Difference between revisions of ".MTUzMQ.MTM0MTU"
m (Protected ".MTUzMQ.MTM0MTU" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[116] Saturday January 26, 1822[centered] | [116] Saturday January 26, 1822[centered] | ||
[1822 Jan. 26] | [1822 Jan. 26] | ||
| − | [Committee on fish inspection laws] Order of the House that Messrs. Nowell, Britton & Hinman with such as the Senate may join, be a committee to inquire into the expediency of admitting for exportation of Beef, pork, butter, lard, smoked and pickled fish and salted fish, which may have been inspected in Massachusetts without reinspection, with leave to report by Bill or otherwise - came up for concurrence read and concurred - and Messrs. Ripley and O'Brien were joined. | + | [Committee on fish inspection laws] |
| + | Order of the House that Messrs. Nowell, Britton & Hinman with such as the Senate may join, be a committee to inquire into the expediency of admitting for exportation of Beef, pork, butter, lard, smoked and pickled fish and salted fish, which may have been inspected in Massachusetts without reinspection, with leave to report by Bill or otherwise - came up for concurrence read and concurred - and Messrs. Ripley and O'Brien were joined. | ||
| − | [Report on Committee on subject of costs in criminal prosecutions] Mr. Bond from the Committee on so much of the Governor's message as relates to costs in criminal prosecutions reported as follows - | + | [Report on Committee on subject of costs in criminal prosecutions] |
| + | Mr. Bond from the Committee on so much of the Governor's message as relates to costs in criminal prosecutions reported as follows - | ||
"The Committee have considered the subject with all the attention in their power, and have endeavoured to obtain information of the total amount of costs chargeable on the treasury of the State annually. Three only of the county treasurers having settled their accounts at the office of the treasurer of the State, it is impossible to determine with accuracy the sum of money for which the State is liable on account of criminal prosecutions within the past year. There is reason to believe that the costs in these cases constitute an important portion of the public expenditure. By the law of March 19, 1821 - the public treasury sustains all the loss which accrues in the several counties by the prosecution of offenders against the peace of the State. | "The Committee have considered the subject with all the attention in their power, and have endeavoured to obtain information of the total amount of costs chargeable on the treasury of the State annually. Three only of the county treasurers having settled their accounts at the office of the treasurer of the State, it is impossible to determine with accuracy the sum of money for which the State is liable on account of criminal prosecutions within the past year. There is reason to believe that the costs in these cases constitute an important portion of the public expenditure. By the law of March 19, 1821 - the public treasury sustains all the loss which accrues in the several counties by the prosecution of offenders against the peace of the State. | ||
That the State ought in justice to defray the expenses of bringing to punishment such persons as violate the peace of the State is a proposition apparently equitable. But the question is whether a different mode of payment would not be more economical and beneficial. If the several counties were required to pay the costs of the criminal prosecutions arising therein it would relieve the State from a large part of the annual tax. And it may be presumed that the Counties under such a provision would be more vigilant in the collection of costs, fines | That the State ought in justice to defray the expenses of bringing to punishment such persons as violate the peace of the State is a proposition apparently equitable. But the question is whether a different mode of payment would not be more economical and beneficial. If the several counties were required to pay the costs of the criminal prosecutions arising therein it would relieve the State from a large part of the annual tax. And it may be presumed that the Counties under such a provision would be more vigilant in the collection of costs, fines | ||
Latest revision as of 19:33, 22 April 2020
[116] Saturday January 26, 1822[centered] [1822 Jan. 26] [Committee on fish inspection laws] Order of the House that Messrs. Nowell, Britton & Hinman with such as the Senate may join, be a committee to inquire into the expediency of admitting for exportation of Beef, pork, butter, lard, smoked and pickled fish and salted fish, which may have been inspected in Massachusetts without reinspection, with leave to report by Bill or otherwise - came up for concurrence read and concurred - and Messrs. Ripley and O'Brien were joined.
[Report on Committee on subject of costs in criminal prosecutions] Mr. Bond from the Committee on so much of the Governor's message as relates to costs in criminal prosecutions reported as follows -
"The Committee have considered the subject with all the attention in their power, and have endeavoured to obtain information of the total amount of costs chargeable on the treasury of the State annually. Three only of the county treasurers having settled their accounts at the office of the treasurer of the State, it is impossible to determine with accuracy the sum of money for which the State is liable on account of criminal prosecutions within the past year. There is reason to believe that the costs in these cases constitute an important portion of the public expenditure. By the law of March 19, 1821 - the public treasury sustains all the loss which accrues in the several counties by the prosecution of offenders against the peace of the State.
That the State ought in justice to defray the expenses of bringing to punishment such persons as violate the peace of the State is a proposition apparently equitable. But the question is whether a different mode of payment would not be more economical and beneficial. If the several counties were required to pay the costs of the criminal prosecutions arising therein it would relieve the State from a large part of the annual tax. And it may be presumed that the Counties under such a provision would be more vigilant in the collection of costs, fines