Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1863-10-10
The nItIeaEe nIatter.


the CLERK of the House of Delegates in re-
ply to our own remarks the day before on
'.the Mileage Question" We mention the
fact that it was written by the Clerk ofthe
House in order that it may have its just,
quasi. official weight, and in order that it
may be seen that we are not combating
the views of n man of straw in our refer
encc again to its subject matter. Wepass
by the tone of the article so far as it was
either by intention or accident made often
sivc to US, and deal only with those points
between the writer and ourselves that are
either germane to the question or interest,"
ing to the public. We make no argument
as to whether the thing done on the part
of "A large number of the members of the
House of Delegates-viz-the taking of
second mileage at this session of the Legis-
lature, was matter of precedent either in
the old State or elsewhere. That is moth
ing with US at all. The Clerk of the House
wastes himself to no purpose on this point.
We notice the fact, however, that he did
not adduce single precedent. BE simply
assumed that there were presidents. We
doubt if there is one that is parallel. The
constructive mileages of Congress have
been reprobated by the whole country. as
nothing more nor less than species of le-
galized fraud, aud to day there are few men
who would dare to fill their pockets in that,
way. But they are not presidents, and we
should be sorry if they were so considered
either by the Clerk of the House of Dele
gates or those in the interest of whom he
writes.
The plain point we make in the matter
of the mileage question is this, that there
is no provision either in our constitution
or the laws made in pursuance thereof
whereby any member of the legislature
may rightfully draw double mileage in the
course of one session. There is no au-
thority outside the constitution or the laws
for so doing. This being the case the
proper subject for inquiry is whether the
thing, being thus unauthorized and unpro-
vided for, is right in itself in the present
instance. We have recorded our opinion
that it is not, aud we still most emphati-
cally adhere to that opinion. Our rea-
sons, plainly stated, are these: The'leg
islature adjourned from the 9TH day OF
August uutiI the End day of September IL
order to promote the private interests OF
convenience of its individual members
There was no public necessity for its ad'
journmeut II was sent here to go straight
through with its business, and not to adj
journ at oil until it adjourned finally. The
argument that the weather in August was
too hot for the members, and that a few
of them did all the work, and that thos.
few needed time to prepare business, y Is
simply in the last degree derogatory as an
argument to the Legislature and We
suspect that very few of the members viii
take 1t off the hands of the Clerk as a
vindicatiOu. Suppose the weather was too
hot and suppose it true that very few
members. prepare aud mature aud "do'
the business of the legislature, is that o.
argument why the majority should adjourn
at the public expense2 The mere state
meut of such plea is its own best refu
tation.
But, in addition to the fact that ther'
was no call other than the private inter
ests or convenience of the members for al
adjournment, there is this to be satd-viz
That the Legislature entered into an I'M
piled agreement to adjourn at the individ
ual expense of its members The iresoln
ton ofadjournment moved by Mr.. Rnffnsl
in the House on the 2sth of July and car.
ried 10 that body, came back from the
Senate on the LIST day of August amended
thus: -osa,
"Resolped, That members and officers Of
the Legislature shall receive no, pay for
the time during the recess.'s < s.s5 S3f 81
This amendment was agreed 10 on the
part of the House, aud so the Legislature
adjourned over from The 9th day of August
TO the I'd day of September. 'z9y z
We take it for granted thai if there had
been a public necessity for an Adjournment,
such as visitation of God or the Public
enemy, the Legislature would never have
rsseinded its per diem. There would have
been no public expectation that ii should
do so. But the members felt that there
was either public expectation Of that
sort in the instance now under considera-
ton, or else that there was inherent justice
and right in thus voluntarily cutting of
their own pay. We emphasize this point
aud We desire public attention toit, They
cut d their own pay because of whatiA
1vb,, heoa1sa they felt that the public did