SALARIES OF JUDGES.
The bill S. 289, to fix the salaries of Judges of the Supreme Court, with the House amendments fixing the salaries of Judges of other Courts, the special order for 3 o'clock was now called up.
Mr. GLESSNER moved that the House Amendments be concurred in.
Mr. SLEETH moved to amend to concur in the House amendments, with an amendment reducing the salary of Circuit Judges from three thousand dollars to two thousand five hundred dollars.
Mr. SLATER moved to am^nd by making it two thousand dollars.
This motion was rejected by yeas 19, nays 25.
Pending the roll call.
Mr. HARNEY said: there is great force in the argument that this is not a proper time to increase the salaries of public officers because there is a general decline in the products of labor. There is also another fact that is equally clear and that is that there is a great increase in the value of high intellectual labor of the very class that the State wants in her service. For this kind of service we have to compete with private enterprise - with corporations and with the Federal government.
The avenues for obtaining wealth are varied and open to all, and of course are first seized by the intellectual and enterprising. In fact if money consideration were the only inducement, the State could not secure to its service the best talent it posesses. Again the general governments is holding out great inducements to the best talent we have to enter its service, while corporations are not behind in contending for the best talent to enter its service.
Now, sir, the proposition needs no argument to sustain it. That the security honor and dignity of the State depends upon its great men. Men great in intellect, culture, morals, and industry. Great wealth may serve only to overate a people or incite barbarians to prey upon its riches. A dense population may tend only to anarchy, or more often results in absolute despotism; while there are the true elements of grateness when we have the nerve and intellect to control them. This the State must have in its service. Heretofore we have been successful more on account of an honorable ambition upon the part of our leading men to serve the public than the pecuniary inducements offered. But this can not always remain so when corporations offer twice as much for the same service as the State is willing to give. Our Supreme Court is the august tribunal of the State; its decissions are the law of the land. It passes upon every question that effects the people of the State and in both corporate and individual, and certainly there is wisdom in retaing in that honored position the highest talent in the State, providing for their support in such a generous manner that there could be no presumption of there being governed by any but the purest motive. In this vote I treat the public interest just as I would my own. I propose to employ the best talent and pay such compensation as that class of services are worth in any other department of business.
Mr. HOUGH, in explanation of his vote, when his name wsa called, said : With the number of Circuit Judges increased and additional Judges elected to take the place of the Common Pleas judges, we will have a greater number of judges in five years than we have ever had in Indiana, and until we know how our Judiciary is to be manned we should not increase the salaries. In five years our judicial salaries will cost not less than one hundred thousand dollars annually; more than ever before.
Mr. NEFF, by way of explaning his vote when his name was called said : While we had before us the consideration of this question in connection with the increase of salary for common pleas judges I believed then the salary of that officer was too low. Fifteen hundred dollars per year will not command such talent as should be demanded by the people. I was in favor of increasing that officers salary commensurate with the labor he was required to perform: but the whole judicial system has been changed, the common Pleas Courts have page: 570[View Page 570] been abolished, the number of judicial circuits have very nearly been doubled, and now we are asked to increase the salary of the circuit judges very largely without waiting to ascertain the amount of labor they have to perform. But there is another objection still more serious in the way, and that is the final disposition of the probate business. In my judgment at the next session the friends of this bill will demand that the probate business be taken away from the Circuit court and a distinct tribunal be organized for the settlement and determination of this branch of business having therefore before my mind this change I could not consent to increase the salary of this officer without first knowing the amount of labor to be performed and the time to do the labor required.
Mr. ORR, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: Inasmuch as the salary gives them about eight dollars a day for the discharge of their duties. I vote "aye."
Mr. ROSEBRUGH in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I have been absent quite a good part of the session and was in favor of a small increase in the salaries until my recent stay at home. I was enabled to find during the time I was there only one or two persons in favor of increasing the judges salaries. While I would be personally willing to give some increase, I think it my duty to represent the wishes of the people who placed me here. I vote "aye."
Mr. SMITH, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: A man who sits upon the bench should have a good salary. My impression is that two thousand dollars is not enough therefore I vote "no."When the roll call was completed -
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The amendment [Mr. Sleeth's] was then agreed to by yeas 27, nays 18, as follows.
