CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



171 



as I con, the reasons why we did not do so 

 un.l 80. 



"la tho first place, it is said that the Presi- 

 dent of tho United States had the benefit of 

 this iiicrease-of-salary act, it raising his salary 

 IV.. in $25,000 up to $50,000 a year, and that if 

 .o now disposed, either in deference to 

 public opinion or because we think it is right, 

 buck to the old salary, wo ought to put 

 the Pr, -ill. nt in the same position. I could 

 not answer that argument if we had the power 

 to do it. It' the same public opinion which 

 controls the votes of some members it does 

 not control mine, because I think the salary of 

 $5,000 is enough and induces them to go 

 kick to $5,000 a year, is to apply to members 

 of Congress, it may be asked, why not go 

 buck to $25,000 for tho President? The an- 

 swer at once is that the Constitution of the 

 United States forbids us to do so. 



" But, they say, lot us do it any way; let us 

 repeal the law of March 8, 1873, and not say 

 any thing about the President. Well, sir, if 

 we do that, we do what we know we have not 

 the constitutional power to do. 



" But, they say, the courts will set aside our 

 action. I trust in God the Congress of the 

 United States will never allow the courts to 

 set aside our action in passing a law that we 

 know to be unconstitutional ; and no man now 

 can touch the salary of the President of the 

 United States, during his term of office, in the 

 slightest degree, without violating the oath 

 which he took at your desk, sir, and which 

 ought to be sacred to him at every hour of his 

 life. It is utterly impossible for him to do it ; 

 and we ought not to pass a law which by any 

 construction would assert the pow"er to do 

 what the Constitution forbids us doing. There- 

 fore it was that the committee omitted from 

 the operation of this bill the President of tho 

 United States, whose salary is now protected 

 by the Constitution ; and we cannot touch it 

 to the amount of five cents. 



" The same observation would apply to the 

 judges of the Supreme Court of the United 

 States. But it is said that there is a vacancy 

 in the Supreme Court which may be filled after 

 the passage Of this act ; other vacancies may 

 occur from time to time, and let us pass an act 

 that will operate upon future judges. That 

 would be manifestly unfair. There ought to 

 be one equal rule, applying to all the existing 

 judges and those to be appointed in the future. 

 Therefore you cannot make a discrimination 

 there. 



" But there is another reason. I would not 

 reduce the salary of these judges if I had the 

 absolute power to do it, because I believe the 

 judges of the highest tribunal of the United 

 States are not too highly paid when they re- 

 ceive $10,000 a year. They are secluded; 

 they are excluded from all other employment ; 

 they are separated from the mass of the peo- 

 ple nearly to hold even tho scales of justice. 

 That is not our position. We are members of 



Congress, representatives of States. We are 

 at liberty to pursue nearly all the vocation! 

 of life. We can engage in our profession* 

 during the time that we are not here em- 

 ployed in the public service. We are not 

 cramped and crippled by those rales of propri- 

 ety which guard and protect tho Supremo 

 Court of the United States. Therefore, in 

 measuring our compensation, we are not to be 

 governed by the same rules and the same prin- 

 ciples that we would be governed by in fixing 

 the compensation of the judges of the Su- 

 preme Court. I do not think their compensa- 

 tion is too high. As far as my constituents 

 are concerned, I never have heard any one 

 complain about the reasonable increase of tie 

 salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court 

 of the United States. 



" In regard to the President of the United 

 States, heretofore, while his salary was fixed 

 at $25,000 a year, it was supported and aided 

 by direct appropriations made by Congress, so 

 that, instead of $25,000 a year, the President 

 has for many years, away back into the time of 

 Andrew Jackson, and thence down, been paid 

 for certain matters which ordinarily enter 

 into the private expenses of every citizen, in 

 order to add to his salary of $25,000 a year. 

 If, then, we think the salary now fixed by the 

 Constitution and the law is too high at $50,- 

 000, we have it in our power, to the extent 

 that we desire, to the extent we think is fair 

 and right, to cut off those additional appropri- 

 ations that have been made from time to time 

 in addition to the salary of the President of 

 the United States ; so that we are not be- 

 yond remedy to reduce the incidental expenses 

 of the Executive office if we think the com- 

 pensation is sufficient to enable the President 

 to pay these things out of his own salary." 



The President pro tempore : " The question 

 is on the amendment proposed by the Senator 

 from Indiana (Mr. Pratt) to the amendment 

 of the committee." 



The amendment to tho amendment was re- 

 jected. 



Mr. Merrill, of Vermont, said: "I offer the 

 following amendment, to come in after line 10 

 of the first section of the amendment of the 

 committee, as a proviso : 



Provided, That the allowance for mileage hereafter 

 to be paid to each Senator, Representative, and Del- 

 egate, for going to and returning from the teat of 

 Government once in each session shall be one-half 

 of the sum allowed and paid prior to the act of 

 March 8, 1-73. 



" I desire to say that one of the strongest 

 arguments that was made use of in order to 

 carry the increase of salaries, and to defend it 

 after it had been carried, was that it rectified 

 the great abuse of the mileage system, by 

 which we paid for travel four, five, or six 

 times as much as the cost thereof. It would 

 suit me, perhaps, better than any mileage at 

 all, to have a fixed sum ; but as it is not per- 

 haps practicable to introduce a measure in 



