Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1873-03-29


y FEW weeks ago we referred TO the fact
that the Hon. John B. Packer, our efficient
member of Congress from this district, had
persistently opposed all increase of salaries.
In conversation with Mr.. Packer, just pre-
vious to voting on the question, he express
ed his views on the subject, which approach
in similarity the following given by Scna-
tor Scott in Il speech against stealing ST.
00,000 out Of the national treasury. Both
Mr.. Scott and Mr.. Packer took correct
and practical view of the question, and
voted against the bill Senator Scott in his
remarks said
"We are legislating on this subject, |
fear, i'll bad atmosphere, and what | say
| say perhaps from some old fashioned no.
tions that | have imbibed OH this subject,
but nevertheless must say it. fear that
when we get to Washington, where we are
in the habit of attending dinners-or If not
in the habit do occasionally attend dinners
that cost five hundred or a thousand dol
lars. and we see mode of life that is SO en-
tirely beyond the means of the average peo-
pie of the country, that we feel perhaps upon
a little reflection that we are not able TO
live up to it, and we get the idea that our
salaries ought to be put up to such figure
as to enable the members of Congress here
to live as well as those who are much bet
ter of in the goods of this world than the
average members Of Congress can hope to
be at home.
Now, sir, salaries for members of Con-
gress are not made for the purpose Of actu-
al compensation. Everybody knows that,
and no one better than the gentleman from
Wisconsin,, who enjoyed Il very lucrative
practice, and whose talents and abilities
entillc him 10 it. He did not leave his
practice and come here for the purpose of
making money by being member of Con-
9rcSs. Everybody knows that men who
are engaged in large business enterprises,
the heads Of large mercantile or mauufac-
turing establishments, those who are in
any large business that brings them in
great money returns, do not leave them
and become members of Congress for the
purpose of making money. When we
come to fix the salary of members Of Con-
gress, if we fix it at a salary that does not
exclude from that honorable position (hon-
orable if it is made so) those who are poor,
those who can come here and live as well
as the average members of the community
live throughout the land, we do all that
ought To be expected.
Now look at it, Mr. President. The last
law that was passed fixing the salary, was
passed in 1866. Gold at that time, if re-
collect Alright, was about 125 or $50, and
there was an income tax Of about 5000 on
every one Of the salaries that was drawn.
Gold has been going down and the price of
commodities have been decreasing, so that
in reality the salary has been increasing
ever since 1866, and The income tax has
been taken of. The salary is to-day more
in reality than IL was then. Now we pro-
pose to increase that salary and to carry
the increase back two years.
l think with the Senator from Vermont,
Mr. Morrill,, that this is a very great mis-
take, and there is not member OF Con-
gress who has participated in this legisla-
ton for the purpose Of carrying our sala-
ries back for two years that will not regret
it. | do not think it is sound in principle,
and while l could perhaps make as good
use of this money in paying nay family eX-
pensGS as any member OF Congress, do
not feel that | would be justified in vot-
ing for this bill for the reason that it is
carried back, and for the additional reason
that it is putting the salary up above the
income enjoyed by the very large majority
Of the farming community, and of the man
utacturing community, certainly far above
the laboring community of the country,
and if we do strike fair average, that
which we have now we ought to adhere to. I"