Compelling Policy Question: What ideas from the debate over H.R.793 should influence policy makers when they create Political Reform policies today?

Policy Case Study

H. R. 793- “To establish the compensation of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates” - Repeal of the “Salary Grab Act”

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the act of March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-three, entitled "An act Congress and other making appropriations for legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four," as provides for the increase of the compensation of public officers and employees, whether members of Congress, Delegates, or others, except, the President of the United States and the Justices of the Supreme Court, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

Historical Context:

The Constitution says that "the senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States"

These are the laws adjusting salaries up to today’s vote in 1874

Act of Sept. 22, 1789, -the salaries of senators and representatives is $6 per day, and $6 for every twenty miles of travel

Act of March 4, 1795, senators were to receive $7 per day, and $7 for every twenty miles of travel.

Act of March 19, 1816, increased this salary to $1,500 per year for "this and every future congress."

Act of Feb. 6, 1817. The "salary grab" of March 19, 1816 is repealed

Act of Jan. 22, 1818, fixed the salary at $8 per day, and $8 for every twenty miles of travel, dating the increase back to March 3, 1817.

Act of Aug. 16, 1856, increased the salary to $3,000 a year, and mileage as before, and said, that "this law shall apply to the present congress."

Act of July 28, 1866, increased the salary of members to $5,000 per year.

Act of March 3, 1873, provided that, on and after March 4, 1873, the salary of senators, representatives and delegates in congress, $7,500. The salaries of the President and Supreme Court Justices were also raised.

The way they designed the pay raise for Congress meant it would not just be given to future members of Congress, but they included themselves. This mean they would get “Back Pay” for the last two years. This was the part of the law that was called the "salary grab"

If H.R. 793 is passed it will Repeal the Act of March 3, 1873

Section #1: Why did people support the policy?

George G. Wright, Speech to Congress introducing S. 9. “To repeal so much of the act of March 3, 1873” (modified/link to original). 1873 Wright (R) Iowa (bio) was the first to introduce an act to repeal the "Grab Act". The bill he introduced would be modified into H.R. 793

People love this country and without complaint pay taxes to support it, but they have a right to expect we reduce spending. The people are weighed down by debt. Men of all parties cry of “hard times,” And yet, we added to their burdens.

But it is said the people are ready to pay their representatives good wages. And it is said this is necessary to secure the best talent; that on small salaries only rich men will seek these places. It is said that good salaries keep public officers from using their power to make money by dishonorable or questionable practices.

It is mistake to think that as you increase salaries you secure better, more honest, officers. The man who would decline a position in the government saying the salary is too low, is unfit for the job, and the country will be better off without their services.

This is a republican Government—the people's government. We should labor for their welfare; and seek their highest interest and prosperity, not our own advancement or enrichment.

I say, therefore, as a matter of principle, and for the welfare of the country, and that we may inspire the people with confidence in the integrity of our motives—I say we retrace our steps, and place the salaries where they were before the increase.

Jasper Packard, Speech to Congress on H.R. 471 “To Repeal the increase of certain salaries and to regulate the same, and to cover undrawn and returned balances into the Treasury”, (modified/link to original), 1873 (biography) (R)Indiana

I voted for the appropriation bill last March. I should explain why I did so, but also explain what we should do now.

That legislation was following the example of past leaders of the country, who increased their pay in the same way. The question was then, and is now, was the increase made wise and proper?

Our pay should be increased. It is bad policy to have such low salaries that virtually exclude many of the best men of the country from politics, because they are not wealthy. Railroad presidents and rich capitalists can become politicians, and not worry about a low salary- they already have money. But the country does not want only these men making all the laws.

The laboring people believe that capital has more than its just share of representation. They demand a voice in the government. Their demands are fair, and I thought it best to have salaries that would make it possible for the poor man—the laboring man—to become a politician and represent his fellow-citizens, without being worried about making enough money for the necessaries of life.

We know our present salary is not excessive, but a majority of the people believe it is, and since they are the paymasters, I will not deny their right to be heard. I am ready to follow their wishes.

Charles S. Reinhart, Me Big Injun--Heap!, 1873

Robert C. Kennedy, Explanation of Charles S. Reinhart’s “Me Big Injun--Heap! - source

Cartoonist C. S. Reinhart criticizes the "Salary Grab," a retroactive Congressional pay raise, by caricaturing its main proponent and apologist, Congressman Benjamin Butler, scalping the public. The artist's model for the colorful politician is Captain Jack of the Modoc Indians, who were fighting the U.S. army in the headline-making "Modoc War" at the time this cartoon appeared.

That Salary Grab, "You took it!", Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, 1873 source

Thomas Nast, Peculiar Position of Some Members When Asked to Refund the Back-Pay Grab, Harper's Weekly, 1873

Section #2: Why did people oppose the policy?

John A. Logan, (R)Illinois, Speech to Congress on H.R. 793, 1874 (modified/link to original) (Biography).

