Morning journal and courier., 1882-07-24
Monday Morning, July 24, 1882.
HOW MIR. FREEMAN LOOKS AT TT.

HOW MIR. FIREMAN LOOKS AT IT.
 Mir. A. A. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General for the Postoface department, has | made some interesting comments upon the l recent decision that the law against political assessments is constitutional Mir. Freeman l says that the decision is not sound one and | that the Supreme court will so hold The opinion says: sWhatever may have been the attendant circumstances and however they may have qualified the moral complexion of the transaction, the person indicted can only be tried for doing the thing which the statute prohibits. " Now, says MT. Freeman, the 1 statute prohibits officer from giving 1 another officer thing of value for per- fectly lawful purpose. To hold an act of this character constitutional was so utterly absurd that the Court felt constrained to put it on another ground, and in order to do that had recourse to just what it had said was not allowable, .. c., went outside of the act and 1 incorporated an element, 'sa moral complex ! ion of the transaction not found either ex- pressly or by any fair implication in the statute itself. The Judge, continues MT. Freeman, after stating the objection to the ! act, says: ''1t is to be observed however, that the prohibition applies only when there ! is concerted action between the officials in 1 this behalf. The question then is, whether l 1t is competent for Congress to prohibit CO., operation between officials in the raising of funds for political purposes" Why, there is not word in the act that authorizes l such a construction as this. The idea of con- ] spiracy or confeder ation is as foreign to this onko l. sr I,1 very evil which the court says it cannot re- ! frain from taking judicial knowledge of is ! not conspiracy or confederation, but CO., | ercion-not that two or more officers were in ! the habit of agreeing together to contribute, but that the one without agreeing was CO., ! creed. The act does not say that two or ! more officers shall not agree together, etc. but that no officer shall request and that no officer shall, either with or without being asked, invited or coerced, give, etc., etc.
 1 Concerning the assumption of the Court ! that Congress may exercise whatever power is necessary to prevent any practice that is liable to "defect the independence and i'm partiality which must rule official inter course," MT. Freeman points out that when you admit that Congress may regulate the | official life of officers, and further, that Con. gress is the sole judge of what constitutes the official life as distinguished from the private life of the officer, you have admitted ti-et Congress may by any kind of sumptuary o, moniterial legislation regulate the financial
 moral and social conduct of it's officers
 That the power to do this does not reside 1T Congress will, he thinks, be admitted. II
 follows, hence, that Congress Is not the solt judge of the extent of it's powers in this re gard, for it amounts to nothing to place limitation on the power of any body and the, vest that body with the authority to deter mine the line or the extent of this limitation
 Suppose" /" he says 'that Congress should not only prohibit an inferior officer from giving money to his superi or-which, think, they have 8 right to d, but should, in addition prohibit from mar rying his superior's daughter. This it nigh
 be argued would be void, because in restrain
 of marriage. But according to this decision Congress alone is competent to determin, whether marriage among executive officer
 should or should not be promoted. Politica purposes are just as lawful as matrimonia purposes. Congress may prohibit an inferio, ' because that is bribery. I say it is bribery because the inferior holding his position 8 the hands of his superior is constantly inter
 ested in preserving his good opinion, and ii
 naturally desirous of placing his superior under natural obligations to him. To allow
 him, therefore, to make valuable presents ii
 to tolerate bribery. But suppose tho statute
 had gone one step further and made it crimina
 for one executive officer to enter the hous,
 or eat at the table of his subordinate, puttins
 it upon the ground that such conduct tend
 to defect the independence and impartialit,
 which must rule official intercourse
 This is plausible reasoning. Mr. Freema,
 holds that the act which has been declared
 constitutional violates principle of natura
 right older than any organized law-ths righ
 to use one's own in any manner that he ma,
 see fit, provided he does not interfere witt
 the rights of others. He is confident tha
 the Supreme court will agree with him whel
 it comes to consider the matter.