When a Railroad Pass Was a Bribe in a Pocket

The Tacoma Ledger takes up the cudgel again in opposition to the "free pass" evil and earnestly advocates its legislative abolition. The constitution of this state prohibits the acceptance and use of free passes by officials, but no legislation has been had whereby this inhibition may be made effectual. The custom of giving free passes to persons in public office is of long standing, and it has always been difficult to put a stop to it. Legislation against acceptance of free transportation has not been succeeded by practical enforcement.

It is an evil and ought to be remedied. A pass to a friend or servant of a corporation is a courtesy or right. A pass to an official is nothing more nor less than a bribe. It may be and probably is the case in general that the recipient of the favor has no sense of wrong; that he accepts his pass as a mere courtesy due to his official position. It may also be true that the corporation or its officer from whom the pass is obtained has no direct interest to secure a special official favor or favors thereby. But all the same, it is in the one case a present representing a money equivalent and in the other a gift which costs something of value to the donor.

In any honorable man a gift of money or its equivalent will create a sense of obligation to the donor, which, while it may not be sufficient to pervert his judgment or control his acts, cannot fail to influence, more or less, especially when the interests or desires of the person from whom the favor is received are involved in a vote or official act. If, for example, a railroad company takes a member of the legislature as its guest, a return is due and it may be to influence the passage, or on the other hand defeat, of the measure desired or opposed in legislation. It may be to secure in a general way a friendly feeling toward the power. There is always a purpose in it, else it would not be done. When Jones, a present member of the legislature, is in office he holds and enjoys the privilege of free transportation. When his term is ended, unless he has been of special service to the corporation whose "courtesy" he has received, his pass is canceled. The favor was not to Jones, the citizen, but to Jones, the legislator. So is it with judicial and executive officers, who find themselves "honored" with such courtesies only when in office.

The custom is wrong. It is baleful in influence and insulting to the people whom these officials serve and represent. It presupposes the inability of public officers to pay their traveling expenses. It signifies that the people have not provided for necessary travel on public business, which is false. It makes the public a recipient of favors which it does not seek, does not need and has no moral right to accept. The laws provide amply for all legitimate expenses of travel by public officers. If they travel on free passes and yet charge mileage they are guilty of the meanest sort of larceny, either from the public treasury, which refunds them money not expended, or the corporation which is legally entitled to the value of its services expressed in traveled miles.

The suggestion of the Ledger that mileage be abolished and in lieu thereof public officials be refunded their actual expenses upon a proper accounting, is sensible and just. The mileage system is not only liable to be, but has been greatly abused both here and elsewhere. It has been used to increase the pay of public officers to a very considerable amount. The temptation in that direction is always present under the present system. The legislature will receive the approbation of all right-thinking men and relieve corporations both from temptation to petty bribery as well as a load which they would gladly be rid of, if it enforce by law the constitutional prohibition. New York has just adopted a new constitution, in which free passes to officials are prohibited and which is already being enforced, being construed to be operative without supplementary legislative action.