Year: 1859



 nave made the preceding statements m support of that portion of your editorial hrst alluded to, and mainly with a view to convince others, who seem to doubt ;t that there were honest, high-minded and hon orable men in the legislature who drew their per diem pay.

 will now come directly to my own po- sition and that of others in the Senate. which will answer, more fully, the inter- rogatory of my friend Randolph of the Ap- peal. The consciences of certain senators who had been at home during the recess, and . attending to their own business did not permit them to make out an account agalnst the State " for services not render ed" as they conceived; and those of us who had remained at the capital, and had not travelled an Inch towards our homes, were equally unwilling to make out our accounts for mileage. l would not have made out an account of that kind, and syorn to it. for all the money in the treasury. and the State ot ArlansaS besides. And | am cer- tam there were other members of the Sen ate who would not have made out accounts Tor Der diem and Sa0orn to them, for the UnlJed States, and the treasury thereof Now will gentlemen of the press be sur prised, or ought the honest citizens of the county 10 be surprised, that honorable mem- beis, 50 situated, should pull different ways upon this que, tion? Every man ought to endeavor to protect his own conscience, as well as his own rights; and he who will not do so, is not fit for representatives: for such one would not be apt to contend for the rights of his constituents, when he would not contend for his own. If man even conceives that he has rights, l like 10 see him contend for them, because am certain he would make a good soldier, and would never submit to oppression.

 Under this state of things, and conflict ing views of senators, and after the mem- bers of the lower House had generally drawn their per diem, resolution was ln- troduced with preamble recapitulating the facts of the case, and finally instructing the President in favor of per diem. and 2 motion was made to postpone the resolu- tion indefinitely. l here request those pre- sent on that occasion, to call to mind my concluding remarks on the motion to post pone, which were these, in substance. " that the per diem rule would be preferable to mileage Ill this respect, that under it, those who wished to take mileage could do so, because the per diem was greater than the mileage, no one being compelled to take the achote amount of his account, of course he could leave the balance in the treasury. On the other hand, if the rule for mileage were adopted, those who claimed per diem c0uiH Cnt If ho Jess than the amount of their claim.'

 The plain fact Is, and my words on that occasion showed it, 1 wanted to do what was right in the case; did not wish any one to violate his own views of right; but was willing for every man who conceived himself to be justly entitled to the one, to take 1t; and for him who considered him. self justly entitled to the other, to take that; and this would, or oughtt to have given general satisfaction to the members

 With these views / goted aCith tie n2i,oori- ty Gga'n@Me postponeneent of Me resolution. yet believe that the resolution ought not to have been postponed, but ought, at least to have been amended so as to allow per diem to those who remained sick at the capital, and to others whose circumstances. and the distance to their homes, did not permit them to have any advantage from the adjournment. And to have adopted 1t Tn this form, would have been beautifully consistent with the Senate amendment to House joint resolution to adjourn, adopted on the 11th of December, which amend ment made an exception in favor of those who might be providentially detained at the capital And this same Senate amend ment clearly contains an admission that the view which l then took, and still take of the matter, Is correct

 But 1t is said that those who remained were entitled to const,uctiee mileagel What is constructiue mileage? Will any legal gen. tleman contend that the law ever means that man shall be construed to have done what he has not done? or in other words. that he has travelled four hundred and fifty miles when he has not travelled mile to- wards home? A much more natural con- struction than that and one more in ac- cordance with common sense, would be to construe the law to mean, that those of us who had left home in the service of the State, were in that service till we returned again. l am strict constructionist my self, and consider 1t much the safest and best rule to construe the Bible to mean what 1t says, and the constitution and the law to do the same. What is law is not always right, and what is right is not d. ways the law; and l now say, that if the opinion of that committee was correct, that the law gave per diem to every member of the legislature desiring that adjournment, that the law, in that particular is mani festly wrong, and ought to be amended.- If any legislative assembly should think proper voluntarily to adjourn for time by their own resolution, (which, however, was not the case in this instance, the members ought not to receive either mile age or per diem on their return. My own opinion is, therefore, according to the prin- ciples of justice, those members of the le- gislature who advocated the adjournment, ought not to have received either; and that those who asked leave of absence with a view (if such was the easel to reduce the House below quorum, deserve the almost everlasting condemnation of the citizens of the State.

 l will conclude my letter to you, Messrs. editors, by giving notice to the State, most respectfully, that she is justly indebted to me in the sum of $2S 90, the difference be- tween my mileage and per diem. If she will pay me up like lady, and not grum- ble about it, "why, so;' and if not, am too magnanimous to dun her fer the money.

 Very respectfully,

 Your obd nt serv't.,

 Nj. DOUGLAS.