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Bowman, Banyan, Carnahan, Cave, Collett, Daggy, Fuller, Friedley of Scott, Gregg, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Miller, Neff, Orr, Ringo, Scott, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Steele, Stroud, Williams and Winterbotham - 27.
NAYS - Messrs. Beeson, Bird, Boone, Brown, Chapman, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Francisco, Friedley of Lawrence, Glessner, Gooding, Hubbard, Rhodes, Rosebrugh, Sarnighausen, Taylor, Thompson and Wadgd - 18.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BOONE, when his name was "called, in explanation of his vote said: We are in chaos as regards our judicial system and until we know what the result will be I am not inclined to vote for an increase of salaries. I vote "no."
Mr. GLESSNER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said. It is stated that the judicial system is in chaos but we know we have required the judges to sit nearly the entire year and the compensation of a pledge is the smallest part of the expense connected with his court. If you want efficiency and capacity you must give sufficient compensation to secure those qualities we are asking men to a bandon every other business and devote their entire time to the bench, and when it comes to compensating these men we ought not to hesitate to pay them liberally. I vote "no,"
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: It seems to me we are not doing an extravagant thing when we vote three thousand dollars a year. Some gentleman say we will have a different state of things in five years from now, and that we will have more judges than now. Many of us think we will need no more judges for several years. Some gentlemen say we will have a surrogate system in five years, and are opposed to raising the salaries of judges now because they have nothing: to do. If our judges have time to spare there is no need of a surrogate system; so the two arguments don't hang together. If judges are over worked they ought to to well paid, and if there is more work than they can do we ought to have a surrogate system. I think, sir, we will find this state of things existing: that our present judges will resign if we don't raise their salaries. I vote "no."
Mr. HUBBARD, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I don't think three thousand dollars a year, is a cent too much to give a judge who is competent to sit on the bench, and for fear we will not get as much I vote "aye" on this amendment.Mr. ORR, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: If the amendment of the senator from Johnson [Mr. Slater] had been adopted I could vote for thii bill heartily but as this is the only thing to fall back on I will have to vote for it. Senators say we can't get talent without a pile of money but I tell you the best talent in the State sit on the bench at two thousand dollars a year and they won't resign. I vole "aye."
Mr. RHODES in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: From the stand point I take I do not think three thousand dollars is too much. I look at it in this way: What compensation ought we to give a man properly qualified to discharge the duties of the office ? Our circuit judgea have been working for two thousand dollars and Common Pleas judges for fifteen hundred dollars. From what I know these salar- page: 571[View Page 571]ries have been too low. We have under a system of low pay had ineffiicient judges in some cases and we will never change this state of affairs until we change the compensation. There is not a lawyer anywhere of respectability but who can command a practice of three thousand dollars. I think it is policy and economy, and wisdom on the part of the Legislature to pay these men what their services are fairly worth. I vote "no."
Mr. RINGO, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I have been inclined to vote for three thousand dollars but when I see the Senators from Putman [Mr. Daggy] and St. Joseph [Mr. Hubbard] disposed to take the responsibility of voting for two thousand five hundred dollars I believe I will vote so too.
Mr. HUBBARD (interposing.) Will you change your if vote I do mine ?
Mr. RINGO. Not just yet.
Mr. SMITH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: It strikes me that three thousand dollars is a very small compensation for some of the judges on the bench; but I will vote "aye" for fear we can't get more.
Mr. STEELE, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: It is pretty well known that I have been decidedly in favor of an increase of salaries but not of abolishing the common Pleas court, believing it would finally inflict upon the country a large increase of the Judiciary. I believe so yet. I believe that in two years from now there will he something like a surrogate system and probate judges established in this country and that will cost another one hundred thousand dollars. I am in favor of increasing the salaries of Supreme judges. It is shown by the vote of the Senate on the motion of the Senator from Johnson [Mr. Slater] that the Senate is not satisfied with two thousand dollars for the circuit judges and now rather than we should be driven to the necessity of adopting three thousand dollars, I shall vote for this amendment offer by the Senator from Rush [Mr. Sleeth.] I vote "aye."
When the roll call was completed -
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
So the motion to concur in the House amendments by reducing the salary of circuit judge from three thousand dollars to two thousand five hundred dollars was agreed to.
