interest, therefore, in my judgment, that every senator should have a clerk. I am unable to employ a clerk from my own funds; many other senators are more fortunately situated; but still I must do that or move the appointment of a special committee for the purpose in an indirect way of getting a clerk. It is not right.
It has been said that if senators each have a clerk, for instance, a clerk at $100 a month salary during the session, which would be a very small matter, the members of the other House would each want a clerk. It does not follow. There is a vast difference. A member of the other House represents a narrow district, a single district; a senator represents a whole State. Take the State of New York. There are thirty-three representatives in the House from the State of New York; there are but two senators here from that State. Those two senators in all likelihood have as much business to perform here for their constituents as the thirty-three members of the House. There is, therefore, an eminent reason why a senator should have a clerk and why a member of the House should not.
I cannot vote for the appointment of select committees unless you raise a select committee for every senator in the body so as to give him a clerk. You have appointed select committees for this business and for that. It gives a few men an advantage when the business of the country does not require it, whereas if you appointed a clerk for each senator, with a nominal salary of $100 per month during the session, it would enable every senator to do his work more efficiently both here and for his constituents; it would put all the senators on a just equality; it would be in furtherance of the public interest; and it would avoid what I consider (with all due deference and not meaning to be offensive) the unseemly habit of constantly moving the appointment of select committees in this body. This is all I have to say. I vote against the resolution simply because I am opposed to the appointment of a select committee for this or any other purpose that I can now think of. The President pro tempore: The question is on the adoption of the resolution. Mr. Vest called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, and the principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Jones of Florida (when his name was called): I propose to vote for this resolution, but at the same time I do not regard my vote as in any way committing myself on the subject of female suffrage. If they think an investigation of this subject should be had in this way, I for one am willing to have it. I vote "yea."
Mr. Teller, (when his name was called): On this question I am paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan]; otherwise I should vote "yea."
The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced—yeas 35, nays 23; so the resolution was agreed to.[1]
- ↑ Yeas—Aldrich, Allison, Anthony, Blair, Cameron of Pa., Cameron of Wis., Conger, Davis of Ill., Dawes, Edmunds, Ferry, Frye, Harrison, Hawley, Hill of Col., Hoar, Jones of Fla., Jones of Nev., Kellogg, Lapham, Logan, McDill, McMillan, Miller of Cal., Mitchell, Morrill, Platt, Plumb, Ransom, Rollins, Saunders, Sawyer, Sewell, Sherman, Windom—35.
