Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-02-10
GLASS HOUSES IN DANGER.

Mr. E. Parr, the member of the Virgin
ia House Of Delegates from Patrick coun-
ty, gave two of his constituents treat in
the shape of free ride from Richmond to
Washington and back to Danville. Mr..
Parr accompanied them on the trip on his
own free railroad pass, and his two friends
rode on two other free railroad passes bor-
rowed by Mr.. Parr from two members of
the House of Delegates for the purpose.
The excursion was cheap, pleasant and
instructive. Some unexpected instruc-
tion however was impaired to the two
friends by the conductor of the Midland
road. who, finding that on their arrival at
Danvil!e they registered by names not set
down in their passes. took them away from
them. The House of Delegates got wind of
it through the newspapers and appointed
committee to ''investigate' it. Mr.. Parr
went before the Lord High Executioner of
the committee and being duly sworn de-
posed to thu facts as above. His reason
for not getting free passes for his two
friends ia their own names, he said was
this: 1--WE frequently apply to the Ser
geant-at. Arms of the House to procure
our passes for US, but knowing that he
would lave to send to Washington, bor-
ruWed the passes of Messrs. Dickey and
Spencer, two members Ct the House. D
During the examination, the following in
cident occurred and is set down by one Of
the reporters present:
When asked for his pass, Mr.. Parr replied
that he had left it at the hotel. Nearly every
one present thrust his hands in his pockets
and brought out two or three. 1t was evident
that they were pretty well supplied.
We, and we take it The people of Vir-
know what offense, misdemeanor or felo-
ny Mr. Parr is being ''investigated" for.
What has he done, which in the view of
House of Delegates whose members
can on occasion ''thrust their hands in
their pockets" and bring out "two or
three free railroad passes" is objectiona-
BILE? Is it held any more against public
| morals to lend a railroad pass to man
who has no claim on railroad, than it is
for a legislator who has no claim on a
railroad to accept one from it? If the
tickets upon which these two Patrick
county citizens travelled were given by
the railroads to the owners of them on the
condition of subsequent favorable legisla-
tion by said owners, then they were TAX
ing an unfair advantage of the railroad
company by using passes for which they
could return no quid pro quo. But that was
no offense against the House of Delegates.
If the passes we're simply complimentary,
with nothing to be expected in return, it
was just as well for the Patrick county
men to ride On them as for the real own
ers. there being no quid pro quo in the
matter. They violated no custom and
took advantage of no one; for it appears
that the Sergeant-at- Arms would
have had no Trouble in getting the two
Patrickers passes in their own names if
he had had time to write to the railroad
headquarters at Washington. What rule
of the House has Mr.. Parr violated? Is
it the moral sense Of the House he has
given offense to? q. Legislative body where
members ride on free passes, and yet draw
their mileage from the State. would hardly
be so prudish, and especially where its
members are loaded up with two or three
tickets oyer all the railroads of the State.
Tits whole free pass business to mem
bers is wrong as long as railroads can in
any way be affected by State legislation.
At the very least, it places both legislator
and railroad in dubious light in the
| eyes of the people, and the Ylrtuous spec
! tacle Of Mr.. Parr hemmed in by COM
mittee and pelted by the inmates Of hun
dred glass houses will not remove the du-
biety. Mr.. Parr would create some gen.
eral interest if he should suddenly form
an investigating committee of his own
and put some of the pelters On the stand.