Court Opinion

ID: 9417348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:09:31.368704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:39.184626
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Waite,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The act is not one to prohibit all contributions, of money or *372property by tbe designated officers and employés of tbe United States for political purposes. Neither does it prohibit them altogether- from receiving or soliciting money or property for such purposes. It simply forbids their receiving from or giving to each other. Beyond this no restrictions are placed on any of their political privileges.
That the government of the United States is one of delegated powers only, and that its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution, are no longer open questions; but express authority is given Congress by the Constitution to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the powers that are delegated. Art. 1, sect. 8. Within the legitimate scope. of this grant Congress is permitted to determine for itself what is necessary and what is proper.
The act now in question is one regulating in some particulars the conduct of certain officers and employés of the United States. It jests on the same principle as that originally passed in 1789 at the first session of the first Congress, which makes it unlawful for certain officers of the Treasury Department to engage in the business of trade or commerce, or to own a sea vessel, or to purchase public lands or other public property, or to be concerned in the purchase or disposal-of the public securities of a State, or of the United States (Rev. Stat., sect. 243) ; and that passed in 1791, which makes'it an offence for a clerk in the same department to carry on trade or business in the funds or debts of the States or of the United States, or in any kind of public property (id., sect. 244) ; and that passed in 1812, which makes it unlawful for a judge appointed under the authority of the-United States to exercise the profession ■ of- counsel or attorney, or to be engaged in the practice of the law (id., sect. 713) ; and that passed in 1853, which prohibits every officer of the United States or person holding any place of trust- or profit, or discharging any official function under or in connection with any executive department of the government of the United States, or ufider the Senate or House of Representatives, from acting as an agent or attorney for the prosecution of any claim against the United States (id., sect. 5498) ; and that passed in 1863, prohibiting members of Congress from practising in the Court of Claims (id., sect. 1058) ; *373and that passed in 1867, punishing, by dismissal from service, an officer or employé of the government who requires or requests any workingman in a navy-yard to contribute or' pay any money for political purposes (id., sect. 1546) ; and that passed in 1868, prohibiting members of Congress from being interested in contracts with the United States (id., sect. 3739); and another, passed in 1870, which provides that no officer, clerk, or employé in the government of the United States shall solicit contributions from other officers, clerks, or employés for a gift to those in a superior ■ official position, and that no officials or clerical superiors shall receive any gift or present as a contribution to them from persons in government employ getting a less salary than themselves, and that no officer or clerk shall make a donation as a gift or present to any official superior (id., sect. 1784). Many others of a kindred character might be referred to, but these are enough to show what has been the practice in the Legislative Department of the government from its organization, and, so far as we know, this is the first time the constitutionality of such legislation has ever been presented for judicial determination.
The evident purpose of Congress in all this class of enactments has been to promote efficiency and integrity in the dis-' charge of official duties, and to maintain proper discipline in the public service. Clearly such a purpose is within the just scope of legislative power, and it is not easy to see why the act now under consideration does not come fairly within the legitimate means to such an end. It is true, as is claimed-by che counsel for the petitioner, political assessments upon officeholders are not prohibited. The managers of political campaigns, not in the employ of the United States, are just as free now to call on those in office for money to be used for political purposes as ever they were, and those in office can contribute as liberally as they please, provided their payments are not made to any of the prohibited officers or employés. ' 'What we are now considering is not whether Congress has gone as far as it m.ay, but whether that which has been done is within the constitutional limits upon its legislative discretion.
A feeling of independence under the law conduces to faithful public, service, and nothing tends more to take away this *374feeling than a dread of dismissal. If contributions from those in püblic employment may be solicited by others in official authority, it is easy to see that what begins as a request may end as a demand, and that a failure to meet the demand may be treated by those having the power of removal as a breach of some supposed duty, growing out of the political relations of the parties. Contributions secured under such circumstances will quite as likely be made to avoid the consequences of the personal displeasure of a superior, as to promote the political views of the contributor, —to avoid a discharge from service, not to exercise a political privilege. The law contemplates no restrictions upon either giving or receiving, except so far as may be necessary to protect, in some degree, those in the public service against exactions through fear of personal loss. This purpose of the restriction, and the principle on which it rests, are most distinctly manifested in sect.-1546, supra, the re-enactment in the Revised Statutes of sect. 3 of the act of June 30, 1868, c. 172, which subjected an officer or employé of the government to dismissal if he required or requested a workingman in a navy-yard to contribute or pay any money for political purposes, and prohibited the removal or discharge of a workingman for his political opinions; and in sect. 1784, the re-enactment of the', act of Feb. 1, 1870, c. 63, “to- protect officials in public employ,” by providing for the summary discharge of those who make or solicit contributions for presents to superior officers. No one can for a moment doubt that in both these statutes the object was to protect the classes of officials and employés provided for from being compelled to make contributions for such pui’poses through fear of dismissal if they refused. It is true that dismissal from service is the only penalty imposed, but this penalty is given for doing what is made a wrongful act. If it is constitutional to prohibit the act, the kind or degree of punishment to be inflicted for disregarding the prohibition is' clearly within the discretion of Congress, provided it be not cruel or unusual.
If there were no other reasons for legislation of this character than such as relate to the protection of those in the public -service against unjust exactions, its constitutionality would, in o.ur opinion, be clear; but there are others, to our minds, equally *375good. If persons in .public employ may be called; on by those in authority to contribute from their, personal income to the expenses of political campaigns, and a refusal may lead to putting good men out of the service, liberal payments may be made the ground for keeping poor ones in. So, too, if a part of the compensation received for public services must be contributed for political purposes, it is easy to see that an increase of compensation may be required to provide- the means to make the contribution, and that in this way the government itself may, be made to furnish indirectly the money to defray the expenses of keeping the political party in power that happens to have for. the time being the control of the public patronage. Political parties must almost necessarily exist under a republican form of government; and when public employment depends to any considerable extent on party success, those in office will naturally be .desirous of keeping the party to which they belong in power. The statute we are now considering does not'.interfere with this. The apparent end of Congress will be accomplished if it prevents those in • power from requiring help for such purposes as a condition to continued employment.
We deem it unnecessary to pursue the subject further. In our opinion the statute under,which the petitioner was convicted is constitutional. The other objections which have been urged to the detention cannot be considered in this form of proceeding. Our inquiries in this class of cases are limited to such objections as relate to the authority of the court to render the judgment by which the prisoner is held. We have no general power,to review the judgments of the inferior courts of the United States in criminal cases, by the use of the writ of' habeas corpus or .otherwise. Our jurisdiction is limited to the single question of the power of the court to commit the prisoner for the act of which he has been convicted. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163; Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 604.
The commitment in this case was lawful, and the petitioner is, consequently,

Remanded to the custody of the marshal for the Southern Listriet, of New York.