Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1876-03-30

trely respected and honored the position of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (RsndalD wien
he said he Yielded his individual judgment IN
matter where he was personally concerned to
the general sentiment OF the people; and he
sympathized with him very much when, on be-
ing asked what he had done with the money he
replied that it was none Of the business OF the
questioser; u very good answer.
Mr.. Randall explained that the difficulty
which the committee had met was, that II other
salaries were reduced and not the salaries OF
members they would be chargesble with incou-
sistency. He bad great respect for the views
of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Hoar),
yet his argum5 mt would really go TO show that
no salary ought to be reduced. IT seemed to
him tRsndal) that there was but one safe. firm
ground on which TO stand. aud that was to APP
ply the same measure of reduction to all salaries.
The House could net go through the reductions
proposed II IL did not reduce the salaries OF Its
own members.
Mr.. Hill Of Georgia moved to have the reCiuc-
ton OF salaries commence on the 4th of March
1871, and agreed with Mr.. Hosr that it was in
over their own pay. His (Hnrs) amendment
would obvate that difficulty by making the re-
duction apply TO the next Congress.
The question being on Mr.. Fosters amend
ment. Mr. Foster asked Mr.. Randall IL allow 4
vote, by yeas and nays, in the House,
Mr. Randall said that in this early stage OF
the bill he was unwilling 10 depart from the us
ual rule.
Mr.. Foster-There is no rule against it.
Mr.. Randall-well. then, the usual practice.
Mr.. Foster-Wili YOU allow me b offer the
amendment in the Housey
Mr. Randall am not so instructed by the
Committee. daughter on the Republican side }
| W II vote for It..
Mr. Townsend Of New York had no hesita-
tion in declaring himself opposed to the amend
ment Of the gentleman from Ohio. as he was
opposed TO the proposition OF the committee.
He had come here under 3 substantial contract
between himself and the people that he was to
be allowed 5000 year for his services, and he
was unwilling TO allow any set Of persons 10
practice reputation on him. Laughter.l He
did not believe the people desired to give over
their desllnie> TO professional politicians or Ia
rich men, he wished he was rich. too. The
present salary was not too much for any man
who could not live out OF hi. private fortune. OF
out Of posttraderships or out Of railroad grants
and there was not enough OF them to go around
tLaughter.) Ifmember- were to live At all and
TO settle with their boarding house keepers and
~ssherwomen they would never reduce their
salaries. LauShter.l
IA question was taken on Mr.. Fosters amend
ment TO fix the pay At s2100 and 1t was rejected
but with "a votes in the affirmative. The amend
meut offered by Mr.. liill was also rejected.
Mr.. Kelly Of Prnnsylvauia moved 10 strike
out $500 and insert 5000 and spoke in favor
OF that motion.
During further discussion Mr.. Holman Of In
diana argued that the adoption Of Mr.. Kelley
amendment would be virtual abandonment
Of every proposition Of retrenchmeui. He
thought a salary OF $500 for members would
conform more TO the salaries paid BY state.
than = salary % 5000. ami would BE- gis1 70 ~ec
Il reduced 70 that figure.
Mr.. Douglas Of Virginia moved tn fix the sal
aries At $500
After stormy strugEle over the question o.
an adjournment TIL Monday and tbs alternative
Of 4 session FOR debate Tomorrow, the former
proposition prcb,vd and the House At o'Clo9k
adj burned tan Monday.