Waterbury evening Democrat., 1893-03-14

Oy anyone else m his interests are utter ly without foundation.
 Under the old law no costs were passed against the accused or the city for complaint for the attendance of the attorney for the warrant of arrest. If the accused was convicted he paid nothing on account of these items, either to the city, the attorney or the clerk. The bill drafted by Messrs Terry and Burpee provided that the same costs should be taxed as are taxed in
 justice courts. The general statutes provide fee for drawing the com
 plaint. the warrant and for grand jurors attendance in court. If the ac- cused when convicted pays these, when
 he was not by the old law compelled to pay them, it is not readily seen how the city suffers. The guilty accused pays
 more. Some years ago, I think, MT
 Terry advocated the policy, the general
 policy of paying salaries in lieu of all fees or compensation. MT Earl Smith
 and the late Deacon Edward Bronson,
 seconded Mir Terry's efforts in this re- gard. think the general point of at
 tack was on account of the fees which
 the city attorney was at that time
 charging for his services. The question
 whether the policy then adopted was
 the better one is now proper matter
 for discussion. Mir Kellogg was certain | l
 membered now that any litigant got the
 upper hand of the city; no damages
 were paid to anyone as the result of a
 law suit which the city attorney
 thought best to defend. The attorneys fees amounted at that time to be-
 tween two and three thousand dollars.
 Since that time the attorney and prose-
 cutting attorney have had salaries and
 no fees. The salary of the attorney is T kxvG 1nIIa arS
 though it has been increased some
 within year or two. I cannot remem-
 Der any trial since the new policy was
 adopted either for the city or against the city. The city has paid damages in
 the suits brought just the same
 as before. l have a vague sus- ! picion that if fees were the rule instead
 of salary there would be more vigor
 in the attorneys office. Now in reference forced under the new policy? Are they likely to be enforced with such policy! The sidewalks were certainly not cleaned of snow and ice. Spouts and gutters pour the contents from the roof across |, the walks in numerous places contrary to the bylaws. New streets are opened [ up in many places about the city by l owners of tracts of land without regard
 to symmetry or the interests of theiI | uhA GO OhO SAOhO PuOAAO oOIi | ment, contrary to the bylaws, build ings of wood are erected, alterations are made of wood in numerous 3 instances within the fire limits
 contrary to the bylaws and no one heed' . the offenses. Now ask in view of tht l. inactivity which has been going of for {; : number of years whether the old policy t of paying something for the worl 8 actually done ought not to be returned v to by the city. Ofcourse if fees are pait a process is liable to abuse, but it is con e ceived that if the prosecutor is to receiv l. fees in cases of conviction only, tha r there will not be much if any abuse ? The late raid in the sidewalk cases is 1t good illustration. Out of some thirt
 or more cases brought not one half c d them were convicted and the convicte !, ones paved the penalty and the cost: is In the cases where there was no conviC IS tion, no costs were taxed against tn
 city. The general results to the city y however, must be manifest to everyone If JOHN DWELL.