Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-05-18
POLITICAL RIVALRY
SEEN IN ROAD FIGHT
Montgomery Highway Debt
Episode Claimed a Cam
paign Move.

i A skirrnish has been fought In two
man battle for power in Maryland
State politics.
That is the view generally expressed
of events preceding and following the
payment last Tuesday of Montgomery
County's recently discovered debt OF
half a million dollars to the State
Roads Commission and the publicity
which accompanied the payment.
Principals in Battle.
The principals in the battle. as the
political observers have it, are Maj
z. Brooke Lee of Montgomery County
and Howard Bruce of Baltimore.
Mai. Lee is the recognized Demo
cratic leader in Montgomery and has
been Speaker of the House of Delegates
State controller and chairman of Gov.
Ritchie's 1880 Campaign Committee
and now is a member Of the State
Roads Commission.
Mr.. Bruce, a member Of the out
going State Roads Commission, is
national Democratic committeeman fol-
Maryland and is reputed to possess
wealth and political influence.
Each is known to be politically anlbi-
tiouS and it Is said successful culn1i-
nation of the aspirations of enc would
amount to Illustration of the hopes OF
the other.
Consequently the friction which de-
veloped over the matter Of the payment
of Montgomery County's road debt to
the State Roads Commission commonly
is looked upon as a. clash between these
two men. with Mr. Bruce attempting to
place Montgomery County with the
administration of which Mai Lee is
identified, in the position of being un-
able to meet its obligations.
Auditor Told to Collect.
As justification of this belief, It is
cited that the outgoing State Roads
Commission, of which Mr.. Bruce was
supposed to be the dominant member
took no action on the request of the
Montgomery County commissioners
that the county's 1881 State road con-
struction allotment of $232,000 be
credited against its debt of $50, 623.42,
while such allowances were made in
the cases of 13 other counties. The
old commission, at its last meeting, also
directed its auditor, William A. Codd.
to collect the entire debt within 10
days or turn 1t over to the attorney
general.
It was not until the first meeting of
the new commission, with Maj. Lee as
a member. that decision was reached
to allow Montgomery County to credit
its 1881 State road funds ALLEGATION
against its debt.
The largest portion of this debt was
not known to exist until January, 1881,
according to the April minutes of the
roads body. The amount in question
was SITS, 642.72 and covered construc-
ton overcharges from 1925 through
1928. The remainder Of the sum was
the unpaid balance due for roads built
during 1929 and 1880 and approximated
S225, 600. The county commissioners
knew of the 1e29-30 debt and had funds
on hand from the 1929 road construc-
ton bond issue to settle this account.
Would Have Had No Funds.
II the new commission had not re-
Versed the action of the old roads body
and allowed the credit of the 1881
ALLEGATION of State funds to the county,
however, Montgomery would have been
face to face with a debt of more than
a quarter of a million dollars and would
have had no funds to pay it.
This is one side of the tangle. On
the other is the explanation given Mai.
Lee yesterday by Mr.. Bruce and Mr..
Codd in defense Of the action of the
old commission. They said that Mont
gonery County was not credited with
its 1881 State road construction funds
because It furnished no letters Of guar
antee such as we're given the commits
sion by the Is other counties indebted
to the State.
The reason for the rivalry between
Mr.. Bruce and Maj. Lee is reported to
lie IN the two tickets that are con-