Mr. Sedgwick did not think the business before the House important. He was inclined, however, to favor the bill, not that he would grant a larger amount in that way than the amount of the present allowance per day. The argument of novelty, he said, would not apply: we are in the business of experiment. He would observe a fact well known, that every member in the House was deprived of the opportunity of pursuing his occupations at home, and of the emoluments arising therefrom, by his attendance to public business. He did not believe a yearly allowance would shorten the sessions, but it would remove the charge brought against members of protracting the sessions for the sake of their pay. Whether it is necessary to increase or diminish the present pay is not the question.
Mr. Livingston expected stronger motives for the bill than he had heard. It is acknowledged a perfect novelty. This, though by no means decisive, is an objection against the measure, and there is nothing else to recommend it. It has, indeed, been said, it will shorten our sessions; but would this be a benefit? If to continue in session be an evil, why are we here? If it could have been proved that expense would have been saved by the measure, that would have been a real advantage; but this has not been hinted at. It has, indeed, been said, it will remove from our constituents a suspicion that we are living here too long. It has been said, that an idea has gone abroad that we receive six dollars a day through the year. Few, he believed, were so ill informed; but this bill, if passed, will cause much more discontent than the present pay occasions. Deliberation in a Legislative body is necessary. The dearest interests of the people, he said, were committed to their charge, and he trusted they would watch over them, and never suffer them to be injured; and then, it was his opinion their constituents would not think much of their pay.
Mr. Baldwin said, that it was a disagreeable business to be employed in discussing the subject of paying themselves for their services: it would be a desirable thing to supersede the necessity of doing so. The committee doubtless thought one thousand per annum would be an improvement upon the present mode of paying members, but he could not think so. He thought it best that the allowance should be paid in the old way.
Mr. Gilbert was willing to try the experiment of the bill proposed. He did not believe that either the present daily allowance lengthened, or that an annual salary would shorten, the sessions. He thought to say the contrary was a base insinuation.
Mr. Bourne never heard it was the wish of their constituents that their payment should be annual instead of per day. He had heard it complained that their pay was too high; but now, since the price of living is so much advanced, he believed the people were satisfied. He saw no advantages from the proposed change. It cannot be thought that the pay is an inducement to members to prolong their sessions: he had not heard such a complaint. He was in favor of striking out the word "annually," and for recommitting the bill.
Mr. Madison observed, that the present bill proposed no alteration with respect to the amount of money to be drawn from the Treasury, and it can make but little difference to members. What had been mentioned as the advantages of this bill, in his opinion, would operate against it. A novelty, he said, always called for hesitation.
Mr. Swanwick thought, if they enacted good laws—laws that should encourage agriculture and commerce—their constituents would not trouble themselves about their salary.
Mr. Giles rose to remark upon an expression which fell from Mr. Gilbert, viz: that, to say members were likely to be influenced by the proposed salary, was a vile insinuation. He declared that it was a recommendation of the bill in the committee, that it would tend to shorten their sessions.
Mr. Gilbert explained, and justified the expression.