Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-12-23
In THE srsArr, DrcraBER 10. 1854.

| Of the Judges Of The Supreme Court and Mem
6srs Of Congress.
/ In THE SENATE, DECEMBER l3, 1854.
Mr.. BADGER said he desired to make brief explana
ton in regard the bill which he had presented to the
Senate to show the necessity and proprey of the
sure. believe (said Mr. b. all Of us who have served
here have been satisfied for years past that the
saton which receive Is entirely inadequate For
am, and have long been, satisfied Of it. have felt
nevertheless reluctance interfere with the
compensation of members upon any of the plans which
/ have been heretofore proposed.
have had great doubt aud difficulty about the plan
which has often been suggested Of altering the mode in
the compensation Of the members Of this and the other
branch of Congress 1t is known to US all that BILL
changing the mode of compensation from per diem al
lowance to yearly salary passed in the year 1876
that produced universal dissatisfaction throughout the
country; that, under storm of indignation from the
people Of the United States almost every member Of the
Congress that passed it hurled from the seat which
he occupied and that at the next Congress, in submits
sion to this general sentiment this stern expression Of
the public will, that law repealed and in the year
1918 the law which now regulates compensation was
passed. taking effect from the 4th Of March in the year
preceding the passage Of that bill Il is, therefore,
dent that at that period at least there decided OBJ
lection in the public mind to that mode Of compensation
say that mode Of compensation because it is not
ceyabe that the amount of salary proposed have been
given could have been the cause of such idespread
dissatisfaction That salary but 81 500 year, and
think 1t would involve reflection the people of the
United States of that day to suppose that they imagined
the amount to be so great that that account merely
they refused to tolerate their public servants who had
made that provision for themselves.
assume it, therefore, sir clear that there was then
deeprooted objection in the public mind that mode
Of compensaton-by salary instead Of per diem al
lowance think this is further evident from the fact
that when Congress- in obedience the general will Of
the people, repealed the act of 1915 and established the
rate of compensation they increased not the
per diem allowance which had prevailed before the act of
1885, but also the provision made under the head of mile
age for members Of both Houses Of Congress- although
previous 1916 all the inconvenience of attending the
of government all the expense Of getting here had
been greater than they were in lSlS when the subject
revised and the mileage increased. think there
FORE it would be unwise to make any effort towards
storing method Of compensation which has prevailed
but for Congress in the than sixty years OF
political existence under the Constitution and which
then repealed in Of decided expression Of
dsapprobaton by the people, from one quarter Of the
Union to the other.
Bot independently Of that have myself serious diff
culties about the establishment of salary the mode of
compensation to members Of Congress. doubt greatly
the propriety Of the principle Of compromising members
in that way and am very certain, whether the prnci
pie be right or not there are difficulties in the way
Of its application which will induce u.s. all other consde
raons being put out Of the question: to fobear resorng
to that mode Of compensation. could mention them,
but deem it unnecessary.
propose then MIR. President by this bill, far as it
affects the members Of the two Houses Of Congress- to
leave the mode of compensation precisely it stands
undertake to enter upon speculation as to new prin
cple system Of compensation but taking that which
have add to the per diem allowance Of the members
Of this and the other House fifty per centum upon the
amount which was allowed by the act Of 1918.
The first question which presents itself, when
sure Of that brought the attention Of Congress-
is whether the proposed increase is fair and reasonable
and JUST whether assuming that the allowance fixed in
1918 then fair reasonable and just the altered con-
dtion Of things in the country would now make it but
fair reasonable, and just that the proposed addition
should be made That is subject upon which suppose
there is no member Of this the other House Of Congress
who has had the ceares and most satisfactory MEANS
both by experience and observation TO enable him to de-
eide in the affirmative The increased expenditures the
large advance in the price Of living the additional outlay
which is required from gentlemen who attend the sessions
of Congress here the advance upon all the necessaries
and oil the conveniences Of life, have been, at least in
ratio equal to fifty per centum since the year 1877 If
that be So il would to follow, as necessary c0nse
quence that there be the purpose now there
in 1918 in compensatng members OF Congress- II the
end is to be obtained, the addition which the bill
proposes should be made to the rate Of compensation
Mr. President the legislation of Congress, since have
had the honor of seat in this body has demonstrated
that what have affirmed with regard to our COM
pensaton and the necessity Of its increase is true You
sir, and we'll know, every gentleman who hears me
knows that in the of the last half dozen years al
every officer in the executive branch Of the Govern
ment every officer who is employed in attendance upon
either House of Congress- has had his compensation
largely ncreased-increased to the full amount Of the
advance which this bill proposes to make in compen
saton We have been compelled to make it. sense
Of justice to the employees Of the Government has COM
PEELED us to make it. And, after having made this ad
in the compensation of all the executive officers of
the Government after having served for totally made
quate compensation from year to year, while the dspa
rty between the compensation and the necessary de-
mands of situation has been yearly increasing sure
y, sir, it cannot be said if pass this BILL that
we have shown any indecent haste to furnish for
selves that reasonable relief which have long since
granted others SO much for that portion Of the bill
which relates to ourselves.
How stands the with regard to the Judges Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States They have been
much in the same situation as the members Of both
Houses Of Congress The present rate Of compensation
to the judges Of that court fixed as far back as the
year 1919 It has since received addition. For thr
House Of Congress- and the Judges of the Supreme Court
have remained without any being adopted by
Congress for the ameoration Of their condition. and for
adapting their compensation to their increased and in
creasing wants
assume with regard to the judges, that the salaries
fixed in 1919 gave them but reasonable compensation
and if it is think, demonsrable that those salaries
have now from various causes ceased to approach
fair and reasonable compensation. win call the atten
show the change in the abors and the business and
the expenditures Of the members Of that court from
which the truth Of my proposition will be sufficiently
evident.
In the six years commencing with 1909 and terminal
ing with 1916 that court in session altogether two
hundred and six days. and decided hundred and thirty
three cases. making the average Of decided by the
they thrtysx In the six years between 1922 and
1927 embracing period commencing shortly after the
salaries of the judges fixed the court in session
two hundred and sixtythree days and determined
hundred and ninctyfour cases. making the average of
cases yearly determined to be thrtytwo and days in