The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1871-09-14
The Democratic Party as a Retrench.
ment Party.

The Republican Legislature of 1868
passed an act, still on the statute books,
fixing the number and compensation of
the officers of each branch of the Legis-
lature
The number of officers of the Senate
was fixed at chief clerk, assistants, 4
transcribing clerks, l librarian, serge
ant at arms and assistants, L door keep
er and 2 assistants, l messenger and two
assistants, superintendent of the fold
ing room and pastors and folders, l
doorkeeper of the retunda, l postmaster,
l fireman and 3 pages-32 in all.
The Republican Senate of 1869 was or
ganized in strict compliance with this law,
the Republican members presenting, a
resolution for the election of candidates
for the places above named, no more and
no less. But, before their election took
place, the Democratic members, to show
their conviction that this was providing
more offices than the Senate really need
ed, put forward Mr. Burnett aud Mr.
M'Candless to offer an amendment to the
resolution, for the election of smaller
num6er of officers, to wit by leaving out
one of the assistant messengers, the post
master, and all the pastors and folders.
For this amendment all the Democratic
Senators voted, the vote standing Is to
Is.
The Democratic Senators, when in the
minority, thus placed themselves on the
record as believing that this was all the
Senate needed, in the way of officers
that the act Of 1868 was, in fact, too
liberal
In 1871 the Democrats had, accident
ally, majority in the Senate. Did they
carry out, then, their programme of 1869?
Let us see.
They put themselves on record, then,
as thinking that the Senate needed no
pastors and folders, and that that body
could get along with less officers than the
law allowed. But the moment they came
into power, they proceeded to elect not
only all the officers authorized by the law
of 1868, but more than the legal numbsr,
although that act positively prohibits the
election of any greater number of officers
by either branch. As for instance
The law of 1868 allows two assistant
clerks the Democratic Senate had three;
the law allows only four transcribing
clerks they had five ; the law authorizes
two assistant doorkeepers they had three;
the law provides for six pastors and fold
ers ; they had eight they had also three
fremen, where the law allows but one
And one watchman, one janitor, one
laborcr and one assistant librarian, for
none Of which was there any provision Of
law, to say nothing of nine pages, where
they could legally employ but five.
We thus fnd 15 Democratic Senators
voting in 1869 that the Senator needed
no pastors and folders, and II Democra-
tic Senators in 1871 voting to employ and
pay nine (including the superintendent
of these useless officers. The same Is
Senators declared in 1869 that the law of
1868 was too liberal, and allowed more
officers than the Senate needed whilst
the II Senators voted the number alto
gether too small, and proceeded to mul-
tiply new officers without stint. The diff
ference is, the Is were in the minority /;
the II were in the majority. 1t is a
very retrench and economical party when
it is out of power, but a very expensive
one when it gets in.
The law of 1868 authorizes the Senate
to elect or employ 80 officers, including
every subordinate the Democratic Senate
of 1871 elected or employed 40 officers
II more than the law allowed, and 26
more than the Senate really needed, them
selves being judges, as is evidenced by
their vote for Burnetts resolution in
1869
But this is not all. The act of 1868
fixed the compensation of all these Off
GERS, and enacted that under no circum-
stances should they be permitted to draw
more pay or receive any extra allowance.
This wholesome provision of law was to-
tally disregarded by these Democratic re-
trenchers. The pay of nearly all the Of
fcers is fixed by that law at 5000 each
but the 40 officers employed by the Demo
cratic Senate have already been paid
SAT 1904 50-or an average Of nearl y
thousand dollars each.
Look, people of Pennsylvania, at these
figures. The pay of the officers of the
Republican Senate of 1870 was $26,466
65, and the total cost of the session was
s92,260 35. The pay of the officers of
the Democratic Senate of 1871 was $47,-
904 so nearly double that of the previous
session, and the total expenses of the scs-
sion thus far paid are $l40,757 6S. AS
these are probably over s 900 of claims
under this head yet unpaid, it is perfectly
safe to put down the total cost of the late
Democratic Senate at Sl50,757 6S-an
increase over the expenses of the previous
Republican Senate of S5S, ,407 33.
This is fair illustration of Democratic
precept and practice. That party is pro-
fuse in economical professions, when out
of power but invariably, when in power,
plunges into extravaganza. Witness
New York and the Democratic Senate of
1871.