Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1882-12-28
pOErrICAL AssEssMENTs.

Decision by the United States Supreme
Court in the Case of n. M. Curtis--The
Law Declared to be Constitutional, and
3 Writ OF Habeas Corpus DenietI-Dis-
sentIng Opinion Of Justice bradley.
WASHINGTON, December ls
A decision was rendered by the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day ia the polite
al-Essessment case Of Newton Martin Curtis,
brought here by petition for writ Of habeas
corpus. Curtis. the petitioner, an employe OF
the United States. was indicted In the Circuit
Court for the Southern District Of New York
and convicted under the sixth section of this
act of August 10. 1876, prohibiting 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
the Government any money, or property. or
other thing Of value for political purposes.
Upon his conviction he was sentenced to pay q
fine and stand committed until payment was
made. Under this sentence he was taken into
the custody of the Marshal, and on his applica-
ton q writ was issued by one of the Justices
OF this court in vacation, returnabie here at
the present term, to inquire into the validity
of his detention
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. It holds the
act is not one to prohibit ali COM
tributions OF money or property BY de-
siguated officers and employees of the United
States for political purposes. Neither does It
prohibit them altogether from receiving or
soliciting money or property for such pur-
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 leRisfatiye
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 fres
now to call on those in office for money TO be
used for political purposes as ever they were.
and those in Office can contribute as literally
as they please, provided their payments are
not made to 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 see
that what begins as a request may end as a de-
mand, and that failure to meet such demand
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 displeasure
of superior as to promote the political views
of a contributor-to avoid discharge from
service more than to exercise political privi-
leges. 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 constItutionality
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 personal income to the expenses Of po-
Htical campaigns, and refusal may lead TO
putting good men out of office, liberal pay
ments may be made the ground for keeping
poor ones in. So, 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-
tributions and that in this way the Govern
nent itself may be made to furnish indirect
~ the money to defray the expenses of keep
ing the political party in power that happens
70 nave for the time being control OF the pub
lie patronage.
Political parties must always necessarily ex-
list under republican form of government,
and when public employment depends to any
considerable extent on party success those in
Office will naturally be DESTROYS 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
will be accomplished If it prevents those in
power from requiring help for such purposes
{ a condition to continued employment. In
cur opinion the statute under which the petit
uOner was convicted is constitutional. The
other objections urged to the detention cannot
be considered in this form of proc eedlnR. Our
inquiries in this class of cases are limited to
such objections as relate to the authority Of
the Circuit Court TO render Judgment by which
the prisoner is held. We have no general
power to review judgments of inferior courts
of the United States in criminal cases by the
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 the
prisoner for the act of which he has been COLI
Victed. We think commitment in this case
was lawful, and the petitioner is consequently
remanded to the custody Of the Marshal for
the Southern District of New Ofk.
Justice Bradley read a dissenting opinion, in
which he took the ground that Congress had
no constitutional power to enact law forbid
ding, an employe of the Government to assool-
ate himself with others for the promotion OF
the political opinions which he entertained, or
to make such disposition of his private means
as he should think fit. Justice Bradley said
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 OK
one of his inalienable rights, and in so doing
| had overstepped the limits of its constitutions