The times., 1899-10-30


valuable thing to be used TO control cleo
tiOns etc. Upon his attention being called
by Mr.. Hawley, Chairman Of the commit
tee in charge of the bill, to the fact that
there was on the table a bill authorized
by the Civil Service Committee covering
the ground of his amendment to be Of
fered as an amendment to the pending
bill, Mr. Williams withdrew his amend
ment.
4 Modern Tendency.
Although penal statutes should be con-
strued strictly, yet the modern tendency
is to make the intention of the Legislature
govern as far as that intent is not in
consistent with the language of the statute.
QJ. S. V. Lacher, 134 L. S, 62S 629.) The
intention of Congress. as expressed in the
twelfth section of the Civil Service act,
was to protect Federal employees in the
discharge of their official duties from po-
liticaI assessments by anyone
The first ten sections relate merely to
the civil service, its constitution, eXten-
sion. etc, and have reference to no other
/ persons than Federal officers and employees.
Therefore, as the act is entitled An act to
regulate and improve the civil service,
and in the absence Of specific enactment, or
intention to the contrary the succeeding
I sections must be presumed to relate to the
same subject matter, i. e, Federal officers
and employees The mischief to be sup
pressed was the official and quasi-oficial
solicitation Of clerks for political purposes,
official when officers use their stations to
intimidate subordinates, quasi official when
outsiders made use of Federal buildings
for purposes demoralizing both to the
efficiency and discipline of the service
In ex parte Curtis, 16 Otto, 81, the
Supreme Court said:
The evident purpose of Congress in all this class
of cnaCtments has been to promote efficiency and
integrity in the discharge OF official duties. and
To MAINTAIN proper ulsclpiine IN the puphc
service Clearly such a purpose is within the
Just scope of legislative power, and IL Is not
easy to see why the act now under considera-
tion does not come fairly within the legitimate
means to such end. II Is true, as Is claimed
by the counsel for the petitioner political assess
ments upon Oficeh0lders not prohibited, The
managers OF polucal campaigns, not IN the en-
poy OF the United States, just as free now
to call on those in office for money to be used
for political purposes as ever they were, and those
in office contribute literally they please,
provided their payments are not made to any OF the
prohibited officers employees. What we are now
considering is not whether Congress has gone
as far as II may, but whether that which has
been done is within the constitutional limits upon
its legislative discretion.
If there were no other reasons of this character
than such relate to the protection Of those in
the public service against unjust eNaetIons its
cOnstitutionality would il our opinion be clear
II peTsDns III public employ may be called on
10y those in authority 10 contribute from their
personal income TO the expenses of political
/ paigHs. and a refusal may lead 10 putting good
men out Of the service, liberal payments may be
made the ground for keeping poor ones in. So,
too, if a part of the compensation received for
public service must be contributed for political
purposes, II IS easy 10 see that an increase OF
/. compensation may be required to provide the
means TO make the contribution, and that in this
way the Government itself may be made TO fur
Z he lrfra 4ha ayr-
penses OF keeping the political party in power
that happens to have for the time being the
troll OF the public patronage. Political parties
. must almost necessarily exist under a repubI-
can form Of government; and when public en-
ploymeBt depends TO any considerable extent on
party success, those in office VIII naturally be de-
sirOus Of keeping the party TO which they belong
IN power. The statute we considering
does not interfere with this The apparent end
( of Congress viii be accomplished if itg pre-
vents those IN power from requiring help for
such purposes as a condition TO continued
ployment.
This decision had been rendered before
the Civil Service act was passed, and il
might be presumed to have been in the
minds of the lawmakers, even if We did
not know that it was quoted in the Senate.
Congress- then, in the interests of dis
cipline, can regulate the acts of its officers
and employees. II can regulate them in
their work and it can also declare what
shall not be done to them or demanded of
them while they are so engaged. You may
solicit if you please, but you may not
make use of the place where they are en-
gagged in their official duties. You may not
use these surroundings to make implied
threats, to make them feel uncertain Of
their tenure, and interfere with the dis
cipline.
The Aim of Congress.
'7When Congress used such broad and
accomplish what it expressed, that is. the
prevention of solicitation in any manner
whatever The sending Of a letter is
solicitation, and the sole question is
whether such solicitation was in a building
such as described. While we are not to
enlarge the meaning Of the words used nor
affix a criminal liability unless it be made
so by clear language we are not to fritter
away the statute by technical bubbles or
! fine reasoning If the defendant (or party
! implicated had sent a letter by a messen-
! ger or agent who had delivered the same il
( q building such as designated, or if the
1 party had delivered such letter himself he
/ would undoubtedly be guilty of the offence
/ of soliciting in the building. When he pro-
/ cured the letter to be delivered to the
/ party addressed in the building, by the
medium Of the mail, the offence was the
/ same; the mail was used as an agency.
/ To hold otherwise would apparently be to
/ assume that there is no solicitation pro-
/ hibted by the statute except where both
! parties are present in the building
Suppose such a case. Must the party
soliciting speak to the employe? Could he
not send q message or note? Would not
such sending be soliciting in the build
! ing2 Is it any less so when the message
/ is sent from outside into the building to
/ the employe? To hold that it is would
( make the statute too narrow. for it would
exclude the operation of the words "iu
any manner whatever The statute does
not deal with the mode of soliciting but
the fact itself. 1t was the thing done not
the manner Of doing it, which was defend
/ ed. The offence may be committed in per-
son or by agent or mail, telephone or tele-
graph. When the written solicitation is
delivered in the prohibited building TO an
employe the offence is complete. 1t would
. have been most unusual If Congress had
undertaken to specify In the statute the
mail, or should refer specially TO letters
I or different forms Of soliciting The
generality Of the language actually used
includes all, and Specifications hereunder
would be not only superfuous but mis-
I leading. II is not sufficient for the party
manager to keep from the building in order
10 avoid the penalties of the law, while
at the same time he commits all the harm
( which Congress intended to prevent Out
! Of respect to the Legislature we should
( not assume that il passed an act so easily
evaded and nullifed-that it intended to
allow the employees OF the Government TO
l. L..