The Portland daily press., 1880-07-03
For Governor,
DANIEL F. DAVIS.
Garfield and the Salary Grab.

Garfield and the Salary Grab.
In June, 1878, the Portland PRESS declared
it o,be matter of the first importance that
the Republican State Convention should de-
clare itself squarely on the salary grab and de-
nounce it as alike disgrace to Congress and
an outrage upon the people," Garfield was
salary grabber, voted for the final passage Of
the bill and took the saCag, but the PRESS don't
see anything disgraceful or outrageous in it
now. Circumstances alter cases, you know
Maine Standard.
General Garfield was not a salary grabber
and did not take the "swag;'' and the as
sertions made by the Standard are the re-
suit either of malice or misinformation.
From the first he opposed the back-pay leg
islation, and repeatedly voted and spoke
against the bill in the House. He opposed
it in the conference committee of Senate
and House. Finally, in the last hours of
the session, the bill containing the back pay
legislation came to vote. That bill made
appropriations for many public necessities,
and to defeat it meant failure to provide
for the maintenance of the Government, and
meant the calling of an extra session. So,
Garfield, under protest, voted for the appro-
priation bill. But he did not receive cent
of the back pay, and by his efforts the OBJ
jectionable act was repealed at the follow
ing session. We commend to the Standard
the following description, from the official
records, of the salary grab and General Gar
fields connection with it:
What is commonly known as 'the salary
grab was a Sc ction of the executive, legisla-
tive, and judicial appropriation bill passed by
the Forty-second Congress in its last session,
and approved on March 3, 1878. Its full text
can be found in chapter ccxxvi of the acts of
that Congress, or ON page % Of the New York
Tribune almanac of 1874, or in any Of the
political text books for 1874. 1t was not an
independent act, but provision of a volumin-
GUS bill making appropriations for all branches
of the government service.
This section doubled the salary of the Presi-
dent, raised slightly the salaries of the Vice
President, the Cabinet and the justices of the
Supreme Court, and increased the annual pay
OF Congressman tfrom 1000 and mileage to
~ 800 and actual travelling expenses. Its es-
pecially obnoxious feature was the fact that
this increase in Congressmen's pay was made
retroactive, so that it covered the two years
service of the Congress which passed the meas
ure on the last day of its existence, and thus
put ST, 900 in the pockets of the men who made
it law. Against that phase of the matter
the public protest was angry and determined.
The proceedings attending the passage and
the repeal of this measure can be found scat
tered through the pages of the Congressional
Record for the last session of the Forty.second
and the first session of the Forty-third Con-
gresses. They show these facts
On the Oath of February, 1873, the House
considered in committee of the whole" this
legislative, ETC., appropriation bill and Gen.
Butler offered as an amendment the PROPOSE
tion for the increase of salaries. General Gar
field then opposed it and said:
81 do not believe we ought to say there should be
an increase; but think there ought to be general
salary bill covering the whole of civil SERVICE
our naval and military service; and such general
bill including members of Congress, would cheer
daly vote i 90 not desire TO get any large or small
or that of my fellow associates. do not know that
any one else does; but when act on this subject
field before u.s. SO that say to the country we
are acting on the whole civil service Of the coun-
try"
When the committee of the whole reported
to the House and vote was taken on this
proposition to increase the salaries of members
of Congress, Gen. Garfield voted against it.
Gen. Butler, on March /, moved to reconsider
the motion by which the increase was defeated.
A motion was made to lay this on the table,
and on this Gen. Garfield voted FAYE" with all
tho opponents of the increase. Mr.. Sargent on
the same day, moved to make the salary of
Congressman $1,000, and on this Gen. Garfield
voted mo-" Finally the amendment for the
increase was defeated in one branch of Con-
gress and adopted in the other, Mr.. Garfield
voting mo- on all occasions. The bill was
then sent to a committee of conference be-
tween the two houses; the salary matter was
only one of large number of points upon
which the Senate and House had failed to
agree. Gen. Garfield was one of the confereeS
on the part of the House.
In the conference committee there was o
contest of six hours on the salary question.
General Garfield steadily voted against the
L Al
on every point he was voted down-Gt is un-
derstood that every other member of the COM
mittee was against him). In this situation
there were but two courses open to Gen. Gar
field: The first was to refuse to act with the
conference committee and oppose the bill in
the House; the second was to make the bill as
perfect as possible and unite in reporting it
back He chose the latter course, and his rea-
sons for doing it were these: To have de-
feated the bill would have made unavoidable
an extra session of Congress with its great ex-
pense. Again, the bill as passed contained
many sections concerning the Pacific railroad
which were of great consequence for the pro-
lection of the rights and interests of the Gov
ernment, while it was doubtful if the same
legislation could be secured from another Con-
gress. Other features of the general measure
were also of much public importance. Under
the circumstances Gen. Garfield felt compelled
to unite with the other committeeman in re-
porting the result of the conference; in doing
''The Senate voted directly on the provision in
creasing the salary of members of Congress- and by
large majority vote refused to strike it out The
Senate conferees insisted that the Sc, 300 clause,
cutting off the mileage actually reduced the pay of
some 18 members of the Senate They refused
therefore to submit to amendment which cut
down the salary of SO many Senators. The Senate
conferees were unanimous in favor OF fixing the
salary at 81 500 and cutting off all allowances ex-
cepl actual individual travelling expenses of mem
Der from his home ito Washington and back once
session. and cutting off all other allowances of every
kind The proposition was agreed to by majority
of the conferees on the part of the House.
81 was opposed to the increase in conference as
was opposed to it in the discussion and in my votes
here; but my associate conferees were in favor of
the Senate amendment, and was compelled to
choose between signing the report and running the
risk of bringing ON an extra session of Congress-
1t was under these circumstances that the
bill was reported to the House and passed.
After the adjournment of Congress Gen, Gar
field wrote letter on the subject to his con-
sttuents in which he said:
81 know of no method by which the defeat of the
salary clause could have been achieved under the
circumstances as they then existed except by fill
clustering against the whole bill, and thus prevent
ing vote on it. That, perhaps, might have been
done, but no member so far as know, was willing
to take so grave a responsibility. Certainly the
chairman of the committee on appropriations GAR
field was not"
On the 9th of December following Mr. Will
son of Indiana in speech in the House on the
repeal of the salary bill said: