168 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



with his own, not with the public money. So 

 that, Mr. President, whether a Senator, receiv- 

 ing it as all did, devoted it to pay his debts, or 

 whether in the exercise of a noble generosity, 

 claiming the right to do what he would with 

 his own, he gave it for such purposes as he 

 thought convenient and proper, or whether he 

 did it without taking any action on the matter, 

 still in contemplation of law this sum was to 

 his credit ; and it required his act, his convey- 

 ance, to divest himself of it ; or, in case of 

 death, the act of his representative. So it has 

 been in every case ; and in such instances, if 

 there be such where the voluntary disposition 

 of it has not been made by the individual, it 

 stands there as his property now, subject to 

 an action in case of his death by his adminis- 

 trator or executor." 



Mr. Thurman : " Mr. President, I should 

 not say a word more on the point imme- 

 diately under consideration, but that I must 

 have been extremely unfortunate in the ex- 

 pression of my views, or else I must be ex- 

 ceedingly mistaken in my view of what is 

 the Constitution, for I find that I am criti- 

 cised all around and told that I am wrong in 

 my views. But yet, sir, I cannot see it. What 

 is considered back pay in popular parlance 

 was the additional sum of $5,000, less mile- 

 age, which was paid to each one of the mem- 

 bers of the Forty-second Congress for his ser- 

 vices in that Congress. That was the back 

 pay. It amounted to different sums to the 

 different members, according to the amount 

 of their mileage. To the Senators from Ohio 

 it amounted to about $4,300, or between $4,300 

 and $4,400. To the Senator from Oregon, 

 who liberally contributed his share to finish 

 the Washington Monument, it amounted to 

 the sum of one hundred and forty-odd dollars ; 

 and so on. It was a very different sum, accord- 

 ing to the amount of mileage that a member 

 was to receive. That is not in this bill, nor is 

 it in the amendment offered by the Senator 

 from Indiana farthest from me (Mr. Pratt). 

 But the act of March 3, 1873, provided that 

 the salary of members of Congress should 

 thenceforth be at the rate of $7,500 per an- 

 num, payable monthly. It made an annual 

 salary, just as the previous act had made; an 

 annual salary just as the act of 1856, which 

 established $3,000, had made. So this act of 

 March last provided that in the future the 

 compensation of a member of Congress should 

 be $7,500 per annum. 



"Now, it is agreed on all hands that that 

 act is to be repealed, and we are to go back to 

 $5,000 per annum; and, inasmuch as that is 

 done in deference, as it is said, to public opin- 

 ion, which condemns the act, the Senator from 

 Indiana farthest .from me proposes to give full 

 effect to that public opinion and make it ap- 

 ply to this Congress just as fully as if the salary 

 had not been raised at all quoad this Congress. 



" Now I want to go on and state what this 

 amendment of the Senator from Indiana is. It 



is simply to say in effect that the pay of mem- 

 bers of the Forty-third Congress shall be $10,- 

 000 for this Congress, and in computing their 

 pay $10,000 you take into account what has 

 already been paid. I put it to any one here 

 if this amendment, read in these words k that 

 the compensation of members of the Forty- 

 third Congress, for the Congress, shall be $10,- 

 000 ' if that was the simple amendment and 

 nothing more, and not a word was said about 

 charging up to them what they have received 

 would not the necessary effect be that all 

 they have received would be taken out, and 

 they would only receive the balance of the 

 $10,000 ; and is there anybody who would say 

 that was not constitutional ? 



" Or suppose you take it in another way and 

 provide that the bill shall take effect from the 

 4th day of March next, leaving you to receive 

 pay at $7,500 up to the 4th day of March next, 

 and then provide that for the succeeding year 

 your pay shall be only $2,500 a year, would any- 

 body say that that would be unconstitutional ? 

 And yet that would be precisely the effect of 

 the amendment of the Senator from Indiana. 

 It would make your pay for the Congress $10,- 

 000 and no more, and his amendment makes it 

 $10,000 and no more, and this objection is a 

 mere objection to the form of the thing, to 

 what is called the charging up, the debiting 

 members with what they have received over 

 and above at the rate of $5,000 a year; and as 

 we have power to decrease our compensation 

 as well as to increase it, as we may do it at 

 any time whatsoever, as we may take into 

 consideration what we have received hereto- 

 fore in determining what we shall receive in 

 the future, I, for the life of me, cannot see, 

 with the utmost respect for those who think 

 otherwise, where is the difference between the 

 proposition of the Senator from Indiana and 

 either one of the propositions that I have sug- 

 gested ; for instance, the proposition that the 

 pay of the Forty-third Congress shall be $10,- 

 000 for the Congress, or that this act shall 

 take effect on the 4th day of March next, and 

 the pay for the next year shall be at the rate 

 of $2,500. 



"Inasmuch as you might plainly provide 

 that this law should take effect on the 4th of 

 March next, and that then for the next suc- 

 ceeding year we should receive only $2,500 a 

 year, or inasmuch as you might provide that 

 the compensation of members for the two years 

 ending the 3d of March, 1875, should be $10,- 

 000, and that would leave you to be charged 

 up with all you had received before this time, 

 so you may take it in the form in which it is 

 expressed in, the amendment of the Senator 

 from Indiana. 



" Now a word as to the back pay. The Sen- 

 ator from Pennsylvania says, Why may you not 

 charge up the back pay ? For this reason : that 

 that would make an inequality in the pay of 

 members of Congress, paying some men one 

 salary, and others another and different salary. 



