The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1882-12-28
POLITICAL ASsEsSMENTs.

jim. lOHlO. IHOhDDAs-
POLITICAL ASSESSMENTS.
Decision by the United States Supreme i
Court in the Case of N. NJ. Curtis-The
Law Declared to be CONSTITUTIONAL, and
q Writ of Habeas Corpus Denfed-Dis-
senting Opinion of Justice Bradley.
WASHINGTON. December IS.
A decision was rendered by the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day in the polite
al-assessment case of Newton Martin Curtis,
brought here by a petition for a writ of hapeas
corpus. Curtis. the petitioner, an employee of
the United States, was indicted in the Circuit
Court for the Southern District of New York
and convicted under the sixth section of the
act of August 10. 1876 prob biting officers or
employees of the United States not appointed
by the President with the advice and consent
of the Senate from requesting, giving to, or
receiving from any other officer or employe of
other thing of value for POLITICAL purposes.
Upon his conviction he was sentenced to pay a
fine and stand committed until payment was
made. Under this sentence he was taten into
the custody of the Marshal and on his appl:ca-
tion writ was issued by one of the Justices
of this court in vacation, returnable here ar
the present term to inqu.e into the validity
The important question presented on the
writ SO issued is whether the act under which
the conviction was had is constitutional.
The opinion of the court was read
by Chief-Justice Waite. 1t holds the
act is not one to prohibit all CON-
trfbutions of money or property by de-
signated officers and employees of the United
States for political purposes. Neither does 1T
prohibit them altogether from receiving or
Or M
poses. 1t simply forbids their receiving from
or giving to each other. Beyond this no re-
strictions are placed on any of their political
privileges. The evident purpose of Congress
in all this class of enactments has been to pro-
mote efficiency and integrity in the discharge
of official duties and to maintain proper dis
cipline in the public service. Clearly such pur-
pose is within the just scope of the legislative
power, and it is not easy to see why the act
now under consideration does not come fairly
within the legitimate means to such end.
Managers of political campaigns not in the
employ of the United States are just as free
now to call on those In office for money to be
used for political purpose3 as ever they were,
and those in Office can contribute as literally
as they please, provided their payments are
not made 10 any of the prohibited officers or
employees.
A feeling Of independence under law con-
duces to faithful public service. and nothing
tends more to take away this feeling than
dread of dismissal If contributions from
those in public employment may be solicited
by others in official authority, it is easy to
that what begins as a request may end as de-
mand, and that failure to meet such demand
may be treated by those having the power
of removal as a breach of some supposed
duty growing out of the political relations of
parties. Contributions secured under such
circumstances will quite as likely be made to
avoid consequences of personal dspleasure
OF superior as to promote the political views
of contributor-to avoid discharge from
service more than to exercise political privi-
legea. The law contemplates no restrictions
upon either giving or receiving, except SO far
as it may be necessary to protect in some de-
gree those in the public service against ex-
actions through fear of personal loss.
If there were no other reasons for legisla-
| ton of this character than such as relate to
the protection of those in the public service
against unjust exactions, its constitutionaiity
| would in our opinion be. cleared, but there
| are Others to our minds equally good. If
| persons in the public employ may be called
/ on by those in authority to contribute from
their perseaal ziRcemes to the expenses OF pol
| itical campaigns and q refusal may lead TO
| putting good men out of office, liberal pay
ments may be made the ground for keeping
poor ones in. Sc, toe, if part Of the compen-
sation received for public services must be
contributed for political purposes, it is easy
to see that an increase of compensation may
| be required to provide the means to make con-
| trfbutions, and that in this way the Govern.
ment itself may be made to furnish indirect
1 ly the money to defray the expenses of keep
ing the political party in power that happens
to have for the time being control of the pub
lie patronage.
Political parties must always necessarily ex-
ist under a republican form. of government
and when public employment depends to any
considerable extent on party success those in
office will naturally be desirous of keeping the
party to which they belong in power. The
statute We are now considering does not inter
fere with this. The apparent end of Congress
viii be accomplished If it prevents those in
power from requiring help for such purposes
as condition to continued employment Ii
our opinion the statute under whieh-the peti
toner was convicted is constitutional. Tht
other objections urged to the detention canno
| be considered in this form of proceeding. Oul
inquiries in this class of cases are limited +,
such objections as relate to the authority o.
the Circuit Court TO render Judgment by whicl
the prisoner is held. We have no genera
power to review judgments of inferior court
of the United States in criminal cases by tn,
use of the writ Of habeas corpus or otherwise
Our Jurisdiction is limited to the single ques
ton of the power of the court to commit th,
prisoner for the act of which he has been con
victed. We think commitment in this cas-
was lawful, and the petitioner is consequent.
remanded to the custody of the Marshal 70
the Southern District of New York.
Justice Bradley read a dissenting opinion. il
which he took the ground that Congress ha,
no constitutional power to enact law forbid
ding an employe of the Government to associ
ate himself with others for the promotion o
Ak<
to make such disposition of his private mean
as he should think fit. Justice Bradley sai
he did not approve of enforced political as
sessments,, but he thought Congress in enact
ing the present law to prevent such assess
ments had deprived the individual citizen o
one of his inalienable rights, and in so doin
had overstepped the limits of its constitution
al authority