JK
1 5  i
-e j55'IRCULA,R LETTER
A    907,897
IO   J
HON. JOHN, Ml.*BRIGI-T,
I
TO TIIE CITIZENS
;'jt                          I
OF  THE                            I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4THf CONGREYSIOXL  1)ISTRICT, I
STATE OF TENNESSEE.         I
~; FAYETTEVILLE, TEN\4.  L    it
THE FAYETTEVILLE EXPRESS PRINT.
1873.
I
ir
11
i
F ROM
OF' TH E 
~~?C,\~~~~~~ ~'~ i~
~~~~ ~~~ "4?"~`u``"   "       ~         ~ ~ ~~~``''                                     -:
~~~~~~~~~~~~ P)'~,~;:.'''...~:'':::                                   ~:   
()]  ~      t    -I.  ~-YI iL    L-._\1, I.
HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT,
iThje (titzensf o'the Foui,rth, (/or g_ress iona,t
D1i (s~t, ASt, Sat(a of  TerT~nssese.
A   SENSE of duty to you, as well as to myself, ind(luces me to make a communicationtl  to you, with
respect to the recent salary bill which increased the
pay of the President and Vice-President, Cabinet
officers and clerks in their different departments,
Judges of the Supreme Court, members of Congress,
clerks of the Senate and} House of Representatives,
and other employes of the Government.
I have nothing political to conceal from'you. Ytou
are entitled to an account of my stewardship, and it
is my duty to spread the record of it before you.
In times of great popular ferment, it was to be expected that many errors, perversions, and misrepiresentations should be disseminated.
Under such circumstances, the public miind is inflamed, and abused by be'ing fed on distorted information which has been driveled out to it from hand
to hand, perhaps to the fortieth degree.
0
lito.Ni
'110 
A o own- action has beent the subjlect of imisrepresentations vwhich. together with a call  fiomt some of
my) conistituents, must furnish my apology for this
communication.
In an editorial of the New York Sun, commenlting
on the salary bill, in its issue of 27thl August, S1873.
is the following statement:
'Iln the final test vote in the House, on the Ist of
March last, the following members  theii, or since,
chosen to the Forty-third Congress recorded themselves thus "-and amongst the Democrats  placed
under the head of "ablsent or dodging," my name is
recorded.
The following is an extract from the Murfreesboro
News, of August 15, I873:
" In a complete list of the Senators and Represeiintatives who voted for and against the back  salarv
fraud, published in the New York Tribune, we  find
that Hon. John M. Bright, the member from this
district, is reported to have voted one time for it,
twice against it, and was absent, or refused to vote
five times."
In the Murfreesboro Monitor of August zS8, I1873,
I find the following:
"EDITORS MONITOR:  It is my understanding that
Hlon. John M. Bright opposed the salary bill, passed
at the last session of Congress. Upon what ground
did he base his opposition? If so, what does he intend to do with it? Is the bill constitutional? By
answering the above, you will much oblige,
CONSTITUENT."
The statements in the Sun and Tribune-assuming
that the News has correctly extracted from the Tribune-are grossly perversive of the facts. I did not
CIII,1v.CU'1,.\11   I1,1''Ill,.-TTI:I'      l r(.).i 
lION..( IiN  M. }% lII(;I, 1.
dodge  the "'finial" vote, nor did I vote for the salary bill which became the law —nor did I vote for
iany other bill to increase the pay of members of
Congress. I was opposed to it from the beginning
to the ending-I voted against the first bill and voted
against the last. In the intermediate stages of the
question, my opposition to it was so marked by votes
and declarations, that no one, after investigation, who
regards the truth of historyv. couldl b)elieve that I favored( the passage of the bill, or had occasion to
"dodge" the responsibility of a vote after having
been so fully conmmitted against it.  It is true that I
(lid not vote on se-veral occasions when the bill was
before the House, hut these failures to vote were
whenl   I was paired off with another, or on parliamentary questions not going to the merit-except in
the single instance I (lid not vote on what is known
ais the Sargeant amendment, which was entirely  a
different thing from the Butler amendment, which
became the law.
But I will allude to these votes and omissions to
vote more specifically in the following legislative narratives, to which I invite your careful attention.
