Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
June 2, 1800
Jenks's Portland Gazette
Portland, Cumberland County, Maine
What is this article about?
The Virginia Federalist editorial criticizes Eastern congressional representatives for drawing full compensation during absences and compares this to Vice President Jefferson's similar practice, arguing both lack propriety.
Merged-components note: Continuation of the piece 'From the Virginia Federalist' across pages 1 and 2.
Clippings
1 of 2
OCR Quality
85%
Good
Full Text
From the Virginia Federalist.
Much clamour has been raised against the Eastern Representation in Congress, who are taxed to have drawn the stipulated compensation for their legislative labors, during the session of that body, although they have been at times necessarily absent.
We know not whether there be grounds for this grumbling or not; but we are well assured that complaints of a similar nature may justly be alleged against Mr. Jefferson.
It is true that the compensation of the Vice President is annual, while that of the representative is a daily one; yet as this compensation was certainly designed as a quid pro quo, and not
Merchants may now form habits at home—as the sessions of Congress are annual also, and the duties of the Vice President commence and terminate with it. We can see no more propriety in his drawing full pay, when absent from those duties full half his time, than in a member of Congress doing so likewise.
Gentlemen gifted with a second sight may discover a greater degree of equity in the one case than in the other; but to us who possess not this beatific qualification, the cases appear alike at least in principle, whatsoever be the practice. It is acknowledged to be the practice of the Vice; but better authority than what has heretofore been adduced is required to prove the practice on the other side.
Much clamour has been raised against the Eastern Representation in Congress, who are taxed to have drawn the stipulated compensation for their legislative labors, during the session of that body, although they have been at times necessarily absent.
We know not whether there be grounds for this grumbling or not; but we are well assured that complaints of a similar nature may justly be alleged against Mr. Jefferson.
It is true that the compensation of the Vice President is annual, while that of the representative is a daily one; yet as this compensation was certainly designed as a quid pro quo, and not
Merchants may now form habits at home—as the sessions of Congress are annual also, and the duties of the Vice President commence and terminate with it. We can see no more propriety in his drawing full pay, when absent from those duties full half his time, than in a member of Congress doing so likewise.
Gentlemen gifted with a second sight may discover a greater degree of equity in the one case than in the other; but to us who possess not this beatific qualification, the cases appear alike at least in principle, whatsoever be the practice. It is acknowledged to be the practice of the Vice; but better authority than what has heretofore been adduced is required to prove the practice on the other side.
What sub-type of article is it?
Partisan Politics
Economic Policy
What keywords are associated?
Congressional Compensation
Vice Presidential Pay
Political Absences
Eastern Representation
Jefferson Criticism
What entities or persons were involved?
Eastern Representation
Mr. Jefferson
Vice President
Congress
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Criticism Of Compensation For Absences In Congress And Vice Presidency
Stance / Tone
Critical Of Pay Practices For Eastern Representatives And Jefferson
Key Figures
Eastern Representation
Mr. Jefferson
Vice President
Congress
Key Arguments
Eastern Representatives Draw Full Pay Despite Absences
Similar Complaints Apply To Vice President Jefferson
Compensation Is Quid Pro Quo Tied To Sessions
No Propriety In Drawing Full Pay When Absent Half The Time
Cases Alike In Principle Despite Different Practices