Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1858-09-17
DaEid ElaY and Extra Paw.

Our readers we'll remember that there was
law passed by the Legislature at Its last ges-
ES v-ftD HxY wEo IS now on the T,ocofuco
ticket in this District, was a mcmber, aud
POCKETED THE EXTRA TWO HUN
DRED DOLLARSl When DAVID HAY
or any of his friends ask you to vote fer him,
just stick this at them and tell them that should
David be reelected another law might be passed
Increasing the pay $500 nsore, anu he, tie said
David, would pocket the money, If DAVID
HAY had been opposed to the law, although
he voted against IT, he would have done Ike
Judge Mil of Chambersburg, who opposed the
increase and refused to take it The following
= Mr. NilI's speech, on the question. Read
II, anu then ask yourself if David Hay did
right in pocketing thc ertTa pay
REMARKS OF MR.. MILL On TAKING
5000 AS EXTRA PAY.
1t is somewhat singular that this House
should manifest disposition to vote to its
members each the sum of $500 besides the
regular salary. Let US see how the history of
Legislative pay has been. Formerly members
received So per day. This session will include
one hundred and eight days The pay for this
would be three hundred and twenty-four dol
lars. In 1853 the American or Kuow-Noth- !
ing Legislature chosen in 1854, raised the paw
to the salary of Eve hundred dollars per ses- I
sion, and If extra session was convened by |
the Executive, three dollars day was paid as |
the compensation for its duration with this |
the Democrats and old liue Wings found fault,
and so did many of the Americans The Leg
islature of 1886, which was Democratic. met /
aud did not change the act of the previous ses-
sion In 1857 another Democratic Legislature
met, and received the regular salary of five
hundred dollars, and took besides two hundred
more. Among the people this act was very
much censured. How do we stand on this
question When elected every man knew
wkat the salary was, and if he did not intend
to take that as the reward of his services he
should not have come here. 1t is said that we
do not make much. This 1 grant But did
we come here merely 10 make money Have
we 10 regard for the interests of the Common
wealth? Cannot we devote few days to her
service without expecting to become rich by it
Tho aggregate of this Legislative plumber is
SIC, ,00O-no incousiderable sum.
1t we have right, in 6ischarging our duty
aithfully to our constituents, to take two hun
ired dollars apiece out of the treasury in this
'landestine way, why may we not vote our
selves one thousand dollars or more, if there
vas enough there to crafty our avaricious pro-
'ensites Ii by an amendment of the kind
dded in committee of the whole, we had laid {
ur greedy hands on one thousand or twelve
undred dollars each, those who sent us here '
Fouid have been appalled, at tbs enormity of
be deed, aud would have spared no terms of
in applying suitable epithets to
ur plunderiDg acf. Hence it is obvious that !
he difference is only in degree-the principle a
the same. Gentlemen say their constituents S
pplaud and commend such acts. The gen {
eman FROM Schnylkill, (Mr. Hipple,) believes Il
is constituents would do it; yet he seems h
omewhat sore in reference to my course on c
MS question. tie seems to feel unpleasant, o
Notwithstanding the vaunted laudation of his C
onfding constituents. | inform him that |
ave performed my duty according to my con- d
4