Year: 1873

| mouse. After an exhaustive discussion of
several days the bill brought before the ma
tional House of Representatives for the repeal
of the obnoxious salary act of the last Con-
gress was recommitted to the committee on
the subject with instructions to report bill
repeating said salary act of the last Congress
as far as possible under the constitution; to
ascertain the average amounts of salary, mile
age and all other allowances, exclusive Of any
estimate for the franking privilege, that were
paid to Senators, Representatives and Dele
gates in the Forty first Congress, and to re-
port a bill fixing the compensation at the
amount thus ascertained as nearly as prac-


ticable. with the necessary travelling ex-


penses, and restoring all other salaries as they


were before the passage of the act contem-


plated under these instructions


Mr.. Orth, of Indiana, the mover of these
instructions, said that his proposition was
more in the nature OF q compromise than any
thing else, because it was apparent that, un-
less there was compromise the House would
never arrive at any conclusion. The widely
differing views upon the subject developed in





from the discussion that this increased and
back pay salary bill should be utterly re-
pealed, because the increase is too high and
the back pay clause is a simple fraud upon
the Treasury that the act should not be re-


pealed, because the increase of the salaries
embraced in it is not too high, and because
| the back pay is not fraud nor violation of
the constitution that if the direct compensa-
tion of the members of Congress, as fixed
under the existing law, is to be cut down,
their abandoned mileage, stationery per-
quisites and franking privilege should be re-
stored to them that the people can secure
their Representatives and Senators in Congress
for five thousand year and that, on the
other hand, fifteen thousand would not be too
much that the Presidents compensation,


with the annual contingent appropriations for
| the White House, is extravagant and that in
| the work Of retrenchment, no distinctions
should be made in favor even of the President
and finally, that, with all his extra allowances
for his household expenses, fifty thousand q
year as the Presidents salary is little enough,
considering the population, wealth and re-
sources of the country, and the dignity and
responsibilities of his great Office.


These conflicting opinions and numerous
others are to be considered by the committee,
and from them they are to report compro-
mise in the reconstruction of these official
salaries, repeating the existing salary act as
far as possible under the constitution" How
far then, is it possible to carry this repeal?
The constitution provides that 'the President
shall, at stated times receive for his services
compensation, which shall neither be increased
nor diminished during the period for which he
shall have been elected" Now, when this
existing salary act was passed, the President
had been elected for the period of four years
from the 4th of March last, and the proposed
repeal, therefore, cannot be applied to his
compensation. Next, under the const-
| tuition, the increased salaries of the
Judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of
the United States, cannot be diminished dur
ing their continuance in Office. Nor can the
repeal be applied to the back pay of the par
ties concerned. 1t must be limited to the Vice
President, the members Of Congress. the Cabi-
net and the clerks and other employees of the
two houses of Congress and the executive de-
partments. Under the present law the COM
pensation of member of the Cabinet is ten
thousand year, raised from eight thousand,
and that of a member of Congress is seven
thousand five hundred year, raised to this
sum from five thousand. Is this increased
compensation in either case too much, or is it
to any appreciable extent the cause of the
public indignation which has been SO widely
expressed against this salary bill of the last
Congress? No. Had this increase of sala-
ries been adopted without that abominable
back pay clause of the bill there would have
been no serious complaint from the country.
This back pay was the objectionable offence
| to the people, because it was fraud and
the repetition of the fraud and upon larger
scale. The worst of it is that a repeal cannot
| remedy or reach this fraud Mr.. Alexan-
der II. Stephens says that this back
pay clause of the existing salary act is
clearly constitutional. There is certainly no
express limitation in the constitution of the
power of Congress over this subject. The
only check, then, against repetition of the
fraud in question lies in an amendment of the
constitution itself No compromise which the
House committee may be able to patch up will
on this back pay question serve as indemnity
for the past or security for the future.


We apprehend, too, that the House of
Representatives has been too badly frightened
by the late popular agitation of this "back pay
grab" to comprehend the political situation or
the necessities and expectations Of the country
upon the more important living issues of the
day. We suspect that all parties in Congress
are too much under the impression
that the extraordinary results of our
recent State elections are due to the
awakened public indignation against