Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-03-23
law had been injurious, and the alterations

law had been injurious, and the alterations
, now proposed were required
| Mr.. Knox opposed the bill at some length.
Ofah the classes who were under the care of
the Legislature, the agricultural portion was
! least protected. The farmers of the coun-
TRY felt the burthens now proposed. The
/ Clerks had taken their Offices with know
ledge of the rates of the fees, and now they
come forward and ask an increase. TWAS
said that, at the reduced rates, the small
| counties could not keep their clerks Yet
there were even IN those counties numerous
applicants for the Office. The smalt counties
were not entitled TO levy heavy tax on the
whole Commonwealth, in order TO sustain the
salaries of their clerks
Mr.. Campbell Of Brooke controverted the
statement that the fees of this bill were as
high as those in 1919. They were as low us
they possibly could be 10 bring them above
the law of last year. He had examined the
former rates OF fees, and declared that the
fees by this bill were about half way between
those by the law of 1919 and those OF last
year. He hoped this bill would pass, and
enable the medium counties TO obtain proper
persons TO perform the duties of this impor-
taut Office.
MIR. Fitzhugh reprobated the statement
that the fees in this bill were higher than I'M
der the law of 1919, by gentlemen who had
not examined the facts. 1t was impossible
that there could be an entire uniformity,
from the various extent and circumstances of
the different counties. A man of talents
was required for the office; and such an one
could not be obtained unless he were well
paid. The fee bills in Ohio and Pennsylya-
mia were much higher than in this State !;
and ~ ha L. =.
ed, competent men would not take the Of
fee.
Mr.. Morris made few remarks in favor
of the bill
Mr.. Williams had expressed it as his o.
pinion, that the fees proposed by this bill
were higher than those by the law of 1919 ::
he repeated that opinion again. AS to the
fees in Pennsylvania, he knew them TO be
lower than in Virginia.
Mr.. Fitzhugh had only intended to eXA
press an opinion contrary 10 that of the gen.
tleman; not to censure him from thinking as
he did. He had not been in error in his
statement as 10 the fee bill in PENNSYLVANIA,
as his information was obtained from six
years practice of the law in that State.
The question being then put, on the pass
age of the bill, and the Ayes and Noes hav-
ing been ordered, on motion of Mr.. Cad-
well, it was decided in the affirmative, as
follows
4Ayes-Messrs Banks, (Speaker), Ran
dolph, Booker, Garland, M'Cue, Brooke,
Cameron, Faulkner, Anderson of b., Camp
bell of Brooke, Gholson, Smell, Patterson of
b., Daniel, jr. Patterson of c., Wilson of C,
Brodnax, Jones, Richie, Ball, Marshall,
Stephenson, Bryce Off Smith of f. Bryce
jr. of g., Erskine, Spencer, Carskadon,
Roane, Shield, Gallaher, Berry, Summers,
Harwood, Good, Carter of L., and r., AL
len, M'Ilhaney, Cordell, Hudgins, Preston,
Cabell, Chandler, Leigh, Harvey, Fitzhugh,
Parriott, Gililand, Miller, linn, Dupuy,
Stands, Carter of p. W., Moore, Carson,
Cobb, Powell, Crump, Hargrave, Newton,
Morris, King, Brown, Rulheriord-65.
Nays-Messrs. Grinalds, Drummond,
Persinger, Wilson of b., spurlock, Rives,
Dickinson, Pendleton, Broadus, Chiffon,
Stillman, Helms, Hale of f., w GODS. Hail
of G., Bruce, Sims, Poston, Mullen, Will
Jams, Johnston, Gravely, Jordan Hays, Law
son, Caldwell, Street, Smith of NJ and J..
Goode, Knox, Vawter, Webb, Adams, Hi
ner, Whcher, Swanson, Hart, M'Dowell.
Nj Mahon, Cline, Jesse, Kilgore, Bare, Gil
lespie, M'Coy-45.