The salarv bill presents two aspects for your consideration.  One is legislative, and the other is personal.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON THE BILL.
On the 7th of February, I873, Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, from the House Judiciary Committee, reported the salary bill, known as the Butler bill, which
was ordered to be printed and recommitted to the
same committee. (Globe, part 2, p. I I96-42d Congress.)
On the ioth of the same month, Mr. Butler intro
I 
duced a resolution directing the ConlIllittee Oi \1)propriations to include his salarv b-ill in the lniscelltneous appropriation b)ill for the consider-ation of thle
committee of the Whole -Holuse, and moved a suispension of the rules to put it on its passage.  On a call
of the ayes and noes, I voted against this resolutionthe vote standing yeas Si, nays 12o-11not voting 39.
(Globe, part 2, p. 1234.)
This vote was so decided against even the consideration of the bill, that I supposed it was the end of
it.  But I was mistaken.  It was destined to re-appearl
with greater force at another time.
On the 3d of December, I872, the Executive, I,egislative, and Judiciary appropriation ibill was introduced into the House.
On the isth of January, 1873, this bill passed the
House with a provision increasing the pay of sundry
clerks and officers of the Hlouse and interior department of the Government.  But it contained no provision to increase the pay of the President and mnembers of Congress.
On the I6th of January, this bill was transmitted
to the Senate, and, on the 3oth of January, it passed
the Senate with sundry amendments-the Senate
striking out the increased pay of the officers of the
House and increasing the pay of different officers of
the Senate. (Globe, part 2, pp. 964-967.
On the 3ist of January, the Senate returned the
bill to the House as amended, and the House ordered
the amendments to be printed, and referred to the
Committee on Appropriations. (Globe, part 2, p.
1012.)
On  the 24th of February, the committee made
their report to the House, recommending an increase
-I
CI.k1:UI. AX, I.\'! "'}:;II  l"1t(oA. 
t1ON..()!tN   M. BI-IGIIT.
of the pay of clerks and other officers of the House,
to make them equal in compensation to the same
grade of officers in the Senate. (Globe, part 3, pp.
T67-I67I.)
So far, the House and Senate had been  at disa greement in* irelation to the compensation  of the
oflicers of the respective bod(lies.
T'he House resolved itself into the Committee of
the WVhole for the purpose of considering the report
of the commiittee —whereupon Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the amendment reported
from the Committee of the Whole, by substituting
the salary bill previously reported from the Judiciary
Committee and rejected by the Hlouse. (Globe, part
3, pp. I67I-2. )
Mr. Butler's amendment was now  carried on a
division of the Committee of the Whole, by a vote
of Si A es andt 66 nays.  ((l(,h, p)rt 3, p. -678'.)  it
is ly recollection thatt I was present, ind N,(otel in
the negati e, though I cannot verifv the vote bv record, is the  veas" andl' navs   are iiever ordered in
the Committee of the Whole.  The Iegislative, Executive, and Judiciary, bill, as amended, was now reported to the House, with a recommendation that it
do pass.  The previous question'was -moved and ordered upon the Butler amnendment to the Senate
amendment, and the "yeas" and " nays" being orlered, the vote stood: yeas 69, nays 12 I, not voting 50.
tI ii'ot'ot'l t t!iS time for the reason given atthe tine.'During the roll call, the following aniouncemenlts were nade:
"Mr. Bright.  On this questioln, I am paire(l withl
the gentlemlan from New York (Mr. Clark.)  If he
were present he would vote'aye' while I shoud vote 
C1ItlC'I,A1II 1L.I;T          EI Ft       )
no.   (Globe, part 3, p. I926.)   Just here a word
of explanation: I do not approve of the Congressional custom of pairing; but it has been too long
established fbr me to correct. It does not change
the re.ult of the vote; and, by Congressional construction, the pairing members are considered as voting one for, and the other against, the question.  To
resume the narrative: The vote of the House against
the Butler amendment  to the Senate amendment
seemed so decided, that Mr. Butler and his friends
seemed to despair of its passage in the House. Mr.
Butler had moved to reconsider the vote rejecting
his amendment, and Mr. Farnsworth had moved to
lay this last motion on the table. Mr. Butler now
asked permission of the House to say:'We are in
such a position that unless we pass it in this form we
cannot get any action. If we pass it, we can have
the judgment of the Senate upon it. If they are
against it, there is an end of the matter, and then it
will go to a Committee of Conference, and they can
agree and put the provision in such form as they
think right. Then, it will come back to the House,
and a majority of the House will have the control
of the matter as they have now. Otherwise, it is a
simple vote to put this case out of jurisdiction of the
House and the Senate. This is why I moved to reconsider, in order that we may bring the minds of
the two bodies to operate on the same proposition.
.I do not care whether the amount be fixed at $7,500,
or $6,500, or $6,ooo, as some gentlemen have indicated; but I think there ought to be some increase to
meet what is an actual reduction in our pay."'
"Mr. Sargent. I suggest to the gentleman that he
make it $6,5oo, and cut off all mileage and allowances."
6 
lIO(N. JO.IIN   M.   BRIG IT,.
Mr. Butler.  I will agree to an amendment which
shall providethat this shall be the salary with actual
expenses of travel."
"Mr. Sargent.  I do not want actual expenses at
all." (Globe, part 3, p. I976.)
The vote was taken on Mr. Farnsworth's motion
to lay on the table, which motion failed —yeas 66,
nays I05, not voting 69. I was still paired with Mr.
Clark, of New York, and did not vote on this question, but announced that I would vote "aye" if he
were present.  (Globe, part 3, p. i977.)  The question recurred on the motion to reconsider, and the
vote stood: yeas IO4, nays 79, not voting 57.
I did not vote on this question. The reason why
I did not, I do not now remember.  But I surely did
not mean to "dodge" the question, as I was already
fully committed against the bill, both by vote and declarations; and more especially as it was a parliamentary question to bring the matter before the House
agtain, and not on its final passage.
Mr. Butler now moved  to reconsider the vote by
which the previous question was ordered, and it was
agreed to without a call of yeas and  nays.  This
brought the Senate amendment again before the
House for amendment.   Whereupon  Mr. Sargent
moved to strike out of the Butler amendment $7,500,
the proposed annual salary of members of Congress
and their traveling expenses, and insert in lieu thereof:
"Shall receive $6,500 per annum each; and this shall
be in lieu of any other pay or any allowance for
mileage, newspapers, or stationery."  HIe called the
previous question, which was ordered, and the vote
was instantly thrust upon the House without explanation or debate. The House refused to order
7 
cij',loC    t;LAI:, -       Is.is'1';I-; H        l'll,(..;\l
tilhe  eats and frays and tle ainei(dmleit (f Mr. Slf -
gent was agreed to.
The question then recurred on the agrieemenit to
the a    niildmient as amended onil motion of Mr. Sitrgent.  The yeas and nays being ordered, the vote
stood: yeas o100o, nays 97, not voting 43 ((Globe, part
3, p- 1977.)
I did not vote on this question, and it is thie ()ully
one directly involving the merits. on which I d(lid
niot vote, or declare how I would have voted, but for
being paired. This omission, I am free to admit, requires explanation. There were two reasons, whether
good or not, why I did not vote on this question:
One,for the want of time to investigate the true construction and effect of the Sargent amendment and
the difference in the pay to members of Congress
between the amount allowed by the previous lawthe other, that it was understood i not to be i fin:al
vote, as Mr. B3utler hlad previously declared that itwas intended to go before the Committee of Conference of the two Houses, on whose report the final
vote was to be taken.  Upon investigation. I foutlld
this approximate result:
Under the previous law, annual salary................$....5,000
Average mileage.................................... 900
Stationery, newspapers, and boxes...................   200
Free postage................      400)
:Sdt,!Ot
In this aspect, the pay under the Sargent amendmendment would have been the same as the previous
law to the people, but different in adjustment amongst
the members.  If this had been all, there would have
Is 
HON. JOHIN M. BRIGH'T.
been' no clamor against it, if it had become the law;
but I found, upon examination, that it was subject to
insuperable objections which, had they been present
to my mind, would have induced me to vote against
it all the time. If I had voted for or against it,
or any other proposition, it would have been my
duty and my privilege, if I found that I was in error,
to correct such error in a subsequent vote. But I
was not mistaken in supposing that it was inot the
final vote.  The real "tug of war" was yet to come.
