The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-04-25
PER DIEM.

PER DIEM.
The Joint resolution voting per diem to
members during the recent recess came
up on the question 81 It's passage.
The roll being called, the result was
ayes, 81 noes, 81; as follows:
AyEs-Messrs Bentley, Braxton, Butt, ca.
hell, Childress, W. 7 Clark, Davidson, Fields,
Gray. Hancock. Jackson. kellam, kondrick,
kilby. Lewis, Mann, Martin. Moore, Mellon
| aid, Mosby, pccd Pcndleton, Powell Purdie,
Ragsdalc, Riggs, Smith, Straughan, w. I. II,
| Taylor. Thompson, Turner, Wall, Volt
| Woodbridge, Wyait-31.
NAYs-Nnssrs Baldwin iSpeakcr), Atkin'
son. Bckem, Booker. Bowies, a. ]. Clark,
| Crump. Daniel, Huntington, j. ioode, Jr.
! Graham, Graves, Hausbrough, Harnsb"rGrr'
Herndou, Holmes, Jones, Kelley, MarshaiI'
Merritt, Owen, Scott, Seaweil SlraH ~ :,
Mcdowell Taylor, Teeter, Townes, Trout
Waddell, Watkins, Wilson, Word-S@.
The SPEAKER announced that the bill, not
receiving a constitutional majority, was
rejected. ,oo;
Mr.. SrR.rGHAS appealed from the drc'-
sion of the Chair. on the ground that the
resolution did not appropriate none!
money to pay member" having nccn pc
viously approprIatcd-and 'he'e'o'o Wv
| constitutional majority was not necessary
to pass it.
The SPEAKER read from the ConStitu-
ton the clause applicable to the case, as
follows:
con the passage of every act which
;mnoses. continues, or rcvlres tax, OF
creates a debt or charge, or makes, con-
tinues, or revives any appropriation OF
nnhI;c or trust money, or releases, dis
nbarces or commutcs any claim or de-
mand of the State, the vote shall be de-
termined by yeas and nays, and the names
of the persons voting for and against the
same shall he entered on the Journals OF
,he respectiye Houses and majority OF
| oil members elected to each House Sha!i
| bo necessary to give it the force OF law.
The SpEAKER,Said that before the recent
recess a Joint resolution having the effect
of law had passed both Houses OF the
General Assembly providing for the recess,
and proyiding that members, while entitled
70 mileage for the extra session, should
receive no compensation during the recess.
Some gentlemen seemed TO be under the
immersion that this act was a voluntary
declining to take the pay for the recess.
This was an error. The resolution was
mandatory, having all the force and elect
of law. There was an opinion entertained
bv some that there was no power IN the
Legislature to reduce the compensation OF
members. This was a mistake. The con-
stitution prohibited any increase of COM
pcnsation for legislative services until the
close of the session at which such Increase
is made: but there was no prohibition
against the diminution OF this compcnSa-
ton. 1t might very properly be questioned,
however, whether the Legislature had any
right to diminish the pay for legislative
services after they were rendered. Bat
no such question could be raised here; for
the resolution related entirely TO the
future, and it was entirely competent tof
the Legislature TO pass il.
Another idea entertained by some was
that in this matter there was a contract
between the State and Il member of the
Legislature. 1t had been clearly settled
that compensation received for public ser
vices under the law was not under con-
tract. but merely according TO Il regulation
which might be modified or repealed at the
pleasure of the Legislature. He referred
TO decisions of the Supreme Court IN sup
port of this view. He said that there were
exceptions to the power OF the LcgISla-
tnre in the matter Of reducing the pay.
They were prohibited from reducing the
nav of the Governor and also OF judges.
This was necessary for the independence
of those officers. The exception, the
SPEAKER contended established the right
to reduce the Legislative compensation.
In answer, lie said ii bad been contenaeo
that nothing was said ahont reducing the
nav Of members, because 1t was a thing
which it was supposed none would pro-
nose that, like the crime Of parricide,
nobody could be guilty Of such a thing.
Rut this was certain: that, whatever the
motive, there was no prohibition against
reduction in the Constitution.
There was, said the SPEAKER, no differ
encc between Joint resolution and law.
The Joint resolution was as obligatory as
law. -,
Mr.. STRArGuAH inquired whether the
Legislature could vote money to pay the
States interest on her public debt by re-
solution.
The SPEAKER replied that it was as valid
To appropriate money by resolution as by
law. and had been so decided by high au-
thority.
1t had been contcndcd that the resoIu-
ton prohibiting per diem during the recess
had not been passed by the Senate with
due formality. He could say nothing
about that; that was a matter with which
the House had nothing to do. They were
to presume that il had been properly
passed. 1t was so treated, and was passed
bv the House with all due Formally, and
was enrolled as a law.
Since that time the member from AM
herst tMr. PowELL) had introduced re-
solution inquiring into the right to deprive
members of their per diem during the re-
cess the committee TO which 1t was re-
ferred had reported that it was competent
for the General Assembly to pass the re-
solution prohibiting compensation during
the recess, and the House adopted the re-
port. The member from Amherst moved
to reconsider the vote, and the House re-
iected the motion thus twice confirming
the right to pass the resolution.
Returning to the question OF the manner
of passing the resolution in the Senate, the
SPEAKER contended that this House was
bound 10 consider the action OF that body
proper. To presume TO 60 to that body
and crticse its proceedings would be TO
destroy the harmony of legislation.
Assuming the act was complete, the
SPEAKER suggested that the act might be
brought before legal tribunal upon
claim for per diem. There might be, he
supposed, ground to base such action,
though he had not considered the question.