New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-27
SFNATOPS As ATTORNEYS.

| SEN1IOES 40 Al IOANEl
The recent appearance of Senator COnkling
as an attorney in TWO cases, in one OF which
| the Government is party, the other being
matter relative to a patent Ill which he
appeared for one of the parties in a hearing
before the Commissioner of Patents, recalls
public attention to a subject which has been
discussed heretofore to some extent, to
wit, the propriety, morality, and legality
of members of Congress acting as attorneys
| or counsel in cases in which the Government
| is a party, or which may by any possibility
come before them in their official capacity to
be acted upon. In both the cases referred to,
| Mr. Conklng seems to have avoided an IN
| fraction of the letter of the law better than
| he did in his notorious connection with the
| Phelps Dodge business, in which his $4,000
fee has received far less attention than it
really deserves. In neither of these later
cases, however, does there seem to be any
doubt that he violated the spirit of the law.
The statute upon this subject is rs follows:
SEC lisa No Senator. Representative, or Delegate
after his election and during his continuance in Office
and no head OF department, other oitcr or clerk
In the employ Of the Government shaIl receive or agree
to receive any compensation whatever directly or M
directly any services rendered to be rendered to
either by hiinbc OF aHOlhcf IN reIItoD I'd
any preceding contract, claim, controversy, charge
accusatjon arrest or other matter thing IN
which the United States IL party, or
directly or indirectly interested. before any
department, court-marll. bIrciu. officer or any civil,
military or naval commission Whatever Every person
offending against this section shall be deemed gnity
Of a misdemeanor aud shall be imprisoned not more
than two years. and ncd not more than ten thousand
dollars and shall moreover, by conviction therefor, BIO
rendered forever thereafter incapable of holding any
office OF honor, trust, profit under the Government
OF the United States
Tn the case of the Government against the
New York Central Railroad Company, in which
Mr.. Conkling, as attorney for the Company APP
pears before the Supreme Court OF the United
States, it is claimed that he does not violate the
law. since its provisions do not forbid
member of Congress from appearing in
proceedings before q civil court, in which
the Government is party The prohibit
ton extends only to cases before the
Departments court martials, &c. In the other
case in which he appeared before the Commits
sioner of Patents as attorney for the Western
Union Telegraph Company, he escapes around
another corner upon the plea that though the
proceedings are before one OF the depart
ments. the Government is not party and he
is consequently at liberty to act as attorney
and accept fees. In these two cases Dir. COnkling
has very dexterously availed himself of the
omissions in the letter of the law to violate
its spirit. We presume he intends to be hon
est toward tho law and to do nothing in yio-
lation of conscience, his duty to the Govern
ment and his constituents. And yet we cannot
understand by what processes he reaches the
conclusion that his connection with these cases
is consistent with sound morals or q whole
some public example. In both these cases
there is possibility-perhaps in one of them
very remote still possibility-of Senator
Conkling's being called upon to act in q rela-
ton which is in some sense judicial. BY
accepting retainers in them and acting as
attorney he deliberately and for pay disqual-
fies himself for the very work which his con-
stituents have elected him to do, and which
he is paid for doing.
| 1t is not to be believed that in the event of
either of these disputes being brought before
Congress Senator Conkling would vote upon
them He would not certainly vote against
his clients, and he could not with their
money in his pockets vote in their favor. He
has for the purposes Of these two cases at
least abdicated his functions. He may have
kept within the strict limits of the letter of
the law in both transactions, but is it quite
becoming in gentleman holding the position
of a Senator of the United States to take
such advantage of q palpable omission in a
statute to indulge in sharp practice and petty
eyasons7 We have had somewhat too much
of this retaining of Senators and Representa-
tiyes. in cases liable to come in some form
before Congress. Mr. Matt Carpenters
connection with the Louisiana mat
ter. in which the litigation wherein
he represented Gov. Kellogg was only an in
cident growing out of the political complica-
tons in that State upon which the Senate
was called TO act, IS recent instance. All
the transactions were so interviewer in that
case that it was impossible to separate them
in such manner as to leave Senator free
to accept o retainer or act as counsel in the
case Mr.. Carpenter. it Is understood, denied
with much indignation the insinuatiOn that
his relation to Gov. Kellogg as attorney
in what was called collateral matter,
affected his action as Senator, aud his
action did in some respects warrant