The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-04-01
t" COMPARISONS ARE oDIOUS."
ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE.
Contrasting the Work Of the Last
two Legislatures.
WHEREIN THE LAST ExcELLED THE

WHEREIN THE LAST EXCELLED THE
PRECEDING.
AN ABLE LETTER FROM GOVERNOR HENDRICKS
IN ANSWER TO AN INQUIRY FROM REPRE-
SENTATIVE HoPKINs-A SEARCHING REVIEW
OF LEGisLArIvE WORK FOR FOUR YEARS.
The Hon. Thos. A. Hendricks:
DEAR SIR-The tono of the press, and es-
pecially OF the press of Indianapolis, has
been so constant and so urgent in its dis
arrangement of the action OF the late legisla-
ture tnat thought 1 would address you a
word as disinterested spectator in relation
TO it. For myself, although member ofthe
last House of Representatives, belong to no
party, either in or out OF the legislature. L
am thoroughly independent, representing
only the interests of labor and reform in
candor. your impartial Judgment and opin-
ion of its action. A reply will much oblige
myself and the public.
JAMES HOPKINS.
Titles Hotel, Indianapolis, March l9,lS75.
THE GOVERNORS RESPONSE.
INDIANAPOLIS, March "a, 1875.
The Hon. James Hopkins, Indianapolis:
DEAR SIR have the honor TO acknowl-
edge the receipt of your letter OF the 10Th in
slant. take pleasure in complying with
your request for a reply, though my en-
full as 1 would desire. 1 have regretted TO
observe that some of the newspapers and
eitizsns of indianapolis constantly speak OF
the late legislature in terms of disrespect.
1t is not proper to disparage great depart
ment of the state government. 1t Is not an
act of good citizenship to seek to bring 1t
into disrepute, and it's action into contempt
merely because of q dissent from its policy.
Nor is such conduct likely TO promote the
interests and welfare of Indianapolis. The
members convened with kindly and liberal
feelings toward the capital. They expressed
their qualification at its
GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND GREATNESS.
But when they were made the objects of
ridcule because of their individual or col
lective peculiarities. is it to be wondered at
if indianapolis interests came to be regarded
with less favor and more jealousy? Many
of the members, particularly OF the House,
were plain gentlemen, who came from the
farms and workshops. They were not
skilled in the arts of legislation, or
familiar with the habits of legislative bodies.
1t may be that they went to their work
awkwardly and were slow in getting on
v it'll II, but they represented well-dehned
public sentiment, and 1abored diligently to
frame the laws in accordance with it. Never
were the people more faithfully represented
in the halls Of legislation, or their opinions
and wishes more profoundly respected by
their representatives.. | think the laws
that were passed are nearly as the people
desired. Comparison has been made between
the legislature of 1928 and its work and that
of 1875, TO the prejudice of the latter. 1t is
not Just. The comparison may properly be
made in respect, first, to the
ECONOMY IN LEGISLATIVE EXPENSES;
second, the dispatch of business; and third,
the excellence of the laws enacted. The
legislature of 1928 was in special and regu
lar session ore hundred and one
days. It's expenditures, shown by
Auditor Wildman's report OF Novem-
Der, 1873, page seven. amounted to
SI99. 56S 80 The per diem of members at the
special session OF forty days. was five dollars.
and at the regular session Of sixty-one days,
eight dollars.
1t amounted as follows:
Forty days at $1,000
Sixty-one days at 1920
Making...... 200
That left for miscellaneous expenses
sos 1863 81, which was for the 10l DAYS at the
rate of 1858 90 per day.
The legislature OF this year was in regular
session 81 days, and in special session 7
days, in all 6S days. Its expenses amounted
| to Sill, 325 II, as shown by statement fur
nj he'd me from the books of the auditor of
state. From that sum should be deducted
| items in the specific appropriation bill not
chargeable to expenses OF this legislature,
amounting to s. ,S54 81. which leaves the ex-
panses proper Sll2. 40 55. The per diem of
members, at So, amounted to SSl, 600 That
left for miscellaneous expenses S30,S70 55,
which. for the 6S days, was az the rate OF
S453 81 per day.
Daily miscellaneous expenses, 1S72-3.-- 1858 09
The same for 1875 453 81
Daily diffeTenc S3Y9 II
The aggregate miscellaneous expenses
Tor 1879 ".--.sSO, o65 81
The same for the two sessions Of lo75.. 80 so %
Dluerence s4Jz ~
All the expenses of lS72-3, including pay
OF mem iJJ)00
The same IN loG0.... llz4IJ %
| ,o,o- - - =
In this connection it is proper to compare
the two legislatures in respect to
THE DISPATCH OF BUSINESS.
The legislature of 1928 sat 1Ol days and
passed 154 bills which became laws, and
three bills which were vetoed. The legisla-
ture of 1875 sat sixty eight days, and passed
15S bills which became laws, and three bills
which were vetoed. The legislature of 1875
enacted four more laws than the legislature
| Of in daya lass firua