Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1873-05-16
WEAK REASONING.

pis suSAS hosh
ing so unworthy the education and In
telllgence Of the present day as tile
moral and mental obtuseness Of the
average Congressman. We are led to
these remarks by reading some Of the
reasons Of tho Hon. Mr.. Shellabarger,
Of Ohio, for taking bis $1,000 back pay
steal. Mr.. Shellabarger voted against
the fraud ; for some time he has kept
quiet and allowed the impression to
obtain throughout the country that he
had returned his modicum Of the steal
to the Treasury or refused to draw 1t
from the Sergeant-atArms. Final
ly, however, the truth came to
light, and Mr.. Shellabarger, Of Ohio,
rises to explain. In answer to
the upbraldings Of his constituents,
he planks himself and his argument
upon two p~ostulates. First, that he
never did or can err; and second. that
Congress In majority a 10 nothing
wrong, and this Is how he puts it
II 1 did wrong In taking $1,000 back
pay, 1t was not my first sin, for I took
back pay under the Act Of July, 1865.
which gave the Congress that passed 1t
eight months pay" There! The
question Is answered, the argument
ended. II Mr.. 8. stole the peoples
money In 1866. he had the same right
to steal In 1873. Logic profound!
Jones steals Smiths horse and when
accused OF the theft justifies by saying
1t Is not the first horse of Smiths he
has stolen. Who shall say this an
swer of Shellabarger.s does not cover
the whole subject? 1t does more. 1t
covers all future possibilities Of the
case, for II Mr.. Shellabarger should,
unfortunately for the country, be
hereafter returned to Congress and
uniting In another and greater grab,
b upbraided BY his bewildered con-
~stituents, be could stand proudly up
In the consciousness Of = complete re-
ply aud say l took 5000 back pay
10 1873, who shall say I have not the
right to take $40. 900 now? Oh, adml-
rable answer! Oh, wonderful logic!
Mr.. s. Is justified because 1t Is not his
first theft.
But MI. 9. does not stop here. He
wants to vindicate himself SO COM
pletely that no criticism a find room
to perch, even on the hook which
sustains his official garments. There
fore this second clinoher, II possible,
even more profound, more unanswer-
able than the first. Hear him: 81
would be unworthy tho society Of gen.
tlemen, much more, Of q place In the
American Congress, did 1 By any act
Of mine indicate that the money my
comrades voted me was so polluted by
their act OF robbery that l was too holy
to take It." Conslderate Shellabarger!
Remarkable man! He didn't vote for
this grab. He says he "wrestled In
the forum of his conscience to decide
rightly" He succeeded In temporarily
overcoming his avarice and opposed
the bill. Mr.. S. knew that the act was
a fraud ; that 1t deliberately robbed
the people Of n perpetual annuity Of
over three quarters Of a million Of
money. His conscience told him 1t
was stealing and he voted no! But
there were too many without con-
science In that Congress or their
"wrestlss" with that monitor were
not equally rel or successful. The
infamous robbery Act was passed de-
spite the vote of Mr. 5. Now came
the second strife between avarice and
honesty between tho love Of mammon
and tue performance OF duty. Mr.. s.
"wrsstled with his conscience once
more, but this time the strife was hard
or ; the money was his legally. If not
morally, and avarice said take 1t, while
protested that II 1t was
wrong to vote for the passage Of the
bill, 1t was equally so to take the
money under It. The struggle soon
however; conscience was
smothered, and Mr. S. enjoys t?) his
q, 900. 1t Is strange his constituents
see the force Of Mr.. Shellabar-
ger's reasoning; that they don't see
that the vote OF a majority In favor of
Of an act Of treachery utterly changes
tho nature of tho act Itself. Perhaps
We all shall In time. Meanwhile we
cannot agree with the theory Of Mr.. S.
that the fifty-two Senator's and Repre-
who have refused their por-
ton Of the plumber are "unworthy
tho society Of gentlemen, much more
Of q place In the American Congress-"