The Ethics of the Free Rail Pass
A territorial representative is caught accepting a railroad pass while charging the government for travel expenses, prompting a sharp rebuke on political corruption.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The number of members of the two branches of the Legislature of Washington Territory amounts to $2,308.40 or 18,734 miles at 12 cents per mile. In the list we notice that a Representative from Walla Walla county, formerly editor and proprietor of the Watchman, is accredited with $127.20, being for 848 miles of travel at the established rate. We assume the gentleman referred to 'enjoyed his free ride' as he stated editorially in his paper some two months ago he intended so to do, having as he declared 'not only received a pass from the railroad company, but also respectfully accepted the sum.' But doesn't this fact stand out boldly? He accepted a gift from a carrying corporation as a present, while for the services of which the people of the United States have paid him the sum of $127.20. If the services rendered by the railroad company were not worth that, then the Government has paid too much for the gentleman's transportation. If they are worth that amount, then this legislator has accepted a present from a corporation of the value of $127.20. Does the acceptance of such a present involve any reciprocal obligation? The pass received by the legislator has resulted in him, if it be used only to go from Walla Walla to Olympia and return, services for which the Government pays $127.20. It has involved an outlay on the part of the railroad company of the actual cost of his transportation both ways. The only person benefited is the legislator. He has accepted a valuable gift from a corporation with large interests in the Territory, one of whose law-makers he is. Is it not the tendency of mankind to favor those who favor us? And, generally, isn't it dishonorable to do otherwise? We have called attention to this specific instance to point and illustrate the principle for which we strenuously contend, to-wit: that the acceptance, by public officials, of presents, franks, etc., is an evil; that it has in it the elements of bribery; that it puts men under obligations from which, as such officers, they should be absolutely free.
“The acceptance, by public officials, of presents, franks, etc., is an evil; that it has in it the elements of bribery; that it puts men under obligations from which, as such officers, they should be absolutely free.”
The practice of legislators receiving 'courtesies' from powerful corporations was a major flashpoint for late 19th-century reformers. Today’s battles over lobbyist influence and campaign finance reveal that the tension between corporate access and public interest remains a persistent feature of Washington politics.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.