The Man Who Took the Bribe to Expose It

The Metcalfe affair, one of the most striking incidents of the recent senatorial contest, has been, and still is, a theme of general discussion and comment by the press of the state as well as among the public. Not unnaturally, perhaps, but in the light of the facts very unjustly, Representative Metcalfe himself is criticised, while the faults of those whom he accuses are passed over in silence. It is as if he were at fault in not retaining the bribe that was given him, as if he had perpetrated a grave crime against public morality in exposing the nefarious transaction which had so nearly been consummated.

As has been said, it is not altogether unnatural that Representative Metcalfe should be assailed, while Harry Clarke and those associated with him should be passed over in silence. Metcalfe's exposure brought a clear-cut and well-defined charge of corruption dangerously near to a coterie of powerful politicians. It is not strange that they should seek to destroy the man who has thus assailed them—that they should turn all their batteries upon the reputation of the man whose vindication means their own destruction.

In determining whether Representative Metcalfe should be censured or praised for his course, it is necessary to consider the manner of man he is and the motives which prompted him. He is a clean-cut, straightforward young man, with a frank, fearless and manly face. As to his past reputation, the worst that his enemies have charged against him is that in the past he has assisted in bringing law breakers to justice. As to the motives which prompted him, a few moments' conversation with him will convince any unprejudiced person that they were honorable and public-spirited.

Mr. Metcalfe was not at any time during the senatorial contest an enthusiastic supporter of Senator Squire. It was understood from the beginning that he would vote for Squire, but he was not an active participant in the battle and was not numbered among the radical supporters of the Senator. In many respects he was an onlooker in the early stages of the contest. He became convinced, however, that a shameless use of money was being made in the interest of Judge Calkins, and he conceived it to be his duty to put a stop to this corruption by exposing it. In order to do this he took the only course by which he could accomplish his purpose. He permitted the corruptionists to expose their methods to him. He accepted their money in order that he might put a quietus upon that form of public corruption. At the first opportunity—within a few hours of the time that the money was paid to him—he denounced the act before the legislature and before the people of the state and surrendered the money, which a less honorable man would have retained.

Such is the Metcalfe incident in outline. The people of this state who believe in public morality, who desire to see crime detected and punished, who prize the fair fame of their commonwealth, owe it to themselves to rally around this young man and to prevent his destruction by the powerful enemies whom he has aroused. If those who expose corruption are hounded to death without a voice being raised in their defense, how can purity in public affairs be expected? If the corruptionist escapes scot free, while the vials of wrath are emptied upon his accuser, how can corruption be punished?