The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1873-10-23

back pay Mr.. Garfield very properly
asked why its Republican opponents were
not logical enough to censure the Presi-
dent, whose salary was doubled by the
bill. and without whose signature 1t
would not have become law. But many
of them doso, frankly. Many of the best
friends of the President regret sincerely
that he signed the bill Yet the circum-
stances must not be forgotten, nor the
extenuations that may be offered The
Presidents salary was believed TO be
wholly inadequate. Mr.. Willard of Yer
mont. however has recently published
statement by which it appears that the
special appropriations for the White
House amount for the year 1894 to
seyenty-seven thousand dollars, and he
saws that the Presidents family expenses
and those OF his table are all that are
paid from his salary. We do not know
what changes in this respect there may
have been since the earlier days: but
certainly, if salary of twenty-five thou
sand dollars was not extravagant for the
President eighty years ago, twice that
sum cannot be an immoderate salary for
him now. If, however, an appropriation
of the amount and for the purposes men
toned by Mr.. Willard is to be continued.
twenty-five thousand dollars is certainly
an adequate compensation. If the object
be to furnish retiring competence for
the President, let that purpose be frankly
stated and discussed in Congress. The
only reason for furnishing it indirectly is
that the country would not approve it.
And if that be true, it is a conclusive rea-
son against it.
But beside the fact that the Presi-
Dental salary was no larger than it had
been at the close of the last century,
when dollar was so much more valua-
BILE than now, is the other consideration,
that the chief offense in the back grab
is that it is retroactive for Congress. But
it was not made so in the case of the
President Therefore in signing it he
he did not award himself compensation
for services already rendered and receipt
ed for, as the members did, although, of
course he did award it to them. More
over, if the bill were vetoed, the necessary
appropriations would fail, and an extra
session of Congress would become indis-
pensable, which would involve serious
draft upon the. Treasury. This is true,
and this apparently determined General
Garfelds vote. But although this is
true, the expense of an extra session
would have been no more than that OF
the backward increase of the salaries of
the members; and if it had been ten
times as much, the bill should have been
vetoed The President should have said
distinctly that the amendment, the back
grab was an offense that he could not
sanction that he would not be coerced
to authorize plain wrong by the alleged
necessity of passing the appropriations;
and that the responsibility of an extra
session must fall upon those who made
it necessary.
Had the President said this in his usu-
al plain manner, it would not only have
been right, but it would have been the
most popular act of his administration.
1t would have shown the country that he
was not confused by plausible sophistries,
and 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 an increase of
his own salary impossible during his sec
ond term would have commended him
only the more warmly to public respect
and admiration Such an act also would
have stayed the tendency to reckless and
doubtful financial legislation. 1t would
have recalled the simple, sober standards
of expense and of public honesty which
are not only often forgotten. but ridicul-
ed. 1t was great opportunity lost. And
the most faithful Republicans and friends
of the President. however they may re-
gret that it should be said, will not deny
that it is the truth.
'If our view be correct, it would have
been better both for the Massachusetts,
and the New York conventions to have
rebuked unequivocally the whole mea-
sure, leaving censure to fall where it
justly belongs But even in trying to
discriminate they fail. Our New York
declares that public censurer
belongs to those of whatever politics
whose votes enacted such provision
But is not the signature that made the
provision effective as responsible as the
votes that enacted it? The resolution
censures the President, if it censures
Congress. The better action of the con-
ventions would have been to echo the
Wisconsin Republican demand that it be
made constitutionally impossible for any
Congress to increase its own compensa-
ton. And the better course for individ
ual Republicans is to regret, not to de-
fend, the action of the President"