Waterbury evening Democrat., 1893-03-14
LETTERs-FRoM THE PEOPLE.

! Attorney O'NeI1I's Reply to the Statement
 E Made by City Attorney Burpee.
 Editor of the. DEMOCRAT:
 In view of the very remarkable state | ment made by the city attorney to the court of common council last evening I | deem it proper to make reply.
 It is not true that the act as drawn by | the committee of the common council | was altered so as to increase the outlay | in the police court; but on the contrary the act proposed was amended so as dis ! tinctly to limit this outlay as parallel l columns will show. Again, the act as drawn by that committee so far as it gave costs to the prosecuting attorney was not altered in asingle letter as the parallel will show.
 On page 36 section 86 of the act which was prepared by the committee of the common council it is provided that any person convicted of violating any bylaws of the city shall pay fine
 to the same extent that under former provisions he was obliged to pay pen atty. Under former provisions it was
 doubtful if this penalty could be col lected in the police court.
 | This section of the proposed act is copied precisely in section of the new police court act.
 Section ST of the proposed act and section 8 of the new police court act are
 in the same language with little ex- ception which will be noted and the section in the new police court act is as follows:
 ssSection 8. All fines so recovered shall be paid to the treasurer of said city for the use of said city. The costs taxable \ in such cases shall be the same as in the criminal proceeding and when not col lected from the offender shall be paid by said city except as hereafter provided" These words, except as hereinafter provided are not in section ST of the amendment of the charter as proposed by the committee. It will be seen therefore that under the proposed law. of which mention was made in the council last evening, that the city was to pay all of the costs whether collected from the offender or not. It will also be seen a
 little further along in this communica- tion that the new police court act does not require that costs shall be paid in any cases to the prosecuting attorney
 or to the clerk of the court unless they
 are collected out of the accused. In this, therefore, the new police court act, there is saved to the city the prosecuting attorney fees and clerk fees in all of
 those cases where the accused is found not guilty. Section 96 of the act proposed is iden tical in language with section IT of the Inew police court act, and so far as it re- a terney are concerned the language is as : follows, in said sections respectively: ,I "On all penalties or other sums col ! lected by him as aforesaid he shall re- ceive in lieu of any other extra com 2 pensation ten per cent of the amount 2 collected and the taxable costs" This 2 apparently was copied from the New
 nsk oI.o ,aI kD, , that there was no trick or fraud on the = part of any one, unless it was the com a mittee who drew the proposed charter { two or three years ago, to obtain any n additional costs or fees for the presen p prosecuting attorney.
 t Section 9S of the propost d act anC . Section 19 of the new police court act e 80 far as the prosecuting attorney i
 concerned, are identical, aud are a :, follows:
 "The prosec cuting. attorney of the cit.
 of Waterbury shall receive a salary o
 fifteen hundred dollars a year for tn
 performance of the duties of said office h to be paid to him by said city. Sai
 Isalary shall be in lieu of any and al e compensation, to be paid by said cit e except as provided in this act" Her O then there is no increase or differenc d in the compensation to be paid.
 e Section go of the proposed. act an a section 20 of the new police court aC e are as follows, and herein it will be see d that the police court act limits the cost n which are to be paid to the prosecutir ,, attorney and clerk of the police court t IF those cases only where the accused e convicted. Under section 99 of the pro e posed act the costs were not limited i le this manner, but the city treasury pal ,e the costs whether the accused was COT re victed or not. Here is the language: 'Section 99. The same costs shall L sr taxed by said court in all cases and pro le ceedings of a criminal nature as ar le taxed in similar cases and proceeding d before justices of the peace, and l. docket fee of fifty cents in additiOna Ie bench warrants shall be taxed at on r. dollar each, and all cases coming fror a the superior court from said police cour rs by appeal, binding over or otherwise W shall be taxed the same as in simila t cases coming to the superior court i d the same manner from justices of tn e peace. In case of conviction, all au n thorized costs shall be taxed agains d and paid by the accused, and all cost le taxed under the provision of the ac Ie and not paid by the accused or other 10 wise received shall be paid by said city. d Here is section 20 of the new polio ,s court act:
 ,e s'Section 20. The same costs shall b "a taxed by said court in all cases and pro ft ceedings of a criminal nature as ar t, taxed in similar cases and proceeding Ie before justices of the peace, and Ie docket fee of fifty cents in addition ,t bench warrants shall be taxed at on
 dollar each, and all cases coming t
 the district court of Waterbury 9th
 district court of Waterbury was not i
 existence at the time the old act wa IF drawn and therefore this change) fror
 said police court by appeal and to tn ,o superior court by binding over or other as wise, shall be taxed the same as lc similar cases coming to the superic 2 court in the same manner from justice Sa Sa of the peace. In case of conviction, a n authorized costs shall be taxed agains ..s and paid by the accused; and all cost .s taxed under the provisions of this ac rt and not paid by the accused or othel Y wise received, shall be paid by said city " ovoopk fho fona f0r the clnrEc and nrOaI