Letter of Gen. Butler, of Mass. The salaries of public officers. The venality and untruthfulness of a portion of the press. He shows a conspiracy to break down the Republican administration by denunciation of increase of salaries
V o ^0 ^ ♦., • 1 • aO ^ V’ * * • « • ^ ♦ ** “ ' V * !. •j*- c " fy '•^^>^\ '»bv^ ‘ ^,vxx^ .4' X •*’ .. ^ **.o* ^ A® ^ ■%> c/ ♦ ji^** ♦'■ ® ** • iiv\vzsv//a o • aV-*^ o ^ -4^ % • • * A 'o . fc .•4'^ .•^•.% (c5> •‘ X p!» o » • * ""^o •-rf5XVv«k^- O » 'bV ^5^ * • ® ^ HiA • » ' • A® • • • o ® • A^ •tr & * 4a ’*vt* <*'^ij0iMr*' '4’ '0-' ''•‘'6''^''4 <iy V-. ‘‘ ■t!^ ^ <A '•••* ^ V?r^ A ^Or ••A*'* •4##^ <^ qv o"*^ jA ^ >* '^1^ ‘'^^o* '^•^0* .‘i ^ '^S * k- M * o O Q ■ V. ^ , \V r. A »*. •4^ '^. Je. s:%\. y ‘;<^* % A' ^ A® ^ ^ ^ _ Cv » T^ Ai ^ O • * O'*? f» A O A^ ^ •* \'^ 'tc A^°'0 -’•.o« O ♦,,,. .0 % V V •••®- ^ aP ‘* 'U ^ ♦i'XVA* ^ 4'*' “ * A^ * 4^ m m '*- < ♦ A^ ^ - V ♦ r\ • v»^-- % A ♦>'%<?/».•. '« Nr * 4r • K Ml --t ^v *5^ H/ 4^ • £7^»^r • A* ^ 'VvT* A < 'O..* ^ A f(y ^ 4.4 I*"'** ^ ,0^ (i0*‘« ”*b 4 b m «.* A 4 -4^ A* ^^ *»»*•* A® X *- X. aO^ > V^ f*'®-* ^ *0^ .*•• \ -w-' ^/'-v '•W-' »*'"■"* •••w t* 4A ^o • * * ^ ^ •'a-.* ^ 'a ^ • ^^1’* -A ^ •’'^^''4 ^ y'^, % <y .’-l^y°o y .‘‘J^L* fO^ ">* 0^ A*; O. b *0 «1 r\ ' <L^ O ® » 0 ’ ^ O o aP. /-‘3 TWIIVWVN^ V® ^ ^ 0 V*'*-” °4. 0 r ^ V^‘ <V-^ * * ^ "o ^ % •_'Jv!_‘" - '% (^0^ O ® '^o 4 O ■A/ ^ % ^•’ ,^0^ --*> ' .'is'. =:s .-jp\*-i.:.L'‘ - N?-'' ‘ •.»’ ^<V‘' V ^ L • <»* O ♦ Av y^ oM/ J9^\k ♦ ■O'? Av '^j.. ♦ :, ■> ,0^ .-J^^ Oo >'*■ •n^o« ► « e • * ^•''® •'.,4* aO o > Vi***®-. aO^ •ww'# ^ V * * • ®-. .* s,,^ .il/,^.r *iL 0^ .®_r4:^% .1*^ * » 4 * * *- < o b?- V C^ t- °<u *'■’*' •aV '^'^ *•'• * 0^ V a ^ a'V •“ . ov .g ^ •'* A® ^ « • «- ^ %ILL.'* > •« ‘*^ A^ ♦ o V * A ''o • fc ,V7 v^ • • • » ^v Ay ****** '^o ^6^ * • • • ♦ Ay ’ A *>1!^'. A ‘ ^6^ ^oV ] 1 I 1 •4 4 i I \ I i ] f <4 9*‘ A I cSfll i I f l: I • ■' • *T \ . • ■ : . ^ .':. * ^ .J. ' 'l ' * (' / ,. > ’'«> IV; r.H ^ ■' L“ •«5f W i 53l^^T i * ' V • 'Y ■*l T *• '_ * eii V ' f i 1 fa .1 i ft 'l ...I 1 M i" !■' 1.1 LETTER OF GEN. OF MASS. / BUTLER, THE SALAEIES OF PUBLIC OFFICEBS. THE VENALITY AND UNTRUTHFULNESS OF A PORTION OF THE PRESS. HE SHOWS A CONSPIRACY TO BREAK DOWN THE REPUBLI¬ CAN ADMINISTRATION BY DENUNCIATION OF INCREASE OF SALARIES. '\ J BOSTON : PRESS OE ROCKWELL &c dTCTRCHILL, 122 Washington Street. 1 8 7 3. CORRESPONDENCE. Amesbury, April 18, 1873. Gen. B. F. Butler: — My dear Sir, — Since the adjournment of Congress, I have noticed in some of the daily papers many charges and insinuations, that the "Salary Bill,” passed by that body, was a swindle and a steal, for which you are held to a great extent responsible. Some of your constituents would be pleased to learn of the reasons which governed your action upon this question, among them. Yours truly. Geo. H. Briggs. LETTER OF GENERAL BUTLER. SALAEIES, PUBLIC MEN, AND NEWSPAPERS. Boston, July 28th, 1873. NOT AFRAID OF THE QUESTION. Dear Sir : — The apology due for not sooner replying to your kind note asking " the reasons which governed my ac¬ tion upon the question of the Increase of Salaries” is, that I have not wished to appear anxious to attempt to forestall opinion on that subject, or to rush to the defence of a meas¬ ure that ought not to have been attacked. It has never been discussed by its opponents, only abused, and Congress denounced. I have had, however, no fear but 4 the just judgment of the people, when it could be reached, would sustain it, and absolve those who voted for it from all wrong in action or intention. FUTURE SALARY CAN NOT BE OBJECTED TO. 1 am not aware that there has been any well-considered objection made to the increase of the salary of the President, the Vice-President, the Cabinet Officers, the Judges of the Supreme Court, or that of Members of Congress, when applied to the future. No one not blindly prejudiced, weigh¬ ing the facts, can doubt the increase of the President's salary was proper, whether he looks at it as compensation for the services rendered, or as a reasonable and adequate support for the officer and family, in view of the requirements of his position, or as a i3roper recognition of the dignity and high station of his office ; or compares it with the salary at first established in 1789. Twenty-five thousand dollars a year then, in their purchasing power, and in comparison with the incomes and emoluments of individuals, were five times more, to say the least, than now. K' OUR FATHERS GAVE THE PRESIDENT A SALARY BEFITTING HIS HIGH OFFICE. The great disparity between that sum and three thousand dollars, the salary of a member of the cabinet then, shows the estimation in which the fathers of the Republic held the office of President ; else why