Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-10-18
SEATTLE. v. T. SATURDAY MORNING. OCTOBER IS. 1884


70 ne Hes. Navor esd cos.ca Al
~ Cffv Of Senffk< s-0xxrrxxU-Ai-
eoouRh Il II but 3 nkors time siuos 80
ho.ossd b you With ths appointmsst
- City MaRigtrate, yet short = the
t1me has bsen since | sm1ned the d.
f1es Of Rol1oB Juatios. il has beeu piesty
long enough 70 eonvinee ms that there
are oefocee 10 t6e q tmiuintrntiCn Of
aa&iFs IN yoor Polios Court of suoh i'm
poreAnce that jnstios 70 nyseIf. 10 your
houoenbIs body, ~ veil - 70 others, de-
manda that should present them 10
you, and nak at your hands thsis sars-
fuI consideration.
A. understand IL fhs matter Of wit
ness fees vzs = subject of more or less
discard In ths Police Court OF my pre-
dsceseor and certainly they have
brouobt no harmony 70 E1y love feast.
before entering upon the duties Of
this oe1oe l requested from the City
Attorney an 0piEsOn In regard to fees to
Be paid police off3cers. which he very
kindly furnished me, and by whish /
have been guided, for think it rightly
o0nstruss the law and ordinAncss In the
case. But the workings Of this lav il
unsatisfactory IN lie rtsulfs, besides Il
appeaEs 10 me 10 be ineQuitable and an
just Mr.. HAnf0rd says:
The general laws Of the Territory
allowing fees 70 witnesses, In my opin-
tou, apply 70 city oasss - we'll as others,
and under section Of Ordinance No.
397. police officers, when called e wit
nesses, are entitled 10 fees in all cases
wherein parties adjudged TO pay costs
shall pay the same in money but in no
oAse will an ofIicer be entitled to have
witness fees paid him out OF the CITY
treasury. In short, my answer 10 the
foregoing questions ia that the Chief
and other police officers are entitled to
the same fees for services performed by
them In Territorial criminal cases as
would be given TO the Sheriff or con-
stable for tho same services. and to
Witnesses feos when costs are paid in
money by any party other than the city,
and to no other fsss in city cases."
Thus you will perceive that an officer
can have n0 fee az a witness except the
defendant be convicted and his fine
paid. Now, IL men are TO be oompen-
sated for services rendered. justice
would seem to require that o witness
should have his fee the same when the
defendant goes TO jeil or Is discharged
a. In the other case. Il ID merciful
provision OF our laws that the fees Of
she court do not hang upon auv such
contingency. Nor should q magistrate
sworn TO do his duty impartially bs
made to feel that one or more witnesses
stand over him with policeman's club
deman ding conviction Ut the defendant
on trial in order that thsir services shall
be paid for. An matter of simple
justice to all parties, earnestly recon
mend that policemen be either allowed
or disall0wed their fees as witnesses in
all city csses. Better r, duce the fee
and make Its payment uniform, than to
struggle With the evil that now stares us
In the face.
Again, yen will percsive bv q reference
TO the opinion Of Mr.. Hanford and 70
the laws upon which it is based, that
while policemen are entitled to the Same
fees ~ sheriff or constable in Territorial
oriminHs asses, they are not allowed any
compensation for serving process in
Gases In which the city is plaintiff. This
is something which the policemen can
not 90 nprehend, and certainly can see
no reason Why the Law should not b
uniform. / recommend the ordinance
be amended 70 that effect. Respectfully
submitted. S. b. VnoonAN.
Seattle, Dot. IL. 1884.