The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-08-29

my opponent has seen propcr to make
In 1901. the last year OF Governor Tylcr's
ADMINISTRATION. the aggregate amount of
salaries was S1lo.246.04. In 1905, tine last
year OF Governor Montague's administra-
tlon. the aggregate amount OF salaries was
s 20i .2S3. s o This made an increase during
Governor Montaguc's administration OF
S04. 037.46. Fairness requires me to repeat
and impress on YOU the fact that much OF
this Increase was occasioncd by the now
co institution. for which MIR. Glass was more
responsible than Governor Montague.
Increase I'm Salaries.
In 1909. the last year OF my nd nlinistrn
ion, the aggregate amount OF salaries was
S25i, 5C0.5G being an increase over tho last
year OF Governor AIontaguc's administra-
zion of S5o.326.06. Thus. this increase
under my administration was less than the
increase under Governor AIoutaguc's admin
i%stration by Si3.7ll.4o. Included In the
increase is sl0.340 paid the guards for tho
penittntiary. which increase was occasioncd
by the creation OF the convict road force.
requiring q great many moro guards to
properly care for and work this force. I am
sure that this increase. to have the convicts
worked on tho public roads. Is universally
approved. Sl2,5O0 more was made neces-
sry by the creation OF five new judicial
circuits. required by the increased business
and demand. for more prompt and efficient
judicial administration There was no
increase in the salaries OF the Judges. am
satisfied that this eNpendit urc is approved.
Alarge part OF the other increases was occa-
stoned by the new departments and bureaus
which have been beneficial. and which |
have hoard no suggestion from anyone to
have abolished. Others were necessary to
carry into effect the provisions Of the new
constitution. The increases of individual
salaries to officers have been small and |
know Of none that has been excessive. Mr..
Glass has named no excessive snlary maid
to any one. but complains OF some increases
having been made contrary to tho constitu-
ton. | deny that this is truo. II MIR. Glass
thinks there are any unconstitutional in
crchSes NO mas n very easy and simple
remedy. He can apply to the courts. and
any increase thnt was made contrary to the
constitution will be nulllficd. know OF no
unconstitutional increase. and II Mr.. Glass
knows that any such increases were made
instead of making aloud outcry the efficient
way for him to vindicate the constitution
Is for him to apply to the courts. But the
increase complained OF was so small that I
really feel like apologizing for taking up the
time OF the people in discussing such trivial
matters. During Mr.. GLASS; term in the
Virginia senate. he voted for the increase
OF salaries to the amount OF S6,7l5. An
examination OF his record docs not disclose
any disposition on his part to try to prevent
the payment OF greater sums to officials.
Mr.. Glass has full opportunity to domon-
stratc any desire he may have had for
economy and prove n purpose to save tho
states money and disclose his conception
OF the proprictics in connection with the
employment OF officials to do the states
work. The constitutional convention by a
resolution authorized the committee onreport-
ins and printing OF which MIR. Glass was
chairman, to contract for editing and pub
fishing In book form the debates Of the con-
vcntion. | understand that the committee
empowered Mr.. Glass as chairman to have
this work done.
CrltIcizes Lindsay.
Mr.. j. H. Lindsay. editor and owner Of
the Charlottesville Progress. was a member
OF this committee He hud voted for the
resolution authorizing tn c committee to
contract for and publish these debates
Mr.. Lindsay, a member OF the comm ttee.
who had voted for the resolution. was ON
ployed TO do tho work, This OF itself was
improper. and should not have been done
The was made tho agent OF the
state OF contract for this work and IL was
certainly contrary to the ideas OF public
propricty for one OF the members OF tho
committee TO have been employed. Agents
selected TO contract for work should never
contract with themselves IL would seem
to me that this was not only impruDsy and
immoral. but would be considered illegal
For ono SO critical in his Judgments OF tho
prophecies for others. IL Is well for Mr.. Gluss
to explain Why lie employed Mr. Lindsay,
a member OF the committee and convention.
and who had voted for the resolutions
But the improperly 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 con-
stitutional convention had been published
in fun. under contract. In tho Dis pateL. and
was the property OF the state All that Mr.
Lindsay had to do was to clip out these
debates, correct them. or send them 10 the
printer. correct the proof, and then have
them bound in book form The work was
then completed To do this work. which
was simple and easy, IL took Mr. Lindsay
three years and six months He was en-
ploycd at $500 per month. For this work he
was paid 81 200 on vouchers approved by
Nlr GLASS cannot see any reason for all
tiiis TIME to correct these debates except
TO provide protracted employment on an
easy job and liberal pay for Mr.. Lindsay
! nave a letter from MIR. l.. :. Maryc, who
was employed by AIr. Lindsay at the time
TO DO editorial work on the Charlottesville
Pro7TeSs. He tells me that he did the greater
part OF the work of editing the debates and
was paid the sum OF $500 for al he did and
tilat nc would have gladly done the whole
work, including everything MIR Lindsay
did. for $500. MIR. l.. s.. Marye is a man OF
high education and competent In every
respect to do this work. and claimed that
he did all OF it. This presents
a clear cXamplco OF excessive and extravagant
pay and favoritism which will not be proven
ana cannot he defended. | will guarantee
tnat the records OF the state departments
'N''H' NV HNANIh tACtsSlNt pay, no SuCn
delay in work and no such favorjtism
striking incident which should not
escape observation is that the Charlottes-
vlllc PToGreSs. owned and edited by MI
Lindsay. Is today one OF the stauncheSt
supporters and defenders OF Mr. Glass.
MT Glass PiteOus Plea"
MIR Glass pitcous plea for economy be-
comes more amusing when we examine
MS congressional record On Jan 81, 1905.
wheh a vote was pending in congress to
whether the retired army officers
above the grade of major and assigned To
Tor military service in the state. should
receive half pay or full pay. MIR. Glass voted
mat these officers should receive full pay
IL Is estimated that il this view OF Mr. Glass
had prevailed it. would have cost the treasury
the unitcd states certainly SAL ,7I0. and
possibly i'll the future $50. 900 Il year 1t
IS strange that MIR. Glass should favor this
large sum OF money going on OF the national
treasury TO n few high army Officers and yet
obkcct to reasonable salaries