Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-11-02

OuI mOIc JIldIl year Va
operation, he claims to have
given no attention to any
such matters. Such manage
ment Of q project involving
the expenditure of nearly
100000 is inexcusably care
less, whether in public or
private business.
Even now, Mr.. Magruder
seems to feel that the respon-
sibility he failed to assume.
the supervision he failed to
give and the basic records
he allowed to disappear are
in no way irregular. In my
opinion, many voters in the
coming election will regard
such laxity as an undesirable
characteristic in one who
seeks public office.
Ivan A. Booker.
The people of Arlington
deeply appreciate your in
terest in bringing to light the
true facts concerning the
political smear, by ABC's Mr..
Raul, against Mr.. Magruder,
AIM candidate for the Coun-
ty Board. Your editorial,
"Magruder Cleared Just
goes to prove that people in
glass houses shouldn't throw
stones" Mr.. Brown, the
ABC candidate, will suffer
the consequences.
Arlington Voter.
4 y 4
I should like to comment
on the sorry performance put
on by the Arlington County
Board on Monday of this
week. 1t is a shocking thing
to ones sense of justice and
fair play for three members
of the board to announce on
Saturday their decision, be-
fore they had heard the evil
dence. Mrs. Buchholz's re-
mark that she wanted an in
vestigation Ito clear Mr.. Ma
gruder" is very revealing Of
her closed mind on the sub
ject. It is perfectly clear that
no matter what the facts dis
closed, she, DR.. Blevins and
Mr.. Cooper would still have
voted to clear Mr.. Magruder.
AS a conservative and one
who supported Mrs. Buchholz
and DR.. Blevins. 1 am pro-
foundry shocked at this rev.
citation Of their narrownesS.
I could not, in good faith,
support either of them again.
Mrs. F. H. Smith.
$3.50
Your editorial on the 80
vote of the Arlington County
Board in clearing Arlington
Independent Movement can
didate j. Maynard Magruder
of charges of wrongdoing"
concludes that the questions
raised were "regrettable."
1t appears to me that there
are certain extremely re
grettable" aspects of this
matter which were not adj
equately recognized in your
conclusion.
In the first place, the
recent reassessment presided
over by Mr.. Magruder cost us
taxpayers in Arlington Coun-
ty $97,745. This compares
with only $46,823 for the last
previous reassessment. Mr..
Magruder received $14,115
for his service on the General
Reassessment Board, and his
fellow AIM leader, Fred
Gosnell, jr., received $44,075.
The highest sum paid to any
single member Of the pre-
vious General Reassessment
Board was $6.637.
Quite apart from any ques-
ton of "wrongdoing" or
County Board candidacy. it
seems to me. as an Arlington.
taxpayer, that l am entitled
to some explanation for this
increase in excess of 100 per
cent in the costs of the re-
assessment.
The questions raised by
Board Member Raul and the
answers to them by Mr.. Ma
gruder seem to hinge upon an
Interpretation Of per diem"
Mr.. Raul understood that $40
per diem limited payments
to individual members of the
General Reassessment Board
to $40 for any single day.
while Mr.. Magruder replied
that this was translated into
SIS per hour. including hours
in excess of eight per day.
The question which / do not
find a clear answer for is who
authorized making hourly
rather than daily payments.
Two other definitely "re-
grettable" matters alluded to
in your editorial were that
some Of the records Of pay
ments made have disap-
peared' and the charge that
minors were employed with
out work permits. While
your conclusion that Mr..
Msgruder wa not person.