New-York tribune., 1873-05-09
MR.. SHELLABARGER AND BACK PAY.

Mr.. SHELL4BARGER AND BACK PAT.
Two things being granted, the argument or
explanation of the Hon. Samuel Shelabarger
of Ohio for taking from the United States
Treasury $1,000 upon the preteXt of paying
himself for services already paid for, Is as
stately as the column of Trajan and as sohd
as the rock FL Captain. Two things granted,
and the SALARY Grab" by which the XLlld
Congress signalized its departure ceases 10 DC
an offense against common decency and COM
mon honesty, and becomes rather an illustra-
ton of the resources of craftsmanship and the
beauties Of political consistency. The two
things are: 1. That Mr. Shellabarger never
did wrong. g. That a majority of Congress
cannot do wrong.
Mr. Shellabarger's constituents are not IA
miliar with the logical processes by which he
adjusts his convictions of duty, and his distinc-
ton between right and wrong, by the standard
of his own previous action or the concurrent
action of his fellow men. Doubtless they were
so simple-minded as to apprehend only the
moral qualities of this particular transaction
separated from all others. They did not con-
slider that the thing which looked to be dis
reputable and dishonest, viewed alone, became
reputable and honest when connected with the
fact that Mr.. Shellabarger had done the same
thing before, and that majority of his fellow
Congressman approved his present action and
did the same thing themselves Shall anything
mole be said When to his upbraiding cOnstt-
uents the Hon. Samuel Shellabarger says, " If
L did wrong in taking $4,000 back pay, it
was not my first sin, for | took back pay un-
" der the act of July, 1866 which gave the Con-
gress that passed it eight months back pay,n
is not the argument ended? Shall any one say
that the Hon. Samuel Shellabarger sinned so
long ago as 1867 If he did not sin then in
taking back pay to the amount of thousand
dollars, he has not now in taking five thou
sand His answer is conclusive. 1t is better
than conclusive {: it reaches forward and covers
all future possibilities. For, if in some future
Congress he or his successor should vote him
self ten, fifteen, or twenty thousand dollars, or
more back pay, his answer TO the grumbling
taxpayer is stereotyped. "My dear Sir, if this
"is wrong it is not my first SIM" There re-
mains nothing to be said after that.
Mr.. Shellabarger's position is further sus-
tanned by the fact that a majority of Congress
passed the bill granting this back pay. 1t is
made lawful by the votes of others. He voted
against it himself. 1t would be interesting to
know his reasons for opposing it. They seem
to have been OF such a character that an ad-
verse vote utterly destroyed their force. With
out ventunng the suspicion that Mr.. Shella-
barger is not man of decided convictions,
we may be permitted TO remark that it has
not been usual for Republican members of
Congress since 1854 to defer so entirely to the
opinions of the majority. Several all-nght
sessions might have been avoided if they had,
and the anti-Slavery struggle would have ended
with Mr. Buchanans Administration. But if the
vote of Congress made this thing right, that
seems to the people to be so wrong and if
after that vote Mr.. Shellabarger thinks he
would be guilty of an act of vulgar dema-
"goguery,n or of "moral cowardice,n not to
take it, the question is settled again, and his
taking the $1,000 becomes patriotic and cour-
ageous instead of mean and dishonorable.
The defense then ia, first, that he has done it
before, and second. that his fellow members
having done it "hc would be unworthy the
society Of geatlemon. much more OF place