Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1873-07-11
sss.sron .wOHnILDs*EsrrsH.

ltlltT III utItUtt vi ulS tOuISC ickdiuihB
the disposal of the "back-pay," we give in
the following extracts:
The salary question is undoubtedly a
grave one, but one that under the Con-
stitution always has been and always must
be determined by Congress itself. From
the foundation of the government, Con-
gress has repeatedly exercised this grant
of power No other body has jurisdiction
of the subject. The same prerogative Is
held and constantly exercised by every
Legislative body of the country. Its ex-
ercise by Congress was Legitimate, and IL is
only the abuse that calls for denunciation.
If Congressmea err, as think they have
erred, by putting too high an estimate up
on the value of their services, the people
must teach them more modesty and re-
firing habits. Let those ard only those
who have been guilty OF any abuse have
the full weight of the penalty.
The naked question of the increase of
Congressional salaries, Is ono OF expedien-
cy-tnd sound policy, and, however deter
mfhed, can be in no sense a crime, though
IL may be so reprehensible blunder as to
make 1t, according to the phrase of Fouche,
"worse than crime" In this instance,
ough IL is not my business 10 defend the
act, it is fair to say that 1t was claimed by
the advocates of the measure to be right on
account ofthe high cost of living at WASH
ington, and also on account of the future
surrender of a considerable sum of mile
age, stationery, new 'papers and postage
fbn 1affar hoinn ipoo oh o,,I
known quantity. Yet it appeared to me
wholly wrong in substance, excessive in
amount, exceedingly inopportune, and,
though sustained by majority of demo-
Gratis, likely TO be detrimental TO the party
in power. 1t was more than the members
and the people expected when they were
elected. Therefore 1 did what 1 thought
reasonable to defeat the first amendment,
and TO defeat the report of the com nlittee
of conference, and finally 10 defeat the bill
upon which the measure had been engraft-
ed. 1t is to be regretted that the minority
with whom 1 co-operaed had not better
success, but the odds were too. great.
=
At the outset it was apparent that all
those in Congress- especially the outgoing
members) who voted for shack pay" would
necessarily accept of it, and it was soon
equally apparent that majority of those
who voted against II would find no over
whelming reasons to decline its advantages
1t is not improbable that three -iourths of
the whole sum appropriated has been or
will be forever withdrawn from The Treas
ury. The people OF each state will contrib
ute their full proportion of all national tax
es whether Senators and Representatives
of the State draw their share of this money
from the Treasury or not. If the Senators
of one State give their "back pay' to the
United States Treasury, while majority
of other Senators do not, then that State,
by IFS taxes and The contributions of its
Senator'S, pays twice the amount of its
| equitable share, and makes a donation to
all the States, including those whose Sem
at ors have not restored the respective
amounts to the national Treasury, as much
as their own State. Manifestly this cannot
be equitable. 1t is putting the people of a
State against whose Senators there is no
complaint, not merely on level but at a
disadvantage with those whose Senators
occupy the other side of the question and
who may have been The chief authors of
the whole cause of complaint. The people
of Virginia may think their Senators fairly
merit all they have received. If so, why
should Vermont, or its Senators be called
upon for anything by Virginia? Who
knows whether Georgia, North Carolina,
Nebraska, Illinois and other States. ap-
prove of the action of their Senators or not?
Their Senators claim that they do. Even
If they do not, would it not be enough for
those States to ask for refunding from
their own Senators before they demand
anything from Vermont? The unlikeli-
hood of securing anythings at home is not
an excuse for importantly else where Is
there anything in the character of service
rendered which should induce Vermont
Senators to rate themselves below the val
ue accorded by the people of other States
to their Senators? These questions point
to the maintenance of equality at Washing
ton, without reference to position at home
and State pride might be expected at least
to answer them in the negative.
The "back pay" by no act or connivanct
of mine, was lawfully my property-was
not "wrongly won"-and the only way tc
rid myself of it was by using 1t personally,
or by assigning and giving 1t away. Hav.
ing a valid title, assigned II to the State
Censurable as the original inception of tn,
measure may have been, my title was de
! rived from the virtue of common and
lawful exercise of the legislative power o
Co ngress, and the assignment cannot b
, impeached. Unless some taint was com
t municated to shack pay" by some wrong
: ful act of mine how can il bring dishouo
, upon the State To receive II at my hands
! 1t was not assigned rs a charity to tn
State, but as a sum due to the taxpayers
) Has any other party even colorable CLAIM
to 1t? 1 did not hand II over to any edu
, cational or other benevolent object, for tn
} reason that knew of none in which all @
J the people of the State felt an equal interest
+ and for the additional reason that such
course might lead the uncharitable to sup
r pose was trying to earn cheap reputa
t ton for generosity when really though
, myself no more entitled TO credit for wha
r / was doing than should be If instead
had paid as / might, an honest debt. l
seemed 10 me, when l resolved to abandon
b 'back pay" that the taxpayers of Yer
mont were best entitled to my favor. 1t !
quite possible this conclusion was wrong
desirous as i was and am to be right; bu
while have seen considerable sentimen
- tai dissent as to my action, have seen N
argument which uproots my conviction G
its inherent propriety.
Senator Bsyard excepted.