The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1873-08-05
"The Salary Grab"
GEN. BUTLER RISES TO EXPLAIN.-HE
STRUGGLES THROUGH SEVEN COLUMNS
AND YET THERE is MORE.

STRUGGLES THROUGH SEVEN COLUMNS
AND YET THERE is MORE. -
The Charestown Chronicle of Saturday
contained seven columns of Gen. Buffers long
promised defense of the ''salary grab" and
then gave out, on the ground that the General
was unable to finish it. The following is an
abstract given by that paper containing all
the strong points:
1t opens with defense of the increase of
the pay of the President, whose salary was
raised from $500 to $4,000 by the bill.
He shows that President Washington's salary
was more than five times greater in its pur-
chasing power than President Grant's and
that, taking into account the difference in
wealth, population and prices, Grants salary
would be $275,000 in round numbers, if in
proportion to that of Washington.
He next shows that the salaries of the
Cabinet officers, Supreme Judges and Mem
amount, and that Congressman should have
higher rather than lower salaries than the
Judges, as their expenses are necessarily
greater. st la
He then proceeds to show that the salary
bill does not so much increase as equalize the
salaries of members OF Congress.
1t abolishes mileage, and thus reducing the
pay of some members quite fifty per cent,
while it raises that OF others to a like amount.
1t also abolisbes all allowances in the shape
of stationery and newspapers, as well as
ranking, so that, instead of it being true
that every Congressman voted himself five
thousand dollars additional pay, there has not
been, in reality, more than one thousand
dollars year added, if so much.
Considering that the services of an efficient
agent of manufacturing establishment of
any considerable capital cannot be had for less
than seventy-five hundred dollars year,
while our railroads pay twenty-five thousand
for their presidents, the General cannot see
how this increase can be deemed too large by
any right minded man.
At this point he makes keen thrust at
| Minister Washburn, who has lately had pub
lished letter in which he stated that the
people did not elect members OF Congress to
90 TO Washington to support three or four
mistresses, or to buck at the tiger After
speaking sarcastically of the Minister, the
General adds that he has not observed any
objection on Washburn's part TO the appro-
priation of fifty thousand dollars, passed in
1871, for the purpose of defraying the expen-
SEES Of the Minister to France in 1870, although
that appropriation was retroactive. He adds
that he thinks with this increase and buck
ing at the tiger it is perhaps little easier to
support a family in Paris on 1880, gold,
than to do the same in Washington on $500,
currency. .i.r, ,eel.el4 y. +r..
In other parts of his letter he shows that,
almost without exception, every public man
| who has returned his back salary, or who has
raised an cutlery about it, has himself, in
years past. vote.t for and accepted back pay.
He especially indicates Senator Wilson, the
Washburn family, Daniel Webster, Charles
Sumner, N. P. Banks, A. III. Rice, John F.
Farnsworth and Henry j. Raymond OF the
New York Times. He shows that Banks and
Rice both voted in 1866 for an increase of
pay at the rate of 81 per cent, with mileage
and other allowances-made retroactive for
the whole of that Congress-that is, they
voted for back pay for sixteen months, so
that for that time the salary of each member
was doubled. - 't
He also SHOWS that, at the same time,
John B. Alley, Cakes Ames, Baldwin OF Wor-
cester, Dawes of the ninth district, Hooper
of the Fourth, and Gov. Washburn did not
vote at all, but lodged the question, and that
if any one of those SIX Representatives who
thus sneaked had voted in the negative the
bill would have been defeated.
In dealing with members who have joined
in the ou:cry against back pay, he does not
seem to have written with gloves on.
He saws that from the beginning of the
State Legislature and every Congress
which has increased the salary of its
members, has made that increase back to
the beginning OF their services; that every
executive officer every Judge on the bench in
Massachusetts, when his salary was increased
has always taken back pay; that the soldiers
petitioned Congress to give them increased
pay and bounty, and that Congress gave it,
although in so doing they voted them back
hot ho mi n q
ploy, before the eight hour law was put in OPP
Grafton, by the Presidents proclamation, pc
titioued Congress to have increased back pay;
and, therefore, if the members of the pres
ent Congress are back pay grabbeIs, thieves
and robbers, so also have been all the illus
trious statesmen Of the past, from Washing
ton to Grant, who accepted Increased pay, as
well as of the purest of the judiciary, the
most beloved of the Executives, the bravest
of the soldiers and the working men.
Atie all elaborate examination of the con-
tract theory, the General shows that it is ut
terly groundless; that the action of the late
Congress was in strict accordance with the
Constitution and with precedent; and that
the requirement of the newspapers, that no
man shall ever vote to raise his own pay,
would simply have rendered an increase of
pay impossible from the beginning OF the Gov
eminent down to the present day. He then
| STATES OI HIS pCISOudi huOWiOuSS
the most jealous lobbyists for the back pay bill
were certain special correspondents OF the
leading newspapers who have since denouD-
ced it; although they themselves, as clerks of
committees received an increase OF fifteen per
cent, going back to March, 1870.
In this last salary bill, the back pay feature
of which the newspapers so much denounce,
The pay of these very newspaper correspon-
dents, clerks of the House, were raised ffteen
per cent, going back to March, 1870, ana
every NORTHUMBERLAND there was large mum
her who had clerks on committees-took back
nav for two years, rolling it as sweet NOR
sci under their tongues, and then sat down
and wrote virtuous articles denouncing the
''back pay grab, -.
Let me state further, what is within my
personal knowledge, that these very clerks
were upon the floor of the House, when the
bill giving them back pay was under consid-
Grafton, lobbying furiously, and exhibiting
most nervous fears lest it should fail. AND
although by their calumnies and ISLANDERS,
these newspapers have frightened few men,
who, believe, mistake cowardce for con-
science-against their better judgment for
some of them voted and spoke for the increase
of salary-into sending back their increased
salary into the Treasury, yet, if any Dewspa-
per man has sent any part of his back pay in
to the Treasury be has not made himself WIS.,
ible to the naked eye.