lobbyist

One who makes it a business to procure the passage of bills pending before a legislative body. One “who makes it a business to ‘see’ members and procure, by persuasion. Importunity, or the use of inducements, the passing of bills, public as well as private, which involve gain to the promoters.” 1 Bryce, Am. Com. 156. A contract for the employment of personal iulluence or solicitation to procure the passage of a public or private law is void; Rose V. Truax, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 361; Marshall V. R. Co., 16 How. (U. S.) 314, 14 L. Ed. 953; Powers v. Skinner, 34 Vt. 274, 80 Am. Dec. 677; Burke v. Wood, 162 Fed. 533; Houlton V. Dunn, 60 Minn. 26, 61 N. W. 698, 30 L. R. A. 737, 51 Am. St. Rep. 493; Sweeney V. Mc Leod, 15 Or. 330, 15 Pac. 275; as contrary to sound morals and tending to inetticiency in the public service; Houlton v. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N. W. 715, 33 L. R. A. 166, 57 Am. St. Rep. 928; if by its terms or by necessary implication, it stipulates for, or tends to, corrupt action or personal solicitations; Providence Tool Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 45, 17 L. Ed. 868; 'Elkhart County Lodge v. Crary, 98 Ind. 238, 49 Am. Rep. 746; Winpenny v. French, 18 Ohio SL 469; Spalding v. Ewing, 149 Pa. 375, 24 Ati. 219, 15 L. R. A. 727, 34 Am. St. Rep. 308. And if the contract is broad enough to cover services of any kind, either secret or open, honest or dishonest, the law pronounces 618. It Is not required that it tends to corruption. If its effect is to mislead, it is decisive against the claimant It may not corrupt all, but if it corrupt or tend to corrupt some, or if it deceive or tend to deceive some, that is sufficient to stamp its character with the seal of reprobation before a judicial tribunal; Cllppinger v. Hepbaugh, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 315, 40 Am. Dec. 510; Ormerod v. Dearman, 100 Pa. 561, 45 Am. Rep. 391. But it has been held that though the contract contemplates the use of personal solicitation, yet if no personal influence is brought to bear upon the members, and no dishonest, secret, or unfair means employed, to accomplish the object, it is not illegal; Foltz v. Cogswell, 86 Cal. 542, 25 Pac. 60. Where the agreement is for compensation contingent upon success, it suggests the use of sinister and corrupt means for the accomplishment of the desired end. The law meets the suggestion of evil and strikes down the contract from its Inception; Providence Tool Co. V. Norris, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 45, 17 L. Ed. 868; Elkhart County Lodge v. Crary, 08 Ind. 238, 49 Am. Rep. 746; and see Houlton V. Dunn, 60 Minn. 26, 61 N. W. 608, 30 L R. A. 737, 51 Am. St. Rep. 493. But if the contract does not by its terms or by necessary implication contain anything illegal or tend to any violation of sound morals, the fatal element should not, through an overzealous desire to fortify against the deplorable eftects of lobbying contracts, be injected into it by mere suspicion and conjecture that the party intended to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Presumptions in human affairs are in favor of innocence rather than of guilt, and this rule applies in testing a contract; Houlton V. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N. W. 715, 33 L. R. A. 166, 57 Am. St. Rep. 928. In the last two cases, brought by the same plaintiff, the contracts were somewhat similar; but in the fli'st the decision was based mainly on what was done under and before the contract was entered into, whilst that of the latter was upon the construction of the contract. A contract for services as an attorney before a legislative body is valid; Mc Bratney V. Chandler, 22 Kan. 692, 31 Am. Rep. 213; and where it contains an agreement to labor faithfully before such body to effect the desired end, it is not necessarily illegal; Powers V. Skinner, 34 Vt. 276, 80 Am. Dec. 677. It is allowable to employ counsel to appear before a legislative committee or the legislature itself to advocate or oppose- a measure in which the individual has an interest; Lyon V. Mitchell, 36 N. Y. 241, 93 Am. Dec. 502; and an agent may be authorized by the legislature to prosecute claims on behalf of the state which require the procurement of legislation, for a contingent fee; Davis v. Com., the reason of those sought to be Influenced rest on the same principles of ethics as professional services and are no more e.vceptionable. They include drafting the petition which sets forth the claim, attending to the taking of testimony, collecting facts, preparing arguments and submitting them orally or in writing to a committee, and other services of a like character; but such services are separated by a broad line of demarcation, from personal solicitation, and though compensation can be recovered for them when they stand alone, yet when they are blended and confused with those which are forbidden, the whole is a unit and indivisible, and that which is bad destroys the good; Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 441, 22 L. Ed. 623. Acts exist in some states regulating lobbying.