The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1873-05-01

"".-At' % "| |iINH-A llIEtc NLNr
But 6 i objected that tbis increase was
voted e the close Of the iast Congress. and
not q the -commcnccment. IS i that fact
changed the character 81 the act Surely,
time cannot change the essence Of Its
merits or deneritsl Whatever nay be ITS
true character must be determined by some
more material element, than whether done
on the one day AZ on the other, whether az
the beginning or at the close, or AZ any IN
tcrmediate dav OF the Congress. All pre-
cci;nr acts on the subject had been passed
some time after the commencement Of the
Congress AZ which they were passed; some
one wear afrer-sonie more. when three
fourths OF the congressional tenn had ex-
pircd.
But this is q practical question Let US
try Il b7 the principles of common sense, as
we would consider and determine the Oryli-
nary transactions Of every day life. All
who examine the constitution must admit
that Il Is night. or that, sc least, il is made
necessary by that Instrument for Senators
and Representative to fix their own com
pensatioH: and what moral distinction can
there De ia favor of doing It on one day,
rather than on anothers Why is the first
day any better than the last day. If they
are honest men, they viii on neither day
put the compensation higher than they con-
scientiously believe TO be just; that is, at a
SUN sufficient to compensate them for their
time. the services rendered. and necessary
expenses incurred.
Now, at which period viii they be better
able to judge of what the services were
worth, including necessary expenses. Before
the services were rendered and the expenses
incurred, OF afterward2 I venture the as
sertion, that few, but very few. new mem
bers could guess within thousand dollars
what the aggregate of the necessary eo-
penses of himself and family will be for a
year, in Washington City, and in advance, APP
proximate the wear and tear of body and
brain required in the constant, honest and
energetic discharge of his duties as mem
Der of Congress. Many, no doubt, expect
light and pleasant labor, agreeable and in
structive, and to very considerable degree,
The position and labors may
be instructive, but at the close of Congress
there is no member, who has discharged
his duties as he Is expected to do, and as it
Is his duty to do, who will not say he has
passed through a term of the most laborious
and exhausting toll. The members of Con-
gress who endeavOr to meet all the require
ments Of their position, are the hard work
ing men of this country. It is, then, per
fectly consistent with a cOnscien-
tious discharge of the duty of
fixing their compensation, that on the last
and each preceding occasion, when the COM
pensation has been raised, it has been de-
ferred to a late day Of the term; so far,
then, from that being circumstance against,
it is rather evidence in favor Of an honest
and conscientious desire to do what is Just.
This view is abundnntly sustained in the
daily transactions of life Your doctor,
lawyer, mechanic or laborer often defers
determining the amount of his charge till
the labor is performed, when both parties
are in better condition to Judge what is
right. When brought to the test of reason,
common sense and the anslogies Of the
practical transactions of life, there is no
foundation for ccnsure in this fact of the
time when it was done. So far, then, as
the Constitutional right and duty of Congress
to determine as to the compensation of its
members is concerned, the whole history
Of the legislation on the subject, from the
foundation Of the government stands as
precedent and authority for the act, the
manner and time of its performance.
The real question and only question, then,
Is Did the members of the last Congress
charge too much knowing it to be So thus
taking advantage of power given them to
appropriate to themselves an unnecessarily
large and eXorbitant sum of money, as
for their services and ex-
penses ~ If they did, they are properly
if they did not, there is no Just
cause of complaint against them.
This brings us to consider what sum was
A1,.1 f1,r,.
ton of its members. It was not as was
alleged, and as some pretend tobelieve, an
increase of 50, 500 per year to the salary of
each member, which was then $4,000, thus
making the sum of 81, 500 the yearly salary;
but the increase was 50, 500 less all allow
lnce for mileage. allowance for stationary
papers, postage, boxes, mail-sacks, etc, eX-
cept actual expenses of travel to the Capitol
each session. bit this all0lcanoe Of actual
expenses Is not al0lr6d members Of the
last Congress The al
lowanee for mileage, stationary, etc, etc.,
without postage, suppose would amount
to an average of about one thousand dollars
to each member. The average increase Of
allowance then would be 81 800 to each
member without reference to postage or the
ranking privilege.
But IN this average, the members from
California, Oregon, Nevada, Texas and
other States and territories more remote
from the Capital, have not only the thous-
and dollars deducted, but good deal more.
so that, in point Of fact, the new law Iii
minishes, rather than increases, the COM
pensation of the members from these STATES
and Territories. The members from Cali
fornia, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, etc,
~ IL.
new than they did under the old law.
With three sessions, and for many years we
have had three sessions, these members re-
ceiyed nearly $40, 600 per annum, exclusive
of postage, now they are to have only
81, 500; and out of that provide the allow
ance heretofore given them for stationary,
papers, documents, boxes, sacks, postage,
etc So of the Texas members, their al
lowance for mileage per session, averaged
near $3.50; their allowance for stationary,
documents, papers, boxes, sacks, etc,
ETC., say $3.50; their postage or
frank privilege, say $500; making
q deduction of not less than 81, 200;
And if to this be added another session
of Congress which has for many years been
held, and will likely continue to be held in
the future, for which we should add anoth-
er allowance for mileage of $3.50, for the
term, and for the year one
half that, say 1926, which when added TO
the great total already arrived at of allow
ances taken off by this act, viz; $500,
makes up the sum of allowances so de-
Quoted by this act to $2125, showing an in
crease Of compensation to the Texas mem
Der Of 1878. (See Congressional Globe,
page 2099.)
But this is not the bill voted for by the
members. They opposed, as a mere
question Of policy, making the law retro
spectixe, and voted for Mr.. Sargent's
(see Congressional Globe,
page 1877, which proposed to fix the com
pensatioD at So. 500, and this to be in lien
Of all allowance For this all the Texas
voted, By which they would
have been losing with two sessions 5000,
and with three sessions Of Congress, as
shown by calculation just made, 1926 more,
orfor each yeara dimipution in the aggregate
Of $685.. The Thanking privilege had al
ready been taken away. nor do pretend to
say thar % r,,nroitrrq Will IN tho future end