New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-06-29
in the constitution. and I shall show that !,

of Congress shall receive a compensation
for their service. to be ascertalned by law.
to be paid out Of the treasury OF the United
States. When the first Congress assembled.
one of the absolute duties imposed upon
them was to ty their own compensation
The constitution declared that member,
should receive compensation" 1t also
declared! that such a compensation should.
be fixed BIZ law" Congress. could receiva
a, con bensa:ion unit! the law was passed.
ant: Congress alone could pass the law. and
whether they passed such Il law on tn.
i!rst or last day q. the session: could make
no difference. They might have fixed upon
a -,.n OF. the first day o: tle session. est,-
mated t. Dc sufficient compensation. and
.her.atta. have increased or diminished i. as
they thought proper: or they could wait until
near the close Of their term and then fix
the ccmpeasa.! once Tor all. When the
second Congress convened. they were as
cvIiIpa:en. - tx their own compensation as
the hrst Congress were To Tx theirs. 1t is
well settled principle that no legislative
body can tud its successors. and that any
Congress MAJ alter. amend or repeal any
law of former Congress; and whether this
be done on the frs: or last day of their
tern mus: b. wholly immaterial; and the
same thing may he said of every Congress
trca: the first to the last. Il the Forty-sec.
cnG Congress had. or the first day of its
session, passed law fixing the compensa-
ton OF Congressman at S'5JO. 1t would not
have been objected that it was voting back
pay. and We. the result would have been
precisely .he same.
Each CONGRESSMAN would have received
tie same. and the government would have
paid IL. II IS therefore practically lmma-
teriai whether the bill was passed on the
first or last day of the session. II you were
tn employ an agent 70 take charge Of your
business abroad. with the discinct agree.
ment that he might take from your funds
whatever he thought he was entitled to for
his services. and that Il he was not satisfied
with the sum az first fixed by him. he ght
alter or change it at any time during his
term of service. you would hardly De JUST.
tict: III calling him a thief ii he should DO
what YOU had agreed he might DO And
vet this is precisely chc case under consid.
Grafton. The law which fixes this compeu.
sation il. like every other law. subject to
amendment al any time. This Is a constI.
,utional certainty.
There can be 10 contract express or i'm.
piled tina, Congress shall not do what the
constitution expressly declares 1t may do.
Such contract. If made and reduced to
writing. would be absolutely void; and any
member of either House might be. ana
ought to be expelled. who should take his
seat under promise not to vote according
question. over which Congress has colstitu-
t,ona. jurisdiction. and which might be
brought forward for determination. No
lawyer, no layman with particle of sense,
will deny that the constitution expressly
authorizes members of Congress to tx their
own compensation and to alter the amount
at any time, every day if they chose, during
their term. for the simple reason that they
may alter the law every day. and the law
determines the compensation. And to say
that there is any ether contract between
a representative and his constituents than
Is contained in the constitution. or that
there can be contract which contravenes
the constitution. is simply absurd.
4 proposition was once submitted TO the
States to prevent Congress from fixing its
own pay. and was rejected by nine States
and adopted by only tour. the reason being
that one Congress mi ght Tx the pay OF
another SO low as to prevent its sitting at
ali. 4 party. defeated at the tall election.
IL: yht IL spite and anger do injustice to the
mex: Congress to be composed OF men OF
the other po.itica. party.
Blu. no: only would such a contract if
actually aie be boil, void and criminal,
hu: there IS no, the slightest foundation for
th. assertion that such a contract is even
implied Had the practice OF the govern.
nle:: been wei! established that no Con.
g:ess should increase its own pay. though
il might increase the pay OF subsequent
Congresses. then i. might be SAID that such
was tie understanding OF the people when
Il particular Congress was elected. But
The ;act happens to be exactly the reverse.
There has never been an increase or de.
crease OF pay that did rot apply to the Con.
gress voting it. SO that the implied
con,rac. is-not that each Congress
shal! not. bus that they may. IT
tley think proper, increase their own
pa-. This can be made very plain by re.
:eccicg t. tao pveceGeu.s. The pay haS
been Increased seveI.! times. and once de.
creased. L: was raised from ST; per day
70 $500 per year. Immediately after tbs
war OF !Si2. when the country was very
,.,cr AMI greatly embarrassed, it was OO.
l.cted TIA. $500 was too large a c0mpensar
Ton. The Con gEess which mad been elect.
ed while the law fixed the compensation at
$500 reduced it to s. per day. Upon the
theory row Maintained, that Congress
wGull, have been justified in drawing $500
themselves and reduciu: the pay OF the
next Con gress t" s. per day; because they
hal beeh elected when the salary waA
$500. hu: the. did not SO understand their
duty. They understood it TO be their duty
10 fix a reasonable compensation: and they
thought under the circumstances Of the
country s. a day wa, sufficient. and they
applied, tine reduction TO themselves a. we'll
as ~ succeeding Congresses.
Ey the act o: August IL. 1888. TIE com.
pcnsati1n o: Congressman was increased
from s. per dav t" $1,000 per year: and was
applied to that Congress: that Is. dating
back to Marcel. !, 1850, nearly eighteen
months. The" paw was again increased
from $1,000 to 5000 per annum. by the act
o.. July %. 1867. and applied to that Con.
giess: that IL. dating back 70 Match !,
1865, Eearl : sixteen months. In both these
cases the increase of pay was somewhat
criticised by the press. but in neither ease.
SO far as l am aware. was any objection
made because the pay wa, applied to the
Congress which voted it. 1t is too clear to
require elaboration that there is no differ.
ence in principle between voting back pay
tor sixteen Or eighteen or twenty-tour
months. 1t the doctrine now cOntendeb
for. tina. mente, Of Congress ia under
c'ntrac: NOT to increase his pay beyond the
amount fixed by law at :he time he ~as
elected. be sound; and II it be true. as now
con:ended. that any member who takes
back pay IS thief. then every man who
voted 10: OF against back pay in any former
Congress. and afterward received such
back pay. is also thief. "ThoH shalt noe
steal il a continuing command. ard what.
exc: amounts t" stealing now has been
stealing ever since the government was
established. /. any man quite bold enough
20 dennuccc the men who. IA our pas: his.
tory. have done this thing. as thieves: Win
any candid man brand them as receivers Of
s.cei. :aoaev: l.: SO. there is one soasols-
t:pn tor the members OF the last Congress;
although. W. are th;eye. We are only
thieves as al! our fathers were, and taeIs.
tore not degenerate sons.
But. before we pass this !as.v jud ymsnt.
iet u. see f.: a moment who were the men.
VII" in 1876 aad 1866. received back pay. In
is3b every Senator received the back pay
which was authorized by that act. The
senator, from. New Hampshire were John
J.. Hale and James Bell: Massachusetts.