Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1886-07-17
MR.. BECK'S BILL.
From Harper's Weekly.l

WI. DUN Oill pTOIilOltlilS tHeuiOcTs
of congress from accepting employment
As attorneys for railroads which receive
aid and require legislation from the
United States was reconsidered and re-
terred to the Judiciary committee after
a rather acrid debate. The vote was
almost strictly partisan The republi-
cans voted TO reconsider, with the evil
dent intention, as their speeches show
ed, of defeating the bill. The argu-
ment against it was il-founded and
wholly inconclusive. 1t was, in the
first place, an attempt to prove such
law to be unnecessary. unless Mr.. Beck
would state reasons in the conduct of
members of congress which made it
desirable and, i'm the second place, it
was an assertion that such a bill was
an insult t" congress, as implying that
members were disposed to do some-
thing SO wrong that they must be re-
strained by penal laws. The first
attempt was designed merely as a
plausible obstruction, because senator's
knew that Mr. Beck would not specify
personal instances among his colleagues,
and because all such laws rest upon q
familiar experience, and upon a reason
able probability derived from that ex-
perience. Mr.. Beck's conduct of his
argument was excellent, and he dis
posed conclusively of the chief reliance
Il his opponents, that his proposition
was an insult to congress in assuming
that senators and representatives were
probably mercenary rascals.
Is it an insult to members of congress
that they are forbidden to practice in
the court of claims: But the same OBJ
lection can be made. Why should the
law interfere? Why should it be as
sumed that they would do what they
ought not to do? Why should they be
selected invidiOusly as class to be
| stigmatized by disability? Or is it
an insult to members of congress that
they should be prohibited from receiv-
ing payment for helping to procure
contract or a place from the govern
ment under penalty OF imprisonment
and fine? Is it not a gross outrage
that the law should assume such con-
duct to be possible? Why should .
member of congress be singled out to
be girt around with penal infections
for doing what it ought not be suppos-
ed that he could do? There are other
laws to the same effect-laws assuming
that even members of congress may do
wrong, thus conniving at s'the defama-
ton" 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 in regard 10 the
Union and Central Pacific railroads,
seeking relief from congress, and
making the strongest appeals. He said,
and not senator ventured to answer
him: "Will any gentleman in either
house insist that any man who is the
attorney for either road, any man who
is retained in any way by any of those
, roads, when these great questions, in
vo!ving perhaps fifty or one hundred
millions of dollars to the tax burdened
people of this country, come up fol
consideration, shall, without letting III
know it, advocate the interests of the
road whose money, in the shape 0l
retainers or fees, he has in his pockets
, keeping the fact concealed, protesting
! all the time that he is acting and argu
ing I'm the interest ofthe United States
). | say 1t ought not 20 BE allowed, and
4 all | seek to do by this bill is to say i
shall not be-" Ought it to be allowed
, If member of congress ought to b.
: : prohibited from receiving present fo
l procuring a place for his employer, o.
: from arguing the claim of client Il
!, the court of claims, ought he be per
= mitted to vote upon grant or q relic
to railroad whose paid emplOye he is
MIR. Edmunds admitted that the re
: tained lawyer sitting as senator nigh
c be biased. The admission was a con
|. piete Justification of Mr.. Beck's bill
e But Mr.. Edmunds proceeded to say this
e it was only one of many biases unde
o which he labOred. The sentiment q
q his state, the opinions of his constitu
y ency, biased him, and, indeed, unit
U legislators were saints descended fr0r
IL heaven they would be biased by somt
= thing. 1t is not to be supposed ths
u Senator Edmunds believes the cases
be similar, and that he gravely CON
pares the bias of VermOnter for th
e interests of Vermont to the bias of a
5, attorney for the corporation thu
q employs him. Mr.. Evarts also sal
E that he thought lightly of the restri'
le live laws that surround public mer
1t Does he also think lightly of the ccI
: stitutional prohibition of the receipt {
le gifts from foreign powers by any Office
i of the United States? That prohibitio
le is plainly an assumption that such q
IL officer might be bribed or influenced b
ne such gift. Is it superfiuOus provi
at ion, an Insulting assumption On Il
is contrary, it is a solemn declaratio
is fixed in the fundamental law th,
e. public mea should be above suspicion
ne But how can a man be above suspiciC
at when he votes upon measures III whi(
IS, he has a large pecunlary interes
We Why did John Quincy Adams, wi
Il. was known to be absolutely lncOrrupi
x BILE, dispose of all his interest
IL United States Bank stock when he W,
H. made chairman of the committee of il
er vestigation? Because he was q wi
nd man, and knew that his private intere
ed in public matter necessarily arousi
!, suspicion. Why is Attorney -Gener
of Garland not wise man? Because
ed does not heed the inevitable suspici,
mt that attaches to high officer of Il
IL United States whose department
adj called to act in a case in which he
he known to have great pecuniary stak
lat He may be an honest man who b
lid come by his interest honorably.
'ly might an honest officer of the Unit
on States honestly receive a gift from t
ed emperor of Russia. But the constit
a. the consent of congress. That is (
I'm wise and conservative and patriC
e. spirit of the government, and it is
MS that spirit that Mr.. Beck's propositi
is drawn. Ii will be a grievOus m
N take il the republican senators perm
est it to be made a party or political qu'
H. ton.
Drt
of oOHND SENSE