The disagreement of the two Houses resulted in the
Conference Committee, as predicted. This committee agreed upon a report in which they rejected the
Sargent amendment, and restored the Butler amendment. The final vote was taken on the conference
report, on the 3d of March, the day before Congress
adjourned, when I was present and deliberately recorded my vote against the whole Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary bill, because it contained the
salary amendment.   (Globe, part 3, p. 2Io5.)
The following is a substantial history of the legislation on the salary bill in the House of Representatives. If the perusal of the details have been a trial
to your patience, I must plead justification in the
great interest which the people have taken in the
question, and to give the facts in their proper connection for their better understanding.  So you will
see that I was opposed to the passage of the law from
the first to.the last; dlid not aid in its passage, and in
no just sense can be held responsible for its consequences.  Six more negative votes would have defeated it on its final passage in the House; and after
it passed the House, it might have been defeated in
the Senate, and after it passed both HIouses, the
9 
CIRCULAR LETTER FROM
President might have killed it with his veto.  It
never could have become a law except by the sanction of the President, or over his veto.
I am not, therefore subject to the charge of voting
to put money in my own pocket, or otherwise aiding
in the passage of the law.  There is no legislative
power to compel a restitution from members whose
term expired with the Forty-second Congress; but
it seems that the rational way of correcting the evil
of the future is by the repeal of the law.
This was the course pursued as to the obnoxious
compensation bill of I8i6.
PERSONAL ASPECT.
The application of the law to the members of Congress, after its passage, is broadly distinguishable
from its legislative aspect.
In answer to the communication in the Monitor, in
relation to the increase of the President's salary, I
would say that, in my opinion, it was a violation of the
spirit and reason of the Constitution, if not of the letter.
The Constitution declares that he "shall, at stated
times, receive for his services a compensation which
shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
period for which he shall have been elected."
The object of this clause in giving a fixed salary
was to make the President independent of Congress,
and to put it out of the power of Congress to influence his action on legislation; or, as better expressed
by justice Story, so that Congress could "neither
weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities,
nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice."
(Story on Constitution, section I486.  I Kent, lecture
I3, p. 263. Federalist, No. 73.)
10 
HION. JOHIN. M. BRIGIHT.
It is unnecessary for me to argue that the increase of
the President's salary did not make a powerful "ap peal to his avarice" to approve the bill, and that the
bill would not operate for his benefit, even though it
was for his second term.
But the Constitution, as to the pay of members of
Congress, is different from the provisions relating to
the President's salary.  It says: "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." This is all it says
on the subject-nothing said about its being " increased or diminished" during the period for which
he (or they) shall have been elected.
In passing, I would remark, that I do not agree
with Senator Carpenter that the member, to whom
compensation has been voted, is obliged to take it.
I think the Constitution intended to declare his
right to it, and to make it obligatory upon Congress
to ascertain the amount, and provide for its payment
by law.  That being done, the member might waive
his constitutional right to receive it.
Since the public mind has been so greatly exercised
on the subject, I have been painfully anxious to avail
myself of all sources of information to furnish a guide
to my action, particularly on the subject of "back pay."
You will pardon me for asking you to travel with
me through some of the stages of my investigationbearing in mind that I am not hunting up apologies for
a bad law, but only seeking light for my own action.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW.
I find, from examination of approved commentators. that the Constitution entrusted Congress with
I I 
Cllt.CULAR LETTElR FROM
unlimited discretion over the subject of Congressional
salaries. There was no check on the abuse of this
discretion, except the terror and gibbet of public
opinion.  (I Story on Constitution, section358.  See
also Rawle and Kent on same subject.) But it has
been conceded on all hands that the law, so far as the
Congressional salary is concerned, is constitutional.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
I find that Congress inserted a back pay provision
in the first salary bill of I789, relating to the first of
the term. As this was the first Congress, the back
pay provision would not have great force as a precedent, as it might have been the result of necessity.
