The Andrew County Republican. [volume] (Savannah, Mo.) 1871-1876, 1873-05-30
THE
sn'rs" County Republican.
TERMS: 81 so per gear, Ia adrdncc.
FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 30. 1873
uBACK PAY"

Those members of Congress who vot-
ed to themselves increased ''back pay
have come in for a fair share of news.
paper ensure 1t is to be hoped that
are actuated from motives
of patriotism and honesty rather than
demagoguery and spite. 1t isl fine
thing for the Democratic press. They
can now ring the changes upon the
"salary grab" done by a Republican
Congress. 1t is a subject of wonder 10
some how they can charge Republicans
with it when Democrats were equally
implicated, but it is nevertheless done.
Editors whose reputation for honesty
never existed, now have a cheap road to
gain an excellent name for purity of
purpose by assailing those Congressman
who voted to increase their salary, and
thew use the handle with surprising eff
feet, calling United States Representa-
tiyes and Senators "villains,r ''thieves,"
and other even more inelegant names.
The natural inference is that if the
.dear people" had elected these pious
and good editors-these models of rec
titudc-to Congress, this thing wouldn't
have happened. We prefer to reserve
our opinion on that point, however. 1t
may be, too (but we hope not), that
many county papers feel a something
rancoring in their bosoms On account of
the new postal law requiring subscribe
ers to county papers to pay postage,
and vent their spleen on the heads Of
Congrcssmen-not for abolishing the
franking privilege and free postage, but
for drawing back pay! Now, the fact
is, there was some reason. in Govern
ment officials having the franking pow
er, but none whatever in county papers
passing free through the mails, al
though the postage on them should be
less than on newspapers which traverse
the continent. But, to our mind, the
country publisher who thinks Uncle
Sam. should carry his little paper to his
subscribers for nothing is just as ''mor-
ally rotten as they charge those Con-
gressmen to lie who thought their salary
0 small and voted to increase it.
The Madison (Wisconsin) Homo Dt-
arg is n Of those iercely honest pa
pers, whose editor would ''chaw up"a
Congressman if he eorld get hold of
One. Ii says:
1.-The daylight thief is a nobleman
compared to the midnight marauder.
The open villain in Congress who voted
fheb back pay has some sense of man.
hood left; he who voted against it and
then takes it is a puppy of base breed.
If We have any such ours in Wisconsin.
let them be forthwith eo]lared and muz-
zled."
To which the Wiae<< replies in a can
did, cool and proper
1.-The question Of increase Of salary
will undoubtedly he taken up By the
members elect at the nexf session. and
if it should be deemed proFser, after due
deliberafion, to let the salaries remain
rs they are, W. see no reason why the
members of the last Congress would do
wrong in taking extra pay, whether
they voted for it or not. We fail to see
why it would be mere equitable for IA
member Of Congress elected to another
terra to vote himself or accept extra pay |
for the succeeding Congress than for
him t. vote or accept the same for the |
expiring Congress. If. however, the
next Congress should see fit to reduce |
the salaries from the present rate, and
fix them sgain at the old rate. we
should expect every honest Congress-
man to pay into the Treasury whatever
excess o the rate permanently cs-
tablished he should have received under
the pres, ut Law.
"Siewing the question in this light,
we cannot but regard the Home Diary,
az well as most of Our exchanges. as
rather hasty in ~denouncing every Con-
gresham who fails to hand over the
extra pay to the Treasurer without a
moments delay. We heard of one
member who was asked swhat he was
going to do about it, and he replied:
We'll. l suppose that if | take the back
pay you will call me a thie', and it'll
don't take if you will call me a hypocrite.
And we submit whether he is not pref
ty nearly right. The taking or refusing
Of it has been = question ofpolicy mere
~ on the part Of Congressman. Wei
think those members Of Congress, who
wait and zee what may he done in re-
gard 10 the question in the future, show
their good sense; and if it is definitely
decided that the salaries are insufficient ,
and ought to be raised, they will dol
right in taking the back pay which was J.
voted. In 1856, and again in 1866.
Congressional salaries were raised at
the close of long sessions, and the in ,
'rease was made to d.te back 10 the COM
n~eHcenenf Of the terms. Such men as
seward. Boutwell,. Sumner, Douglas, /.
,;iddings, Washburn. and othe Is. re-
.ciycd back pay then without being !
denounced as villains. &C.. and there is )
10 inst reason why such appellations !
be used now IL
There seem TO be p~recedents for the :
back pay feature. The matter ut is :
ne. then. Il. should the salaries remain !
% 800 or be again fixed at 8 !, 900. h
We are OF The opinion that $1,000 Is am .
It was sufficient during the war 4
nd since. when prices were much more p
'1stcdthan now, and we can see no just i
for increasing it. The next Con- u
ress must put it down again, and all !.
honest men who have drawn their !
xtra pay will return il. !.
Hfa.nA-. De- A