NEWSPAPERS FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 45.]
The SPEAKER laid before the House the Senate's Message announcing the refusal of that body to concur in the concurrent resolution of the House to exclude Newspapers.
Mr. WILSON of Ripley. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adhere to the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. COBB. If we would do anything it must be through a Committee of Conference; but it seems to me that the resolution has now failed.
Mr. SHIRLEY. I do not desire to make any appropriation for newspapers; but if the other branch will, I don't see how we can help it. I do not think it is right, but if the Senate choose to make an appropriation for themselves, the House refusing to concur leaves the responsibility with them. I do not know but we have gone too far in this matter; if they will vote themselves the paper, let them be responsible for their action. I do not want any except what I pay for myself.
Mr. OFFUTT. I was not in my place, the other day when this resolution was passed refusing to pay for papers that might be ordered for the General Assembly, but if I had been I should have voted for it. I hesitated at the time it was introduced whether we would be doing the wisest thing to pass the per diem bill; and I decided both ways before I could determine to vote for it. But upon the explanations of gentlemen, going to show that it would cut off all indirect expenditures of the public money for the General Assembly and stop all perquisites hereafter hearing the careful estimates submitted by the gentleman for Morgan [Mr. Satterwhite] that in the end it would be no additional expense to the State - I finally consented to vote for the bill.
page: 307[View Page 307]But now it has been charged in my county that that bill does not cut off newspapers, But I say here that under no view would I have voted for it, had I not been fully assured that it would cut them off. So far as I am individually concerned, that is the view I entertain on this subject; and I never will vote for an appropriation bill containing an item for newspapers and stamps for the General Assembly. I stand on the import of the per diem bill; and the House having passed it with that idea, we ought in good faith to carry it out.
Mr. RAMSEY. I recollect that about six days ago the House committed itself by a explanatory resolution in reference to that bill - that that was the construction which this House put upon it. We can't act consistently if we go back on that resolution. Hence I can't respect the action of the Senate in refusing to concur in this resolution which has been adopted on the part of the House.
Mr. BUSKIRK. It seems to me that the refusal of the Senate to concur in this resolution is conclusive of this matter so far as the subject is connected with this House and that when we undertake to controle that matter in the Senate we trespass on prerogative. Now it seems to me that the per diem bill can't be made to exclude newspapers by any fair construction. It matters not what gentlemen may have thought about it; the only question of construction is this: does the bill as a matter of law necessarily cut off newspapers from the House and Senate? It seems to me that that question must be answered in the negative. That was my construction of the bill when I voted for it. I understood that it cuts off just what it expressed in the words of the act; stationerythat is paper, pens, ink, pencils and postage stamps; but not newspapers: because they were provided here independently.
Mr. OFFUTT [interposing.] I desire to ask the gentleman from Gibson if he did not hear the calculations made on the floor by the friends of the bill, and whether in those calculations newspapers were not included?
Mr. BUSKIRK. I did: but I am not responsible for the calculations and views of others. I understand that the act cannot be construed to mean what its language does not legally justify. And that is the view of the Senate; and they are entitled to it; that the per diem bill does not include newspapers by any just construction, and if we concede this, by proceeding to insist on this resolution we are trespassing unwarrantably on the privileges of the Senate. And as to what our constituents may say on this subject, we have nothing to do with that. I do not think it would be very wise or very well for us now to be too nice about this matter. Whilst avoiding Scylla on one side we may strike Charybdis on the other. By attempting too much economy even we might bare ourselves to the suspicion that we are playing the part of demagogues in this matter. Now, sir, I did vote, and I would again vote against newspapers in the House; but I would do so independently of anything in the per diem bill; for I do not consent that, by the per diem bill we are bound to vote for the exclusion of newspapers.
Mr. HENDERSON. When the per diem bill was introduced, like the gentleman from Hancock [Mr. Offutt] I also took different sides; but when it was properly explained I voted for it. Now what are rules for interpreting law? In the first place we are told that it is necessary to interrogate the law makers. I was one of the makers of this law; and now is the time for us to be interrogated on this question of interpretation. And I understand that when that bill was passed it was the intention by it to cut off everything in the way of perquisites - newspapers, stamps - everything of that kind.
