Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1873-12-25
Remarks of Mr.. Hale, Of Maine, In the

lot be cried nor howled GOWN.
Everybody. Mr.. Speaker. / think will
Idmit that the passage ofthe salary bill on
at March was unfortunate aud inoppor-
mne. II there had been any doubt upon
hat question the almost unanimous voice
# the people settled 1t. Aud. sir. it was a
natter upon which the people might well
oass-it WAS the voting of money from
he public purse to pay public servants.
Now, there can be no question as TO thar
being q subjec.-matter which the people
mig At consider. There can be no question
As to what was the result OF that consider
alton. IL WAS sharp. swift. and Immediate
condemnat alton. and 1t was so marked
and so undoubted that l see no humilia-
ton on the part of any gentleman here ioi-
lowing that direction of the people GA This
|. OF course. feel no hu-
initiation have no baek-,rack 10 TAKE
no new record to make; but do not. from
thi. comfort able standpoint. sioat over
the gentlemen who have changed ther
views because there was the best reason
for change. The people passed upon the
subject they had a right 10 pass upon. The
contract for pay, aud this is the fair for
mula to put it in, was two-sided con
tract. and the party paying the money
vetoed the bill involving the increase. The
public stamped its disapproyal upon IL,
and, see no inconsistency on the part OF
gentlemen like the gentleman from Mas
sachusetts rMr. BUrLER taking ground
now in favor of substantial repeal AZ that
gentlemen here assures US he does.
He has been instructed on matter
where he originally voted as he pleased.
subject to the disapproval Of the other con-
tracing party, and. therefore. repeat
again there is no humiliation here In re-
responding on this question TO the people s
voice.
Now, sir, | cannot vote for the propos-
ition which Is al present before the House,
because believe that IL is an evasion OF
the public demand. IL evades our in>truc-
tious from our constituencies, whose money
We are passing upon. ihe people have
decided in favor of substantial repeal.
There have been gentlemen enough here
who. within the last ten days. have re-
iteraied this proposition TO carry II II they
will vote a. they have talked. But the
proposition before the House is not repeal
simon pure. This House has already pass
ed upon it that IL is not. Less than week
ayo-on the motion of the gentleman from
Indiana mr.. ORTIZ this whole matter
was committed TO the special committee.
with instructions TO report repeal of the
salary increase. so far as the same was
practicable under the Constitution. aud 10
90 back TO the old salary and allowances (;
but instead of these old allowances being
unfairly distributed. as WAS the case un-
der the mileage law, TO lump the mileage
and average il among the members u.
salary. The committee reported such an
cqualizing bill TO this House. IL involved
substantial repeal. IL took no more money
from the Treasury than the old law. IL
equalzed mileage, not - | would rather
have seen IL done. from the pockets Of
members who draw excessive mileage. into
the Treasury. but from the pockets OF one
member into that of another. But so tar
A. that goes, ii was one kind of equallZa-
ton. /. for one, WAS willing To stand To
ii. and the committee reported bill fixing
the salaries at $500, the $500 over the
old law beingthe average amount OF mile
aye and stationery allowance.
tried to bring the House to vote upon
that proposition, | was in favor, as ]
have been from the beginning, of not IN
numbering bills that carried repeal ON
their forefront with anything that would
clog them. But could get no direct vote
on the proposition, though members
enough would talk Tor it.
And. now. sir. after the House has voted
first upol one thing and then another; al
ter ii has instructed il. committee To iih
our salaries al $500. right IN the face OF
l he report of the committee a proposition
i put in here 10y which AT tn" end of a
fortuight's hard fighting, with the eyes of
every body upon Us. We seek To get out of
the fray by increasing our salaries Ia the
Of s5oo.
Sir. il is not the amount that the people
will care about. 1t was not, As has often
been stated in this discussion. any particu-
lar sum that awakened the country last
spring, but il was the conduct OF the bust
ness that reused the people; and to-day,
sir, this House cannot afford, as the shot
of all this agony for repeal" 10 again in
crease our salaries over the old figure and
negative the idea of repeal. Sir, the peo-
pie do not expect that from us. They ex
pect us to go back "a the old law or TO its
equivalent. l. there any gentleman here
that can give US a reason why We should
add $500 10 what we formerly received
And. what is the worst of IL. no option is
given us in voting. The gentleman from
Illinois who springs this proposition refus-
es to allow the gentleman from Massachu
sets Mr.. DAVIS to offer as a substitute
the bill reported by the select committee.
Mr.. PAGE. desire to a.k the gentle
man one question. The first bill reported
by the committee provided that the sala-
ries should be liked At S5.Og a year. be-
lieve. The gentleman from Maine vas
chairman Of that committc. II also rcstor-
ed the mileage after this session. whic! lac
reported, in submitting the bill Yesterday,
amounted on an average To 500 year.
which for Congress amounts 10 81 900;
is not the bill which hs. been
voted upon substantially the bill reported
D. . ttaa in hat fr=t
Mr.. HALE, OF Maine. The bill as re-
ported by myself at first involved direct re-
peal in terms, and nothing else. 1t did re-
store the mileaged In terms, just as II was.
because believe that would be satisfacto-
rs TO the public. as it would be clean re-
peal. The second bill takes the same
money from the Treasury
Mr.. KELLOGG. desire to ask the gem
tlemen q question.
Mr.. HALE, Of Msine. cannot yield.
The other proposition, as ] have said.
takes the same money from the Treasury
and equalizes it into the pockets of the
gentlemen from Pennsylvania. Maryland,
and other States near around, and takes X
away from those farther off.
Now, in reply to the question OF the gen.
teman from California Mr.. Pagel as to
the amount o! mileage. let me say the
LOT u "
ly nearly 81 900, but We are dealing with
annual salaries, not with the salaries for a
term. Why, sir. the committee reporting
I hat bill strained rs far and as hard as it
could so that members might be satisfied.
Mr.. KELLOGG. Will tia gentleman
yield to me for q question?
Mr.. HALE, Of Maine l decline to
yield. The Forty-first Congress had three
sessions. The present Congress has but
two. The FOrty-first Congress had an ex
ira session in March, another session COM
mencing the following December, and the
third commencing in December Of its last
year. The committee. in making the cal
culation by which it arrived at $500.
was sent by the mover Of that resO-
luton TO that Congress. Ii aggregat-
ed all of that mileage for the three ses-
sions. Gentlemen see that we can have
but two mileages, but every new member
coming into that Congress had three mile
ages.
That was my first Congress, and l had
three milesges, because | came here In
March to the first session. and drew actual
mileage as others did; and there were
about seventy-five members Of that Con-
gress who had three mileages. But the
seeing no better WAY of doing