A DEMOCRATIC DANGER.
F:AVERY principle upon which society can be organised has its special weakness. In modern times, democracy has shown itself most easily and moat prejudicially affected by corruption. To point this out is not to condemn democracy. Democracy, no doubt, is not liable to many other defects inherent in leas complete and wide-stretching forms of govern- ment ; but that would be a very bad reason for not keeping a strenuous watch upon the growth of a parasite so utterly destructive to the full and free development of the body politic. In the ancient world, when the development of material pro- gress was but little advanced, the competition for wealth, and so the temptation towards corruption, was far less keen and fierce. Now, when the fashion of the world is in its widest sense set by a wealthy cultured class living at a high standard of material comfort, and when the struggle of existence has made real freedom and leisure for intellect and body hardly possible without wealth, it is very rare for men not to desire most eagerly to get money. When pressure such as this is exerted by the circumstances of modern life, and when—doubtless quite rightly—men without previously acquired wealth are placed in positions where money is always within their reach if they will but stoop just a little to dishonesty to obtain it, it can never be out of place to insist on the necessity that every precaution shall be taken to prevent corruption. There can be no sincerer friends to democracy than those who are determined at what- ever coat to barn out corruption. Unfortunately, there is just now only too much ground for viilangce.
The North of England has during the last fortnight been made keenly alive to the danger by a case tried before Mr. Justice A. L. Smith, at the Winter Assizes at Manchester. The proceedings, which occupied the Court for three days, were watched with the greatest possible excitement and interest in Salford, Manchester, and the surrounding dis- tricts, and the local newspapers published the most de- tailed reports of the evidence. It is strange that a case so full of public interest should not have attracted more notice in the London Press. The ease " Hunter v. Lever," though it took the form of a prosecution for libel, in fact turned upon a charge of corruption, and of the taking of bribes in the shape of commissions, preferred by Mr. H. Lever, a coal-merchant, against Mr. Hunter, the manager of the Salford Corporation Gasworks. The charges made by Mr. Lever were contained in certain letters and telegrams, and referred to matters which had taken place during the past six years. These charges were at last challenged by Mr. Hunter, who took the extreme step of prosecuting Mr. Lever for libel in a Criminal Court, instead of bringing the usual action for damages. Mr. Lever defended himself by pleading that his accusations were tree in fact, and that it was for the public benefit that they should be stated. After a most careful trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant,—that is, they held that the accusation of corruption against Mr. Hunter was true in fact, and that its publication was for the benefit of the public. It is not our intention here to go into the question whether this verdict was or was not justified by the evidence. We simply take it as it stands. No doubt as long as matters remain as they are, it will always be possible for Mr. Hunter to say that he has never been condemned by any court of law, and that he has simply been unsuccessful in a libel action against a defamer. It is for his fellow-townsmen, not us, who know nothing of him except from the libel action, to judge of the validity of this defence. We shall content ourselves with a state- ment of some of the facts upon which the jury found their verdict, and upon which Mr. Hunter's employers have deemed it neces- sary to suspend him, as they illustrate the special danger of corruption to democracy. Broadly stated, the accusation against Mr. Hunter made by the defendant was that, as engi-
neer and manager of the gasworks of the Corporation of Salford, part of whose business was to advise the Corporation as to the contracts for coal, he had taken commissions upon and received bribes in respect of these contracts. The most definite evidence adduced in support of this defence was that of two persons, Mr. Smethurst and Mr. Hartley. Mr. Smethurst was a member of a firm of colliery proprietors, who, seeing an advertisement from the Salford Corporation for tenders for coal, formed the intention of tendering on behalf of his firm. Before taking any active steps, however, he saw a certain Mr. Hawkins, a gas-engineer and a friend of Mr. Hunter, and told him of his intention. Subsequently to this conversa- tion, Mr. Hawkins wrote a letter to Mr. Smethurst asking him not to tender till they had seen each other. After some further negotiations, a meeting took place between Mr. Smethurst, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Hunter. At this interview Mr. Smethurst swore that the following arrangement was made :— " Taking my price as given to Mr. Hawkins, I was told by one or the other, or both of them, to put Is. 6d. upon it ; ls. was for Mr. Hunter, and 6d. was for Mr. Hawkins." The money was to be paid into the hands of a third person, in order to avoid exposure. In other words, Mr. Smethurst swore that an agreement was made under which Mr. Hunter, the manager of the Salford Corporation Gasworks, was to receive a commission of Is. on every ton supplied, in considera- tion of Mr. Smethurst obtaining the contract. The evidence of Mr. Hartley is equally damaging to the credit of the general conduct of business, though he is not himself implicated in any doubtful transactions. Mr. Hartley, described as a director of a Coal and Iron Company, stated that in 1877 and 1878 he had an interview with Mr. Hunter, in order to see if he could enter into a contract to supply gas-coal. He swore that at this interview Mr. Hunter asked him " what the allowance would be to himself as manager." "To that I asked,' What is the usual allowance?' and his reply was, 6d., 9d., ls., and sometimes ls. 6d. per ton.' I said that I was ignorant of such a practice, and that I would name the subject to my co- directors, and possibly some of them might call on him." When asked what was the result of such a communication to the other directors, Mr. Hartley stated that " it was decided to make no further attempt to deal with the Salford Corpora- tion." This evidence requires no comment. But besides the two points we have selected, there was a mass of evidence adduced to show the system of doing business that prevailed at the Salford Corporation Gasworks, but which cannot be set out here.
The public lessons that may be derived from the trial are extremely important. In the first place, it is evident that the conditions under which some of the public bodies in Lancashire conduct the businesses connected with the supply of gas are far from satisfactory. Mr. Smethurst'e evidence on this point was as little ambiguous as it was seriously alarming. He stated in Court that be had told Mr. Lever that " he could not get into some of the gasworks unless he gave commissions." This, if it is true, means that corruption has seriously affected the officers of the Municipalities, and that either corruption, or a careless- ness almost as bad as corruption, has taken hold of the Corpora- tions themselves. Then, too, the whole question of muni- cipal trading presents itself. Can this case, and the other instances which we fear the evidence shows to exist, be fairly taken to show that it is unwise to allow the Municipalities to conduct business of a semi-commercial kind ? Probably it would not be fair to draw any such general conclusion. The making and repairing of streets is a burliness which no one can pretend to be otherwise than strictly municipal ; and yet the contracts that have to be made in connection with their manage- ment might just as easily be jobbed ae contracts for gas. In truth, the best lesson of the Salford case is the necessity for an increasing demand from the public for the utmost vigilance on the part of their municipal officers and magistrates, and a steady resolve that good and honest management shall be the rule of public undertakings, even if what appear to be un- naturally high salaries have to be paid to secure this end. Highly paid officials are often not half such a burden on the rates as they look at first eight.
Previous page
