The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1873-04-25
From the New York rimeJTTl
BACK PAY STEAIrGUILTY AND
INNOCENT.

1t is ofthe last importance that the
people should know the names OF the
Congressman who voted themselves
pay tor services never performed. We
have already gwen the vote at two
stages of the measure. We propose
now TO state briefly the history Of
the measure, to analyze al the votes
taken upon it directly, to point out
those who are consistently and IN
mistakably guilfy Of supporting e,
and those who continaaily end un,
equIyocally opposed II, and to lesve
the remainder, whose record Is not
clearly pronounced on either side, tc
explain their course to their con.
stituents as best they can. We shall
confne ourselves to the House of Re
representatives., emitting the Senate,
becsuse, in the FIRST place, no vote was
taken in the Senate Winch conciusi9efy
revealed the position of Senators on
the merits of the ease; and, secondly,
because the House of Representatives
is directly responsible TO the people,
and can be sooner and more efectualiy
called to account. We also omit the
final vote on the report of the Gem
ference Committee, because that re-
port embraced several other subjects,
and the vote on It could not be1re-
garded ss necessarily and concl1siFel7
test vote- r. s-- s-e-- p - -.r.-
The history of the salary steal is as
follows: On the 10th Of February 8
motion was made to suspend the rules,
tor the purpose of having included the
naked question of increass and back
pay. The motion, to suspend the
rules was lost 1t received 81 votes,
and 120 votes were cast against II.
This was the FIRST vote or.the question,
On the 2sth Of February, the Ls.
gislstiye Appropriation bill beng be-
tore the House. 8 motion was made te
amend one of its clauses by inserting
a provision for increase Of salaries.
This also included members Of Con.
gress, and embraced the back pay.
1t was lest, receiving only go votes,
to l2O against. This was the second
vote. ~
Gen. Butler gave notice of Q motion
to reconsider the vote lust taken. He
had voted against it, that course beng
necessary, we believe, to give him the
parliamentary right to move q recon =
sideration:l In ansiyzing the second
vote we shall, therefore, count him IN
the Affirmative, as he was notoriously
in favor of the proposition. On the
1st of March the motion to reconsider
came up, and 1t was moved o-lsyit
on the table. This would have killed
the measure. 1t failed, receiving 68
yeas and los nays, and SO not voting,
This s'the third vote. yH.L - i-o-1
The question then recurred on re-
considering the vote, by which the
amendment had been killed. The
vote wasreconidered, there beng i04
yeas, 79 nays, and 81 not voting.
This was the fourth vote. -.-o -r -
The proposition was then changed
by q rising vote, the increase for
members Of Congress being reduced
from $500 q year to 90, 500. The
back pay feature was retained. This
was the fifth vote. Now it is plain
that any member who voted for the
increase and the back pay on all these
votes, must be held guilty. 1t must |
also be plain to any one conversant
with the proceedings of Congress and
capable Of determining the significance
Of the several votes, that any member
who supported the measure on the
ast three votes, and did not vote
against it on the second vote, must
also be held guilty. Such g member
would be In the position OF helping
revive the measure after it had been
defeated, and of voting for it as re-
7iyed, without at any time voting /
'quarly against it. On the other hand,
t is plain that members who voted |
continually against the measure must
,e held innocent. Those who voted
Igainst it on the last three votes,
Without having voted for it on the
econd, must also be held innocent.
With these explanations, which are as
concise as 1t Is possible to make them,
We append list which we believe to
'e made up ina perfectly Just manner.
The Democrats and Liberal Re-
'ubhcans have the following pref1ed
o their names I .-.E