Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1873-10-21
The President and the "Back Pay"
From Harpers, WeeklY.l


In his letter of last Spring upon the
"back pay" Mr.. Garfield very prop
erly asked why it, Republican oppo-
nents were not logical enough to cen-
sure the President, whose salary was
doubled by the bill, and without
whose signature 1t would not have be-
come a law. But many of them do SO,
frankly. Many Of the best friends Of
the President regret sincerely that he
signed the dill. Yet the circumstances
mu.t not be forgotten, nor the extenu-
atoms that may 10 offered. The Pres
ident's salary was believed to be
wholly inadequate. Mr.. willard, OF
Vermont, however, has recently pub
lished q statement by which 1t appears
that the special appropriations for the
White House amount for the year
lS73-74 to $4,000, and he says that
the Presidents family expenses and
those OF his table are all that are paid
from his salary. We do not know
what changes Ia this respect there may
have been since the earlier days but
certainly, II q salary OF $25, 900 was
dot extravagant for the President 50
years ago. twice that sum cannot be
an iminodcrate salary for him now.
II, however, an appropriation OF the
amount and for the purposes men,
toned by Mr.. Willard Is to be contlu-
ued, $25, 900 Is certainly an adequate
compensation. II the object be to fur
nish a retiring competence for the
President. let that purpose be frankly
stated and discussed In Congress. The
only reason for furnishing It Indirectly
Is that the country would not approve
1t. And II that be true, 1t Is a conclu-
sIve reason against 1t.
But beside the fact that the Presl-
Dental salary was no larger than 1t had
been at the close of the last century,
when a dollar was so much more valua-
BILE than now, Is the other considers
ton, that the chief offense In the
'.back grab Is that 1t Is retroactive
for Congress. But 1t was not made so
In the case Of the President. There
fore In signing It he did not award
himself compensation for services
already rendered and receipted for. az
the members did, although, of course,
he did award 1t to them. Moreover,
II the bill were vetoed, the necessary
appropriations would fail, and an
extra session Of Congress would be-
come Indispensable. which would in-
volve a serious draft upon the Treas
ury. This Is true and this apparently
determined General Garfeld's vote.
But although this Is true, the expense
of an extra session would have been
no more than that Of the backward In
crease of the salaries Of the members;
aud II It had been ten times as much,
the bill should have been vetoed. The
President should have said distinctly
that the amendment, the ''back grab,"
vas an offeuse that he could not sane
ton /; that he would not be coerced to
do q plain wrong by the alleged neces-
sity Of passing tho appropriations
and that the responsibility OF an extra
session must fall upon those who made
1t necessary.
Had the President said this In his
usual plain manner, 1t would not only
have been right, but 1t would have
been the most popular act Of his Ad-
m%inistration. IL would have shown
the country that he was not confused
by plausible sophlstries, and that he
not only saw clearly what should be
done. but that he had the courage
firmly to do IL. The fact that his veto
would have made an increase Of his
own salary impossible during his sec.
ond term would have commended him
only the more warmly to public re-
spect and admiration. Such an act
also would have stayed the tendency
to reckless and doubtful financial leg
islation. Il would have recalled the
simple, sober standards Of expense
and public honesty which are not only
often forgotten, but ridiculed. 1t was
a great opportunity lost. And the
most faithful Republicans and friends
OF the President, however they may
regret that 1t should be said, will not
deny that It Is tho truth.
II our view be correct, 1t would have
been better both for the Massachusetts,
aud the New York Conventions to
have rebuked unequivocally the whole
measure, leaving censure to tall where
It justly belongs. But, even In trying
to discriminate. they fall. Our New
York resolution declares that "public
censure belongs to those Of whatever
politics whose votes enacted such a
provision" But Is not the signature
that made the provision effective ~
responsible IS the votes that enacted
It? The resolution censures the Pres
ldent II It censures Congress. The
better action Of the conventions would