The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1866-09-01

and NIBLACK. The Committees were
unable to agree. Mr.. SHERMAN stated
to the Senate, in his report asking for
instructions: $50 uet3agG a'h 20
g The Senate conJerees proposed to recede
from The amendment in regard to the pay or
members, but found THAT THAT WAS NOT AT
ALL IN THE WAY; that could be laid out OF
view; the only difficulty is in regard to the
question of bounties." 90 81 ~ ~
So the Senate instructed their con-
ferees to agree to the Bounties in
modified form, and the Conference re-
ported, instead of Gen. ScHENK's
liberal Bounty Bill, provision for
the increase Of pay of members of
Congress, and for naeager Bounty
provision. Here we find Mr.. NIBLAcK
in the Committee consenting to re-
duction of the Bounty to the brave
soldiers, who had richly earned it, and
increasing his own pay from $1,000 to
%, 600, and mileage added. And when
the Senate conferees proposed to arr
- Il L 4. .
range the disagreement, by receding
from the provision in regard to
Congressional pay, Mr.. iNfBLAek,
of. the House Committee, told
them that !, aoas not at enaU an the,
.aody7theys didn't lioamtIto recede from
sthatIsi How does this action on the
ipartdf Mr.. NIBLAcK look like not
wanting, to vote the additional pay,
and that he was driven to it?1 Mr.
SHERMAN, upon his oath as. q Senator,
publicly states that he proposed to
recede from the amendment in regard
to pay of members; but Mr.. NIBEAcKi
says mo; no---don't do othatAJ ust
giveithe soldiersa poor pittance of a
bounty to quiet their opportunities
for justice, and we will take the $1,000
and mileage! ar si Et}t aaf 1850 Y
IN But this is not all. In this shape.
the bill comes back to the House, Mr..
WILSON, one of the Republican mem
bers of. the Committee, dissenting on
account of the increase of pay. Here
it met with strenuous opposition on
the part of some of the Republican
members, because of the meager pro-
vision for soldiers, and the exorbitant
allowance to members. s..1 49,,
LAWRENCE, of Ohio, and Mr.
WILSON, of Iowa, and others, insisted
that the,report should be separated,
in order that they might have an OPP.
portunity to vote down the increased
pay, but the previous question: was
moved and seconded, which would
cut off debate, and compel the mem.
bers to vote for both provisions, OF,
against both LAWRENCE insisted
that they should be separated, $50 that
those who were opposed to the In.
creased pay could vote against it,
without voting, against the Bounty
provisions. But no. 1t was deter
mined that the Soldiers Bounty must
carry on its. shoulders the increas, of.
pay. So, on ordering the main ques-f
ton, LAWRENCE called for tellers.a
LAWRENCE was appointed on the
part Of those who were in favor of
separating tn, question, and NIB
LAOKoen the part of those whooweres
for keeping the two questions united.
The vote was 6yeas for calling the
previous question:, and rs noes. NIB
LACK voted yea. Here was presented
the plain issue, and upon it we find
NIBLAeK not only voting against sepa-
rating the questions, but being ap-
pointed, as prominent in the opposi-
ton, to act as teller to count the
votes How does this prove his las1
sertion that he was driven into the
snppdrt0of the Increased payto save
the Bounty provision 2Iao4TaAif #o
But this is not ALL We find that
Mr.. N IBLAoK, notE emily In sthe Com
mittee of Conference, asking that the
increased pay be retained in the Bill,
when the Senate proposed to strikeSit4
out; a md, in the House, voting against
separating the two questions of Bounty
and Congressional increase of pay;
but we find that it was NIBLAeK who
first moved the adoption of the in
creased compensation in the House.
and was the most prominent member
to secure its passage. Mr.. Lawrence
(Union). of Ohio, one of the most ac7
tive opponents of the measure in the
House, says:
The increase OF pay was first moved in
the Senate by Democrat, Mr.. Riddle, and
in the House by a Democrat. Mr.. NIB