The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-08-11

SoA-@
gresham Hull in the house Of repre-
SentativeS, when called Upon to ex-
plain his connection with timber DUR
chaSeS in the Philippines. Congress-
man Littauer would doubtless echo the
scornful inquiry, and so would Mr.
briggs of Brooklyn. A host of less
painfully conspicuous public servants
would sustain them in chorus, includ--
ing those literary congressman
G~rosvenor and Richardson. A con-
gresham receives a pitiful salary OF
lS5, 900 a year. Does anybody think he
lean live on that? Besides, men who's
lget elected 10 high office are certain
ITO De men of force and restless energy
rThey must be active; they must bee
tup and doing. Shall they turn their
pack on business opportunities merely
because they are in a public pOSltion:
III they are awyers shall they refusee
)retalners? To some of them he very
idea seems absurd; to others it is dis
lQuieting. Considerable confusion ex-
lists also in the public mind In refer
lence to the whole matter.
1t is in the legislative branches OF
government that the question presents
Itself most frequently and with the
greatest urgency. We know OF United
States senators who, during their term
Iof service-not only while congress ks
lin session, but also in recess-steadilE
refuse to be employed by corporations
(which they would. under different cir
Icumstances, be glad to serve. On the
lother hand, there are many senator's
Iwho frequently accept such employ
lment during the intervals batween
sessions, and occasionally even while
THE senate IS sitting. The view Of the
first sort is that they must first be-
labolutely removed from all PERSONAL
Interest in corporation affairs, since
these may at any moment become sub
GectS of proposed legislation. The
l.--- 1s~l 80 &ht ~ 11n~
las they do not neglect their legislative
lduties, they have a perfect r1gh1 to-
lcontinue their ordinary pursuits, ana
they feel competent to hold themselves
free from bias Notwithstanding. There
fs, Of curse. a third class, which need
mot be discussed, since the ~endeaVo--
lof its members is not so much to aVolG
failing below even well-established
lethical standards, as to escape the pro
visions of the penal code.
Many of the nicer scruples thus
raised must in the end be referred tos
the conscience Of the individual. The
Ipublic, If it ever hears of it, may ap-
Iplaud the senator who refuses the
corporation retainer; but there is now
mo open complaint of the senator who
J, accepts it. Even in less doubtful
leases, where, for instance, a congress-
!, imam, successfully eVades the law about
government contracts, but is clearly -
IpdIly ~ JIG, lIlOuSl IOllIllIdilS SiiSI
Illegally not so, the public is powerlesSs
ito get at him Immediately and effect
lively, except through his SenSibilities.-
But not every man who lodges iegaN
penalty is entitled to sea public
|censure. If for some technical reasorr
the law cannot step in, the legal i'm
immunity imposes no obligation to look
upon it as a moral acquittal. A CON-
Itrary opinion, We are aware, IS preVa-
llent, but 1t rests on no sound basis
THE man who pleads that the statutes
|of limitations has relieved him Of re-
lSpoSibilitieS for a miSdemeanor, IS n
titled to be set free, but society has -
fright, even a duty, to draw it's oWrF
conclusions.
In other words, two classes of obi
jgation are accepted by the man who
takes public office. One is legal, and
will be enforced by the courts; ther
lother is moral, and will be enfored by
his conscience and by public sentiment.
THE extent to which the latter Affects
his conduct will, of course, depend
upon his own enlightenment and that
Iof the community. The moral obligA
Ition can be violated without conffgc
with the courtS. The legal obligations,
Jon the other hand, being a statutory
expression of the more crude and pa
tent of the ethical considerations in
vOlved, cannO be broken save by utter
disregard of the moral.
liz touISe, lIeIl, Nus ii puDllc o.
ificer pursue? First, he must obey the
law. We hear the excuse made for the
lLittauerS and the GaffneyS and the
lDriggseS that, after all, they have only
I'technically'' violated the law, if at
all. But, We ask, in order technically
to violate the law, What amount OF
moral obligation have they not cut
Through ruthiessly? The federal law
says that a congressman may not be,
interested directly or indirectly in Ok
contract with the United States, bug
that he may be a stakeholder ir a cor
lporation which is interested IN SUCH
"a contract. This may not strike one
las a particularly intelligent distinction
but it is the law. Shall we, conse-
lquenty,, ask a kindly public sympathy
for one who becomes legally involved
lsimply because he failed to incorporate
his company and thus get around the
ilaw? Or shall we merely regard the
Iletter Of the law as the whole of his
obligation, and be content with holdinG
him rigidly to thai Loose thinking
Ilies back Of all our loose practice in
these matters. The time call for the
incest sense of honor or the part OF
public men. Especially IN such a get
.rich-quick epoch as the present, do We
need to hold up the standards Of an
elder and severer day-of an Adams
and a Bayard. A commercial age
laughs at their nice ~scrupulosity in
dividing the private business interest
from that of the commonwealth; but
1t is the only salt which can keep our
ipublic life sweet.-New York Pos.
1t Did Not Faze the Waiter.