172 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



relation to that matter here, or is not as prac- 

 ticable as it would be to reduce it, I propose 

 to fix the same amount that we allow our mili- 

 tary officers that is, ten cents per mile re- 

 ducing it from what it is now twenty cents 

 a mile to ten cents a mile, which is the same 

 we allow our military officers to have for trav- 

 eling expenses. That will be in most cases 

 twice the amount of the cost, and it is amply 

 sufficient." 



Mr. Stevenson, of Kentucky, said : " I should 

 like to inquire of the Senator from Vermont 

 why he desires in his proposed reform to ad- 

 here in his amendment to the inequality and 

 alleged injustice of the former system of mile- 

 age. If he seeks to reach an exact standard 

 of justice, why not pay every member of Con- 

 gress exactly what it costs him to travel to 

 and from the capital? The Senator remarked 

 that the bill to increase pay at the last session 

 derived its greatest strength from the injustice 

 and inequality of the mileage system which 

 that compensation bill dispensed with. It 

 does not occur to me that his amendment 

 removes that injustice. It is true that those 

 who receive mileage will, by the amendment, 

 only get one-half as much as they did under 

 the old law, but still the mileage will be un- 

 equal, and the injustice of the measure would 

 seem to me to run just in the same ratio as it 

 did before, though the amount of mileage 

 would be lessened. For instance, a Senator 

 from the Pacific coast, who can come here for 

 $300, would, under the Senator's pending 

 amendment, get $800 ; while a Senator living 

 in the vicinity of Washington would only get 

 one-half of the mileage he would be entitled 

 to, which, perhaps, might not, under the re- 

 duction, pay him what he had absolutely ex- 

 pended. Now, if the object of the Senator be 

 to reduce it down to a proper standard, why 

 not fix the amount at the precise sum which 

 it costs every member by the most direct route 

 of travel to reach "Washington ? Why go back 

 to the principle of inequality in mileage which 

 must always discriminate so unequally be- 

 tween members of Congress, and which it 

 was one object of the present law to get rid 

 of?" 



Mr. Morrill, of Vermont: "I have already 

 admitted that this amendment does not reme- 

 dy the abuse wholly, but it does remedy it to 

 the extent of one-half, and it leaves that 

 amount in the Treasury. It gives us precisely 

 the same mileage that we allow the officers of 

 the Army and Navy when they are compelled 

 under military or naval orders to travel over 

 the country ; and that sum is deemed to be a 

 just one. If we are to have any mileage at all, 

 it strikes me that ten cents a mile is amply 

 sufficient. We all know that it is much more 

 than the actual cost of travel. 



"Then, \vhen you come back .to the propo- 

 sition of .the Senator from Kentucky, as I said 

 before, the idea of giving an account of our 

 traveling expenses is to me offensive and 



rather repugnant. Shall I, when I make out 

 my bill of expenses, if I happen to smoke cigars 

 as I do not give an account of how many 

 cigars I have smoked ? When I travel, shall 

 I come on night and day, or shall I be allowed 

 for the expense of a day at a hotel in New 

 York, or at Springfield ? I do not know pre- 

 cisely what is legitimate. If I come with my 

 family, part of the expenses, perhaps, may be 

 mingled up with those of my family. I hardly 

 know how to separate them. Suppose I stop 

 a day in New York, and require a parlor for 

 my family, am I to charge that to the Gov- 

 ernment ? Therefore I would much prefer to 

 have a fixed sum for us all. If, perhaps, the 

 total salary had been fixed at $5,500, it might 

 have been acceptable ; but in the absence of 

 any such provision I do propose to remedy the 

 gross abuse that exists in the mileage system ; 

 and I therefore propose that we shall be paid, 

 what we allow our military officers, ten cents 

 a mile that is to say, to reduce the former 

 mileage allowances from twenty cents a mile 

 to ten cents a mile." 



The President pro tempore : " The question 

 is on the amendment proposed by the Senator 

 from Vermont (Mr. Morrill) to the amendment 

 of the committee." 



The question being taken by yeas and nays, 

 resulted yeas 30, nays 33 ; as follows : 



YEAS Messrs. Anthony, Bogy, Boreman, Buck- 

 ingham, Cameron, Carpenter, Conkling, Crozier, Da- 

 vis, Edmunds, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Ferry 

 of Michigan, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Ingalls, Morrill 

 of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norwood, 

 Oglesby, Pratt, Kamsey, Eansom, Saulsbury, Schurz, 

 Scott, Sherman, Sumner, and Thurman 30. 



NATS Messrs. Allison, Bayard, Boutwell, Brown- 

 low, Chandler, Clayton, Conover, Cooper, Cragin, 

 Dennis, Dorsey, Flanagan, Gilbert, Goldthwaite, 

 Hamilton of Maryland, Hitchcock, Howe, Kelly, 

 Lewis, Logan, McCreery, Merrimon, Mitchell, Pat- 

 terson, Sargent, Spencer. Sprague, Stevenson, Tip- 

 ton, Wadleigh, West, Wmdom, and Wright 33. 



ABSENT Messrs. A'.corn, Ames, Gordon, Hamil- 

 ton of Texas, Johnston, Jones, Kobertson, Stewart, 

 and Stockton 9. 



So the amendment to the amendment was 

 rejected. 



Mr. Cragin, of New Hampshire, said: "I 

 move to add at the end of the first section of 

 the committee's amendment the following: 



Provided, That mileage shall not be allowed for 

 the first session of tlie Forty-third Congress. 



"There cannot be any objection to that, I 

 think, as we have received our actual travel- 

 ing expenses." 



The President pro tempore : " The question 

 recurs on the amendment proposed by the Sen- 

 ator from New Hampshire (Mr. Cragin) to the 

 amendment of the committee." 



The amendment to the amendment was 

 agreed to. 



The President pro tempore: "The question 

 now recurs on the amendment proposed by 

 the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Hamilton)." 



The Chief Clerk read the amendment to the 

 amendment, which was to strike out the first 



