New-York tribune., 1906-07-25
CAuPAIGN Contributions.

The report Of the State Civil Service Commits
sion in the Bender case, followed as it has been
by prompt action by the Governor in accordance
with the statute governing the removal Of Off
GERS, is likely to arouse healthful inquiry among
officials and politicians who not officials to
discover the full meaning Of the law prohibiting
the levying of campaign contributions on public
employees. The prohibition, so far as it relates
TO what are called "assessments'-th is con-
tribUtiOns secured by pressure-has been on the
statute book in substantially the present form
since the passage of the original Civil Service
act, in 1888. Amendments in 1884 and again in
1899 extended the prohibition SO that it finally
covered the collection of subscriptions and con-
tributions, as well as assessments Officials and
campaign managers, however, have never seemed
TO realize how drastic the law really is. They
have been under the impression that they were
safe so long as they brought no definite and
tangible pressure to bear on subordinates in the
public service or merely accepted what they
were pleased to consider as technically vOlun-
tary contributions avoided collections in pub
lie buildings. 1t behOOves those who have been
under this delusiOn to study the report, analyze
the law and what it really means, if they
wish to avoid trouble; for it is evident that the
cid habit of treating the Civil Service law as
q more or less academic expression of what
Mr. Jerome describes as moral yearnngs in the
The statute forbids the use of authority or
official influence, directly indirectly by any
public servant to influence any other public
servant to make a political contribution and it
is to be noted that the Civil Service Commission
holds that the slightest request for contribu-
tOn by an officer to a subordinate is an exercise
of such influence, as is conduct. even unaccom-
panied by any personal request calculated to
imDress snbordinates with the belief that they
,A-FB,rr Ar, oil %hAv
Public officers are forbidden to allow anybody
to ask or receive subscriptions in room Occu-
pied for government purposes; all persons are
forbidden to enter or remain in such room to
ask or receive any contribution, and all persons
are forbidden to send or direct any letter to
public Office asking for n subscription. These
technical barriers TO collections in public offices
are more or less widely understood, and polit-
ical committees have commonly sought TO avoid
direct conflict with these rules We doubt,
however, il there has been any general under
standing of the sweeping character Of the final
provision Of the statute:
No person shall knowingly send or present
any political assessment, subscription con-
tribution TO or request its payment of any said
officer, agent or employe.
That applies to persons in private life. as we'll
as officials. No person at any place whatsoever
can ask public officer or employe of the state
or any city or civil division thereof for a polit-
ical contribution without committing a misde-
meanOr The report of the Civil Service Com
mission explains:
The law does not limit a subscription to a
written document. 49,. The language Is
somewhat awkward, but its meaning is clear
The law makes distinction between assess
ment. subscription contribution, or rather
uses all those words TO forbid the presentation
20 a public servant under any disguise of re-
quest for contributions. The verbal notice by
any person TO a public employe that he awaits
a contribution is just as much forbidden as the