Difference between revisions of ".MTUzMQ.MTM0MTY"

From DigitalMaine Transcription Project
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "�")
 
m (Protected ".MTUzMQ.MTM0MTY" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
+
fines and forfeitures than they now are, as their diligence in this respect would promote their own exclusive advantage. It is probable that a law imposing on the Counties the payment of these costs would operate with some inequality. One county, with a given amount of property might unfortunately have a larger number of criminals from foreign countries, or among themselves, than another county more wealthy and more able to bear the expenses of the prosecution of such criminals. It is not however, unreasonable to suppose that even those counties which are in the greatest degree infested by the vicious and violent, might reduce the expenses of administering Justice as low as their present proportion of the public charge, by preventing the taxation of unnecessary cost, and by strict attention in the collection of fines and forfeitures.
 +
 
 +
Your Committee being unable to agree in the expediency of a repeal of the existing laws and the enactment of another law to transfer the charges in criminal prosecutions from the State to the several counties, ask leave to recommend a reference of this subject to the next legislature, that more information may be obtained, than we can at this time present."
 +
 
 +
Which report was read and accepted. Sent down for concurrence - came up concurred.
 +
 
 +
[Report on petition & recommitment]
 +
The report of the Committee on the Petition of John Jellison and others accepted in the Senate and sent down, came up from the House non concurred and recommitted to the Committee on New Trials. The Senate reconsider their former vote and concur with the House in recommitment of said petition.
 +
 
 +
[Committee on purchasing State Reports]
 +
Ordered that Messrs. Bond and Burnham be a committee to consider the expediency of purchasing a suitable number of copies of the Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of the State for the use of the several towns therein.

Latest revision as of 19:39, 22 April 2020

fines and forfeitures than they now are, as their diligence in this respect would promote their own exclusive advantage. It is probable that a law imposing on the Counties the payment of these costs would operate with some inequality. One county, with a given amount of property might unfortunately have a larger number of criminals from foreign countries, or among themselves, than another county more wealthy and more able to bear the expenses of the prosecution of such criminals. It is not however, unreasonable to suppose that even those counties which are in the greatest degree infested by the vicious and violent, might reduce the expenses of administering Justice as low as their present proportion of the public charge, by preventing the taxation of unnecessary cost, and by strict attention in the collection of fines and forfeitures.

Your Committee being unable to agree in the expediency of a repeal of the existing laws and the enactment of another law to transfer the charges in criminal prosecutions from the State to the several counties, ask leave to recommend a reference of this subject to the next legislature, that more information may be obtained, than we can at this time present."

Which report was read and accepted. Sent down for concurrence - came up concurred.

[Report on petition & recommitment] The report of the Committee on the Petition of John Jellison and others accepted in the Senate and sent down, came up from the House non concurred and recommitted to the Committee on New Trials. The Senate reconsider their former vote and concur with the House in recommitment of said petition.

[Committee on purchasing State Reports] Ordered that Messrs. Bond and Burnham be a committee to consider the expediency of purchasing a suitable number of copies of the Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of the State for the use of the several towns therein.