I find that the act passed March i9, i8i6, contained
a provision for back pay, and increased the compensation of members from the daily pay of $6, to the
yearly pay of $I,500.
I find that the act of August I6, I856, increased
the compensation from a daily pay of $8, to a yearly
pay of $3,0oo0, containing a provision for back pay
from the 4th of March, I855, nearly eighteen months.
I find that the act of July 28, I866, increased the
pay firom $3,000 to $5,000 per annum, to be "computed from the first day" of that Congress, which
commenced on the 4th of March, i865, nearly sixteein months.
PRESIDENTIAL ACTION.
I find( that George Washington approved the Congressional compensation bill of I789; Mr. Madison
approved the act of I9th March, i8i6; Mr. Pierce
approved the act of I6th August, I856; and Mr.
Johnson apl roved the act of 26th July, I866, which
12 
HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT.
last act was passed by the vote: yeas 5I, nays 50, not
voting 85.
It is proper to state that none of these acts increased the compensation of the President.
REPRESENTATIVE STATESMEN.
I find that Henry Clay, though Speaker of the
HIouse at the time, took the floor and advocated the
bill of i8i6; and amongst others, the following representative statesmen voted for it: John C. Calhoun,
Richard M. Johnson, James Clark, Benjamin Hardin,
John McLean, Timothy Pickering, John Randolph,
and Daniel Webster.
From the best information which I can obtain, all
the Senators and Representatives of Congress at the
time received the back pay under the act of i856;
amongst the distinguished Senators so receiving it
were: James A. Bayard and John M. Clayton, of
Delaware; John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky; Stephen
A. Douglas and Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois; Lewis
Cass, of Michigan; Samuel Houston, of Texas; James
C. Jones and John Bell of Tennessee.
All the Senators and Representatives in Congress
at the time received the back pay under the act of
i866; amongst the distinguished statesmen were: T.
A. Hendricks, of Indiana; Garret Davis and James
Guthrie, of Kentucky; Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland; Henry Wilson and Charles Sumner, of Masssachusetts; George H. Williams, of Oregon, now
Attorney-general of the United States; and amongst
these might be named all the delegation in the House
from Tennessee. Rumor says that one Representative did not receive the back pay, but I have no authentic information of the fact.
4
13 
CIItCUL\l  IE'II'TL1 I   FROM
ACTION OF T'IlE PEOPLE.
The people expressed great  indignation on the
passage of the compensation act of iS8I6.  Their
clamor was so fierce that it forced a repeal of the act
the next session of Congress. Mr. Mills, of Massachusetts, speaking onl the question of the repeal of
the law expressed the objection of the people fairly
to it.  "He  had scarcely heard an intelligent man
out of the House question the propriety of increasing
the compensation.   Such men  had confined their
complaints to the mnode of increase, and that the law
was retrospective in its operation, so that those who
raised the compensation participated in the benefit of
its increase, as well for that part of the session which
had elapsed, as well for that which was to come."
Mr. Clay had anticipated the objections of the people as to the propriety of members fixing their own
compensation, and said:   "As  to the amendment
to defer its operation until the next Congress, he
would remark that, in his judgment, there was more
propriety in the law ending than beginning there.
It was more respectful to our successors to leave
them free to determine what was the just measure of
indemnity for their expenses, than for us to prescribe
the rule for them. We can best judge for ourselves.
With respect to the supposed delicacy of our fixing
upon our own compensation, let the Constitution, let
the necessity of the case be reproached for that, not
us."
'Mr. Randolph offered an amendment to the bill
proposing to repeal the act of iSi6, to deduct the
back pay of members. in excess of $6 per day, but it
was rejected.
The people defeated some and re-elected others
I4.
I 
I-ION. JOltN  M. BRIGlIT.
who had aided in the passage of the law, The people, however, afterwards repeatedly honored  Mr.
