The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-03-24
ICommun'catcd.l ~
.rous Recorsls-Facfs for t"e
Tax.Payers and the Serious ~
-, or st,e General Assembly,
fConmun,catcd.I

ssnn Of the GcDerRi ANss
Tnc Investigation OF this matter ot!ns> .v
.,,ovr other things than the mere Mtn'."S
thc work, and presents itself sqta,eS ~ ,hs
attention Of the General AsSen,n.s ~" ,,,,,
,ohole people. Not only inc l'.'sa"'Sih ,nr.
every taxpayer Is in'efe'tcu =" w., w., Money
rhv docs the State advance inc mum
.;n,;no these rccordst 2ha! Is inc
nncsiion also TO be considered. i t"r, ,je
S,,rnish the money to ray for coiH','s , III.
-nnnrd or the court below sent up 10 'S's
$3.50 ;hink not. THEN, W ~ 10
S TIir sTATE MADE THE BAN ~
~ np,rarE LlTlGANTS. AND " IA
~ SiIE ADVANCE TIE MON
~ M This PRINTING, PERHAPS
HGvEE TO BE RETtENEO, eek
TaISIY 40 MORE THAN ONE HALF.
xND SHE NOT ABLE TO PAY IhE
INTEREST," ON HER UBl-lC Dkbl!
assert that the State and her citizens are
deeply interested in this matter, ana "S
much so As in other printing pa'd Tor "u; o'
the TrcaSury-yea, more So because s'e LAS
an equivalent Tor the money spent iol ne1
flcmr,mcntS, and it is necessary for the pro-
,,er transaction of her business, but she mas
no ;ntcrcS; in the records save in Common
xyealth's cases, and is paying nearly as much
for this work rs for that lcgitlmatay done
for her legislative and executive depart
mcpts. Think of it, taxpayers, and men,
beers of the General Assembly sent here to
iecislatc for the interests Of the WHOLLY
PEOPLE: OVER TWENTS-FOUR
THOUSAND DOLLARS EXPENDED IN
THREE YEARS, AND ONLY ONE
FIFTH RETURNED TO THE TREA-
SURY. ... !,
The money is required to be rAlp by the
law on or ttfore the FIRST day OF the SEC
DND TERM of the court after the case Is
docketed Otherwise ii shall be dismissed
and the money shall be paid by the appel
lants or plaintiffs in error, and To be u!ti-
matcly recovered by the party substantially
Drcyallipg. What does that mean? Ii
means that the party who appeals shall pay
at once 10 the state the COST Of the record,
and if he is successful he receives it back
from the defendant, otherwise he loses
what he has paid Ills would not be 20
bad for the State If the lAw was compIIed
with, but It is not. The records OF the iiea'
.surel's Office do not show il, and his books
are the ones TO do 50.
If the law was carried out, the greater
amount would be returned to The Treasury
before Tue end Of each fiscal year, and up
pear on the books Of that officer.
The law says that the amount taxed for
printing the records shall be paid into the
Treasury. Not one half, t'u all. Then,
will it be asserted that il Il record costs 500
that $50 are charged, and that the clerk gets
$50 and pays 500 into the Treasury! If
that is not so, then where is the law for
making this State pay One-half the cost as q
fee to the cicrk-tor THERE Is no DOUBT THAT
he GETS oSE-HALF THE COST in some way,
either out of the State or the parties to the
suit?
81 5n,~ 1,,/r1 3r1fn
lhe treasury Of the State TIE amount taxed
tor printt,,g the record" This is the IAN
g1,age of the law. See section y, chapter
$50, Code of 1871 The law certainly does
not in express terms allow ths fee of one
half for printing the record: and it will re-
ouire quite stretch of construction TO get |!
il out Of the following sentence OF section |
- Of chspier $50: "But nothing in this |
section shall be construed so as to deprive the |
clerks of the right to charge for copy of the |
record in any proper CASE This surely does |
no. mean u printed copy, paid for by the |
State; and he does not furnish the manu- |
script from which the printing is done, for
the copy used is that sent up from the court |
below, and the law says that it shall beiso |
used and returned to the clerks office.
If the law has been complied with-and |
it must have been, or the cases would have !
been dismissed-w where is the money? Ger
taiuly not in the Treasury. Has the law |
been construed so as to allow the clerk TO
collect ouly his fee. and the Commonwealth
wait for her reimbursement indefinitely ?
But the fact is, the State is never reimbursed
for the money expended for private parties.
II the latter surmise is true, am sure no
such q construction was ever intended by
the Legislature; fer such construction
would be an outrage upon the Treasury and
= taX-rdden people. NERITAs.
=. ST. decline to discuss the question
with Mr.. Clemmitt. l have given the facts,
which can be verified by official documents.
He gives nothing but statements. The pub
lie will inler from his letter that this re-
cord.prinling is not small matter to some
people.