The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1862-02-28
Tho Courts in York County.

Three years ago, after hard contest be-
tween the Legislature, between the parties 10
favor Of and those opposed to holding the
January Term of the Supreme Court ut Saco,
n law was passed authorizing that term OF
Court 10 be held ut Saco for three years. The
whole matter was thoroughly and ably dis
cussed before the members from York Coun-
Nv. as Committee, and before the Legisla.
ture. That term has been held in Saco 3
years, and we believe to the entire satisfac.
ton Of the people Of the County, and espec.
tally so to parties in Court. Persons in all
parts Of the county have always expressed
themselves strongly in favor Of one term at
Saco, as tending to dispatch business before
the Court, and enable parties to ehaye their
cases disposed OF ut much les, cost and in
much less time than they were ever able to do
while all the terms were holden ut Alired.-
Nearly all the gentlemen at Alfred who took
n prominent part in the question before the
Legislature three years ago, have expressed
TO the writer their entire satisfaction with the
arrangements Of the court rs 1t has been for
three years past, and have agreed that that
arrangement was by far better calculated to
secure speedy trials in cases before the courts,
with much less expense to the county and to
parties Elegant, than any that rs ever before
existed. They have always expressed their
entire willingness to allow the January Term
to be holden at Saco, and have always given
assurances that they would make no effort to
have that term 20 back to Alfred.
Relying upon the good faith Of those gen.
II hol.o,s,.. thak thn,r Hasi IVA N
do right, rather than to deceipe and misiead,
no especial effort has been made to secure Pc.
titions for the continuance Of that term at
Saco. The people have been and are satisfied
that the true interests Of the county demand
that the January Term should be holden at
Saco. and we doubt not that u large majority
Of the voters in the County would so decide
il called upon to determine that question:
Such being the facts in the case, we were
greatly surprised to-day, to see certain hand
bills which are in circulation in various parts
Of the county, and which we are assured were
prepared by gentlemen ut Alfred containing
the most gross and fraudulent misrepresenta-
tions as to the expense Of the January Term
OF Court ut Saco. These handbills are evil
IDENTIFY intended to mislead the people and
prejudice them against the arrangement Of
the terms rs they have lately existed. We
cannot Of course point out all the false state
menus and misrepresentation that are here
given to the public by this irresponsible sheet.
tho person has the hardihood to put his name
on the document and it is hence on the au-
thority Of "Nobody." Without time to ex-
anime the records at Alfred, which we have
not got, but We happen to have some facts
and figures relating to the more important
statements made by this ndneless imposter
which we will give, and challenge any man
to successfully contradict them.
On the "Handbill" the expenses Of the jan
uary Term 1860, at Saco, isstatedat S4,iS6 70
The actual expense was $3.50 50
"Handbills" error S6l5S
"Handbills" expense for Jan. Term 1861.
SO, l4l So
Actual expense, 2,79S 10
"Uandbills" error, s3l3 CT
For the Jan. Term 1862, "Handbill" sstinatss
the expense ut S3Ooo W
We estimate the expense Of that term has
ing our calculation upon the length Of the
term compared with former terms, and We
think our estimate correct, at $1,000 %.
"Handbills" error $500 90.
In these three items, then, the man who
hides himself behind this irresponsible hand
6iR misstates the cost Of the three terms at
Sico, by oyer-estimates and false amounts to
the amount Of Sl,359 81. The "Handbill"
also purports to give the cost OF the three
January Terms Of Court ut Alfred for the
wears 1857, '5S and so, and claims that those
three terms cost the county much less than
the last three terms ut Saco. We have not
before us the figures for those three terms,
but we remember very well that at neither
Of those January Terms at Alfred was the
Court in session hree-quarters the number OF
DAYS il has been at one term ut Saco, nor was
there one,half the number Of trials, ut any
two OF those Alfred Terms that there has
been at one term at Saco. II follows, rs q
matter of course, that IL moro business is
done ut Saco than at Alfred, the court must
be in session longer, and the longer the term
of court OF necessity the more expense, for
10 pay officers. jurors and the various incl
dental expenses attending the term Of court,
more money is required for SIR ,eeeks than for
ten days. But suppose that the last three
terms of court at Saco have cost more than
the three preceding terms cost at Alfred, 1t
by no means follows that the annual expense
of the court is more than when oil the terms
were at Alfred. Instead Of this being the
fact, we believe 1t to be true that the annual
cost of the court has been less BY something
like $500 since the January Term of the
court has been at Saco, than IL was during
some Of the preceding years when all the
terms werc holden at Alfred. This results
in part from the fact, that most OF the bust
ness before the court has been done ut Saco,
and hence the May and Sept. Terms at AL
fred have been short-comparatively, thus
reducing the annual cost OF the court, and
actually saving from $500 to $1,000 to the
tax payers Of the county. Such are the
hcts. and such is the "imposition," u,
.Handbill" terms it, OF holding the January
Term at Saco, viz: an annual sdring 81 al
lea,f $500. .,
Now one word ms to the various item:
which "Handbill' says have been paid by
reason of the courts ut Saco, which he has
mt into the rho!e ooa Of the January Tern
tor 1860, thus endeavoring to mislead by
stating the amount twice in different ways
and which he would have rs suppose would
NOT have been necessary at Alfred.
Before noticing any Of these items, how
ever, we wish to contradict entirely the state
uaent circulated in many parts OF the coun
~ that the county has paid for fitting up thu
Court Room, &C., at Saco, and that the town
Of ssco has paid nothing: Such a statsmen
is satrsly and utterly false frry So.d 70 Q