The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1873-05-22
The Salary Grab.

One man is of little value in public al
fairs, and we often have an opportunity
to observe that, when death or any other
cause suddenly removes public servant
who may have been a leader among lead-
ing men, his place is supplied at once
and the world moves on as though such
man had never lived. When there IS lust
cause for declaring public man polltl-
cally dead. we do not consider his loss
half so great as we do the untimely kill
ing off, by the accidents OF business
affairs, of common laborer on a railroad
or canal. There is no exception among
those who voted for or accepted the IN
crease of salary. Everywhere they are
denounced, without regard to party. In
deed, it could not be otherwise, Tor ootn
parties stand about alike on the vote !;
what little difference there is, being IN
favor of the Republican party. There
are some men of whom we would expect
nothing else, but when such men as Shell
labarger and John It. Wilson, OF Ohio,
and Brownlow, of Tennessee, offer such
excuses as they do, we are the more
cheerfully resigned to the fate they are
bound to suffer. Let them drop out, and
not stand on the order of their gong.
When Butler declared the increase would
not be three cents head to each man,
woman and child of the nation, he re-
ceived the contempt of the nation as Its
reply 1t was insultingly absurd, and
lacked the effect, on the public mind, OF
the potent answer of the farmer, that 1T
will take thirty thousand bushels OF oats
to pay your annual salary now, Butler
plays the game of bluff; but listen to
those of whom we might expect better
things: Shellabarger says he opposed the
increase, and then adds it was neither
wrong nor indelicate" for members to
vote for it and date it back. Why did
he oppose it, if it was neither wrong nor
indelicate? His best reason for taking
it, was his necessities, and this reason he
gives.
John T. Wilson, of Adams county, in a
very passionate letter addressed to the
editor of the Jackson STANDARD, says;
'The passage of the late law, increasing
salaries, affords subject for just critl
cism by the press and the people
Again: Much as l was opposed to the
measure, it is a law of the land, passed
by majority of the peoples Representa-
tives, in the exercise of Legislative pow
ers, and must remain until it can be
repealed"
Then, in Buffers strain, this man, who
had borne the name of honest John
Wilson says: "That the increase, al
told, does not amount to more thar
three quarters of a million dollars pei
annum, which will not be likely to Grip
pie nation much whose people have
been able to pay into the public Treasury
for eight or ten years past an average
more than four hundred million dollars
and still are the most prosperous peopl
upon the globe How does this prov
anything? If, by some private manage
ment, this man, Wilson, had been abl
to put one million dollars annually int
his pocket, out of the Treasury, we sup
pose the country still would have beel
the most prosperous nation on the globe
but does this prove it is right for him t
be in possession of eight or ten million
dollars, without returning value received
Better than use such fallacy, say to hi
constituents, Gentlemen, l had the lega
right to this money; what are you goin
to do about it2 This he does, in etfect
say, and in time they will show him wha
they are going to do about it.-Mariett
Re0iSter