The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-03-19
he Free Pass Law.

The bill prohibiting the courtesy Of
free passes to officers Of this State has
become a law. We think the law emf
nently proper; and, if beneficial results
cannot be predicted, it can at least be
said that very questionable, if not cor
rupting practice has been abolished. The
opponents of the measure, when a bill
was first introduced, secuted the idea OF
the necessity of such q law and indig-
nantly protested against it, alleging that
it impugned the honor of the Legisla-
ture and State officials, and was an in
suit which should be resented by
promptly rejecting the bill. If it could
be shown that no State officer and no
member of the Legislature had ever ae-
cepted free pass, that the standard of
official character was so high, its escut-
cheon so bright, that every offer of such
a courtesy had been promptly, if not
Indignantly declined, then we would
heartily agree with the gentlemen who
regarded the bill as conveying an in
suit.
We do not pretend to say that every
one who receives pass would be in
Huenced from the proper discharge of
duty. But we do say that the tendency
is in that direction, and the practice
should, therefore, be voluntarily es-
chewed. But since it is found that men
have such confidence in their own integ
rity and strength as not to deem it
necessary or proper to remove from
themselves every temptation, however
slight, why, then it becomes necessary
for the State to do it for them.
There should be no conflict between
railroads and the people, but it is fact
that there is; and it is eminently proper
that those, who by their election are
supposed to represent or serve all classes,
should be entirely, or at least naturally,
neutral as between different classes. 1t
has been argued that the favor conferred
by the gift of a pass is so small that it
could not influence. Principles do
not deal with degrees. If an action
is wrong, any like action is also
wrong. The degree of damage done
may vary with the enormity of the
violation, but the character is not
changed. Small gifts are to large ones
as the letting out out of water to the
mighty crevasse. To bring the question
home, let US suppose that any one of our
readers was in litigation with a railroad
company, and that each of the jury try
ing the case had a pass, and that the
verdict went against him, would he not
think that it had an effect in securing
that verdict? Or, to vary the question
80 as to accommodate it to facts, suppose
the judge had pass, and the case went
against him, would he not be equally
impressed? Suppose that on going into
court the litigant found out that the
jury had these passes, would he not ex-
cept to them, and would the judge not
be compelled to select the jury from
persons free from this objection? If,
then, it be unwiSe to grant such privi-
lege to the judges of the fact, is it not
equally dangerous to allow it to the
Judge of the law? OF course it would
be possible that the verdict might be a
just one, but the danger to the contrary
any fair minded man must admit.
We will not speak specially of those
officers in the executive, or administra-
tive, and the legislative departments, for
it will be readily granted that the liti
CANT is as much interested in the making
of the law as in the application of it,
and is quite as much so in its ministra-
ton and even in the influence of men in
high position.
But we have omitted so far the idea of
discrimination. Suppose you were travel
ing and paying your fare, and your next
neighbor presented pass for which he
claimed no consideration, would you
not feel that there had been practiced |
against you an unjust discrimination?
Would you not feel that you and others
were paying that mans travelling ex-
penses? Is it surprising that men grow
indignant that those whom they honor
with official trust and fair pay for their
services should not be content Herewith,
but must ply their influence" for all it
is worth for their own profit or pleasure?
We think not.
There is only one hardship that the
law may possibly work. 1t may prevent
certain men who receive passes in con-
sideration of certain business relations
with railroads, and do therefore give an
equivalent for them from using that
which is justly theirs. 1t is quite pos
sible that the law would not apply in
sueh a case. But if it does, it was net
The wish of the friends of the law to
have it so, but merely a contingent that
hey could not avoid. The intent was
not to deprive even an officer of that
Tor which he paid, but to prevent "cour-
sesies," though to make this prevention
lure, it may so operate as to exclude all
passes to officers, otherwise it would be
Dasily avoided.
We would almost venture the asser-
ion that the railroads themselves recog-
lize an occasional annoyance from this
practice, which they originated for their
'wn benefit, but which has grown to
ueh dimensions that they can hardly
ontrol it. We have heard, with what
ruth We know not, that they have fire.
uently been asked for passes by officers
or themselves and numerous friends
or special occasions, and some railroad
nen have even ventured the opinion
hat the title given in the House to the |
rst bill was eminently appropriate,
hough it might contain some sarcasm,
amely, "a bill for the relief of rail-
oads.">
We think the law indicates a return
( eur people to the primitive ideas of q
ficial trust and responsibility, and ar
ues well for the purity of public senti- :
lent-the Gneers and jeers of those too
oble to be affected by such trifling con- !,
derations to the contrary notwithstand-
lg.