CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Keep it "Independence Day" despite
run-amok government
The House on Friday afternoon approved a $25.7
billion fiscal 2007 budget that appears to have grown by about $300
million during negotiations between the branches.
State House News Service
Friday, June 30, 2006
House, Senate vote for enlarged $25.7 billion state budget
State lawmakers have approved a $25.7 billion budget for next
year, boosting spending 7.5 percent over this year, mostly through a major
increase in aid to local school districts....
Lawmakers again rejected calls for an income tax cut, ignoring proposals by
Governor Mitt Romney and the Senate to roll back the income tax to 5 percent.
They also rejected a sales tax holiday the Senate had approved for Aug. 12 and
13.
State budget-watchers warned that the budget, $300 million higher than the
original budgets proposed by the House and Senate, is too generous. The increase
appears to be the largest in at least the past decade.
"The bottom line is clearly too high," said Michael J. Widmer of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation....
Romney vowed to veto the spending plan, saying lawmakers had unwisely dipped
into the state's rainy day fund for $550 million to boost spending.
"It would be irresponsible for Governor Romney to sign this budget," said Romney
spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
The Legislature, however, would be able to override a veto easily. The Senate
voted 38 to 0 to approve the budget, and the House passed it 148 to 3....
But some local officials said the increases still are not enough.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Mass. House, Senate approve $25.7b budget
The 7.5 percent hike is mostly in school aid
Governor Mitt Romney proposed yesterday that state lawmakers
pay for the pension of a former House member who never contributed to the state
pension system.
Under the terms of an amendment the governor sent to the House and Senate,
members of both chambers, the governor, and the lieutenant governor would pay
one-half of 1 percent of their base compensation to the state pension fund,
which would cover the pension for the widow of former representative Michael
Ruane of Salem, who died Sunday at age 78.
The Legislature had passed a bill granting him a $44,000-per-year pension.
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Romney offers compromise on Ruane pension
My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill
to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is
that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in
the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to
give away the public money in charity?"
The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back in
the water" was the phrase that came to mind from the original "Jaws"
movie promotion back in 1975, when I learned late yesterday that the
Legislature had, before leaving on an extended holiday weekend, passed a
record-breaking spending plan for Fiscal Year 2007. There's more
than a passing analogy here -- with the Great White shark and the "Great
and General Court" ruthlessly eating everything in sight, tossing
would-be beachgoers into terror.
Only in Massachusetts can a "conference committee" of
House and Senate "negotiators" reconcile their budget differences by
taking the stance that -- well, "I'll give you everything you want if
you give me everything I want." Increasing both branches' budget
proposals by $300 million. Raiding the so-important-to-them and
the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation's (when we talk about
rolling back the 19-year old "temporary" income tax hike) "rainy day
fund" for half a billion dollars just so they can spend even more
than this year's billion-dollar surplus.
And, oh my goodness -- Michael Widmer of MTF is again
-- YET AGAIN -- "shocked, simply shocked" that spending is again
out-of-control. I'm sure the Gimme Lobby thanks MTF for providing
the next "fiscal"/spending crisis cover it so desperately needed.
Recall:
In January Gov. Mitt Romney proposed a $25.2
billion state budget;
In April the House proposed a $25.27 billion spending plan;
In May the Senate's budget proposed spending $25.4 billion,
and;
In July, the final budget became $25.7 billion.
That comes out to half a billion dollars more than
the governor's proposed budget;
$430 million more than the House's proposed budget,
and;
$300 million above than the Senate's.
In the Massachusetts Legislature (all but three
Republicans in the House and Senate voted for passage), "negotiations
and compromise" within a "conference committee" has created a new
definition: "Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. We've got
their money -- let's spend it and screw any promises made to roll back
taxes!"
There's not a single word in the budget about keeping
that promise. It was excised entirely. The conferees in both
bodies "compromised" by making everyone happy, simply funding almost
everything at a higher cost to taxpayers.
