Mr. BENJAMIN. I rise to a privileged question, and call up the mtRtv a resolution which I introduced on Saturday last in relation to the compensation of Hon. Alexander H. Coffroth, late a member of this House, was referred to the ComJudiciary. I will state very briefly the reasons why I think that vote should be reconsidered. The ComJudiciary, as is well known to all, is pressed with business more than it can properly attend to for the remain der of the session; and I think there would not be the slightest possibility that we could get a report on that subject from the committee at this session. Nor can I see that there is any legal point involved in iod this matter which require an opinion from that committee. I think, after the precedent set by the House upon other occasions in cases which I think are parallel to this, the House is as prepared to ject act understandingly upon the subtoday as at any other time. The facts in the case are these: Mr. Coffroth, at the commencement of the last session, was admitted by a vote of this House to a seat here as a member of the 39th congress, the House determining that he had a primafacie right to a seat as a member. His seat was contested, as we all know, and the House finally found for the contestant, and Mr. Coffroth was ousted. Subsequently to that the House, on the last day of the session passed an act increasing the compensation o members of Congress. The terms of that act, so far as they relate to this case, I will read: Abife:, That the compensation of eachSenator, Representative, and Delegate in Congress shall be $5,00oper annum, to be counoutedfrom the 1st day of the present Congress. Mr. Coffroth had received his pay at the rate of $3,000 a year, that being the compensation allowed by law at the time he was a member. The act to which I have referred related back to the 1st day of the session; in other words, it included all the time that Mr. Coffroth held a seat here as a member of the 39th Congress. Mr. Coffroth while a member, was entitled to the pay and emoluments of a member of Congress. He stood upon the same footing with every other mem. ber on this floor. The fact that he was ousted prior to the passage of the law giving extra compensation should not, it strikes me, affect in any manner the claim of Mr. Coffroth. But, sir, this House has already set 2 precedents which seem to me to cover this case. One of these precedents was in the case of Mr. Gooch, who was elected a member of the 39th Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and who resigned previous to the commencement of the 1st session of the 39th Congress. In that case the House has adopted a resolution granting to Mr. Gooch the increased compensation from the beginning of the Congress up to the time of his resig nation. That precedent of itself should, I think, govern the case. Another instance was that of a member from NewYork, Mr. Humphrey, who was taken from us by death prior to the passage of the act giving increased compensation. This House has adopted a resolution granting to the family of Mr. Humphrey the increased compensation up to the time of his death. In both these instances the parties had ceased to be members prior to the passage of the act giving the increased compensation. It seems to me that these cases should govern that of Mr. Coffroth. I can see no reason why he is not as much entitled to the extra compensation as we who have received it. I trust that the motion to reconsider will prevail, and that the resolution will be put upon its passage now. If no gentleman wishes to say anything on the subject I will demand the previous question.