The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1873-12-25

HOA. D. r. LOVES FO0lTION.
In the House of Representatives last Wed
needay Hon. D. p. Lowe, Of Kansas, ex'
planned briefly his record on the increase sal
aIy bill of last session. When the HOUSE
resumed, ~ the regular order Of business, thu
consideration of the bill ii. r. No. 1881 u
repeal the increase Of certain salaries, Mr.
Tremain offered IN amendment, the object o.
which was to leave the Cabinet officers, and
the second and third officers of the Govern.
ment, where they were left in the act which
it was proposed to repeal, and upon Thu
amendment Mr.. Lowe spoke a. follows:
Mr.. Lowe: Mr.. Speaker, I rise pro lorna
to oppose the amendment. In the five min.
utes to which am limited, cannot enter
upon general discussion of this bill, and
shall not seek to contribute anything to the
seneationalism of this debate; but, a. one
who participated in the deliberations of the
last Congress, desire to express in the brief.
eat manner my own position in respect to the
subject under discussion. When the propo-
sitiOn to increase salaries was presented to the
last Congress l wae unable to give it my ap-
prevail, not 20 much from any conviction
that the increase proposed was disprcportion-
ate to the reasonable needs of Members and
Senators in the Efficient and honorable exc
cution of the duties of their official life, az
because deemed it unwise and ipjudicious in
the then existing state of the country, its f.
nances and its obligations, to enlarge expen-
ditures in that direction, and was of opin-
ion that it was better for Cougressmen, Sen
atOrs, heads of DEPARTMENT., and Supreme
Judges to await the advent of more prosper
Gus times before insisting upon more COM
plete and adequate compensation. there
fore opposed and voted against the measure
in all its preliminary stages; but after it had
been attached to the eenersl legislative, ex-
ecutive, and judicial appropriation bill BY q
proved by the conference committee of the
House and Senate, favored the adoption of
the report, covering AZ it did other Iegisla-
ton of vital Importance, the question upon
which could not be divided and the failure
of which would jeopardise the entire bill.
The circumstances and consideration which
led me 10 the views I then entertained, ad-
verse to the measure, still exist with in
creased force; and as the question is now
again presented unembarrassed by complica-
tons with other Legislation, shall faver
and vote for the reinstatement of the former
rule of compensation, or any measure that
approximates it.
Sir, although upon the hastings, and in
much of the sensational journalism of the
country this snbject has been largely discussed
as involving a question of moral integrity,
insist that it il not actually such any more
than is any other subject of legislation
within the proper scope of congressional &C.
ton. In view of the undoubted constitu-
tional power of every Congress to fix the
compensation of its own members, in view
of the fact that that power has repeatedly
been exercised by Congress with the approx
al of the country, in the same mode as was
done by the Forty second congress, and by the
most honored names IN our history, he must
be bold man, or q man ignorant or reck-
le,s of the facts OF history, who would for
that cause impute = want of personal or off.
cial integrity. Whether the legislation Of
1873 upon this subject was wise and judi
cious or not, if those who participated in
its enactment are to be impaled in obloquy
by reason of its retroactive features, then it
is an obloquy that must be shared by the
members Of the Thirty-faurth aud Thirty
ninth Congresses, and they, embracing such
names as Solomon Foote, John P. Hale,
Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson, William
II. Seward, John ]. Orittenden, Benjamin
F. Wade, Stephen A. Douglas, Hannibal
Hamlin, Lyman Trumbull, William Pitt
Fessenden, E. B. Washburne, Robert
Schenck, and Thaddeus Stevens, must like
wise be placed in attainder of perpetual re-
proach; for of these. and all the other men,
bers of Congress in 1856 and 1866, some
voted for, and all, with one exception) re-
ceived the benefits Of, the retroactive salary
bills of those years. Such names as these
cannot be divided from the glory of our his
tory, and no principle can be just the appli-
cation of which would consign them to re
proach. If in principle there was any diff
ference bet Ween the act of 1866 and that of
1873, it would certainly have been sharply
developed in the course of this debate; but
even the industry and acumen of the gentle
man from Ohio Mr.. Lawrence have been
unable to discover any distinction, and when
pressed upon the point is compelled to con-
cede that the Gully difference between the two
is that one was more generally approved
than the other.
Frequent reference ia made to the alleged
public will of the country upon this subject.
Ii ia trne that, sir, that it has been the sub
iect of wide discussion, and while no one
doubts the fact that the adverse criticism has
largely proceeded from honest conviction
and patriotic effort and purpose in the direc-
lion of a Just administration of government,
il Is not necessary to disguise from ourselves
the fact that no uncomfortable portion of il
liberal criticism has been the offspring OF
personal and political hate and rivalries and
political ambitions. Still after
making due allowance for that which is only
the considered vituperation of speech and
pen, and which entities itself 10 no considera-
lion think in fairness it must be conceived
that the settled judgment of the country in
sists upon reinstatement substantially of the
old law. To the considered and we'll ascer-
tanned Judgment of the country, upon any
proposed subject of lawful legislation, l
should be disposed to defer, even if my own
views were otherwise. But in addition to
the considerations originally involved IN this
subject, but the question comes upon us now,
when the condition of the country demands
our earnest effort in the direction of re-
trenchment and of outstanding of the resour-
ces of the country, and whatever may be our
own views of the value OF congressional SER
vices, we cannot do better than to begin econ
omy and retrenchment with ourselves.
A Scene In Congress.
Washington Correspondence Danbury News
And the ladies, too. God bless 'em; how
hey chatter and snigger, and wave their
headdrespes of every conceivable style and
attitude. and how they MUNICH peanuts and