, 1874-01-03
CAPRlci0uS LEGISLATION.

To the Editor Of The Chicago Tribune:
SIN; *Caprcious legislation is as much to be
feared as that which is induced by corruption
Generally it is more widespread IN its effects
and almost always has less reason to back it. In
most cases corrupt legislation has some we'll
defined object, the attainment Of which affects
but comparatively few persons. caprcious
1egislation is almost invariably Of an opposite
character,-as weak in detiniteness OF purpose
ns it ia deficient In wisdom. The old saying,
Don't whip your child when you are in 3
passion" has deal Of wholesome philo sophy
in it. Its observance ia conducive to sound
parental government. Passion seldom does
ANYTHING wisely, and its sequel is al everlasting
uudoing Of what never ought to have been done.
A mad man may harm nobody if he keeps his
passion to himself but, if lie acts under its ln-
pulses, he ia sure to 60 wrong nnd iniure others.
Caprice is as unreaeoninG as passion, and, rs a
legislative motor, it surpasses all others in
power for mischief.
Take the outcry raised against tho late in
crease of salaries as ell illustration of this SUBJ
ject Let all that has been urged against that
act bo admitted, and still the leading demand
made for its repeal was IN example OF pure Ca
priciousuese, full OF mischief aud danger. The
people vero mad. This they had right to be.
They demanded repeal This they had q right
to do. But they had no right to combine mad
nesg with repeal. Keep the two things separate,
and they arc we'll enough. Fuse them in legis-
1ative action, and They are wholly bad. A sim
pie repeal, with revvor Of tue former acts reg
ulating tile salaries, would plaza all Of them that
can be constitutiouaily affected just where they
we're at the date OF approval of the act Of in
crease.-the cpapSe taking effect, of
ot,1 aft n{7f1rf at
Of the 1opealinG act. But this was
not the capricious den1aud which thunder ed about
the ears Of frightened Senators and Representa-
tiycs. 4 retroactive repeal was the thing do
mandcd. sinca the 4th of March last salaries had
been drawn rs provided bJ law. The amounts
so drawn were lawful in every sense Of the
term. When drawn, the money obtained thereby
was as strictly the private property OF tho person
in possession OF it ns any other OF his funds.
derived from whatsoever rishtfnl source they
same right to legis1ate man out OF his title to
real estate IS it would Laye to require him to
refund TO the Treasury any part OF lis lawful
salary. The Constitution says, "The Senators
BUD Representatives shall receive compensa-
ton tor their services to be asccrtainod BY law y
The compensation in this case was ascertained
to be at tho rate of $500 per annum, payable
in monthly instnlimcnta. One-twelfth part be-
came due each month, and, whether drawn
or not ct the time, became the rightlul property
OF the MEMBER. IL ne Su0ulQ Qeelect 70 PIeSenS
it to the Government, that is ono thing to take
it from him BY force Of law is quite different
thing. The past is q sealed book so far as the
salary is concerned; the future IL open for ac-
tion. Whatever change may nt last be settled
upon, it can riShtfully take effect only from and
after the passage Of lhe Law.
If wroag and cuprlcious action in the
present exciting case could spend its force
upon the snlary question, it would
be bad enough but it can't stoF
there. The pe1petration Of wrong famliarlzes
US With wrong. What has been once done may
Lc done asain, aud with far less hesitation:
Uawarrantable action towards salaries ma; lead
to like action relative to other interests
Legislative con6scat.ons OF portions OF
falsries % may ]ead to h1rtful encroachments
upon other property. II tho people may, BY
caplic,ous outcry, force Congress to do wropg
passion may drive it to unlawful action in tue
latter. Now it may bo salaries; hereafter it may
be land. We make no plea LII justification Of the