On this coincidental-or-not auspicious occasion --
the weekend over which we celebrate the 230th year since the signing
of the "Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen United States of
America" -- we recall the words crafted by Thomas Jefferson, in its
second paragraph:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness....
Don't forget, on Tuesday we don't celebrate the
generic "4th of July." We true Americans will celebrate
Independence Day, and we will remember why we celebrate.
On yet another historical note today, Gov. Romney
amended the taxpayer-funded illegitimate pension of a retired state
Representative -- a pretty decent friend of taxpayers early on but
nonetheless -- that of the recently-deceased Salem former-Rep. Michael Ruane.
Instead of a taxpayer giveaway to his now-widow, the governor proposed
that those most concerned with the plight of their colleague's wife pony
up privately to help support her, and volunteered his and Lt.
Gov. Healey's support.
Former-Rep. Ruane's former colleagues crafted cover
for themselves with an alleged means of recovering taxpayers' cost for
this unique addition to the exploding state pension system by attaching
his home after his wife passed on; but then added his children to that
codicil. As one pundit pointed out, who's going to remember by
then to collect for the taxpayers?
It reminded me of the first mistake made by U.S.
Congressman David Crockett, better known as "King of the Wild Frontier"
by many of us baby-boomers, or even as a sacrificial hero at the Alamo
to Mexican General Antonio López de Santa Anna's overpowering forces in
1836. "Remember the Alamo!"
Mitt Romney apparently remembered or is
philosophically akin to words of Crockett's critic, Horatio Bunce (story
below).
We need more Bunces, with that kind of influence,
perspective, and understanding of constitutional intent.
We need more Colonel Crocketts legislating today, who
can at least finally grasp and even perhaps appreciate.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
State House News Service
Friday, June 30, 2006
House, Senate vote for enlarged $25.7 billion state budget
The House on Friday afternoon approved a $25.7 billion fiscal 2007
budget that appears to have grown by about $300 million during
negotiations between the branches. The Senate vote of approval was 38-0.
House budget chief Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) said the House turned back
most Senate-approved policy measures added to the budget as outside
sections. DeLeo said the thrust of the budget is reinvesting in cities
and towns, which have been trying to recover from cuts in local aid and
pressure on property taxes. He said he’s aware that critics believe the
Legislature is spending too freely, but feels the investments in school
aid, housing, the environment and substance abuse treatment are worth
it.
With lawmakers anxious to break free of Beacon Hill for the weekend,
DeLeo cut his floor remarks short, saying he didn’t want to rehash
comments he made privately to his colleagues during a caucus today.
The budget emerged this morning from conference committee. House
Minority Leader Bradley Jones voted against the budget but opted not to
offer floor remarks.
Rep. Viriato deMacedo, the Republican budget negotiator in the House,
did speak on the floor and said the bottom line was higher than he would
have liked and expressed hope the House might support expected
gubernatorial spending vetoes.
"The economy that we are in right now is tenuous at best," said deMacedo.
But deMacedo said he voted for the budget because he likes its
priorities.
The budget makes "modest progress" restoring funds cut throughout state
government in recent years and funds the first year of the health
insurance expansion law, according to the Massachusetts Budget and
Policy Center. But analysts at that center say their initial reading of
the budget indicates that, when compared to fiscal 2001 state spending
levels and adjusted for inflation, the budget spends $500 million from
the rainy day fund and provides 10 percent less in unrestricted local
aid, 17 percent less for higher education, and 22 percent less for
public health.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Mass. House, Senate approve $25.7b budget
The 7.5 percent hike is mostly in school aid
By Andrea Estes and Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff
State lawmakers have approved a $25.7 billion budget for next year,
boosting spending 7.5 percent over this year, mostly through a major
increase in aid to local school districts.
The budget, agreed upon by House and Senate negotiators and quickly
approved late yesterday, includes a 6.6 percent increase in the state's
basic aid for schools, a response to intense pressure from cities and
towns that have been pushing tax overrides, raising school fees, and
cutting programs to make ends meet.
