clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1874
Volume 211, Page 175   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

1874.] OF THE SENATE. 175

Any opposition to this movement—and almost every similar
work of improvement has been bitterly opposed—cannot be
regarded as other than narrow, illiberal and altogether selfish
—lacking in a becoming state pride and interest in a great
city's advancement.

At present the surrounding portions of Baltimore county
shares in many of the advantages enjoyed in the city, with-
out any corresponding return. Our Public School System,
costing the city annually sixteen dollars per capita, has, in
many instances, educated children of Baltimore county, at a
cost of four dollars per annum to the parent, and free of cost
to the county. Our Fire Department, maintained by the city
at an annual expense of a quarter of million of dollars, has
frequently rendered service in the same county. Our Police
Force, requiring an annual expenditure by the city of over a
half million dollars, is continually obliged to aid in preserv-
ing the peace in the county, sometimes at the additional cost
of life. These benefits should not be reaped by those exempt
from contributing to their maintenance. Again, our water
supply, already in great demand in the county, if generally
introduced, would have the effect of largely increasing the
value of suburban property. The introduction of gas also,
and the complete lighting of the suburban streets, is also a
most desirable feature of the proposed annexation.

Your memorialists would further state, that whatever goes
to improve and enhance the interests of Baltimore, must be
considered, viewing the subject in a practical and comprehen-
sive light, as being, of at least equal advantage to both coun-
ty and State; and that no petty dwarfing policy which per-
mits the advantages of the city to be secured by the county
without cost, should bo allowed to stand in the way of its
natural progress. Other cities have outstripped Baltimore,
chiefly because we have been hemmed in by a narrow policy,
which we pray the General Assembly now to obliterate, and
to carry out in its true intent the legend of the Great Seal of
our State—"Crescite et Multiplicamini." And your memo-
rialists will ever pray.

JOHN T. FORD,
JOSEPH S. HEUISLER,
JAMES BOND,
GEORGE U. PORTER,
CHARLES W. CHANCELLOR,
JAMES LOGAN, JR.,
M. J. OWENS,

First Branch.

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1874
Volume 211, Page 175   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives