Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1875-10-01
Gov. Kirkwood ON the Salary Matter.

woods speech IN this city last Satur-
day, referring to his pay while Sena-
tor. If any there be who have given
heed to the bowling of the Demo-
cratic papers over the alleged "salary
grab" we ask them to peruse the fol-
lowing candid statement of his ac-
ton, and the reasons for it, and hon
estly judge if the ISLANDERS hurled at
him, are not CARNATIONS from the dirti-
est demagogueism that ever disgraced
political campaign:
l find there has been much com
ment in the Democratic papers in
this part of the State, about my ac-
ton when for two sessions l repre-
scented you in Congress-. You have
a right to know just what l did, es-
pecially on this subject of pay, and to
say whether shall further have your
confidence.
Mr.. Harlan resigned in May, 1865.
I was elected in January, 1866. Up
on my arrival in Washington l found
that by law l was entitled to draw
pay from the date Of Harlan's resig-
nation, and not from the date of my
election. took the pay the law
gave me. Some of my Democratic
friends say that l should not have
done it. You must judge for your
selves. / served two sessions in Con-
gress. The first commenced in De-
ccmber. l arrived in Washington
in January, so that, deducting two
weeks for the holiday recess of Con-
gress, served but four weeks less time
than my associates. If l had been
paid from my election, | should have
received nearly one year less pay for
the same amount Of work they did,
this four weeks excepted. Their pay
commenced upon the 4th of March,
my pay commenced between the mid
die and last of May. SO that if l had
not taken pay as the law gave it to
me, but had taken it from my elec-
ton, l should have served to within
four weeks as long, and received
nearly one year less pay.
Now, my Democratic friends might
not have done that, but 1 am inclined
to think they would have done the
same thing that did. I think you
would have done the same. There
is this to remark; the pay does not
date from the election, at all. They
are all paid from March. California
elected her members of Congr SIS last
month. Their pay dates back to
March las. Oregon and Mississippi
have not yet elected; when elected,
their pay dates back to the 4th of
last March. These are the whole
facts in regard to the pay.
But not only took this pay but l
voted for OH increase of pay. Previ-
GUS to that time, the pay had been
three thousand dollars, and mileage
forty cents per mile. That was fixed
before the war; In 1866, when we
increased the pay and reduced the
mileage, you know that the cost of
living had been more than double
what it was when the pay was fixed
at three thousand dollars. If you
will look at the price of produce you
will find that you received more than
twice what you received before the
war, and that all expenses were in
creased in Il like proportion. By the
increase Of pay proper, and reduc-
ton Of mileage, there was very little
change made in the aggregate
amount, when all the States were
represented. Under the old system,
members from Oregon and California
received nearly double the amount
that others received who lived near
the Capital, and who received scarce
ly any mileage. The change we
made, while it made little change in
the aggregate amount, divided it
more nearly equal. I voted for
that and received my pay. You may
think it was wrong; you have a
right to know what l did and govern
yourselves accordingly.
There is another remark. Our
Democratic friends never discovered,
until the present year that my action,
and the action Of others who voted
with me was wrong. Look back to
1856; your recollection will agree
with mine that no complaint was
made. The cost of living was SO in
creased that the good sense and sound
Judgment of the people recognized
the propriety of this action and said
not one one word against it. SO that
l have Il right to claim that you APP
proved it.
In 1878, when the prices were 60
ing down, Congress raised the pay
Of members from five thousand dol
lars to seven thousand, five hundred
dollars. There MAS complaint against
that action. But I have right to
say you again approved Of my action
because just as soon as Congress, in
response to complaints made, reduc-
ed the pay, they put it at the same
point at which we did, and the public
mind became contented, acknowledg g
ing the correctness of that amount.
l have heard no complaint, yet it was
reduced to just the amount l and my
associates fixed it at, and what it is
to-day. But, as l said, our Demo
cratic friends never discovered that
there was anything wrong in this I'M
Til the present year.
Who, among all the American
statesmen, did the Democratic party,
in the campaign of 1872, say was
among the ablest and purest states
man that our country ever produced?
1t was Charles Sumner, of Massachu-
sets. Before that time they could
never speak too strongly in denounc-
ing HIM. Yet his idea of his duty
induced him to withdraw from the
Republican party and support Gree
ley. AS soon as he did that they
said that he was all that was good,
and pure and high-minded; and yet
Charles Sumner was Il member OF the
Senate at the same time / was there,
and his action in regard to the in
crease of the pay, and receiving pay,
was the same as mine.
They did not discover then that it
was wrong, or they would not have