Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1846-04-30
TO THE TAX.PAYlNG COMMUNITY IN
VERMONT.
No VII


peals Others already repealed. In another case,
peculiar art and tact is manifested, by the insertion
OF n lew comparatively unlmporant words, The
effect which will be to subvert the law and usages
under it which have continued more than 40 years.
AS an instance of the first we refer to Sec. 3D. Of
that act, which provides that the Judges of the
several courts shall audit and allow the accounts
of the Sheriff, States Attorney and Clerk" and
that the "county courts audit and allow all ac-
counts, arising out of inquess Of the dead and
criminal offences" These provisions are but the
re-cnactments of laws already in force, as will be
seen by reference 10 Sec. 10TH Chap. S4th, r. S.
Also 9th and 9TH Secs. Of Chap lO5th, and 10Th
and l7lh Secs. of the same Statute. The practice,
since the passage of the act of 1872 has been, in
virtue Of power derived from these acts, for the
courts to audit and allow those accounts The
object in these q,nSi-rc enOctmcnts doubtless
to secure to the Clerks the power to substitute court
orders for cash payments
As an instance Of the repeating Of laws already
repealed, We cite the 9Th, 9Th and 9Th divisions Of
Sec. 63d Of Chap. lth Of r. y, all Of which were
formally repealed by the act Of Nov l2,h, 1872
AS an instance of art and tact in framing the bill,
we refer to the nine last words in the 81 Sec of
that act, which are as follows -" including the
maintenance of States prisoners and States pau.
pers" These last nine words ei1cctuaTy subyert
the whole law on the subject Of the allowance of
accounts for The maintenance Of States prisoners
and States paupers, which has stood on our statute
book since 1907. These words are appended
10 the Sd section which purports TO give, as new
grant, TO the courts, a power which they already
had The former part of the section, was made to
form n kind of breast work or vanguard, under
whose cover that provision was plloted into being.
II tins provision is permitted to remain, it will in
troducc discrcpant modes Of construction, various
rates of allowance, and new items Of charge, to-
gether with n specified fee for every order drawn
whereas by the law hitherto in force for more than
10 years, nothing has been paid for drawing such
ORDERS and all practice under the law has been IL
inform. We presume that the trainers Of the act
of 1915 considered its details, and adapted them
to secure the objects they had in w;-and
principal object doubtless was to secure the pecu-
mary interest of the clerks and that interest was
advanced in the passage under consideration.
An instance of the loose and indefinite character
of the act will be seen in the following clause in
Sec. 10, which provides, 8" that If clerk shall neg
ect to pay over money, &C., the States Attorney
shall be notified by the proper Q0iccr." Who is this
proper officer the treasurer, auditor or neither
Why is this left indefinite? Why is the law left
thus vague, when a clerk is to be called to account?
If it were designed that the treasurer should notify
the States Attorney TO commence a prosecution
on a clerks official bond, why not say so =? The
same may be said of the auditor any other prom
or officer No one would wish to commence such
proceedings against clerk, unless the law fasten-
he is not the proper officer, and that the duty be-
longs to some one else, while the delinquent will
escape between both.
BY the act of 1921, clerks were TO receive for
entering each judgment in the Supreme court, Is
cents "including recording the same" and in the
County court for entering each judgment on trial,
" including recording the same" 40 cts In the
Revised Statutes, the fees are the same but the
words, including recording the samo," are omit
ted. This has given occasion to the clerks to
charge for recording judgments; and sums varying
from so cts. to $500 and perhaps MORE have been
charged for that service, all which would have been
prevented by retaining the words, including re-
cording the same" This is introduced here TO show
the importance of even few words, in the con-
st.uction and effect of statute. The question ar
ses, this innovation in the fee bill in favor of
clerks, the effect OF accident design? Doubtless
the latter for we are not to suppose that the com.
mttee OF revision, three of whom were or had been
clerks of courts, did not understand the operation
of such an omission "including recording the
same" So in the act Of 1915, we think it quite
apparent that the purpose to egislate for the
benefit of a particular class of officers and it is
reasonable to believe that policy would induce the
trainers of that bill to make little display of that
purpose as practible, Had bill been proposed to
the Legislature to substitute court orders for cash
payments, on all contingent expenses of courts
there would have been little fear of passing such
law. Still the same thing is effected, by manage
ment and lndisectlon, all claims for incidental
expenses of courts, with the exception of Jurors
and witnesses debentures Had law been pro-
posed 10 give to ID different tribunals the power to
settle all jailors accounts for boarding and sup
porting States prisoners and States paupers in the
State, instead Of continuing the law, which gave
jurisdiction to one board in all these cases, there
would have been little fear, that such law could
have passed. and yet this important innovation has
been accomplished by nine short words added to
to the Sd section Of that act
Had the law been proposed TO the Legislature to
allow all clerks OF courts to present their accounts
to any one judge or chancellor in the State, and
that they might appoint "any other person to set
tie those accounts" and that any Judge or chan
cellor might Immediately draw an order for the
sum, which such "any other person" should allow
without The possibility of any supervision or cor
rection of errors, such n law would not have been
passed y still the law of 1915 has accomplished
all this
The 9Th Sec. of the act of 1912 provides for
drawing from the Treasury, by clerk. "as much
as he finds necessary" TO pay jurors, &c, bu. it
does not require the clerk pay in money, whereas
the section of the act repealed required the pay
ment to be in money Suppose the clerk to have
drawn less sum than required could he not sup
ply the deficiency by drawing orders on the State
Treasury? and if So could he no; advance cash
upon such order? We think so, and believe that
the last clause in the 9th section was inserted to
meet just such case. 1t is in the following words,
Wis "and if any balance is due the clerk thereon,
the treasurer shall Immediately pay the same
This is confirmed by the last clause of Sec. 9Th
taking their receipt for the samc,"-that is, the
receipts Of the jurors and Witnesses This receipt
may be endorsed on the book Of the State order, as
well as in any otherform If this practice may be
resorted to for paying portion Of those claims, it
may also for ALL and thus the whole system of cash
payments will give place TO flood Of court orders,
with all the evils existing in our finances, before
1912, including the practice of shaving those or
ders by sharpers as heretofore. If our consruc-
ton of the Sh and OH section of the act be correct
If the nconcusive, indefinite phraseology Of
these sections t0H admit of such Practice we say,
that any clerk, in funds, may draw orders for all
the expenses Of the courts and charge u cents
for each order, and if by possibility he be disposed
to make money, he may advance upon these orders,
at such discount he shall think right and the
parties shall agree, and IN the mean time the trea