166 



CONGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



pensation of members of Congress may be in- 

 creased or diminished daring the very term of 

 their office. We may increase our own sala- 

 ries, or we may diminish them ; and that being 

 the case, as we have complete power over that 

 subject to increase or diminish the salary, if 

 now at this moment each member of Congress 

 had already received precisely the sum of 

 $5,000 for the year commencing on the 4th 

 day of March last, I say, as the Senator from 

 Indiana has already said, if we thought he 

 had received enough for this year, we might 

 say he should be paid no more than the $5,000 

 that he had already received. We may in- 

 crease our own salary or diminish it, and we 

 might diminish it for the succeeding three 

 months down to a dollar a day, and no one 

 could dispute that that would be a constitu- 

 tional law, although the effect of it might be 

 to make the whole compensation for the year 

 just $5,000. I will suppose such a case as 

 that. So we might say that it should be noth- 

 ing for the next three months because we have 

 already received enough. 



"I do not find, therefore, any constitutional 

 difficulty in the adoption of the amendment of 

 the Senator from Indiana ; and I shall vote for 

 it for this, if no other reason, that I feel my- 

 self bound by the instructions of my Legisla- 

 ture to undo, as far as it is in my power to do, 

 the effect of the act of 3d March last." 



Mr. Logan : "I ask the Senator whether, 

 when the individual receives the money under 

 the law payable monthly, it does not vest in 

 him and become his private property ? " 



Mr. Thurman : "I will answer the question 

 of my friend. That question would arise pro- 

 vided you required the member to pay it back ; 

 but the amendment of the Senator from Indi- 

 ana does not require anybody to pay back." 



Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, said : " Does not 

 the amendment of the Senator from Indiana 

 require that this shall be charged to the mem- 

 ber of Congress?" 



Mr. Thurman : " Yes ; and, if the effect of 

 charging it is to take away any right to any 

 more compensation for that year, he will get 

 no more; but, if the excess should be more 

 than his compensation at the rate of $5,000- a 

 year would be for the remainder of the year, 

 he is not required to pay back the excess." 



Mr. Logan : " On this point, because it is 

 the point of controversy, I want the Senator 

 for he is a very good lawyer to answer me 

 this question : Has Congress any power to de- 

 prive you of your property after it is once 

 vested in you? " 



Mr. Thurman : " The Senator, being a very 

 good lawyer himself and I say that not to 

 bandy compliments does not need to be told 

 that private property cannot be taken without 

 making just compensation, under the Constitu- 

 tion of the. United States." 



Mr. Logan: "Very well. The question 

 then is, whether, if a man receives his salary, 

 it does not become private property. Does it 



not? I know I cannot put questions to the 

 Senator that he cannot answer, but I should 

 like to know whether or not it does not be- 

 come private property. If it does not, is it 

 real estate ? It is something. I should like 

 the Senator to tell me, after he receives his sal- 

 ary, what kind of property it is." 



Mr. Thurman : "Certainly when a member 

 has drawn his pay and got it in his pocket it is 

 his private property, and is liable for his 

 debts ; and if he goes into bankruptcy it can 

 be taken by the assignees." 



Mr. Logan : " Now, following that, I will 

 ask this question : Suppose it is private prop- 

 erty, and it is liable for his debts, by what pro- 

 cess can Congress divest him of it, without 

 making just compensation ? " 



Mr. Thurman: "It does not divest him of 

 it." 



Mr. Logan : " Yes, it does. You do not di- 

 vest a man of what he is to get, but of what 

 he has got, by refusing to pay the amount due 

 to him monthly until it is equalized to the 

 $5,000 per annum. That is exactly what you 

 do. Now I should like to ask the adroit Sena- 

 tor another question. Suppose this bill should 

 become a law to-day. I have drawn several 

 thousand dollars of my pay ; I do not remem- 

 ber how much. The law passes to-day, and is 

 signed by the President, requiring that money 

 which I have drawn to be charged over on my 

 account in future, and in that way the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States is to obtain the 

 money back. Now, suppose I resign to-mor- 

 row, can the Government recover that money 

 from me ? That is the question I ask." 



Mr. Thurman: "I am afraid the Senator 

 will resign in order to keep his money." 

 (Laughter.) 



Mr. Logan : " There is no danger of that ; 

 but I should like the Senator to answer me 

 that question, inasmuch as his legal mind con- 

 trols him in voting for this bill. He thinks it 

 is legal and proper, because he has been so in- 

 structed." 



Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania, said: *' The 

 amendment proposes equalization, as I under- 

 stand it ; that it proposes to take all the mem- 

 bers of the present Congress the Forty-third 

 Congress who have drawn the increased rate 

 of compensation since the 4th of March last, 

 and to deduct from their compensation in the 

 future an amount which will bring them down 

 to the $5,000 per year fixed in this bill. 



"Now, if equalization is the purpose, if you 

 intend to make the salary of the members yet 

 under congressional control as nearly equal as 

 possible, why not go farther back ? Here are 

 a large number of Senators who were in the 

 Forty-second Congress ; there are many mem- 

 bers of the House who were in the Forty-sec- 

 ond Congress ; and, if there be any feature in 

 the legislation of last March which was con- 

 sidered objectionable, it is what has been popu- 

 larly baptized as the back-pay feature of the 

 bill. If the Forty-third Congress has power 



