IMPRISONMENT FOR JUSTICES' COSTS.
Mr. Burgess' bill [154] to amend section 18 of the justices' act of May 29, 1852 coming up on the second reading-
Mr.CASON thought it ought to be engrossed. It simply included the costs with a fine before a justice of the peace.
Mr. McLEAN thought it should be referred. There was very little doubt but that the proposition was unconstitutional. Our Constitution provides that there shall be no imprisonment for debt; and this bill sought to enforce imprisonment, because the justices' costs were not paid. A bill of similar character was brought before the Legislature at the last session, and the Judiciary committee of one House or the other reported that it was unconstitutional. He moved that the bill be referred to the Commitee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FRASIER. The entry now in all the courts was, that the defendants stand committed until fine and costs are paid or replevied: and if it were constitutional before the courts of record, why should it be unconstitutional to include the costs before a justice? He had not perception to see the difference. He had never heard the constitionality of such an order questioned.
Mr WOODHULL. Had the gentleman ever seen a decision where the question has been raised ?
Mr. FRASIER had never seen such a record. He still thought there was good reason why the bill should be passed.
Mr. STOTSENBERG understood that this was to amend the justices' act so that the justice may have power to imprison for fine and costs. It was a question whether we ought to burthen the counties with the expense of these commitments. It was a serious question in his county, where they have criminals all the time. The expense of imprisonments so far as fines are concerned was as much as they wanted to bear.
Mr. CASON had no objection to the reference-did not see anything in the Constitutional objection-never heard it raised before did not think the Constitution contemplated infringement of a rule so long and so well established. Gentlemen talk about economy did they propose economy to justify a rule that the justice shall go without his costs ? whilst the State has a remedy provided for its costs? Costs were nothing but part of the forfeiture or penalty. These defendants commonly had but little property; there were few of them, however, who would go to jail if they or their friends can help it. Our officers have always enough to do to bring criminals to justice, and ought to be compensated.
Mr. ATKISSON could see no reason why they should claim any other remedy than the law now gives them. The wrong-doer has no benefit'ot valuation or appraisement laws; and if he has property, and you take the last five cents, why should the officers want to put him to jail at the expense of the county?
The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Underwood's bill [155] To fix the time of Courts in the 18th Circuit, was referred to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. Parrett's bill [156] providing for fees and salaries of Common Pleas and Circuit Prosecutors, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Black's bill [157] to repeal so much of the assessment act as authorizes a State Board of Equalization, coming up on the second reading-
On motion of Mr. ORR, it was referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
The House then adjourned.