Clay with their confidence, and a great national party
gave him a most enthusiastic support as a candidate
for the Presidency. Mr. Calhloun afterwards became
Senator, Cabinet officer, and was elected Vice-President by the people. Mr. R. M. Johnson, author of
the bill of i8i6, was afterwards elected Vice-President by the people. Mr. McLean was afterwards
made one of the Supreme Judges, and he was warmly
solicited to become a candidate for the Presidency in
I832, but he declined. Mr. Webster was afterwards
repeatedly in the Senate, in the Cabinet, supported
by many warm friends as a candidate for the Presidency, and became illustrious as the greatest constitutional expounder of his age.  James Clark was
afterwards elected Governor of Kentucky. To single out a few who receivcd back pay under the act
of I856: Stephen A: Douglas and John Bell were
endorsed by their respective parties as candidates for
the Presidency when the times were "big with danger." John Bell carried the State of Tennessee.
Lewis Cass afterwards became a Cabinet officer, and
Lyman Trumbull and John J. Crittenden were sent
to the Senate.
To single out a few who received ba.:k pay under
the act of I866: The eye of a great political party
has been resting on T. A. Hendricks as a "coming
man" for the high honors of the nation, Henry
Wilson has been elected Vice-President by the Republican party, and many distinguished Representatives who received the back pay of both parties
have been re-elected to Congress-such men as Eldridge, W. E. Niblack, M. C. Kerr, Samuel J. Randall,
I 5 
C cIItCUI,.\it  L,ETI'TE[t  FItOMN
Kelley, and Farnsworth; Randall not only having
been re-elected to Congress, but made Chairman of
the National Democratic Committee.
Franklin Pierce, after approving the comipensationi
bill of 1856, received the vote of the delegates firom
Tennessee in the National Democratic Convention
for renomination as a candidate for the Presidency.
And Mr. Johnson, after his approving the compensation bill of i866, received strong legislative and
poptular support.
After this review, finding that the back pay feature
of the different compensation laws have had the constitutional sanction, the legislative sanction, the Presidential sanction, the sanction of our great representative statesmen, and acquiescence, if not the sanction,
of the people, candor compels me to admit, however
much I might condemn the policy, that the recipients
of the back pay have not been regarded as felons;
and if the people so regarded themi while their pas sion was so raging, they changed their opinion when
they cooled down to the "second sober thought."
If the law had been unconstitutional, and Congress
had knowingly and corruptly used the form of law
to plunder the treasury, then those who participated
in the plunder, whether voting for or against the bill,
would be alike guilty. But if the law, on the other
hand, was constitutional, as it certainly was, then it
vested all themembers voting for and against it with
the legal right to the compensation, just as much as
if the law were a grant of land or an appropriation
of money for any other purpose.
Then, if vested with a title to it, the sequiter is in evitable that he has the right to receive it.
The act of drawing the money precedes and im
i6 
HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT. 
plies the power of disposing of it.  Should any
member fail to draw his back pay, it will remain to
his credit "two years after the expiration of the fiscal
year in which the act shall have been passed "-  that
is, from the 3oth of June, i874, the end of the fiscal
year, to the 3oth June, I876, when it would lapse
into the "surplus fund" of the treasury, and there to
remain "without further and specific appropriation
by law." This is upon the supposition that the salaries of members were liable to lapse under the law,
which may be doubted. Assuming, however, that
they do lapse, then they may be drawn at any time
before the 3oth of June, i876.  If any member should
die before the expiration of the time, his personal
representative might draw it within the remaining
time. So, that if the member would give it back to
the Government, or make any other disposition of it,
he must draw it, or go through the form of drawing it.
But the most embarrassing question with which I
have to deal, is:
WHAT WILL I DO WITH IT?
Various friends, with whom I have consulted, by
no means agree as to what should be done with it.
Some thought that it ought to be given back to the
Government; others, that it ought to be turned over
to the State of Tennessee; others, that it ought to
be divided amongst the counties of my Congressional
District; others, that I should keep it, as it was mnine
by the law of the land, and nothing but a fair compensation; others, that they would rather that I
should have it than any other person, and that it
would be unjust and unequal to take it fi'om me when
17
-5 
nearly all the other mieimbers kept theirs' andl fr-lm
abroad, it was solicited as a contribution to the Waslhington monument fund.  So that it will be seen that
the public mind has been at sea as well as my own.
