State Legislation 83 



about a third of the members were open to corrupt 

 influences in some form or other ; in certain sessions 

 the proportion was greater, and in some less. Now 

 it would, of course, be impossible for me or for any 

 one else to prove in a court of law that these men 

 were guilty, except perhaps in two or three cases; 

 yet we felt absolutely confident that there was 

 hardly a case in which our judgment as to the hon- 

 esty of any given member was not correct. The two 

 or three exceptional cases alluded to, where legal 

 proof of guilt might have been forthcoming, were 

 instances in which honest men were approached by 

 their colleagues at times when the need for votes 

 was very great; but, even then, it would have been 

 almost impossible to punish the offender before a 

 court, for it would have merely resulted in his de- 

 nying what his accuser stated. Moreover, the mem- 

 bers who had been approached would have been very 

 reluctant to come forward, for each of them felt 

 ashamed that his character should not have been 

 well enough known to prevent any one's daring 

 to speak to him on such a subject. And another 

 reason why the few honest men who are approached 

 (for the lobbyist rarely makes a mistake in his es- 

 timate of the men who will be apt to take bribes) do 

 not feel like taking action in the matter is that a 

 doubtful lawsuit will certainly follow, which will 

 drag on so long that the public will come to regard 

 all of the participants with equal distrust, while in 

 the end the decision is quite as likely to be against 

 as to be for them. Take the Bradley-Sessions case, 



