Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1875-01-27
TIE Perry County .sdp,saf, I,.,

TIE Perry County .9dsOcafe last
week published the following on tie
question of providing for s.Tramps:::
On Saturday afternoon of the Jan.
uary court the following opinion, which
explains itself, was read:
JUNKIN. z. 1.-The citizens of Mil
lsrstown, Perry county, have addressed
this court, in reference to the mainte.
nance of wandering persons, commonly
called and known as tramps. They
complain, that, situated as that town is.
on the highway to Pittsburg, these
destitute travellers are nightly quarter
60 upon the citisens, and they ask what
eau be done to shift the burden upon
the county.
The act of the 18th of June, 1886.
defines vsgraney, or its equivalent, and
section %, paragraph ", covers the
tramp thus:
"Ail persons going about from door
to door, or placing themselves In the
streets, highways or other roads, to beg
or gather aims, aud all other persons
wandering abroad and begging"
Section l, act of 1867, Dist Febru
airy, Brigbtly's Purdon, page 1853.
provides
"1t shall aud may be lawful for any
Jnstioe of the peace Of the county
whefe such idle and disorderly persons
may be found, to commit such offend.
ers being legally convicted thereof be-
fore him, on his own view or BY tie
confession of such offenders, or by the
oath or affirmation os one or more cred
IDLE witnessesl to the work house of
such county, if such there be, other
wise to the common Jail OF the county.
there TO be kept at hard labor, by the
keeper Of such work-house or jail, for
any time not exceeding one month"
The same act makes it the duty Of a
constable to arrest such persons, and
take item before justice of the peace.
that he may hear and convict, and com
NIT the accused, &c.
Now, here is the only authority that
exist for the arrest and Imprisonment
Of vsgran's, and it must be observed,
that the commitment must be for va
grancy. and the sentence must be to
hard labor, and hence a mere permit
from the justice to the jailor, TO keep
over night, is void does not author
ize the sheriff to charge the county for
the Keeping. cumberland county VS..
Holcomb, II Casey, $40. Nor can the
justice recover any costs from the coun-
ty for a commitment not in accordance
With the act
Then, when commitment is in due
form, how far is the county liable for
cons;ables' and Justices fees 1t may
be stated as general proposition, that
where statute imposes public duty
on Il public officer, sho proceeds in the
name of the commonwealth, and there
arise benefits to the public from the
performance If the duty, as where the
proceeding is for the preservation of
order, there lie an implied agreement on
the part of the county to pay for such
services. County of Lancaster VS.
Brinthall, 5 Casey, 50; ounry of
Northampton VS. West, 4 Casey, ia
II Casey, 349. THIS would compel
the county to pay both justice and con
stable their fees fer committing a va
grant.
This view Of the case would justify
the citizens of any town in the country
IN having the vagrants arrested, cou-
mitted by justice to the county jail,
and the officers would be entitled to
their fees. But it is clear that this
course would greatly increase the ex-
penses of the county, and would justify
the commissioners IL making any ar
rangement with parties in the several
towns, to keep these vagrants at less
cost-for instance, instead of bringing
the tramp to the county Jail, the justice
turns him over TO some one employed
BY the commissioners to keep him over
night. This would relieve the citizens
and save the county the cost of reno
val.