make his emoluments eight times greater than those of his cabinet, besides furnishing him with a house, secretaries, servants, and equipage, even to the saddle on which he rode, and the wagon in which his marketing was brought home? And this disparity is further seen, because three thousand dollars was equal to the highest salaries then paid in business enterprises. How different the fact now ! A better idea of the difference between money values then and now may be seen in the fact, that Washington, ten years afterwards, died, the second richest 5 man of that year, and his fortune w.is six hundred and fifty thousand dollars ; and the very richest man and most suc¬ cessful merchant died that year, worth less than a million. PRIVATE FORTUNES ARE NOW RECKONED BY MILLIONS. Now there is more than one private fortune in the country which counts a quarter as many millions as Washington had thousands ; and quite a number of men , in many States of the Union, whose fortunes are from ten to fifty times as much. A SALARY IN PROPORTION TO WASHINGTON'S GIVES GRANT 1^275,000. Another fact will show the difference in value of a salary then and now. Take the difference .in the amount of specie in circulation in the country at the two points nearest to the time of comparison of which we have official statistics ; (see Report made to Congress, in 1854), — the year 1816, when there was seven and a half millions all told, and the year 1854, when there was a hundred and eighty-one millions. - Again, the difference in the numbers of the people who pay the salary seems to illustrate this point. Suppose, against the fact, no man in the country was richer now than in 1789, the problem maybe stated thus: as three and a half millions of population who paid Washington's salary is to twenty-five thousand dollars, its amount, so is thirty-eight and a half millions, present population of the country, to a proportionate salary to General Grant. Give the President a salary in this proportion, and he would have, in round numbers, two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars a year, instead of fifty thousand, which Congress has now established. The same proportion of increase applied to the Cabinet officers, the Supreme Judges, and to members of the Congress, would nearly treble their present salaries. This proportion, and more, holds good in every trade or profession. 6 as to the price of services between Washingtons time and now. A MECHANIC GETS TEN TIMES MORE NOW THAN THEN, The skilled mechanic who repaired the President’s house in Philadelphia, in 1789, worked from sun to sun for fifty cents per day. The mechanic whom I desire to build my house at Washington, claims $8 per day, and stipulates for ten hours’ work only. A CONGRESSMAN SHOULD HAVE HIGHER PAT THAN CABINET OFFICERS. But in order to reproach members of Congress, it is said they should not have as high a salary as judges and cabinet officers, because the former are kept in Washington by their duties only a portion of the year. So far from that consideration having weight, it should be precisely the reverse. The short time for which members of the House are elected, necessitates that the member during his term of service must keep up two homes — his house in which he dwells, which no prudent man would sell or dismantle for so short a term, and his house in Washington, if he lives in a house, as for his own sake, and that of his family, he ought to do; while the cabinet officer, appointed, as a rule, for four years, and the judge, appointed for life, with a retiring pension in old age, can make his only and permanent home at Washington. THE BILL EQUALIZES AND REDUCES SALARIES BY CUTTING OFF MILEAGE. Besides, so far as it relates to Congressmen, this bill has been entirely misrepresented, if not misunderstood. It does not so much increase the salaries of members as it equal¬ izes them. Ever since the Constitution was adopted, the compensation of a member of Congress has been in part in the form of mileage. In the time of Washington it was fixed at thirty cents a mile, subsequently reduced, but always 7 causing very great inequality in compensation. As the population of the country extended itself, the mileage added largely to the emoluments of the distant Senators and Representatives, while the facilities of transportation by steamboat and railroad, especially if the member was com¬ plimented with a free pass, did not change the inequality ; so that there were members of the last Congress, who were receiving nearly, or quite, seven thousand five hundred dollars as compensation, while others were receiving only a few dollars over five thousand. BY ABOLISHING ALL ALLOWANCES AND PERQUISITES^ IT MAKES BUT SMALL ACTUAL