Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-10-26
Yesterday,s argument.


Chief Justice-There is a law prohibit
ing members of congress from engaging
in any contract to do work for the govern
ment.
Smith-Yes, you honor; but.
Chief Justice-There is also a law pro-
hibiting members of ongre practicing
in a court of claims, and a law which for
bids them to act as claim agents.
Smith-Very true, your honor, but all
these laws prohibit acts which bear direct
relation to the officers official functions
and duty which he owes the government.
In the present case the act prohibitd is en-
tirely outside the employees official func-
tons, and has no relation whatever to the
faithful discharge of his duty to the United
States.
Justice Miller-Are there not laws in
many states for the protection of enrolling
officers in the discharge of their duty?
Smith-Ah, but, your honor
Justice Miller-Is it net competent for
the legislature to enact such laws?
Smith-It is.
Justice Miller-Is it not the purpose of
the present statute to protect subordinate
officers? Cannot the United States take
all necessary steps for the protection of
its own employees in the discharge of their
duties?
Smith-The circumstances, your honor,
are different. The law for the protection
of an enrolling officer protects him only in
the discharge of his duty. It makes a dis
tinclion between his official and his pri-
vate life. If he gets into trouble at a
game of cards he is not under the prctec
ton of the law.
Justice Miller-That is true. The law
protects an enrolling officer only while in
discharge of his duty, but a clerk in n of
the departments is always on official duty
as far as his need of protection is con
cerned. He needs it as much one time as
another. Oppression may be exercised
upon him out in the street as we'll as when
he is in his Office.
Smith-But, your honor, the law says he
shall not give of his means for political
purposes, even when he desires to give and
is anxious to give. That is not protection.
Justice Miller-The law does not say he
shall not give, but that he shall not give
to another officer of the government. He
can give to anybody else if he chooses. I
am nou particularly a civil service reform
or, but we all know how these voluntary con-
tributions are made. The object of the
statute evidently was to protect the subor-
dinate from the exactions of his superior
by making it d misdemeanor for the form
or to give the latter any money for politi-
cal purposes. That was undoubtedly the
policy of congress. The question is
whether it was competent for congress to
adopt that policy and enact the law and
enforce it.
Smith-It is a singular way to protect a
subordinate to punish him for giving, ever
when act is voluntary, and let his superior
go unpunished even when he exacts pay
ment.
In concluion Smith said he could only
| reiterate his conviction that congress had
no right to regulate the conduct of gov
eminent employees outside of the sphere
of the latter's official duties.
The solicitor general explained why he
had laid the stress of his argument upon
receiving rather than giving money for
political purposes, and closed with the fol-
lowing words: Il am arguing this case in
accordance with the distinction made by
the statute between receiving and giving.
Gen. Curtis was a receiver and trustee, and
whether congress had the right to prohibit
his giving money for political purposes or
not, it certainly had a right to prohibit his
receiving it."
E. P. Wheeler. as representative of the
civil service reform association, has sub
submitted a brief for the government in
which the constitutionality of the statute is
maintained upon = somewhat broader
ground than that taken by the solicitor
| general, and in which an attempt was
made to show the manner of political as
| sessment is not only illegal but is injuri-
Gus to the public service, oppressive to the
government employe, and demoralizing to
all who have anything to do with it. He-
bitual assessments, Wheeler says, should
be forbidden as a protection to Office
holders themselves from the most distract
ing annoyance. In most circulars. indeed,
contributions are carefully filed 'volun-
tary." and they are usually spoken of, but
as a matter of fact they are not voluntary.
They are radically different from contribu-
lions for other social or political purposes
which are really voluntary. These contri-
buttons for political purposes are solicited
by those in authority. or by those who are
likely to nave special influence with the
appointing power. The particular
amount wanted is designated, and it
is spoken of as something which is "due."
AS a matter of fact such assessments
amount to a species Of extortion. They
are paid under duress, very often at great
personal sacrifice and under the influence
of a fear of losing place and a means of
livelihood through the success of the par
ty out of power, or through dismissal by
the party in power as a mean of punish
ment for not having paid the amount. The
| contributions themselves form, moreover,
a complete answer to the supposition that
they are voluntary and proper. Assess
| ments in the year of
each presidential election amount to
6 per cent. of the Office holders salary. A
great majority of those assessed are per-
sons whose salaries do not exceed $4,000
per annum. Prudent persons with such
incomes do not give away 6 per cent. of