Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-10-18
eRANrs LansrossIsndrY ZOE

~ THE SALARY GRAB
Some of the Republican organs are be-
ginning to admit tie responsibility Of
Grant for the salary grab. A number Of
Republican conventions had adopted resp
lutions censuriDg members OF Congress for
the part they took in the enactment Of the
tbs law under which the "eaek pay ttssl''
and the ssalary grab" were perpetrated, bat
they had no word OF censure for President
Grant, by whose act the bill became law.
Whenthe indignant constituents of Blr. Gar
field, Of Ohio, asked him to resign that they
might elect man to Congress who was not
tainted wtih the shack pay STEAL" that
gentleman very properly asked them why
they did not censure the President, whose
salary was doubled By the bill, aud withou.
whose signature It would not have become
alaw. That was poser, but still they per-
sisted in denouncing Mr., Garfield, and say
Ing not 3 word about the greater culprit.
This coarse was not confined to Mr.. Gar
fields district. Il was so all over the coun-
try. But change is taking place in respect
to this matter Of responsibility. The Adrian
(Mich.) Times and Exposition, the admins
tration organ of that city, of which J. II.
Fee, postmaster, is editor-iu-chief, contained
savage attack upon Gen. Grant in its issue
of the 10Th inst. laying the whole response
bility of the salary steal upon bis shoulders.
The following is the opening and ccnclu-
sion of the article: Ez CElt 6K
"Sundry political conventions have met
since the adjournment Of Congress, and all,
or nearly sll, have had their say shout what
is known as the salary grab; but Bone Of
them on the Republican side have had the
holiness 20 place the responsibility of the
salary bill becoming law where it proper
ly belongs--with President Grant,"
ave are opposed to the congressional fea-
ture OF the salary bill, and we hope TO see
Republicans in every part of the country
denoGnce not only the men who aided in
the passage of the measure, but ell men
who took the money. 1t is the part Of man
hood and honesty not to forget that Presi-
dent Grant had it in his power to squelch
this raid on the Treasury, and that he did
not do it; and we fail to see any great differ
ence in point of morality in . Congressman
voting himself 2,600 increase Of salary and
a President signing bill which gave him
n increase of $4,000. This difference
does not exist. A single Congressman
could not have prevented the bill becoming
law; that power did rest with President
Grant. The people viii not adopt a rule
for public action which prescribes penalties
for minor officials and leaves equally guilty
ones of higher position to 60 scot free"
The ground upon which his friends have
sought to justify Grants signing this bill is,
that il he had not done so the necessary APP
preparations to carry on the government
would fail, aud an extra session of Congress
would become indispensable, which would
involve serious draft upon the treasury.
This is now mes from an unexpected quar-
ter. Harper's Weekly, which has never
faltered in its support of Grant; never halt
ed when any set of bis administration was
to be defended, now censures him very de-
cidedly for signing the bill with the shack
pay steal" provision Ia it. Thst organ OF
Republican ideas says that if an extra ses-
sion had been called to pass the appropra-
ton bill, the expense "Eould have been no
more than that of the backward increase OF
the salaries of the members; and if it had
bean Ten times as much the bill should
have been vetoed" Pretty strong language,
and pretty strongly put. But, says Har-
per'S Weekly:
"The President should have said distinct
ly that the amendment, the 'bsck grab,
was an Cffense that he could not sanction;
that he would not be coerced to authorize
u plain wrong by the alleged necessity OF
passing the appropriations; aud that the re-
sponsibility of an extra session must fall
upon those who made it necessary. Had
the President said this in his usual plain
manner, it would not only have been right
but it would have been the mast popular
act Of bis Administration. II would have
.hown the country that he was not confus-
ed by plausible sophistries, aud that he not
only saw clearly what should be done, but
that he had the courage firmly to do it.
The fact that his veto would have made ar
increase of his own salary impossible dur.
ing his second term would have commend
ed him only the more warmly to public re-
spect and admiration. Such an act also
would have stayed the ten ency to rockies:
and doubtful financial legislation. Itwoud
have recalled the simple, sober standards oi
expense and of pubic honesty which are
not only often forgotten, but ridiculed. Il
WAS great opportunity lost. And the
most faithful Republicans and friends Of
the President, however they may regre
that It should be said, will not deny that il
is the truth.
''If our view be correct, it would have
been better both for the Massachusetts, snt
New York Conventions TO have rebuket
unequivocally the whole measure, leaving
censure to fall where it justly belongs. Bu
even in trying to discriminate, they fail
Our New York resolution declares thai
"public censure belongs to those of what
ever politics whose votes enacted such {
provision" But is not the signature that
made the provision effective as responsible
as the votes that enacted ii? The resolu
ton censures the President, If it csnsuret
Congress. The better action of the con
ventions would have been to echo the Wis
cousin Republican demand that it be made
coustitutionally impossible for any Con
gress to increase its own compensation
And the better course for individual Repub
licans is to regret, not to defend, the actor
of the President" -s
"The sober second thought" is beginning
to discover that Grant sanctioned Sres
wrong in signing the bill with the "bacl
pay steal" provision in it, but he was smar
enough to see that if be did not sign tn
bill be would not get his salary grab. Thi
thing should be thoroughly ventilated, for /
is the most disgraceful act Of which
President was ever guilty; an sct that wou!t
have sent George Washington or Tboma
jefferson or Jane Madison into retiremen
with name covered all over with infamy
Gov. WAsHBURN, of Wisconsin, show
occasional siresks of candor in his publ
speeches. In late effort at Fon du LIS
he said: "Candor compels me to say ths
the South generally has been terribly accurf
ed by an iDroad of adventurers from th
North. South Caroline, Louisiana an
, Florida are absolutely ruined by them; an
there is no hope for either of those State
but to rub out and begin anew" And ye