ADDITION TO PAY. The present bill abolishes all mileage, and thus reduces the pay of some members quite fifty per cent., while it raises that of others a like amount. Again, heretofore, divers allow¬ ances were made to members of Congress in the shape of newspapers, stationery, franking privilege, and other matters, which in the past have been overdrawn, and were abused by the selfish and grasping ; all of which were cut ofi* by this bill, and nothing allowed except the actual certified expenses paid by the members in getting to and from the Capitol. To show the extent of this inequality in mileage in the past, take 1856 for example, when the delegate from Oregon received nineteen thousand dollars and upwards a year for his services, while the member from Philadelphia received a little over three thousand. Thus you will see, my dear sir, that there has been no such addition to the pay as has been pretended in the public journals, it being usually stated therein that every Congressman voted himself five thousand dollars additional pay, whereas the deduction of mileage and these allowances being made, there has not been really, on an average, more than one thousand dollars a year added, if so much ; but how much cannot exactly be known except by the experience of the results to members in the expense of carrying on their correspondence and doing the business of 8 their constituents, the member now paying his own postage even when addressing the President of the United States in the public service. THE NEWSPAPERS CONCEAL THE FACTS. I am inclined to think that this statement of the fact must be substantially new to you, and yet your letter shows that you have read the newspaper denunciations of the bill and their misrepresentations of its effect. You will naturally inquire why have not these self- appointed guardians of the public morals given to the peo¬ ple a fair and just exposition of the facts, instead of gross misrepresentations of them? You may well do so, and this question I will endeavor to answer before I get through. SALARY IS NOT TOO LARGE WHILE AGENTS OF MILLS GET AS MUCH^ AND CLERGYMEN %26,000. I will not pursue this branch of the subject further, be¬ cause I do not believe the salary, in the future, can be deemed too large by any right-minded man, specially when he considers that the services of an efficient agent of a manu¬ facturing establishment of any considerable amount of capital cannot be procured for less than seven thousand five hundred dollars a year, and that, too, in a permanent situation, while our railroads pay twenty-five thousand dollars and upwards for the salaries of their presidents, and churches an equal amount to their clergymen. THE PEOPLE OVGHT TO ELECT REPRESENTATIVES WORTH AS MUCH AS EITHER. Ought not the people to elect representatives of their in¬ terests worth as much as the least of these amounts, if salary is to be reckoned as compensation for valuable services, or, viewed in the more proper light, as simply an adequate sup¬ port of the member and his fiimily, while doing his public duties? Indeed, the uncontroverted fact, that no member of the incoming Congress is reported to have refused to take his 0 increased pay monthly, — as has been the custom of Con¬ gress to do, — would seem to imply that by them, at least, it is deemed a proper and adequate amount only. MINISTER WASHBURNE SAYS ^'‘MEMBERS OUGHT NOT TO KEEP HA LI A DOZEN MISTRESSES^ OR BUCK THE TIGEr” ; BUT DOES NOT TELL WHAT THAT IS. A letter appears in the newspapers, purporting to come from Mr. Wash])urne, our Minister to France, upon the ques¬ tion of the sufficiency of the salary of members of Congress, in one portion of which I agree with him so far as I under¬ stand the language he uses. It says, "The people don’t send their representatives to Washington to live like princes, buck the tiger and keep half a dozen mistresses.” Therefore I voted a salary sufficient to support the member’s famil3' at Washington, to guard him from tempta¬ tion to such a multiplicity of mistresses. If Mr. Wash- burnc’s elegant innuendo is supported by the fact, the mem¬ ber should have his family with him. What exactlv the ]Min- ister to France may mean by the undefined phrase, " buck the tiger,” I am quite uncertain. I certjiinl}^ never have seen any¬ thing in AVashington that went by that name during my seven years’ service in Congress. If the minister is familiar with it, it may account for the ability wliich he claims to live on a small salaiy. HE DOES NOT OBJECT TO TAKING '‘'‘BACK PAY^’ AS MINISTER., HOWEVER. Still, I have not observed any objection on his part to the appropriation of fifty thousand dollars additional, passed in 1871, for the purpose of defraying the expenses in part of the Minister to France in 1870, although that appro¬ priation was retroactive. M^ithout this increase or " bucking the tiger,” it would seem a little easier to live not "like a prince” and support a family in Paris, at $17,500 gold, than to do the same in AFashington on $7,500 currency. 