Corruption in American politics and lifeBrooks, Robert C. (Robert Clarkson)
History
Corruption in American politics and life
Brooks, Robert C. (Robert Clarkson)
Political corruption -- United States; United States -- Social conditions -- 1865-1918
Escape from such confusion can hardly come from the accepted formulas
of the dictionaries. Their descriptions or periphrases of corruption
are in general much too broad for use in exact discussion. Bribery,
indeed, is defined with sufficient sharpness by the _Century
Dictionary_ as
“a gift or gratuity bestowed for the purpose of influencing the
action or conduct of the receiver; especially money or any valuable
consideration given or promised for the betrayal of a trust or the
corrupt performance of an allotted duty, as to a fiduciary agent, a
judge, legislator or other public officer, a witness, a voter, _etc._”
Corruption, however, is by no means synonymous with bribery. The latter
is narrower, more direct, less subtle. There can be no bribe-taker
without a bribe-giver, but corruption can and frequently does exist
even when there are no personal tempters or guilty confederates. A
legislator may be approached by a person interested in a certain
corporation and may be promised a definite reward for his favourable
vote on a measure clearly harmful to the public interest but calculated
to benefit the corporation concerned. If the bargain be consummated
it is unquestionably a case of bribery, and the action involved is
also corrupt. But, if current reports are to be believed, it sometimes
happens that legislators, acting wholly on their own initiative and
regardless of their duty to the state, vote favourably or unfavourably
on pending bills, endeavouring at the same time to profit financially
by their action, or by their knowledge of the resultant action of the
body to which they belong, by speculation in the open market. In the
latter instance they have not been approached by a personal tempter,
and the brokers whom they employ to buy or sell may be ignorant of
the motives or even of the identity of their patrons. Clearly this is
not bribery, but equally clearly it is corrupt. The distinction is
perhaps sufficiently important to justify the coinage of the term
“auto-corruption” to cover cases of the latter sort.[15] Corruption
in the widest sense of the term would then include both bribery and
auto-corruption, and may be defined as _the intentional misperformance
or neglect of a recognised duty, or the unwarranted exercise of
power,_[16] _with the motive of gaining some advantage more or less
directly personal_.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account