Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-10-02
.,ToK EDMUND's BACK PAY.

SIN
r,orvbodv who has kept watch of the
-aooiinrs of Congress when the act
p lsot made a large and disproportionate
' ,n of the pay of Congressman, was
-1Jor discussion, can have no excuse for
49, .ar IGNORANT of the views of Senator
J T5mnnds upon that iniquity before it
, hr, law. In tn historical pamph-
", nrblshed by w. S. Robinson, Sena-
~. FdmuDds is credited with leading the
onnosition, from the time that he made
Lo first motion in the Senate to strike
snt al except the clause increasing the
,,,arv of the President until he voted
nno " on The final passage of the bill.
NJ Robinson says that Mr. Edmunds
,broncbout seems to have opposed the
,notter more honestly than anybody else
vent Morrill, of Vermont and Wright
~ 1ova." And his consistency was test
31v his refusal to take the steal, "but
.amc of our people have been suspicious
nst fine Senator was only playing pos
nm and expected to take his "grab "
,bar tine excitement had died out
This question having been mooted to
ned,,alyantage of Senator Edmunds,
.-c,aof his friends wrote him to define
nj. po,nion, and he replies from Liege,
Rldum. under date of August 28th, as
follows;
Tare or four days after the passage
o.furact, the accounting officer of the
Senate settled my pay account, erclad-
ina Inv my direction, all increase and
.,yfp'r me on the old law solely; for it
III NOT appear to me that / could proper
10. Take more than the prior law gave.
Tht. KS understood, left the money in
mefroasmy.
Tbaucw law having made me a credi-
t,r of the government in respect in
,,bfrh did not choose to be one, the
SIMPLEST and most consistent course
seemed to be, to refuse to take the
money. | knew that | should have the
l7R uowrr to reconsider and draw the
money within the time limited for
hp,ed appropriations, but | was not
Greatly i'm fear of the temptation, and
Hd not wish to exercise any ownership
over ir whatever. Therefore, the direC-
ton was given not TO bring it into my
account at ALL This, also, | learn, was
ibr course of the Senators from Ohio,
aaI perhaps others.
Your paragraph holds, however, that
ta.moucv is mine in law, and that some
uHrnattrs act is needful in order to give
llr treasury the benefit of it. If you
are right, shall perform the act but
thing YOU are not. My view was at the
time. and still is, what | have stated,
ard for this reason: The law was an
approximation of money for certain pur-
p1,rs which authorized the treasury
officers to pay it out. The money still
belonged to the treasury. 1t was not
the property of the persons to be ben
rilud until it should be duly paid 10y
them. An account with the apErOpri
alton is opened IN the treasury, and as
utmOncv is needed it is drawn upon by
the officer charged with its disburse
ment. lie pays it out separately to eacl
of the persons who have claim to b(
raid, on lis receipt, which Is h5s U0Uche1'
aad he canHot, By lao or IN practice, har
trt3t Ter u penny beyond tie sums actU
ally paid and for 1rhich he prodHceS IN
rmdpt. Then at the end Of fixed time
ri the money SO appropriated, and II"
actually paid out is transferred on TIT
books of the treasury to the genera
fund, the appropriation account Is clost'
and it becomes impossible to draw
money on that account without neI
law. The reasons for such course ar
numerous, and are mainly so obvious a
not to need stating.
The Treasury officials have ruled dit
frrcuuy from what Senator Edmund
holds the law to be. The Treasurer him
self even intimating that a "will - upo
GOOD consideration will be necessary t
prevent members from participating /
this monstrous breach of trust. Th
views of our respected Senator are Gel
tainly more consonant to common sense
than those of the other side, and tn
sentiments of the officials certainl
sound as though they were prepared fC
them by interested parties who desire a
the reasons that can be urged for takip
the money. We remember when tn
bill was under discussion that an elC
Queut Western Senator, eliminated
windy speech in favor of the bill, by
quotation from the Lords Praye
Lead us not into temptation" and Il
argument drawn from it by Robinsc
WAS. that the members desired to ste
$500 each, according to law, th'
they might not be tempted to steal
larger some in some other way. We a
glad Senator Edmunds has written tn
letter, and we have no doubt that Wht
he arrives home and learns the FOOLS
ruling of the Treasurer, he will cover
into the Treasury by as formal doc
ment as required, for certainly he tall
like a man who is not a thief or a syn