New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-09-14
sam Ra ndall and the spenkership.

Speaking of the probable choice of the
Democracy for Speaker of the House of
Representatives., the St. Louis Republican
says:
The candidate about whom there ia the
most buster, even if there is no substantial
strength, is Mr. Randall. In his congress.
sional career there is much to criticise un-
tavorably, as well as considerable fer which
due award of praise is merted. 1t is un.
fortunate, however, for him that his tariff
notions are not in strict accord with the
sentiment of his party; this practically
places him in antagonism to his friends on
the most important questions OF industrial
life. During the jOr poi ion of his term
he has been d follower and not a leader, and
as a consequence his character has not
swelled to that Importance reached by his
rivals. He has been, in stage parlance.
something above Irresponsible utility" and
still far below that of 'leading gent leman.r
He was aggressive, ever ready to use ''plair.
talk and in the wOrdy battles sent his
sharpestiaud most incisive darts. But, "a.
fortunately, he was pursued by an in
trinity which detracted greatly from
his strength, and caused his ebullitions
OF wrath to be attributed to reasons
more culpable than partisan enthus.
iasm. Justice, however. compels the
statement that this objection is possibly
overcome by the voluntary action and re-
solve made last winter. Combined with a
sharp, aggressive temperament there is in
termingled good powers of language and
logical thought; but interests of single
constituency sometimes esuop even the full
exercise of those faculties granted u.s. As
an example, Mr.. Randall has been inimical
to internal improvements and has spoken
with ironical force against the river and
harbor bill, deprecating appropriations for
this and
ances TOR his own State. This is tollowing
out tho exploded doctrine of constitu
tional inhibition to our system Of internal
improvements. While strenuously against
the success of the rebellion, he has since
the inauguration of the Radical policy of
reconstruction followed in the footprints of
eX.President johnson. With the tariff
questions it has been different. Coerced,
possibly, by local interest he has been ar
rayed against his party associates, but this
is fault common to most Pennsylyanians
irrespective OF political predictions There
is another matter, however, for which it is
difficult to fud an excuse.
MIR. Randall has invariably advocated and
supported the increase of congressional
pay, all the features of retroactive allow.
ances included. When the per diem paw of
u was superseded by the yearly salary of
S3000 he was not in Congress. But in 1866
when further increase to $4,000 was made
he stood almost alone in its support. That
act was perpetrated by the Senate fasten.
ing slider on the civil appropriation bill
fixing the pay at $4,000 AID making it retro
active. so as to include Congress more
thar half expired. Even in that day of
reckless extravaganza this Objectionable
proceeding met with firm and united opposi-
ton. Indeed, each party seemed to vie with
the other in denunciation. With the pur.
pose, presume, OF gaining party capital
for even then the iniquity of the act was
apparont-it was determined to test the
question by yeas and nays. The vote was
taken and the clerk read Oft as having voted
against the increase the name of nearly
every member present. The advocates of
the increase were only three, and the name
Of Mr. Randall was one of the three.