Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1873-06-12
Ayceill and tho Back Pay.

TH1GENERAL's Explanation" ST.
::.: ::ir, VERELY CRITICISED.
Another Congressman has come for
ward to defend bis vote in favor of the
salary-grab bill, Hon. John T. Avsrill
Of Minnesota. It is only deserving of
attention, because a prominent news
paper, which has all along denounced
the measure, publishes the defense as a
"very full aud frank argument on TINT
side Of the case" Full, We grant you;
but instead Of being frank, it is palpa-
bly, false and misleading.
The retroactive feature Of the law is
is the one in discussion, and it is to its
viudication that Mr.. Averlll addresses
himself: The writer wants to know
Why it is worse to increase the pay Of
an outgoing Congress than that OF an ill.,
coming Congress. If he will consult
the constitutions of the several States,
he will End that in a great majority Of
cases those organic laws prescribe that
no change shall be made in the compen-
sation Of members Of the Legislature
during the term for which they we're
elected. If he will consult the Madi-
son State papers, he will find that the
trainers Of the rationale Constitution de-
cided not to put any such prohibition
in that documen: solely on the ground
that Congressman would not dare to in
suit their constituents by doing so in
decent a thing. If he will consult the
political history Of the country, he will
find that the first Congress which did
insult the people in that way was laid
on the shelf at the very next election,
almost to man. Even Henry Clay
had narrow escape. With all these
facts and more of the same sort before
US, it is needless to enicr into any ar
gument to prove that while a legisla-
tive body, may, perhaps, justly increase
the pay Of succeeding members, it has
no right to increase its own pay. 70
allow each Congress or Legislature to
regulate its own compensation. would
open the door to unstinted and iutoler-
able corruE ton.
Mr.. Averill shows his utter lack of
frankness by assuming that the outcry
against the back-steal IS confined to
the press. Does he read the current
news! If so, he knows that every po-
litical convention, at least every one of
any note, which has assembled since
Congress perpetrated the outrage has
condemned it Both parties heartily
and unanimously join in the conden,-
nation. The ball will keep on rolling
until it has crossed the continent. That
tho people did not heed the matter in
1866 is no reason why they should ig-
more it now. On the contrary, remiss-
ness in duty, on former occasion rem.
dered attention in the present casc all
the more necessary The rebuke must
be made such q =" singer" that there
shall be no fear Of repetition. The first
rebuke was stunning this should DO
killing.
This Minnesota Congressman further
shows his unfrankness, by Juggling in
the repeal Of the franking privilege as
a justification Of the rctroaction clause
Of the bill. The abolition Of that
much abused species Of dead-headism
was not made operative until July LIST,
1873, nearly four months after the old
Congress ceased to exist. Instead OF
making that retroactive, Congress put
its execution so far off as to allow am
pie time for its members to get all
their public documents distributed
without expense so themselves.
Our Congressional letter writer pro-
ieeses to expect . popular reaction in