Litchfield enquirer., 1877-09-20
A Asweeping Amendment. A

Two constitutional amendments are submitted to the people on the 1st Mon day in October. One prohibits towns. cities. &c.. fFMaaiding the building oi railroads, while the second is as follows:
 Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, borough, town, or school dis trict, shall have power to pay or grant any extra compensation to any public otti- cer, employee, agent. or servant, or. in- crease the compensation of any pubic officer, or employee, to take effect during the continuance in office of any person whose salary might be increased thereby. or increase the pay or compensation of any public contractor above the amount specified in the contract. s1 .s..
 The principle on which the foregoing is founded is that of forbtdding leg
 islatures or any public corporations from increasing their own pay during that term. Does that principle include the mere appointees. as we'll as the members of such bodies? A legislative practice pre- vails of voting extra compensation to clerks, door-keepers and other officers which should no doubt be stopped; but the sweeping character of the foregoing amendment could hardly have been un- derstood by the men who passed it. Sup pose, for instance, that extra labora is thrown upon any officer after his appc int- ment. Is he not fairly entitled to fair rec ompense. therefor' The result of this prohibition will be that in every case whele there is extra labor new officer, em- ployee. agent or servant, |" will have to bs appointed to do the work that might have been done by the old one. Will this be economy? oei7g yur yrp firow y~ It will be observed that the Legislature will in all cases have power to reduce fees but, in many cases, no power to raise them. What will be the practical effect of this one-sided arrangement? Take, for l instance, the matter of sheriff. fees! Here there is great need of reform. In some cases they are too low; in others, too high gTbe legislature could deal with this matter satisfactorily only once iu three years, i. e., in the year that the sher. ifs are elected. Still more absurd would be the result as regards judges salaries. The legislature would have the right oi decreasing but not of increasing their pay What wonld have been the practical work ings of such all amendment in years past? In 1854 judge of the supreme court had but $l,250 salary; in 1866, $2.500; and now he receives $4.O00. Each judges sal. ary would then have depended on the time when his term happened to begin. Uni formity would be out of the question Very likely, ill years to come, there may be 6 decrease, or, quite as probably, au increase needed in judicial salaries. The former would take immediate and uniform effect; the latter could only affect future appointments and we should have the cu
 rious spectacle of the older and experien
 ced judges drawing smailer salaries thar their younger brethren. a''i 2t ',.s ".s
 In short the amendment is so sweepin, iu it's character that it would be oertair
 to embarass legislatures and public cor
 porations in arranging the salaries ant compensation of their appointees to al
 extent that would more than contsrbal
 lance ali good results from the adoption
 of such an amendment. "i3a