The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1859-03-18

offered for The express purpose Of defeating Mr.
! Hottenstlne's proposition TO reduce the salary
10 $500. Messrs. Williams and Walker wei
knew that L Hamersly's sssnake" was permit,
] ted 10 coil itself around Ho.tenstine's amend
ment, the latter would be dead enough whenev-
| er The vote would be taken upon it, They
well knew that il Hamersly's amendment
would be adopted,Hhe 500 salary would moi
be repealed and hence their vote as above recor-
ded But, they tell us that in voting fol
Hamersly's amendment, they voted for the
$I.50 day salary. Truly, they did. And
what was the consequence of their vote Why,
the fiat refusal Ofth House to repeal TIE 500
salary lar, md The continuance Of The "Ertra
Pay" to members Of The present Legislature.
Lest 1t might be supposed that we are doing
injustice to Messrs. Williams and Walker, in
thus commenting upon their course ~on this
1SExtra Pay" Question, we append the opinions
ofSome Of their own poliReal friends concern
ing The object and effect Of the Hamersly
amendment.
Mr.. HoTTENsTINEFwho offered ire pro-
position 10. redoss the payS0f members 10 $500
said
"My reasons for voting Nao'' on Mr.. Ham,
ersly's amendments, were, because l was sin
ce-e in carrying my amendment, AND THAT
| OF MR. HAMERSLY WAS INTENDED
/ TO DEFEAT NINE, WHICH IT HAS
| DONE thereby preventing dire vote on
the fixed salary OF members"
Mr.. NEALL said ssthe proposition 10
give one dollar and fifty cents per diem, had
been started solely for s'Buncombe,'' and with
out any other motive. The man who made
ii, he undertook to say, would not refuse the
| 800 per session aud mileage.''
But Messrs. Williams and Walker, pending
the 'Extra Pay" question, did not only vote as
above shown, TO defeatahe effort 10 reduce the
salary of members, but Under the same disguise
IN which they gave Hottenstine's amendment
its fatal stab, they also strove to increase the
expenses of the Legislature Mr. Mcclure,
one of the members who last year voted for the
extra $500, offered an amendment making the
pay FIVE dollars per day and mileage. This
amendment was lost by vote of 80 yeas 10
SO nays. Messrs Williams and Walker voted
for it, and we again prove them, by the voice
OF their Gown party, to have violated their
pledges TO the people.
"MR. HAMERSLY desired 10 explain his
vote. The proposition was calculated to in
crease the pay OF members aud therefore he had
voted against it.''
"AlR. NEALL thought that The amendment
was making the SALARY APPROXIMATE
NEARER TO $1,000. He had therefore vo-
ted for it.
"MR. STEVENS said, my reason for voting
against this ameh3;9ent, is because think IT
will have tendency >fr31Sincrease our salagis.4
them. I am in favor of fzsd salary ofS5oo
and mileage"
sMR. KINNEY voted against tbs, ~alnend-
ment because the per diem system is an ex Mo-
ded system in Pennsylvania, and would tend
to proIong the sessions and on the whole in
crease the expenses Of the Goyernment''
"MI. FLEMING voted ''no" on Mr.. Nc
CIures amendment, because he sincerely be-
lieved it would result in increasing the COM
pensation OF members to more than $500, the
sum which he thought sufficient compensation"
"MR. PINKERTON said be was opposed
to the amendment Offered by Mr.. Mcclure, as
it would increase the expenses of the Legsla-
ture to the amount of $l2.525."
MR.. BOYER believed fully that should the
amendment carry, it would greatly increase the
expenses of this Common wealth."
And yet Messrs. Williams and Walker, those
scrupulous economists, voted for this amend
ment. Queer,is' it 20 i