The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1880-07-09


/ were in the habit Of calling names it would not
be difficult to find a name for man whose in
tellectual vision leads him to such a conclusion.
If there is any gentleman in this audience who
desires to ask any questions concerning the
Credit Mobilier | shall be glad to hear it. No
response If not, would it not be about as well
to modify the talk on that subject hereafter?
No. The next thing shall mention is ques-
ton purely of official conduct-and that is a
subject which has grown threadbare in this COM
munity, and yet / desire your attention to it for
few minutes. refer to
THE INCREASE OF OFFICIAL SALARIES
one year and a half ago. First, what are the
accusations concerning me?
There are several citizens in this town who
have signed their names to statements in the
newspapers during that discussion, declaring
that Mr.. Garfield had committed theft a rob-
berry; that, to use the plain Saxon word, he was
thief. In one of these articles it was argued
in this wise: :" If hire clerk at my bank on
a certain salary, and he, having the key to my
safe takes out $500 to 5000 more than we
agreed for and puts it in his pocket it is simply
theft or robbery. He happened to have access
to the funds and he got hold of them; SO did
Congress. You can't gloss it over" says the
writer lit is robbery"
Now, fellow-citizens, presume you will agree
that you can wrong even the Devil himself. and
that it is not right or manly to lie even about
Satan. / take 1T for granted that we are far
enough past the passion of that period to talk
plainly and coolly about the increase of salaries
Now, In the first place, say tonight what
have said all through this tempest, that for a
Congress to increase it's own pay and make it
retroactive is not theft or robbery, and you do
injustice to the truth when you call it SO.
There is ground enoughin which to denounce it
without straining the truth. Now, if Congress
40 o1o1xT xuIo0 no
stitution of your country says in unmistakable
words, that "Senators and Representatives shall
receive a compensation to be ascertained by law
and paid out of the national treasury" No
body makes the law but Congress. 1t was very
delicate business in the beginning for our
fathers to make a law paying themselves
money. They understood it 80, and when they
sent the constitution out to the several States
the question was raised whether it would not
be better to put curb upon Congress in refer
ence to their own pay, and in several of the
States suggestions were sent IN. When the
First Congress met James Madison offered sew
enteen amendments to the constitution, and
finally Congress voted to send twelve Of the
proposed amendments to the country. One Ct
them was this "No law varying the compe1l-
sation of the Senators and Representatives in
Congress shall take effect until an election has
interviewed" In other words, the First Con-
made to the new constitution that no Congress
could raise its own pay and make it retroac-
tive. That was sent to the States for
their ratification. The States adopted
ten of those amendments. Two
they rejected and this was one of the two
They said it should not be in the constitution.
The reason given for its rejection by one OF
the wisest men of that time was this. He said /:
" If we adopt it, this may happen: One party
into l177+ 177cA
before the old Congress expires, the defeated
PARKWAY pass a law reducing the pay of Congress
to 10 cents day. 1t will never do thus to put
one Congress into the power of another; it
would be an engine of wrong and injustice.
For this reason our fathers refused to put into
the constitution clause that would prevent
back pay. Now, it will not do to say that pro-
vision that has been deliberately rejected from
the constitution is virtually there and it will
not do to say that it is just to call it theft and
robbery for Congress to do what it has plain
ly the constitutional right to do. use the word
right in its legal sense.
Now, take another step. hold in my hand
here record Of all the changes Of pay that
have been made since this Government was
founded and in every case-I am not arguing
now that it is right at all, am only giving you
a history Of tin every single instance when
Congress has raised its pay 1t has raised it to
UcthC CA6Ct 1IOul UuG uIbJ QdY Vi UIl6 S0SSlOu u
Congress-. Six times Congress has increased
its own pay, and every time it made the pay
retroactive. say again am not arguing that
this was right and proper; am only arguing
that it was lawful and constitutional to do it.
In 1856 the pay was raised and was made re-
troactive for a year and four months, and the
member of Congress from this district threw
the casting vote that made it a law. That act
raised the pay by larger per cent. than the act
of last Congress. Joshua R. Giddings was the
one hundredth man that voted aye mnety-nine
voted no. Joshua r. Giddings' vote the other
way would have turned the score against it.
That vote gave back pay for a year and four
months. That vote gave Congress nine months
back pay for time when members would not
have been entitled to anything whatever, be-
cause under the old law they were paid only dur
ing the session. What did this district do? Did
it call him a thief and airobber? A few weeks
after that vote this districts elected him to Con-
gross for the tenth time. Have the ethics of
thief and a robberi in 1873 if had done what my
predecessor did in 1856? In 1866 the pay was
raised. That time it was put in the appropria-
ton bill, very important appropriation bill
a bill giving bounties to soldiers It passed
through the Senate and came to the House.
There was disagreement about it. Senator
Sherman of Ohio, had charge Of the bill in the
DeuaIe, anu YOJeu against the increase or pay
every time when it came up on its own merits
But he was outyoted. Finally it went to COM
mlttee of conference. The conference report
between the two houses was made in favor of
the bill. Mr.. Sherman brought in the report,
saying, when he brought it in, that he had been
opposed to the increase of pay, but the Senate
had overruled him. He voted for the confer
ence report, voted for the final passage of the
bill. That bill gave back pay for year and
five months. Was John Sherman denounced as
thief and robber for that? Was Benjamin f.
Wade called thief and robber?
At that time was not Chairman of the COM
mittee, and had no other responsibility than
that OF an Individual Representative. voted
against the increase OF salary, then, at all
stages. voted against the conference report,
but it passed through the House on final vote
by just one majority. i do not remember that
anybody ever praised me particularly for voting
against that report, and never heard anybody
blaming John Sherman for voting for it.
Now, in 1878, tie conditions were exactly the
reverse. I was Chairman of the committee
that had charge of the great appropriation bill.
There was put upon that bill against my ear
nest protest a proposition to increase salaries
| take il there IS no one here who will DENY that
worked as earnestly as 1 could to prevent the
putting of that increase upon that bill. did
not work against it because it was a theft or a
robbery to put it on there I worked against it