The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-01-20
Secretary were as arduous as those of the

Secretary were as arduous as those of the
Mr.. ROBINSON favored the amend
ment. He thought the State should act on
the same principle in their matters as
private individuals. He would do it
himself. He had opposed Sc per day to
the clerk and secretary at the last session
of the Legislature, and for that opposition
had been abused. He could find plenty of
clerks to do all the writing he wished at So
per day. He believed 81 per day an ample
compensation, and would himself serve in
the capacity of clerk or secretary for that
sum.
The amendment prevailed, and the COM
mittee rose with recommendation that this
and the other bills acted upon, be passed.
THE HOMESTEAD RESOLUTIONS.
Mr.. ANDREWS moved that the substi
tute offered by him be adopted instead O.
those reported by the committee. And the
yeas and nays being called for, there were
Yeas 5, Nays %. So the mo}ion was lost;
and the recommendation of the Committee
of the Whole was concurred in by the
Senate.
COMI G1NoA1lON We
Mr.. COWAN offered an amendment
giving So per day extra to the Clerk and
Secretary, instead of 81 as recommended by
the committee, provided that this shall be
taken in full payment for all services rem
dered during or after the session of the
Legislature. Lost.
Mr.. COWAN then moved that all extra
pay be stricken out which prevailed.
Mr.. HALL then moved that So per day
extra be allowed to the Speaker of the
House; which prevailed, and the bill was
ordered engrossed.
STATE WARRANTS.
Mr.. HODGES moved to strike out the
interest provision in the bill for the relief of
the creditors of the State.
Mr.. HEATON thought it unwise and
impolitic to attach the interest provision to
the warrants. He intimated that the pro-
vision was unconstitutional.
Mr.. BISHOP also opposed the interest
clause. He Said that it would increase the
enormous salaries and expenditures of the
past, which had already been too large, and
that it was in violation of the Constitution,
which prohibited the increase of State in
debtedness; that the people would not sus-
tain the Senators in such action.
Mr.. ANDREWS would treat the State
as be would an individual-if he compelled
one to pay interest on notes, he would ask
it of the other. He thought the true prin-
ciple of economy was in cutting short the
sessions of the Legislature.
MIR. BALDWIN, of Scott, was in favor
of the bill, because of the benefit in paying
taxes. He came here for So per day he
did not believe in putting up the Office of
State Senator to the lowest bidder. He
thought So per day was cheap enough for
interest clause would enhance the value of
the warrants in the market, and that would
raise the credit of the State.
Mr.. COWAN opposed the interest
clause, and thought, in adopting it, that it
would plunge US deeper and deeper in debt.
He was opposed to the State receiving the
warrants for taxes after certain time. He
concluded by moving that the bill be com
mitted again to the Committee of the
Whole Lost
The question being put on the amend
ment, and the yeas and nays being called
for and ordered, there were yeas, II, nays,
IA, as follows {:
YEAs.-Messrs. F. E. Baldwin, Bishop. Cook,
Cowan, Hall, Heaton, Holley, Hodges, Kenne
dy, Mackubin, McLaren, Nelson. Robinson,
Rogers, Stannard, Stewart, and Wells.
NAys.--Messrs. Andrews. J. F. Baldwin,
Bartholomew, Clark, rittenden, Evans. Frost
Galloway, King, Norris, Stevens, Taylor, Wat,
son, and VIM.
So the amendment was adopted, and the
interest clause stricken out.
The Senate then adjourned.