The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-23

he eoihmiuce al all were IL not, thati IN Inc course
OF this discussion, another bill had been the subject
Of comment, bill which he considered one Of the
most important that yet remained untouched by
this House. the bill namely, to reorganze the State
i Department.
In regard to the bill before the committee (sad
Mr. owEN) was at first disposed TO vote for the
amendment Of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. VIM
Ton, prohibiting the Attorney General from pTac-
ncing pa the courts, except attorney OF the Uni
ted States. But am not member OF the profess
sion, and those who and have far more expe-
rience in such matters than 1.-The gentleman from
Pennsylvania Mr.. kGERsoLL and others-seem
to agree that such restriction is lnexpedient II
so, and none such is imposed, then am opposed TO
raising the Attorney Generals salary above what Il
now is With his probable private added, II is al
ready higher than that of the other members of the
cabinet. Equal with theirs | am willing TO make
il, If We decide that he is net TO reap the benefit Of
private practice.
But, SIR in voting against the increase Of salary
IN this case, am not actuated by the same primer
plies which | hear avowed by some Of my fellow
members. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr..
JONES, arguing not only against this BILL but, as
understood him, against all reorganization Of the
Department Of STATE declared, that other gentlemen
might do as they pleased about voting to raise saa-
ries, he intended 10 be on the peoples side" Sir,
Il will not say that no member has a right TO
such language; all gentlemen are free TO make what
professions they will on this floor But this say
that such exclusive claim TO devotion 20 the public
involves, incidentally least the implication, that all
who vote, on such subjects IN opposition to the gentle
man. have regard either 20 the wishes the inter
ests of the people Srfto vote for low salaries were
the true and exclusive test Of PATRIOTISM patriots
reputation would be cheaply earned For myself,
hold that IL Is sometimes as imperative duty To
vote for an additional salary, it may be, in
another case, 20 vote reduction. In both cases
the interest Of the public service should alone direct
us in our action. II at salary Of 81 500 year,
we cannot procure certain qualifications necessary
TO particular station, IL may be dereiction from
duty TO refuse to vote for $4,000. II with 81 500
we procure an insufficient calibre Of talent, We
actually squandering that very money; paying Il
out without any value received TO the public; we
might as well cast il in the river The sole ques-
ton ought to be: for what salary, as general rule,
are we likely 10 obtain the grade Of capacity re-
quirod to fill given Office. That amount We
ought to for; not less for that would be false
and miserable economy not more, for that would
be wasteful economy.
No reference in all this ought to he had to the
individual; not a thought ought to be bestowed,
except upon the interest Of the public service.
Iheard, sir, some weeks since with regret will
say even with pain, gentleman from Ohio near
me Mr. SAwYrR PROFOUND, in this connexion,
the doctrine that "to the ylcors belong the spoils
In one sense this axiom is strictly true; conquer
ing army has a right TO the arms, equlpage, bag
gage, and all other spoils It may capture. But be-
fore bring such doctrine TO bear on the dis
trbuton Of Offices, must prove, first, that here
are victors and vanquished; that the democratic
, party and the wing party are two hostile armies,
over against each other in battle array and sec
ondly, that Offices spoils.
: Sir, for myself regard the two great parties
this country not as enemies fighting for victory,
but as friends, with common object, the good Of
their common country, though striving reach that
object by different roads Here are no yictors here
are vsnquished. And as to the idea that Offices
are spols il must first be proved that they are
property. But the gentleman from Ohio has him
self in the very speech TO which have referred
furnished the best refutaton of position so utterly
fallacious He has quoted from a message Of Presi-
dent Jackson, the true doctrine in regard to Office
read from the quotation as given in the pamphlet
speech of the gentleman, (which he has kindly
furnished me a copy:
"ocs con.d.rrd a, ,n.ci,, Of Drop.rtv and gov.ro
msn rather as means of promoting individual interest
as an instrument created solely for the service Of the
J people
: And again;
"n country where Offices created solely for the
benefit Of the people n" oas man ha' any more intrinsic
eve .unaa 10 nspeS, sN 81 Ss DnSe
No individual wrong is Therefore done by REMOVAL since
Of right
Office, says Jackson, is not property. How,
then, can Offices be spoilsS l protest, sir, against
this monstrous and corrupting doctrine. hold Of
nee to be duty to be performed, not perquslte to
be scrambled for.
II Mr. SAWYER (Mr. OWN yielding) asked
whether the gentleman from Indiana did not believe
that the members Of the party that happened to be
in power hada right to the Offices to be distributed
by that party.
Mr.. OWEN. Sir, President Jakson has answer
} ed that With him say, that no man or body of
men have any rights in the matter at all. Neither
the democratic party nor the wing party, let which
will be in power, can set up any just right, Of
property, TO the Offices of the government.
Mr.. SAWYER. Does not the gentleman consider
il right that an administration should appoint its
friends to office
Mr.. OWEN. To important offices, certainly.
But not a matter of right as matter of prudence,
if not Of necessity. You cannot expect to carry
a certain policy through the agency of its oppo
nents. If the gentleman means TO ask me whether
consider it an all sufficient reason for the removal
of man from an Office even the most trivial that
he is a whis; answer at once, that do not
i MIR. SAWYER. | will ask the gentleman one
other question. Has he, since his election, recon-