Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1923-11-02
Denies Armstrong Cut office
Force.

1t was not Alexander Armstrong. but
the Reorganization act which reduced the
number Of employees in the Attorney Cen
erals Office. Governor Richie asserted in
an address last week.
1t was only at Mr.. Armstrong; earnest
plea. he added. that one Of the places in
the Atiorney-General's department was
allowed 10 remain.
Governor r tchie's theme was failure Of
Mr.. Armstrong to prove any of his four
charges. namely. extravaganza Of the
Richie administration. politics in the
State Roads Commission. politics in the
school system and excessive taxes
Characterizine Mr.. Armstrong; attacks
as ''duds." the Governor declared they
might be considered out of the campaign
unless his opponent could bring forward
some good reason for revivine them.
In his speech the Governor said. in
part:
There are only few days in this cam
paien. and. so far. not single issue which
Mr.. Armstrong has advanced has held
water. As Attorney General he has been
part of the present administration for the
last four years. with the fullest opportu-
nifty Of knowing everything that was 60
ing on. He selected four points Of attack.
and every shell he threw at them proved
10 be 'dud' am referring to these four
points today in order to show that all OF
them now are out Of the campaign.
Mr.. Armstrong CHARGED extravaeance
and waste. His proof consisted only in
showing that the State has more employees
now than it had in 1920 and that it is
paying its employees more. ] showed that
this simply means progress. because the
State is doing more now than it ever did
before and there is not one activity Of the
State government which Mr.. Armstrong
is willing to say he would stop. and he
cannot show that a single one is costing
more than is reasonable. either in salaries
or expenses.
Il notice in Mr.. Armstrong; statement
last week that he had cut of three en-
ployes in his Office. The facts are that
Armstrong asked for an additional assist
ant in 1922 to take the place Of the two
tax-colIection attorneys. The Reotgani-
cation Commission recommended that one
Of his assistants and the two tax attor-
neys should be abolished. On Mr.. Arm
strone's earnest plea this assistant was
allowed to remain and only the tax attor-
neys were discontinued. That saved 81 900
in the running Of his department. but Mr.
Armstrong did not do it. The Reoreaniza-
ton act did it.
In 1921. the first year for which pre-
pared the budget. Mr.. Armstrong asked for
an increase of 20 per cent over what the
Law Department had cost the State in my
last year.
Il allowed it willingly, because ! had
confidence that Mr.. Armstrong would not
ask for il were it not necessary. 1t never
occurred to me. and does not now. to re-
gard this as extravaganza or waste. al
though Mr.. Armstrong has not one bit
more evidence than this to support his
charges Of extravaeance and waste against
other departments. When Mr.. Armstrong
criticizes increases in appropriations to
other departments he ought not to forget
the increases he asked for his own and
ought to be willing to concede that the
others may have been Just as necessary
as his were.
Mr.. Armstrong charged that the State
Roads Commission. under John N. Mackall.
was influenced by POLITICAL considerations
in making appointments. appropriations
and contracts. This is untrue and have
demanded publicly four times that he
produce one single instance in support Of
il. He has not even attempted to do so.
so there is nothing to conclude except that
there is nothing that he can produce. and
that he made the charge solely for cam
paisn purposes.