Democratic banner., 1851-02-10

PIoCeooIug 10 Sp0ak 70 SsMekiE4 0I&
measure, when he was remindsd Il
was on re-committiae. h
the hope that the bill would sot s.
o. committed.
MI. Sims was in favor Of the yepest. e
addressed the House In advocscIoft
as amended.
Mr.. Sanders replied, aad contsndsal
the amendments proposed would give n
advantages to the rich and strong oysr
poor and d~sfeneslees.
mot having the law before ~ atths. tsSs
We were not able to understand the pref
points assumed BY the different speaks,s
and hence the brevity Of the report hsfe.l
Mr.. Devol said be had . goodeslofsx
.psrience under the Law d it steod5and be
was satisfied that the proposed ~snssazsns
was wrong, and be hoped it would aot b4
to.
Mr.. Stevenson said that the 18th section
of the present law should NOT be repealed.
would open the treasury to be ~plundsssd,
and the amount of costs to be paid annuai
would swell imneasurably beyond the pref.
snt sum. As a question Of dollars and ceuts,
he was bound 10 oppose the repeal of the
llth section Of the Law, and be thought, on
proper examination, this House would not
to the proposed change.
Mr.. Roussin spoke zeslously in favor Of
the repeal of the 18th section. He had been
subjected to losses under the existing Law;
he knew Of many others who had been sub
to greater losses than himself. Her
with the gentlemen from Warren,
MI. Sanders, } that the poor accused should
have equal advantages Of the rich and in.
auential. To this end, he desired a change
Of the present law.
MI. King made some remarksf @
Mr.. Crockett did not wholly agree With
The speakers on either side. He was in ,fa-f
vor Of recommi!ting the bill to the commit
lee with instruction to report bill amend.
the llth section so as to allow half fsea
to officers where there should be Q eonvic.
ton. As to the repeal ofthe 18th section,
he would ask that st. Louis county should
be exemgted from the effect Of such repssLd
The present fees Of the Clerks Of st. Louis
county were most ample, and whilst he vas
always 10 make the pay Of officers
and liberal, he was opposed to ma
King it unnecessarily e~xtravagant.
MIR. Doherty withdrew his molten to dis
,gree, when Mr.. Crockett moved 10 ~
commit the bill to the committee with in
Before the motion wal put, the House ad-
burned.
EVENING SESSION.
The question being on recommitting the
ill to ammend the law regulating costs
criminal cases to the com. on Criminal
Jurisprudence.
Mr.. Campbell was opposed to the recon-
The bill as amended BY the COM
was as perfect as they could make
The repeal or the modification Of the
lth section would cause either the State
r counties to incur heavy expenses in the
hape Of costs, and be would. consider any
hange Of that section exceedingly injurious.
lie was opposed to exempting St. Louis or
ny other county from the operation of the
.eneral law affected by the bill, in as much
8 he thought all special Legislation wrong
o principle.
For the information Of the reader, We
tate that the 18th section referred to, pro-
ides that in all cases Of conviction, no
Osts shall be collected save fees for board.
The 18th section provides, that when the
tate or county shall become liable for the
0sts, the fees Of the clerk and various o.
her officers shall be curtailed fifty per ce ut.
original bill before the House repeal
d both sections;-the report Of the com
recommended the repeal Of the 18th
ection only.1
The motion Of Mr.. Crockett wal finally
aid on the table.
The bill then being on its third reading,
Mr.. Crockett moved to amend, so as to ex.
mpt St. Louis county from it's operation.
Mr.. Hunter moved also to exempt Scott
Mr.. Smith, of St. Louis, opposed the q.
nendment Of his colleague. He thoughts
would work an unjust discrimination against
dficers in St. Louis county. In that coun.
y the various Offices were divided among
individuals, whilst in many other
arge counties in the State several Offices
we're held by the same person, and the fsn
{ the latter were in many instances much
per annum than the former. De
al m douhf that manv If the ST. I,oues