The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1866-08-21
Keen ii Before the People.

1 ffH ~ ACCp IL DCAUTC INC TtVp1Cs
Keepit before the people. It has already
taken 8 l2,O 600 to pay off the extra pay, to
Congressman, who voted themselves 5000
a year and seventeen months back Fay =
EUqnsuilEe Courier, dug. 1871. t',l. 49,.
2 We have, examined the late issues
of the Courier and we must confess
1 that we fear lis derelict in its duty
in keeping that little item of inforna-
stion1befores theepeople. Come now,
honest friend please to- keep that
matter before your readers 6s % And
when you next insert it, viii you be
kind enough 20 examine the Con
gressionaI proceedings and answer
THE following questions : e4.s &. =. sS g
i1I,dWas not the measure first ofigi-
nated,in the Senate by'ra Democrat,
Mr.. RIDDLE, of Delaware? az. y
+ 2, Was it not first moved in the
House by our own Representative,
Mr.. NIBLAcK2 3S8 o8 go .ali
3. Did not the Union majority in the
House vote down the measure, and
return it to the Senate,a with the
bounty bill alone2 5s.id 5 II.
A. When the Committee Of Con-
ference was appointed, did not the
Senate agree to recede from its
amendment for increase of pay, and
did not, WILLIAM e.. .NIBLACK, as
one of the House Committee, insist
that the increase of pay should be
tackled on to the Bounty Billa2 (Sees
Sherman S Report to the Senate. "
5. When the Bill came back to.
the Houses did mot q Republican
member ask to have the provisions
for the Congressmen's Pay and the
Soldier $ Bounty presented separately
to the. House2 said lsoI ,.g4oesatFl (
= g. And in this latter proposition,
on the call for the previous question,
was not WILLIAM r. NIBLAcK ap-i
pointed teller, as the representa-
tive of the Increased Pay party?5oJ !
Z. Did he not, byvoting for the pre-,
vious question, refuse to separate the
two measures, and thus carry the in
creased pay through in the schedules
of the bounty bill? 81 .'2 ~
s; Did not every Union Congress
man from Indiana, now before the
people for re election, vote against the
measured o5ue. COS i
8. did not every Democratic mem
Der from Indiana vote in favor of
the measure, including our Repre-
sentative, WILLIAM e. NIBLAoK? 3
10. Did not more than twice as |
many Democrats in the House vote
in favor Of the Bill, as against it?
II. Did not more Union men vote
against the bill than in favor of it,
and not one-fourth of the Union
members in favor of it? IN oa. /
II. Is it not contrary to the usual L
preeedents for such body +
to increase the pay of its own members
OF vote additional compensation for
past services? 4a5 - a9a 12ei & i
ID. And, lastly, don't you think, /
friend Courier, it was dishonorable
proceeding and an outrage upon the
honeat taxpayers of the country = L
Itmay be necessary, before all of
his bakers dozen can be answered, Il
% refer the list to Mr.. NtBLAcK for /
examination. In the meantime, we +
insist that the extract at the head of Is
his articlesshould again appear in the
Courier, and remain there long enough L
or all its readers thoroughly to com Il
5rehend It, : Keep II before The. peo-
Die. "a nthi ea IL ,g5@ d8asi5l bn55 |
Democratic Meeting Last Night
The nornoorofte and ayo0sarvafivfs m af. ! .