Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1879-04-21

virtue of an express provision of the constitu.
ton OF the State. the question of the travel
ing expenses of members of the legislature.
in going to and returning from the legislature,
under the limitation of ''oncc in each session
and no more" The compensation of MEM
bers of the legislature, is one thing, and their
raveling expenses q wholly different matter.
The first part of sec. Z, art. W., declares that
the Senators and Representatives shall re-
ceiye such compensation rs shall be estab-
lished bv law, but no law increasing their
compensation shall take effect during the ex-
istence of the legislature which enacted it..
Hence there can be no dispute that sec. of
chap. lis of the revised statutes, so far as il
fixes the compensation of members of the
legislature is constitutional, and an act made
imperative by it.
But the mileage question, or that of the
travelling expenses of members, is wholly
distinct from the question of compensation
The one is to be fixed by law, and the other
is wholly within the province of each success
sive legislature, which no law enacted by an
antecedent legislature can limit or restrain.
The latter portion of the same section and ar
ticle of the constitution reads as follows:
1.-THE expenses of the House of Represen-
tatives in travelling to the legislature and re-
turning therefrom, once in each session, and
no more, shall be paid by the State out of the
public treasury to every member who shall
seasonably attend, in the Judgment of the
house, and does not depart theretrom without
leave"
Taking no notice of the omission of the
word "Senate," in the foregoing (Which it is
to be presumed was iapSus penRG of which
there are also great many in the revised
statltes) it is evident from the fact of the
separation of the question of compensation
from that of the travelling expenses OF mem
bers and from the further fact that the pro
vision in relation to the former, that it shall
be established by law" and the omission of
a similar provision in regard to the latter,
that the constitution intended to leave the
question of the travelling expenses of legis-
lative members wholly to each successive leg
islature to determine for itself what amount
in the shape of Expenses" should be paid to
each member ain travelling to the Legislature
and returning therefrom.' This view de-
rves further support from the phraseology
employed, when the matter of payment in
certain contingencies is dependent upon the
Judgment of the House
Even if it be held that the 9th see. of chap.
ll5 of the Revised Statutes binds the legisla-
ture to conform to in the matter OF mileage,
the conclusion must be that, inasmuch as it
gives mileage but one way, viz: "From the
place of abode" while the constitution de-
clares that the member shall be paid his trav
cling expenses both ways, viz in going to
and returning from the legislature, the sec
tion is in conflict with the constitution, and
that the latter must prevail, thereby emitting
the member to payment both ways And the
contrary view derives no support from what
the legislature has seen fit to do or say in the
cases cited by the justices when it had un-
questioned jurisdiction over the whole mat.
ter, without constitutional Limitation or con
troll. But this position is the correct one.
that the portion of the 9th section alluded to
as piece Of gratuitous legislation, like that
which seeks to provide how the two houses
of the legislature at each annual session shall
organize. declaring that the old clerk of the
House and the old secretary Of the Senate
shall call the respective houses to order, pre-
side during the election of speaker, president,
etc. etc. whereas each house has the consti-
tutional right u organize without such agen-
cies, as they did for the first 20 or 80 years
of the existence of the State government.
SO far as the controversy between the exec
utive and the recently adjourned Legislature
is concerned we hold that these propositions
are applicable to it. ~-. .-.
I, That the Legislature possessed clean
constitutional right to pass the bill providing
for 20 cents mileage each way.
9. That the Governor, if he deemed the
amount of mileage excessive, had a clear
constitutional right to veto the bill.
3. That the legislature in turn. had a clear
constitutional right to pass the bill by a two
thirds majority over the executive veto.
4. Failing to do that, and failing also to
amend the bill, so as to annual executive OBJ
jcctions on that, and hope to pass it. or to
pass it at all, in any shape, the whole mileage
question fell to the ground.
In conclusion, we will say that we think
the Governor was right in regarding the mile
age ms excessive, and in vetoing the bill on
that ground. @ LEX.