The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1856-05-13

justing claims brought against the State
We would regard the carrying out of such
precedent as equivalent to the entire destruc-
tion of all the intended safeguards of the con-
stitution, against all exttsyagances in public
expenses, which was ono of the main evils
for which tho people demanded remedy, at
the revision of the constitution. Our hands
must be clear of this sacrilege. The forego-
ing consideration might be deemed sufficient
to establish the point, that true construc-
tion Of the constitution is adverse to the al
lowance of any claim against the State from
the Judges or State officers, of the travelling
expenses which were well known to the Con-
stitutional Convention, and thus provided
for by salary: such as travelling to and from
their respective place of official business, as
definitely fixed, and enjoined by the consti-
tuition itself.
I'D --y ~n.--..So over been intended,
/ beyond the salaries, for this kind of travel
the usual way to make it. was, doubtless, in
the shape of mileage, as in the case of mem.
bers of the legislature, as being more definite
Who can well believe that the people, at that
time who were aiming to prevent, In future,
similar past abuses, would have adopted a
Constitution which would defeat its own ends
by allowing the Judges, State officers, mem
bers of the Legislature, and all other State
agents to charge the State their travelling ex-
penses while travelling to and from their res
pective places of official business, as defined
and definitely fixed by the constitution? Can
such a thing be even fair supposable case?
| Would not such a reflection be to severe upon
the people, and upon the sagacity of such
body Of men, as composed the constitutional
convenient? If we turn to page 166 Of the
proceedings and debaters of the convention
that revised the constitution, we find that,
article 8 being under consideration, Mr.. Has
call "moved to amend so much of the article
as relates to the Judges of the Supreme Court
by striking out. 1880, and inserting 81
200" ~.
1 Mr.. Morrison, in opposing this amendment
used the following language. II do riot,be-
lieve that we can draw talent and ability up
on the Bench, with less salary than that
reported did not think that motion
would be made to put it low or, as the Judges
have received that amount for the last fifteen
years. The travelling and other expenses
must Mt the least amount TO $500, and a man
cannot support his family as cheaply as if he
was all the time at home. l hope it will
not be reduced"
Mr.. Roberts moved to insert $1,000. In
dividing the question, the motion to strike
out was loss--yeas IL, nays 4S. On page
$780, we find thot Mr.. McClelland made a
proposition to strike out the entire article re-
lating to salaries believing it wise, consider
ing that "tiines and circumstances change"
and as the duties of some of the Judges in
creased, and Others diminished, to leave the
whole matter to be regulated by the Legisla-
ture. according to circumstances, at the time
of acting upon it." This proposition was dis
cussed ""pro and con-" by several members;
and on the succeeding page, Mr.. Chapel in
opposing it, holds the following language =
"But the gentleman from Monroe proposes
to strike out of existence, the salaries of the
Judges, as well as all the others. What
will follow? You will have the eight Judges
and the whole of the State officers, bescging
the Legislature, wanting largo salaries.
have seen this sort of thing as long as want
to see it. We ought to fix the salaries and
pay the Judges good round salafies-pay
them well. A man of talent, good law
yer, one who will give good decisions, should
have more than $1,000. If we reduce the
salaries of the Judges to 1000, including the
expenses which they must unavoidably incur
for holding the circuit court what kind Of
Judges shall we have on the Bench?''
In view Of the foregoing, we feel that We
have no alternative-no discretion left us, as
we cannot doubt that the members of that
convention intended to fix, and really sup
posed that they had fixed the compensation
on the Judges as we'll rs the State officers,
at theie respective salaries mentioned IN the
constitution, including the ordinary expenses
of the Judges, as well rs the known and or
dinary travelling expenses of the State officers
such as travelling to and from the capitol, and
their expenses of living while at the capitol,
the place designated in the constitution for
keeping their officers. We cannot but regard
the argument in favor of the allowance Of the
travelling expenses of the Judges, which is
based upon the inequality of travel to which
they are subject, as wholly invalid; it being
simply one of the incidents of accepting pub
lie Office under different circumstances. For
instance the Governor, Auditor General and
Treasurer of this State, have each salary of
$1,000. Like that of the Judges, of 81 500,
they may have been designed to be equal.
But who can make circumstances, duties
and ability equale Now suppose the Treas
urer happens TO reside at the capitol, but the
Governor andAuditor General at the extreme
part Of the Pcninsular, who will deny that
under the present constitutions they must find
their way, wi;hon. expenses to the State,-to
the capitol the place fixed by the constitution
for keeping their Offices of business; while the
the Treasurer may remain at his own fircside.
Is this equal! The State cannot in all cases
make public office Of equal advantage, or dis
advantage, to its citizens. This must often
depend upon circumstances. The same prin-
! cple that would allow the ordinary travelling
expenses of the Judges, would clearly allow
the ordinary travelling expenses, rs well as
board, of all the State officers, and other
State agents when on official duty. The pre-
cedent once established, it must be impair
tally carried out to the full extent of its legit