CORRUPTION IN THE UNITED STATES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 12, 15 April 1871, Page 16

CORRUPTION IN THE UNITED STATES.

Under the expressive heading " Row the Thing is done,", the New York " Nation" of November 17th lays before its readers a very singular correspondence. That the most shameless corruption in all its forms prevails in every department of political life in the United States is so notorious that nobody effects to deny it ; but even so, it is extraordinary to find in the greatest state of • the Union the managers of the party in p oVver —the party which lays claim to the greatest purity and the highest principle—recognising bribe-taking as among the legitimate sources of income of an offiee-holder. That is in brief what the correspondence published by the "Nation'* proves. The first letter in the correspondence is from General Barlow, United States Marshal at New York, to the Treasurer of the Republican State Commtitee. In it the marshal acknowledges the receipt of a communication requesting from him and his surbordinates 1000 dollars as the amount of their contributions to the party fund. He then reminds the treasurer that his salary is only 6000 dollars, that on this sum his contribution at 2 per cent., the usual rate of assessement amounts to 120 dollars, for which sum he encloses a cheque, very properly refusing at the same time to collect from his surbordinates. This system of assessment has been so long established, and it is notorious, that, however demoralising it is, there is nothing in it to surprise any but those who believe in the perfection of Republican institutions. But what we have a right to be surprised at, even under such a system as this, is the cool cynicism of the Republican Treasurer's Reply. In brief he returns the marshal's cheque with the remark that the great discrepancy between it and the amount asked for by the committee would render its acceptance an injustice to those officials who had responded to the calls made upon them. The committee, however, has made a mistake in their man. General Barlow distinctlyrefused to increase his contribution, accompanying his refusal moreover with the explanation that he. did not consider that the holding of an office created any obligation on the part of the holder to

give anytliing, and that he himself gave, not on this ground, but as a citizen interested in the. success of *his party. And he continues :—" You speak of the ascertained value of my office as distinguished from its salary, which is only 6000 dollars. I do not know from whom you ascertained its income; but I do know that, whoever h.is received more from it than 6000 dollars per annum, has not received it honestly. I should be sorry to believe that dishonest gains of public offices were so recognised, and accepted as a matter of course, that they are made the basis of the expected contributions."