Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1873-07-02

mas no recognizable claim to call Senators to
account tor their acts, not being immoral, as
private citizens, or outside of their functions
as senators. AS a Senator no unfaithfulness
60 duty has been charged, and as citizen of
Vermont L must still be permitted to think
that l have not fallen below my duty to the
State OF which there is so much reason to be
prou1, nor sacrificed in any respect personal
honor.
AT the outset it was apparent that all
those in Congress Especially the outgoing
members) who voted for " back pay" would
necessarily accept of it, and it was soon
equally apparent that majority of those
who voted against it would find no over
Whelmlng reasons to decline it's advantages.
1t Is not improbable that three -fourths of the
whole sum appropriated has been or will be
forever Withdrawn from the Treasury. The
people of each State will contribute their full
proportion of all national taxes whether Sep
ators aud Representatives of the State draw
their share of this money from the Treasury
or not. If the Senators of one State give
their back pay" to the United States
Treasury, while majority of others do not,
then that State. by its taxes and the contri-
buttons of its Senators, pays twice the
amount of it's equitable share, and makes
donation to all the States, including
those whose Senators have not restored the
respective amounts to the national Treasury
as well as to their own State Manifestly
this cannot be equitable 1t is putting the
people Of State against whose Senators
there is no complaint, not merely on level
but at a disadvantage with those whose Sem
ators occupy the other side of the question :,
and who may bave been the chief authors of
the whole cause of complaint. The people
of Virginia may think their Senators fairly
merit all they have received. If SO, why
should Vermont or its Senator'S be called
upon for anything by Virginia? Who
knows whether Georgia, North Carolina,
Nebraska, Illinois and other States, approve
of the action of their Senators or not ?
Their >euators claim that they do. Even if
they do not, would it not be enough for
those States to ask for relunding from their
own Senator'S before they demand anything
from Vermont? The unlikelihood of securing
anything at home is not an excuse for I'M
portunity elsewhere. Is there anything in
the character of the service rendered which
should induce Vermont Senators to rate them
selves below the value accorded by the people
of other States to their Senators? These
questions point to the maintenance of equal
lty at Washington, without reference to
position at home, and State pride might be
expected at least to answer them in the
negative.
II the idea is tenable for Senators, who
neither seek personal profit nor favor by
back pay, to restore it to the pockets of the
taxpayers, they ought certainly to be
privileged to look over the whole ground
and, studying who are most entitled to con-
sideratiOn, render justice between the peo-
pie OF their own State and the nation
They have a right to place it where it will
not be so greatly dffused as to talsify the
main purpose. Having failed, by being out
voted, to protect the nation from the passage
OF the measure, they should have the right
personally, if they can and choose to shield
the people of their own State from any of
its consequences, so long as they purge them
selves of sehshness, and do not trench upon
the legal or equitable claims of any other
Stite. L freely admit my responsibility to
the people of all the States, as well as of
my own, for my official conduct, and to the
people of my own State | concede more
rigid accountability as a man and cltize en-
but can it be asked that l shall be generous
to the United States before am Just to Yer
mont? By placing back pay in the Treas
ury OF the State, so far the State is placed
| financially in the condition it would have
been, had " back pay" been defeated. Il
not that just? Where is the improperly
Persons of other States have no right to
complain. and, if not why should those with
in the State denounce an act apparently
defensible upon The plainest principles o
equity?
1t has even been more than limited by
paper of the highest repute, that it will b;
| the duty of the State to return this none
to me on the ground that the State would
not be made the recipient of stolen property
How is this Certainly do not feel mucE
like thief, AMI | cannot believe any on,
thinks | have acted like thief nor that an
legislature will adopt this theory in order &
thrust in my face such an insulting propos
al. Possibly it may be further argued, that
if not stolen property, it was at least
I" grab, but even this forcible epithet, i
applied to me, Will not stick. The fact is
have at no time made grab. The words 0
Lady Macbeth
-" Wouldst not play false,
And yet wouldstwrongy win,"-
cannot be applied to me. The I" back pay,
by no act or connivanc5 of mine, was law
fully my property not " wrongly won
and the only way to rid myself Of it wa
by using it personally, or by assigning an
giving it away. Having a valid title, as
signed IL to Tho State Censurabe as th
original inception of the measure havo heen
my title was derived from the virtue of
common and lawful exercise of the legisla
tive power of Congress, and the assignmen
cannot be impeached. Unless some tain
was communicated to 81 back pay" by som
wrongful act of mine, how can it bring di,
honor upon the State to receive it at m
hands? 1t was not assigned as charity t
: the State, but as a sum due to the tax-pay
ers. Has any other party even colorabl
claim to it [ dId not hand it over to an
educational or other benevolent object, fc
the reason that knew of none in which a
of the people of the State felt an equal int
rest, and for the additional reason that sue
; course might lead the uncharitable to SUP
: : pose | was trying to earn cheap reputatio
for generosity when | really thought myse
t no more entitled to credit for what | wa
doing than should be if instead had paic
as might, an honest debt. 1t seemed to M
when resolved to abandon - back pay,
that the taxpayers Of Vermont were be.
entitled to my favor. 1t is quite possib
/ this conclusion was wrong, desirous as l ws
. and am to be right; but, while [ have see
u considerable sentimental dissent as to my a
= tion, have seen no argument which uproo
my conviction of its inherent proprlety
q have sought no gratitude, but have felt tn
6 my action ought to have escaped censure
u and it cannot be expected that shall adm
+ that any money has been SO polluted
> passing through my hands that it's accep
J ance would bring a stain upon the fair far
!, of the State.
The position of a Senator relative
) ) Z" back pay is quite different from that
. Representative, though they may DO
: agree in not accepting Of it. 1t is Who'll
6, impracticable for representative to retu
~ it directly to the Taxpayers OF his dlstri'
70 The only approximation to this would be t
70 selection of some public object or instit
y tion. for it's application, in which the peoI
1t of the districs generally Acknowledged