Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1876-12-14

To the Editor Of the Ledger;
Ia your issue Of yesterday and 10 an
article headed "a Legal Hardship"
there are some errors and differences no
doubt uniutentiouaO which, with your
permission, | desire to correct. The
proof on the trials did not show that
Wade Carrot " stoad well" but that his
character was very bad. The three To-
dictments against him were not all for
carrying a pistol. One was. The other
two were for open aud notorious lewd-
ness with two women, who we're sisters.
The evidence against him was positive
ana overwhelming, and showed that he
had no regard for character, decency or
law. He was convicted by a jury in the
pistol case, and the court assessed the
iue at the l9west the law permitted, 10
wiz, $40. In one Of the other cases he
was convicted and fined by the jury
SIS, BE submitted" the other case,
and the court imposed g fne Of 81, maxi
ing the amount of fines, as you state it,
$96. which, with the costs, makes the
total as you give it-SlS7 %, to which
you properly add a supposed jailer's fee
OF SIS, making over $500 to be worked
out at twenty FIVE cents per day, and
which,. as you say, would require 500
days. And you imply that this is a great
hardship If so, it is in the law aud not
in'its administration By the courts. You
say, and correctly, that the county only
receives ten cents per day for his labor,
and you also say THAT it will have to
pay the difference between the ten cents
paid and the twenty-five cents rer day
necessary to settle the bill" This is a
big mistake. Let US see: Ia the
800 days the county would re
eeive $50 for his labor. The
difference between that and the bill
(S2OO) is Sl2O. The bill Of costs is cor
rect, and all Of it would be collected if
paid by the convict But when the
county pays it the Item OF the Attorney
Generals fee, SIS, is reduced 81 so; the
item Of State and county tax, $22 so. is
not paid, and, Of course. the fines, $50
are not paid, for that would be the county
paying itself. New, aggregate these
mounts which the county does not pay
in this casa and we have SIG, which,
taken from the $l20 you say the county
will have to pay, leaves S., the actual
and total costs 10 the county ia these
three cases. Surely this cannot be so
oppressive to the county as you say
81 33@ in each case. And il such
cases are hardships TO the convcts,
| repeat that it is in the law
not in the courts. And if the county
realizes but little from the labor of its
convicts, it is the county's misfortune.
The Legislature obviously supposed that
such labor would be worth at least TWEEN
ty.fve cents per day, aud hence allowed
toe convict that amount per diem in
liquida,ing the 6nes and costs against
him. And if the county could have con-
trscted for that amount or more per day
for It's e%onvicis, as it was evidently sup
posed by the Legislature it could, then it
would be a source Of revenue, az it was
obviously intended by the law it should
be.
Now Mr.. Editor, it has not been my
purpose to auimadvert upon the article
mentioned, but to indicate the errors and
niscslculations it contains, and which
we're doubtless unintepti0nal.
G. W. GoRDoN, Atty-Gen'l.
Iecember, 10. 1875.