River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1873-10-21

man made less show or lived with greater
/ simplicity. 1t is my deliberate conviction
! that with a salary of $1,000 year, you
will have better members than at $4,000.
Make the salary large, and every smart
rascal in the country will try to brihe his
way through, and many will succeed !;
| but whether rascals or not, big pay and
a life of luxury will render members lazy
and inefficient. do not propose to as.
| sail those gentlemen who voted for the
| increased pay bill. To abuse those whom
everybody else is abusing, does not seem
right. They have a heavy burden to bear
| and / would not if could add TO it. IL
is cruelty to add affliction to the afflicted.
/ know that most of them regret, and
many have bitterly repented their action,
and would gladly recall it. fear, how
ever, that the repentance Of many is but
the echo of the public indignation, and
is TO certain guaranty Of change Of
heart.
CEsARIsM.
You have heard a good deal of late
about Cgsarism. | suppose you know
whit that is, though | don't exactly. |
reckon it means that somebody intends TO
procllim himself at some future day the
absolu e master Of the people. If there
be any such man he will do well to re-
member that Caesar had his Brutus. Our
people have no fear of any such man and
as was well said the other day in Re-
publican Convention in Massachusetts,
"The peril to the purity of the Govern
ment lies not in high ambitions but in
low dishonesties; il comes not from those
who think of doing great things for
glory, but from men who think of doing
mean things for profit"
That the thought of a third term has
ever entered the mind of the President,
do not believe. He has too much good
sense not to know that such thing is
simply impossible. 1t is true that some
toadies ana pap-suckers have made the
suggestion and am glad they have done
so, as think it will tend to help along an
amendment of the constitution increasing
the term of the President to six years and
making him ineligible thereafter.
CHANGE OF SALARY IN 1856
But hear some one say, did not you
vote for an increase of pay in 1856, and
il so, it comes with an i'll grace from you
to criticize the action of the last Congress.
In answer, | state that | did vote for the
change of the law by which the pay of
members was changed from a per diem
to fixed salary of $1,000. The reasons
for the change were, to my mind, very
strong. The action was fully sustained
by the country as wise and judicious.
This action differed from that of the
last Congress in this, that no member vot-
ing for it had been reelected to the next
Congress, but all had to go at once before
their constituents and give an account
of themselves before they could be re-
elected. | represented then over one-half
of the territory of the State, the counties
of Rock and Dane and all west being
within my district. was reelected that
fall by about 10000 majority, or more
than double what | received two years be-
fore. This shows what my constituents
thought of my action then, when all the
facts and reasons were fresh before them.
In this last case, the increase of salary
was not proposed until gentlemen had
been reelected for two years, and all such
as voted for the bill, voted not only two
years back pay, but two years of forward
pay at $500
But why did you vote for the act of
1856! perhaps you ask again. ! will tell
4
vance, that do not pretend to be infalli-
bic, or that | have not made some mis-
takes
Ii is now nineteen years since | was
frs, elected to congress, and If, in raking
up my record during all that time, some
thing could not be found that l should be
glad to correct, It would be strange. My
excellent friend, Col. Calkins, who has a
horror of back pay, especially after OBJ
tanning $4,000, to which he was not enti-
tled-and failing to get about $4,000
more, through the interposition Of little
veto of mine, appears to have been look
ing up my record with a good deal OF dill
igence, and thus far the only points he
makes are that defended the Credit Mo-
bilier, and voted myself Increased pay in
1856 How much there is in the Credit
Mobilier transaction, you have already
seen.
In the month Of August, 1856, bill was
reported by the Hon. j. l.. Orr, leading
Democratic member from South Carolina,
who in the next Congress was elected
Speaker OF the House by the Democratic
party, to change the mode Of compensa-
ton from per diem of IS day to a sal
airy of $1,000. He made an able speech,
in advocacy of the change, in which he
showed that ii was a measure both of econ.
omy and reform. BY reason of the made
quacy of the compensation, great abuses
had grown up by which members sought
to increase their salaries one Of which was
to vote every new member a congressional
library costing 81 400, but which members
generally committed with the Clerk for
at about $1,000. Under this book abuse
the Office of Clerk Of the House was re-
garded as worth about $4,000. This was
totally reformed under the act
tor which | voted. Another abuse
that was reformed was the allowance OF
constructive mileage, at every extra SEES
sion whether member travelled or not.
This was abolished by the act in question.
In September Of the year in which the
bill passed, an extra session was held, and
under the old usage, every member would
have drawn mileage; yet no one did re-
ceiye it, by reason of this law, so that as
far as the account stood with me, was
no gamer by the change. But there was
another reason urged with great force by
the advocates OF the bill, and that was
that the adoption of the salary principle
would greatly shorten up the sessions and
thus save expense 10 the Government
/ Every day that a session of Congress Is
/ heightened beyond the time for necessary
/ public business, adds In some form many
4 times the amount Of the pay Of members.
/ The prediction then made as 10 shorten