Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by the Knox Foundation with support from the Friends of the Augusta Library.
About The Augusta daily herald. (Augusta, Ga.) 1908-1914 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 9, 1909)
p THE READ FERTILIZERS Famous For Excellence In Manufacture Pine Mechanical Condition Best Results Under Growing Crops FOR PRICES AND FULL INFORMATION WRITE OR CALL ON THE READ PHOSPHATE CO. CHARLESTON, S. C. CHAS. S. HEARD, Agent, 106 JACKSON STREET. AUGUSTA, GEORGIA. HITT COURT 00 LONGER NEEDED, SMS COMMISSION'S ATTORNEY Salem Date her, Esq., Rec ommends that Richmond County’s Court Affairs Be Transacted By a Cir cuit of Superior Court. In a report presented by Mr. Salem Dutcher, legal counsel for the coun ty commissioners at a meeting of that body held Thursday it Is asserted that expense of the city court Is a drain upon the county funds and suggests that the legislature be asked by the grand jury to pass a law which would place Richmond county In an Indi vidual circuit and let the superior court handle all of the court busi ness of the county, taken as a whole, the report suggests that the city court is no longer needed and that Its pres ent work is In contradiction to the reason for which it was established, namely the old time idea that there could be but two sessions of the su perior court held each year. In his report Mr. Dutcher also gives a detailed statement of the amounts received in lines and forfeitures and insolvent costs from the two courts by four of the officers, namely the clerk, sheriff, solicitor general and the solicitor of the city court and shows that In the city court these officials may be placed on a salary basis, which is not true of the superior court where the fees as mentioned above are stated by the law of the state. The report of Mr. Dutcher was read by the chairman of the county com missioners. Mr. Pope offered the resolution that the report from Mr. Dutcher be ac cepted, filed and a copy be presented to the grand Jury at its meeting Fri day morning. This was unanimous ly adopted. The report follows: The grand jury of this county at the October term, 1909, reported as follows In Its general presentments, to-wit: "We have devoted a good deal of time to the investigation of the offi ces of the county which are paid un der the fee system; namely, solicitors of superior and city courts, sheriff and clerk —and, ha<* intended making a report on incom* of each office, but the limlte'd time at our disposal, and, the desire to be accurate and do no Injustice prevented our carry ing out this intention. "We have, however gone far enough to say that we think it is for the best interest of the county that these offices be placed on a salaried basis. We, therefore, recommend that a com petent accountant be engaged by the county commissioners to investigate and report the annual income of each of these officers to the next grand_ jury. We have considerable data ob- T CHARLESTON, S. C. tained by us, which will be available, should this recommendation be adopt ed. “We find that under the present system no part of the fines and for feitures in either court goes into the treasury, but are absorbed by the in solvent costs. These fines and for feitures exceeded SIO,OOO for the first eight months of the present year in these two courts.” Th e above mentioned order at your honorable body directed the under signed to investigate the matters above referred to by the grand jury. There Is considerable ambiguity In the above presentments as to the pre cise scope of the examination desired. It will be seen that in one place an enquiry is recommended into the of ficial “income” of each of the four gentlemen referred to; and that in another the attention of the grand jury seems focussed upon the fact that while a very large amount, of fines is collected, all is absorbed by insolvent costs and no part reaches the county treasury. After quite an anxious considera tion, I have arrived at the conclusion that what is desired is a statement of what amounts these four officers have, respectively, received from fines collected and out of the county treas ury. My reasons for so thinking I will briefly state. Neither the solici tor general, nor the city court solici tor receives any revenue in civil cases, their duties appertaining exclusively to criminal cases. The clerk and sheriff receive costs in both civil and criminal cases, but such costs as they receive in civil cases come out of private litigants and are in no case paid out of the county treasury. When the courts sit for the transaction of civil business, they are entitled to re ceive a certain per diem for their at tendance upon the court to be In read iness to obey its mandates, but fur ther than this receive no compensa tion in this class of cases from the public. So far, therefore, as civil cases are concerned