Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1820-01-24

COSTS, Allowing an appear lIolH tHc ucIIoioh'
of said Justices to, the Circul curt, and tfi-
al by jury.
Inoffering these resolutions to the conside-
ration of the House, Mr., Arc er asked leave
to offer few words of explanation. His at
tention had been called to he objectof the
first resolution, by the report of the Secreta-
ry of the Treasury. made in conformity with
| resolution adopted some days since by the
House, calling for information as TO the sums
expended for holding Courts within the Dis
trict of Columbia, since the assumption OF
] Jurisdiction by Congress over it. by this
report it appeared that there had been PAD
out of the Treasury during period OF nine
teen wears. the sum of $4,000 dollars that
during the last six years, these expenses had
! been annually increasing, greater sum be-
ing paid last year than at any former period.
| The report stated the sum paid for the year
| 1919, to be 33 900 dollars /; these sums were
applied to the payment of Jurors and wit
nesses attending the courts on criminal pro.
secutons, in cases where the United States
fail in the prosecution. Before the cession
F., of the District of Columbia to the General
Government by the states Of Maryland and
Virginia, these expenses, Mr. A. said, were
levied on the property of the counties, and
paid out of the County Treasury. No part
of them was ever betrayed out Of the Trea-
sury of the states and no reason could be
assigned why we should defray the expenses
arising from the administration Of justice IN
this District, that would not equally operate
in favor of the same policy towards the most
distant county in the United States. 1t was
true. that as far as regarded suits which were
of such character as would be cognlzable
before any District or other Circuit Court of
the United States, it would be proper that
the United States should bear the expenses
incide ntal to their adjudication in the courts
and lie did not propose, in that respect. by
the resolution 10 make difference between
this district and other Judicial Districts of
the United States.
With regard to the second resolution, Nr.
A said his object was to reduce the tees OF
the Clerks of the Circuit Courts of the Dis
trict. He had been informed, and he did
not doubt the correctness Of his information,
that the number of suits instituted TO a term
varied from 500 to 1900, in the Circuit Court
for Washington county, and that the tees
were extravagantIy high, being the same by
law as those in the District Court of Mary
ryland the fees in that court, by the act OF
1899, were to be the same as in the high
esl court of Mary land, and after being taxed
thus high, the clerk has the privilege, by
an act of Congress, of adding one third to
the amount. In addition TO all this, said
Mr. A. he is to have compensation tor his
attendance on the courts, of FIVE dollars per
day. Mr. A. presumed this per diem had
originally been allowed upon the presump-
ton that the number Of suits instituted in the
courts would be so small that the fees would
not enable the courts to procure clerks OF
capacity, and therefore it was deemed ne
cessary to give this allowance. The daily
compensation allowed to the Marshal and
District Attorney, Mr.. A. thought, rested
upon no better grounds. Their fees were
considerable, and their Offices profitable, and
he did not hesitate 10 say, that the office OF
clerk Of the circuit court of Washington co,
was, as at present organized. one OF the most
lucrative offices in the United States. de
believed that, considering the amount OF
fees as authorised by law to be taxed, the
administration of justice in this district was
more expensive than in any portion of the
u. States.
With regard to the third resolution, Mr..
A. observed. that in the states of Massachu-
sets, Rhode Island, Connecticut, She south
en district OF N. York, and Pennsylvania,
the officers of the court named in the resou-
ton received ne daily compensation. He
presumed the reason for this variance in our
laws was, that in these states it was suppo-
sed that the business of the court would fur
nish sufficient compensation for the officers,
w thout payment OF any sum TO them on
the part of the government. He believed
that there were several other states in the
Union in which these compensatonS were
A. 70 tl,o oE6 corc ,xharo the prorte Of of-