New-York tribune., 1903-07-10
A NEW DOCTRINE OF OFFICIAL TRUST.

Ex-Congressman briggs is, Of course, entitled
20 secure the dismissal Of the indictments
against him If he can. If a legal technicality
can save him from answering on the merits Of
the case, Il is his privilege to escape trial-f
he wants TO. Nobody can justly complain of
his demurrer, and we shall not attempt to antici-
pate the decision upon It. The case is before an
able Judge, and decision viii in due time,
without doubt. be properly rendered. It is inter
esting, however, 10 note two Of the pleas made
for the dismissal.
One is that the statute Of limitations gives Mr..
briggs immunity. His counsel argued that,
while the money the reception of which is al
legged to have been criminal was paid in July,
1900 the services were rendered before that
time and a note was given for them in May,
1899. Therefore, the crime had been complete in
1899, if any had been committed. AS We say,
such plea is Mr.. Driggs's z -ivilege, and it is
not to be assumed that in taking every right
the law gives him Mr.. briggs has not in re-
serve a moral defence, but certainly it would be
pleasing to his friends If he could and would
show that he did not, while Congressman, sell
his influence TO a business concern and procure
for It government contracts on commission, in
stead Of merely pleading that he is protected
by the statute Of limitations.
The same thing may be said concerning the
other ground of demurrer that the statute IS
unconstitutional which makes it a misdemeanor
for a member Of Congress to receive compensa-
tion for securing a government contract. Mr.
Hirsh seriously argued this point, saying that
all citizens had equal rights, and that Congress
could not make criminal an act of a Congress
man when the same act done by private citi-
zen was no crime. We are surprised that any
man who had ever served in Congress should
maintain the right Of a Congressman TO betray
his trust as a servant of the government by be-
coming the agent of the other side in a gov
ernment deal but we are not concerned with
Mr.. Driggs's revelation Of his views of Con
gresslonal duty Our concern is rather with
the startling idea that one man, regardless of
his official or business trust, can do anything
that anybody else can do
Then the layman ought not 10 be forbidden
20 practise law or medicine, and in turn the
physician and lawyer have no special obliga-
tions not resting on every other citizen. With
out committing a crime, they can tell the
crets OF those they serve Just as any casual
gossiping acquaintance might do. Then a po-
hceman may freely take presents from per-
sons who want his good viii just the same as a
private citizen may. That is a new idea of
equal rights. II has generally been supposed
that a man in an official position assumed a
special trust, and was bound to sacrifice any
private eDtanglements which interfered with
its discharge He undertook to serve the State,
but according to Mr. Hirsh, he may simply
use his Office TO serve clients with interests ad-
verse 70 those of the State. That theory would
Justify the Dock Board in giving leases TO city
officials. Why would it not justify Mr.. Hirsh
IN taking retainers from both sides in a law
suit? Is that any worse than for a man to ac-
cept a salary from the nation and then accept
Sse from a contractor to help palm his goods