If I should give it back to the Government, a certain class would cry out, with the New York Tribune,
as it said of the back payers, that they "have been
led by conscience, or driven by shame, or induced,
by considerations of policy, to return it."
If I should propose to give it to the endowment
fund of a university, the clamor comes firom another
quarter that I want to make it a sounding board of a
mock liberality, which is only "charity in the rind,
but selfishness in the core."
If I had left it in the treasury, the charge would
have been made that it was only there with the dishonest motive of stealing it out after the storm had
blown over.
If I propose to give it to the counties of my  Congressional District, they are to be persuaded that the
receipt of it would be contaminating.
If I propose to keep it, others raise the cry that I
am guilty upon the principle that'"the receiver is
guilty as the thief."
If I refuse to speak out, I am considered dumb
with conscious guilt.  If I attempt an Explanation,
it is considered a hollow pretence, and like dog Tray,
I must be beaten anyhow. So that I am held at bay
on every side.
To give the money back, it would be only as the
dust in the balances to the Government, whose annual expenses verge on $400,000,oo000. To give it to
the State, or common school fund of the State,
would not be just and equal to my own Congress
IS
1,El",I'Elt 
HION. JOIN Ml. BRIGIIT.
ionlal district, as the other Congressional Districts are
receiving the benefit, in some form, of the quotas of
their respective representatives.
But, fellow-citizens, not to weary you with further
details: without your fault or mine, and over my opposition, we were involved in the consequences of
the law, you by having your part of the increased
salary to pay, I by being subjected to its burdens.
This last remark requires explanation: The larger
the salary, the greater the exactions will be upon it.
WTashington City takes the gauge of the Congressional salary, and the price of rents, furniture, boarding, and provisions are raised in proportion to its increase.
Furnished houses, after the adjournment, could be
rented for half the price exacted from the members
during the session of Congress. The increased pay
will only multiply the number and stimulate the importunity of demands upon it.
Congress is canvassed nearly every day for donations to charity indigence, and for contributions to
religious, educational, literary, and scientific enterprises.
Besides, it is understood that a Congressman's salary is partly to be expended for the benefit of the
public. He has to pay for all the printed copies of
his own and other members' speeches, which he d(istributes amongst his constituents.  He now has to
pay postage on all the public documents, which he
distributes, as well as letter postage to his constituents. He has to respond to the calls of his party to
pay for the printing and distribution of canvass documents. He is expected to furnish relief to any of
his constituents, or citizens of his State, who may
ig 
Ci0  CULa t.I LIETTEll'l  ITOM
happen to be caught in Washington City in a destitute condition.  In short, he is tapped at every pore
for money plethora, is expected to be as liberal as a
prince; and if he withholds, he is berated as a niggard.  Of all which I do not complain; I only state
facts. Withal, he is expected, and it is his duty, to
be an example of economy; and while he may be
generous with his own, he must be saving of the
public treasury.
I believe that the true theory of compensation to
members of Congress was not designed to be in the
extremes either of penury or prodigality; but, as said
by one of the fathers of the Republic, it should be
fixed "in the middle ground where dignity blends
with economy."
In fact, it makes but little difference to the member of Congress whether his compensation be $5,000
and mileage, stationery, and free postage, or $7,500
without them.  With either salary, the general average of the members will not more than make their
ends meet.
Mr. Clay's experience was, that he could save no
more out of the Speaker's salary —which was double
that of other members-than he did out of his salary
as a member on the floor.
However, it is a matter of difference to the people
who have the increased compensation to pay. Perhaps, it is the duty of members of Congress to wage
a war of economy upon the exactions incident to
Congressional life.
After this explanatory digression on the supervening burdens of the salary, I recur to the train of
thought on which I was commenting: that you and
myself were involved in the consequences of the law,
20 
HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT.
without the fault of either. You have your quota to
pay. It is beyond the power of Congress to compel a restitution, at least as to. the outgoing members,
and it could reach the present members only by deducting the back pay from their future compensation.
From the foregoing review to throw light on my
own action, I conclude that by the sanction of the
Constitution of the United States-by the sanction
of the official antecedents of Presidents and representative statesmen of the purest days of the Republic, the back pay is mine.