Logan was debating Daniel D. Pratt’s proposed amendment to H.R. 793, which would cut off salary payments to members of Congress as soon as they reached $5,000 instead of $7,500

The Constitution declares Congressmen shall be paid for their services. Does Congress have any power to take their pay back?

We may have made a mistake in the eyes of the people; but just because they do not believe in the salary raise, men should not demand we do something we do not have the power to do.

I am willing to yield to the demands of the people, when reasonable. The people have not demanded we go beyond our constitutional power. The people demand we repeal of the law.

This amendment requires Congress give up its pay increase, but the President, Supreme Court judges, and Department heads get to keep theirs? Is that honest? Is that what the people demand?

I voted for the salary bill because I believed it was right. My constituents all probably disagree with me, and I am willing to yield to their views; but I do not want to cheat them. They want the salary bill repealed. We are to repeal it, not because we think it is wrong, we repeal it because we are conforming to their wishes.

I shall oppose any bill that does not wipe out all of the salary bill of the last session except the salaries of the President and judges of the Supreme Court; and anything less than this is a deception and a delusion. Is not that what we are asked to do?

It is true that some Congressmen get more '' than they are worth. But I want to maintain my own self-respect.

Debate between Allen G. Thurman, (D)Ohio (biography), and John A. Logan, (R)Illinois (biography), on Pratt’s amendment to H.R. 793, 1874 (modified/link to original) Pratt’s proposed amendment to H.R. 793, which would cut off salary payments to members of Congress as soon as they reached $5,000 instead of $7,500.

Mr. Thurman: The Constitution says Congress’ pay may be increased or decreased during our terms. We have power over our salaries. If we thought we had received enough pay this year, we could decrease it to a dollar a day, and it would be constitutional.

I do not find any constitutional difficulty in Pratt’s amendment. I will vote for it because my Legislature instructed me to repeal the Salary bill.

Mr. Logan: Of course Congress may do that. But once the individual receives the money, isn’t it his private property? Does Congress have any power to take your property?

Mr. Thurman: The Senator, being a very good lawyer does not need to be told that private property cannot be taken without making just compensation, under the Constitution.

Mr. Logan: Suppose this bill should be passed and become a law to-day, and I should resign my seat to-day, could the Government of the United States take that money back from me?

Mr. Thurman: I am afraid the Senator will resign in order to keep his money...

Mr. Logan: There is no danger of that

John Scott, Speech to Congress on H.R. 793, 1874 (modified/link to original) Scott, (R)Pennsylvania (biography), was debating Daniel D. Pratt’s proposed amendment to H.R. 793, which would cut off salary payments to members of Congress as soon as they reached $5,000 instead of $7,500.

Mr. President, I do not intend to vote for this amendment. I have a very clear path marked out for myself on this subject. I voted against the increase of pay because I thought it was unwise, and I voted against the pay because I thought it was wrong; and I have acted accordingly.

The Constitution broke the old rule that no man should ever be his own judge. If each Congress debated its own salary, there would be very little other legislation done.

If I were asked to fix my salary on the amount of work I do, I do not think I have been paid too much; and I do not intend to pay back a dollar of what I have received since last March. I say that openly, even though I voted against the bill last March.

I will vote against this amendment because it will take money from all the members of the present Congress, who have received more pay since last March. But why not go further back? What about the Senators in the last Congress who voted for the legislation? If we have the power to take pay from current Congressmen, why can’t we go to the members of the last Congress and take the “Back-pay” they gave themselves?

This amendment falls short of its highly patriotic purpose.

John P. Stockton, Speech to Congress on H.R. 793, 1874 (modified/link to original) Stockton (D) New Jersey (biography), was debating Daniel D. Pratt’s proposed amendment to H.R. 793, which would cut off salary payments to members of Congress as soon as they reached $5,000 instead of $7,500.

I was absent when the “salary bill” voted on the last Senate session, so I will not criticize the actions of any gentleman there.

I want to correct an error in constitutional construction, made by my friend, Senator Thurman. This error would be dangerous if used for anything else besides the vote on the salary bill.

The Constitution says that Congressman shall receive a compensation to be “ascertained” by law. He has no option. He must receive that sum and no other. Even if that law was unconstitutional, improper, or illegal— it was still THE LAW.

Being the law of the land, being the sum “ascertained” under the Constitution, the question for every individual was how to use it. Whether the salary should have been increased, is not the question addressed in this amendment.

The power to discriminate between Senators, to pay one more than another, is dangerous. It will enable a political majority to starve the minority. Soon they will want to pay Senators from smaller states less because they are smaller. And what about that supreme and controlling clause, “Each State shall have two Senators?” The equality of the States no longer exists. You might as well pay the Senators according to size of mind or body.

What were the results of the Debate?

In 1874 Congress passed H.R. 793, reducing members of Congress pay, but allowing the President and Supreme Court to keep their raises.

Since 1874 Congress has regularly given themselves pay adjustments. Their salaries are shown in the two below tables.