The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-10-28
BRYAN'S FARE WAS PAID
AND THE JUDGE HAS TO FALL
BACK WITH MCKINLEY.
THE QUESTION OF ETHICS DISCUSSED
The Judge Says if a Judge Can be Brbed Will
sPass He Could Easily be Brbed
With Cash.
BASKERVILLE Citizen.)

OF the County Circuit court, which be-
gan today, was the charge to the grand
Jury by Judge Ewart, who dwelt par
ticularly upon the question of the is
suance Of passes by the Southern Rail-
way. se1 Say
After stating that the proceedings of
the grand jury were essentially secret
In their nature, and that the members
were under solemn oath not to divulge
anything Of their Investigations, Judge
Hwart recited the act Of the General
Assembly of 1891, as follows:
"That it should be unlawful for any
common carrier, subject to the provis-
ions of this act, to make or give any
undue or unreasonable preference to
any particular person, company, firm,
corporation or locality, or any particu-
lar description of traffic, to any I'M
due or unreasonable prejudice or dis
advantage in any respect whatsoever,
and any person, company or corpora
ton violating the provisions Of this
section shall be upon conviction there
Of fined not less than 81 900 for each and
every offence"
Judge Ewart continued by stating that
this act applies only, in so far as
the penalty is concerned to the COM
mon carrier who violates the statute
by giving these unlawful rebates or
preferences. / have never heard this
construction of the law questioned ex-
cept by a Buncombe county magis-
trate, who, actuated by the purest and
noblest Of motives, seeks to vindicate
the laws Of his country by issuing a
number of warrants against parties al
legged to have been recipients OF re-
bates and unjust discrimination from
certain railways who do business in
this country"
Judge Ewart then discusses the pro-
visions of the Federal Interstate COM
merce act-identical in its provisions
with the section above quoted-and
says: ut remains an open question
with the Interstate commissioners
whether it can be enforced in
the courts in so far as the giving of free
passes is concerned by the common
carriers of the country"
The judge says he has a very vivid
recollection of bill introduced by
himself as a legislator in 1887, to make
"the giving of passes to State officials
and the acceptance of such passes an
indictable offence, but on the roll call
there was only one vote cast for the
BILL"
The Judge then says that if it was
the intention of the act of 1891 to pro-
hibit the granting of free transporta-
ton except to actual employees, then
the Southern Railway is liable to n
5000 fine in each case for transporting
William j. Bryan and President Mckin-
ley. The judge then continues:
"But in this view with great diffidence
] nm forced to dissent from the views
of the learned gentlemen, and will have
to instruct you that you cannot indict
them under existing law"
A QUESTION OF ETHICS.
Then Judge Ewart sets up his defence
for accepting passes as follows: 1T is
contended that if a public official can
be bribed by the issuance of pass to
him which may be worth an amount
varying perhaps from S. to $50 per an
mum, that such an official in all prob
ability, could be just as easily bribed
by the payment Of the same amount in
money. 1t is argued that these cour-
tesies are extended to such officers and
individuals merely by way Of compli-
ment, just as they would transport to
any part of the State were they visi-
tors in the State, such distinguished
gentlemen as William J. Bryan, William
Mckinley, Ii Hung Chang or some
other celebrity, without expecting from
these dgnitaries the slightest compensa-
ton therefor, or the extension of any IA
yors to such corporations in any man.
ner, shape or form. Perhaps, after all
the discussion over this matter. pro
and con, it narrows down simply to a
question of ethics, and each individual
accepting such n pass must act upon
his own sense of propriety in the mat
ter"
Judge Ewart recites Governor Rus
sells defence of taking passes, already
commented on by The Citizen, speaks
of him as lawyer of great prominence
and learning, and adds that, so far as
he can find, the statute was intended
to prevent the giving Of unjust and
reasonable preferences by certain cor
porations to large shippers, to the grea!
detriment and loss of smaller shippers
The most diligent search or
my part has failed to disclose a single
case where this statute has been consid
cred by the courts to mean that rail
way company could not give a compli
mentary pass over its lines without be-
ing subject to a heavy penalty. This, OF
course, can have no reference to cases
where passes have been given directly
as brides and accepted as such to inf1u'
ence action either as an official, juror OF
witness, and in such eases, of course,
an Indictment for bribery would lie.
WARM COMMENT.
"In the past ten days justice Of the
peace Of this county, who, / am in
formed is discharged employee Of the
Southern Railway, and who, the rec
ords of this court show, is under in
dictment for an offence made felony
under the laws, while acting in the ca
pacity of justice of the peace, has is
sued warrants against the Southern
Railway, naming as witnesses the, pre-
siding officer Of this court, the solicitor
OF this court, and the sheriff Of this
court. II in the issuing Of these warrants
this magistrate was actuated by an hon.
eat desire to enforce the laws of the
land, then he is entitled to all praise
and commendation for his vigilance