PER DIEM OF MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
On motion of Mr. CAUTHORN the order of business was suspended and Mr. Wilson of Ripley's eight dollars per diem amendment bill [H. R. 73] was withdrawn from the committee and taken up for consideration, the question being on the engrossment.
Mr. HELLER said because the bill conflicts with the 29th section of the third article of the constitution, by providing for an increase of the per diem of members of the General Assembly, and that it shall be in force from and after its passage, he would move that it be laid on the table. But he withheld the motion for debate.
Mr. COBB said if the bill were to pass as it reads, with the emergency clause, it i would give the increased per diem from the commencement of the regular session. If passed without that clause, it would not take effect till the publicationsome time next Juneso as to affect the pay of the members of the next General Assembly.
Mr. CAUTHORN did not think the constitutional objection well taken. The Constitution does not prohibit the General Assembly from increasing their compensa-i tion, any further than that they shall not increase it during the session at which the bill is passed. It does not prevent us from increasing our compensation during our term of office.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. If our fathers served here for S3 a day, and if they lived here in war times for $5 a day, it seemed to him that at this time of money stringency we need not increase the amount. He was for retrenchment and economy.
Mr. THAYER considered that the State of Indiana is as able to pay her Representatives as fair a compensation as any individual would pay his lawyer. There were bills before the House to increase the pay of nearly every important officer of the State. The Governor has been allowed but a pittance, and the Judges of the Supreme Court have given,, their time to the people on a salary that would not well support a small family. He hoped members would not be affected with the mistaken idea of retrenchment in this matter, but consider the question maturely, and make the pay consistent with the labor, responsibility and dignity of the office.
Mr. WILLARD proposed to amend so as to avoid, the constitutional question: Strike out the words "from and after its passage," in the second section, and insert page: 94[View Page 94] these in lieu: "from and after the first day of January, 1873."
Mr. WALKER. There are but two ways in which the time can be designated when an act of legislation shall take effect; the one by an emergency clause, and the other by the act of publication. On his motion the proposed amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. MILLER thought the State would be saving money by increasing the per diem to $8, and cutting off perquisites.
Messrs. Cole and Clark favored the bill.
Mr. LENFESTY thought it unfortunate that the bill had been sprung at this time, and regretted the favor it seemed to meet from Republican members. There were plenty of men who are willing to serve at the present compensation. The people would not look at this matter as members might. If members were required to furnish their own stationery and papers, they would write but few letters, and send but few papers to their constituents. He did not want this body to acquire a name for extravagance. This General Assembly would be expected to make liberal appropriations to our benevolent institutions, and he would favor such legislation, but would oppose this extravagance.
Mr. HOYER thought the people were ready to increase the pay of members. He was not afraid of any record he might make on this subject. Men could not be expected to come here and starve.
Mr WALKER was willing to go upon the record in favor of this bill. He believed his services to his constituents worth eight dollars a day, if he did not steal anything. He favored increased pay to all officers of the State. He would follow his own convictions in the matter, without the dread of the public behind him. He did not like the idea of raising the question of party in this connection. He maintained the constitutionality of the bill, and believed the raising of the per diem and abolition of perquisites would meet the approbation of the people. It was time to wipe out the idea that it was a joke to come here and make laws for the State of Indiana, and this could in some measure, be accomplished by making the office decently remunerative.
Mr. BARRETT moved to amend the bill by striking out "eight dollars," and inserting "seven dollars."
Mr. HOYER moved to table the amendment.
The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. GIVEN opposed the bill. He did not think the fact that members voted themselves perquisites would justify them in voting for increased per diem instead. The raising of the per diem, so as to make the office a lucrative one, would, instead of securing a higher order of talent, make the office sought after by ordinary men. He did not think there was any demand for the bill. Men were not compelled to accept the office, but having done so should abide by the laws fixing the compensation.
Mr. SHIRLEY, while in favor of increasing the salaries of the officers of the State, regarded the matter of voting to increase his own salary as a delicate one. He did not like the plan of voting perquisites, and would prefer a direct salary. The people know members can not use all the stationery they draw. If satisfied that a per diem of eight dollars would be a saving to the people, he would favor it.