2 10 IF TAKING BACK PAY IS STEALING^ SWINDLING^ AND IlOBBERY^^ ALL PUBLIC MEN ARE EQUALLY GUILTY. If you, sir, have thus far agreed with me, and believe that the salary of a member ought to be what with the deductions it is in the future, then why should not the members of the last Congress receive a like amount? The reasons why the pay was made applicable to the late Congress have never been alluded to or discussed ; but the fact is the subject of the fiercest denunciation, to some of which you allude in your note. It has been called "a swindle,” " a steal,” " a grab,” " a robbery ; ” the men receiving it have been denominated "thieves,” "robbers,” "grabbers,” "plunderers.” Indeed, all the vocabulary of Billingsgate has been exhausted in describing it. Let us now see if these are proper terms to be applied to the members of the National Legislature because of a constitutional and usual legislative act ; and if so, how many of our public men and all classes of our citizens are subject to a like condemnation and to be branded with the same epithets. THIS IS SPECIALLY TRUE OF MASSACHUSETTS JUDGES., AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. If it can be made to appear — as is the fact — that from the beginning of the government to the present hour, every State Legislature and every Congress which has increased the salary of its members, has made that increase applicable to those who voted it, relating back to the begin- ning of their term of service; if it shall appear, con¬ fining ourselves now to the State of Massachusetts, where for a reason obvious to all, these newspaper denunciations have been the loudest, that every executive officer, every judge on the bench, when his salary was increased, has always taken back salary ; ” — that is, salary which was raised retroactively to a time of service for which a lower pay was fixed by law, — then all these men are "thieves,” "plunderers,” " swindlers,” " salary-grabbers,” and " robbers.” 11 ALL OUR SOLDIERS HAVE RECEIVED RACK PAY. If it shall appear that all the brave men who, as soldiers, fought ill the ranks, who, enlisting to serve for a certain bounty niid [lay, have petitioned Congress to give increased pay and bounty, and, believing it just, Congress has given it to them, and they have received it ; then all these heroes who offered their lives to save their country are back-pay ” grab¬ bers,” "thieves,” and "robbers,” as well as the members of the United States Congress. OUR MECUANICS HAVE RECEIVED BACK PAY FROM THE GOVERN¬ MENT. If it shall appear that all mechanics in the employ of the government, before the eight-hour law was put in oper¬ ation by the President’s proclamation, who have petitioned Congress to give, and have received additional pay retro¬ actively, after they had given a receipt in full for their services, then a great body of our mechanics are l)ack-pay "grabbers,” "salary-stealers,” "robbers,” and "plunderers,” as much as the members of the United States Congress. ALL NEWSPAPERS GRAB*' BACK PAY WHEN THEY CAN AND LIBEL THOSE WHO GIVE IT TO THEM. Nay, further, if it shall appear that these censors of pub¬ lic morals — the newspapers themselves — have, for their own emolument, taken back pay retroactively, for services per¬ formed before the pay was raised, then they, too, come into this category of "grabbers,” "thieves,” and "swindlers;” and if the same newspapers have falsely maligned the legis¬ lators, holding at the same time their own backpay money in their pockets, then as to them additional epithets will spring to the lips of right-minded and just men, such as falsifiers, maligners and libelers. 12 SALARIES HAVE BY ALL LEGISLATURES BEEN RAISED BACKWARDS. Salaries have been fixed six times in Congress — in 1789, in 1796, in 1816, in 1856, in 1866, and 1873; and each time, "back pay ” was given to the beginning of the term for which the Congressmen voting it were elected. In every Legislature in this State — and so far as I can ascertain, in every other State wherein the pay has been raised — there has always been " back pay ” to the beginning of the term for which the members of the Legislature voting it were elected. Since 1864, every principal executive and judicial officer in this State has had his salary raised retroactively ; that is, going backward for a longer or shorter period, and every one has taken it. As an example, in the year 1866, the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court