The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1846-04-23
BRANDON, Thursday April 23, 1916.

force, as will be seen by reference to Sc
10Th, Chap. S4th, r. S. Also 5:h an
7th Sections of Chap. l05, and 10th an
l7th Sections Of the same Statute. Tn
practice, since the passage of the act @
1912. has been, in virtue of powe.
derived from these acts, for the court
TO audit and allow those accounts. Tn,
object in these quasi-re'enactments doubt
less was 10 secure to the Clerks the pow.
er 10 substitute court orders for cash pay
ments.
AS an instance of The repeating of law;
already repealed, we cite the 5!h, 9th and
9Th divisions Of Section 63d of Chap, ll,f
Of r. S, all of which were formally re-
pealed by the act Of Nov. 18th, 1872
AS an instance Of art and tact in framing
the bill, We refer to the last nine word;
in the Sd Sec. Of that act, which are as
follows :-"including the maintenance o
Safes prisoners and States paupers."-
These las; nine words effectually subvert
the whole law on the subject of the allow
ance of accounts for the maintenance Of
States paupers, which has stood on ouT
statute book since 1897. These words
are appended to the Sd section, which pur.
ports to give, as a new grant, to the courts,
a power which they already had. The
former part Of the section, was made 10
form a kind of breast work or van. guard,
under whose cover, that provision was RI
loted into being. Ii this provision is per-
milted to remain, it will introduce discrep-
modes of construction, various rates Of
allowance, and new items Of charge, to-
gelher with a specified fee for every order
drawn; whereas by the law hitherto in
force for more than 40 years, moth
ing has been paid for drawing such or
ders, and all practice under the law has
been uniform. We presume that the fra
mers OF the act of 1915 considered its de-
tails, and adapted them to secure the OBJ,
jects they had in view;-and a principal
doubtless was TO secure the pecuni.
airy interest Of the clerks, and that inter-
was advanced in the passage under
consideration.
An instance il the loose and indefinite
character of the act will be seen in the
following clause in Sec. 10, which pro-
vides, "Ihat if a clerk shall neglect to pay
money, &C., the States Attorney
shall be notified by the proper oGcer."-
Who is this this proper officer, the treas
urer, or auditor, or neither? Why is
This left Indefinite Why is the law left
thus vague, when a clerk is to be called
10 account? Ii it were designed that the
treasurer should notify the States Attorn-
ey to a prosecution on a clerks
official bond, why not say so2 The same
may be said OF the auditor or any olheI
proper officer. No one would wish tc
commence such proceedings against E
clerk, unless the law fastened that duty
upon him. Il permits an officer to say
that he is not the proper officer, and tina
The duty belongs to some n else, while
the delinquent will escape between both
BY the acl OF 1921. clerks were 10 re
ceive'for entering each judgment in thu
Supreme court, rs cts, "includiug record
ing the same,' and in the County cour
for entering each judgment on trial, "ioclu
ding recording the same, 40 cts. Ii
the Revised Statutes, the fees are the sam,
but The words, "including recording III
same" are omitted. This has given oc
cas,on to the clerks to charge for record
ing judgments; and sums varying from
SO CTS. to 50 90 and perhaps more, hav
been charged for that service, all whic|
would have been prevented by retainin;
the words, 'including recording the same
This is introduced here to show the impor
lance OF even Il few words, in the cons:ru
ton and effect of a statute. The question
arises, was this innovation in the fee bill
10 favor ofclerks, the effect of accident o
design? Doubtless the latter, for we ar
not to suppose that the committee Of re
vision, three OF whom were or had bee
clerks OF courts, did not understand tn
operation of such an omission as "includ
ing recording The same" So in the act
l945, we think ii quite apparent, that III