Mr. BUSKIRK. I understand the rule of interpretation in accordance with the intention of the Legislature to be qualified in this: that you are not to carry the construction beyond the plain meaning of the language used by the Legislature in the enactment of the law.
Mr. HENDERSON. I understand that the first rule of interpretation is the understanding of the law makers; and it was my understanding that the per diem bill should exclude newspapers ; and therefore the contrary must be a strained interpretation to fit the case. My intention was that it should cut off everything, and I am satisfied such was the intention of the majority - that we would be rid of the newspapers - stop the question of perquisites - that eight dollars a day should be sufficent. And now I think this resolution is sufficient to determine what we meant by the eight dollars a day.
Mr. WALKER. I have no disposition to intrude upon the prerogatives of the Senate; but by the resolution of the gentleman from Knox [Mr. Cauthorn] we have said that the eight dollars a day shall include everything; and I think it is proper now that we should admonish the Senate that we have declared our intention in passing that law, and that the Senate should not remain ignorant of it. But if we do not adhere to this resolution - if we recede from it - we have still the specific bill to fall back on; because the Senate is notified of our interpretation of that law ; and if they continue to vote themselves newspapers it is their responsibility. But if we now retract our interpretation it will not be fair toward those whose support of the per diem bill was obtained from that consideration. I think that we should again inform the Senate that it was eight dollars a day and no more; because if the Senate now vote themselves newspapers, and statutes without returning them, the nex page: 308[View Page 308] General Assembly will do the same, and this provision of the law against perquisites will be a dead letter, whilst it must be conceded as just and right; and it is the suggestion of the incoming Governor to pay so much and no more for the public service - that prequisites are wrong in principle.I believe, sir, that it would not be trespassing on the powers of the co-ordinate branch, to notify them that we cannot recede.
Mr. WILSON of REipley. It seems to me that the only objection to this resolution is, that it is immodest in us. But I ask you, sir, if it is not a part of the duty of this House to determine whether members of the General Assembly shall increase their pay or not? I have always been perplexed with this question of increasing our salary by stationery. Now, if we procure newspapers for the people with the peoples money, the beneficence of our action should be equal. But do we furnish all our constituents with newspapers? No, we furnish only some of our particular friends. Then the procuring of these newspapers is just simply increasing our own pay. But these papers come in here wrapped and stamped ; and, however we may regard it, we take all the credit to ourselves, and we say to our constituents who receive the papers: We did it - and forget that they pay for them. It is all wrong in principle, and I am in favor of stopping all these little leaks that are nearly doubling the taxes of the people. For we are paying to-day nearly $300,000 for what is called "stationery" in the Courts and county offices of the State paying this for stationery for men that are no more entitled to it than any private citizens. Sir, we can't defend this action if we turn our backs on the record we made at the last session.
Mr. HELLER. Whilst I voted against taking the newspapers here, I desire to ask the Chair whether this per diem bill is going to cut off the Geological, the Agricultural, and the Brevier Reports?
The SPEAKER. Not at all, sir.
Mr. HELLER. Well now, I ask if newspapers are cut off, and those reports are not but are to be all sent to the people - for it seems to me to cut off the Legislature from receiving them for themselves; so that when a man becomes a member of the Legislature he is no longer on an equality with the private citizens.
Mr. OFFUTT. I understand that these reports are for the people. I do not understand that the Legislature have anything to do with them but as citizens of the State. Neither do I understand that, because a man is in the Legislature he is deprived of his rights as a citizen, but he may accept an Agricultural report as a private citizen.
Mr. HELLER. I ask you, if under the law you can here accept a copy of the Acts or of the Journals?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Allen will make his interrogatories in a parliamentary manner.