were raised one thousand dollars a year, to take effect from the first of January previously, — a clear case of "back salary.” MEMBERS OF LEGISLATURES^ JUDGES AND OFFICERS ALWAYS TAKE BACK RAY.” Now all these judges and officers, all these legislators, all these members of Congress, from the beginning, have taken the "back salary and until March, 1873, no man has ever returned it. so DO WORKINGMEN^ AND ARE GLAD TO GET IT. Again, you will remember that all the mechanics employed by the Government worked ten hours a day after the eight- hour law was passed for nearly a year, at a rate of wages agreed upon by themselves in the government employ, until the President, by proclamation, in spite of the opinion to the contrary of Attorney-General Hoar, gave the law, making eight hours a day’s labor in the government works its duo effect. Then all these mechanics asked Congress — and a bill passed the House to that effect — that their pay mii^ht be raised backwards two-fifths during the term they had so been 13 employed. Are these working men also ” thieves,” robbers,” and " back-pay grabbers ” ? so DO SOLDIERS TAKE BACK PAY AXD BOUNTY^ AND ARE SORRY CONGRESS DOES DOT DO THEM JUSTICE AND GIVE THEM MORE. Again, during the war, our soldiers enlisted for certain bounty and pay which was then promised them as a part of their contract. Afterwards, an increase of pay and bounty was given by law to others, and all our soldiers asked therefore an increase of " back pay ” and bounty to be given them ; and bills for the equalization of bounty have been pressed upon the attention of Congress, and upon State Legislatures, although to pass them would be '^giving back pay and back bounty for services already rendered.” Are all our soldiers "back-pay grabbers,” " thieves,” and " rob¬ bers”? — for many of them have already taken increased " back pay ” and bounty in lands and other emoluments. Plave not the newspapers, and clergymen who are preaching against " back pay,” undertaken a larger job than they can well carry through, in attempting to convict all classes of our fellow-citizens of being thieves and robbers? BETTER BE RIGHT WITH THE JUDGES., SOLDIERS AND WORKING¬ MEN THAN WRONG WITH THE NEWSPAPERS AND POLITICAL PARSONS. For myself, singular as it may seem to them, I prefer to be denounced, in company with the judges, the senators, the legislators, the executive officers of our State, the soldiers and workingmen of our State, than to be extolled by the newspapers, or the little clique of clergymen who are turning the churches into caucuses to gratify their personal spite. THE NEWSPAPERS ARE DEEPER IN THE MUD THAN ANYBODY ELSE. But say you to me : " You have not yet touched the newspapers. If the judges, legislators and others, are all 14 as deep in the mud as Congress is in the mire, still the news¬ papers are pure and white as snow.” NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS ALWAYS LIVE ON THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY CAN. Let me give you a fact, of which you are, pei-haps, unaware. Quite all the principal newspapers in the United States are supposed to maintain in Washington a cor¬ respondent, whose letters make their appearance under the head of " our special Washington correspondence.” Now a very large majority of those newspaper correspondents have been for a great many years appointed clerks of the several committees of the House and Senate, by the chairman who has the right of appointment, generally upon the under¬ standing that his newspaper shall glorify the chairman as an equivalent for the salary of the clerk who is thus supported as " correspondent.” THE PAPERS COULD NOT HAVE GOOD ONES IF THEY DID NOT STEAL’^ THEIR PAY FROM THE TREASURY. To write letters and discuss public questions so as to interest the people,, the correspondent must be a man of very considerable literary and other ability who in lields of useful labor could command large compensation. Such men the Washington correspondents, with a few excep¬ tions, are. The newspapers cannot afford to pay them their price, and therefore could not afford to retain them unless they contrived in this way to filch their support out of the Treasury. THEY ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL “ GRAB BACK SALARY^' AND VILIFY THOSE WHO VOTE IT. In different Congresses the pay of clerks of com¬ mittees has been raised retroactively back to the beginning of the session, and in every instance each one of these newspaper correspondents — sometimes the editor him¬ self being the clerk — has " grabbed ” his back pay. In this 15 last salary bill the back-pay feature of which the newspapers so much denounce, the pay of these very newspaper