Year: 1873

Before the salary grab disappears


from public notice there are one or two
observations to be made.


Mr.. Lamison, Democratic representa-


tive from Ohio, in the debate upon the
repeal, said that the popular clamor upon


that subject was got up mainly by dem
agogues and interested politicians" He


is profoundly mistaken. The demand
was that of the people as distinguished


from the politicians. The substance of
Mr.. Lamison's remark is familiar. We
are accustomed to hear that investiga-


tions of official practices and reforms of
the civil service are all devices of sore
heads. The remark comes from gen.
tlemen to whom the demand of honesty
and economy in public affairs is absurd,
and who hold with DIR. johnson that
patriotism is the last refuge of scoun-
drel. But it is impossible to hear lofty
denunciations of demagogues and inter-
ested politicians proceeding from gentle
men in whose pockets the back pay
jingles with the energy of their eloquence
without remembering that DIR. johnson
said to Boswell: "If he does really think
that there is no distinction between vir-
tue and vice, why, Sir, when he leaves
our houses let us count our spoons.


Gentlemen who hold with Mr. Lami-
son tell US the Constitution says that
Senators and Representative shall re-
ceive a compensation for. their services,
to be ascertained by law, and paid out oil
the Treasury of the United States" and
that it is very hard to call members
of Congress thieves because they exercis-
ed an undoubted constitutional power
General Banks, in defending the grab,
said that every Congress fixes its own
pay......It is our business. and does not
belong to anybody else" This, indeed
was not precisely true, because the salary
law of 1866 fixed the pay for every Con-
gress until it was repealed by the grab.
But the otfense of the grab was not
technical it was moral. General Banks
said this on the 2Sth day of February


His term was to expire on the 4th OF
March He had served and drawn his
pay for the whole Congress, under the
law OF 1866 Could he and his associates
rightfully say, just as the contract was
expiring, that they had not been paid
enough, and would take fifty per cent.
more out of the Treasury There are the
words of the Constitution-yes; and
there are honor and good faith as their
If it were honorably right
under the constitutional clause to in
crease the salary of those who had served
already in the expiring Congress and
been paid it was equally right in honor
to appropriate money from the Treasury
to pay all the surviving members OF Con-
gress in the country 1t was equally
constitutional for Congress to vote mil
lion of dollars to every member.


Nor will it be forgotten that the grab
bill raised the salaries OF the we'll paid
officers of the government, and lett un
touched those of the poorer paid and
harder working officers. ParsImony in
public salaries is poor economy. But If
upon full consideration it were thought
best that salaries should be raised, the
increase should be made carefully and
justly and in pursuance of some we'll
system. There was no pretense
of such u system in the measure that was
adopted. Mr.. Dawes, indeed tried to
substitute or add an increase OF twenty
five per cent. TO the salaries of custom.
house officers who do not receive more
than 81, ,50O a year. But it had no favor.
The law was most accurately described as
"a grab. And, worst OF all, it was
brlbe. AS the increase was III pursuance
of no principle, the money appropriated
to the expiring Congress was, as Mr.
Morton described 1t i'll an Ohio speech
during the last summer, a gift; and the
only object of the gilt was that those who
were to receive it should support the bill
that gave it to them, but which also in
creased the Presidents salary, and that
OF members OF Congress, and OF the cabl-
net, and OF the Justices OF the Supreme
Court.


That the increase of the salary in the
manner that 1T Was made and under the
circumstances was disgraceiuI seems ~