Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

November 24, 1998

Why not test all?

To the editor:

I drive a 1994 Oldsmobile that has had to be emission-tested in 1996 and 1998. It passed both times.

As I drive around Hagerstown and Washington County I am often met by large trucks emitting their pollution everywhere. It is my understanding only certain vehicles need to be emission-tested, while others, like large trucks, are exempt from the test.

How can this program be successful if all vehicles on the road are not tested?

Seems as though the State of Maryland has found yet another way to tax its residents.

I'm not against emission testing, but let's be fair and do it for every vehicle on the highway so we can all breathe easier.

Dee Smith

Hagerstown

Let's hope the law will change

Advertisement

To the editor:

Times change. Policemen and the law, too.

In April or May, 1956, maybe 1957, I was new on the Buffalo, N.Y., police force, with two or three years of service. No more than that. I worked in the 5th precinct in the old West Delevan Station.

The lieutenant commanding our platoon assigned me to a stakeout on Chenango Street on the west side of Buffalo. There was a two-story building with several apartments that women would enter and close the door behind them. Usually that happened once or twice during a tour of duty.

A woman inside one of the apartments was a registered nurse who performed abortions. Her husband assisted. He was a Buffalo, N.Y. police officer. They were caught, and the killing ended.

In those days it was illegal, a major felony. You could face hard time - up to 20 years.

The policeman was given a choice - either resign or be charged and tried. He opted for the easy way out, leaving quietly. He and his wife were free.

The disturbing and haunting memory of what happened a long time ago inside a dilapidated building on Chenango Street is coincidental, whether it be in a modern up-to-date abortion clinic in Buffalo or any place else. People walk away free, no guilt or conscience, a life destroyed.

Today, I can't speak for everyone, but it's still very difficult to accept, destroying innocent life. Hopefully, time will change the law and like before, the killing will end.

Theodore A. Schendel

Hedgesville, W.Va.

Surgery should happen early on

To the editor:

I am writing in response to the article entitled, "SPCA's policy makes no sense" in the Oct. 4, Herald-Mail. I completely sympathize with bringing home animals from the SPCA. When I was in the second grade my father brought home a dog from the SPCA and she had already been spayed, but still it took her awhile to get used to her new surroundings and family.

I could not imagine if my father had brought home an animal that had just gone through surgery. The dog wouldn't want to move after surgery, let alone go to a new home and family. I know how my father was when he went through surgery and I would not want someone I had never met before coming to live with me after they had just gone through surgery.

During the first few day that my dog met us, she was shy and timid. I would not want to add sore and afraid to this combination, because that may have forced her to do something that she may not have normally done.

I think that the pet being spayed or neutered should be done when the animal first arrives at the SPCA and then given a few days to recuperate before they are put in the open to be adopted, rather than being sent immediately to their new home after surgery.

Kendra D. Cornell

Sharpsburg

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|