Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1873-07-17

and would have accomplished it, Then
could have considered the question
whether duty to my family did not re-
qulrc me to engage in some field of labor
where | might save something for the
future-for 'rainy day." or advancing
age.
| l here copy from the Globe, containing
the House proceedings of February 2oth,
and invite attention to the official vote
on the pro osition to amend the appro
priation bill by adding the salary propos-
ition:
The Speaker. On this question the
yeas and nays have been demanded.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was
decided in the negative-yeas 50, nays
100, not voting 81; as follows :.
i Yeas-Messrs. Averill, Banks, Bing-
ham, James G. Blair, Boarman, Buckley,
Burdett, Roderick R. Butler, Cobb,
Dickey, Dodds, DuBose, Duke, Ed
Golladay, Hancock, Hanks, Harper,
George E. Harris, Hays, Herndon,
Houghton, King, Lamison, Lansing,
Maynard McJunking, Morey, Morphis,
Leonard Myers, Negley, Silas L. Nib
lack, Peck, Perce, Platt, Price, Prindle,
Rainey, Randall, Robinson, John Rog
ers, Sion H. Rogers, Shanks, Sheldon,
Sherwood, Sloss, Snapp, Snyder, Storm,
Stoughton, st. John, Sutherland, Sy-
pher, Thomas, Turner, Tuthill, Wad-
dell Wallace, Whiteley, Williams of In
| diana, and Young-69.
Nays-Messrs Acker, Adams, Arthur,
Barber, Beatty, Bell, Bigby, Bird, Aus
tin Blair, Boles. BraXton, Buflnton,
Bunnell, Burchard, B. F. Butler, Cald-
f we'll, CobIrn, Conger, Cotton, Cox,
/ Crebs. Grassland, Davis, DAVIS, Donnan
Dox, DuelI, Dunnell, Eames, Farms
worth, Finkelnburg, Charles Foster
2 Henry D. Foster, Wilder D. Foster
, Frye, Garfield, Goodrich, Griffith, Hale
t Halsey, Handley, John I. Harris, Ha
t vens, John B. Hawley, Joseph R. Haw
5 ley, Hay, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W
S Hazclton, Hereford, Hubbard, Hill, Hoar
h Holman, Kelley, Kellogg, Kerr, Killinger
D tyre. Marshall, McClelland, Mccormick
McCrary, McGrew, McHenry, McKin
r nev. Merriam, Merrick, Benjamin F
e Meyers, Monroe, William E. Niblack
t Orr. Packard, Packer, Palmer, Hose;
1t w. Parker, Isaac G. Parker, Pendleton
e Perry, Poland. Potter, Read, EdwarC
IS Y. Rice, John NJ. Rice, Ritchey, Eli
e II. Roberts, Rusk, Sargent, Sawyer
v Scofield, Sessions, Shellabarger, Shober
" Shoemaker, Slocum, Il Boardman Smith
t JOHN A. Smith, Worthington G. Smith
l. Spcer, Sprague, Starkweather Stevenson
i Swami, Dwight Townsend, Washington
}. Townsend, Twitchell, Tyner, Upsor
le Vaughan, Wakeman, Walden, Waldror
,e Wells. Wheeler, Willard, jeremiah N
C. Wilson, and John L. Wilson-120,
" Gen. Butler voted in the negative fo
ic the purpose of moving n reconsideration
is desire to be explicit here in orde
r. that there may be no misunderstan ding.
al When was in the army was oppo
&c ed to the system of allowances whic
i'll prevailed there as the part of the pay
rs officers, believeing it should all be il
It, cluded in one definite fixed salary; an
" during the 41st Congress | assisted
nd framing bill making this provisio
III the same thing for members of Congre
Dv ALWAYS insisting that the whole ps
is should be reduced to a salary, and a
ce allowances should be cut off. With n
IL it was "a question of principle" pc
" haps the word of thief" should
| taken with much allowance but | kno
lit that speak the truth; and every ho1
al since have been In Congress, hay
NJ been in favor of the repeal of all ALLOW
ICE ances, including The mileage, and Il
RS payment of members in a fixed sala
er, that every one could understand. Eve
to vote have cast on the subject was
nd accomplish this end. 1t will be impos
be lblc to fihd vote of mine inconsiste
Of with this position. At all times in bo
it'll the 41st and 42d Congresses whenev
lat any measure to repeal the Frankil
to Law was brought forward, voted fl
or it. When the proposition to change t
salary so as to cut off the mileage, al
the stationery allowance was first repo
ND ed from the committee on the judicial
with the motion to make it ia order
consideration-not for passage, | vot
ses for it in the hope that we could get frc
he it the abolition of the allowance
eA eA- When the $500 proposition, which
lol voted against was defeated, | voted
eIe adjourn. and the next day voted to
.no consider, because an amendment was
lhg be moved substituting $1,000 for whI
use use I voted, believing that although 1t inclr
., olo ed the AID Congress- the addition
/, .hs ; amount of pay under it, would have be
VI so insignificant as to be unworthy ofce
on u sideration when so great reform mig
: n ~ be effected as the cutting off of miles
Ors and other allowances My final v,
- | lOI Ilic cApIiOpIldt3oh u Dlll uCtetc hO
aV planation as any one can see that its {
W y. feat would have been very serious m
UNI i take voted for it for the same reasc
ene which induced the President to sign il
eo , reasons which have been very forcil
tne s stated in defense of the President by
oer Chichago Inter Ocean and tha Lapo
"as Herald Legislation of the highest
: 10 portance was in the Bill-legislat
1nl' which it would have been calamity
enS loose, legislation which is essential
lree save to the country the whole amount
principal and interest of the bonds to
eA- Racific railroads. l could not then 8
was would not now take the responsibility
the assisting to defeat measure so diree
;%o. % and largely affecting the interests Of
nau people Of this country, especially afte
anu had done all that could be required of
pio 1,;o by casting my vote against any incres
Dno when the question came not eomplica
iine by other and much more import
~, VI measures.
'has l may say in conclusion that dur
~ " four year service IN Congress, 1T
s1ns @ been my privilege to vote many tir