ry member who
proposed an amendment. Sometimes his remarks were personal and
sometimes they were aimed at the member's State. In a few minutes he
cowed the House, and secured the adoption of his motion for the
committee to rise and report the bill to the House.

He must have been a very good lawyer. The impeachment article which
received the best support was from his pen. He possessed wit,
sarcasm and irony in every form. In public all these weapons were
poisoned, but in private he was usually genial. On one occasion
Judge Olin of New York was speaking and in his excitement he walked
down and up the aisle passing Stevens' seat. At length Stevens said:
"Olin, do you expect to get mileage for this speech?"

During the controversy with Andrew Johnson, Thayer, of Pennsylvania,
became excited upon a matter of no consequence, denounced the report of
a committee, and in the course of his remarks said: "They ask us to
go it blind." Judge Hale, of New York, with an innocent expression,
said he would like to have the gentleman from Pennsylvania inform the
House as to the meaning of the phrase "go it blind." Stevens said at
once: "It means following Raymond." The pertinency of the hit was in
the circumstance that Raymond was supporting Johnson, and that Hale was
following Raymond, not from conviction but for the reason that they
had been classmates in college.

Robert S. Hale was a man of large ability and a successful lawyer.
During his term in Congress he was a prominent candidate for a seat
upon the bench of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. At
a critical moment he appeared in the House in the role of a reformer
and proceeded to arraign members for their action in regard to the
measure known as the "salary grab." The debate showed that Hale was
involved in the business to such an extent that he lost his standing
in the House and imperiled his chance of obtaining a seat upon the
bench of the Court of Appeals.

The bill for the increase of the salaries of public officers was a
proper bill with the single exception that it should have been
prospective as to the members of Congress. It added $2,500 to the
annual salary of the Congressman or $5,000 for a term. The temptation
to give the benefit of the increase to the members of the then
existing House was too strong for their judgment and virtue. When,
however, the indignation of the people was manifested, more than a
majority of the members of eac