Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-04-22
OPINIONS OF THE sBACK PAY

stricken out" and he voted for the appro-
priation bill with the back pay in It, In or
der TO save the expense ofan extra session.
BE states very frankly that bis hesitancy on
this question has chiefly risen from an un-
willingness even to seem, in refusing TO keep
this money, 10 reflect upon those of his fell
low-members "who honorably and conscien-
tiously take different view of the natter,
and he adds:
GAS, however, l joined in the report of
the Committee Of Conference, and voted in
favor of the bill on grounds of public duty,
| so feel entitled to eliminate from the re-
suit of my official action an item of pecuni-
airy advantage to myself which l felt con-
strained to vote for under the circumstan-
ces have stated, but for which L would
not have voted as separate measures"
Representative Farnsworth, of Illinois,
who voted not only against the "salary
STEAL" but against the appropriation bill,
has devoted his share of the 'swsg" to the
abatement of taxes in his own district, on
the assumed theory that each district pays
its own member. He had taken the posi-
ton in Congress, when the subject was IN
der discussion, "that a President who
should sign bill increasing his own salsry
would deserve impeachment and in
somewhat lengthy letter, he disc uses this
point as follows:
81 am not surprised that the people are in
~ ~ al
t1Idl bribery by an expiring Congress and
recently reelected President; indeed, were
they not so, it would be cause for real as
constituent. With immense public debts,
National and State and local; with increas-
ing taxes, and decreasing price for our pro-
ducts; with the rapid encroschment of
s'Iings" and monOpoies, who have gorged
| themselves and grown rich upon the blood
of the war, and the toll and sweat of the
masses; with such reckless waste and ex-
trsvsgsnce in the use of public money as
has been seen at Washington during the
last few years-no wonder the country is
| agitated, or its attention arrested at last.
But, it should be remembered that, with
out the approval of the President,
this increase of salaries could not
have been accomplished Indeed,
without tie cooperation and favor of the
President, Congress itself would not have
adopted it. This was well understood at
! The time. Neither would Congress consent
to i-crease the Presidents salary, standing
| by itself, upon its Own merits. This was
shown in the House, when, in Committee
of the Whole, Mr.. Sargent first moved to
| increase his salary. The committee refused
TO entertain or consider it, actually over
| ruling a correct decision of tne Chairman
| (Mr. Dawes, of Mas sachusetts,) to beat it,
so obnoxious was the proposition when
standing by itself. II was only by coup
| ling the two together, Congress and Presi-
dent, that either had any hope of success.
"The Constitution says: The President
shall, at stated times, receive for his ser
vices a compensation, which shall neither
be increased nor diminished during the pc
Rod for which be shall have been elected
Mark the language: Shall not be increased
during the PERIOD for lUhich lie shall hare
been elected In preceding clause, the
| Constitution defn a term to be four
years; and, if the trainers of that instru-
ment intended to limit the prohibition of
the power TO increase the Presidents salary
to single term, why did they not use that
word instead of the word PERIOD" The
latter word covers the whole time, whether
il be one term or two, or half dozen, that
a man shall have been elected President.
''When there is doubt about the correct in
depreciation of law, we look to the object
or reason of the provision. Was not the
oil ject Of that provision, in short, to prevent
President from helping to make law in-
creasing his own compensation? During
the discussion in the House, inquired of
Mr.. Maynard, of Tennessee, and also Mr..
Butler, OF Massachusetts, (both of whom
voted for the billy, what was the object Of
that provision of the Constitution? Mr..
Maynard replied that it was to prevent Con-
gress from bribing the President Mr.. But |
Ter answered that it was to prevent the |
President from using his power to increase |
his own salary, or, in other words, from |
bribiDg Congress. Such being the |
opinions of the friends and champions Of |
increased pay whether they look at the |
Constitution straight Eor crooked), it was |
difficult to understand why it was not as
much violation of the spirit and intention |
of the Constitution to increase the COM |
pensation of the President by bill passed |
and approved by him at IL o'clock at night, |
on Monday, the 81 of March, as by bill |
passed and approved by the same President
on Tuesday, the 4th. Congress could as
use his power and influence upon Congress,
on one day as the other. In eth
er case, the President helps to make the
law which increases his own salary "during
the period for avhich he has been
elected" The excuse tnat the Legislative
Appropriation bill would have been lost,
and an extra session of Congress necessary,
if the conference report had been defeated,
or if the President had vetoed the bill, is
mere pretense. l have already said that,
without the favor of the President, the
amendment increasing salaries could never
have passed Congress; and if he had vetoed
it, the bill would have been promptly PISS
ed with the obnoxious provision left out.
So, too, a defeat of the conference report by
either House would simply have had the
effect to recommit the bill to another con.
ference committee.
"The ple2 that larger salaries are neces-
sary to enable President and members of
Congress to live respectfully in Washington
is not true. No other President has asked
for more:' Mr.. Lincoln saved half his ssla-
ry, and that, too, when gold was 200 and
over. And yet the allowances, 'inciden-
tals,' and contingencies for Mr.. Lincoln
were far less liberal than for the present
occupant of the White House. The follow
ing appropriations, made in 1864 and 1873,
are, believe, fair examples, and may be
regarded as a pretty fair sample of our
rapid growth in extrayagant expenditures
of late:
For Lincoln, 1864. For Grant, 1873
For Secretary TO For Secretary to
sign patents 81 800 sign patents -. 81 800
For Private Sec For Private Sec
rotary, Steward Rotary, Stewart,
and Messenger. 1900 Messenger and
For contingent two Executive
expenses Of Ex- Clerks. .... 1880
ecutive Office. 2,OO0tFOr contingent
For two Night expenses Of Ex-
watchmen 1200l ecutive Office. 5000 |
For two Door For one Watch
keepers ......,. 20Ol man and two
For one Furnace POliCemen..... $40 |
keeper.....,.. 6OOIFor two Door
For fuel......... 2,4OO keepers and one
For repairs of Usher... ,..... $500
house and for For one Furnace
furniture, for keeper. 720
proving For fuel. ......... 5000 |