-
Articles/Ads
Article GOERESPONI)ENCE. ← Page 2 of 4 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Goeresponi)Ence.
This , to my mind , is a very erroneous proposition and one that very few men of business habits would consider sound . The motion bore , on the face of it ( though this was not iirged by those who supported it ) , that the proposed increase was to be made also on the grounds of increased duties . I listened with natience to the arguments on the ODoosite side . It was
stated by Brethren of undoubted veracity , and on the authority of a report of a committee of the'Board of General Purposes- ^ which , if I heard aright , extended over many pages and contained an exact account of all the duties performed by each officer in the Grand Secretary ' s office—that the staff has been so augmented that the duties of Bro . Farnfield , instead of being increased , are diminished . I understood that Bro . Farnfield , holding the situation of head clerk or assistant secretary , entered the office
thirty-two years ago , at a salary of < £ ] 00 a year ; that his salary had been increased at various times till the year 1846 or 1847 , when it was raised to £ 200 per annum ; that he is the book-keeper of the society , and that his chief duty consists in keeping the cash-book * I heard it urged , and , as it seemed to me , in no unkindly spirit to Bro . Farnfield , that « £ 200 a year is considerably above the average payment made to other book-keepers in houses of business , where the hours are longer and the duties and
responsibilities are greater , and my own experience confirmed that statement . I heard it stated that , in addition to such salary , we permit Bro . Farnfield to earn £ 60 per annum as clerk to Grand Chapter , the whole duties of which are performed during our office hours , and the accounts of which are inseparable from those of Grand Lodge : and that we also permit him to earn , as secretary to our Annuity Society ( to which we contribute £ 600 a year ) , the further sum of £ 120 per annum . I heard it urged , and , as I
thought , with great force , that in paying our clerk £ 200 a year , or the full , if not more than the full amount he could reasonably expect to obtain in any house of business for similar duties , and in permitting him to earn £ 180 per annum more , we were making him a fair and liberal return for the services which are required of him ; and , added to this , it w as pointed out that there is a moral certainty of his receiving a comfortable pension when obliged to retire from active duty .
Taking the facts to be as stated—for , of course , if not true they would have been contradicted—I felt satisfied that the sum paid was sufficient , and , agreeing with those who opposed the grant on its merits , I gave my vote against it , and further reflection serves to confirm the opinion I arrived at . Comparisons were made as to the emoluments received "by individuals holding corresponding situations to that held by Bro . Farnfield , hence I am
naturally led to consider my own position , and , as it is that of many others , and seems to me to bear especially on the case , I beg leave to state it . I am the chief officer of a public company , having several clerks under me . I have great responsibilities—large sums pass through my hands , and I have held my position for many years ; yet , I candidly say that , taking the nature of the duties performed by Bro , Farnfield , and the remuneration given for them , I would willingly exchange places and become the
subordinate clerk , and in so doing I should materially diminish my work and increase my pay , and so , I confidently believe , would hundreds of others in banks , m government offices , and in houses of business . Nay , sir , I may go much further , and I say that hundreds of professional men , of hard working lawyers , medical men , and clergymen , with all their work and all their responsibilities , derive not nearly such an income as that at present accorded to our clerk , and would indeed rejoice were their duties 4 r 2
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Goeresponi)Ence.
This , to my mind , is a very erroneous proposition and one that very few men of business habits would consider sound . The motion bore , on the face of it ( though this was not iirged by those who supported it ) , that the proposed increase was to be made also on the grounds of increased duties . I listened with natience to the arguments on the ODoosite side . It was
stated by Brethren of undoubted veracity , and on the authority of a report of a committee of the'Board of General Purposes- ^ which , if I heard aright , extended over many pages and contained an exact account of all the duties performed by each officer in the Grand Secretary ' s office—that the staff has been so augmented that the duties of Bro . Farnfield , instead of being increased , are diminished . I understood that Bro . Farnfield , holding the situation of head clerk or assistant secretary , entered the office
thirty-two years ago , at a salary of < £ ] 00 a year ; that his salary had been increased at various times till the year 1846 or 1847 , when it was raised to £ 200 per annum ; that he is the book-keeper of the society , and that his chief duty consists in keeping the cash-book * I heard it urged , and , as it seemed to me , in no unkindly spirit to Bro . Farnfield , that « £ 200 a year is considerably above the average payment made to other book-keepers in houses of business , where the hours are longer and the duties and
responsibilities are greater , and my own experience confirmed that statement . I heard it stated that , in addition to such salary , we permit Bro . Farnfield to earn £ 60 per annum as clerk to Grand Chapter , the whole duties of which are performed during our office hours , and the accounts of which are inseparable from those of Grand Lodge : and that we also permit him to earn , as secretary to our Annuity Society ( to which we contribute £ 600 a year ) , the further sum of £ 120 per annum . I heard it urged , and , as I
thought , with great force , that in paying our clerk £ 200 a year , or the full , if not more than the full amount he could reasonably expect to obtain in any house of business for similar duties , and in permitting him to earn £ 180 per annum more , we were making him a fair and liberal return for the services which are required of him ; and , added to this , it w as pointed out that there is a moral certainty of his receiving a comfortable pension when obliged to retire from active duty .
Taking the facts to be as stated—for , of course , if not true they would have been contradicted—I felt satisfied that the sum paid was sufficient , and , agreeing with those who opposed the grant on its merits , I gave my vote against it , and further reflection serves to confirm the opinion I arrived at . Comparisons were made as to the emoluments received "by individuals holding corresponding situations to that held by Bro . Farnfield , hence I am
naturally led to consider my own position , and , as it is that of many others , and seems to me to bear especially on the case , I beg leave to state it . I am the chief officer of a public company , having several clerks under me . I have great responsibilities—large sums pass through my hands , and I have held my position for many years ; yet , I candidly say that , taking the nature of the duties performed by Bro , Farnfield , and the remuneration given for them , I would willingly exchange places and become the
subordinate clerk , and in so doing I should materially diminish my work and increase my pay , and so , I confidently believe , would hundreds of others in banks , m government offices , and in houses of business . Nay , sir , I may go much further , and I say that hundreds of professional men , of hard working lawyers , medical men , and clergymen , with all their work and all their responsibilities , derive not nearly such an income as that at present accorded to our clerk , and would indeed rejoice were their duties 4 r 2