Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-10-05
CONSTITUTIONAL FLoUNDER1NGs.

After the attempt TO ignore the charge
sgainst Mr. Delamater of his violation of
the Constitution, in carrying State deposits
in his bank while he was a member of the
Legislature, has gone on for two weeks, the
Republican managers have evidently come
to the conclusion that evasion is likely to
hurt more than an attempt to reply to it.
The Philadelphia Press makes the attempt
which, as it is headed, ''The answer to Mr.
Hensel," may be taken as an effort to do
better for the Republican candidate than he
was able to do for himself on the same issue.
The Press first devotes considerable space
to arguing that as Senator Delamarer has
not been convicted on this charge" the dis
qualification prescribed in the Constitu-
ton does not take effect. No one seriously
asserts that it does; and whatever comfort
The Press can get from the assurance that
ITS candidate for the Governorship is
eligible by the absence of a jury
trial or turning on facts of which there
is no dispute, may be accorded it. The
Press is intelligent enough to seas Sena-
tor Delamater did not at first-that it will
not do to rest the case before the people on
that remarkable plea. 1t therefore attempts
TO prove that there really was nothing wrong
in the violation of the Constitutional pro-
vision referred 10; and it founders around
that subject as follows:
We do not suppose anybody-not even Mr..
Hensel-believes that the provision of the Con-
stitution in question was intended to cover the
case of a State officer or member of the Legis-
State funds were deposited. If that were so it
would affect any bank single share of whose
stock might be held by a member of either
House or State officer. There is nowhere
any indication that such was the intention of
the provision and to attempt to thus apply 1t
is ridiculous.
II is well known that up to the time the Con-
stitution was framed il had been the custom
for some years for State Treasures to carry
large amounts of the State moneys in various
banks, from which they secured considerable
revenue in the shape of interest. 1t was to
forbid this that this provision was incorporated;
TO prevent a direct speculation with the State
moneys either in the general or sinking fund.
In this explanation, which appears prin-
cipally useful in producing as great confu-
sion in the minds of the readers of the
Press as in its own mentality, on the real
provision OF the Constitution, two allega-
tions are made. One is that the Constitu-
tioual prohibition was"not intended to cover
the case of a State officer who might be in
teresred in bank where State funds are de-
posted" The other is that it forbids the
deposit of a considerable sum of money, so
that State Treasurers could draw a revenue
from it. The first position is supported by
the argument that if it were so it might af-
feet bank of which single share was held
by member of either House. This is pure
ly imaginative. There is nothing in the
provision affecting the bank; but if the
member concerned used the money of the
State SO as to draw any appreciable profit
from the State deposits, it affects him very
seriously, unless the Constitution is nulli-
fed.
The fact with regard to MIR. Delamater is
that the income which, at usual rates of in
terest, he would derive from the State de-
posits in his bank was double his salary as
State Senator. As to the allegation of the
Press that 1t was only intended to prevent
State Treasurers from getting a revenue out
assertion which suffers irreparable damage
from collision with the language of the pro-
vision itself: ''The making of profit out of
the public money, or using the same for any
purpose not authorized by law, by any Off
Ger of the State, or any member or officer of
the General Assembly, shall be misdemea-
nor" There is no confinement of this pro-
vision to the State Treasurer. 1t speaks for
itself; and broadly places under the ban, as
was intended, the entire business of distrib-
uting the State deposits as one of the meth
DDS of lubricating political machine.
The pertinence of all this is the question
whether we shall have man in the guber-
Material chair who respects and obeys the
fundamental Law of the State.or who ignores