Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-05-01
Justin s. morrill,.

editors who use the terms grab anu
sssteal' in connection with the law IN
creasing the salaries of members of Con-
gress, and, especially, as applied to its
retroactive clause, are guilty, if OF
nothing more, of misapplication and
misuse of language. We submit, also,
that by becoming an editor, person
does not necessarily cease to be gentle
man. There is not the first element OF
a 'sgrab" or ''steal, in the whole history
of the measure from its first Inception
to its final consummation. The matter
was presented repeatedly, in different
forms, there was no concealment III
reference to it, its supporters were open
and above board in tt cir advocacy OF 1t,
and every Senator and Representative
in Congress, if he knew anything about
pending legislation, knew each time IL
was presented and was prepared to vote
for or against it. There is no ''grab" or
.ssteal" about it for another reason.
They-that is the Senators and Repre-
sentatives in Congress-had the consti-
tutional and legal right to fix their own
salaries. There is no other authority
for fixing the amount of their compen-
sation except by law passed by them
selves. Hence in voting and receiving
the increased pay, they did not "steal
or ''grab," but acted in perfectly legal
and constitutional manner. Five times,
if we remember Alright, has the compen-
sation of members of Congress been III
creased, and each time the increase has
been retroactive. So that, i'll this re-.
spect, they but followed precedents. We
are not defending the act increasing the
salary of members of Congress in the
future-which is one question-nor It's
retroactive features, which is an entirely
different question Each question is to
be discussed and assailed or defended by
different line of argument, and would be
controlled by divers motives and views
of public policy. We have only endeay-
ored to show that the vote of such future
or past increase, does not contain single
element of ''grab" or stealing" What
ever may be cur opinion of the policy OF
a future increase, we think that those
members who voted for ''back pay,
as it is sometimes called, committed a
wrong, impolitic and foolish, but not an
illegal act. Our Vermont Senators and
Representatives, as we, upon former
occasion, stated, spoke, acted and voted
against it. Upon its every presentation,
in every form and in every stage, they
resisted it's passage, but, in spite of their
efforts and votes, it became law. The
money was appropriated from the Unit
ed States Treasury to ray such increased
salary for the past two years. Justin ).
Morrill,, oneof the United States Senators
from this State, after having opposed
the increase and voted against it, saw fit
to draw the money and, instead of using
it for his own benefit, paid it over to the
Treasurer of Vermont to be applied in
the reduction of our State debt. Where
upon the New York Times sees fit to re-
mark:
Does any one know any reason why
the State debt of Vermont should be
paid by money that belongs to the
United States We can hardly believe
that Senator Morrill, will add to his repu-
tation in his thrifty State by this misap-
preparation of the public funds of the
whole country.
This item has been going the rounds
of the press somewhat extensively. We
/ found it in some six or eight of our State
Exchanges, received Friday and Satur-
day. 1t has been copied sometimes with
comments of approval and, at other
times, without comment, which means,
substantially, the same thing. We are
surprised at the course of the Times, not
because it opposes the retroactive clause
of the salary bill, but as indicated in the
extract quoted. 1t is not true, as a mat
ter of fact, and the Times, and the
newspapers which have copied approx
ingly, must know it. The money, re-
ferred to, did not belong to the United
States. 1t could not even become the
money of the United States unless Sen
ator Morrill, had donated it to that gov
to this State. The United States, in the
only manner known to the constitution
and laws, appropriated this money. Ger,
tain members, constituting majority of
the Senate and House of Representative
had voted for the law, believing 1t - no
right and just, and thereby apr, onriating
the money, and these sarr, e members had
received Incorporation thereof. as thew
believed as u .eir just, legal, proper and
right dp>s. This being so, there is and
car be no justice or equity in the re-
mainder-a minority in number-pre-
senting their proportion to the general
government. The extra compensation
OF members can by no legal sophistry,
constitutional abstraction or far-fetched
principle of morality, virtue or ethics.
be considered as belonging to the United
States. The unconstitutional
morally, legally and honestly, and by no
act OF his Own-was Justin S. MorrilPs
He had-and by any act of his taken in
connection with his record could have
made ''no misrepresentation of the public
funds of the whole country" The only
method by which this four or five thou
sand dollars could have become part of
''the public funds of the whole country"
would have been by gift from Senator
Morrill,. The question of policy or of
political well or ill-doing, does not enter
into the subject at all. The law appro
priating this sum of four thousand three
hundred, forty dollars and eighty-six
cents was as much law as any law on
the statute book. If Mr.. Morrill, had
simply neglected to receive it, it would
have remained in the treasury as debt
due therefrom to him or his heirs. He
would have been compelled to draw it,
even to make it part of the ''public
finds " We think we hove ,,,oJo a..