The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-02
THAT HALF-LoAF PASS PRoV1-
 SION.

The proposition of the Committee on Corporations, in the Constitutional Convention, to deprive only judges and legislators of free passes, and to pun ish only the recipient of a pass, Is very good as far as 1t goes, but 1t is not an ideal measure by any means. We fear it Is calculated to accomplish little practically.
 Th2 proposed law denies the privi- lege of passes to judges and legislators only. Why should the reform be con- fined to those classes only? If it is just and wise step to take passes out of their hands. why stop at them? Why should all other State, County and City officials haze trem? Why should those State officers be permitted to have passes who have to sit as Board of Assessment on the valuation of all rail road property? Where is the logic. the justice, the common-sense of making d sort of aristocracy among officials in the matter of enjoyment of pass privi- ieges? The compromise offered by the Committee is indefensible in this re- spect.
 The punishment provided for the ac- ceptance of passes by judges and legis- lators is also one-sided. It Is directed at the recipient of the pass only. The giver, the railroad official, is not touched. If it is wrong for the judge or the legislator to receive 1t. should not the law make it equally wrong for the railroad representative to give 1t to the official? Surely, the one deserves pun ishment as much as the other. The tempter is usually reckoned the worse. Almighty God has provided a means of grace for the children of Adam, but not for the arch-tempter.
 In this respect, the proposed measure falls short of the present Constitu- tion's provision. The existing law prohibits the roads from giving passes as well as officials from receiving them and it directs the Legislature to pro- vide punishment for both giver and re- ceiver The Committees new provision lets the railroads run riot, virtually licenses them to tempt all other offl- cials as much as they choose. In fact it makes 1t lawful to give certain classes free passes. It says:
 Nothing herein shall prevent a mem Der of the Legislature who is a bona fide employe of railroad or other transpor- tatlon company or corporation at the time of his election from accepting or procur- ing for himself or another not a member
 a-R. sAI d, ,lr judicial functions, free pass over the railroads and other transportation com pany by which he Is employed
 This puts into the Constitution ex- pressly that a certain class may have passes. Railroad employees or attor- neys, who may be elected to the Legis- lature, may not only have passes them selves. but may get as many as they see fit for other public officers. who are not judges or legislators. Is it not likely that under such provision, nearly every attorney elected to the Legislature would be found to have been in the employ of some railroad before he was elected? And 1t is we'll known that many attorneys are elected to the Assembly, They are generally considered to be the most competent lawmakers. With such a large num- Der of employees in the Legislature, by license of the Constitution, there would be little practical benefit from the law, and no possible relief from 1t by ,egisla- ton.
 Another objection to the proposed provision would be the difficulty of procuring legal evidence to enforce it. If penalty was put on givers of passes for violating the law and they were re- lieved of prosecuting on agreement to testify, there would be an effective way of getting evidence to convict officials.