Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-01-29
s 1865 Al

Mr. Il. observed that he would now bring
before the Senate some information as TO the
amount of the fines collected, and the expense
of the collection.
.Netc Hampshire collected three fines, slso.
Expense ofcollection, s235 38.
-VeW Jersey never collected any money for
fines.
INt'0 York collected s15,794 81, and the ex-
pense was the same.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Smith, late Marshal,
without stating what he had received, says he
has paid S2,742 Sd more than he received
John Conard, the present Marshal, has col
lected IS GIL 80, and paid, in expense of col
lection, So $50 Sc.
observation-disclosures Rutter, the late Mar
shall, states that he commenced suits, but
found great difficulty in collecting the fines
some went to jail-others brought suit after
payment-he had received but three fines.
which he would pay over if he were not called
upon to refund them. The present Marshal
never received any.
TTg1nia-The collection of the fines in
Virginia appears to have been arrested by
the decision of Chief Justice Marshal in the
case of VIM. Meade Meade was detained
In custody for the non-payment of Militia fine.
The obligation of the sentence of the cour,
martial was denied on three grounds. 1. The
court martial was not constituted under the
authority of the United States. Q. The pro-
ceedngs were not conducted as the state laws d.
rect. 8. The fine was assessed without notice
to the individual The Chief Justice, without
deciding the first point, las understand him.
declared the sentence void on account of the
two last.
Ohio.-The business was performed by the
state officers. No fines were collected by the
Marshal, and the District Attorney gave it as
his opinion that il was impracticable to collect
them.
East Iennessee.--SI70q rs was collected
but the Supreme Court of Tennessee decided
that the courts martial had not power to as
sess the fines.
Hest Tennessee Judge of the District
Court decided the proceedings of the courts
martial illegal
Itappears, from letter Of the Register oil
the Treasury, that, from the state of New
York, 1857 go has been paid into the treasury
which is the whole amount received.
In the state OF Pennsylvania, said Mr.. l.. the
| collection OF these fines has long been sub
Ject OF much interest. The courts martial
were constituted under the authority of ar
act OF the legislature. Objections were made
to their jurisdiction, and not until the Su.
Preme Court ofthe United States passed up
| 49, 10y "eo NiiN HuCotOi hhdlil Sttlltu
The case sent up for adjudication was the fol
lowing: Moore, the Deputy Marshal of Ian
caster county, Pa. collected fine from Hous-
ton, delinquent miitiaman, who, after the
hne was collected, brought suits agains
Moore, in the court of common pleas. Hi.
objection was, that part Of the state law wa,
unconstitutional The court sustained the OBJ
Jecuon, aud Judgment was rendered agains
the deputy marshal. A writ of error was i'm
metilately taken to the Supreme Court Of tho
state This decision Of the Court of Com
mon Pleas raisad very considerable excite
lnent 10 the public mind. Ofwhat use, il wa,
asked, are our laws--of what use is patrio
tIsm, if those who disobey the law are pro
tected, aud those who left their homes, 70
the defence of their country, are to he sub
!Jected to fines, and penalties, and stigmatize,
as trespassers The legislature, then in ses
sion, participated largely in these feelings
Petitions were presented, Sum the depuf,
marshals and the members of the court
martial, praying the interference and proiec
non Of the representatives Of the people,.