SALARY OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS.
Mr. Buskirk's bill [H. R. 127] in relation to the election and qualifications of Prosecuting Attorneys, defining their duties and providing for their compensation, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. ROBINSON--There is a tendency manifest here to increase salaries. If I understand the provision of this bill, the salaries are increased in every respect. This matter of increasing salaries of Prosecuting Attorneys you will remember came up during the consideration of the Criminal Code bill. That bill provided for an increase of the Prosecutor's salary, and if I recollect right there was an amendment adopted providing for the same salary that he has heretofore been getting. This bill increases his salary to $1,000 a year. If you want to vote to increase the salary of Prosecuting Attorneys, then vote for this bill, and if you want it retained at a more reasonable figure, vote against it. These men acting as Prosecuting Attorneys, elected under the old law, were willing to hold their offices at the salary as fixed by the law at the present time. I ask you what reason there is why these salaries should be increased? If these gentlemen can not make a living under present salaries, they are at liberty to resign their offices. I am opposed to the bill, because it increases the salary.
Mr. MOODY-I am opposed to the passage of this bill. There are forty-one Prosecuting Attorneys in this State, elected at the last election, and this bill proposes to donate $1,000 of the people's money to each of them, aggregating $41,000. I ask you, gentlemen, whether this is right. What equivalent do the people get for this large sum of money? Gentlemen say they favor this bill, believing it will bring to the discharge of the duties of this office better and more efficient men. I do not believe it will. I believe that the men elected last fall to fill this office compare favorably in ability and integrity with the Bar of the State. I know this office is sought after, and is usually filled by young men, but this alone does not prove to my mind, that they are inefficient to discharge the duties of this office. Suppose the argument is true that these men are inferior in ability, the why donate to them this large sum of money? I am in favor of paying such a salary to our Prosecutors as will command ability and integrity, but I am opposed to passing any bill that takes out of the Public Treasury $40,000 or $50,000 of money and giving it to any class of men. page: 24[View Page 24] Mr. EDWINS desired to enter his protest against the raising of this salary. It is no $500 a year. It is sufficiently remunerative for any young man to accept the office. It would be bad policy to increase the salary Prosecutors.
Mr. GIBSON was of the opinion that the State would save money by paying $500 more and electing good Prosecuting Attorneys, for the reason that there is not a County in the State but what pays out more than $500 for special assistant attorneys, whereas if old and proficient lawyers were properly remunerated they would avoid the necessity for special attorneys.
