The Smoky Hill and Republican union. [volume] (Junction City, Kan.) 1861-1864, 1863-04-18

stop grumbling about high taxes. or stop leaks
Now, taxpayers. the whole thing amounts
to this: The question of whether it 10 policy
to have but one term of District Court year,
instead Of two. agitated here last winter. 10 new
being re-agitsted, and although last winter it
was in q SMALL DECREE to my own peeuniary ad-
vantage to have two terms q year, it is not 90
now any more than it is to any other taxpayer
in Davis county, and such being the case deem
it pardonable in me to express my views OF it.
And it is perhaps as we'll that it has been again
brought to our notice thus early; for being al
question that interests rs oil, We should ell
inquire into it. and try and arrive at facts. and
if one term Of Court year is all that is needed
by US, and will cost us less, then by all means
let US have but one term and in drawing our
conclusions, let us take into consideration the
different items furnished Us in the article above
alluded to. and in 50 doing will commence by
taking up the last proposition first, and proceed
to briefly notice them all. lst, Then, must
confess that to the seventh proposition ! fully
concur. 2nd, In regard to the 9Th proposition,
can truly say that deplore as mnch, perhaps.
as any of you, that our county is in debt and
county scrip 80 deprecated in value and am
as willing and anxious as any Of you to curtail
our expenses, if we can do so without injuring
ourselves still more than we are now injured by
high taxes. Sd, With the fifth Propsoition beg
leave to differ; for in proportioning the cost OF
that court upon the Taxpayers, men of large
property would have to pay more. and those Of
limited means proportionably less. and probably
not one half of the men in this county will have
fifty cents each to pay in defraying the expenses
of that court, consequently the burthen falls
where it can be best borne, viz: upon the
wealthier class, and the very men who have the
most business in the court and not select few,
but scores of individuals in this county are ben
Gifted by it. There was q large amount OF busi-
ness done and great many Of our heaviest tax
payers had business before it in the shape OF
attachments, confirmation Of sales, &C., &c., and
it largely benefited every taxpayer in Davis
county, by disposing Of large number Of State
cases. which were greedily consuming our means.
in the shape of costs and expenses. 4th, As to
the fourth proposition l cannot think that any
one REALLY believes our District Court to be an
outrageous swindle," except, perhaps, very
few, who lost bad cases before it. 5th, AS to
the third proposition, can only say that it is
really grevious to think of that it cost them all
no more than 5000 to stay in our fast city Of
Junction six whole days. Landlords and saloon
keepers, what were you about that you did not
gull them out of money enough to keep here in
our city to reimburse for the cost Of our court
so that we could have no reasonable ground Of
complaint? 9th, As to the second proposition,
| have this to say, that whatever money may
have been taken away from this vicinity by law
yers from abroad, was paid to them for legal
services by private individuals, who MAY, POSI-
BLY, be as capable of attending to their own
business as the balance of the people of Dayis
county is of attending to it for them. and if they
saw fit to employ attorneys from abroad, it is
simply none of our business. 7th, In regard to
the first proposition, am willing to admit that
the last term of court cost US the $1,000, and
am willing to admit that the next term will cost
us fully as much, if not more, although the ex-
pense has been reduced at least One-third In the
last two years And now comes the whole ques
ton. Will one term of court year meet the
wants of the people as we'll as two terms, and i'll
so. will it cost US less? Now, that one term q
year will NOT meet the wants of the people as
we'll as two, do not think will be denied by
any one; for every individual having business
before the court would sooner have it attended to
| in six months than to wait year, and there
must necessarily be incalculable injuries and
losses sustained by private individuals, occasion
| ed by SO long, and in many instances, dangerous
delay. And now in relation 10 the cost. One
| term year will save us the drawing the Juries,
| the summoning the Juries. and the Jurors trav-
| cling fees for one term, amounting in oil to not
far from $780, and this believe is all that it can
save us for if we have but one term year, it
| will necessarily have to be held two weeks in
stead of one, for with two terms year the court
and also the Grand Jury is busily occupied the
whole six days. Consequently, if we had only
one term year of six days. the whole time
would inevitably be occupied by criminal cases,
and parties to civil actions NEVER would get
hearing, and here you see lies the difficulty for
if the whole business could be attended to in SIX
days, once in year. the one term year system
would save Davis county at least $1,000, and
quite likely $500 year but with the amount
of business we now have land are quite likely to
have for some time to come) before our District
Court, it can't be done in six days. nor in any
less than it is now done, and such being the case
the twelve days once year is the same rs six
| twice year. The Clerks costs, the Sheriff
costs, the bailiffs costs are the same; the room
rent the same, the fuel the same, the grand and
petit jurors attendance the same, and to Offset
against the 500 counted upon as saved BY the
one term year system Davis county must keep
its criminals six months longer every year, and
must nav ;ts witnesses for attendance in Grimm