Year: 1870

for the Freeman.


Not Quite Right.


MR. EDITOR In your issue of Feb 23d YOU
say you do not quite agree with US in all we
said IN our article on " How tho money
goes, BY which we infer we were alnos,
right. Now, of this, we find no fault, be-
cause we do not quite agree with ourself in
every particular. Ward Beecher says that
"fault-hnding is glorious luxury" We
are aware that mankind in general have
been high lyers, so far as finding fault with
others is concerned; but we believe it is rare
that men indulge in the luxury of finding
fault with themselves. When the negro
found fault with his lot, and signified to his
Rev. master his desire to go preaching,
the Rev. DIR. in sounding him upon biblical
lore, put the following question Well,
Sambo, what kind of an inference would you
draw from a passage of scripture like this
And the ass snuffed the east wind. -
Well, Massa, de inference draw from dat
would be, he not grow fat very fast :" Now
1 have frequently found fault with others in
the columns of your paper, and | really be-
lieve have never grown fat upon it !; and
now propose, for once, to change the diet
and indulge in the exquisite luxury of find
ing little fault with myself, though have
my doubts about partaking enough of this
aliment, to put me in very thriving condi-
tion. We stated in our former article that
there should be some proportion between
hand labor and head labor, and assumed that
Judge of our Supreme Court appropriated
in one year eight years of the common Ia
borer. Our error lies in not uniting the
board of the common laborer with his wages
to make the comparison just. This will fix
the proportion in the vicinity of six to one,
not pretending to mathematical exactness
We cheerfully make the correction.


Since writing theabove we have received the
last FREEMAN, in which we notice the criticism
of your Washington correspondent upon our
article drawn from Mr.. PartOn's " Small
sins of Congress- to which we beg the lib
erty of brief response. Your correspond
ent assumes that " Mr.. Parton's ignorance
of the things whereof he speaks has evidently
been shared by the writer of the article,-has
led them both astray, and should the misrep-
resentations go uncorrected, might do injury
among the people and make them unnecessa-
rily dissatisfied with Congress. But as the
writer admits Congress 60 has sins" and that
there is g great cause for criticism / trust
he will deal gently with the blind who have
been led by the blind, and now find them
selves, at least in his estimation, both found
ering in the ditch together. 1t seems to us
that your correspondent fourishes a careless
quill. We have never represented - that
Congress was 50 place of entire corru ptioD-''
nor hayu we int sa.soa saaas c'ol5srSSsInyp 90
ioy perquisites that are not legalized. We
have no doubt there are good and true men
in Congress-, and we have no wish or desire
to raise an undue prejudice against them
We do not hold ourself responsible for Mr..
Parton's statements, though we confess we
do not see wherein your correspondent has
in any essential particular invalidated any
one of his statements. In what then do his
=" "misrepresentations " consist? We have
not been accustomed to associate Mr. James
Parton with that class of men who speak at
random We shall feel bound, however, to
reject his statements, when they are clearly
proved to be false. Your correspondent very
properly gives the pay and perquisites of
Congressman, because it is not to be presumed
that the " thrifty farmer y of Vermont, who
has never arrived at that eventful epoch in
life of visiting his own /" county seat" is at
all informed upon this subject. The writer
says, " don't suppress the fact that these
things are authorized by law and fixed, in
order to make the people believe that they
are being robbed by uncounted and unlawful
Titles Well, who has? or who does?


The following is portion of the criticism
of your correspondent, which applies exclu-
sively to us, in which Mr. Parton has no
share. % IL is very easy to see how, when
we, in the midst of this state of things, rec
ognize the extravaganza of some of the ex-
penditures of the government, those who
grudge shoes to the children of their Supreme
Court Judges, and who ask the Judges them.
selves to give their services to the State fol
the same sum as is demanded by the thrifty
farmer, the great event of whose life is a
suit of new clothes, or a journey to his coun-
ty seat, who never saw the capital of hi:
State, much less has any idea of what il
costs to obey the demands of society, car
think of Congressman only as leeches t.
draw out their money like blood, if they use
over twenty-five cents worth of stationer,
in any one session-the amount given as ,
large estimate for the members of the Yer
mont Legislature. By what authority, W
ask, does your correspondent assume that "
would place the salary of Judge of th
Supreme Court upon level with the salar,
of common laborer? Certainly not from
any premises assumed by us in our forme
article. We said, - it would seem ther
should be some proportion, at least, betwee
hand labor and head labor" Is this equiva
lent to saying the farmer and the Judge sha
have equal sums for services? And by SON
proportion, we mean a just and reasonabl
one,-taking into consideration all the Gil
cumstances Of the education and preparatio
of the Judge for his high position in society
and then if he is called into public service
he is entitled by Constitution to 50 RET
sonabIe compensation but 1T was contrar
to the policy of our fathers to establis
Offices of profit and it becomes the dut
of our Legislature to reduce them whenevt
they become lucrative, so to be sougt
after emoluments. We dismiss this poin
after assuring your correspondent that W
are in favor of giving our Judges salary
so that they can support their families in a
good style as can doctors, lawyers, mimi
ters and farmers, and furnish good shoes fc
their children without any :" grudging."


twenty fse hundred dollars wont do it, the
give chem more.