Morning journal and courier., 1882-07-22
Saturday Morning, July 22, 1882.
GENERAL CURTIS CASE.


 General Newton M. Curtis, Special Agent of the Treasury, who was convicted in the United States Circuit Court on two charges of collecting assessments for political pur- poses from persons holding Federal offices, did not get the arrest of judgment and the new trial upon which he has, no doubt been confidently counting Instead he got fined $1, 1000. He has not given up the fight yet, however. Chief Justice Waite will be ap- piled to for writ of h06eas corpus, and the case will be re. argued before him or before the full bench of the Supreme Court as he may direct.
 The law which General Curtis violated pro- hibits ''all executive officers or employees of the United States not appointed by the Pres- ident with the advice and consent of the Senate, , from requesting giving to or re- ceiving from any other officer or employe of the government any money or property or other thing of value for political purposes Upon the question raised respecting the validity of this law, Judges Bond, Wallace and Benedict agree that the law is valid. The opinion prepared by Judge Wallace. It was claimed for the defendant that it is not within the constitutional power of Congress to make the giving or requesting receiving of yolun- tary contribution for political purposes by subordinate government officials criminal offense. 'It is to be observed" says the opinion, s'that the prohibition applies only when there is concerted action between off cials in this behalf. The question, then, is whether it is competent for Congress to pro- hibit cooperation between officials in the raising of funds for political purposes ?" Undoubtedly, the opinion continues, it is lawful for Congress to prescribe all needful regulations for the discipline of government officials, and to declare what infractions of discipline shall be treated as criminal offen- ces. The power to prohibit acts of officers or employees which arc incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties, or which impair the efficiency of or tend to demoralize the public service, is essential to promote the end and object of government, and this power resides in the legislative department of the government. It is pointed out that this power embraces a large field and that it is \ only when Congress has palpably transgressed ! the limits of it's discretion that the judicial department will intervene. The judges say l We cannot affirm that Congress transcend ! ed it's discretion in prohibiting transactions between officials which create the relation of donor and donee and introduce party inter ests into the publice service nor that Con- gress erred in assuming that the influences springing from this relation and these inter- ests should be discouraged as liable to defect the independence and impartiality which must rule official intercourse. Many instan- ces may be found in the laws of Congress 1 where this legislative discretion may be exer cised It suffices to refer to one contained in the act of February l, 1870, which prohibits
 any officer clerk in the employ of the gov I ernment from making any gift or present to an
 official superior. It is not necessary to main
 tain that the cooperation of officials in rais. ing funds for political objects is essentially demoralizing to the public service or subver- sive of discipline. It is sufficient to justify the exercise of the legislative discretion If the prohibited acts tend to introduce interests ! which disturb the just equipoise of official relations. It is suggested that it is tho right and the duty of every good citizen to aid in
 promoting such political objects as he deems to be wise and beneficial, and that Congress has no constitutional power to abridge that right the ans wer is that no citizen is requir- ed to hold public office, and If he is un- | willing to do so upon such conditions as are prescribed by that department of the govern
 ment which creates the office, fixes it's tenure
 and regulates it's incidents, it is his duty to I resign.
 This is clear and apparently incontroverti-
 ble. General Curtis will probably not get
 much satisfaction by carrying his case to the Supreme Court.