Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1873-07-17

voted always Tor the repeai OF the Frank
ing law, knowing that its repeal would
cost me at least $1,000 per annum.
have cast my vote invariably for, and
have earnestly advocted every measure Of
retrenchment; and now, when bill con-
tanning legislation which will save to the
country from thirty to forty millions of
collars, comes before me for my action,
and vote for it, It containing another
measure which will cost the people each
per annum the interest on three cents,
al five per centum, ! am denounced as q
"swindler," a thief" "cracksman," one
who grabs the spoil" and a partici.
pator in the ''swag." 1t is said l ought
to have refused to take the ''back paw"
received II because | could not by any
possible disposition OF it have stopped
the mouth of the critics. If had dom
ated it to the District, or to some charit--
able object, should have been pronounc-
ed ''demagogue." If 1 had turned it
into the treasury, l should been called q
coward" And finally, / took it because
earned it-every dollar of it, and when
the proper legal power, whose duty un-
der the constitution it is to say how
much pay shall receive as a member of
Congress, said | was entitled to given
amount it became constitutionally, le-
gally and morally mine, and to pronounce
it ''swindle" or 'stear' is unqualifedly
and meanly false. If it be stealing" to-
receive pay under a law of Congress, then
many of Our best men of both political
parties are thieves" and if this be
"stealiug" in 1873 the same act must have
been stealing" in 1856 and 1866. WHY
] are not the men who were in Congress
then called on to deliver up their "swag."
Their offense is only the greater that
they have kept the money longer. Every
drew the back pay" in 1855 and 1866.
In 1856 the vote stood in the Senate 81 to-
II, and among those WIN voted for it
Secretary of State, Lyman TFanbull,
John P. Hale, and Henry Wilson
Among those who who voted against bus
received it, were Cass, Clay. Collamer,
Foot, Houston, Pugh, Seward, and Wade
Among the members of the House who
received it at that time, most of whoFN
voted for it also, were Henry Winter
Davis, j. r. Giddings, Howard, of Mich
igan, Orr, of South Carolina, late minister
to Russia, L. D. Campbell, Will Cum.
back, Grow, afterwards Speaker of the
/ House, Spinner, now the Treasurer of the
United States, C. c. Washburne, now
Governor of Wisconsin, and Efihu B.
J Washburne, the watch dog Of the Treas
ury" and present minister to- France.
In the Senat in 1866 the vote stood 90
to 13. and on this proposition which
j, was retroactive by eighteen months,
, among those voting for it were Buckalew
4 and Cowan, of Penn, DoolFttfe, of Wis
l., consin, Hendricks, Governor Of Indiana,
|, Henry s. Lane, Trumball, and Wilson
=. The following are among those who vo-
ted against it but received the money
r Fessenden, Grimes, Howe, Morgan
Sherman, Sumner, and Wade. In the
r House, l only mention the following
''thieves" soIae Of whom voted for it, anC
J all of whom received it, as did every
Ii member: Farnsworth, of Ills, Jenckes
II Of civil service fame, Kerr, of Indiana
/ Democratic Candidate for Congress
d man at large last fall, Niblack. in Con
n gress ever since by votes of Democrats
4, Schncek, now minister to Great Britain
IS Boutwell,, since Secretary of the Treas
y ury, now Senator, Defrees, Orth, ant
ii Shellabarger. | might name many 9th
e ers, but pause to ask in all seriousness
r are all these men "thieves?" Many O
'e them have since been indorsed over ant
W over again by the people, ant
II will be yet again and again, deservedE
'e so; but if the members Of the 42d Con
v gress are thieves" then all those me-
he are. 1t will not do to say that "grea
y moral and political questions" crowde
~ ont of view this act of theirs. They stf
to have the money, aud the country is nov
s. Informed OF their Crime" IF the pee
Mt pie were so engaged with moral ques
tn tions at the time as not to take note G
er little niatter of Stealing" their atter
lg ton is called to it now, and though the
,r have had the use of the money sc,
ne en- years, it is not too late to return i
nd They have plainly not repented as th
IT. stolen goods are still in their possession
y, and the sinner is not to be forgiven ur
or til he repents. Or does an offense Of til
ed kind eondone itself at the end Of seve
m years? A new principle IN morals
IS. seems to me.
A great reform in the manner of Il
to payment of members of Congress hs
re- been wrought, and l stand by it.
to should vote again just as l did befor
ch and prefer the record l have made
ID that Of the man who should advocate
lal repeal of the new law, and return
en- the odious and unjust inequality of Il
N old system of allowances.
nv And with this statement OF the, fact
sSte and my own views and motives, I a
sX- content to leave the whole subject vii
te- the people-the final arbiter in all cases,