Smyrna times., 1873-04-30

Since Senator Bayard returned to the U. S
Treasury the $4,065 awarded to him as his
portion of the retroactive pay or salary steal
which he, with majority Of the Congress
men, voted to themselves on the last night o.
the session, Senator Salisbury and ex-Rep
resentative Biggs are continually being asked
BY the public press, "What will he do with it. ,
They seem to look upon the question merely
as conundrum and give it up-that is, the
question, not the salary
These last-named gentlemen are perhaps
wise in their course. 10 men like Mr.. Bayard
who see nothing before them but politica
preferment, whiever they act, or seem to act
with reasonable fairness, it were we'll enough
to give up the steal and hide their vote that
secured it to them behind wall of logic.
The act was one of the most unpopular of the
forty-second Congress, and it will doubtless
prove too heavy a burden for many Of the
members to carry. Salary steal' stands in
the same category as Credit Mobilier. Mr..
b. 8 term expires in 1875, aud be is of course
looking for reelection by the next Legisla-
ture, if it be not too Republican. He there
therefore returns to the Treasury his 'ep post
fact" pay, as John O'Byrne calls it, and rises
to explain why he voted to rob the Govern
ment OF a sum that his conscience will not
allow him to put in his private purse. He
voted for the ''steal, he says, ION the ground
OF public duty" Itwas clause of the appro-
priation bill. To have voted against it would
have been to defeat said appropriation bill
10 have defeated SAID appropriation bill, right
at the last hours of an expiring Congress,
would have rendered the calling or an extra
session of the next Congress necessary, and
this extra session would have cost the country
more than the salary steal has cost it.
'SO," says Mr.. Bayard, II feel entitled to
eliminate from the result Of my official action
an item of pecuniary advantage to myself
which L felt constrained to vote for under the
circumstances | have stated, but for which [
would not have voted as a separate measure"
tie therefore refuses to reap the reward of his
very qu"-'ioua} le vote
R"'"h Mr. salisbury and Mr.. Biggs the
case is somewhat different Neihcro them hold
the same status in the Democratic party that
Mr. Bayard does. Indeed many of their party
friends say plainly that they have had their
day. 1t is therefore not surprising that they
hold on to the 'steal." 1t will doubtless prove
a better financial speculation to hold it than to
surrender it to the Treasury with flourish of
political consistency, and trust to that consis-
tency TO buy them new political favors. Such
plan would be risky.
Mr. Salisbury voted against the bill. He
has that to his credit but Mr.. Biggs can
claim no credit to himself whatever. He voted
IN committee, it is understood, to bring the
bill before the House, and after it got there
and was put on its final passage he lodged the
vote. He therefore shirked the responsibilitr
and pccketed the steal He is no longer a
Congressman, and it is hardly probable that he
ever will be one again. Is it therefore sur.
prjsing that he holds the $4,000?
1t is intimated that he is striving for the
Gubernatorial nomination. and one of the VIII
mington papers is trying to scare the S., ,OOC
out OF him BY telling him that Chas. l. DUPONT
VIII beat him in that contest if he fails &c
disgorge, but he fails, all the same. That chail
does not look as close at hand to a Democrat,
aspirant as 1t once did. Hence il will reouir,
stronger appeal than this to arouse Mr.. r. >
conscience. The quips of the New Yor,
Herald on his flowing locks has caused him tc