Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1911-08-30

vindicate the Constitution is for him
to apply to the courts. But the
increase complained Of was so small
that | really feel like apoligizing for
taking up the time of the people IN
discussing such trivial matters.
During Mr.. Glass, term in the Vlr-
ginia Senate, he voted for the in
crease of salaries to the amount or
s6.715.UO. An examination of his
record does not disclose any DISPOSE
ton on his part to try to prevent the
payment of greater sums to officials.
Mr.. Glass had full opportunity TO
demonstrate any desire he may have
had for economy and prove purpose
TO save the States money and DIS
close his conception of the proprltles
in the employment of officials TO do
the States work. The Constitutional
Convention by resolution author
lied the Committee on Reporting and
Printing, of which Mr.. Glass was
Chairman, 10 contract for editing
and publishing in book form the
debates of the Convention. | under
stand the Committee empowered Mr..
Glass, as Chairman. TO have this work
done. Mr.. J. H. Lindsay, editor and
owner of the Charlottesville Pro-
gress, was a member Of this COM
mittee. He had voted for the resolu-
ton authorizing the Committee TO
contract for and publish these de-
bates. Mr.. Lindsay, member or
the committee, who had voted for
the resolution, was employed to do
the work This OF itself was i'm
proper and should not have been
done. The committee was made the
agent of the State to contract for
his work and it was certainly con-
trary to the ideas of public propriety
for one of the members of the COM
mittee to have been employed.
Agents selected to contract for work
should never contract with them
selves. 1t would seem to me that
this was not only improper and i'm
moral, but would be considered il
legal. For one SO critical in his
judgments Of the proprieties for
others, it is we'll for Mr.. Glass to ex-
plain why he employed Mr.. Lindsay,
a member of the Committee and Of
the Convention, and who had voted
for the resolution. But the improper
becomes greater when we consider the
amount paid and the extent Of time
in which Mr.. Lindsay was permitted
to do this work. The debates Of the
Constitutional Convention had been
published in full under contract in
the Dispatch, and were the property
of the State All that Mr.. Lindsay
had TO do was to clip out these debates
correct them, or send them to the
members of the Convention for cor
rection, furnish them to the printer,
correct the proof, and then have them
bound il book form. The work was
then completed. To do this work,
which was simple and easy, it took Mr..
Lindsay three years and six months.
He was employed at $4,000 per
month For this work he was paid
$4,200.00 on vouchers approved by
Mr.. Glass. / cannot see any reason
for all this time to correct these de-
bates except TO provide protracted
employment on an easy job and
liberal pay for Mr.. Lindsay. l have
a letter from Mr.. l.. S. Marye, who
was employed by Mr.. Lindsay at the
time TO do editorial work on the Char
lottesville Progress, who tells me
that he did the greater part Of the
work editing the debates and was
paid the sum of three hundred dollars
Tor all he did, and that he would
gladly done the whole work, includ-
ing everything Mr.. Lindsay did for
five hundred dollars. Mr.. Marye is
a man of high education and compe-
tent in every respect to do the work,
and claimed that practically he did
all of it. This presents clear ex-
ample Of excessive and extraragant
pay and favoritism, which will not be
approved and can not be defended.
| will guarantee that the records Of
the State departments will disclose no
such excessive pay, no such delay in
work, and no such faroritism.
Another striking incident which
should not escape observation Is that
the Charlottesville Progress, owned
and edited by Mr.. Lindsay, is today
one of the staunchest defenders and
supporters of Mr.. Glass.
Mr.. Glass piteous plea for econ
omy becomes more amusing when
we examine his Congressional record.
On January 81, 1905, when a vote
was pending in Congress to determine
whether the retired army officers
above the grade OF major and assign
ed to duty for military service in the
States should receive half pay, or full
pay, Mr.. Glass voted that these Off
GERS should receive full pay. 1t is
estimated that if this view of Mr..
Glass had prevailed it would have
cost the Treasury Of the United States
certainly $41,470.00 and possibly in
the future $1S0,000.00 year. 1t
is strange that Mr.. Glass should
favor this large sum Of money going
out Of the National Treasury TO few
high army officers and yet strenuously
object TO reasonable salaries paid
State officials. The measure for
which he voted really was intended
TO take care of General Nelson A.
Miles, who had been retired as
Federal general and was assigned TO
the State of Massachusetts TO instruct
her militia. l believe in dealing
fairly viii General Miles as Federal
officer. | am glad to say that but
seventy nine members of the house of
representatives voted with Mr.. Glass
in this matter and one hundred and
seventy one including myself, voted
the other way. | know OF no bill |
signed for salaries as Governor as
Objectionable and as uncalled for as
this ono supported by Mr.. Glass. II
is incomprehensible how Mr.. Glass
heart should go out in loving gen
erousity to General Miles whose great
est title 10 fame was putting chains
and irons upon President Jefferson
Davis. Yet he assails the reasonable
increase 10 deserving officials and
.. 6