The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-02-03
AS TO THE SALARY OF THE
JUDGES.


The sentiment in favor of inereas-
ing the salary of the judicial officers
in North Carolina is based upon a
realization of the fact that these i'm
portant officials should be paid suf-
fcient salary to enable them to sup
port their families comfortably and to
educate their children.
This paper has not insisted upon
any given salary or supported any
particular bill, while strongly favorine
such increase as the condition of the
state Treasury will justify. The first
bill in reduced in the Senate provided
for $4,000 for the Chief Justice and
81 900 for the Associate Justices and
the Superior Court Judges. We felt
that such increase at this time would
not meet with approval. After a
rather hard fought contest, the Senate
by q majority of two votes passed q
bill making the salary $4,000. There
was much opposition to this bill in the
House Committee on Salaries and
ed to the House by a vote of TO I.
OF the seven members voting against
the bill, three favored increasing the
salary to $4,000, leaving the expense
allowance of $3.50 as heretofore.
They will vote for substitute bill to
that effect. thus favoring an increase of
$500 a year in the salary of each of
the twenty-one judges, but they will
not vote for more in view OF the other
demands upon the State Treasury.
And there are many members of the
House who agree with this view. At
this time, under all the circumstances,
we believe that their position is the
correct one and that it ought ~ pre-
vail
There are members who insist upon
$4,000 or no increase; there are men,
bers who earnestly oppose such in
crease. They are all sincere and just
men, who are standing for the policy
they deem wise. There ought to be a
mutual ground of agreement, will
Lngness to make concessions of opin-
ion i'm this matter that can call for
no sacrifice of principle, and desire
to "get together" upon conservative
and moderate measure that will be
fairly satisfactory to all. Is not the
lust basis of this getting to-
ecther'' for all the members to con-
suit together, with a mutual desire
to meet the necess. ties of the case.
and unite upon substitute blu that
will simply amend The Code by
striking out $4,000 and inserting in
lieu thereof $4,000, leaving the law of
1891 untouched that gave $3.50 to
meet necessary travelling expenses? A
simple act amending The Code as Sug-
gested above would give an increase
OF $500 which would be a substantial
increase and pay all the expenses in
Cured in travelling, leaving the net
salary of $4,000 for support. Is il not
better to follow this course with sub
stantial unanilnity or with the approv-
al of q majority than to force through
a larger salary, even if ii can be done.
over the protest of many good men
who feel that at this time an increase
of $500 is the limit that the financial
situation of the State, with regard to
other necessary expenditures, vii, war
rantP
Some of the advocates of the pas
sage of the bill carrying salary of
$500 declare for such increase or no
change whatever, and state they be-
lieve some of the judicial officers would
prefer that the Senate bill be defeated
than TO make only the $500 increase.
The legislators are not legislating with
respect to the wishes of any particular
officials, but with reference to the duty
the State owes to the men it ele-
Yates TO The rench. The judges
are making no demand, simply ex-
pressing to their friends the hope that
the General Assembly Will feel that il
can make such increase as will meet
their increased expenses.
1t is "a condition and not a theory
that confronts us The wide differ
ence of opinion in the House makes
it unwise TO press a measure that is
believed by a large element in the
House to be inexpedient at this time.
The argument for a moderate increase
is so strong that it is to be hoped a
vote for an increase of $500 will COM
mand the support of nearly all the
members of the House. Why not make
it unanimous?