The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1922-02-02
Replies To Mr.. Automobile
Owners Communication

| article published in your paper OF
| January 9th, which was written By
| the work OF the State Police Force,
! someone who does not highly esteem
| the work of the State Police Force,
and who apparently takes pride in
| informing the public that he is an
automobile owner.
There are many, undoubtedly, Ii
| this grand old State OF ours, who
still claim that Baughman's road
cops are a menace, in fact l have
| talked with a number of such, bus
l have never before heard of anyone
making such unjust accusations as
| those OF the honorable Mr.. Autom,
| bile Owner. 1t seems as though our
| friend does not realize that the
state road cop must consider the
| responsibility resting upon him, ana
l am sure that the text OF his argu
ment in which is sounded the key
note OF his convictions does not
voice the sentiment OF even small
part OF the citizens OF Maryland. II
hardly seems belieyable that man
living as lie does in a land which has
for centuries boosted OF its education
and civilization, would dare for
single moment expose himself to the
ridiculo of his felloW-countrymen by
disparaging the laws OF the land
from which he claims protection ana
from which comes his subsistence.
l DON'T know who Mr.. Automobile
Owner is. l don't know whether he
is a Monaghan, yellow faced cootle,
or dark skinned HindO. | do not
know where he lives nor where ne
came from 1 have no idea Of what
he does and l care nothing about ii.
| neither know nor care who he IS,
what color he is, where he lives, or
ANYTHING else that could be mention
ed l di know, however, that MI.
Automobile Owner, has very vague
ideas and q still poorer conception OF
the needs of modern times and tnat
his argument against the road cops
is so insignificant, together with MS
rather absurd views on the enforce
ment of Motor Vehicle laws, that II
hardly seems worth the while for
anyone to make reply to his most
derogatory statements concerning
such, for surely no one thinks the
way he does.
Mr.. Automobile Owner says he
thought that when the state police
were appointed it would be move
ment for the better. If he had not
thought so then he must have by now
if he had been person OF clear
yisage. The charges he makes
against the state police are false,
absolutely lacks the very essence or
common sense. The very idea OF Il
man likening them to pirates, ready !
to make victims of whom they can
devour, is in itself perfectly ridicul-
Gus and such a sensational remal k
cannot but claim the dissenting &C |
clamation of the general public.
What of it, if Henry Corkran dld
pay a fine? According to your
statement he deliberately violated
section 148, IA, Article Sc, of the
General Automobile Laws OF Mary |
land and was accordingly liable 10
a fine of not less than five dollars
nor more than fifty dollars. II III
were his first offense. The roaG
COP realizing the responsibility OIL
his office did what he had been ord
cred to do and Henry Corkran as
result was obliged to pay for his
NEGLIGENCE and deliberate defiance
of the Maryland Automobile Laws.
The man who displayed his 1879
license numbers before the nrst oaS
of the year likewise violated the law
and again the ever alert road cop
did his duty. Was it the road cops
duty to arrest the man or should De
have permitted him to go on his way
unpunished, thus taking chance OF
losing his position and perhaps MS
only means of livelihood.
Reply to this, Mr.. Automobile |
Owner and when doing so present
practical answer and not a SHY |
absurd argument that will make you
the laughing stock Of your COM
munity.
When Mr.. Automobile Owner, says
the state road cop has no standing
as an officer when off the state ROAD |
he is all wrong. He has either been |
mislnformed about the things he Is
irving to talk about or he is In a !
most ostentatious manner inform
ing the public Of his own lack Oh
knowledge of the provisions set Tor
tn in Article Sc. The road cops dc
have a standing as officers when OH
the state road and furthermore they
not only have a right to police. the
streets of incorporated town but 1t is
their duty to do so and no local ordln-
ance can keep them from it. Does
Mr.. Automobile Owner mean to IN
fer that the work OF road cops Is
confined to county roads and outly-
ing districts?
You are all wrong, Mr. Automobile
Owner, and you are in class ID
Yourself. 1t may seem Dit I'M
grateful to arrest man for the pct |
ty violations of regulations you have
enumerated but there is no sent'- |
ment in the law. Such affairs are
decided in cold. matter of fact
legal way. Law is based on common
sense and rightly have you said 1t.
and in saying it you kill your own
argument. When, on the second OF !
August, 1875, the members of Con-
gress, affixed their signatures to the
declaration of Independence, I'll
wager that not single one OF them
had ever dreamed of the automobile.
Therefore the reference you nave
made to it as well as the likening OF
the road cop to q prostitute, is not
at all in harmony with your argu-
ment. You're away from your sun
tect. Did you realize it before? AS
/ have said, you are in a class to
,orrself nv friend and a holdOyor