Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-10-23
WRONG IN THEORY AND PRAC-
TICE

The subject of compensating public
officers BY ices, particularly those con-
nected with the administration OF JUS
tics, is one, wefeelcertain, that will short
ly engage theserious attention OF the peo-
Die OF our state, and, therefore, OF their
representatives in the Legislature.
We will have made a great stride to-
ward an honest and economical admin
istration Of the State Government when
every public officer is paid specific and
fixed salary, instead OF installing him i'll
a position with the privilege OF making
what he can out of it. Especially will
we have eliminated great temptation
and wrong from our judicial system
when we have made it criminal Oh
tense, instead OF legalized means OF
support, for any officer connected with
our judicial system, nearly or remotely,
from the highest to the lowest, for TAX
ing fee for any service in the line oil
ms duties rs an OIllCeIs
In the municipal campaign which
eliminated in Baltimore yesterday, this
principal of fixed salaries for all public
officers was one of the reforms sought to
be established by the taxpayers or
reform" party. The evils that grow
out of allowing judicial officers to depend
upon fees for their compensation, were
very thoroughly and convincingly
demonstrated. The resolution OF the
"tax-payers convention" dwelt specially
upon the inherent wrong, as well as the
increased tax upon the public involved
in the allowance of attorneys fees to be
taxed As part OF the costs in criminal
cases.
The same rule obtains in our own
State, Of compromising the public prose
cutor, or States attorney, from fees de-
rived from cases in which he has obtained
convictions. Such an arrangement is
evidently contrary to sound principles
of public policy, and only less objection
able in degree than system which
should make the compensation OF the
Judges depend on the same source.
The States Attorney is quasi-judi-
cial officer. He is a minister and repre-
sentative of public justice, and his COM
pensation should be derived exclusively
from a salary fixed by law and COM
mensurate with the dignity and import
ance OF his office. 1t is wrong that his
compensation should tluctuate with the
ebb and flow of criminal business in his
court, or made to depend upon the num-
Der of convictions he can secure OF par
ties indicted in his court. A public
prosecutor, il he is fit for the position,
will find sufficient stimulus in an ambi-
ton to faithfully and efficiently dis
charge his duty to society and the State
without tempting him beyond that by
offering him 4 reward as it were, for the
life or liberty of the accused. He should
feel as much sOlicitude for the acquittal
of the innocent as for the conviction Of
the guilty. But such an impartial atti-
tude is almost impossible to be attained
when man recognizes that his bread
and butter is all on one side OF the case.
But the public prosecutor is not the
IL l.. L
practice place in false and unreasona-
BILE position. We have the Justice, who
occupies a position in every respect
similar to that OF a Judge, except in the
limit of jurisdiction, depending for his
compensation entirely upon fees deriv-
ell from his office, and which in fact de-
pend also, very largely upon the man
ner in which he decides his cases
whether against the poor plaintiff or the
rich defendant.
There is, in fact, scarcely a judicial
officer, outside of the judges, who does
not depend in part upon fees for his
living. Nor is there an officer or private
citizen who has given the subject pro-
per consideration, that does not agree
that the system is wrong both in theory
and practice. When Shall we have re-
form i'm this direction.