Lawmakers again rejected calls for an income tax cut, ignoring proposals
by Governor Mitt Romney and the Senate to roll back the income tax to 5
percent. They also rejected a sales tax holiday the Senate had approved
for Aug. 12 and 13.
State budget-watchers warned that the budget, $300 million higher than
the original budgets proposed by the House and Senate, is too generous.
The increase appears to be the largest in at least the past decade.
"The bottom line is clearly too high," said Michael J. Widmer of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Along with a recently approved economic stimulus bill and a supplemental
budget, lawmakers have authorized "a level of spending that is not
sustainable over the longer term and is not reflective of the state's
stagnant economy," said Widmer, president of the nonpartisan group.
Romney vowed to veto the spending plan, saying lawmakers had unwisely
dipped into the state's rainy day fund for $550 million to boost
spending.
"It would be irresponsible for Governor Romney to sign this budget,"
said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
The Legislature, however, would be able to override a veto easily. The
Senate voted 38 to 0 to approve the budget, and the House passed it 148
to 3.
Lawmakers said they had to restore funding to schools as much as
possible after years of devastating cuts.
"The reality is you've got a very limited time-frame to educate these
kids," said Senator Robert A. Antonioni, Democrat of Leominster.
"Really, the amount of money we put into the effort does make a
difference. I don't apologize for that. I don't think any of us should
be ashamed to put more money into public education."
Senator Therese Murray, Democrat of Plymouth and chairwoman of the Ways
and Means Committee, defended the increased spending.
"Investing in our public school districts gives communities the means to
provide the best education for our children possible," she said.
Those who lobbied the Legislature hard for more aid -- including
Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal
Association -- hailed the budget as a major step forward for cities and
towns slammed by budget cuts in recent years. "I don't think anyone
believes that this is an overnight recovery," he said. "But this is
obviously a good news budget for cities and towns."
But some local officials said the increases still are not enough.
Carl Valente, Lexington town manager, said the budget doesn't restore
school funding to 2002 levels. Last month, voters in Lexington rejected
a tax override for schools, forcing them to send layoff notices to more
than 30 teachers and other staffers.
"That's the more difficult side of this," he said. "Even though this is
more money than we anticipated, it's nowhere near enough."
In its budget, the Legislature also seeks to prevent Romney from
asserting control over the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board by
extending the term of board member Jordan Levy, who is loyal to chairman
Matthew J. Amorello. Romney, who has called on Amorello to resign over
his management of the Big Dig, plans today to replace Levy on the
five-member board with his third appointee, Beth Lindstrom.
The budget extends Levy's term until next January, after Romney has left
office. Fehrnstrom called this measure "unconstitutional."
As part of the budget, the Legislature also passed initiatives designed
to tighten rules for sex offenders. Under the new law, sex offenders who
repeatedly fail to register with the state's sex offender board would be
placed on lifetime parole, requiring them to be supervised and monitored
throughout their lives. Offenders who commit certain crimes against
children would be subject to lifetime parole if they fail to register
even once.
Another change requires sex offenders to register at any address where
they spend more than two weeks a year.
The wording closes a loophole that lawmakers said had allowed some
offenders to stay at secondary addresses, such as a girlfriend's
apartment, and go unnoticed by local police departments or neighbors.
The budget also protects the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, which
Romney threatened to abolish earlier this year, by establishing it as a
permanent 27-member panel.
In addition, the budget increased spending on human services, public
safety, and healthcare. It boosted funding of substance abuse programs,
the State Police crime lab, metropolitan area beaches, and the new
Office of Dam Safety.
Return to top
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Romney offers compromise on Ruane pension
Governor Mitt Romney proposed yesterday that state lawmakers pay for the
pension of a former House member who never contributed to the state
pension system.
