Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1822-04-13
EDWARDsyILLE, ILLINOIS, sATURDAY, APRIL 4s, 1922

consider it to be an office within the
meaning of the constitution.
Ii has already been shown that the
employment had all the qualities OF an
Office which could render an Office i'm
proper TO be held by member oil Con-
gress--it had the emoiumentS. Let ii
be conceded however, for arguments
sake, that it is not an Office interdicted
by the constitution: what is it then Was
it service undertaken or executed by
" contract, bargain or agreement, in qgri-
ting or oherzpise % L so, was it not
positively forbidden 81 law to be per-
formed by member OF congress ! So
jealous has been the guardian genius oil
our government to the purity otthe iegis-
latlve body, that, in conformity TO the
spirit of the constitution, and with de-
termination TO interpose every possible
barrier against its oorruption congress
passed law in Apili, 1903, declaring
that " il any member Of congress shaii,
directly or indirectly, himself or by any
other person whatsoever in trust for him,
or for his use or benefit, or on his &C
count, enter into, accept OF, agree Tor,
undertake or execute any contract or
agreement, in whole or in part, he shall
on conviction be adjodyded gully Of a
high misdemeanor, and fined in sum Of
| 5000 dollars"
The same law inflicts the same penal
ty upon any officer of the United States
| l,atI
enter into any contract, bargain or agree
ment in qU,iting or otherwise, with "a
member of congress. Now, if Mr..
Thomas's employment be not an office,
, how will it escape the designation OF this
law? Or is it an indescrlbable something
which no form of words can reach II all
office, the constitution iorhids if" 4 con-
tract, bargain, or agreement, in .9rittng'
ar 9therzoise," the law forbids. 70 avoid
both horns of the dilemma, VIC must
abandon the great principle Of our go
vernment established in the constitution,
and exemplifcd in the act OF congress,
and resort to a quibb!ihg construction Of
that great charter of our rights, which
would be unworthy Of peltiiogger
much more 50 Of a " constitutional law
yer"
The two FIRST precedents, of Tracy and
Of Dawson, cited in the letter to South
Carolina, occurred before the passage of
the act Of Congress, apd the last is doubt
tu!. If it be true, it must have been orc
OF those acts OF inadvertancy which able
statesman will som chimes commit; be-
cause il is certain nat Mr.. Madison
once sent an appointment TO a member
Of Congress from Kentucky to treat
with the Indians, and, upon reflection,
revoked it, exclusively on the ground OF
a want of lawful authority 10 give such
an appointment to member Of Con-
gress. But this question must be decid-
ed upon principles OF constitutional
law, and not upon the authority Of an in
solatel precedent. There is strain Of
simpering evasion and anxious excu!pa-
ton in the suggestions Of vague suppo-
si,ions and probabilities 10 The letter oil
the Secrctary's " FRIEND" which strong
iy indicates the uneasincss that this sub
iect has excited in him; bat ! iOrbear
any further remark, which the sly ie, man.
ner, and the singular appearance OF this
letter in The National cliscncer, three
days after it had been despatched to
South Carolina, might properly suggest
/, is the Substance OF the transaction
alone tina, demands public attention."