Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1922-02-13
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10. 1922.
THE PUBLIC INTERESTS CONE
FIRST

, On the main proposition as to
whether or not the action taken
by majority of the Board OF
County Commissioners in re-
ducing Road Engineer Hayman's
salary to $500 year is justin
able, there is practically no dit
ference OF opinion among those
not interested in politics directly.
That they strongly disap-
prove of it is not open to ques-
ton. Inquiry. however, that most
frequently arises is, what is go
ing to be the outcome? Will the
Engineer continue to stand pat
and submit to a salary that is
concededly less than actual living
expenses, or will the County
Commissioners abandon their
stand and take some other pro
cedure to solve their problem
The real friends,-and they are
numbered both without and with
in their particular faction. - of
Commissioners Kelly and Watts,
whose action precipitated the
present controversy, hope that
they will adopt the latter, for their
own sake as we'll as the pub
lies. They are both substantial
and representative citizens OF
their respective communities, and
the mistake they and their asso-
ciates are making in their present
course is undoubtedly one of
Judgment rather than of un-
worthy intent or motive. 1t Is
only reasonable to assume that IT
was taken OH impulse and not de-
1iberateiy. and that when 1t be-
comes apparent,-as it must be
now.-that they are doing them
selves, the Road Engineer and the
county a grave injustice, they will
do what IS expected OF them and
follow the law
In this aspect of the matter,
consideration is due them of the
precedent that has been uniform
" adhered to in the selection OF
road foremen. While the law
specifically states that the APP
pointment of competent and
trustworthy" foremen for the sew
eral districts is committed to the
Engineer. to whom alone they
shall be accountable. the County
Commissioner from each district
is the one really charged by his
constituents with the RESPONSE
bility for the results therein, and
the usual procedure in the past
has been to have the Engineer APP
point a foreman in sympathy
with the Commissioner. There
fore. when Mr.. Kelly asked for
the appointment of his man and
the removal of the incumbent. and
was refused. he jumped over the
law and took the precedent in try
ing to gain his point. And Mr..
Watts did likewise.
The original mistake in their
procedure is that the Engineer
Systematically. at least.-right
in his stand now in declining to
remove foremen who, in his opin-
ion. are competent and trust
worthy" where in the past he has
been wrong if he made his APP
pointment contrary TO his best
Judgment. no matter what the
politics of any particular case in
volved. The main object of the
law was to prevent this very
thing,-political rather than a
purely business-like, administra
ton of the county road system.
Therefore, in passing judgment
in the matter, all angles of it are
to be considered in justice TO both
sides: but the conclusion is I'M
avoidable just the same that de-
stroying an officials means of
livelihood is not the way to
bring him Ito time" or accom-
plish his removal from office,-if
that is the real end in view.
The provisions of the law on the
subject are very clear, and, so
long as the law is in force, public