CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



153 



V-ir Representatives fairly and equitably. 

 are- in i: he r unjust nor ungenerous. They 

 willing that wo should litivua fair salary for 

 uro rendering tin-in hi- re. I 

 think, Mr. speaker, tlmt the popular indigna- 

 tion during tin- pa.st .summer was not directed 

 MI much against the increase of pay as it was 

 against what has been called the back pay. 

 Tin- people felt indignant that in the last hours 

 of tho last day of the session, after we had 

 I our receipts monthly, acknowledging 

 that we had been paid in full for our services 

 \ve should pass a law taking immediate- 

 ly out of tho Treasury $5,000 each, which we 

 had acknowledged we had not earned. It was 

 for this that people called members to a stern 

 account. 



1 thought on that occasion, when the bill 

 was before the House, that it was injudicious, 

 nnd I thought that it waa wrong. I thought 

 that the people had had no opportunity to 

 :pon tho bill. And I nm very sure that, 

 if the hill had been brought into the House at 

 the first session of Congress, before the county, 

 nnd district, and State conventions met, that 

 bill increasing the pay and giving back pay 

 never would have passed, in the form and at 

 the figures at which it did eventually pass. If 

 it had been passed at that earlier session, 

 however, if the people had had a chance to 

 express their sentiments with regard to it, in 

 their different Constituencies, they would have 

 made no complaint. They could have dealt 

 with their Representatives as they thought 

 best. But they had no such opportunity. 

 On that occasion I advocated the bill extend- 

 ing the pay to $6,000 a year. I did it because 

 I saw there was a determination to increase 

 the pay, and I felt that $6,000 a year, as I 

 proposed at that time, would be about a just 

 compensation for what we would lose, in the 

 shape of stationery, mileage, and obligation to 

 pay postage on public documents, under the 

 bill that finally passed. 



"Therefore it was that I voted against the 

 bill,- and never touched the back pay, but 

 turned it over to the Treasurer, who receipted 

 for the same." 



Mr. Poland, of Vermont, said : " Mr. Speak- 

 er, I should not have occupied any of the time 

 of the House on this subject had it not been 

 that I have introduced a substitute for the bill 

 reported by the committee, for which, and in 

 behalf of which, I desire to say a word or two. 

 A few days since I was in company with a con- 

 siderable number of gentlemen I think over a 

 hundred when tho subject of the salary bill 

 and what ought to be done with it was the sole 

 topic of conversation, and a number of them 

 expressed their views in relation to it. They 

 all concurred in saying that it had been utterly 

 condemned by the public judgment of the 

 whole people of the United States ; that the 

 thing had been discussed, and considered, and 

 adjudicated, by the sovereign people, that 

 authority to which we all owe allegiance, 



whose commands and whose judgment* we are 



hound (> ohi-v. (leiitletm-n i|. 'lined to diftCUM 

 the question whether or not the bill wan 

 wrong, whether the provision for raising sala- 

 ries from $5,000 to $7,500 was right or wrong. 

 They said it was a non-essential question, now 

 that tho people had considered it und bad 

 passed judgment upon it, from which there 

 was no appeal, and by which judgment wo 

 were bound ; that our solo duty now was to 

 execute that judgment. They said it was as 

 idle now to discuss whether it was right <>r 

 wrong as to discuss what a man might have 

 proved in a case that had already been tried 

 and gone to final judgment. And, Mr. Speaker, 

 such has substantially been said by almost 

 every gentleman who has discussed the ques- 

 tion before the House. 



"My friend from Indiana (Mr. Wilson), while 

 maintaining here that the increase was just, 

 and right, and proper to be made, and justify- 

 ing his vote in favor of it, says it is too late to 

 stand upon that; that it has been decided the 

 other way, and decided by a tribunal that we 

 are all bound to obey. Now, Mr. Speaker, I 

 owe as much allegiance and obedience to the 

 public judgment upon this and upon all sub- 

 jects as any gentleman upon this floor ; bat I 

 do not agree in the conclusion that is to be 

 drawn. Tho people have decided that this in- 

 crease of salary increased in amount, and go- 

 ing back and making it apply to that Congress 

 which had almost expired was wrong. So, 

 gentlemen, all say. Now, what does the bill 

 that has been reported by your committee 

 propose to do? Why, it proposes that that 

 bill shall be left to stand ; that all the increased 

 pay that was received by members of the Forty- 

 second Congress, they shall be allowed to keep ; 

 and that all the increase of pay which the 

 members of this Congress have so far received 

 they shall be allowed to keep. Now, Mr. 

 Speaker, let me ask you, and ask the gentlemen 

 on the floor, whether that is conforming to 

 tho public judgment on this subject ? Is that 

 what the people have decreed ? 



"Is this going to satisfy the demands of the 

 people on this subject? When the people have 

 resolved in conventions, and when they have 

 said through the public press, that the law is 

 to be repealed, what did they mean by it ? 

 That we were merely to change the law now 

 and take a different and lower rate of compen- 

 sation hereafter? Not at all ; what the public 

 judgment has demanded and now demands on 

 this subject, if it demands any thing, is that 

 this thing shall be utterly wiped out. That no 

 benefit or advantage that any man has derived 

 under it shall be kept find retained by him. 

 That, and that alone, will satisfy the public 

 demand and the public judgment on this sub- 

 ject ; and, sir, it was for that purpose and with 

 that view that I introduced a substitute for 

 the report of the committee. Why, those very 

 gentlemen who said, upon tho occasion that I 

 refer to, that the public judgment had so pro- 



