Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-12-03

that the revenues derived from the Juul-
cious management of the penitentiary may
be sufficient 20 relieve the State, IN great
part. If not entirely of Its present heayy
burden. Our criminal expenses for
1s60-,61 we're. ................".,.s il,eea ~
1SlO-.1l were....... l4y,LS4 20
lssS-ss were..-........ daS'sys 9s
lSSV-S VI were. ~oAioof %
HOW TO REJOICE THEM.
These expenses will be proportionately
reduced by lessening the number OF prose-
cutions. Every arrest, examination, or
trial, is attended with expense to the State.
The officers are all paid for their work by
the State. Arrests are too often the result
of haste, bad advice, and sometimes, Ifear,
of malice.
DECREASE THE NUMBER OF FELoNIoUs or
FENCES.
To remedy this l would suggest-frst,
that we reduce the number Of felonious Of
fences.
We have too many. Why should there
be difference between larceny from the
person and simple larceny There is no
good reason why party who steals from
your person IS should be guilty OF
felony, when if he steals an OK from your
pasture he is guilty of misdemeanor only.
Why should the larceny of horse, ass, or
mule be felony, however worthless they
may be, while the stealing OF cow worth
S45 Is misdemeanor? II q person buy or
receive pig-iron OF railroad-iron of ane de-
scription with intent to defraud he Is
guilty Of felony, even If the iron in cues
ton Is not worth dollar or dime. If he
steal farmers hog or sheep, or the house
hold goods of another. of less value than
$50, he is guilty of a mlsdemeanor only.
The penalty for these offences il too Sc
we're: the wrong done is too insignificant
TO Justify any such punishment. There Is
no good reason why these distinctions
should not be repealed. The stealing OF
$50 worth of property should be felony,
and of less value misdemeanor, 1t mat
tiers not who the owner may be, nor the
character of the property stolen.
FORGERY.
I do not see why the forgery Of an order
or plain note Of hand for less thar $50
should be q felony. Ii is no worse morally
than simple larceny, nor should 1t be .1ore
severely punished. The statute in thgS re-
spect might be amended and save the State
much expense, and no good citizen would
be injared by IL.
There have been many cases where
thoughtless youths have been convicted of
felonies for forging orders for dollar or
two. These severe and injudicious laws
have much to do with filling the penitenti-
ary with convicts who should be ut Work
for their families instead OF being IN prison,
adding to the burden of the good citizen
who is taxed 70 pay the cost OF such p. 'ose-
cutions and the expense OF their impr. SON
! ment. and perhaps the support of sheir
families. There are other felonies and mis-
demeanors which might be repealed with
proprlety, but the length of this message
will not allow me tomention them.
SALARIES FOR coNMoSwRALTH's ATTORNEYS.
The attorneys for the Commonwealth
should have q liked salary and not be al
lowed to have their pay dependent ON the
number or results of the prosecutions.
By the present law YOU make their lnte-
rest different from that of the State. 1t Is
to their interest that there should be as
many prosecutions as possible. It Is 10
the interest of the State that there shall
be as few as possible. The State Pegrets
the conviction Of q prisoner and glvee blm
the benefit OF any reasonable doubt. The
officer rejoices because it is profitable to
him. He is sometimes charged with need
less prosecutions because his pay .ls in
creased by them. He should not pc placed
in such a situation by the law. WHICH 1t Is
his duty to see enforced.
There are compound offences which may
be divided into two prosecutions, sAch as
burglary or house breaking with toe in
tent TO commit some other crime. The
party may be indicted for house-breaking,
and then again for the other crime, and
whatever it may be, the State has to pay
the cost Of two prosecutions. BY giving
ip evidence the other offence, by way OF
agcrayation, the prisoner will be as Sc
verely punished as il he were tried in the
two cases and the State would be saved
the expense of the second trial
Parties indicted for granular may be
found convicted Of petit larceny. O1e is q
felony, and the other is O misdemeanor.
As the law now stands, If he Is indicted for
A felony the attorney for the Common
wealth gets his fee, whether there is a con-
viction or not, and it IS double what it
would be il he prosecuted for o INSIDE
meanor. Here the inducement is to indict
for a felony, thereby more than doubling
the costs, and making the interest
different. II you will take away that
ipducement to increase the number Of
prosecutions, you will get rid of mary use
iess ones; the State will be benefited by q
reduction of expense: the citizens will
reap On advantage by less annoyanlce and
| loss of time in being carried to court as
Jurors and witnesses. We need not fear
| that crime will not be prosecuted. 'ublic
gantiment will regulate that; the grand
| iury.the great inquest of the country, will
see that ali real offenders ere brought TO
One of the ablest and oldest Common
wealth's attorneys in the State writes me
urging a change in the mode Of paying
| the Commonwealth attorneys. He SAYS I:
ut Is no new question with me. The
present system is wrong IN principle. IN
| lust to the attorneys. and expensive 10
| the State"
II is wrong and unjust 10 tempt an at
torney TO indIct for felony whenever it
| il possible, because he receives fee in
| every case There Is q natural desire TO
receive all legitimate fees Of Office. They
are only paid for their trials in court, ard
| there are no fees for the attorney when the
cases are finally disposed OF By Justice
hence there is temptation TO send every
petty case before the grand>jury and have
| indictments found and the case tried IN
court. Whenever sent before o justice
they would end there and with much less
/ expense.
An this would be changed BY paying an
/ ATTORNEY for the Commonwealth regular
salary. according 10 the population OF his
| county, and Let it be oquitably divided be-
tween the State and the county, the State
paving one third, and the county two
| thirds. This should apply also to cities,
| and when the counties and cities paid so
much Of the criminal expenses they would
| be much more strictly inquired into by
/ their ofiicerc, and thus bring tho parties
/ who tx the amounts due, and the parties
| who pay, closer together. and am sure
! they would be greatly reduced.
| In some Of the counties II requires the
| whole revenue 10 pay criminal expenses.
leaving the schools 20 be kept up BY taxes
| from other counties. II these expenses
/ we're more closely scrutinized there I:
scarcely room for doubt that there would
be reduction.
rHn PRACTICAL WORKINGS OF THE PaEsExl
/ LAW.
] Let US examine the practical workings
| of the present law. by which the attorneys
| for the Commonwealth are paid Zee ~
| each case tried
For the fiscal year ending October 1
1889, there were paid fees amounting K
S94,s9O. Say that one third of this amount
was Tor prosecuting misdemeanors--taks
! of this and you will have &l6,26o paid II
! foes for prosecuting falonies- That pays
| the fee fos 1925 trials. Now examine thu
report Of the Superintendent OF the Psnt