The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-06-06
A MORAL LEPER.
done.

If Mr.. David B. Hill is attempting to
demonstrate TO the American people the
depth of moral degradation he has
reached he is making a magnificent sue
cess OF his effort. So far as we have OBJ
served. no newspaper and no public man
had ris1ed expressing an opinion that
senators had the right to speculate in
sugar stocks pending the adjustment of
a sugar tariff until this alleged politi-
clan from New York avowed it in the
this point is embodied in the following
colloquy. opening with Mr.. Hills state
ment:
"A senator who speculates in sugar
stocks violates no law
But" interrupted Mr.. Allen, lit would
not be more proper for a senator to in
vest money in any enterprise TO he af-
fected by his vote than it would be for
a judge on the bench TO render decision
In a case in which he was interested.
This question of public morality goes to
the foundation Of the integrity of the
government"
"A senator has legal right to do what
is not prohibited"
"A legal" returned Mr.. Allen, "but no
moral right
"One question at a time" said Mr..
HILL He would have as much right as
a senator who. being an owner Of silver
mining property. would vote on the sill
yer question. If. pending action on the
sugar schedule, a senator should specu-
late in sugar it might be an act of i'm
propriety, but it would not constitute a
crime
The legal rights Of senators are mat
tiers with which the public has but little
concern. A senator has a legal right 10
violate nearly every confidence reposed
in him by the public. He has the legal
right TO vote against the principles to
which he pledged himself before the peo-
pie. He has a legal right to vote for any
kind Of steal. He has a legal right to
vote for favors to his friends at public
expense. He has a legal right to vote
for or against measures from mere
malice. He can do these things because
from the nature of representative gov
eminent, a legislator must be left free
from legal compulsion in matters of leg
islative discretion But he is none the
less a scoundrel If he so violates the
trust reposed in him. and he is guilty of
a political and moral crime. for which,
under our system of government. he is
expected TO be duly punished by forfeit
ing the respect and confidence Of the
people. The idea that il is a mere i'm
propriety for an official to do any and
everything. for which he cannot be le-
gally convicted and punished. is worthy
of Boss Tweed.
1t surely needs no argument to show
any intelligent person that the specula-
ton in stocks. by a senator who is en-
gagged in work that will affect the value
Of those stocks, is a most scandalous
proceeding. PROFESSIONALLY the official
action Of a senator who would do such a
thing would be controlled by his interest
in such stocks. He would not act from
any sense Of official duty. Suppose that
a Judge, who is called upon 70 appoint
receiver for a railroad. should at once
begin specializing in the stocks Of that
road; would any one retain any con-
fidence in his judicial integrity? 1t would
be impossible. He would at once be rec
ognized as a corrupt nan, totally unfit
for the position occupied by him. In
this case it has been charged not only
that senators speculated in sugar stocks,
but also that they gave out information.
some false and some true. and that they
INSTRUCTED action on the bill for the
purpose of affecting the market. Such
actions are crimes against their consti-
tuents. their party and the people who
were feeced by them.