Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-04-30
A Remarkable Report.

SATURDAY EvONACSSs AxS1A0 0Vs AooAs
A Remarkable Report.
The committee which has been SO long
over the attorney generals
opinion on the salary question has made
its report to the House and received the
thanks and nearly unanimous approval
of the members for its conclusions ;
which ought not perhaps to be surprls-
ing, seeing that the report declares that
the attorney general was all wrong in
his law, and that it was very mean and
unworthy thing in him to stop the
growth Of the members salary after
the hundred days. Legislators are hui
man, and they are not generally supposed
to be an extraordinarily virtuous and
unselfish type of humanity so that they
could hardly have been expected not to
be gratified at the declaration of their
committee that they had solid right to
all the money they had voted themselves.
But it does seem odd to see the members
80 unanimous. 1t is a state which is en-
tirely new to them. All the session
through they have exhibited themselves
as of the most discordant minds and
even those who came together close
friends are now wide apart as the poles.
Notably, for instance, Messrs. Wolfe and
Hewitt have parted company, to come
together only on this salary matter, when
they stand side by side we believe !;
though Wolfe calls Hewitt the abettor
of ringsters and won't take it. back,
while Hewitt considers Wolfe to be a
bad fellow who always wants to have
things his own way.
And that is something like the thought
of the people about these legislators,
whom they see SO unanimous about their
salaries and so very much enraged at the
attorney general orcutting them down.
The thought is that it would be good
deal more becoming in men, so great y
interested in a legal point, not to he
quite SO brash and unanimous and de-
cided about being in the right about it ;
and to be more modest in declaring to
he wrong the reputable lawyer who is
the attorney general, and who has de-
cided the matter against them in the
usual course of his official duty.
The committee which has mads this
report has had the satisfaction, of venti-
lating it's legal opinion and of having it
approved by their clients; but that is
all the satisfaction they or the clients
can get out of it. There is good deal
of comfort in self-satisfaction even when
there is mighty little foundation for it.
and probably these people feel great
deal better over the conclusion they have
come to. Perhaps they think they have
settled it. Indeed the language of the
committee seems to convey its
very positive conviction that what
they have said cannot be gainsaid
They find very great fault, fol
instance, with what they style 1.-THE
peculiar mode adopted for forcing be
fore the people the opinion by the attor-
ney general" }" and avow that " the con
victions of enlightened people can scarce
ly partake of the disagreement concern
ing it," We understand from this thai
the committee considers that no I" Ell
lightened people :" can possibly disagree
with its belief that the attorney gener
ais conduct was wrong. Consequent.
all we who do not see it are not enlight
ened which is conclusion more salts
factory to the committee than to our
selves.
But perhaps we do not rightly appre
hend this committees language. W.
confess that we state our view of it
meaning with great distrust. We hav
read its sentences with great care ant
labor, and at the cost Of much time. w
have generally been able to fix sensibl
meaning upon them, but often we can
not feel sure that it is the true one. Th
author of this paper is, we suppose, tn
chairman, Lawyer Ruddiman, of Phila
delphia. Mr.. Ruddiman's law ma
be as good rs he thinks AM
SO may be his English. Evidentl
he considers both first-class. His Law
we consider very shaky; but we vii
concede that his English is very mag
nifcent-if it is anything. The question
with us is whether it is English at all
Language being given to express ideas
the language that don't express the au
thor's meaning to the ordinary compre
hension, can hardly be said to fulfil it
function. No doubt Mr.. Ruddiman liza
ideas. He is reported to he a good law
yer and a man of intelligence, so that h
must think at least, and think sensibly
when his judgment is not warped b.
self-intcrest as on this salary business
So too he can talk sensibly. But the
pen is too much for him. Ht
can't write plainly and clearly what h
thinks. He wants to get in big words ant
big sentences and by the time he get
through with an idea it is SO twisted abou
that it needs an interpreter to translat
it into the authors mother tongue. s
that We will not positively assume tha
we are right in supposing that we under
stand what Mr.. Ruddiman means to sa,
when he speaks of enlightened peopl'
partaking'' of disagreement bu
we have done our best to construe hi
language.
Perhaps some of our readers may thinl
that they can understand anything ant
ANYBODY, For their benefit we Civ