The New York herald., 1876-03-12
False Economy-saving at tho Wrong
End.

Ever since the close of the war we have seen
that with the sinking in all values there
would be sinking in the wages of labor, in
the cost of living, and return to the econ
omy and thrift of the past. A war brings
many things in its train, but nothing in SO
marked degree as the tendency to extrava-
CANT living. This, of course, affects all
classes, the humblest rs we'll as the highest.
We saw it in France after the madness of the
imperial times; in England after the Water
loo triumphs; in Germany even after the
victories over France. In America we have
never been careful people. The opportu-
mites for gaining wealth, for recovering from
financial disasters in a country of silver and
gold and coal and petroleum, are so many
that poverty is q matter of ill-luck The
millionaire of to-day was most likely bank
rupt yesterday, just rs the bankrupt of to-
day may be the "big bonanza" tomorrow
In the long run, however the fortune that
comes from petroleum, shoddy and bonanza
mining shares is apt to go as rapidly as it
came. The habits remain, and one of the
first duties of people emerging from long
war is to recover from the habits of
wasteful living inseparable from the ex-
penditure of vast sums of money.
Whatever looks like economy in the ad-
ministration of our affairs will meet with the
approval of the people. But we must not
make mistake in our endeavors to reform.
The first principle of all service is that the
laborer is worthy his hire. badly paid
workman will do bad work. Enthusiasm
may do something in encouraging laborer
to excel. But enthusiasm is not apt to last
long if the rate of compensation interferes
with the laborers self-respect. Self-respect
can never be maintained when laborers
are stinted to a beggarly pittance. AS in
private affairs badly paid work is not worth
its money, SO in public life small salaries
are only so many temptations to corruption.
Two results will follow from such policy
corruption or the limiting of Office to
small, rich and favored class. The President
is reported as saying that he did not intend
to appoint any one to his Cabinet who did
not have q large fortune What he meant
was that the demands upon the Cabinet Min
lister who cared any ything for the dignity of his
meet them without a good income outside of
his salary. In the present Cabinet there are
several Ministers who have fortunes. The
Secretary of State is known to have large
fortune. The Postmaster General and the
Secretary of the Interior are each of them
very rich as the result of success in trade
The Attorney General has moderate for
l. L
Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of
the Navy or the new Secretary of War
Neither of them has the reputation of pos
sessing more than moderate fortunes. while
the President himself has never been what
we would call rich. Our Presidents, rs a
general thing, have not been poor. Wash
ington, we believe, was the richest man in
America in his day, excepting, perhaps, one
or. it may be two New England merchants
who had amassed great fortunes out of the
Indian trade. Washington's wealth enabled
him to serve through the Revolution
without accepting from the young
and poor confederacy more than his
actual expenses. Adams was in good
circumstances for his time, and his for
tune was shared and partly inherited by his
prudent and gifted son. jefferson and Mad
ison were rich in lands but they were hos
pitable men who took no care of their means.
Jefferson died in poverty. Monroe received
great deal of money from the government
in various ways, but he died almost in want
Jackson had the estate and income of q
planter in moderate circumstances, but he
became poor rs he grew old and had to bor-
row money from Blair. Tyler, Harrison,
Taylor and Van Buren, were in good circum-
stances. Fillmore and Pierce had fair in
comes. Lincoln had a fine practice, the
savings from which he had carefully hus-
banded. Johnson was moderately we'll of,
rs was seen when the banking house in
which he invested most Of his money failed
Buchanan was in the enjoyment of what for
bachelor and an exceedingly careful man
ager was reasonable fortune. We should
think that the presents to General Grant in
houses, money and so on, as well as his
savings in the army, gave him the best part
of quarter of million of dollars when he
entered upon the Presidential Office. But
with the exception of Washington, and it
may be the second Adams, none of our Pres
idents have been what even in their own
times would have been called rich men.
Therefore the rule that only rich men
should aspire to the high offices of the coun-
try would have ruled out a large part of the
eminent citizens who have been called on to
hold the highest Office in the gift of the peo-
pie. 1t would be an unfortunate principle
to adopt either in the nomination of candi-
dates for the Presidency or the selection of
officials for the Cabinet.
Nothing could be further from the genius
of our institutions than that only those
should be chosen to serve the people who
are able to spend more than their salaries in