Mr. BELT. If the law in reference to judges
was that they should be entitled to twenty-
five hundred dollars a year, and such mileage
as should be fixed by law, would not the
legislature have the right to fix that mileage
at such sum as they pleased ?
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Unquestionably. But
if it went on to state that the salary or com-
pensation of any officer should not be in-
creased or diminished during his term of office,
I greatly question whether you could affect
the amount of the compensation of a judge
daring his term. If it can be done in regard
to the members of the general assembly what
is there to limit them? Because if they can
vote into their own pockets under any name
or any pretence, any sum that they please
from the State treasury, then there is nothing
upon earth to check them. Imagine for a
moment a general assembly so corrupt that
they should see fit to put into their own
pockets a thousand dollars in addition to
their usual mileage. If they can put in ten
dollars or a hundred dollars lawfully, they
can put in a thousand dollars just as lawfully
and legally. There is no reason why they
should not do the one as well as the other.
And if this amendment be passed, I take it
for granted that, as in the last legislature,
an order will be offered to-morrow morning
that all the officers of the convention shall re-
ceive one hundred dollars in addition to their
usual mileage; the secretaries, the sergeant-at-
arms, the door-keepers and pages. That will
be the necessary consequence. And though
it be a little matter to each individual, it will
take, unwarrantably I believe, about twelve
thousand dollars at once out of the State
treasury.
The other day when this fame proposition
was up, and members changed their votes so
as not to be on record in favor of this propo-
sition, and it was proposed to withdraw it so
that it should not appear on the journal, I
then inquired whether it was withdrawn for
the purpose of having it offered again, I was
answered on all sides that it would not come
up again. I had supposed that that was the
end of it.
Now I do believe that we have no warrant
of law for it. If we have the warrant of
law for it, then there is no necessity for any
action on our part; the officers of the State
will act on the law. But if there is no war-
rant of law for this thing, then I am not dis-
posed to make a law which shall take from
the treasury of the State, over and above
what the convention bill authorizes, twelve
thousand dollars and put it into the pockets
of the members and officers of this conven-
tion.
And I am equally clear upon the main
proposition. The question was asked here,
I remember it distinctly, whether the presi-
dent of the convention was to be allowed any
pay in addition to that of the members. |
There was but one response in the house of
delegates; that the duties of the president
were not more arduous than those of some of
the members, and that he should stand upon
the same footing with them. it was a mat-
ter of discussion in the legislature at the time
the convention bill passed; and the compen-
sation was fixed at five dollars a day, with the
distinct understanding that that included the
president as well as all the. other members.
Highly as I esteem our president, there are
other reasons why I should not be disposed,
why I should think it would be highly inap-
propriate, to increase the amount of his com-
pensation. As the convention bill was origin-
ally presented, it contained an increased
allowance for the president. That was sub-
sequently cut down in the legislature, and it
was done intentionally. And standing here
as he does, an officer of the State, subjected
to no additional expense for his attendance
here, I think it would be singularly inappro-
priate for us to make any addition to his
compensation. And lam confident—although
1 say so without any conversation with him
upon the subject—that it would not be accept-
able to him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This it seems has become
strictly a legal question; I do not wish to
say, in advance, from what I consider a mis-
construction of the law. I am free to say,
though I voted against this hundred dollar
proposition the other day, that I consider
the question, upon the proceedings of the
legislature, as clear a question as could well
be presented to the legal mind. I do not
agree to the obligation of this body to obey
any mandate of the legislature, I say, as 1
have said all along, the legislature have the
right to call us together, to appoint the time,
place and manner of our meeting. But when
we get here we are omnipotent in regard to
these matters. But to those gentlemen who <
adopt the theory that the act of assembly is
obligatory upon us, I am bold to say that
they have not only the right, but they are
bound by that law to require the payment
of this sum.
1 mean simply to argue the legal question.
The theory, remember, is that the law passed
last February, having been submitted to the
people, and by the people having been con-
firmed, is now constitutional law; and ob-
ligatory upon this body. Now let us look
at the language of that law. The language
of that law is this:
''and the compensation of the delegates to
said convention shall be five dollars per day,
and the mileage allowed to the members of
the general assembly of this State."
Now, then, let us take up the objections.
First, it is said that this is not strictly mile-
age. Agreed; be it so. What did the legislature
call mileage? We are to understand
the meaning of the legislature. Where are
we to go to get it? To the act of the legis- |
