Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1874-03-26
conscience Money.

/ money rs the CUue allowed theIn.
| Accordingly they returned to the
State Treasurer a portion OF their
pay as members of the House. Mr..
Brectxinridge estimated his services
ut s4g0 and covered into Nle Treasu-
ry $50. Mr.. Haskell thought he
had earned $3.50 and returned s220.
In each ease the gentlemen request
| ed the Treasurer to place the money
| to the credit OF the fund for Insane,
aud took receipt for the same in
in the name Of the Treasurer of his
respective county.
The State Treasurer holds that the
money is, and must remain in his
hands subject to the orders OF the
county Treasurers, as they have his
receipt, and that it is not properly
covered into the Treasury.
The above, heading and oil, we
find in the State Register OF last Sat
urday. Whether or not the reasons
of these gentlemen for the disposi-
ton of portion Of their salaries, are
correctly and fully given above. or
whether the Registers statement of
their reasons was authorized by them
we have no means of knowing.
They doubtless intended that their
action should have language and a
meaning. The people have an inter-
est in the views of their official rep
resentatives, and especially their leg
islators, and Mr.. breckenridge con-
,tituents will justly feel anxious to
kno W just what he meant to say by
his act. Did he mean thus to say
that in his opipion $3.50
per session, and mileage to each
Senator and Representative, is ex-
travagant pay, and that no members
services for the session are worth
that sum, and that the law should
be so changed as TO reduce the pay OF
all members % per cent? Ii this
is his position, he is only consistent
in thus carrying his convictions into
practice, even at loss of $3.50 which
the law gave him for his services.
His legal right to dispose of his
salary as he chose, cannot be ques-
toned; and we have no disposition
to question his motives; but If he
admits he had not earned this sl10,
audp lscrccsa had no moral right TO
draw 1t, the same question arises as
that which developed ST. sfftetr dfffs-
cussion and difference Of opinion in
the case of congressman Walden.
According TO the position OF Mr..
Walden's political foes he had no
right, if he had not earned the mo-
ney, 10 take it from the national
treasury and give it to the county
school funds in his district, but
should have covered it into the trea-
sury where it belonged.
Now, if Messrs. Breckenridge and
Haskell had not earned the full
amount allowed them by law, and
had no moral right to appropriate it
to their use, they should, according
to this theory, have covered 1t into
the State Treasury where it belong
ed, instead of giving it to the Insane
funds Of their counties. IF they had
no moral right to draw it for their
own use, they had no moral right to
draw il and give 1t away any more
than Mr.. Walden had to do the same
thing. The question as to moral
right, as 1t appears to US, is identical
i'm the two eases; the only difference
being in the laws fixing the salaries
of the Congressman and the State
Representatives. If ii was right to
say that the former was dishonest i'm
giving the money which he admit
ted he had not earned, TO his dis
trict, and that he did IL to enhance
his political popularity at home,
then, how is it that the same thing
is right on the part Of the latter ?
Are the cases not parallel in their
moral phases? We did not accuse
Mr.. Walden Of dishonesty, neither
do we believe Messrs. Breckenridge
and Haskell are dishonest, though
the acts i'm both cases open the way
for and tempt the supposition that
the actors might not have been en-
tirely free from The thought OF max
ing for themselves regulations for
honesty.
Mr.. Breckenridge is nm Anti-Mo-
nopolist, formerly Republican, and
Mr.. Haskell IL now Republican.
In the Legislative joint conveD-