Year: 1867

LEGISLATIVE CORRUPTION.


From An Occasional Correspondent ,,..,..-


There is no essential difference between the moral
guilt of the legislator who sells his vote for pecr-
MARY consideration, and that Of the mddleman or
lobbyist who negotates the bargain and hands over
a portion of the money given him for that purpose.
The penalty prescribed by the statute ia the same In
both cases. But the corruption OF the representative
of the people is a gTaver offcnse IN another point OF
view. than a violation of law peprtiateu Dy
private individual charged with public trust The
legislator holds a relation OF responsibility and m
portance, and dsreputabe OF illegal conduct on his
part reflects disgrace upon his constituents. Inc
lobbyist having no reputation to lnlule brngS MN
self within the scope of the penal statute, to be
sure, and it may be the temptation lie presents
is the means of turning the representative from the
path of recttude but, evidently the latter Is the
more heinous offender.


legislative agent is not necessarily an unworthy
nerson When he confines himself 10 his legitimate
duties-Qoes before committees to explain the ntces-
stv and object of bill, and furnishes Information as
70 its scope and designs services are often import
ant and valuable. But these men are rarely
found here now. They have been superseded by
the unprncipled scamps who niost the mans OF legS-
lation pretending to influence which they never
nossess confederating with members of facle minds
and easy virtue and pocketing large portion of the
means with which they are intmsted to promote the
massage Of bills These people mako as much money
by impeding and blocking measures on Their way
through the Legislature as by protesting to ald tem'


This is usually much the easier process and often
pays we'll The merit of the measure is never taken
into account A gentleman interested in bill ia
nvsteriouslv informed that there difficulties that
can only be removed in certain way. He abandons
the scheme i'm resentment and disgust or puts bis
hand into his pocket.


Iremember a case in point. Some ten years ago,
Mr. James s. WadswOrth of Geneseo-the gallant
soldier who among the slain IN the battle OF the
WildeIness-came here to procure the passage OF
hill 70 enable his orphan nephew, born abroad to
hold real estate. 1t was simple act perfectly proper
and liable TO no well-founded objection from any
quarter. It was sent to the appropriate Committee
n favorable report made and MT. w. went nome re-
garding its passage as matter OF course. AltT
waiting several weeks and hearing meantime that
it had not been moved he came back ard ascertaned
that three members of the Assembly and a lobby
man demanded 500 each condition OF IFS
passage He put the matter into the hands OF
friend. authorizing him to pay what he should think
nroper and left full of indignation and disgust. The
money was paid but l have always supposed that
the lobby man took the lions share.


II will he remembered that Gen. Wadsworth was
beaten for Governor in 1862 through the treachery OF
the Father of the Lobby and his coadjutOrs IN "ly-
ing and leprosy" and it would be curious matter o.
inquiry how much Gen. Wadsworths known hof
tty to legislative corruption had to do with his de
feat. As Governor, he would undoubtedly have
recommended stringent measures to check the vicious
practices that have grown common as to shock
nobody here now


stated in my former letter that the New-York Cen
tral Railroad had paid more than Half Million
Dollars to promote and prevent legislation since the
Consolidation in 1853. This sum is so large that
doubts of it's probability have been expressed by per-
SONS who have no knowledge of the processes by
which business is transacted at the capitol AZ this
time of day. it would be difcnlt matter TO furnish
al the lteRs Qt this ip3spse sApfadItsre, S~t