The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1939-01-19
CLARIFYING THE ISSUE

The Republican, in it's news stories
of the past three weeks, has pictured
the situation in regard to the Com
missioners' purchase of road machin-
cry, not only from the Commissioners
side of the picture, but from the side
of the taxpayers who oppose the
move. We gave the facts as the facts
were disclosed.
1t has attempted to bring to light
through editorial opinion the motives
behind some of the men in the contro-
yersy.
1t believes the people are entitled to
know the facts, and in pursuance Of
this policy, it had a representative at
the meeting last week with the Com
missioners and the taxpayers COM
mittee. Last weeks story contained
those facts as brought out in the
meeting.
An account of the same meeting ap-
pearing in the Mountain Democrat did
not coincide with the facts in three in
stances. Whether this was deliberate
on their part or deliberate on the part
of the person from whom they OBJ
tanned the information, we do not
know. We do know that there was 10
representative of that paper at the
committee meeting, and on the surface
4Ln IF lyS
like more political schemes to dis
credit the Republican Commissioners.
The Democrat stated, "The Commits
sioners stated that they did not co1-
template levying anything this year
to cover the payments due under the
contracts but it was not made clear
just how they proposed to meet the
payments"
The Republican definitely stated
what was brought out in the meeting,
that money to pay for the machinery
was to come from back taxes against
which there were no orders drawn,
and from the credit the WPA would
allow them for use of the machinery"
Whether the Commissioners can do
this or not is not the question for the
moment. They definitely and distinct
iy said this was how they expected to
pay for the machinery. Misrepresenta
ton No. in the Democrat,
Misrepresentation No. 2.-The
Democrat stated "The Commissioners
Informed the Committee that the local
agent representing the concern from
whom they had purchased the machin-
cry was Mr.. Ernest Selby, of%Selbys-
port, and that the purchase had been
made through him as agent"
Actually what was said and what
the committee heard was that the
Commissioners said Ernest Selby was
the salesman, but that the machinery
was purchased direct and any, commits
sions that might be paid Selby would
result from agreements between the
Company and Selby, not the County
Commissioners. This statement was
made in The Republican last week.
A lot of trouble being stirred up in
the Friendsville section seems to be
about this very item, and not about the
improvement of roads or the increase
of taxes.
Allegedly libelous statements con-
corning "divvies" and Commission"
were uttered in the meeting on De-
cember 81, about which there has been
absolutely no proof, but which, con-
tinue to persist. Until they can be
proven, no person who is after facts
should allow such whispering, charges
to sway him from the real question.
The question after all is one Of
opinion on the soundness of the plan
of the Commissioners. If they can
work it out satisfactorily and provide
more roads, they will be praised. If
they fail, they will be condemned for
their policy from one end of the county
to the other. III .,.
Whether they can satisfy the peo-
pie is question we are not prepared
to answer. At least they have the
strength Of their convictions and they
were elected for four years by sub
stantial majority to run the affairs of
the county.
How many of those so bitterly OPP
posed to the plan voted for these three
Commissioners in the general election
or ever favored their actions?