The St. Cloud journal. [volume] (St. Cloud, Minn.) 1866-1876, 1873-05-08
GENERAL AVENILL ON THE SAL
AIRY Bill.

Ooeu Yuas0 beSoAesy 0ououiou W tue 81
Paul Press tor his vote on the increase
Of salary bill, and specially called 90
BY that paper 10 give to tho pubic the
reasons which Influenced him in sup.
porting the measure, replies in . letter
to the Pres which is most certainly
manly aud straightforward aod able,a nd
makes points which are not very easily
answered. he attempts neither to
evade nor to shift the responsibility
for bis action. dc says, poiut.blank,
that be "voted for the bill, simply be.
cause he believed it to be right aud
just, and for no other reason whatever,
and was governed BY no influence Of
any kind, except the dictates Of his
own conscience and Judgment" He de
MES having been compelled to vote for
it in order to secure the passage of the
railroad Immigrant extension act, which
was of such vital interest to the people
Of his district. He supported it Who'll.
~ on Ito merits, and says "no one can
do him 30 gross an isjury as to repre-.
sent him capable Of Sinking tho r..
sponsibihty for his conduct behind .
dishouorable subterfuge."
He proceeds to correct q popular mis-
apprehension as to the actual increase
Of pay being $4,000 for the session, OF
$4,000 per year. The frankiug privil.
ego was abolit he'd by the last Congress,
thus sntailiue upon members an add.
tional expense Of from $500 to 81 900
per year each, tor correspondence, AID
for tho distribution of tho many tons
Of documents, which is we'll
known to be part Of their Duties
Again, the act increasing the compen.
sation, abolishes all allowance for mile.
age and stationery. In the case of
members and senators from Minnesota
these items have amounted to
about 81, 1000 per year. Add postage,
say from $500 to $1,000
per snuum, and 10 reality, members Of
Congress living At remote distances
from the capital receive but little more,
aud some of them not 80 much under.
the new, as under the old law. The
members from Minnesota will not re.
ceive actually more than about $1,000
PEI year, or 1900 per session addition.
al.
It seems, he says, to be almost uni.
versally conceded in view Of the large.
" increased cost of living at " ash,ng.
ton, which has more tbao dubbed 10 the
last few years, that justice and eoutd
policy demanded that the salaries OF
the President, and the Heads of De-
partms Is, the Judges Of the Supreme
Court aud the members OF Congress
should be increased.
Geo. Averill then discusses the shack
pay" feature Of the bill, as be Ia, oh.
served that there is very ll.t'.e com.
plant against the increase. of salaries
as applied to the future Congress, and
that if the 42d Congress had voted
only to increase the salaries of the mem.
bers o: tho 43d Congress 90 wrong
would have been charged. "Surely il
't'oas right for the I'D Congress to in.
crease the pay Of the members of the
43d it could not have been .orong for
any we'll founded reason, to increase
the pay of its own members" o. this
be makes a strong point "The very
ground, or one of the grounds, upon
which the increase Of salary is justified
at all, is that members had found BY
experience that the old salary was il.
sufficient to pay the necessary expsn.
ses of living at Washington, and that
member. having their families With
them had been compelled to draw upon
their private incomes or borrow money
to pay their expenses incurred 10 the
discharge Of their public duties. 1t is
certain that no oss can apply these
reasons With any more force to the sue
&C. 'ding Congress than to the one then
sitting aud making the law. l for one
should have regarded it as . piece OF
ueanness to have voted for myself, as
member Of the 4ad Congress, an in.
crease Of pay which l was unwilling tu
accord to the l25 outgoing mem.
bers, who certainly wero not less de.
serving. Such an act would, 10 my
view. have been piece OF self.ssulti6.
cation. 1t would have been askiue
the members Of the 42d Congress to de.
clare, BY record upon the public stat.
utes, that they were not the peers o.
those Of the 43d, and that their services.
were of less value"
He says that increase of salary
whether BY Congress or by State Leg ..
latares, has Invariably been retroactive,
and challenges any person to produce
single instance to the coutla ry 10 the
whole history Of the country.
/ He then disposes of another opjec
ton thus "But I am told by the press
that when I was elected the compensa.
ton OF members had been fixed at 49,
900 per year, and that when l accepted
seat in Congress it was with the i'm.
piled contract that this was to be my
pay. Were the argument good fo1
anything, I might re,ort that the frank
ing privilege, abolished by the last
Congress, was also part Of the con.
tract, and that at least I was entitled t