Herald and tribune. [volume] (Jonesborough, Tenn.) 1869-current, 1894-07-11
THE FRA I'D

Judge Brown in his circular issued
before the convention claim ed that he
had run the courts at less expense to
the people than any Judge since the
wal and that his mode of administering
the law had diminished crime, and he
has during the whole term, and espec.
tally in the last two or three years in
anticipation of his candidacy for re
election made a great show from the
bench of his interest in the tax payers,
and his deter mination to SO run the
courts as to save cost to the State and
county, and he has vilified witnesses,
and jurors and insulted attorneys for
not, as he claimed, responding as quick
ly as they should when called to come
into court. The citizens and the mem.
bers of the bar had to submit to these
indignities, and the people who stood
in the court room and looked on were
half inclined to justify the court, be-
cause as they thought, for the court had
said so, this was all done to save cost,
o all this parade and buster on the
part of Judge Brown was a deception
and a fraud on the people. He may
have been honest in his belief that he
was reducing cost, but this only goes to
his discredit. He ought to have known
that instead of lessening the burdens
of taxation he was continually adding
to these burdens, men who have had
experience in the courts were not de-
celved but hundreds of men who never
gave the matter any attention were de-
ceived and there are hundreds of men
in this Judicial Circuit who are inclined
to favor Judge Brown because they are
under the delusion that Brown was re-
ducing taxation, State and county, and
this is especially true of a large number
OF Democrats who in making their
choice between two Republicans would
be inclined to 90 for Brown on this
ground alone. The records of the courts
will dispell this delusion and demon.
strate the fact that Browns insistence
that he has run the courts at less ex-
pense to the people than any other
Judge since the war, and has so admin
istered the law as to diminish crime is
u deception and a fraud.
We have gone to the execution docket
of Hawkins County, and we have taken
every case disposed of by Judge Hacker
during his term of eight years and
every case disposed of by Judge Brown
during his term of eight years, leaving
out only the felony cases appealed to
the Supreme Court and affirmed, and
the Jail fees paid by the State and we
omit these because we could not get
the exact amountof cost without going
to the records of the Supreme Court,
nor the Jail fees without going to the
Comptroller leaving these appealed
cases and Jail fees out # the term of
both Judge Hacker and Judge Brown
justice is done to both. The following
tabulated statement gives the correct
aggregate under each separate head:
Number of cases disposed of by
Brown in his term of eight years, 1874
Numbe of cases disposed of by
Hacker in his term of eight years, 1857
Difference in favor of Hacker, II
Amount cost paid by county in
Browns term of eight years, 1857 SO
Amount cost paid by county in
Hackers term Of eight years, 1929 II
Difference in favor of Hacker, S2,327 40
Amount of cost paid by State in
Browns term of eight years, $lO,3l5 66
Amount of cost paid by State in
Hackers term of eight years, $9,04l IS
difference in favor of Hacker, $l,274 so
Amount of cost secured and paid
by Defts. in Browns term of eight
years, $6.2SS so
Amount ofcost secured and paid
by Defts. in Hackers term of eight
years, $7,74l u
Difference in favor of Hacker, S'452 60
Jail fees paid by the county dur
ing Browns term of eight years, $5,l2l 26
Jail fees paid by the county dur
ing hackers term of eight years, $2,7ll 30
Difference in favor of Hacker, $2,4O9 Oh
Difference in favor of Hacker 4
against Brown summed up total, 1854 so
These figures from the records of our