Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-05-01

law. But Judge Logwood separates
the feeding of prisoners from the ex'
penses of the courts, and seems to insist
that that item forms no part of the
cost of administering the criminal
law of the country. Such a position
would discredit a school boy. Surely
Judge Logwood knows hat it is properly
classed by the comptroller as costs oI
enforcing the criminal police Of the
country. / have made no statement dis
eliminating between the Criminal Court
OF Memphis and the Bartlett Court. |
had no means Of discriminating between
the two courts, and did not attempt "a
do so. Where Judge Logwood gets bis
respective sums of $44,69S 80 and 49,
496 67 from | am at a loss to ascertain.
II there is, as Judge LOCKWOOD says, a diff
ference between the comptroller report
and my figures for 1876 of $l2, SS9.78 it
certainly does not appear on the face OF
either. ! stated that the cost OF sdmin.
istering the criminal law 10 this county
amounted to q certain sum. Judge Log
wood says that is not so, because a large
amount of that sum is for feeding pris-
oners. Does judge Logwood mean to
say that that item does not belong
to, and form a part Of, the criminal costs
Of the county? Surely a judge of the
court ought to know better. Now as to
the costs to the county in other than
felony cases: Referring to the estimate
of the chairman, be makes the costs
$50, $50 10 This is done by leaving out
the item of $500 for feeding prisoners,
fuel and engineer at Jail. Add that aud
you have the exact amount that | stated,
Sal, 1913. Will Judge Logwood shy
that that item ia DO part Of the Criminal
administration? Surely not. But the
judge says that is an estimate of the
cost, and the public is not given the
amount Of credits that must be entered.
The county is reimbursed by fines, for
FIXTURES and costs, paid into the hands OIL
the clerk of the Criminal Court" etc.
But this estimate is mads as d guide 10
leyying taxes, and to be met and paid
by taxes on the people. II any large
portion Of it is to be paid by fines, for
FIXTURES, ETC., surely the County Court
would not levy a tax to pay it over
again. These things we're no doubt all
duly considered by the court, in making
It's estimate Of the rate Of taxes. Judge
Logwood certainly don't mean to say
that in estimating the rate Of taxes to b
levied the court left out a large revenue
from other sources. The gentlemen who
compose that court are both too intelli
gent and too careful Of the public inter
est to be guilty Of such a blunder. Blu
Judge Logwood insists upon a larEt
credit for the benefit Of the taxpayer
arising from fines, forfeitures, etc paiC
to the clerk. Well, let US briefly stat,
the account.
Taxpayer to the administration Of To,
criminal law, DR..
Crlmlnal y, 39I %
Jurors, Criminal Ceurt..~~"..-.-.... 1i,SS2 5
Feeding prisoners, etc ..-.-.---.-.... $780,
LOLA ...........-. t4l ,feU.l
CREDIT.
BY fines, s.. How much2
By torieitures, S.. How mueh2
Costs paid into the hands Of the clerk
s. How much2
Echo answers, s.. How much2
Judge Logwood says: Being fully in
pressed with the fact that there was Al
opening for reform, etc, my immediat
predecessor, Judge Adams, and mysel
cut down the expenses Of running th
court for the year 1876, from that {
, 1915 in felony cases over $l2 900, an
in misdemesnor cases 1904 so" No,
taking my statement of the costs to tb
State in the felony cases, there was
reduction Of Sl2, OH. 81. But Judge Lol
wood says | have not stated it c~orrectlI
Where then does be get his reduction
over Sl2,0002 1t certainly does not al
pear anywhere in any report or estimai
T referred to by him. / should like to kno
how or where, other than his bare stat
meut, it appears, that in misdemean,
cases the cost 10 the county for 1876
: lesstban that Of 1875 by$6,044 50. Thei
is nothing to support the statement, tn
? l have ever seen, except the bare, make
assertion Of the judge. suppose it
50 because he says it, but the publ
{ would like to see the figures.
# April %. 1873
- --o--.
! mOuument araotoJ - Ii, kill,