GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
i On motion by Mr. BROWN, the vote of this morning, by which the bill [H. R. 422] making general appropriations for the years 1882 and 1883 was reconsidered.
The bill then passed the Senate--yeas, 30; nays, 12.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. BROWN said: "I have voted twice against the bill. Many of its provisions I do not approve, and many of its appropriations I think unnecessarily large. But I fear that if I continue to vote against it, that it will necessitate the calling of another extra session of the Legislature, which I think would be a worse calamity than the passage of the bill. From what has occurred in Committee in reference to it, I think a recommitment of it would only make it more extravagant than it is. I, therefore, vote 'aye.'"
Mr. BUNDY said: The appropriation bill was considered by the Senate during my absence and I have not had the opportunity to examine the same as carefully as I should desire. There are several provisions in it which do not meet my approval and for which I can not vote. I think several of the appropriations made in the bill are in excess of the amounts necessary, and I therefore vote "no."
Mr. FOSTER said: Twice I have voted against the general appropriation, because, in my opinion, it appropriates money that ought not to be appropriated. But seeing no way to remedy the matter, and believing that it is better to pass the bill than to waste any more time wrangling over it, I vote "aye."
Mr. GRAHAM said: I vote against the bill for the reason that it makes an appropriation to Prosecuting Attorneys at the rate of $700 per year, when the law only allows them $500. This I regard as a flagrant abuse of an appropriation act. The appropriation for the Hospital for the Insane is largely in excess of the amount required, according to the best information I can get. The Finance Committee shows that the State Treasurer is largely paid by the interest which he receives upon the public funds, and the appropriation for his salary should have been reduced. In short, I oppose the bill from the fact that I regard it as very imperfect, there being ample time to revise it yet before the close of the session. I vote "no."
Mr. HART said: I vote against the bill for the reason it appropriates money that the law does not justify. We have no right, in my judgment, to appropriate money that the law on fees and salaries does not provide for. It makes extra appropriation above what the law provides for: to the Governor's messager, $750, also for the Governor's office expenses, $300; extra for contin- page: 118[View Page 118] gent fund, $1,000; for the Auditor's deputy and clerk, $1,500, and so on through the bill. I think the people demand a reduction in fees and salaries, instead of an increase as this bill provides for. The Republican party urged that the Constitutional Amendments should be re-submitted, that they might regulate fees and salaries, but the legislation here seems to be in the interest of office-holders. We should have the tax-payers' interest in view as well as the office-holders'.
Mr. KEISER said: I voted against this bill because I deemed the appropriations, in some items, too large; in a word, increased the appropriations, in my estimation, too largely; but believing that we have honest men in office, both for the State and for our Benevolent, Charitable and Penal Institutions, and that they will honestly and economically administer the affairs of their respective offices, and cover any surplus into the Treasury, if any there be; and for fear that at this late date in the session the final passage of an appropriation bill may be endangered, and thus do an incalculable damage and injury to the State and her Institutions, and be more expensive to the tax-payers than this bill will be, I enter my protest, but vote "aye."
Mr. RAHM says: I wanted the bill referred to a Committee, with instructions to reduce salaries of Prosecuting Attorney from $700 to $500, as the law now stands. The extra fees that a Prosecutor now makes, in addition to the regular salary, is sufficient for all purposes. I vote "no."
Mr. SAYRE had twice voted against this bill. He objected to it for the reason that it increases the pay of Prosecuting Attorneys to $700, and saw no reason why that should done. In hopes this may be amended in the House of Representatives, he voted "aye."
Mr. TRAYLOR had voted twice for this bill, and one reason he voted for it two times is that it increases the pay of Prosecuting Attoneys. In justice to Prosecutors now in office, he thought they ought to get $700 a year. He voted "aye."
Mr. VOYLES said: I am not willing to vote for the bill because the amount appropriated by the terms of the bill exceeds the amount of compensation allowed by law as to some of the public officers. I see no use of any law regulating the compensation of officers, if when the General Assembly meets it may appropriate money as if the law reads: "Public officers shall have such compensation as may be appropriated when the question of appropriations comes up."
Mr. WHITE--I would say that I am very sorry that I can not support this bill. I am in favor of reasonable salaries, but this bill raises quite a number of salaries, so I can not support the bill; and it further appropriates more money for our Benevolent Institutions than I think is necessary; therefore I vote "no."
Mr. WOOLLEN also has voted twice against this bill, for the reason it appropriates moneys to State officers' assistants contrary to the provisions of the fee and salary bill. All appropriations should be made in accordance with the fee and salary bill. As he did not desire to see this bill defeated, he would vote 'aye.'
The vote was announced as above recorded--
So the bill passed the Senate.
