The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1873-09-18

the Republican party are not responsible
for it. Why, they applied a very differ
EFT rule to US in times gone by. Hadnot
the Republicans an overwhelming major
ity in the House of Representatives. Had
they mot a majority of three to one, and
| more than this in the Senator Had they
not the President of the United States,
whoas simple veto would nave prevented
that dlsgraceful affair from becoming a
law2 How was it when the Missouri Com
promise was repealed? The majority OF
the Democrats in Congress voted against
that repeal, when AL the Northern Dem
\ ocrats voted against it and the repeal was
carried by the votes of the Southern Dem
ocl ats and Southern Wings; when it was
said that was not a party measure they
replied, the Democrats have q majority
! OF both branches, and you have the Presi-
dent who can veto the bill, therefore you
are responsible for the repeal of the Mis-
souri, Compromise. And they said it with
such effect that whereas the year before
that repeal we carried Ohio by a tremen-
dous majority, the next election after the
repeal we were defeated by over $4,000.
This is how Democrats were held Tespon-
sible when they were in power. That is
how they applied it TO us. But when ii
comes TO the salary grab they say: ooh,
don't hold US responsible" But we say
the party having the majority in both
branches, with the President, is response
bic for the legislature in Congress.
Who believes that bill could have pass
ed if President Grant had but hooked his
little fnger2 1t would no more have
passed than you can live without breath
ing the vital air. 1t was known he was
in favor of it. But supposing he had not
been, he had only to say al veto this
bill" and il would have been as dead as a
stone. Instead of that, Grant said: cap
proved, u. s. Grant, President of the
United States" and it is put on the re-
colds of the Government. 1t will not do
to say now that they are not responsible
Tor that thing. GApplause.l
MOTIONS sALARY GRAB MANEUvER.
/ could, if / had time, show You by the
-voeeS-CNseT upon that occasion where the
responsibility rests by the action of the
party leaders, but l will not do so except
in one single case. In that case the gem
tleman has seen fit to come into this State
to instruct you how to vote.
In the progress Of that bill they dared
not introduce this increase of salary in an
independent bill. If they had done so it
would have been defeated. They moved
it as an amendment to the Appropriation
Bill, and that out off debate by moving
the previous question. In the Senate we
were limited u fve-minute speeches, 30
we had no chance to talk. That was the
cunning way they acted.
Now, the Appropriation Bill had passed
the House of Representatives and came.
TO the Senate, where it was amended j n
certain particulars. As it came from the
House of Representatives this salary grab
was moi in it. But these men were lying
in wait during these last expiring hours
Of Congress 10 perpetIate this thing. 80
they waited till the bill came back 10 the
House or Representatives,, when Benla-
min +. Butler moved this sAlary-gra6 as
an amendment to an amendment made by
the Senate increasing the salary OF the
President, Vice President, Cabinet officers,
heads of bureaus, divers clerks, &c, and
hually members OF Congress, thus making
1t go back so as to pay them for two years
work which had already been paid for by
the House of Representatives.
When the bill came back to the Senate
therbiwas q test vote on the amendment.
An amendment was moved by Mr., Ed
munds, of Vermont, to strike put ali the
House amendments except 50 much as
relatedto the Presidents salary. If that
amendment had prevailed the whole eff
feet of the bill would have been to raise
the Presidents salary, and no single mem
Der of Congress- would have had a dollar
additional paw, and his salary would not
IL ,,oI ~ oil 4 hat tWaQ q. fest
vote, and had it prevailed it would have
killed the salary grab, exeeptso far as the
President Of the United States was con-
cerned, and it would have cut down the
amount of the grab from one and a half
million collars Il one hundred thousand
dollars. That was q pretty good reduc-
ton, and I would very cheerfully have
voted for it, That, / say, was a test vote,
and everybody knew il it prevailed there
would have been an end to b salary
crab. And where in this vote was found
the nams of Senator MoTton2 He voted
that amendment; he voted tokeep
the salary grab in the bill, and yet this
Senator of Indiana comes here and tells he
VIE opposed to Kissing the salaries. After
mak:.9 q speech in the Senate, the whole
effect Of which was to Justify the increase
of it, after being on the wrong aide, he
comes around here telling you he wal OPP
posed to raising the pay OF members OF
Congress; and not only that, but he has
actually turned over his money into the
Treasury. He was a long time do
ing it. It requreds good deal more kick
ING than an old man ought to repelVs be-
fore he esme into that frame Of mind.
Loud laughter and ahserR sas
WoULp-RE LEApESs SF THE SENATE
Now who are the trne men, who of all
aspire to be considered leaders of
the Republican party in the Senate2I
Conkling, of New York, and Morton, of
Indiana. Both of these men voted against
that amendment of Mr.. Ednunds, and
voted to keep the salary grab in the bill.