Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1889-01-25

Baltimore Sun assumes the role OF
reformer Of the costs of printing
in the Court Of Appeals, and makes
some grave charges against the
Clerk of that Court, which come
with very poor grace from that jour
nal when it is well-known fact that
no paper in the State is more exor
bitant in its charges than the Sun.
The motive is too plain for the Sun
to attempt to hide it behind the
ambush, or play the wolf under the
sleeps covering, for its too hog
like i'm its movements to deceive
the people into its pretended SYM
pathy for the "poor unfortunate
suitor who looses his case" when
the real motive of the Sun Is TO get
the Court Of Appeals with It's print
ing removed to Baltimore city, un-
der a plea Of great saving TO the
suitors in this court of extravaganza
charges for printing. when really
the printer is not paid even a falr
price for his work. As to quality
Of the work it will compare favora-
bly, with, and is superior to some OF
work done in Baltimore city. Were
the printer Of this work compelled
to pay his compositors by the piece
for their labor at the prices paid IN
Baltimore city, he would be out Of
pocket several hundred dollars at
the end OF the quarter. What the
SIN means by systematic over
charges ''for imaginary copying
of records and briefs is more than
we can comprehend. The clerk is
required to furnish SO many copies
Of each record and brief for the use
of the Court, the price for which is
fixed by rule of the Court and not
by the Clerk, aud il there is any
systematic overchanging' the
Court is responsible and not the
Clerk as the San charges. How is
the Clerk to furnish these required
copies OF each record and brief If he
docs not have them printed ? 1t
would be impossible to copy them
hence they must be printed for
economy and convenience sake. IN
the article referred to the Sun says:
IT is peculiar system which is not
generally understood except by the law
yers. but few words of explanation will
make the facts aud figures easily compre-
hepsible to any of our readers. The C ERIK
of that court is not paid any salary, but
derives his compensation through sys
temaiic overcharges for the printing OF
records and briefs, tue charges being
made sor imaginary 'copying" ofrecords
and briefs, which in fact are not copied.
hut printed, and for the printing of which
he charges an advance of about 100 per
cent over the real cost of the work. For
example, case goes up TO the court oi
Appeals in which the record and the two
briefs would altogether cost say 5000,
printed ia this city in the best manner
The clerk makes out charge for copy
Ing these paptrs-which he really does
not copy but only has printed-and his
charge Is $500, so that the unfortunate
sultor wha loses his case is made II pay.
besides the real cost IF the printing, an
overcharee of 1900 towards the compen
sation of az officer for whom the State
fails 10 provide any salary.
The Sun cites as au illustration
Of its remarks that 81 case goes up
to the Court of Appeals in which
the record and two briefs would
cost, say, 500. printed in that city
ii the best niaaner,v for which the
Clerk Of the Court charges $500
inferring as much that the printing
here cost $3.50 per cent. more than
It could have been done for in that
city. This is an erroneous impress
sion. The extra cost is for clerical
and other necessary expenses Of the
Court, and IS not for systematic
overcharges. There is not more
conscientious public officer IN the
State than Spencer G. Jones, the
present Clerk Of the Court of Ap
peals, aud we believe no one would
do more to ssreform the overcharges
ont Of existence, that the Sun
speaks Of than Mr. Jones. So long
as people will 60 to law, like him
that flannas 10 the music. he must