The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1881-04-15
LEGISLATIVE PAY.

rs follows: The Legislature had been
in session nearly three months, had sat
only about half OF the time, and had
passed only three bills. 1t was evil
IDENTIFY the intention to spin out the ses-
sion beyond hundred days, for which a
salary of one thousand dollars was pro
vided by the Act of 1874, ,and to get under
the ten dollar per day pay provision for
members, provided by the same Act, for
fifty additional days. Under these cir
cumstances, the Attorney General, who
had been a member of the Constitu
tional Convention of 1878, who is sworn
to support, obey and defend the Con
stitution," and who is made by law, the
legal adviser of the several heads of ex-
ecutive departments, turned his attention
to the question of constitutionality in
the Act of 1874, under which the abuse
of an extended and expensive session
was about to take place, as it had taken
place at the sessions of 1878 and 1879,
and coming to a clear conclusion, lin
conformity with the opinion of Mr..
Lear, his predecessor in the Attorney
Generals office), that the daily-pay pro
visions in the Act of 1874 were uncon-
stitutional and void, he very properly
conceived it to be his duty to interpose
his opinion in defense of the funda-
mental law of the State, by expressing
that opinion in legal form to the State
Treasurer and Auditor General the finan-
cial officers of the Commonwealth. TWAS
an unpleasant andresponsible, but clear
duty under his oath of office, and he met
and discharged it with faithfulness and
courage. AT his instance, Mr.. Latouche
a Representative from Lackawanna coun-
ty, addressed letter of inquiry to the
State Treasurer and Auditor-General
upon the pay question, which being re-
ferred by those officers to him, he replied
in an opinion which has been published,
and which has received the general as
sent of the legal profession, as a correct
and satisfactory exposition of the law.
1t held that the provision of the Sth sec
ton of the legislative article of the Con
stitution, which provides shat the Mem
bers of the General Assembly shall re-
ceive such salary and mileage for regu-
lar and special sessions as shall be fixed
| by law, and no other compensation what
ever whether for service upon commit
tee or otherwise" excluded all compen-
sation in the form of daily pay or wages,
by the inherent and necessary force of
the terms used; and the most conclusive
proof was produced from the printed de-
bates of the Constitutional Convention,
that such was the deliberate intent and
purpose with which the new Constitu
ton was made. This opinion, which has
not been seriously questioned by any re-
spectacle and disnterested authority,
produced however, (as was to have been
expected), some excitement in the two
Houses, followed by denunciation OF the
Attorney General A resolution was
forthwith introduced into the House, by
Mr.. Ruddiman, of Philadelphia, to APP
point a committee, to investigate the
motioes of the Attorney General in Civ
ing the opinion; which resolution was
adopted forthwith and committee
appointed.
1t was very extraordinary resolution,
inasmuch as it proposed to oinvestigate Of
fetal motives which can only be guessed
at or conjectured, instead of official con-
duct, which may be examined and upon
due proof made known; and the pro
ceedings of the committee have shown
the futility OF the investigation as well
as the animus with which it was under
taken Doubtless, the committee will
make report upon a'ropriety, and en-
deavor to draw off attention from the
only point of inquiry in which the pub
lie is interested, to wit: the correctness
of the opinion pronounced by the law Of
ficer of the government. But the COM
mittee have deprived any report which
they may make, of all moral force or
claim to public respect, by fiat refusal
to hear testimony in explanation or
defense of the party assailed. Although
appointed to investigate the Attorney
Generals motives, they appear extreme
ly anxious to avoid all testimony which
shall disclose them. For, upon com
munication addressed to them by the At |
torney. General, waving all objection to
their authority to examine his motives,
in the manner proposed, and rendering
himself as witness for full examination
by them, the committee fatty refused to
call him.
AT this exact point, all ju1icious and
rejecting persons dismissed the commit
tee and their proceedings from further
attention. Outside of that committee,
nobody will be disturbed by the question
of propriety which may be presented by
them in a report Surely it was not
wrongful or reprehensible for the law Of
ficer of the government to invite letter
from member of the legislature which
would give occasion for formal express
sion of hiA opinion upon this interesting
and important question of constitutional
law. The time invited, and duty demand
ed the opinion. 1t was given neither
too early nor too late. If it had been
deferred until the end of prolonged ses-
sion, just complaint could have been |
made by members that they had not re |
ceived timely notice that their service af- |
ter hundred days would not enttle them |
to per diem pay. And such an opinion |
at the commencement of the session |
would have been considered obsrgsive,
as it could not then be known that time |
would be frittered away and the session |
would extend beyond the hundred days |
for which lawful salary is provided.
In 1875 the Legislature adjourned |
March 18th, and in 1877, March 23rd. |
The latent mischief contained in the
daily-pay provisions of the Act of 1874,
did not fully develop itself for several
years. But in 1878 and in 1870 it man-
ifested itself in greatly prolonged SEES
sions and enormous expense. In 1873,
The Legislature sat until the oath day of
May, and the appropriation for legis-
atiyc expenses was S54O,O00. In 1879,
i sat until the sixth day of June, and
-he appropriation for Legislative expen
,es was S530,000. Those two sessions,
involved appropriations ex
,eeding one million of dollars, to pro,
n