the county treas ury is practically eliminated. In criminal cases, however, all four officers receive compensation, ani'K the nature and amount of this compensa tion will now be considered. It will facilitate a comprehension of what is to follow to here explain the meaning of the terms "insolvent costs, ’ and the “fine and forfeiture fund.” "Costs” are the compensation allow ed officers of the law for their ser vices as such. The items of this com pensation arj set down in a schedule or list of rates, so much for this ser vice, and go much for the other, etc., which list is called a fee bill. When a defendant in a criminal case is con victed it is part of his penalty that, he shall pay the costs of his prosecu tion. In some cases this is done, but In the majority of instances the crim inal from his poverty is unable to do so, and hence these costs receive the name of "insolvent costs.” Again, there are cases in which the defend ant is acquitted, and in this case, as he cannot he required to pay the costs and the state docs not pay them, they also come under the heading of "insolvent costs.” Still further, there are cases where a person charged of crime is arrested and the solicitor general prefers an indictment against him to the grand jury, but that body, by finding "no bill,” declines to put the man upon trial. Here, also, the costs are "insolvent costs.” The "fine and forfeiture fund” is next to he explained. A fine is a pecuniary penalty imposed upon those convicted of crime. When a fine thus imposed is collected it goes into Ihe "fine and forfeiture fund.” A "forfeit ure” is to be thus explained. When a man is charged with any offense, not capital, he is entitled to give bond to appear for trial, which bond is technically called a "recognizance.” If he fails to appear, the "recogniz ance” is "forfeited,” and when the amount is collected from his secur ity this also goes Into the fund. In asmuch as In neither the superior court nor the city court have there been any forfeitures of this charac ter during this year this particular 'item may be omitted from further consideration. Under the general law of the state the officers of court have a right to have their insolvent costs first paid out of the fine and forfeiture fund, and if there he any balance left, that resi due is to be paid into the county treasury. I When there was but one trial court in each county, namely, the superior (court, and that court tried all crimin al cases, the "fine and forfeiture fund" | was commonly found enough to pay i the officers their compensation in full (and leave a balance to go Into the treasury. After awhile, however, ow i ing to the emancipation of the ne ! groes and some other causes, the vol jump of crime largely increased. The j superior court at that time held but j two regular sessions a year in each j county, and it was a prevalent, if not (universal, impression among lawyers (that it could not legally sit more fre quently. Consequently the jails crowd ed with prisoners had to remain so (for four, five, and sometimes six (months at a time, entailing heavy , county taxation. The proper xesri j edy was, of course, to increase the ! number of sessions of the superior [court, but as it was then supposed, |as above stated, that this could not be done constitutionally, a practice aros e of creating subsidiary courts to sit frequently and dispose of the smaller, or "misdemeanor" cases at [least. These subsidiary courts were i first styled "district courts,” after j wards "county courts,” and latterly TKE AUGUSTA HERALD, AUGUSTA, GA. MADE AT CORDELE, GA. "city courts.” They were created to meet a supposed exigency, as above stated, and while that exigency last ed were extremely serviceable. But in process of tim e the ques tion of whether ithe superior court could constitutionally hold more than two regular sessions a year came un der a more careful consideration. The Augusta Bar Association arrived at the conclusion that it could, but, with the proverbial caution and acumen of that body, directed that the opin ion of the supreme court should be taken on the subject. This was done, and the supreme court decided that there was no constitutional objection to the superior court holding as many regular terms in a year in any coun ty as might j proper for the dispo sition of the legal business thereof. Tills removed the supposed exigen cy which had led to the creation of the subsidiary courts, but they still remain in operation in this and a number of other counties, although the cause which brought them into being has ceased to exist. Coincident with above eventß a policy of creating the largest counties in the slate into Judicial circuits by themselves was entered upon. Fulton, the largest county and Tiaving the largest city, is now the Atlanta circuit. Chatham, the second largest, county with the second largest city, is the