Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1873-04-10
TnE aAcxsrAT sTIAI.
TAc Onilty ma tho Innscens.


.f =
From the New York Times, April i.
II is Of the last importancc that the
people should know the names OF Con.
grcssmen who voted themselves pay
for services never performed. we
have already given the vote at two
stages of the measure. We propose
now to state briefly the history Of the
measure, to analyze all the votes taken
upon 1t directly, to point out those
who are consistently and unmistaka-
bly, guilty of supporting 1t, and those
who continually and unequiyocslly
opposed it. and to leave the remainder.
whose record is not clearly pr0nonncei
on either side, to explain their course
to their constituents as best they can.
We shall confine ourselves to the
House of Representatives, emitting
the Senate, because, In the first place,
no vote was taken in the Senate which
conclusively revealed the position OF
Senators on the merits Of the case :
and secondly, because the House OF
Representatives is directly responsible
to the people, and can be sooner and
more effectually called to ACCOUNT
We also omit the final vote on the re.
port of the conference committee, be.
cause that vote embraced several other
subjects, and the vote ON it could not
be regarded as necessarily and conclu.
sively o test vote.
The history Of the salary steal Ia as
follows: On the 10th Of February q
motion was made to suspend the rules,
for the purpose of having included in
the general appropriation bill . provis.
ion increasing numerous salaries,
among them members Of Congress-
the increase in their case to apply to
the Forty second Congress. THIS pro-
vision included the naked question of
increase and back pay. The motion to
suspend the rules was lost. It receiv.
ed 81 votes and 120 votes were cast
against it. This was the first vote on
the question.
On the 18th of February, the Legis-
lative appropriation bill being before
the House a motion was made to
amend one of its clauses BY inserting
provision for increase of salaries
This also included members Of Con-
gress aud embraced the back pay. 1t
was lost, receiving only 60 votes to
10 against. This was the second vote.
General Butler gave notice of mo-
ton to reconsider the vote Just taken.
He had voted against it, that course
being necessary, we believe to give
him the parliamentary right to move
a reconsideration. In analyzing the
second vote we shall therefore count
him in the affirmative, as he was motto.
riously in favor of the proposition
On the 1st of March the motion to re-
consider came up, and 1t was moved
to lay it on the table. This would
have killed the measure. 1t failed, re-
ceiving 66 yeas and los nays, and 60
not voting. This was the third vote.
The question then required on re-
considering the vote, by which the
amendment had been killed. The
vote was reconsidered, there being
l04 yeas, IS nays and 81 not voting
This was the fourth vote.
The proposition was then changed
by rising vote, the increase for menu
bers Of Congress being reduced from
81, 800 year to $500. The back-pay
feature was retained. This was the
fifth vote. Now it IL plain that any
member who voted for the increase
and back pay on oil these votes must
be held guilty. It must also be plain
to any ono conversant with the pro-
ceedings of Congress and capable of
determining the significance of the
several votes that any member who
supported the measure on the last
three votes, and did not vote against it
on the second vote, must also be held
guilty. Such a member would be in
the position Of helping revive the
measure after it had been defeated,
and of voting for it as revived, with
out any time voting squarely against
it. On the other hand, it is plain that
members who voted continually
against the measure must be held in
nocent. With these explanations,
which are as concise as it Is possible to
make them, we append q list which
we believe to be made up in . perfect
ly just manner. The Democrats and
Liberal Republicans are indicated by
as: