Bisbee daily review., 1903-06-02

thousand, who makes two hundred and fifty dollars per annum out of the of- fee is envied as having a soft snap. Justices of the peace in Arizona have been known to make several thousand dollars a year This happens, not necessarially through the dishonesty of the officials. but from a disposition to overlook the welfare of those who replenished the county treasury with tax money and use offices to drag every dollar from the treasury pos, sible without incurring liability for malfeasance. Until the present law controlling the fees earned in jus
 ice courts is changed there is little hope of curtailing the present enor- nous and extrayagant cost of prosecut- | ing Arizona misdemeanor cases; pet ty offences, many of them, which would never be in court only for the fees they yield to officials
 During the last session of the legis. lature an attempt was made to pass a bill which would have afforded g par. tial remedy for the fragrant extrava. gance in the justice courts of Arizona The bill provided for limiting the amount of fees to be paid to any jus tice by county for one year to the sum of s250 The bill failed.
 A law which would remedy present conditions. and in our opinion without a sacrifice of good order, would be to deprive justices of the peace of any fees whatever in misdemeanor cases, unless they were collected from de, fendants. The custom now followed and which the law sanctions, is for justices to charge to the county all fees in misdemeanor cases not paid by the defendant regardless of whether he is convicted or acquitted. This makes mighty easy money for the jus tice courts. Ilnumerable cases may be worked up under such law and the county is powerless to protect itself ] In many of the large precincts in Ari zona justices of the peace have been known to make more money out ol their offices than the ssheriff could make out of his.
 Another law which would be just. as sn &l.n iva Ng acted ir Arizona, is one similar to one in force controlling the payment of costs in the state of Missouri. Tn that state the counties do not pay the fee bills in criminal cases tried by the district courts; the state meets all this expense, payment being made on fee bills returned 10 the state auditor un der the seal of the district court and attested by the district judge and the district clerk. In Arizona all costs are collected by each official on sepa rate demands presented to the board of supervisors, who may or may not be informed as to the legality of every item charged. There would be nc chance under such a law for standing in with the board in order to avoid trouble in collecting bills presented Under the Missouri law each item oI expense is carried on the same fee bill in every case, 50 that the charge oi one official is a check on another ir many instances; for instance a sherif could not charge for summoning a wit ness for whom no subpoena was eyel issued from the clerks office; tht clerk could not charge for items Bhicf did not correspond with the record: of the case as indexed in the fee bill and so on.
 We believe that every case agains a man who commits crime in Arizona should be prosecuted not only in the uame of the territory but at the ex
 pense of the whole territory. If lcriminal is apprehended and convicted
 in Cochise county the whole territor! is benefited and protectedi the sam
 no matter where crime is prosecute' in the territory; a conviction of cat
 tie thief in Graham county makes tn
 cattle range in Cochise county nor
 secure from depredations. All tn
 costs of prosecuting crime should b paid not by the counties where ind vidual cases are tried but by the tel ritorial treasury, so that the burden criminal costs ia some particular coul , ty may not stand in the way Of vigo ous prosecutions.
 , The American has brought up an il 3 teresting subject which the press - the territory can render good servic , by stuLyiug ard discussing.
 AN PAYABLE POEM