New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-21
NWjtRS'H NFN\
" 80, ~


- there is little to show in the way of practical
cults This week considerable hard work wac
LAVA nv the committees. spurred by the
or,n,sints against a do-nothing policy. there
.oers 10 he danger of measures being
,sbod through without proper scrutiny or con-
.,aeratlon. There are several bills now on the
oo,erdar that need the closest study, and undue
haste under suspension OF the rules should
not be permitted unless in exceptional cases
whore the public interest manifestly demands
urgency.
The plan Of giving public hearings on i'm
nortant bills is criticised in some quarters on
, the ground that it is a scheme for delaying and
finally smothering the measures. Point is given
70 this objection by remarks occasionally made
among members of the third house" as TO their
cleverness in thus having certain bills talked to
death. Perhaps a little thought might alter that
view of the situation. Those hearings take on
the nature of joint debates All the salient
features are developed and explained, and
pretty nearly everything that can be said for
and against a measure is said In this way I'll,
public mind is educated The arguments pro
and con, are published in newspapers circulating
in every county of the state. so that the citizen
who reads his paper at home is able 10 pass
Judgment just as we'll as those who are In the
Capitol all the time.
Those hearings may enable legislators 10 evade
for a year or two their plain duty tc go IN
record for or against every measure presented
But If the propositions involved have any In
heIent merit, the continual agitation of them
before committees. and through the medium OF
the press before the people of the whole State,
must inevitably force decisive action. The ed1-
Cationa process Is good one and In the END IL
is apt to produce more lasting and satisfactory
results than the old style of taking up and hast
lily disposing Of large problems ere the people
really know just what they want
Speaking of the proposition to pay the clerks
Of the Supreme and Chancery courts $4,000
year instead of fees. The Jersey City Journal
saws:
The salary mentioned think too high In fact;
we believe that in this instance it is rot good
c cUm6ents have been making too much cut down
the fees, and let the people have the benefit OF the
TOO great Many a man is defrauded of his rights
because he is too poor TO protect them; why turn
the rSlpe # ss
through the result will be most disastrous to the
proved itself TO be excellent The only criticism
made is that the s too onH Hsh
10 the existing system. Let this be done.
Assuming that reduction of the fees would
be the best possible change, how can 1t be de-
termned just what scaling down is desirable?
Would it not be the surest way TO put the Of
fees on a salary basis now. before the new in
cumbents are installed. then get complete
and detailed report of all the fees received
within a year. and on that base legislative ac-
ton for easing the burdens of hiigants! 10
act now in the matter of reducing fees woCio
be taking leap in the dark. but years eX-
perience under the salary system would supply
all the data for arranging the fees in such a
way as TO be beneficial TO litigants and faii
10 the State.
AS to the contention that $4,000 isn't enough
that will not hold water Probably not more
than 10 per cent of the lawyers OF New-Jersey
earn more than that. and 80 per cent OF the
citizens as a whole. do not receive any such
sum in payment for their work.