EMPLOYES OF THE DOORKEEPER
Mr. BROWN, from the Committee on Executive Appointments, returned a resolution that all employes not authorized by law be discharged, with a report recommending the retention of the twelve attendents employed by the Doorkeeper, as they are all needed.
Mr. DUNCAN, from the same Committee, recommended the discharge of all employes not authorized by law. If more is necessary, then there should be a change in the law.
Mr. DUNCAN: At the time the resolution was offered for the appointment of the extra five Doorkeepers there was an impression among new members that the law governing these appointments was enacted long ago, whea not so many were needed; but at the close of a hundred days' session of the last General Assembly, there was a law passed authorizing the Doorkeeper to employ but seven assistants; and if it was necessary to have more than seven, Senators must then have understood it. As long as the law stands as it does, he should oppose the appointment of a single attendant more than is allowed by law.
Mr. SPANN contended that the Senate may direct more attendants than the law allows.
Mr. McINTOSH possibly has been caught in a trap in offering this resolution, but he found in the statute the number of assistants the Doorkeeper was authorized to appoint and their duties. He did not know where these employes are. In the House where there are 100 members, they have but seven, the number authorized by law under the Doorkeeper, while we have twelve-the Doorkeeper himself making thirteen. They are not all necessary and it is an imposition and an outrage on the taxpayers. There are at least forty employes in the Senate, as he understood.
Mr. BROWN favored the majority report, believing these employes are all needed. He moved to lay the report and resolution on the table.
The motion was agreed to by yeas, 31; nays, 14.