Under the terms of an amendment the governor sent to the House and
Senate, members of both chambers, the governor, and the lieutenant
governor would pay one-half of 1 percent of their base compensation to
the state pension fund, which would cover the pension for the widow of
former representative Michael Ruane of Salem, who died Sunday at age 78.
The Legislature had passed a bill granting him a $44,000-per-year
pension.
Romney estimated the cost of his arrangement at $275 per member per
year, and $675 and $600 annually for the governor and lieutenant
governor, respectively.
The Legislature's bill would impose a state lien on Ruane's house to
recover the pension costs once Ruane's widow, Helena, dies.
One House member was dismissive of Romney's proposal. "That's the most
politically expedient thing I've ever heard in my life," said
Representative Kevin Murphy, a Lowell Democrat. "We devised a way to pay
for the Ruane pension."
Return to top
The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S.
Ellis
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884
CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was
a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were
intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I
was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill
was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a
distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in
its support -- rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a
fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing
anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was
just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected,
of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches
in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased,
and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering
there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect
for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an
act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an
argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money
as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the
right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we
please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to
appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have
been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr.
Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in
office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the
government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but
for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how
much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it
is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have
its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope
to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of
1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the
widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in
battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor.
She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to
introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her
benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in
this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as
the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts
to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the
deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do
not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows
it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption,
appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the
semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I
have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we
please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill,
but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of
Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage,
and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as,
no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and,
of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had
not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and
felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my
friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I
went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in
addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his
table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had
possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday.
Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will
be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had
finished he turned to me and said:
"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and
one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol
with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by
a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We
jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got
there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did
there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many
houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some
of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very
cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that
something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel
the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their
relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as
it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so;
for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I
did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right
to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody
but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the
yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but
many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a
praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas
and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of
the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I
concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I
had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did
not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys
know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made
me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my
saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found
things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my
district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man
in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that
we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the
man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was
about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be
in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and
get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it
does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and --"
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once
before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you
are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or
mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it.
I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which
shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution,
or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In
either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon
for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the
privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the
purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that
your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and
I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said,
that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the
Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the
Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly
observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and
misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about
it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any
constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods
and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very
carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last
winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by
a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in
the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to
give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I
could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I
found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But
certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours
should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering
women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury,
and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I
did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle.
In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more
than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with
the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure
is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly
under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every
man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is
the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses
upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is
not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to
the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve
one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of
discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as
$20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to
give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor
stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything
which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any
amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide
door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one
hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has
no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their
own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of
the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been
burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member
of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.
There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had
shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's
pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in
and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving
themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their
own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very
creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for
relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours
to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the
power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and
pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation,
and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he
was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by
saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I
consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the
country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the
limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for
the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make
it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you
see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this
man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that
district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact
is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not
sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by
it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in
Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at
your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine
speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have,
I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that
vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote
for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you
again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote
was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you
for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about
this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote
for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I
may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I
am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten
days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a
speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty
of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those
who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can
then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to
getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will
go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear
you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must
know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen
me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud
that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your
hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled
but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable
intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and
running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not
only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around
him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate
acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of
him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had
opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could
now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation
to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and
I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me
stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under
ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up
until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government,
and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life
before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer
converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a
very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind
a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a
reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt
before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him -- no, that
is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man,
and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you,
sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and
enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by
storm.
But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue,
and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many
whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around
until I had got pretty well acquainted -- at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered
around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens -- I present myself before you today feeling like a new
man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or
prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I
can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than
I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the
purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should
make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you
will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation
as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was
wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the
most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply
a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce,
convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that
he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens -- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the
request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly
honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that
he has promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy
Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and
felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the
remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest,
hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I
have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall
make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech
yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was
directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You
remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House
many very wealthy men -- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay,
or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something
to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon
the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased - - a
debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a
sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not
one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but
trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great
thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice
honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|