The star of Pascagoula. [volume] (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1873-1878, 1874-02-07
BRIBERY

wv #Hw e NAH fWF FfF M e
wdaea ham - faH8 ~ gass'
ssf ssfffgnais siiisfs.s al ssfI
fast sfas8 3 Sc sgm n ms ~
~ sfsf saa receiver ~ sf sff.
alise "a. lsklf faf mafllif aai o. Is.
slsH NJ NJ fa la algsf fai
daesf stsm tf tslas ns tiaas "A
fhs weeifef - hsli U bfaW Na
ga'sa NJ heh hagen va a8ais
ffJm msmafY Afd how fhs C8.aB
hus Pfwf pfofeafdl fhe qaaftoa W
shat respect prey, g. fo mla tfs
eaef4s bf.ts better ihia Ms m4a
xbo assspfs8 30 asi mofs bilma
s0ffbg, more dercsba Tina to
man who aeaagfs b ie faat be- teih-
efafoly plast ihe mnaliy GOD llea
addf guilt 20 crime Wy lndua.nw or
eve 70 efpaga 10 tbs Infamous pro.
eccdnmT'
Nos va will not judge 20 hafhlv
AZ b. 10y flat sneb articles gre writ.
Ten by NE Hsmbliean press ior lae
purpose o. screening at OIL, ibe guilt
Of members Of their porly WHO have
been false 10 their trusts.
But ccrlaialy itb q laborcd at-
tempt 70 ovorsbadow tho greater
guilt with the lesser which others
may have incurred or rather on at
ten ut 10 throw dust In The "cycs Of
tie public"
In fact The argument, which is no
argument at all, IL not true, for The
public docsnot look upon ,he parties
to such transactions, through the spec.
iacles hat the Pilot aud Press would
place astraddle its nose, and bistorJ
proves that it dOesnot.
Has the world ever considered the
Jewish Chief Priests "more blamce
worthy, more despicable," than Judas
Iscariot, in The matter Of the memora.
bic transaction in which they were
engaged?
Does history, aud the "eyes Of the
public" view with more adherence,
the British Government, and its
Andre, who deliberately plan.
ned the rascality' of the deliverancc
of West Point into their hands, than
dots the traitor Arnold who was
''indu ed to engage in the infamous
proceedings
Would the railroad corporations, |
who so freely give free passes over |
their roads to our Judges and Legis- :
be considered more "blame-
worthy" than any of the latter vino '
might be influenced in their decisions Z
votes, by such a consideration p !
and of course this is what they are
given for. G
Is there really any parallel in the !
quilt Of the parties, when a public D
be he the Chief Executive, a 0
Judge On the bench, or a member of a
he State Legislature or City Ccrpo. !
alton, betrays his trust and sells his |
'ficial act for a consideration, to a |
,rivate citizen? !
1t would be, undoubtedly, wrong !,
or a citizen TO give the Chief Exccu- :
i've Of the Nation a fine horse or a !
pup, for some fat Office, but would :
he appointee be considered, in the :
yes of the public as below the ap I
ointing power in guilt? 1t certain .
is wrong for lobbyists 10 buy up
'gislators TO vote for particular meas |
res in which they are interested, and ,
hereby induce them to violate their !
aths and betra, solemn trusts conf :,
ed to their care. But when the ri !
IT exalts the one, to the "gates
{ high heaven" and sends the other
own to "hell," we think he is put !
ng it rather too steep unless he !
an be induced TO exactly reverse +,
leir respective positions.
There may ever bc a case when a :
of great and recognized pull
utility is desired TO lie legislated d
pon;-and there may be legislators, J
0 entirely sordid, and upon "the '
that they viii not support any :
upon its merits, but will !.
penly demand q consideration for !.
heir votes; wretches, who have taken ,
heir seats with the avowed purpose
t making them pay" by harlering :,
way their votes upon any and all !
ccasions. Can any moral tuspitude g
c attached TO a citizen who, not at
interested, %pecuniarily or otherwise |
d the measure, yet for the good of