The Life and Work of James A. Garfield, Twentieth President of the United States: Embracing an Account of the Scenes and Incidents of His Boyhood; the Struggles of His Youth; the Might of His Early Manhood; His Valor As a Soldier; His Career As a Statesman; His Election to the Presidency; and the Tragic Story of His Death.Ridpath, John Clark
History
The Life and Work of James A. Garfield, Twentieth President of the United States: Embracing an Account of the Scenes and Incidents of His Boyhood; the Struggles of His Youth; the Might of His Early Manhood; His Valor As a Soldier; His Career As a Statesman; His Election to the Presidency; and the Tragic Story of His Death.
Ridpath, John Clark
Garfield, James A. (James Abram), 1831-1881
“There are several citizens in this town who have signed their names
to statements in the newspapers during that discussion, declaring
that Mr. Garfield had committed a theft, a robbery; that, to use the
plain Saxon word, he was a thief,—that any man who took, or voted
for a retroactive increase of salary, was a thief. In one of these
articles it was argued in this wise: ‘If I hire a clerk in my bank
on a certain salary, and he, having the key to my safe, takes out
five hundred or five thousand dollars more than we agreed for, and
puts it in his pocket, it is simply theft or robbery. He happened to
have access to the funds, and he got hold of them; so did Congress.
You can’t gloss it over,’ says the writer, ‘it is robbery.’
“Now, fellow-citizens, I presume you will agree that you can wrong
even the devil himself, and that it is not right or manly to lie,
even about Satan. I take it for granted that we are far enough past
the passion of that period to talk plainly and coolly about the
increase of salaries.
“Now, in the first place, I say to-night, what I have said through
all this tempest that for a Congress to increase its own pay and
make it retroactive, is not theft, is not robbery, and you do
injustice to the truth when you call it so. There is ground enough
in which to denounce it without straining the truth. Now if Congress
can not fix its own salary, who can? The Constitution of your
country says, in unmistakable words, that ‘Senators and
Representatives shall receive a compensation, to be ascertained by
law, and paid out of the National Treasury.’ Nobody makes the law
but Congress. It was a very delicate business in the beginning, for
our fathers to make a law paying themselves money. They understood
it so, and when they sent the Constitution out to the several
States, the question was raised, whether it would not be better to
put a curb upon Congress in reference to their own pay; and in
several of the States suggestions were sent in. When the First
Congress met, James Madison offered seventeen amendments to the
Constitution; and, finally, Congress voted to send twelve of the
proposed amendments to the country: one of them was this: ‘No law
varying the compensation of the Senators or Representatives in
Congress shall take effect until an election has intervened.’ In
other words, the First Congress proposed that an amendment should be
made to the new Constitution, that no Congress could raise its own
pay, and make it retroactive. That was sent to the States for their
ratification. The States adopted ten of those amendments. Two, they
rejected; and this was one of the two. They said it should not be in
the Constitution. The reason given for its rejection, by one of the
wisest men of that time, was this. He said: ‘If we adopt it, this
may happen; one party will go into power in a new Congress, but,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account