eastern clrcui; but Richmond, the third larg est and with the third largest city, is still on the provincial establish ment, being in a circuit composed of itself and other counties. Richmond superior court now holds by law six regular sessions a year and Richmond city court does the same. Both begin in January and hold bi-monthly throughout the year, in March, May, July, September and Njvember. It can thus bo seen that w e have a duplex system of courts with a duplex system of officers, hav ing a double set of duties, -and friVi this circumstance can readily be per ceived at least one cause of the drain upon the county treasury which has come under observation. The solicitor general of this circuit Is allowed payment of his Insolvent costs out of the line and forfeiture fund so far as that source extends, under the general laws of the state, as above men tioned, and is in addition allowed, tin der a local law, to supplement that means of payment out of the county treasury to an extent not to exceed $2,000 In any one year, provided the grand Jury recommend the same. The clerk and sheriff in the superior court, are in like manner allowed pay. meat of their insolvent costs out of the fine anti forfeiture fund under the Ken. eral law, and are in addition allowed, under another local law, such payments out of the county treasury of insolvent costs as the grand Jury may see fit to recommend, no limit being fixed in re gard to these officers as there Is in ref erence to the solicitor general. As to all three officers, it Is optional with the grand Jury to recommend, and unless they do recommend the Judge of the su perior court is not authorized to draw any order on the county treasury in favor of any of them for any amount whatever. r In the city court somewhat different rules obtain. The grand Jury has no power over ttie payment of the insolvent costs of the officers of that court out of the county treasury. The city court solicitor Is entitled, un der the general law, to Ihe same method of payment of his Insolvent costs out of the fine and forfeiture fund as the so licitor general; and in addition is en titled, under another local law, to sup plement that means of payment out of the county treasury to an amount not exceeding $2,000 In any one year, when his account therefor is audited and ap. proved by the Judge of the city court. In the city court the clerk and shcrlfi are similarly entitled to payment of their insolvent costs out of the fine and forfeiture fund and are also allowed, un der still another local law, to supple, ment the same out of the county treas ury to an amount not exceeding $1,200, in any one year for each officer, when the account therefor Is audited and ap proved by the Judge of the city court. The two solicitors arc collecting officers of their respective courts and pro rate fines collected by them between them selves and the clerk and sheriff proport ionately to their respective hills. Both keep account of such disbursements and from their statements I derive the sums set down In the subjoined tabula tion in the column headed "Fines.” The amounts paid to each officer out of the county treasury I ascertained by a persona! Inspection of the check stub* of checks drawn in their favor by the county treasury. From these sources of information Is compiled the following statement: T abulatlon. Payments to following officers from January Ist 1909 to December Ist, 1909, out of fines collected Isame including solvent criminal costs collected) and out of the county treasury. ' ~ Fine* Treas. Total Solicitor General $ 920.40 f 1,000 11,920.40 City Court Solicitor , G,844.<12 1,667 9,511,12 Clerk- Superior Court ? 47..)'» City Court 1.849.47 1.896.47 1.716.06 3.812.53 Sheriff Superior Court 60.J0 City Court 744.31 794.41 5,906.34 8,700.73 Aggregate $10,456.40 $10,289.40 $20,744.80 Upon the foregoing tabula i*m some ob servations are in order The solid to** of the cl*y .tint informs me that in addition to abova amount of $9,536.00, f.'nes collected and disbursed a* above In that court from January Ist to December Ist 1909, he hod in hand on December Ist, 1909 a further *um of $1,325, fines collected, whb/ was sub ject to distribution between himself ano tho other officers of h!