National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-17

-
ing that he had misrepresented his position ani
made his argument upon false assumptions
| He had recognized the items as public neces
sity and had never opposed them; he had cited
them in detail to show their character and
that they were right and also to show that his
former figures, as to the amount, were cor
rect. .. ! -. -'s-E
In reply to Mr.. Cox, he said, the gentleman
had on previous occasions found IL more con
venient to intimate that he had taken his words
back than to meet what he did say. Somt
weeks ago he had made some remarks fol
which he received several hard knocks hert
and elsewhere, and he had subsequently gont
to New Hampshire and made O speech. The
gentleman (Mr. Cox had come here and said
he took back IN New Hampshire what he had
uttered in the House. He denied that he had
taken back o word, but he had added there
that the President had told him to say to the
people of New Hampshire that whenever II
was shown that dollar could be saved that
dollar could be saved. The gentleman now
had Just as much foundation for saying that he
took anything back as he had then.
+ Mr.. BUTLER read from Mr.. DAWES former
speech to the effect that these expenditures
were just what would be spent by any other
official who had his own house.
Mr.. DAWES said that had all been ex,
planned. g..
Mr.. BUTLER said there were so many 'ifs''
and "ands" that it might not be understood
He wanted It put before the country that there
| were no more perquisites of the President than
the desks or carpets in this hall were perquis-
ties Of members OF the House.
| Mr.. COX, of N. Y, (holding up newspaper)
called the attention of Mr.. BUTLER TO the fact
that the description of the ball of the early
days that he had read was fancy sketch by
| Grace Greenwood.
Mr.. BUTLER said that when the gentleman
from New York brought into the House. dirty
conversation which never occurred he could
stand squarely with him as to fancy sketches.
| Mr.. cox. The gentleman is very good.
have no doubt but be is not smart to-day.
Mr.. BUTLER. You are neither good nor
smart. [Laughter.]
Mr.. KELLEY, Of Pa, asked Mr.. Cox If
there were as many gold spoons found now in
the Executive Mansion as were found by
Spooney Ogle in the days of Martin Van Buren,.
Mr.. COX. Why do you not put the question
to the other side3 have never made such an
alllsion on this floor, and never will.
Mr. HOLMAN again argued that the act in
creasing the Presidents salary was unconstitu-
tional.
Mr.. KASSON, of Iowa, Endorsed Mr.. HoI-
MANS views, and said the Constitution mani
testify intended that on question of increase
or decrease of salary disinterested President
should exercise the veto power or power of ap-
proval. Iu this case 1t could not be done, be-
cause the President who approved the act had
been reelected and was inaueurated for a sec
oud term within few hours after approving
the act.
Messrs. HALE, of N. Y, POLAND, of VT, and
TREMAIN, of N. Y, took the opposite view,
and argued that this case did not come within
the constitutional prohibition.
A vote was then taken on reducing the Presi-
IN
members voted in the affirmative.
Mr.. z. R. HOAR offered and amendment to
increase the salaries of Assistant Secretaries of
State to $1,000. This, he said, would put the
salaries at the sum they were under the salary
bill of last session, and this sum was not too
much for gentlemen who had such responsible
duties TO perform. It was proper that Con-
because the country believed that that bill was
carried by bribery. But in repeating the act
Congress should not have touched the salary
of subordinate and responsible officers.
Mr.. DUNNELL, of Mimi, asked Mr.. HoAR If
he understood him correctly as saying that the
salary bill was passed by bribery.
Mr.. HOAR replied that he had said that the
people of the country thought SO. They thought
that the inducement offered to the outgoing
members to vote for the increase was to make
the bill retroactive, and that they considered
bribery.
MI. KELLOGG, of Conn, moved to make the
salaries 500. This would then be in accord
with the Committee on Civil Service, which
proposed to make the salaries of all Assistant
Secretaries at that figure. The bill for that
purpose had heen offered by Mr.. DAWES.
Mr.. DAVIS seid he ought not to be held re-
sponsible for that bill, as he had offered it by
request. He was unfortunate in offering bills.
His colleague Mr.. BUTLER] had induced him
to offer many bills for which he had been CEN
sured, when he had no interest in them and
only offered them to oblige his colleague.
Mr.. HOLMAN, of Ind, said there was o
good deal of talk here about civil service re-
form, but it was to his mind queer sort of re-
form to make such large increase of salaries.
Mr.. GARFIELD said he hoped the House
would not raise these salaries, but that there
would be commission appointed to sit during
the recess to frame salary bill.
Mr.. SENER, of Va, moved to increase the
salary of the chief clerk of the State Depart
ment from 81, 500 to $1,000. He said the chief
IS 900, and the chief clerkship of the State De-
partment had always been recognized as one of
the most important Of the Government.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr.. PURMAN, of Fla, moved an amend
ment to the paragraph in relation to the publ
cation Of the laws, providing that after March
4, 1875, the publication of the laws IN newspa-
pers shall cease. He advocated the retention
of the law as q subsidy to the Republican news
papers of the country. He cited the city Of
Savannah, where Republican paper was
needed more than any other place in the coun-
try, and where there were not Republican read
ers enough to support such paper.
Mr.. DUNNELL, of Mind, argued in favor OF
striking out the proviso, holding that the PEG
pie had right to have the laws printed where
they could see them and know what the laws
H. o1ya he tof inf nd
documents sent out from Washington came
back to the people in many ways and many
fold.
Mr.. SPEER of Pa. said the law was origin
ally passed to support republican journals in
the Southern States. The theory Of journalism
was that If a newspaper could not live on the
honest support of the public 1t ought to die.
he would not object if the publication went to
all the people, but it only went to class.
Mr.. BUTLER contended that the laws
should be published. The Democracy had given
them to their newspapers when they had the
power, and now If the Democrats would not or
could not read the laws, it was no argument
against their publication.
Mr.. GARFIELD said Congress had attempted |
two minutes ago to cut up by the roots an indie |
fensible abuse. The rates were so low that |
nothing short of the small county papers would
publish them. The law confined the publica-
those having but trifing circulation, so that |
practically they did not reach the people.
Mr.. BUTLER said the Baltimore american |
had published the laws for six successive years;
was that an Insignificant paperi
Mr.. GARFIELD said the question was |
whether It was published as an advertisement |
Dr. as a matter of business.
Mr.. HAWLEY, of Conn.,, said be had some |
practical experience in this matter. The price |
paid did not more than cover compensation, |
but the papers liked to print them, to appear |
The official papers. They were set up by ap-
prentices and others at odd times, and appeared |
from time to time, as suited the convenience of |
he publishers. Application was often made
BY lawyers and others for reference to the |
printed copy sent to the newspapers in advance |
IF the regular publication. He favored the
publication of the laws in one Washington |
paper, or in one official gazette, to which any |
one desiring an early copy of the laws could
subscribe.
On motion of Mr.. MoREY, of La, the com
mittee Then rose.
Mr.. BUTLER, of Mass, from the Judiciary |
Committee, reported bill for the distribution |
Of the Geneva award. Ordered printed and