Mr. HELLER. I interrogate the gentleman only I give him the right to interrogate me. I am here on an equal footing with others on this floor: and when our act does not include these books and papers I claim that we should abide the strict construction of the law; and if we intended to restrict newspapers as to the House, we intended to restrict them as to the Senate. But while I vote against newspapers I still think it is a wrong construction of the law.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. If we concur with the Senate by receding from this resolution we place ourselves in the position of inconsistency. I voted against the per diem bill; but I know that the papers were excluded by it, and it was so understood and so expressed on the floor in order to show that the bill would not add to the general expensiveness of legislation. After that act, and after the adoption of the resolution by which we have construed that act, we cannot consistently recede from this resolution.
Mr. COBB. While I am in favor of adhering to this resolution and while I have commenced the practice of purchasing my own papers and stamps, and while I voted for the resolution construing the per diem bill, I did not do it because I thought it a fair and just construction of the language of the per diem bill; for I insist that it cannot be so construed as to cut off the newspapers here. We do not ourselves so understand the meaning of the term "stationery," as to use it for newspapers, and stamped newspapers at that; because we have all of us received newspapers here, and I am satisfied that not a single man of us had his newspapers and stamps charged up to his account of "stationery." If that had been our understanding of this term at that time, if we had acted in good faith, we would have gone to the Secretary and said to him each one of us, that we have received from the newspaper publishers a certain number of papers, and a certain number of newspapers wrapped and stamped, which are worth so much, and we want these charged to our stationery account. I say then that I voted for these resolutions because they are right; not because they are in the per diem bill. I believe that it's good policy to do this ; and while I am in favor of this resolution as good policy for the government of this House,I think that while we have done well in going thus far, we cannot go to the extent of requiring the Senate to adopt a forced construction of the law. Sir, you may take the deposition of any member of this House or of any gentleman outside, and require him solemnly to give his opinion, his construction of the law, and it would have no particular weight In the case, because the con- page: 309[View Page 309] struction must be according to the import of the language of the law. I am not in favor of making a construction here against that of a co-ordinate branch of the General Assembly. - I think, if we would keep up a proper comity and good faith with the other end of the capitol, we are bound to accept their construction. While I am in favor of this resolution, which it is competent for us to take as governing ourselves; and, while I believe it is right, I am not so extra-conscientious as to say I will not allow anybody else to do what I conceive to be wrong. - Now I hope the House will let this resolution drop; for it is about as near dead as anything can be.
Mr. THAYER. The per diem bill is law. But now if under its provisions we voted a certain amount of "stationery," for the use of the officers of the House, do we not say that in this way we might receive these papers under the law allowing ourselves to vote ourselves stationery? - especially when there is no other law forbiding it? Or, is it not true, that when we pass a law cutting off '"stationery," that it cuts off all perquisites in its train?
Mr.COBB. I think not.
The SPEAKER. That is enough.
Mr. COBB. I do not wish to make a quarrel with the Senate. This resolution as I understand it - the Senate not concurring - it is dead - it has fallen to pieces. It is not a matter for us to consider again. While still - adhering to our construction of yesterday - by coming in here to-day and saying we are in favor of that construction again can't help us any. This as a concurrent resolution is simply dead, because the other branch refuses to concur in it. Let us not be seeking a quarrel with the Senate in advance upon what may become after this a vexatious question; and when that may come up as a just issue it will be time enough to argue this question ; and let us not, in this way, attempt to strengthen our courage for the evil day when it comes.
Mr. WOOLLEN. By unanimous consent of the House I desire to offer a bill supplemental to the per diem bill. ("Consent""consent.") Mr. W. then introduced a bill [H. R. 315] for an act supplemental to the act fixing the per diem of members of the General Assembly, approved December 19, 1872, and providing that no additional perquisites shall be allowed.
[The object (as he explained it) being to provide by law that no appropriation of the money of the State Treasury shall be allowed for newspapers or stamps furnished to members of the General Assemble.] It was passed to the second reading, and referred to a Special Committee appointed by the Speaker, namely: Messrs. Woollen, Wilson of Ripley, and Wood.
So the question was passed over informally for the present.
