Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-04-13
Txs- The Madison Journal says this
The Per Diem Question.

The Per Diem Question.
 We publish in this weeks issue, the card of Hon. C. H. OATES, explanatory of his course as speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives, on the per diem question, or, the allowing members their daily pay during the adjournment from the Fist December, '3S, to the l1th January, '59 Next week we shall give that of Mr. Duval, who, as IS generally known, was elected speaker, on the resignation of Mr. Oates, and who, on his elevation to that post, granted the claims of the members, by certifying the same. In the cards of both these gentle men, the two sides of the question are fair ly presented, and upon their close perusal, veln ot honest conviction, in the correct ness of their positions, will be clearly seen, each contending for, and confining himself to the legal principles involved.
 In the positions here laid down, we have the grounds upon which the two parties per diem and anti-pe diem-acted; the po- Sltlon of the former, resting upon strict technicality and special pleading, through which they were determined to.pursue their conscious claims, with all the aviditv of hungred avarice; while that of the latter, stands out in bold relief, bearing upon its face the impress of candid thought and frank acknowledgment to the paramount claims of popular duty In the former, again, we see the man absorbed in pursuit of his legat remedy, for pittance, due on a promise to pay, and which he presumes to claim though, the services-the consi- deration-have never been performed, yet having, as he thinks, dead thing, all be- comes fair in war The legislator, with his high duties and responsibilities, extended and liberal views, are all thSpwn aside, and he descends to growl after what he barqain- ed fori
 This is certainly sad picture; but we think 1t nevertheless faithful. We shall not, nor have we any desire, to dispute the legal right of members to their per diem, but that we intend to allow them all the protection of their honest intentions, and legal justification. We grant them the pallatlng circumstance of belieaihg they were doing right, for in the sure reckoning with the people they will, certainly, need all the excuses that can be brought to bear in their support.
 Honestlyl what do the masses know about the honesty of particular acts? that IS properly beyond their concern-it is the head, with its practical workings, and eff fects, that the people are bound and sure to look to- and form their judgment therefronl They may plead their legal claims to the per diem, but they will find before the peo- pie, that their suit is in court where a diff ferent code from theirs forms the "rule of action That there, the issue will be, not what claims had the members to the money, but did 1t rightly belong to the people, and Tn such an issue, Honest intentions, will lose their consideration, in the great importance of the .tacts.
 Upon this question, we have never al- lowed ourselves to discuss the leqal rigM of members to their per diem. We have al- ways looked upon it as popular, rather than as legal question; the rights of the people, rather than the legal claims of the members, being concerned; and thus we have chosen to discard those considerations of special pleading that have but too often been the unconscious means of defrauding the people. And, even though majority of both houses had decided that they were entitled to the pay, is there no principal of right higher than might? The majority doubtless voted that they were entitled to it, but not, we imagine, that they ought to take a: In the voting for, we perceive quite different principle involved, than in the taking the pay. The one rests upon prin- ciple, properly so; the other, upon-any- thing else. The Senate clearly saw this, and though the per diem was voted by a large majority, not e single Senator present cd his claim How different in the other house! there, when they voted, they meant it. and were determined to act for some thing.
 MT. Duval speaks of the .few who did not claim their per diem," etc., clearly