The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-05-26
MONDAY MORNING, MAY 26.
February, A D. 1871, and, by the 9th section
of chapter lis, of the Revised Statutes of this
State II is nroyided that

February A D. 1871 and, by the 9th section
of chapter lis, of the Revised Statutes of this
State it is provided that
ssEach member of the Senate and House of Rep
sentatiyes shall be paid salary of one hundred and
fifty dollars, for the regular annual session Of the
Legislature, and two dollars for every ten miles
travel from his place of abode once in each ses-
sion.''
While this section is silent concerning "the
expenses OF the House of Representatives in
travelling to the Legislature and returning
therefrom", in view of the fact that no other
provision of law appears on the statute-book
concerning such expenses, 1t is reasonable
construction to hold that this, which is here
given for travel was designed as payment for
expenses incurred in going to the Legislature,
and not unlikely, was considered as sufficient
to cover also the expenses in returning there
FROM" although nothing is said about return
ing.
This section thus made was but the attempt
ing to fulfil the duties enjoined by the above
provision of the constitution, and as far as the
two dollars for every ten miles travel was con-
cerned, related only to that portion of the pro-
vision which requires the payment of ex-
penses of travelling, and was not designed as
compensation for services.
Upon the oath day of February, A. D., 1875,
the Legislature, by concurrent action of both
branches, passed resolve directing the pay
ment from the State Treasury, to several per-
sons named in the payroll the sums set
against their names. 1t is in these words:
Chapter 1O5. Resolve on the payroll of the
House.
RESOLVED, That there be paid out of treasury of
tne state to the several persons named in the for
gowing payroll, the sum set against their names
respectively, amounting to the sum of thirty-one
Thousand six hundred and sixty dollars and fifty
cehts.-Approved February "a, 1876"
This resolve received the support of the Gov
ernor and became law. Under this resolve
received the sum set against nv name.
NO question was then made concerning the
rignt OF that Legislature to pass such a law,
and beg leave to state that Il see no ground
for questioning that right now.
You Will perceive that the resolve does not
increase the compensation of members and is
therefore not obnoxious to the provision of the
constitution, that forbids a Legislature increas-
ing Its own compensation. 1t provides the same
compensation as the previous existing law had
provided, and provided for its OWN expenses in
travelling to the Legislature and returning
therefrom, as enioined by the constitution to
do.
Each Legislature must pass upon the subject
matter and provide the means of payment.
Each Legislature must determine who "seas-
onably attend" and edo not depart without
leave" The expenses from various causes may
be much increased or much decreased from
those, attending former Legislatures. They
may be provided for by each Legislature if
deemed proper.
This act received all the forms of passage and
sanctions of adoption that the law quoted from
as and for law upon the subject it relates to-
1t is in contravention of no constitutional pro-
vision, nor against common right.
The law OF 1871, found in the revision, was
not irrepealable nor free from notifications by
subsequent legislatures, but was subject to the
action OF any succeeding legislature. The act
Is not of doubtful construction, for it specifies
the name OF each person and the amount to be
PAID him; therefore the claim you make upon
me seems to rest upon the assumed want of au-
thority in the legislature of 1875 to provide in
the way 1T did, for meeting the requisition of
the constitution, that "the expenses of the
House OF Representatives, in travelling to the
legislature and returning therefrom, once in
each session and no more, shall be paid by the
Stote out Of the public treasury, to every men,
ber."
cannot doubt that it was competent for that
legislature to pass the law it did pass upon this
subject, and that the State Treasurer for that
year was not only justified in making the pay
ments directed, but was legally bound to do so.
Inc form OF passing or making the law
whether by bill or resolve, in no wise affects
Its validity or efficiency 1t is the will of the
people duly expressed and attested in either
Ii there had been no provision of law upon
the subject of paying the travelling expenses,
required to be paid under the constitutional
provision cited, think no one would doubt
tnat It might be carried out by each legislature,
by resolve passed as this was. The competency
OF the legislature to thus do it being established
the question arises why they may not thus do
1t IN this instance. The objection seems to be
tnat there is an existing law upon this subject
Dat that law is not irrepealable That propo-
sItioh, however, becomes immaterial, for the
resolve does not seek to repeal the previous
statute. The resolve carries out the provisions
OF the statute, and adds such farther payment
for expenses in travelling as the legislature
deemed proper at that time.
AS before remarked the constitution does not
require these expenses to be fixed by previous
statute; they are not required to be "estab-
hshed by law in rate or amount Thew are
matters that may be adjusted by each legisla-
ture, by bill, resolves or any other customary
or usual form of legislation, receiving the sane
Ton OF both branches and the approval of the
Governor.
accompanying your demand you send me
copy Oh an opinion subscribed by the several
members OF the Supreme Judicial Court.
A perusal of that opinion leads me to the
CONCLUSION that 1t is simply a construction of
sec. OF chapter 115, of the Revised Statutes of
this State, and has no relevancy whatever to
the question whether or not the legislature of
1879 had right to make additional provisions
by law for the payment of expenses in going to
the legislature and returning therefrom.
Ihey do not undertake to pass upon the
question OF the constitutionality or efficacy of
the act of 1875 directing the payment to the
members OF that legislature. They do not dis
cuss that question at all, and think it may be
seriously doubted if they would do SO upon
Iiere request, Wnere the private right of more
than one thousand persons may be involved
Until there shall be some authoritative deci-
sion to the contrary 1 must regard the act of
the legislature of 1875, directing the amount to
be paid me as member, fully authorized and
binding upon me and upon all the Departments
OF the Government of this State.
Inc lmputatlon, found in the resolve of the
~ executive Department. that the money of the
State has been ILLEGALLY paid to and received
py me. prompts me to trouble you with the
foregoing suggestions.
must however conclude that the opinion
entertained by the Executive Department of
the State, and, in Difference to their opinion
and expressed request, cheerfully enclose YOU
the sum of $17, begging you will not consider
IL an admission that it was "illegally paid to
and received by me.
Respectfully yours,
RUFUS P. TAPLEY.