The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-06-16
Railroad Attorneys in Congress.

A Washington special of June 10
says that Mr.. Beck's bill to prohibit
members of either house of congress
from accepting retainers or employ
ment from railroad companies which
have received land grants or pecuniary
aid from congress was passed by vote
of thirty-seven yeas to eleven nays.
Among the republicans voting in the
affirmative were Allison, Blair, Chace,
Cullom, Frye, Hale, Harrison, Hawley,
Morrill,, Plumb, Sherman and Wilson
of Iowa. The eleven senators voting
against the bill were Bowen, Cam
eron, Dawes, Edmunds, Evarts, Hoar,
Mitchell (Oregon), Riddleberger, Saw
yer, Sewell and Teller. Mr.. Edmunds,
who occasionally appears before the
supreme court in behalf of such cor
porations, wanted the bill referred to
his committee, but Mr.. Beck said he
preferred to see the bill voted down at
once rather than go there. Suisse
quently a motion to reconsider the vote
passing the bill was entered, and Mr..
Edmunds and some others are in hopes
yet of defeating the bill" The action
of the senate on the bill is variously
commented upon by the press. The
New York Sun has these unkindly OBJ
servations:
So Brother Edmunds was one of the
eleven senators who voted against Mr.
Becks bill prohibiting members of congress
from accepting retainers or counsel fees
from Immigrant or subsidized railroads
Well, this was candid and manly on the
part of Mr.. Edmunds, if it is true that he
derives lucrative professional income from
the land-grant corporations But what was
it that Brother Edmunds wrote just two
years ago about Brother Blaine's habit of
starting up, bayonet in hand, from behind
Jay Gould's breastworks whenever certain
corporation interests were attacked in the
United States senate?
We strongly suspect that the motive
of Mr.. Beck and his democratic asso-
ciates in pushing this measure through
the senate may not have been inspired
by unselfish considerations, and yet
they had the support of fifteen republi-
can senators. The Rutland Herald
holds that the principle of the bill is
uniustiiable, unconstitutional and I'M
necessary" and intimates that those
who voted for it are demagogues. 1t
argues that the acceptance by any cit
izen of employment by a company or
individual is right under our laws,
and he does not forfeit it by becoming
a member of congress. "His retainer
does not extend to legislation" it says;
and in another place it says that these
attorneys are but small minority OF
congress, and their influence is so much
diminished by their understood rela.
ton to the companies that if they per-
suade anybody it is only by knowledge
and ability"
1t will be generally understood, We
suppose, that the main purpose Of
the article in the Herald is to justify
the action of Senator Edmunds in re
gard to this bill Now we do no
venture to say at this time that it il
, wrong for Senator Edmunds to act al
counsel for these subsidized corpora
r tons or to accept retainer from tina
great monopoly, the Bell Telephone
. Company, which he did in 1884, but i
r any one of these corporations hat
= matters pending in congress it nigh
r be thought by some that senator o
1 member of congress employed as al
E attorney by such corporation would b.
biased, to certain extent, in its favor