St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1886-07-15
MIR. BECK,S BILL.


of Congress from accepting employ
ment as attorneys for railroads which
receive aid and require legislation from
the United States was RECONSTRUCTED
and referred to the judiciary commit
tee after rather acrid debate. The
vote was almost strictly partisan. The
republicans voted to reconsider, with
the evident intention, as their speech
es showed, of defeating the bill. The
democrats voted to sustain the pas
sage of the bill. The argument against
it was ill-founded and wholly incon-
elusive. 1t was, in the first place, an
attempt to prove such a law to be I'M
necessary, unless Mr.. Beck would state
reasons in the conduct of members of
congress which made it desirable and,
in the second place, it was an asser-
ton that such bill was an insult to
congress, as implying that members
were disposed to do something so
wrong thacthey must be restrained by
penal laws. The first attempt was de-
signed merely as a plausible Obstrac-
ton, because senators knew that Mr..
Beck would not specify personal in
stances among his colleagues, and be-
cause all such laws rest upon "a famil-
lar experience, and upon a reasonable
probability derived from that expe-
rience. Mr.. Beck's conduct of his ar
gument was excellent, and he disposed
conclusively of the chief reliance of his
opponents, that his proposition was an
insult to congress in assuming that
senators and representatives were prob
ably mercenary rascals.
Is it an insult to members of con-
gress that they are forbidden to prac-
tice in the Court of Claims? But the
same objection can be made. Why
should the law interfere 2 Why
should it be assumed that they would
do what they ought not to do Why
should they be selected invidiously as
a class to be stigmatiZed by disabili-
ty9 Or is it an insult to members of
congress that they should be prohibit
ed from receiving payment for helping
to procure contract or a place from
the government under a penalty of
gross outrage that the law should as
sumo such conduct to be possible
Why should q member of congress be
singled out to be grit around with pen
al infections for doing what it ought
not to be supposed that he could do ?
There are other laws to the same effect
laws assuming that even members of
congress may do wrong, thus cOnniv-
ing at 'the defamation" of congress
of which Senator Hawley spoke. The
whole argument against the bill was
pure buncOmbe. Mr.. Beck held in his
hand reports of the senate and House
i'm regard to the Union and Central
Pacific railroads, seeking relief from
congress, and making the strongest
appeals. He said, and not a Senator
ventured to answer him:
"Will any gentleman in either House
insist that any man who is the attor-
ney of either road, any man who is re-
tanned in any way by any of those
roads, when these great questions, in
volving perhaps fifty or one hundred
millions of dollars to the -burdened
people of this country, come up for
consideration, shall, without letting
us know it, advocate the interests of
the road whose money, in the shape of
retainers or fees, he has in his pocket,
keeping the fact concealed, protesting
all the time that he is acting and ar
guing in the interest of the United
Statesq | say it ought not to be al
lowed, and all seek to do by this bill
is to say it shall not be-"
Ought it to be allowed &? If a mem
Der of congress ought to be prohibited
from receiving a present for procuring
a place for his employer, or fl ON argu-
ing the claim of a client in the Court of
Claims, ought he to be permitted to
vote upon grant or Il relief to rail-
"A Il 1,
Mr.. Edmunds admitted that the re-
tanned lawyer sitting as senator
might be BIASED. The admission was
a complete justification of Mr.. Beck's
bill. But Mr.. Edmunds proceeded to
say that it was Only one of many biases
under which he labored. The senti-
ment of his state, the opinions of his
BIASED him, and, indeed,
until Legislators were saints descended
from heaven they would be biassed by
1t is not to be supposed
that Senator Edmunds believes the
cases TO be similar, and that he grave
ly compares the bias of a VermOnter
for the interests of Vermont to the
bias of an attorney for the corporation
that employs him. Mr.. Evarts also
said that he thought lightly of the re-
laws that surround public
men. Does he also think lightly of
the constitutional prohibition of the
receipt of gifts from foreign powers by
any officer of the United States That
prohibition is plainly an assumption
that such an officer might be bribed or
Influenced by such a gift. 1t is SUI
pertiuOus provision, an insulting as
? On the contrary, it is a
solemn declaration fixed in the funda-
mental law that public men should be
above suspicion. But how can man
be above suspicion when he votes up
on measures in which he has large
pecuniary INTEREST," Why did John
Quincy Adams, who was known to be
absolutely incOrruptible, dispose of all
his interests in United States bank
stock when he was made chairman of
the committee of investigation Be-
cause he was wise man, and knew
that his private interest in q. public
matter necessarily aroused suspicion.
Why is AttOrneyGeneral Garland not
a wise man? Because he does not
heed the inevitable suspicion that at
taches to a high officer of the United
States whose department is called to
act in case in which he is known to
have a great pecuniary stake. He
may be an honest man who has come
Dy his interest hOnorably. So might
IN honest officer of the United States
whose department is called to act in
case in which he is known to have
great pecuniary stake. He may be an
honest man who has come by his in
5erest honOrably. So might an honest
officer of the United States honestly
receive gift from the Emperor of
Russia. But the constitution forbids
him to receive it without the consent
IF congress. That is the wise and con-