The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1873-05-22
THE PLUMBER OF THE NATION S
TREASURY.
More of J. T. Wilson's Fish Women
Speaking Their Minds.

MIR. sHELLABARGER AND BACK PAY
Two things being granted, the argu
ment or explanation of Hon. Samue
Shellabarger of Ohio for taking from tn
United States Treasury S., 900 upon tn
pretext of paying himself for services al
ready paid for, IS as stately as the column
of Trajan, and as solid as the rock E
Captain. Two things granted, and th'
SALARY Grab" by which the XLlld Con
gress signalized its departure ceases to b'
an offense against common decency anc
common honesty, and becomes rather al
illustration of the resources of statesman
ship and the beauties of political consist
ency. The two things are: l. Tha
Mr.. Shellabarger never did wrong. z
That majority of Congress cannot dc
wrong.
Mr. Shellabarger's constituents are moi
familiar with the logical processes by
which he adjusts his convictions of duty
and his distinction between right and
wrong, by the standard of his own pre-
Vious action or the concurrent action Of
his fellow men. Doubtless they were SC
simple-minded as to apprehend only the
moral qualities of this particular transac.
ton separated from all others. They did
not consider that the thing which looked
| to be disreputable and dishonest, viewed
alone, became reputable and honest when
connected with the fact that Mr.. Shella-
| barger had done the same thing before,
and that a majority of his fellow Con
gressmen approved his action and did
| the same thing themselves. Shall any
thing more be said? When to his up
braiding constituents the Hon Samuel
Shellabarger says, "If did wrong in tax
ing $1,000 back pay, it was not my first
sin, for l took back pay under the act OF
July, 1866, which gave the Congress that
passed it eight months back pay" is not
the argument ended? Shall any one say
that the Hon Samuel Shellabarger sinned
so long ago as 1866? If he did not sin
then in taking back pay to the amount
of thousand dollars, he has not now in
taking five thousand His answer is con-
elusive. 1t is better than conclusive: it
reaches forward and covers all future
possibilities. For, if in some future Con-
gress he or his successor should vote him
self ten, fifteen, or twenty thousand dol
lars, or more back pay, his answer to the
grumbling taxpayer is stereotyped MY
dear Sir, if this is wrong it is not my first
sim" There remains nothing to be said
after that.
Mr.. Shellabarger's position is further
sustained by the fact that majority of
back pay. 1t is made lawful by the votes
of others. He voted against it himself
1t would be interesting to know his rea-
sons for opposing it. They seem to have
been of such a character that an adverse
vote utterly destroyed their force With
out venturing the suspicion that Mr.
Shellabarger is not man of decided con-
victions, we may be permitted to remark
that it has not been usual for Republican
members of Congress since 1854 to defer
so entirely to the opinions of the maiori-
ty. Several all-night sessions might have
been avoided if they had, and the anti
Slavery struggle would have ended with
Mr. Buchanan's Administration. But if
the vote of Congress made this thing
right, that seems to the people to be so
wrong; and if after that vote Mr.. Shella-
barger thinks he would be guilty of an
act of vulgar demagoguery," or of "moral
cowardice, not to take it. the question is
settled again, and his taking the $4,000
becomes patriotic and courageous instead
of mean and dishonorable. The defense,
then is, first, that he has done it before,
and second, that his fellowmembers hav-
ing done it "he would be unworthy the
society of gentlemen, much more of a
place in the American Congress, did he
by any act of his indicate that the money
his comrades voted him was so polluted
by their act of robbery that he was too
holy to take it." Not to take it would
the first place and upon the honesty of
his comrades in the second.
Well, suppose we do not admit the
premises. Suppose we say Mr.. Shella-
barger was fallible in 1866 and may be
now; and suppose we say the vote of
Congress does not change the quality of
the transaction one whit. How would
this defense stand then? Here is a gen.
tleman who for some reason voted against
the back pay provision. Either as a
question of morals he considered it
wrong, or as a question of expediency
impolitic. 1t was just as wrong or i'm
polite after the vote as before and if
wrong or impolitic to vote back pay
equally so to take it afterward. But it
did not enter his head to refuse it till
the popular protest came up against it.
And then he says he strove in the forum
of his conscience and in view of all his
obligations to God, country, self, and
children, to decide rightly and fearlessly
what duty was" We do not doubt that
he did. But it occurs to us that the man
who has to wrestle so sin the forum of
his conscience" to "decide rightly and
fearlessly" what his duty is as to taking
or refusing $4,000, and ends the wrestle
by taking it, does not win many laurels
in the tussle No. the Hon. Samuel
Shellabarger may think he has decided
this question Gin view of all obligations
to God, country, self, and children" but
he deceives himself. Let us set it down
once for all that the man, be he member
of Congress, Senator or Vice-President,
who, after doing questionable thing,
talks about having settled it in the forum
of conscience, or having laid it before
God in his closet, is trying to fool himself
or somebody else with very cheap and
empty can't
There's one simple test in this back
paw business which we commend to Mr..
Shellabarger and all the rest. He and
they took this plunder because they had
the power which the people had intrust-
ed them. Would he or any one of them
have dared admit to the people before
election that he had any such intention
Would not every one of them have de-
nouneed any intimation that they would
do what they have done, as libel and
SANDER? Leaving out of the question all
otherconsiderations this one should suf-
fee. Is it honest. to do after election
what YOU YOU would not dare announce
beforehand your purpose to deF
John T. TO DAvIs-It will be recollect-
,ooIarS hot