I did not expect it, did not ask it, did not vote for
it. The Government has parted with it, has no claim
on it, does not ask its return. Being mine, I may do
with it as I please.  My constituents having had it
to pay, are the only persons on earth who can raise
the question of a primary equity. The imperious
logic of facts drives me to this conclusion.
Being mine, I had intended, and privately so expressed my intention, to offer it in pro rata proportions to the counties composing the 4th Congressional
District, (and which district I was proud to represent), through their County Courts; not because I
had stolen it; not because I was conscious-stung, like
Judas, to cast it at your feet as the fee of treachery;
for I did not betray you.
Nor did I intend to offer it as a bribe for any future
preferment, nor use it as a screen to anticipated resentmient.  I felt as jealous of your honor as of my
own, and I would have scorned to propose anything
which I thought indefensible in law or morals.
Recent circumstances, however, have induced me
to change my intentions., I decline now to make the
offer to the County Courts,.for the reason that an
-6
2I 
CIRCULAIR. LET'TTElR FIIR.OMN
effort has been made to forestal their impartial action,
and because such offers elsewhere have been decried
and reje,ted as the specious overtures of the dema gogue.  Popular jealousy is so aroused that I am put
to a disadvantage on all sides.
I understand my embarrassing posture. if I should
make the offer,. an effort would be made to have it
r-ejected with insult; if I do not'make the offer, I
may be snubbed for the refusal.
.ks their representative, I claim that I am entitled
to the fair and impartial judgment of the people.
First know, next deliberate, and then judge.
Notwithstanding I decline a tender to the County
Courts, yet if the people in any or all of the counties in the. Congressional District, assert a primary
equity to the back pay by any gen-eral expression, in
deference to their wish, I will take pleasure in sending such county a check for its pro rata share, on application of a proper agent to receive it.
Accepting an advantage under an unwise and impolitic law, by no means commits us to an endorsement of it.
Many of our purest and best citizens have taken
stock in our National Banks who were opposed to
the whole banking system, and would have voted
against the law authorizing them  had  they been
members of Congress.  They availed themselves of
their advantages because they were lawful, although
the avowed object of their creation was to break
down the banking institutions of the States and centralize the banking powers of the nation in the General Government.  At the same time, all the people
became involved in the consequences by being compelled to use the currency.
22 
HiON. JOIIN M. BRIGtIT.
I do not claim that my legislative action is above
criticism.  To expect infallibility of me would be to
mneasure me  by a standard by which none of you
would be willing tobe measured.
You may acquit me of sordid motives when I tell
you that I voted for the repeal of the franking priv ilege, the effect of which was to relieve the Govern ment from paying, as to myself, fromn $300 to $500
per year, and to impose the burden upon my salary
when it stood at $5,00ooo per year, witih no prospect of
increasing it at the time.  I thought the franking
privilege right within itsel;f, but it was asserted that
the privilege had been greatly abused during the last
Presidential canvass, as well as at other times, and I
yielded up my private advantage to correct a public
abuse.
I voted against the salary bill to defeat it when it
was known that its defeat would result in a called
session of Congress, which would enhance my personal expenses.
It was a bad law, and I rejoice to know that I represented you in voting against it. You stand right,
through your representative, on the record.
You had cause to arouse your alarm at the rapid
drift of the Government to extravagance. In iS56,
the Congressional salary had been increased from $8
per day to $3,000 per year with mileage; in i866, it
was increased to $5,000ooo per year with mileage and
stationery; win IS73, it was increased to $7,500 with
actual traveling expenses, less mileage and stationery,
at the same time increasing the salaries of numerous
other officers of the Government, and at a time when
there was no financial crisis, when  there was  no
blight of the harvests, nor disease of the flocks and
23 
CIRCULAR LETTER{.
herds to raise the cost of living to famine prices, and
at a time when the people were galled and staggering under the burden of taxation,my voice has been
lifted against subsidies, monopolies,, and exorbitant
taxation..
It has been my highest ambition, by faithful service, to win your approbation, which is the true
reward of the patriot.
JOHN M. BRIGHT.
FAYETTEVILLE, TENN,
24