160 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



guments of the present discussion, have con- 

 vinced me to the contrary. I shall not now 

 attempt to answer. I cannot, in the time I 

 shall have allowed me, even refer to the objec- 

 tions which have been made to the law of 

 1873, nor will I retort in invective upon those 

 who have maligned me. I repeat only what is 

 no longer denied, that the Congress had the 

 constitutional power and the legal right to 

 enact the law. There was, therefore, no 

 moral wrong or vice in it. It was not ' theft? 

 ' robbery," 1 nor any other crime. There was 

 never, in fact, any question of any real im- 

 portance involved except the sum at which the 

 salary should be fixed. Was the sum in the 

 law too much or too little ? Was it reasonable 

 or unreasonable, just or unjust? No fault was 

 ever found with the amount at which the sal- 

 ary was established by the law of 1866. And 

 yet I assert, what I most solemnly believe, and 

 what no honest man can, after a full consider- 

 ation and understanding of the subject, doubt, 

 that the old law giving a salary of $5,000, with 

 the perquisites then provided for, and the frank- 

 ing privilege as it then existed, was, in a pecu- 

 niary point of view, more desirable, better, for 

 the members of Congress than the salary as 

 now provided by law. I cannot go into the 

 figures ; I have not time to show this ; but the 

 gentleman from Nevada (Ifr. Kendall), and the 

 gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Comingo), and 

 others, have demonstrated this beyond cavil or 

 doubt. I do claim, therefore, and if time per- 

 mitted could show and satisfy all honest men, 

 that the pay of members is not too high. 



"I have been in Congress more than ten 

 years. If there be any ten years of life better 

 than any other ten, they are those when we are 

 most mature ; and in that sense I have been in 

 Congress the best ten years of my life. I have 

 never taken from any man" during my life a 

 dollar that did not belong to me, or that I did 

 not believe I had honestly earned. I would 

 not do it now. I am an economical man, 

 reared in poverty and accustomed to live upon 

 small means. I have indulged in no extrava- 

 gances, and have not even felt myself able, in 

 view of the support of my family and the edu- 

 cation of my children, to return or reciprocate 

 the social courtesies and compliments that 

 have been extended to me. And yet I now 

 and here declare I have not been able to lay 

 up any thing or add one dollar to what I had 

 when elected to Congress, and have not now 

 of this world's goods as much as when first 

 elected. My own case I supposed to be that 

 of all those who have attended to their duties 

 honestly and faithfully, and who were not 

 blessed with large wealth. I suppose so now. 

 I have conversed with many members, and 

 found their experience the same as mine. The 

 sessions of Congress have been longer and the 

 expenses of members far more for the last ten 

 years than ever before. The cost of living 

 everywhere has been greater, and especially in 

 Washington. 



"Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to 

 this whole debate. I have waited for argu- 

 ments, for reasons to be given why this law 

 should be repealed. It is intimated by some 

 that it provides for the payment to members 

 of too large a salary. And yet when it is as- 

 serted here, and demonstrated by those who 

 have spoken, demonstrated by figures, that the 

 pay and perquisites, including the franking 

 privilege, as it is called, under the old law 

 were as much or more than the present pay, 

 no answer is made, no denial even is put in. 



" But it is said the whole question has been 

 before the bar of public opinion and has there 

 been decided, and Eepresentatives are here 

 predicating their action, their votes, upon this 

 decision bowing, as they call it, to public 

 opinion. Now, sir, I have as much respect 

 for public opinion as any man. I believe, too, 

 when the people have a fair chance, when 

 they have had the opportunity to examine, to 

 know and understand all the facts, that their 

 judgment is very likely to be right. I bow 

 with reverential awe to such judgment to the 

 judgment of the people so formed. But, in or- 

 der to be right, it is absolutely essential that 

 the subject should have been fairly and truth- 

 fully presented, and candidly and calmly con- 

 sidered. When this is not the case, publio 

 opinion is quite as apt to be wrong as right. 

 The masses can be no better judge are no 

 more likely to be right without deliberation, 

 without consideration, without knowledge of 

 all the facts and circumstances than an indi- 

 vidual. The voice of the people is only the ag- 

 gregation of the voices of individuals. If the in- 

 dividuals are wrong, if they are moved by ca- 

 price, or passion, or error, there is no safety or 

 propriety infollowing or obeying their demands. 

 It is the duty of the representative to examine 

 for himself, to weigh the whole subject, to as- 

 certain the right, and act accordingly as duty 

 and conscience dictate. It is not true states- 

 manship, it is not the duty of the representa- 

 tive, to bow to the storm, to yield to the pas- 

 sion or the caprice of the multitude, and surren- 

 der his individual judgment and conscience, 

 his honest convictions, to inconsiderate clamor. 

 There can be no government, no individual 

 representation, no freedom or liberty even, in 

 such case. The power that would elect a 

 President one day would crown a king the 

 next. I do not argue that the representative 

 must stand with his fingers on the public 

 pulse and bow down or rise up according as 

 it shall beat high or low. He is the represent- 

 ative, not the slave of the people. He is one 

 of the people at the same time that he repre- 

 sents the people. He is chosen a representa- 

 tive not because he has no views or opin- 

 ions of his own, but because of his views and 

 opinions, known and understood beforehand, 

 and because he is known to be reliable in the 

 hour of danger and trial. There is, if you 

 please, a ''higher law'"* than the people speak- 

 ing through the press the mere echo of the 



