Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1899-12-13
A Monopoly in Virginia


One would suppose from the state
ments of her statesmen, from her re-
cord in the past, and from the public
sentiment in her borders that no man
or set of men could by her laws have
exclusive rights. And yet by statu-
tory provision there is created in Vir-
ginia a monopoly aud one that in it's
application does grievous wrong TO
her people. The present legislature can
right this wrong and il is the purpose
of the COURIER to call its attention
to the evil IN order that it may do so.
Under existing law by sections 3476,
3477, BATS and 3479 by the Code of
Virginia (lSS7), the clerks of the Su-
preme Court of Appeals at Richmond,
Staunton and Wytheville are annual
ly IN the month of June required re-
spectively to solicit proposals for the
printing for one year of all cases
docketed in their courts. These pro-
possls are limited to printers in Rich
mond, Staunton and Wytheville: the
cases docketed in Richmond to be
printed by Richmond printer. those
at Staunton by Staunton printer
and those at Wytheville by a Wythe-
vile printer. The right to do this
printing being confined 10 these To-
cslitles, combinations can easily be
made. 1t is an open secret that they
are made. The result is that liti-
giants in the Court of Appeals are at
the mercy of the men who hold these
contracts and must pay just
what they choose to charge or else
lose their right to be heard in that
Court. The COURIER makes the
charge and is prepared to establish
the fact that in many if not in all
cases these monopolists charge from
one-third TO one-half more than fair
price for such work. To be more
specific, in cases that have gone to the
Court of Appeals from this county
alone, the printing here could have
been done for Z of what was charged
and paid to the public printer in
Staunton. That is to say. by way of
example, when the sum of $3.50 was
charged for printing a record, it
could have been printed and would
have been printed for about
500, with a profit to the printer.
The farmer, who, on an average gets
90 cents bushel for his wheat. can
not afford these charges. Another
thing, which, under existing laws is
great shame in this connection, is
that the clerks of these courts are
supposed to make out and furnish
copy of the record to the public prin-
ter and for this they never forget to
charge. 1t is, however, another open
secret, that in point of fact they
never do make out any such copy.
They simply send in the copy made
out and certified by the nisi prius
clerk. Their charges for this suppo-
sititious work is the same as that
made by the public printer-that is
to say, if the printers bill is 500.
the clerks charge for the work done
Gin his minds eye" is 500, making
the total costs 5000. 1t is time to
call a halt on this kind of thing.
The remedy is obvious. In an ex-
ceedingly able paper prepared and
read by Mr.. James 2. Harrison, of
the Danville Bar, before the last Vir-
ginia Bar Association on Suggested
Changes in Our Judicial System"
attention is strongly called to this
evil. MIR. Harrison (who by the way
deserves the thanks of the people for
this paper suggests that the petition
and record after appeal, etc., allowed
and docketed in the Court of A ppeals.
De returned to the nisi prius clerk
with the summons, and that the Ap-
pellant then have the right to have
the record printed from this COPY
wherever he pleases under such con
tract as be can make, and to be done
under the supervision of that clerk.
This should be done. Of course the
clerk of the lower court should be al
lowed reasonable fees for his work in
comparing the printed record with
the original. BY comparison with
the original record not only would
mistakes be more easily discovered
and rectified, but the saving in the
costs to the litigants would be very
great.
1t may be said by the combine that
the COURIER in asking for this change
In the law is inspired by selfish mo-
N hok Il