corre¬ spondents, clerks of the two Houses, w^as raised fifteen per cent., going back to March, 1870, and every newspaper — and there was a large number who had clerks on com¬ mittees — took back pay for two years, rolling it as a sweet morsel under their tongues, and then wrote and pub¬ lished virtuous articles denouncing the "back-pay grab.” THEY LOBBY FOR IT^ TAKE IT, BUT NEVER RETURN IT, Let me state further what is within my personal knowledge, that these very clerks were upon the floor of the House when the bill giving them back pay was under consideration, lobbying for it furiously, and exhibiting most nervous fears lest it should fail. And although, by their calumnies and slanders, the newspapers have frightened a few men — who, as I believe, mistake cowardice for conscience, against their better judgment, for some of them voted and spoke for the increase of salary — into sending back their increased salary to the treasury, }?et if any newspaper-man has sent any part of his " back pay ” to the treasury, he has not made himself visible to the naked eye. NO ANSWER TO SAY THEY DO NOT VOTE IT I JUST AS BAD TO TAKE IT. The replies made in excuse for this are twofold : 1st. These men did not vote this compensation for them¬ selves, and the Congressmen did. 2d. If wrong in these men, it does not aid you. Two wrongs do not make a right. I answer, if it was wrong to vote it, it was equally wrong to take it ; and the men who denounce it so bitterly are simply insincere, and do it for a purpose, as I shall show, and not in the advocacy of the right. 16 THK CONGRESSMAN MAKES NO CONTRACT NOT TO INCREASE II IS SALARY during HIS TERM. The objection against increasing the pay of that Con¬ gress, most frequently put forward, and which has aflectcd the minds of some good men, is that a contract was in fact entered into between the member and the people, Avhen he was elected, that he would serve his term for the compensation then stated by law. Nothing can be more groundless. There was no such contract ; and a little ex¬ amination o^ constitutional history will show to any candid and discriminating mind that there could in the nature of things be no such, either ex[)ress or implied. THAT winen AIjL good men have done and SANCTIONED IS AS NEAR RIGHT AS YOU WILL GET. To the second, I reply. That which has been done in legislation from the foundation of the government, by the common consent of all good men, without substantial objec¬ tion, must be taken in human affairs to be so nearly the right thing fo be done as to justify whoever docs it; and the use merely of hard language will not convince an intelligent people that that is a deep wrong and a crime which has been sanctioned by every good man in public and private life from the beginning of the government. I further contend that the increase of salary, made retroactive, was right in itself. I will show presently the constitutional power and duty of a member of Congress to fix the salary for himself, and what was his contract with his constituents at the time of his elec¬ tion, and some of the reasons why the salary ought to have been applicable to the then present Congress. CONGRESSMEN ARE OBLIGED TO VOTE THEIR SALARY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. The mode of fixing and paying the compensation of mem¬ bers of Congress was much considered in the convention which framed the Constitution. One proposition was that they should receive pay from their States. That was opposed 17 b}" ^ladison, and other far-seeing men, on the ground that ^yhen politics changed in the State, the Legislatures would starve their members of Congress into submission to their will. IF TUB PAY IS TOO LOW NOBODY BUT RICH MEN CAN REPRESENT THE PEOPLE. Another proposition was made that the out-going Congress should fix the pay for the in-coming Congress. That was rejected upon the same grounds that in case of a change in politics, the out-going Congress would cut off the means of living of the in-coming Congress. Again, it was proposed that the Senators, representing the wealth of the country, should have no pay; and that was advocated on the ground- that rich men could only come to the Senate, or, in the words of Gouverneur Morris, when speaking upon this subject : ” He was also against paying the Senators. They will pay them¬ selves if they can ; if they cannot, they will be rich and can do without; of such the second branch ought to consist, and none but such can compose it if they are not to be paid.” Of course such a proposition was rejected then, as it would be now. For I take it, no man would desire that only rich men should go to the Senate. NO MAN OF WEALTH COULD NOT AFFORD TO VOTE A BILL IN FAVOR OF POOR MEN. And here I