« court, but had not up to that* time been so distributed because the proportionate share thereof had not then been ascertained. Ah the foregoing tabulation is confined to pay ments actually marl**, I have not Includ ed above sum of $1,326 In It. Were It Included, It would make the total of fines collected In the city court for the « NASHVILLE, TENN. period above mentioned $10,860, Instead of $9,625. It Is further to bo observed In this connection that tiie solicitor o, the city court Informs me by a statement herewith transmit ted that for the year 1909 the fines collected In his court wero much larger than those for the two pre ceding years, they being given as $6,- 940.76 for 1908 and $6,689.60 1907, and that the occasion of tills Increase is the fines Imposed In the prohibition cases. It is further lo l)e observed that Ihe sum of $6,906.24, shown by above tabu lation lo have been paid the sheriff, the sum of $2,711.86 was paid him as what are known as "jail fees," which fees are made up of two items "turkey fees" and "diet fees." The sheriff Is entitled to a fee of sixty (60) cents for each prisoner received Into the Jail, and sixty cents (60) for each discharged, these being called "turkey fees" because the key Is turned on the prisoner In coming In and going out. “Diet fees” are an allowance to the sheriff of twenty-five (26) cents per day per prisoner for the subsistence of the prisoner. Separating above $8,711.85 Into Its con stituent. Items, 1 find $895.20 paid as "turnkey fee” and $2,816.66 paid as "diet fees”. The "turnkey fees," are compensal lon for service rendered arid should be computed as such, but only so much of the "diet fees" enures to the sheriff’s pecuniary benefit as equals the difference between the per diem received and the actual cost of sub slstence. Fixing this actual cost at twenty (20) cents, which I do after some enquiry, i find the overplus In the a,', tide of "diet fees” to be $563.46, which added to the $896.20 In "turnkey fees" gives Ihe sheriff but $1,466.65 oul of Ihe above mentioned $2,711.86, and makes the amount received by him as compen sation $3,653.14, Instead of the $6,906,34, above appearing In the gross. The city court Is a purely statutory court. It has no constitutional status. It may be created, altered or abolished by the general assembly In any county at any time. What Is sold of the court, lt- Helf applies to Its officers. Their com pensation Is purely statutory, and the amount and nature of that compensa tion may lawfully be changed at any time. There Ik no legal obstacle In the way of legislation which would put the so licitor, ebrk and sheriff of Richmond dty court <yi a salary instead of a feo* basis; nor Is there any legal obstacle to an act which would require all fine* and forfeiture* collected In this court to be paid over Into the county treasury; and tho grand Jury has full and ample au thority to recommend the passage of a local act to this effect should it see fit so to do. If this county Were made a separate circuit, thereby enabling the Judge of Ihe superior oourt to devoto his entire at tention to It, and that court were made tho only court, all local laws providing for the payment of officers of oourt out of tht! county treasury could lie repealed without any Injury to those Officers. Tfie vexed question of fees or salary would settle itself, and Instead of being con. stantly drawn on, tho county treasury would most probably be a recipient >t revenue, not to speak of having only one court to support instead of two ns at present. There Is no legal obstacle to the enact ment of legislation of this churactor should the snine he deemed advisable. In this as In all other matters men tioned in this report, it is distinctly to he understood that 1 am taking no po. sltlon, and making no suggestion, hut confining myself simply to the matter entrusted to me, namely, the presenta tion of facts and taw for tht: Informa tion of the constituted authorities for such action aB they moy see (It to tukee thereon. Respectfully submitted. Dec. 8, 1909. BAI.ICM DUTCHER. MLDOSTI NEWS „ TOLD 1# BRIEF VALDOSTA, On.— Mlhh Josephine Den* mark and Mlhh Emma Joe I {rift entor lalnod tin* young ladies bridge club Wed nesday afternoon at 3 o’clock In honor of Mlhh Nlta Fender, whoso marriage to Dr. John Brewer Powers will take place on the thirtieth of this month. Mr. Charles Shelton, of Atlanta, vlslfcd hi* father’* family In Valdosta. He was on hi* return from Savannah, where be had been to attend the marriage of hi* low partner, Mr. Horsey, to Mlhh Adams, which occurred on Saturday evening. There wan something doing around be courihouHc Monday morning. The De cember term of Ihe city court mot promptly at ten o'clock, the regular monthly session of the Ordlnary’H court was held and the county commission* rn also held their regular first Monday's se**lon. Col. Randal! Walker mode a business trip over to W tycroHH recently. Mr. J. T. Strickland, of Wuycross, was n business visitor here this week. Mr. C. C. Brantley come down from Atlanta and spent awhile In Valdosta, Mr. Brantley ha* made a splendid record rh executive Hecretnry, and no member of Governor Brown’s official family stand* higher in the esteem of the Gov ernor or the peopTe Tvho have business to transact at the capftol. Mr. W. L. Ricks has n force of men at work on the city hall auditorium making the necessary changes to turn It Into an opera house. When complet | ed It will be a pretty hall and splendidly arranged for the business. NINE
