Los Angeles herald., 1906-12-30
PAY OF coNGRESSMEN

In the recent debate in the house oi
| representatives over the bill to increase
the salary Of congressman from $1,000
to $500, the question was approached
with apparent fear and trembling
| Having in mind the disastrous salary
grab of 1872, which resulted in the re-
tirement of nearly every member who
voted for 1t, the members beat about
the bush at a great rate and the
measure was finally voted down, with
the expressed belief and confidence that
the senate would pass it as a part OF
the appropriation bill, when 1t would
then be decided on by a concurrent
committee, thereby setting the MEM
bers right" on the record.
The main question at issue was
whether the pay of congressman should
be considered in the light of compensa-
southern members generally declared
themselves favorable to the honorarium
theory, holding to the old-fashioned
idea of the English house of lords.
districts vociferously protested against
an increase of salary, fearing the ruin
of their chances for reelection. But
the eastern members were solidly in
favor of the increased pay, maintaining
that from the foundation of the govern
ment the pay of congressman had been
considered in the light of compensation.
And after all, why not? The very
fact of considering the pay of con-
gressmen as an honorarium tends to
foster the idea that only rich men can
afford to serve in congress. The Eng
lish house of lords, for example, is COM
posed of men of leisure, or of great
wealth. Absence of salary cuts no
figure with that class. They are born
to the purple of the house of lords, and
compensation in the shape of money
would be in violation of the divine
right to serve. They are in class by
themselves and cannot be considered as
parallel to the American congress.
A member of congress, under the two
year system of reelection, must be ever
and always in the limelight of his dis
trict. He must be doing something all
the time for the supposed benefit of the
people, and in Washington he must live
respectfully and keep somewhere in the
procession of forms and customs. Not
every congressman can pose as Sock
less Jerry" In these enlightened and
prosperous days $4,000 will not go very
far toward actually compensating a
valuable man for his services in con-
gress. AS one of the members said, in
the recent debate: Some of us may be
worth only $50 year nd some of us
$4,000, but we are compelled to make
the salary uniform" The man who is
worthy of election to congress and who
does his whole dutv throughout the
term is not sufficiently compensated by
the salary of $4,000.
1t may please some old-fash shioned peo-
pie, and the newly rich, to contemplate
the pay of congressman as an honor
arium, but the idea is not practical. 1t
is a sentiment that signifies nothing.
Moreover, it is not calculated to attract
the brilliant man of small or moderate
means, whose services are needed in
congress. but who cannot afford the
honor or the service. People of this
country have outgrown their parsimony
of former years and have learned the
lesson that poor pay is mighty poor
economy. They have learned that all
appeals to their stinginess is pure clap
trap, and in some states there are now
laws making it a penal offense for
man to run for Office on a promise to
work for nothing.
The American people are not willing
to pay their servants fantastic or ex.
travagant prices, but they are always
ready to do the fair thing, and if they
can be shown that one price is not fair
or not sufficient they will promptly
commend an increase to a point where
it will be just to both the people and
their servant.
Any other view of the pay of con-
gressmen is either quackery or aristo-
cratic bombosh.