Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1873-07-03

was entitled to for his service, you
would hardly be justified in calling
him thief if he should do what you
had agreed he might do. And yet
this is precisely the case under con-
sideration. The law which fixes this
compensation is, like every otheIlaw,
subject TO amendment at any time.
This is constitutional certainty.
There can be contract, express
or i'm piled, that Congress shall not
do what the constitution exI re ,sly
declares il may do Such a contract,
if made and reduced to writing,
would be absolutely void; and any
member of Congress might be, and
ought to be expelled, who should
take his seat under q promise not
to vote according to judgment or
conscience upon anye question over
which Congress has constitutional
jurisdiction, and which might be
brought forward for determination.
No lawyer, no layman with par
ticle OF sense, will deny the constitu.
ton expressly authorized members
OF Congress to fix their own compen-
sation, and to alter the amount at any
time, every day if they chose, during
their term, for the simple reason that
they may alter the law every day,
and the law determines the compen-
sation. And to say that there is any
other contract between represents
tive and his constituents than is con-
tanned in the constitution, or that
there can be Il contract which con-
travenes the constitution, is simply
absurd.
A proposition was once submitted
to the state to prevent Congress from
fixing its own buy, and was rejected
by nine states and adopted by four.
The reason being, that one Com
gress might fix the pay of another so
low as to prevent its sitting at all.
A party, defeated at the fall election,
might in spite and anger, do injustice
to the next Congress to be composed
of men Of the other political party.
But not only would such a contract
if actually made, be both void and
criminal, but there is not the slight.
est foundation for the assertion that
such a contract is even implied. Had
the practice of the government been
we'll established that no Congress
should increase its own pay, though
it might incraase the pay OF subse
quent Congresses, then it might be
said that such was the understa nding
of the people when particular Cor
gress was elected. But the fact hap,
pens to be exactly the reverse.
There has never beer an increase or
decrease of pay that did not apply
to the Congress voting it. So that
the implied character is not that each
Congress shall not--bG, that they
may, if they think proper, increase
their own pay. This can be made
very plain by referring To the prece-
dents. The pay has been increased
several times, and once decreased.
Ii was raised from Sc per day to 81;
500 d year. linn diately after the
war of 1912, whom the country was
very poor and embarrassed it was
objected that 81 500 was to large o
compensation. The Congress which
bad been elected while the law liked
the compensation at 81 500, rcdEced
it to So per day Upon the theory
now maintained that Congress would
have been justified ia drawing 81 500
themselves, and reducing the pay o
the next Congress to SIS per day, be.
cause they had been elected when
the salary was 81 800, but they did
not understand their duty. They
reasonable compensation; anc
they thought, under the circumstan-
ces of the country, IS day was su.
flicicnt; and they applied the reduc-
tion to themselves as we'll as to sue.
ceeding Congresses.
By the act of August 16. 1859, the
compensation of Congressman was
increased from So day to $4,000
per year; and was applied to thai
Congress-; that is dating pack to
March 4th, 1855, nearly Is months
The pay was again increased from
So, 600 to So, 900 per annum, by the
act of July %, 1866, and applied tc
that Congress; that is dating back tc
March 4th 1865, nearly 10 months.
In both these cases the increase oil
payment was omewhat criticised by
the press, but in neither case, so fal
as | am aware, was any objection
made because the pay was applied to
the Congress which vot ed it. 1t il
too clear to require elaboration that
there is no difference in principle be.
tween voting back pay for 16 or Is
or q months If the doctrine, now
contended for, that member OF
Congress is under contract not to in.
crease his pay beyond the amount
fixed by law at the time he was elect
dc, be sound; and if it be true, as now
contended. that any member that
takes back pay is thief, every man
who voted for or against back pay in
any former Congress, and afterwards
received such back pay, is also thief
Thou shalt not Steap is q CONT nuing
command; and whatev er amounts to
stealing now has been stealing ever
since the government was establish :
cd. Is any man quite bold enough
to denounce the men in our past hiss
tory have done this thing as thiev esq
Will any candid man brand them as
receivers of stolen money? If so
there is one consolation for the men,
bers of the last Congress; although
we are thieves we are only thieves
as all our fathers were, and therefore
rot degenerate sons.
M-Ji53 4. Grant father of Pres.
ident Grant, died at his residence in
Covington, Ky, at seven O'clock Sun: