYS, and the total charge
10 this county for this pitiful result is
S159,0t91&, with $4,000 or more defeit
to be provided for. But look at the
figures a. little more in detail The re-
port states that the Conowngo- Porter's
Bridge road (about miles) cost $42,-
+52 49, Of which 81 1896 is charged
under Grading s2O,S7i under "Surfac-
ing, and $6t500S1 under Bridges and
Culverts."
The Rising Sun-Calvert road cost $685.,
S3479, Of which $l3SO39l is charged un-
der Grading, $31 S94S7 under "Surfac-
ing and $6007.29 under Bridges and
Gu Verts " (The careful reader will
note that the Rising Sun-Calvert road,
though somewhat shorter than the
Conowingo -Porter's Bridge road, cost
$1,000 more for snrfacing alone)
The lSlkton- -Singerly road taDout Ia
miles) cost $24,4i0.12, of which $3,9l41
is charged under Grading, $16,296 a
under "Surfacing' and $l292 80 under
Bridges and Culverts"
The report further shows that $17,S4S8f
mas been spent Or the Chesapeake City
lGlktOn road (about a mile cOmplete), OF
which $1,4S4.70 Is charged to Grading,
$7,SOS.4O TO "Syrfacing" and s5,45699 to
Bridges and Culverts." The report fur
ther asserts that there ara, on this
Chesapeake City -Elkton road, two out
standing contracts amounting to
S44,G2045.
At the risk Of being tedious, the WING
sets forth these agures because the peo-
pie of the county are not only ENTITLED
to all Information as to how their money
has been spent, but they ought to be DE-
MANDlNG that information-and in
MORE DETAIL IYIAN is GIVEN EI-
THEIR IN THESE COLUMNS OR IN THE
REPORT ITSELF.
(2I-Ihe second question arising on a
perusal oftbe Report Is: Did the Gro
theirs Tucker Commission spend In this
county more than the cOuntys legitimate
allotment cut of the five million dollar
appropriation, and IL so HOW AND BY
WHAT BEGAL AUTHORITY? The pres
ent Commission claims that the Crothers-
Tucker Comm. .ssion spent at least $685.
900 more in this county than the county
was entitled to out of its allotment
from the five million appropr alton. THE
PB)PLIG OF THIS COUNTY WILL
HARDLY ACCEPT THAT STATEMENT
WITHOUT TILE FIGURES TO GIVE 1T
PROOF.
The figures submitted in this Report
are not sufficiently explicit. at any rate
they are not satisfying The Report at
tributes to the Crothers- Tucker Commits
sion the expenditure in this county Of
$l60N914, of which $12,17},47 is listed IS
Cec!ps share of the excess cost of the
Conowingo Bridge. Right there one nat
urally asss how this "eMcess cost of the
ConOsingo Bridge" came about and why
Cecil has to be assessed Sl2,l7247 for
this excess GUST But let that pass
for the present 1t will become a sub
ject Of inquiry later on. Accept the Re-
ports statement that the Crothers- Tuck
er Commission spent s159,01914 in ths
county, ehen we want to know If this
S56,NOO In excess of Cecils allotment
from the five million dollar appropria-
tion Gfrom the six million dollar appro-
prtation would be more correct. II the
4onowingo Fridge purchase ia to be reck-