observe that all the men of large wealth in Congress did not vote for the increase of salary, with the single exception of the senior senator from Pennsylvania. They thought they .could aflbrd to vote airaiust it, because it made no difference to them. Having means, through my professional services and income, by which I can live without any salary, I thought I could not afford to vote against the increase of salary ; for being o f the people, I deemed a poor man ought to have the oppor¬ tunity of representing them in Congress, and if their Repre¬ sentative was not so well paid as to be able to live there, one 3 18 of two things must follow, cither that he could not go, or, if he did go, he would be tempted to sell himself and his vote to get the means of living. PAT 10 BE FIXED BY EACH CONGRESS EVERY YEAR FOR ITSELF. The final result was giving members adequate compen¬ sation, to be fixed by the votes of both Houses. There¬ fore, by the Constitution and practice, each Congress fixes the salary of its members, not only for a Congress, but establishes it every year when it passes the legislative ap¬ propriation bill ; whether this is done the first day of the term, or the first day of the year, or the last day, can make no diflference, because Congress alone determines its own com¬ pensation for itself during its term, and nobody else can do it. PAY^ IF INCREASED AT ALL^ MUST BE VOTED BY THOSE RECEIV¬ ING IT, Very much has been objected against the sincerity and integrity of the members voting this increase of salary, because, it is said, they voted to add to their own pay, to raise it from where it stood at the time they were elected. A moment’s reflection will show you, my dear sir, as well as every other reflecting man, that it is impossible ever to raise the pay of members of Congress, unless more or less of them do vote to increase their own pay. A large majority of the present members were re-elected to the next Congress. Their pay was fixed at a certain sum at the time of their election. If they increase that sum, for what¬ ever cause, and make it applicable to the next Congress, then, in that case, the majority would be voting an increase of their own pay over and above the sum at which it stood at the time they were elected. And in the case of the Senate, as one-third of them only go out every two years, the pay can¬ not be raised at all unless the then present Senators vote to raise their own pay. So that the requirement of the news¬ papers, that no man shdll ever vote to raise his own pay,» would simply render an increase of pay impossible from the beginning of the Government down to to-day. THE NEXT CONGRESS WILL FIX ITS OWN PAY. I see in the newspapers some senseless talk about repeal¬ ing the salary-bill for the next Congress. There need be no repealing act. All that Congress has to do is to anpropri- ate such amount as it deems proper for the salary of its members ; and that becomes the law of the land, takins: place of all other laws. ONLY CONTRACT MEMBER MAKES IS THAT HE WILL TAKE SUCH PAY AS CONGRESS VOTES. Therefore, it will be seen that the contract with the member of Congress, when elected, is that he will serve two years for such compensation as shall be determined at any time during the term for which he serves by his own vote in conjunction with those of his fellows.' Or, in other words, ho agrees to serve for such sum as he, in conjunction with his fellow-men, deems reasonable at any time during his term of service. On the contrary, the clerk of a commit¬ tee does make a contract that he will serve for so much per day, during the Congress, and having made that agree¬ ment, being a newspaper correspondent or editor, he takes his increased jjay in disregard of his contract, and writes denunciatory articles against receiving back pay, insisting on the sacredness of contracts. MR. HAWLEY DEMAGOGUES THE BILL^ AS IT COST HIM NOTHING SO TO DO. It is a fact worthy of remark that very little objection was made in the debates in Congress to the increase of salary being made applicable to the present Congress. The ques¬ tion discussed was what the amount ought to be, rather than whether it should be made applicalde to one Congress and ^not to another. I do remember, however, that Mr. Haw- 20 ley, of Connecticut, spoke very fluently upon the subject of our raising our own pay, as if it must not always be so done. That member, 1 hear, has refused to take his in¬ creased pay. But as he was elected to serve only thiee months in place of an able Representative of that State, who had deceased, and as his back pay would amount to but little more than his mileage, which must be deducted, his words did not produce so much effect as they might have done if they