COUPLE BURTHEN WITH BENEFIT.Rule V.The expenses of an office ought to be defrayed by those who enjoy the benefit of the services rendered by the office.
The author of the Wealth of Nations, in investigating the manner in which the expense of services ought to be divided, has shown that in some cases it ought to be defrayed by the public---in others, exclusively by those who immediately reap the benefit of the service.He has also shown that there---is a class of mixed cases, in which the expense ought to be defrayed partly by the public, and partly by the individuals who derive the immediate benefit.To this class belongs public education.
The rule just laid down seems scarcely to stand in need of proof.It may, however, be useful to mention the modes in which it may be violated; as---1.When, for a service rendered to one person or set of persons, the obligation of payment is imposed upon another.This is partly the case of dissenters who support their own clergy, in so far as they are obliged to pay for the support of the clergy of that established sect from which they dissent.2.When, for a service rendered to a certain number of individuals, the obligation of payment is imposed upon the public:
for example, the expenses of a theatre, wholly or in part paid out of the public purse.3.When, for service rendered to the public, the obligation of payment is imposed upon an individual.
With respect to this third case, the examples are but too abundant.
I.The most remarkable example will be found in the administration of justice.At first sight, it maybe thought that he who obtains a verdict in his favour reaps the principal, or even the only advantage to be obtained; and therefore that it is reasonable he should bear the expense incurred---that he should pay the officers of justice for the time they have been employed.It is in this manner that the subject appeared even to Adam Smith.(B.v.sec.2.) Upon a closer examination, we shall discover an important error.The individual in whose favour a verdict is given, is precisely the individual who has received least benefit : setting aside the rewards paid to the officers of justice, bow many other expenses, which the nature Of things render inevitable, remain! It is be who, at the price of his time, his care, and his money, has purchased that protection which others receive for nothing.
Suppose that among a million persons there have been, for example, a thousand lawsuits in a year: without these lawsuits---without the judgments which terminate them, injustice would have had nothing to hold it in check but the defensive energy of individuals.A million acts of injustice would have been perpetrated in the same time.But since, by means of these thousand judgments, a million acts of injustice have been prevented, it is the same thing as if each complainant had himself prevented a thousand.Because he has rendered so important a service---because he has exposed himself to so many mishaps, to so much trouble and expense, does he deserve to be taxed? It is as though the militia who defend the frontiers should be selected to bear the expenses of the campaign.
``Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?''
saith St.Paul.It is the poor litigant who makes war upon injustice, who pursues it before the tribunals at his own risk, and who is made to pay for the service which is rendered by him.
When such expenses are thrown upon a defendant, unjustly dragged into the litigious contention, the case is yet worse:
