Norwich bulletin., 1917-04-26
HOUSE VOTES FOR STRAIGHT SALA ARIES
For Executive Secretary the and Chief Clerk the Same OGce-Lengthy Debate Over How Much Should be Paid Secretary Maltbie-Senate Turns Down Woman SufrageIetter From Secretary McAdoo on Making Farm Loan Bonds Legal Investments.
cspeei.l to rhe nullet.n.)

Hartford. April 25.-Representativ'
 Albert F. Bailey of Norwich was calles
 to preside at Wednesdays session O
 the house by Speaker Healey. soon af
 ter the prayer by Chaplain Benedict
 During the session. upon invitation O
 Speaker Healey. Mrs John c. Geary
 wife of the minority leader. occupied . seat in the rostrum. The morning session was devoted in the main to debate on the salaries of the executive and chief clerks to the governor, con
 corning an increase in salary.
 County Home Commitment. The act concerning commitment oi children under four years of age ir l in the house. Tuesday. was reconsid- ! cred and recommitted to the commit | tee on humane institutions, MT. Rus sell stating that while the bill passed to improve it.
 We'll Paid Clerks. The bill concerning the appointment dietary committee recommended sal aries of $3000 each for the chief clerk of the governor. and the executive secretary. was taken from the table. committee which, fixes the salary of the executive secretary at S2,500 and the chief clerk s2.so0. Mir. Peasiey moved the rejection of the amend,
 
 said that MT. Maltbie received $5,0o0 as a member of the statutory revision committee, gets a good fat salary as executive clerk and is also prosecut- ing attorney. and Is well supplied with state money.
 Mir. Eaton of the finance committee said it was not business to appropriate state money to good fellows in the bfe's pay was fixed in the report as $2,S00, exclusive of fees. and that of Chief Clerk Rood at $25, in lieu of all fees. The amount lost in fees to these the increase recommended by the f- nance committee.
 MT. Shaw of Bedding favored the amendment for the lesser salaries and salaries of these clerks were ample and it was time for curtailment.
 MT. Rogers of Manchester was sur prised to find that the executive sec capitol as former secretaries said they were there but one day a week. There are lots of men who would like the jobs at less pay. The state cannot time, and Mir. Rogers reminded the members that 1t is the towns that pay the state tax. and he urged standing by the finance committee.
 Mr. Hall of New Milford spoke in favor of supporting the finance com mittee who had made special study of the finances of the state.
 MT. Taylor of Danbury spoke in praise of the high order of talent of Secretary Maltbie and of his invalua- ble service to the state and is a price less man to the governor. He said the quarrel was over paltry S20O and it was only a fair deal to grant the increase, and hoped the amendment would not prevail
 Mr. Geary of Waterford favored the amendment until this morning, and 1E T provfder. He had received a large amount of money from the state for the past two years at least. Accord ing to the statement of MT. PeaSley that MT. Ma1tbie had worked for the state at the rate of 25 cents an hour, which MT. Geary said was not true as there were not S25 days year. Mr. Geary said he voted with the judiciary committee in the original report and before he had knowledge of the large of money the executive secre- tary received from the state. MT. Maltbie received not only $5,OO0 from his revision work. but also s2500 as expenses.
 Mir Fox of New London urged the to support the recommenda- ton of the finance committee who knew the financial condition of the state by the most careful research.
 MT. Hall of New Hartford spoke in | opposition to the amendment and said fees that were. paid by notaries would meet the proposed increase.
 MT. Rogers of Manchester said under | that rule of reasoning all the money | from automobiles would go l to the secretary of state.
 MT. Back of Killingly said the gen. | tlemen of the house did not know the | facts in this matter. in so far as they told of the work and pay of Secretary | Maltbie. This is not a personal mat l ter with MT. Maltbie or MT. Rood. but I with the office. The judiciary commit he H. He expense on the state. He said there | sat with the finance committee, a | board of finance that had no connec- ion with the general assembly. but | ;ure, under the constitution. whether 1 MT. Maltbie would be a beneficiary, lnder the proposed act. The in ,rease asked for was not especially or the present incumbents. He said tlready the state had spent too much | ime in quibbling over a few hundred lollars.
 MT. Dillon of Shelton spoke in fa- TOT of the report of the judiciary com nittee, that had given the matter just IS much attention as did the finance committee.
 MT. Hall of New Britain declared roposed increase. and in substantia- ion quoted from the testimony of MT: da1tbie, before the appropriation com nittee. So there is no inclination on ! ne part OI tuc dPPiOPi idIiOi | ee to do an injustice to the parties r the state. and favored the amend 1ent. MT. Back said the committee had rovided for the revenue to meet the , increase by raising the fees Of notar- ss public. Ir MT. Eaton said it was impossible for ne judiciary committee to make any , uch provision as no ore could tell { ow many fees would be received un- ; CT the act which charges a fee of $5 ,r five years.
 Mir. Peasley announced that the h- ance committee had deliberately [ tanned to cut down the clerks salary 8 200. There had been several misrep- by members who had been t misinformed. He said this c
 not a personal matter but was an } ct of justice. Men trained to the s ork were worthy of their hire. He Io lid no man could attend to other [ usiness as well as law. and when he s i'd other business he neglected the ractice of law.
 MT. Rogers of Manchester on a ques-