The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1873-07-18
Hon. Chas Foster Sound on the Back
Paw Question.

| Hon. Chas Foster Sound on the Back
Pay Question.
We had never entertained the
idea that our Congressman had re-
| ceived any part of the backpay voted
by the last Congress, although we
were not aware of his intention in
regard to it. We believed him a
consistent opponent of the measure,
| and as such one who would not ap-
propriate 1t to his own use. From
the following it will be seen that his
first intention was to apportion it
among the counties of the district
for the benefit of the common school
fund, purpose laudanle enough in
itself, but Objectionable as regards
this matter, because it would have
been virtual recognition Of right
in that which the good sense of the
people unqualiliedly condemn. This
Foster has discovered, and recogniz-
ing the fact that the people would
be satisfied with nothing short of its
return TO the treasury, he has recon
sidered his determination, and taken
the necessary steps to have the
amount ($42 2OO) covered back into
the treasury, whele ''it will do the
most good" Let his name be placed
among the roll Of honor.S
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE TENTH OHIO
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
That you may know fully the ac-
ton proposed, as well as the one
adopted in relation to the disposal of
the amount due me from the "back-
paw feature of the bill increasing
the compensation Of Members Of
Congress, / submit the following
statement:
The bill was passed On the Sd of
March; Congress adjourned on the
4th. l left Washington on the 9Th,
arriving home on Saturday the 8th.
On the 10th of March l wrote the
following letter to an old and valued
friend and neighhor-Dr r. G. Ca
ples-explaining my proposed ac-
tion and purpose l handed it to him,
with whom it has remained until the
date of his note to me herewith;
FosToRIA, O., March 10, 1873.
My DEAR SIR; Having been a
consistent opponent of the late act
of Congress increasing the compen-
sation of Members of Congress, and
feeling that the retroactive clause
was especially indefensible and
wrong, l have decided not to be pc
cuniarilly benefited by this feature
of the bill The question to be de-
cided is, what disposition shall be
made of my so called "back-pay"? =?
To refuse to take it, is to simply
leave it where / or my heirs can, at
any future time, legally claim it-a
claim that doubtless would be recOg-
nized and paid whenever application
was made for its payment. If it
shall appear that this shack pay"
will be generally drawn and used for
the personal benefit of Members of
Congress, the people of my District
will have contributed their proper
tion of taxes to make up the aggre-
gate taken, and having thus paid
their share of the total cost, it seems
to me that common fairness requires
the return to them of the amount
my due, about $4,000.
/ have decided upon this course,
and will, at the next distribution of
Common School Funds, pay over to
the different counties of the District
their respective proportional
amounts according to the enumera-
tion of youth of school age, and re-
quest the proper officers to appor-
tion it with the State School Funds.
In coming to this conclusion / do
not propose to arrogate to myself
superior virtue over my associates,
but simply act as 1 feel in honor
bound to act. Nor do 1 desire to
make proclamation of my purpose
at this time, but desire to place on
record my proposed action. If the
publication of this letter becomes
necessary, 1 shall ask you to make it
public, but for the present you will
please regard it as confidential.
Respectfully, your friend,
G. FOSTER.