Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-02-17
TerwiIliger and the system.

The Rochester Democrat thinks weldid it inius-
tice IN our remarks on the Terwiliger case,
few days ago. We had no such intention, and
are not vet conscious of having done so. We,
expressed our regret that newspaper, which
we had been accustomed to respect should an
nounce in substance that, when corruption in
office is discovered, it is the system, not the Of
fender, which should be denounced. We accept
this extract as fairly expressing the Democrats
position:
"We do not see how Mr.. Terwilliger can do
otherwise Than resign his present position. The
charitable Judgment for which we plead, does
not carry with it a sitting Of the just condem-
nation OF the system which he, in common with
others, maintained and the verdict OF the PEG
pie would be nullifed if he did not retire"
Excuses for the man and condemnation for
the system are here expressed as plainly as they
can be, aud it is this attempt, perhaps an uncon-
scious one, 10 cheat the public demand for JUS
tice, by censuring the system while shielding
the criminal, of which we complain. A system
has no responsibility or moral quality; in fact,
what is here called a system has no right to the
name. 1t is not a method of doing business,
established by law or recognized authority; but
at the best, or worst, only a custom, illegal and
hSuohSst III ibe bS-l1uibS, SiOWll duu CuIlillld-
ton, which is to say that the men who began
AMI maintained it were dishonest. system,
properly so called, may be an excuse for ineffi-
cheney or wastelulness, but not an excuse,
hardly even palliation for dishonesty. The
min the case referred to was utterly indeen-
sibe; every honest man would so recognize it
and repel with Indignation the proposal to share
in It's base profits. To dishonest man il would
offer a reasonable assurance that he might steal
without being punished or disgraced therefor.
Mr.. TerwilliTer knew as well at first as he knows
now that, in accepting percentage of tine print
ing bills, he-was acting dishonesty. His CON
seriousness of guilt is proved, if any proof were
needed, by his attempt to conceal the fraud
under the cover of compensation for proof
reading.
When practice like this is discovered, we
claim that every person or journal undertaking
to discuss it should call things and men by their
right names. To do otherwise, to declaim
against the corrupt system, while making apollo
gies for the offender, is to tamper with the pub
lie morals. This, it seems to us, the Rochester
Democrat has done. In the very article in
which 1t maintains that we have misrepresented
its position, we find this sentence, Senators
could not, in conscience, pronounce the system
praeticed by legislative clerks to he without
PREJUDICE to the interests of the state" We
find also expressions of regard for ''the industry
and suayity of Mr.. Terwilliger," his "strict at
tention to his own duties and non-nterference
with the duties Of others,'' his serviceablepess
and worth in many respects, but we nowhere
find in that article, or in any other issue of the
Democrat, any distinct assertion that Mr.. Ter
williser has been dishonest or that he has de-
servedly forfeited the respect and confidence of
the public.
Personal friendliness, partisanship, and a
mawkish reluctance to call things by their right
names, if any PERSONS feelings may possibly
be hurt thereby, have brought the public
morals, in some places, to a very low ebb. So
long as peculatIon is called a mistake, official
extortlon an irregularity, and detected fraud
misfortune; while sympathy and pity are eff
fusively offered 10 exposed offenders without
waiting even for professions of regret or prom
Uses of amendment; while men, convicted of
corruption in office, are allowed to retire grace
fully, forfeiting nothing, so far as appears, of
social position or political influence, but at
tended with compliments and regrets that
compliance with system (which is really in
defensible, you know" should have required
OF them even this moderate sacrifice. While
this style of dealing with offenses is coDtin.
ued, we cannot LOOK for any marked improve
ment in the standard of political morality. If
upright and sell-respecIing men would stead
lily refuse to hold any social relations with
rO9ueS, express their Oninons on thp euhiact