The weekly Oskaloosa herald. [volume] (Oskaloosa, Iowa) 1855-1885, 1873-04-24
ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SALARY
STEAL

STEAL.
The Dubuque Times, taking up the
cry that the members of late Con
gress could not take the back pay
without being guilty of stealing, be.
cause they had virtually contracted
TO serve at the old pay, thinks that
is not the end of it. II the matter of
contract comes up, it wants to know
why it will not also apply to the pre-
sent Congressman who were elected
under the old pay. But we will let
1t present its own case. 1t says:
eve think we had and have as in
tense feeling toward the men who
voted for the bill for an increase of
salaries as the editor of the Hawkeye,
or of the Republican, or of any
journal. We have denounced these
men, and always shall denounce them
and earnestly endorse the suggest
ion of the New York Times, in an
article we published yesterday, that
from this time benceforth and for
ever they be shut out from public
place or political preferment.
But we confess we cannot see our
way clear to demand upon mem
bers of Congress, that they shall not
accept this pay. We cannot see
with what propriety Judge Wright,
for instance, can refuse to take the
pay fixed by this law for his two
first years of service, and yet accept
the same pay for his four remaining
years of service. If, as those who
are denouncing the acceptance of
this pay by Messrs. Wright, Nc
Crary, Cotton, Donnan and Orr, say,
the criminality of that acceptance
consists in the fact that these men
when they accepted the offer accept
ed the pay, and have no right to
take more than then contracted to
receive, then every one of the mem
bers will be just as indefensible in
accepting more than five thousand
dollars year for The next two years,
and the Senators for the next four
years, as in accepting it for the past
two years. If the contract which
the member makes with the people
is to serve at the pay fixed by the
law at the time of election, and not
at the pay that may at any time be
| fixed by law, then most assuredly
Messrs. McCrary, Cotton, Donnan
and Orr are just as morally bound to
refuse to take more than S., 900 for
the next years salary. And Senator
Wright is as morally bound to re-
fuse to take more than $4,000 per
annum for the next four years, as he
is to refuse to take more than that
sum per annum for the past two
years. And we must go further still,
and declare that Senator Allison is
morally bound to take no more than
900 per annum salary for his term
of six years; and Messrs. Pratt,
Wilson, Loughridge, Kasson and
McDill are morally bound to receive
no more than $4,000 per annum tor
their term of two years. When
these men were elected the salary
fixed to their officers was $4,000 pei
annum. There was much of con.
tract between them and the people,
as between Messrs. Wright, McCra.
ry, Cotton, Donnan and Orr and the
people to serve for this SALARY
But there will be no demand that
these men shall not take the salary
fixed by law, in the future, and we
cannot see the propriety for demand.
ing that those of them who were in
the last Congress should not take
the salary fixed by law for their past
duties. Congress has the unques.
toned right to fix the salary and to
make it retrospective. There is no
question, therefore, as to the legality
of this salary. The outrage was
perpetrated by the men who support
ed the unjust bill. And in our
judgment, earnest and honest op.
position to that bill, such as was
shown b. the members of Congress
from Iowa, and BY Senator Wright,
ought to absolve them from any
adverse criticism in the premises.