Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1896-03-19
State Expenses.


(Trom the Essex County Herald)
Another explanation (of the increase in
State expenses) Is the extravaganza of
another law made II Is said at the behest
of lawyers to enable the lawyer to make
the State instead of his client his debtor.
This 1t is enormously stated increased the
expenses of litigation to the state and has
largely increased litigation. Now the re-
verse of these propositions Is true. The
party advancing in case deposits with
the clerk of the court $500 (the old jury
fee) before the rule of reference Is issued.
A referee is appointed and the State pays
him 81 per day and expenses. The state
has nothing to do with the lawyers bills
and has no other expenses than to pay
the referee whose per diem Is $500, as
against $500 jury fees alone II the case
had been tried in court. The party pays
just the same whether the case Is tried
by jury or by referee, and If the case Is
heard by referee the state pays just
his fee instead of paying the entire ex-
penses of court including more than two
panels of jurymen and all the officers and
attaches of court. What Is the result of
this? A saving of from $50 and upwards
in zach case and n reduction of litigation
from this and other causes of more than
50 per cent. While the court formerly was
occupied weeks and months In jury trials
at an expense of from $50 to 500 per day,
now q trial is hardly known in court. In
this county formerly the court would be
occupied two or three weeks in jury trials.
Now three or four reports and possibly
jury trial completes the business of the
term, while the number of cases on the
docket have been decreasing faster than
ever was known before.
Our Island Pond contemporary thus
reproduccs some of tho special pleadings
by which the passage of the law In ques-
ton was secured. The detailed state
ments above may be in measure correct
as applied to Essex county, where the
cases tried have been and are compare
lively few, and the amount of legal bust
ness Is small, In most of the other county
courts, it is notorious that business has
/ increased and the state Auditors reports
furnish conclusive evidence that the State
/ expenses OF the courts have increased
since the passage of the law providing
for the payment of referees and other
tribunals by the State instead of by the
individuals interested BY that law, the
per diem compensation and expenses OF
referees, auditors, special masters, and
the various commissions appointed by
the Court such as commissions to lay
ont highways, commissions on appeal
from the Probate Court, etc, are paid by
the State. The expenses of all these
tribunals were formerly borne by the
litigants. The argument that this law
must reduce Court expenses for the rea-
son that each trial so had saves to the
State the expense of a jury trial Is spec
ious; but not strictly according to fact
The fact Is that all these tribunals, with
the exception of references, are provided
each for particular class of cases no
one of which is triable by jury When a
referee tries case which except for this
law, would have been tried by jury, there
is doubtless some saving of expense.
There WERE however, cases tried by
referees before the law was passed, SO
this saving cannot be very accurately
estimated.
1t is to be noted, also, that the substi-
tuition of referee for a jury trial does
not necessarily mean that the expenses
are reduced Referees fees in some cases
have been as high as $500, and they fro
qucntly run into the hundreds, as we are
informed by good authority
If we understand the Essex County
Herald, it asserts that there has been a
reduction of fifty per cent. i'll the total
amount of litigation in the State. How
would the Herald explain this very re-
markablc result? Does cheapening a com
modify merely lessen it's use? What
would be the natural effect of making
trials free. upon the number of suits
brought? If, as the Herald asserts, there
is only half the litigation that there was. ii
the State at large, and the saving to the
State of fifty dollars in every case, how
does the Herald account for the increase
in the total of Court expenses, shown by
the reports of the Auditor of Accounts?