Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1873-04-18
THE BACK-PAY STEAL.
The Guilty and the Innocent

the people should know the names
of Congressman who voted them
selves pay for services they never
performed. We have already given
the vote at two stages of the meas
ure. We propose now to state
briefly the history of the measure,to
analyze all the votes taken upon it
directly, to point out those who are
consistently and Enthusiastically gull
ty disappearing it and of those who
have continually and unequivocally
opposed it, and to leave the remain
der whose record is not clear on
either side to explain their course
to their constituents as best they
can. We shall confine ourselves
to the House of Representatives be-
cause, in the first place, no vote
was taken in the Senate which con-
clusively revealed the position of
Senators on the merits of the case
and, secondly, because the House of
Representatives is directly respon-
sible to the people, and can sooner
and more effcctually be called to an
account. We also omit the final
vote on the conference committee,
because that report embraced sevc-
raj other subjects, and the vote on
it could not be regarded as necessa-
rily and conclusively test vote.
The history of the salary-st cal is
as follows:
On the 10th of February motion
was made to suspend the rules, for
the purpose of having included in
the general appropriation bill a pro-
vision increasing certain salaries,
among them members Of Congress,
the increase in their case TO APP
ply to the Forty Second Congress.
This provision included the naked
question of increase and back-pay.
The motion to suspend the rules was
lost. 1t received 81 votes, and 1870
votes were cast against it. This
was the first vote on the question.
On the 2sth Of February. the Leg
islatlvc Appropriation bill being
before the House. a motion was
made to amend one of the clauses
by inserting provision for the in
crease of salaries. This also in
cluded members of Congress-, and
embraced the back-pay. 1t was
lost, receiving only 50 votes to 100
against. This was the second vote.
General Butler gave notice of
motion to reconsider the vote Just
taken. He had voted against it,
that course being necessary, we be-
lieve, to give him the right to move
reconsideration. In Analysing
the second vote we shall therefore
count him in the affirmative, as he
was VIGOROUSLY in favor Of the prop
osition. On the first of March the
motion to reconsider came up, and
it was moved to lay it on the table.
This would have killed the measure.
1t failed, receiving Sc yeas and los
nays and 60 not voting. This was
the third vote.
The question then REQUIRED on
on reconsidering the vote by
which the amendment had been
killed. The vote was reconsidered,
there being 104 yeas, 10 nays and
81 not voting. This was the fourth
vote. The proposition was then
changed by a rising vote; the in
crease for members of Congress be-
ing reduced from $500 year to
$4,000. The back-pay feature was
retained. This was the fifth vote.
Now it is plain that any member
who voted for the increase and
back-pay on all these measures must
be held guilty. 1t must also be
plain to any one convcrsant with
the proceedings Of Congress and ca
pablo of determining the signifi-
canoe of the several votes that any
member who supported the meas
ure on the last three votes, and did
not vote against it on the second
vote, must also be held guilty.
Such member would be in the po-
stion of helping revive the measure
after it had been defeated, and vot-
ing for it as revived, without at any
time voting squarely against it. On
the other hand it is plain that the
members who voted continually
against the measure must be held
innocent. Those who voted against
it on the last three votes without
having voted for it on the second
must clearly be held innocent. With
these explanations which are as con-
else as it is possible to make them,
we append list which we believe
to be made up in a perfectly just
manner. The Democrats and Libe-
raj Republicans are in italics: