Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1922-02-02
THURSDAY. FEBRUARY .. 1922.
ROADS AND POLITICS

Those who are responsible Tor
the action taken by the Board oi
County Commissioners ut last
Tuesdays meeting in reducing
Road Engineer Ilayman's salary
from 81, 600 to 81 400 may have
some kind OF reason for 50 doing,
but If il is anything more than
very crude political vancouver It
is not apparent.
The. office. of.County Road En-
pineer was created by an act OF
the Legislature of 1908. and Mr.
Hayman was appointed as the in
cumbent in August, 1913. Ills
salary at that time was hXcd at
So ,000,-thc maximum named III
the law.-and has continued at
that figure ever since. That It
was an exceedingly modest sat
AIRY for man possessing the
qualifications required by the Act
was never questioned, and the
consensus OF opinion has been TO
the effect that either the salary
should be increased or the office
abolished altogether.
Whether or not Mr.. Hayman
himself possesses the required
qualifications as County Road En-
gineer is not the issue now pre-
scented by the Boards action. If
the stand taken were TINT y" Is
incompetent or unfit and should
be removed. the county road law
clearly provides the only way Tor
going about this. namely, upon
having charges preferred i'll a
sworn statement by at least ten
taxpayers, and after giving an
open hearing TO both sides.
If the alleged grievance were
that the road law is inadequate
and should be amended~so~as-te'
take from the Engineer the APP
pointment of the working fore
men under him, then recourse to
the Legislature is the only way.
As neither OF these points IS the
one now raised by the procedure
taken. the conclusion j. unavoid-
able that the maneuver Is for no
higher purpose than simply TO
force the Engineer to play the
game OF politics with the ruling
combination in the Board by APP
pointing the forehen dictated by
them.
1t is also beside the question
now TO. claim that the Engineer
has been doing this very thing all
along. Even it ne has. there can
be no justification for il i'll those
cases, il any, where the appoint
ment was directly in conflict with
his own judgment At any rate,
1t could not have been done with
out violating the plain provisions
OF the law which give the EnSi-
neer full discretion III selecting
and removing the working fore
men. and which law was TN
doubtedlv intended to withdraw
the actual administration OF road
operations as far as possible from
politics.
Therefore, the action of the
Board in the present instance Il
undertaking 10 force the Engineer
10 act against his own judgment
in the particular cases mentioned
looks very much like nothing less
than an attempt 10 have him VIC
late the law, and II is altogether
10 his credit that he has shown
independence and courage enough
10 resist the pressure.
All that IS here said is irrespec-
tive OF the question as to whether
the Road Engineer is right, or the
County Commissioners are right,
concerning the qualifications OF
the respective foremen. The
point is that the law vests the
selection in the Engineer. and
both the letter and the spirit of
It. as we'll as the first principles OF
fair play. should make him inn
Inune from any such tactics as
cutting down his already meagre
salary as punic Hment tor daring
t. 10 his duty.