Newport daily independent., 1913-07-03
al punishment of 45 days in

al punlsnment or 70 ddyS III jail.
 If it can be shown that B paid his fine or a great part of it, and his costs. and was permitted to go without serving his time in jail;
 (a) Is the county contractor or prisoner entitled to that fine? /?
 (b) Can the contract be an- nulled?
 Co Can the prisoner be made to serve his time in jail, and would the sheriff have authori- ty to take him into his custody?
 These questions have been answered by the Attorney Gen. eral and for the benefit of the general public I submit you herewith for publication, if you desire to give it publicity, the opinion of the Attorney General of Arkansas in full upon these various questions, to-Wit: Hon. C. NJ. Erwin,
 Prosecuting Attorney,
 Newport, Arkansas.
 Dear Sir
 l have received your letter of the 27th, with a copy of the contract made by your county judge with J. H. Keel for keeping and working the county prisoners. The contract is not very clear and full, but the law on the subject of working prisoners should be construed as part of the contract, because both parties must have contracted with reference to the law in force at the time.
 l Considering the law and the terms of the contract, the contract, in brief, amounts to this, that the county judge hired to Mir. Keel, the county prisoners convicted of misdemeanors in that county for the year 1913; that the contractor was to pay at the time. he received the prisoners, the amount of all costs adjudged against the prisoners and the contracto, agreed to keep, lodge, feed, clothe and furnish medical attention tc the prisoners; and have the benefit of the labor of the prisoners at 7s cents a day until they discharge tht full amount of the fine and costs Of course, under the contract, tht county receives nothing on account of the fine, expects to receive noth ing, but stipulates that the prisoners shall, instead of the fine, be compel led to work until the fine and cost: are discharged by their labor. In the first instance you mention where the prisoner at the time of hi conviction pays the fine of 5000 bu does not pay the costs amounting t' the same sum, the 5000 fine shoult
 properly go to the county, becaus
 the prisoner has not yet been dellv cred to the contractor; but in suci case, the contractor would not b'
 obliged to accept the prisoner unde , the contract, because the contrac
 provides that he shall have labor, no
 only for the costs, but also for tn 7 fine; and the prisoner could not b'
 compelled to work out the fine afte it has been paid.
 In the Second instance you men
 tion in which the prisoner is deliver
 ed to the contractor and the fine l: afterwards paid, the fine, in my opin ion, should go to the contractor, th'
 prisoner then being in his custody under said contract. You could no , compel the contractor to accept { prisoner when the fine had been paid nor justly deprive him of the lfint itself, if it should be paid after tht prisoner is in his custody, because the contractor is entitled to the pris oner's labor until the fine and tho costs are both paid. It is reasonable to suppose that no contractor woulc accept prisoners, pay the costs 1T . cash, lodge, feed, clothe and furnish them medical attendance for 75 cent: day. He could probably hire free labor at that price or less. The pro fit in this contract would probably b' in the labor which the prisoner would render in discharge of the fine. l car readily see how the contractor il some cases, by collision with tht prisoner or his friends, might make unreasonable profits, by arranging tC have the fine paid after the prisoner is delivered to the contractor, but that possibility would not justify violating the contract in advance besides the county should have pro vided for such contingency in the con tract itself. if it seemed wise. Oi course, when the fine is paid, and the costs discharged by the prisoners la bor, he is entitled to his discharge
 In the third case you mention where the prisoner was convicted l ...l E..,l z, .,.,..r..ao.a+A SNAA