CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



I !" not go into tho question whether or not 

 tlu- n- must !,i- I'.juulity ; whether there must b 

 uiiifiiniiity. I know that there are some per- 

 . ho think, there need not ho uniformity." 



Mr. Wright, oi Iowa, said: "I trust that the 

 e will bo taken upon this amendment at 

 .s also upon all other amendments thai 



ay be oil'crcd, though I trust none will be 

 oti'civd, and that we shall get to a vote on the 

 hill in a very short time. 



" Upon this measure, as upon nil others, 

 while I have a scat upon this floor I propose, 

 as t'ar us I can, to look to practical results. In 

 other words, I think avast deal more of a prac- 

 tical certainty than I do of theoretical perfec- 

 tion. I know that we may remain hero and 

 discuss tliis and other questions day after day, 

 whereas if we would come down to the real 

 I'M-stum before us, and decide it on the judg- 

 ment of each Senator, we should be more like- 

 ly to reach sucli practical results as would be 

 beneficial to the country as well as to ourselves. 



"So far as the amendment offered by the 

 Senator from Indiana is concerned, if it stood 

 alone and aside from its effect on this bill, I 

 cvrt.iinly am not prepared to say that I should 

 oppose it. I think my course upon this ques- 

 tion last session, as well as this, is sufficient to 

 indicate how I would stand upon the general 

 proposition. In other words, I think that in 

 justice and in right, and in view of all the con- 

 siderations that obtain, it is but proper that 

 this bill, so far as Senators find members are 

 concerned, should relate back to the 4th of 

 March lost. But, as I have already said, while 

 that is my opinion, I nevertheless am as well 

 of the opinion that, if this amendment shall be 

 carried, it perhaps will result ia the defeat of 

 the bill if not here, that it perhaps may fall 

 as between the two Houses." 



Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, said: "The 

 amendment as it is now drawn discriminates 

 from this time forth as to the pay of Senators 

 in this Chamber. That cannot be done consti- 

 tutionally, in my opinion. We con figure on 

 this question ; we can ascertain just what 

 every Senator has received; we presume that 

 they have received all that they are entitled 

 to ; if they have not, they have but to go to the 

 office and draw the money ; it is there for 

 them ; they have received, or may to-day ob- 

 tain, $6,250. Now, then, let us fix the pay 

 of all Senators from this time out at $3,750, if 

 that is the proper amount." 



Mr. Pratt : " Mr. President, I do not share 

 the constitutional scruples of my learned friend 

 from Wisconsin ; but, sir, to return to the ob- 

 jections which have been made against the 

 pending amendment, the first proposition 

 which I make in answer to all of the objec- 

 tions which have been urged against it is 

 this : in now changing the compensation of 

 members of Congress from $7,500 a year to 

 $5,000 a year we do so in obedience to the will 

 of the people, to the pronounced popular judg- 

 ment. So my friend from Wisconsin has just 



announced to the Senate. He says that detpiU 



hia own convictions on the subject he in ping 

 to vote for this reduction becauso tho people, 

 his masters, demand it. Now, MT, the ]<oh,t 1 

 make is this, that if it was wrong on the :;d <>t 

 March, 1878, to raise the salary from $5," 

 $7,500 a year, it has been wrong every day 

 since, and we are wrong-doers ia having re- 

 ceived compensation under that law, and should 

 either return it to the Treasury or else it should 

 be deducted from our compensation in future. 

 I do not see how we can escape from that con- 

 clusion. Tho whole argument of my friend 

 t'n.m Wisconsin is this : He yields to this de- 

 mand because the people have willed it ; be- 

 cause they have determined that this increase 

 of salary was wrong. I submit to him that tho 

 same people likewise demand that this bill 

 which we are now considering should relate 

 back to the 4th of March, 1873, so that at no 

 period should we be in the receipt of more 

 than $5,000 a year. The second proposition 

 which I make is, that, upon every increase 

 which has been made by Congress of the com- 

 pensation of its members, the increase has re- 

 lated back uniformly to the beginning of tho 

 Congress when the increase was made. The 

 compensation has been changed some five or 

 six times, and I repeat that, wherever that in- 

 crease has been made, it has related back to tho 

 beginning of that Congress. If that be correct 

 as a principle, why should not the decrease of 

 compensation bo governed by the same princi- 

 ple, and the decrease relate back to the begin- 

 ning of the Congress ? 



"Now, let us take our legislation from 1789 

 down to the present time. The first com- 

 pensation was an allowance of six dollars per 

 day. The first increase was from six dollars 

 to seven dollars per day ; the next increase 

 was to eight dollars a day ; the next to $1,500 

 a year ; the next to $3,000 ; and then, in 18G6, 

 an increase was made to $5,000, and in 1878 

 to $7,500. There has been but one instance, I 

 believe, since the institution of this Govern- 

 ment, when the compensation of members of 

 Congress was decreased, and that took place 

 in the year 1818. The previous Congress had 

 increased the compensation from six dollars or 

 eight dollars a day, whatever it was, to $8,000 

 for the Congress, or $1,500 a year. There was 

 great complaint made of that increase, and the 

 succeeding Congress promptly repealed the law, 

 decreasing the compensation to eight dollars a 

 day, and made that decrease relate back to the 

 commencement of that Congress. I have the 

 act here by me if any Senator has any question 

 upon that subject. 



" There is but one consideration more, then, 

 Mr. President, which I wish to submit to the 

 Senate ; and that is in reply to the objections 

 of my friends from Illinois and Wisconsin. 

 They complain that there will be inequality 

 between the compensation of members of 

 Congress ; they complain that they will have 

 to refund money which they have already re- 



