Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1874-12-03
WAsHBURN Os BACK PAY.

Several papers having of late re
iterated the Democratic charge o
1873 that Governor Washburn wa.
o ''salary grabber," we give the fol
lowing extract from speech made
by Mr.. w. at Fond du Lac yeal
ago the past fall, which fully ex
plains his connection with the Con.
gressional Salary question in 1856
the only time that he was member
when the subject was touched:
In Senator Carpenters speech a,
ia esviAe, he made use OF this Ian
gu.ge'
''ln 1866, the delegation from Wisconsin in
the House consisted of Z. c. Washburn, |. e.
Sloan, PhiIctus Sawyer and Walter d. Mcln.
doe. Mr. Washburn voted Tor the bill Sloan
and Mclndoc did not vote. All four received
the back pay voted In the bill. Is there any
man here Tonight willing TO brand Governor
Washbnrn rs II tbIefy
l think ] may reasonably hope
that his audience, mentally at least,
answered his interrogatory in the
negative. But the Senator fell into
a grave error in representing that l
voted for the increased pay bill in
1866. The simple truth is that
was not a member of Congress at
that time, and how the Senator hap
pened to fall into such an error,
cannot quite understand. l cannot
but regret that he had not examined
the record with more care before
making the statement he did. l felt
annoyed at the mistake. The
speech had Il very wide circulation,
and l cannot expect to correct the
error, except at home, which in JUS
tice to myself ought to do l am
sure that the error was unintention-
al. While | did not vote for the
bill OF 1866, and am confident that
! should not. had / been in Con-
gress, there was perhaps little
justification for it. But for the act
OF 1873, there was, in my Judgment,
no justification whatever. The sal
airy of $4,000 was ample. 1t was
far more than the value of the
services of the average Con-
gressmen out of Congress. The
idea that has been advanced, that at
that salary poor men were excluded
from Congress, is the veriest nom
sense. Did you ever know citizen
to decline favorable opportunity
to go to Congress, and especially the
Senate, because of the inadequacy
Of the salary! You do not, or
should not send men to Congress
because they desire to so for the
sake of what they can make out of
it. II you expect good service you
should send men who are willing to
make some sacrifice, and whose
principal compensation consists in
the consciousness of duty done, and
in the honor which follows from
public service, honestly, fearlessly
and conscientiously performed. S5,-
900 a year, or $4,000 for two years,
is ample to pay the expenses of a
member and his family for the nine
or ten months he lives in Washing
ton, besides leaving him something
handsome over, unless he embarks
in a life of luxury entirely inconsis-
tent with the best class of public
service. The idea that member
must keep up a certain amount OF
style to be respected, entirely dis.
sent from. Brains will tell wherever
they are. No man was more re.
spected and honored than the late
VIM. Pitt Fessenden, yet no man
made less show or lived with greater
simplicity. 1t is my deliberate con
yiction that with a salary of $4,000
a year you will have better mem
beers than at $4,000. Make the
salary large and every smart rasca
in the country will try to bride his
way through, and many will sue
coed; but whether rascal or not
big pay and life of luxury viii
render members lazy and inefficient
do not propose to assail those
gentlemen who voted for the in
creased pay bill. To abuse those
whom everybody else is abusing
does not seem right. They have 9
h ANY burden to bear aud | woult
not ii could add to it. 1t is cruel
ty to add atfliction to the afflicted