Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1858-07-14
LETTER FROM HON. J. R. GIDDINGs.
Jefferson, June 3Oth, 1853.

III leur tOitoflal OF tne SoQ inSt., en1tled
THE Next Congress, you say, "Bul
retrenchment like charity, should begin
at home; and SO long as members of
Congress themselves receive for simple
term of two sessions of some four or FIVE
months each, Tin all less than one years
time, the sum of six thousand dollars,
valuable library of books and extra
mileage ad infn7an1, it is useless TO
preach retrenchment and reform in 9TH
er branches of Government. When the
bill which fixed the present rates Of
compensation to members. was passed. it
did not meet the approbati1n of the Re
serve. We venture to say there are not
to day, in this district, two hundred yo-
ters who would favor it."
Probably every reader of your paper
is aware that 1 voted for the bill. Taken
in connection with this fact, your article
seems to impute 10 me unworthy motives,
or stupidity equally discraditable. II
would have been far more agreeable to
me, had you called on me to explain my
reasons for that vote. should certainly
have answered with cheerfulIness; but it
is no less my duty now to vindicate my
official action so FAR as truth will enable
me TO do SO.
Firstly, as to the length of the sessions
of Congress. Your article implies that
the Time actually employed at Washing
ton constitutes the whole labor of mem
bers. That is wrong. He who suppos
es he can appropriate his vacations 10
other business than preparing for the
coming session, can have no proper con-
ception of the duties incumbent upon a
representative; and I add, if elected. he
will find life too short to attain that
knowledge which will enable him fully
TO perform his obligations to the public.
Secondly, the act of which you com
plain does not give 10 the members "val
liable libraries of books" but prohibits
that practice and 10 that extent saves
money to the treasury. The mileage as
it now exists, was established in 1919,
and not by the law Of 1856. have done
what could to reduce it from forty to
ten cents per mile. 1 do not Understand
what you mean by "extra mileage" or
by "mileage ad infinitum." The law of
which you complain, changes that of
1919 in one principle feature. The mem
bers of Congress now receive three
thousand dollars per year instead Of
eight dollars per day, during tie session.
l have stated that the whole time OF a
member {if he performs his duty, must
be appropriated TO preparing for, or in
actual discharge of his Legislative func-
tons; but his compensation under the
old law, limited his pay to the number
of days which the session contained. 1t
therefore became the interest of the
member to make the session continue so
long as possible, for every day would
give him eight dollars, while it cost the
people over and above the pay of mem
bers, at least fire Mouscnd dollars. 1t
thus operated as bounty FOR members
to increase the expense of Government;
while the law of 1858 gives a determin-
ate sum, and operates as bounty for
members to DO the business soon as pos
sible, close their labors, return TO their
homes, and thus save the vast exrendi-
tunes attending prOtracted session. I'm.
der the old law, members received their
eight dollars aO6ile the session lasted,
whether they attended to their duties or
were absent Some would attend the
Supreme Court, some would return TO
their homes to practice law, and in some
instances members were absent half and
others two thirds of their time. Others
who had given up business at home,
were fond of Washington society, and
were perfectly willing 10 prolong the
sessions. l am sorry to say that others
spent their time in less reputable man
ner; but all received their eight dollars
per day, equally with those who faith
fully attended to their public duties.
The law of which you complain cuts
off all compensation when a member is
absent, except in case of sickness; de-
ducting the amount from his salary
The object was to secure the attendance
of members, induce them 10 do the pub
lie business in as short time as possible
and save the expense attending the pro-
longed sessions.
The effect has been greater than l ex
pected. sCongress has been in session
more hours; has done more business at
the late session of six months and eleven
days, than it has at the long sessions of
nine months, in any Congress for the last
ten years. In this one item it has saved
to the Treasury four hundred thousand
dollars over either of the sessions referred
to. But this is not fair test of the new
law. You must know that Kansas has
occupied nearly one half of the time dur
ing the late session. Except for that
question, Congress would not have sat
more than five months; the expenses of
four months would have been saved from
the length of the former sessions, which
would have amounted to six hundred