The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-05-16
WEDNESDAY, MAY 1G. 1900.
THE FEE SYSTEM.


One of the arguments used by some of
our contemporaries in support of the pro-
E,osal 10 hold Constitutional Convention
in Virginia is that the expenses of the
government can be materially cut down.
Ii has long been the contention Of these
contemporaries that economical changes
can be made in our court system, involving
the abolition Of the county court system
We do not believe that the people of Viz
yinia will ever consent 10 give up their
county courts, or, indeed, to give up any
OF their courts, and We do not look for any
relief from that source. But there is no
Soubt that muth Of our machinery OF gov
s1nment Is clumsy and expensive and in
sad need OF reform, and the fee system in
Virginia is little short of robbery under
the sanction of government.
The Newport News Herald in a timely
article on this subject says:
For instance, every petty officer is en-
sltled under the Constitution to certain
exorbitant fees for service that would not
be tolerated and are not tolerated in any
State in the Union except Virginia We
know OF case where a gentleman suppoS-
ed TO DE wealthy was forced by adverse
circumstances to make an assignment. He
was the owner of four farms of about
Equal value located in adjoining coun-
ties in NirL and TWO in adjoining
counties II Ma Carolina. Under the law
the deed of assignment had to be recorded
I'm all four of these counties. and the fees
for recordation in Virginia, which fees
went TO cfiiceholders, such as court clerks,
netaIfes public, etc, amounted 10 nearly
eight hundred dollars. and the fees for the
same service in the two North Carolina
counties were less than fifty dollars. An
other case: A legal transaction involving
less than an hundred dollars that came
under our observation in Virginia had al
taehed TO ii a fee amounting to eighteen
dollars and seventy cents. We have the
written statement OF the clerk of a North
Carolina court that the fee bills on the
same transaction in North Carolina would
nave amounted to only rS1.G5. We saw
not long since a fee bin attached to q gar
nishment in a. Virginia city. The debt
claimed under the sarnishment was only
S4.5a and The fee bill was $3.50. The fees
Tor the same service in North Carolina
would have been only IS cents.
Some time ago our attention was called
TO a little transaction in this city which
aroused our Indignation. A gentleman who
had been living in Richmond had moved
60 another city, leaving his furniture here.
Gsy and by he sent for his furniture and a
man TO whom he owed a small sum of
money sued out an attachment. The
amount involved was only eighty dollars.
and friend Of the owner of the furniture
as soon as the facts were made known
10 him, promptly paid the claim and had
the furniture released. But when he came
TO settle he was confronted with the fol-
lowing bin of costs:
Dockeiing suit...... Observation-Disclosures. 1Sc
Entering attorney. ........,........ Zoe
Filing papers........ ........-..-..-....... zoe
Issuing summens.-.-..... ......--.--...-. 2oc
Two copies OF OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. 2oc
Noting it in process book. ,.,............. Use
Attachment, sc. two copies....-...... SSc
Entering rule Diminishing suit and at
tachment.....-.. ........................ esc
Total..-.... ......... ................ 81 .
Attorneys fee....... -.......-........... . 30
Cours taN-.--..--.----.,-- .........-...- 90
Executing summons ana attachment
and leryins same. ............--. 90
Grand totai........ ..................ss es
Here was a simple process OF Law. There
was no attempt whatever on the part of
the owner OF the furniture to sneak his
goods away. There was no trial of the
case in court As soon as the creditor
made demand for his money the claim
was promptly paid. yet The debtor was
subjected TO a cost of s9.6s Note, if you
please. that there are in this bill of costs
eleven different items. There were clerks
fees. an attorneys fee. court tax and
etseriff's Zee. Nobody could make reas-
enable man believe that al these fees We're
necessary in a simple attachment suit
we do NOT mean to ce,isure the officers
of the law. They did their simple duty and
they charged such fees as the law allows.
But Nc do say that tho system under