The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-13
SALARIES OF JUDGES RAISED
 BY BILL PASSED BY SENATE

 raised the salary from ,50O to $2,40O and was a signal for fight on the part of the economy element in the upper house
 An amendment fixing the salary at 1000 was offered by Senator Powell Of Butler. who contended that the increase proposed was too sweeping. He favored an increase but was not willing to take such a jump as that.
 There Is not a confidential clerk In the State whose duties are so onerous and who is receiving a salary so poor as the Private Secretary to the Governor" said Senator Dunn, as he moved to table the motion of the Senator from Butler. The motion prevailed.
 Senator Spragsins of Madison, sent for ward an amendment providing that the secretary shall not receive and salary as keeper of the capitol. for which he now receives $15O per year.
 Senator Jones of Wilcox offered an amendment increasing the salary to 1.S00. The Senator from Wilcox thought 1t was time to call a halt In the matter of appropriations.
 Senator Dunn moved to table Senator Jones's amendment. and this was done.
 Senator Powell amended his amend ment, fixing the salary at $2,250. He was opposed, he said, to measure that would give the private secretary to the Govern orr a greater salary than was accorded the Secetary of State. bill that raised the salary in question more than 20 per cent.
 Senator Lancaster then moved to amend the amended amendment. fixing the sal- ary of the secretary at $2,150 and things were now getting complicated.
 Senator Dunn cleared the air, how ever. and the amendments. one by one, were tabled.
 The bill was then read and after a short speech by Senator Screws, of Mont gomery. touching upon the merits of the bill and the duties of the Governors sec retary. the vote was taken. resulting 2 to in favor of the original measure.
 Judges Salary Bill.
 Consideration of Senator Blackmon's s bill was then resumed, the Senator from Calhoun having to fight for every inch of progress that was made with the meas ure. The status of the bill before the Senate was for a long time in dispute and was with difficulty settled The bill had been reported once, amended, and then recommitted. It was again reported by the committee In exactly the same shape as before. It was decided that the Sen- ate should act upon it as if 1t were a new measure. but the question of the bills constitutionality was not so easily disposed of
 Senator Smith, of Clay, moved to again recommit the measure, but this motion was tabled.
 Senator Bullock. of Franklin, renewed his amendn ent striking out the provis- ion for increase of salaries for the va rious judges during the terms of office for which they had been elected. He held hnt tIA teI- IaA under the organic law of the State to increase salaries in this manner.
 Senator Blackmon in a vigorous speech maintained that since the constitution permitted no reduction in salaries of off cials while in office and did not expressly prohibit an increase the inference there fore was that increases while in office were permissible. He paid some sarcastic compliments to the new Senators to whom the proposed increase appeared so great and so dangerous, alluding to the meagre incomes of some of the enemies Of the bill under consideration.
 Spragins Answers Blackmon.
 Senator Spragins. of Madison. resented this allusion, touching the new Senators in a neat re1oinder.
 He declared that the Senate was pass- ing bills without regard to their consti- tutonality. Personally he was opposed to the proposition on constitutional and all other grounds. A bill providing for the redistricting of the State, he held, should have preceded this. He declared that some of the judges in the State are not working half the time, and that when they are working they are well paid. The constitution, he said. did not stop with the provision prohibiting the de- crease of salaries of State officials while n Ia bus clause in that document stating ex- pressly that the salaries in question should not be either increased or de- creased during their terms of office.
 Senator NeSmith of Lamar, who was member of the Judiciary Committee of the Constitutional Convention, held that the bill under consideration was clearly within the provisions of the Constitution.
 Glad He's Not Lawyer.
 T am almost glad am not lawyer" said Senator Norman of Chambers, If being lawyer would so cloud my vision that l could not understand the meaning Of the clause which obviously prohibits increase of salaries for the judges while In ofllce."
 He deplored the apparent disposition to increase salaries.
 '"rhe provision of the Constitution for bidding decrease and saying nothing about increase of salaries during the terms of office of State officials was left In that shape purposely" said Sen 0tor Morrow of Jefferson. 'SThe clause prohibiting either increase or decrease was a miscellaneous clause put in after the principal clause had been inserted. The question is. should the principal clause or the miscellaneous one prevail? It Is not the office of a miscellaneous provision to abrogate or contradict the provision touching the matter specfical- ly. The Constitution therefore permits the increase of the Judges salaries du- ring their terms of office."
 A message was then received from the