would cost him more, and it his course while in Congress had not convinced the House that his talk was the veriest demagogy. THE CLASSES OF PUBLIC MEN WHO HAVE VOTED AND TAKEN BACK pay'" from 'THE BEGINNING GIVEN. In order that you may see how far those wiu^ voted for and took their increased pay are justified in their action by the precedent and example of all public men, although I have stated it in general because the present members of Con¬ gress are so vindictively denounced by name, and threatened to be " stamped with infamy,” let me mention the men who have done precisely the same thing, only to a greater extent, so far as an increased per cent, on salary goes, — men who have been honored in every relation in life by their country¬ men, and upon whom no harsh criticism for this cause has ever, to my knowledge, been made. WASHINGTON AND THE REVOLUTIONARY FATHERS TOOK BACK PAY AND ARE NOW DENOUNCED. In 1796 the question of giving back pay to the members during the whole of the Congress was so little regarded that the yeas and nays were not called in either House, so that we do not know how our patriotic and pure fathers voted upon this increased-pay question. But we do know that their salary bill gave to themselves pay back from the beginning of the Congress. What a set of "thieves,” "swijid- lers,” " salary-stealers,” and back-pay grabbers,” those old 21 Revolutionary fathers of ours were, to be sure ! And how Washington ought to have been denounced then, and is catching it now, from the newspapers, over General Grant’s back, for signing that back-pay bill ! IN 1818 WEBSTER^ JUDGE McLEAN^ R. M. JOHNSON, TIMOTHY PICKERING stole” THEIR BACK PAY. In 1818, however, I hud that John McLean, of Ohio, afterwards the honored and pure Judge of the Supreme Court for so many years, and thrice a candidate for the Pres¬ idency, voted for his own "back pay.” Richard M. Johnson, raised to the Vice-Presidency afterwards, voted with him ; and Timothy Pickering, whom both the Country and the Com¬ monwealth delighted to honor, and whose memory is one of the glories of old Essex, where you and I live, "stole ” his backpay by his own vote, in company with Daniel Webster; all of whom are now to be branded for so doing as "thieves ” by the newspapers, which declare that public men now ought to receive such designation for doing the same thing. IN 1856 EIGHT MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS VOTED BACK PAY IN THE HOUSE, AND THE BILL WAS PASSED BY ONE VOTE. In 1856, on the last night of the session, the pay of members of Congress, iu addition to mileage, was made applicable backwards to the beginning of the Congress, and the salary was raised more than 67 per cent, besides the prior allowance for newspapers, stationery and books, as tixed when they were elected, or the " contract,” as it is now claimed, was made. The vote stood one hundred in favor, to ninety-nine against, iu the House. Of the eleven representatives of Massachusetts, eight voted for increased back pay and three failed to vote, when one negative vote would have de¬ feated the bill. That vote also was in favor of an amend¬ ment providing, that the increase should apply "to the Con¬ gress then sitting, from the beginning of the same.” 22 IN SENATE BACK PAY WAS VOTED BY MORE THAN TWO THIRDS. HALE^ TRUMBULL^ BELL AND WILSON VOTED FOR IT. ALL TOOK IT. In the Senate, on a direct vote retaining the back-pay clause of the bill, it was sustained by twenty-seven to twelve, or more than two-thirds, among whom were Douglas, Fish of New York, Hale of New Hampshire, Trumbull of Illinois, Bell of Tennessee, and Wilson of Massachusetts. Senator Wilson also made a speech in favor of increas¬ ing the salary, stating in substance, if he should die to-night he had not money saved from his salary wherewith to buy a pine coffin. VICE-PRESIDENT WILSON' S SPEECH ON THE SMALL GAME'* OF SMALL POLITICIANS COMMENDED TO SPEAKERS AT HAMILTON HALL. He also administered a rebuke to the small politicians and editors who seek to make political capital out of the pay- business in the following words, which I commend to some of the speakers at Hamilton Hall : — ” I do not believe any party can make anything at this time, when Ave spend $75,000,000 annually to carry on this Govern¬ ment, by opposing the payment of a reasonable compensation to members of Congress. If anybody undertakes that small game, I believe he will be froAvned down by the good sense of the people.” We are now spending $350,000,000 to carry oh the govern¬ ment. An increase in the same proportion Avould give a salary of $15,000, but the "small game” of the detractors ot public men increases Avith the salary. \ JVILSON AND WASHBURNE CONTRASTED AS ECONOMISTS. 