Mr. WOODARD thought the Assembly should legislate for the masses instead of the professional classes. At five dollars per day the members were realizing more than the great majority of their constituents. An increase would not secure better talent. The people were not willing to be taxed to raise salaries indiscriminately.
Mr. SATTERWHITE said the cost of session to the State at the present per diem would be $30,500; the allowance for stationery, as at present ordered, would amount to $5,000, and the papers furnished to members to $3,100 more, making an aggregate of $38,600. At a per diem of $8, the cost to the State of a session would be $48,800--an increase of $10,21 a handsome sum to be left in the treasury at the close of the session, or to be devoted to the benefit of our benevolent institutions. The message of the Governor shows the necessity of economy in public expenditures. By increasing the per diem to $8 we take $10,000 from the treasury, which might be better applied.
Mr. BRANHAM said the next House could vote to supply its members with stationery despite this law. The special session was not called for the purpose of raising salaries of members, and it would not look well to commence that work now. He was willing to raise the salaries of the Governor and judges, because they give all their time to the public service. If gentlemen consider the place of a Representative as a question of money, they have to combine a little patriotism with it, or they can't afford to go to the Legislature. It is true, that for a man to come here at the present pay, it injures his business, and if you can't make it to the interest of competent men to come here, you must get along without them in many page: 95[View Page 95]instances. And, if we can't get enough talent into the General Assembly, perhaps (and he thought it certain), that it would be the better way to reduce the number, and give all the pay to a few men. But he hoped the House would not go into this matter till we first raise the pay of the judges and Governor, and if we do not raise the next Governor's salary at this session,we can't do it at the next; and he would he very glad also to see the judges' pay increased at this session.
Mr. RENO, as a representative of an agricultural community who worked from four o'clock in the morning till sunset, was opposed to the bill.
Mr. BUTTS wished to call attention to the plank of the Republican State platform in favor of retrenchment and reform. In view of that plank he protested against the bill.
Mr. MELLETT thought the House was making a record in the direction of increased expenses. In view of the imporant work pending he thought these delicate questions should be postponed. He was not willing to vote increased pay to members while they sat in that pile of ruins--the old State House.
Mr. SMITH said he hoped to be able to vote for a bill to cut down the fat salaries some of the officers in his county, and could not do so if he voted for this bill.
Mr. THAYER said the question involved was not so much an increase of pay as a difference in mode of payment. Two-thirds of the members at the close of the session would vote to retain the copies of statute, borrowed for the session, and when they got home would try to sellthem. They were saving their stationery for the same purpose. He felt that he was getting more than he was worth, but wanted the per diem increased for the benefit of future Assemblies. Many men who would like to become members of the General Assembly could not afford to do so; and thus it was, perhaps, true that many of the better qualified were kept out on that account. He was anxious that the men of every General Assembly should be equal to the service required. Withregard to the opinion that better pay would not command a better class of talent, he compared the members of the General Assembly of this State, or any other State, at five dollars a day, with members of Congress at Washington at twenty dollars a day, and concluded that the larger per diem commands the best talent. Now if men are willing to make sacrifices by coming here to serve the State, still it is not right; and from such considerations he hoped the pay of members of the next and succeeding Legislatures would be increased and thought it would be well to pass such a bill at once and get it out of the way.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous question, which was seconded and ordered by the House, and then the bill was ordered to the engrossment for the third reading.
A message was received from the Governor announcing the signing of Mr. King's Insurance Company bill. No. 83.
Also a communication in answer to the resolution of the House asking for information concerning the status of the suit of the State on relation of J. C. Robinson vs. the Terre Haute and Indianapolis Railroad for the recovery of a sum of money said to exceed $1,000,000, and alleged to be due the State in trust for the school fund.
Also, a communication transmitting a memorial from the Bar Association of Indiana.
A message was received from the Senate announcing the adoption of certain joint rules.
