The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1890-06-07
OPEL0UsAs, MAY 81. 1890.
EDITORS OPELoUsAs CoTR1EP

EDITORS OPELOUsAs COURIER:
Permit ME as citizen and tax pave
of your parish the use of a small spac
IN your valuable paper to call the at
tentlon OF our Law Makers now in ses
sion to the passage of law whicl
would probably save thousands of doll
ars annually to'the state and palishe!
and act as check against the commits
sion of crime.
Sec. $50 Of the Revised Statutes o
1876 reads thus "every judgment o
conviction shall subject the person con
victed to the payment of all costs Of th.
prosecution" whether so stated in the
sentence or not. But in no case shal
any person be subject to the payment
of costs in any criminal prosecution
when acquitted by the Court or Jury.
Hence it is clear, that according tt
the plain written law of this state, il
all cases, where party is charged by
the state with the commission of an of.
fence and after trial, and conviction
"the party convicted', shall pay al
| costs of prosecution.
The question now presented is: o.
what avail to the state is section $50 OF
the Revised Statutes as thus plainly
mr1ttcn that "where q party after tria
and conviction shall pay all costs OF
?" Is not this section of the statute
the most important and of the most vi
tai interest to the tax payers of the
State? Who must pay these costs OF
prosecution as things now stand ? is it
the tax payers or the individual with
no property whatever Except his bare
clothes) the party charged with the
commission of crime and legally con-
vlcted for violating the laws of his
stateg But one answer can be given and
1T is: those who pay the taxae must
pay these costs as in all cases the de-
fendant has no property whatever to
comply with the just Judgment of the
court decreeing that che must pay
them. What must have been the OBJ
ject of the law makers in thus making
such express nnd positive law? But
why did not otV representatives. at the
same time pass such law as would qua
rantee to the State and Parish the costs
Thus advanced by her after giving to
her ''felloW eountrymen" the right of
having fair trial Of the charge laid at
his door !? This looks strange; for it
looks plain enough that the state with
all right to try n citizen of its country
who after due trial by o jury of his
peers'' charged with violating the Stat
ute law of his country, and after an
impartial trial and conviction shall paw
costs; should at the same time secure
to the Parish wherein he was tried and
convicted some guarantee that all costs
incurred after full and fair trial should
repay the Parish the costs thus adyanc-
ed him to erhOn0rdte himself of the
charge thus laid at his door. Would
this be more than fair-both to the
state and accused? /? No.
Then how can this defect in the law
be remedied ? But one answer and this.
Cannot our present law makers amend
the said section $50 R. S., SO as TO add
that in aRcases when a party after a
trial and conviction, shall be bound to
to the Parish wherein he was
tried the costs of said trial, under
lease at price to be fixed for his ser
vices each day at the expiration of his
sentence, which the lessees of the State
penitentiary shall refund the parishes
OF the state wherein said conviction is
had. Therefore why not make it, that
the Clerk Of the District Court be re-
quired to furnish a bill of costs to tie
Lessees of the PeniteDtiary showing
the exact costs due by the defendant
thus convictedla of course our Legisla-
tors should fix the daily wages do to
a party thus convicted and whose SEN
Lence IS expired and who after thus
to pay said costs would refund
to said Parish the amount thus due her.
Of course this amendment to the Stat
ltes would not avail the parishes in
cases OF life sentences but would in my
opinion check wreDg doers from taking
heir chances of violating the laws of
Louisiana and citing many unnecessary
witnesses with chances to continue
heir trial and thus tax the property
owners with more costs than is neces- |
'ary to give said accused trial as is |
Intended by law.
Therefore if, when an individual af- |
er serving his sentence for violating |
he laws Of his countgE> would be COM |
,elled to work for 5Iissa aessees of the |
oenitentiary to repthe1 J costs of his
rial as also the services of Ills Attorney |
by the court to defend him,
which the Clerk should also add as a
,art of said costs, would this not
ause party to hesitate before viola
ing the law with the chances of being
cqnitted for said offenceq It seems so
0 ME.
If the State of Tennessee can cause
'eTson convicted of an offence to work
ut the costs of trial johnson VS. State
f Tenn. 2 q W 802) why cannot Louisi-
lana do the same? ] think if our Law
Takers look closely into this matter
hey, will amend act $50 r.. S. which
hould by all means be done.