an insurance contract to the effect that seven years' absence should raise no presumption of death was also held invalid, the court denying the right of parties to fix by contract rules of evidence.74

74 Gaffney v. Royal Neighbors of America, 31 Idaho, 549, 174 Pac. 1014.

Contracts for railroad locations or stations, or operations..
Contracts for location of public buildings and improvements..
Contracts with an interested official.....

1733

1734

1735

Bargains for offices or advantages in private corporations..
Contracts of fiduciaries tending to impair fidelity...

1736

1737

Agreements, the performance of which involves a wrong to a third person... 1738

§ 1726. Agreements tending to official or personal corruption. Any bargain, the tendency of which is to lead a public official, or one subject to a private duty to violate his duty for money or favor, is opposed to public policy. Bargains of this sort may concern legislators, public officers, officers or stockholders of corporations, trustees, agents, and servants, and even private individuals.

§ 1727. Lobbying contracts.

An agreement by a legislator to exercise his judgment in a particular way is not binding at law. His promise, if without consideration, is not binding for that reason, and if he bargains for consideration it is illegal. A contract with one who is not

a legislator, to induce legislators to vote in a particular way is open to similar objection if the methods of inducing legislative action are improper. It has been said by the Supreme Court of the United States, in regard to the presentation to Congress of a claim against the United States: "We entertain no doubt that in such cases, as under all other circumstances, an agreement express or implied for purely professional services is valid. Within this category are included, drafting the petition to set forth the claim, attending to the taking of testimony, collecting facts, preparing arguments, and submitting them, orally or in writing, to a committee or other proper authority, and other services of like character. All these things are intended to reach only the reason of those sought to be influenced. They rest on the same principle of ethics as professional services rendered in a court of justice, and are no more exceptionable." On the other hand, personal solicitation of individual members is a method which cannot lawfully be made the subject of contract.2

1

1 Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441, 22 L. Ed. 623. See also Knut v. Nutt, 83 Miss. 365, 35 So. 686, 102 Am. St. 452, aff'd, 200 U. S. 12 50 L. Ed. 348, 26 S. Ct. 216; Salinas v. Stillman, 66 Fed. 677, 14 C. C. A. 50; Miles v. Thorne, 38 Cal. 335, 99 Am. Dec. 384; Bergen v. Frisbie, 125 Cal. 168, 57 Pac. 784; Hogston v. Bell, 185 Ind. 536, 112 N. E. 883; Pennebaker v. Williams, 136 Ky. 120, 143, 120 S. W. 321, 123 S. W. 672; Barry v. Capen, 151 Mass. 99, 23 N. E. 735, 6 L. R. A. 808; Davis v. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 241, 41 N. E. 292, 30 L. R. A. 743; Stroemer v. Van Orsdel, 74 Neb. 132, 103 N. W. 1053, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 212, 121 Am. St. Rep. 713; Chesebrough v. Conover, 140 N. Y. 382, 35 N. E. 633; Dunham v. Hastings Paving Co., 56 N. Y. App. D. 244, 67 N. Y. S. 632, 57 N. Y. App. D. 426, 68 N. Y. S. 221; Yates v. Robertson, 80 Va. 475; Houlton v. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N. W. 715, 33 L. R. A. 166, 57 Am. St. 928.

? Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R.

Co., 16 How. 314, 14 L. Ed. 953; Tool Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall. 45, 17 L. Ed. 868; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 539; Findlay v. Pertz, 66 Fed. 427, 13 C. C. A. 559; Hayward v. Nordberg Mfg. Co., 85 Fed. 4, 29 C. C. A. 438; Burke v. Wood, 162 Fed. 533; Winton's Est. v. Amos, 52 Ct. Cl. 90; Hunt v. Test, 8 Ala. 713; Buchanan v. Farmer, 122 Ark. 562, 184 S. W. 33; Miller County &c. Dist. v. Cook (Ark.), 204 S. W. 420; Colusa County v. Welch, 122 Cal. 428, 55 Pac. 243; Weed v. Black, 2 McArthur (D. C.), 268, 29 Am. Rep. 618; Owns v. Wilkinson, 20 App. D. C. 51; Doane v. Chicago City R. Co., 160 Ill. 22, 45 N. E. 507, 35 L. R. A. 588; Bermudez Asphalt, etc., Co. v. Critchfield, 62 Ill. App. 221, 174 Ill. 466; Elkart County Lodge v. Crary, 98 Ind. 328, 49 Am. Rep. 746; Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. McCoy, 8 Kans. 538; McBratney v. Chandler, 22 Kans. 692, 31 Am. Rep. 213; Deering v. Cunningham, 63 Kans. 174, 65 Pac. 263; Wood v. McCann, 6 Dana,

§ 1728. Application of principle.

The general principle is clearer than the application of it in some instances. Some method of promoting in a lawful way desired legislation must be permissible; and an unskilled person must have the right to employ a lawyer or other agent to act for him in the matter. Contracts to draft a bill and have it introduced in a legislature can afford no ground for criticism. If the legislature then affords an opportunity for those interested in the proposed legislation to appear before a committee, a contract for the payment for services in presenting the matter to the committee is everywhere valid; but a contract requiring argument with individual legislators even though it was stated that no improper means should be used to influence them would generally be held invalid. In attempting to urge National legislation, however, no opportunity is afforded those interested to appear before Congressional committees on a large majority of bills which are introduced. The enormous number of such bills precludes the possibility of giving such an opportunity in most cases. It is certainly the practice for individual congressmen to receive in their offices persons interested in promoting legislation, and to hear argument thereon. On these arguments the question whether a committee will even give a hearing on a bill may depend. It should also be observed that the evil

366; Wildey v. Collier, 7 Md. 273, 61 Am. Dec. 346; Houlton v. Dunn, 60 Minn. 26, 61 N. W. 698, 30 L. R. A. 737, 51 Am. St. 493; Richardson v. Scott's Bluff County, 59 Neb. 400, 81 N. W. 309, 48 L. R. A. 294, 80 Am. St. Rep. 682; Lyon v. Mitchell, 36 N. Y. 235, 93 Am. Dec. 502; Mills v. Mills, 40 N. Y. 543, 100 Am. Dec. 535; Veazey v. Allen, 173 N. Y. 359, 66 N. E. 103, 62 L. R. A. 362; Winpenny v. French, 18 Ohio St. 469; Obenchain v. Ransome-Crummey Co., 69 Oreg. 547, 138 Pac. 1078; Sweeney v. McLeod, 15 Oreg. 330, 15 Pac. 275; Hyland v. Oregon Hassam Paving Co., 74 Or. 1, 144 Pac. 1160, L. R. A., 1915 C. 823, Ann. Cas., 1916 E. 941; Clippinger v. Hepbaugh, 5 W. & S. 315; Spalding v. Ewing, 149 Pa. 375, 24 Atl. 219, 15

L. R. A. 727, 34 Am. St. Rep. 608; Powers v. Skinner, 34 Vt. 274, 80 Am. Dec. 677; Bryan v. Reynolds, 5 Wis. 200, 68 Am. Dec. 55; Chippewa Valley R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 75 Wis. 224, 44 N. W. 17, 6 L. R. A. 601; Houlton v. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N. W. 715, 33 L. R. A. 166, 57 Am. St. Rep. 928. See also Washington Irrigation Co. v. Krutz, 119 Fed. 279, 56 C. C. A. 1; Brown v. First Nat. Bank, 137 Ind. 655, 37 N. E. 158, 24 L. R. A. 206; Thompson v. Wharton, 7 Bush, 563, 3 Am. Rep. 306; Buck v. First Bank, 27 Mich. 293, 15 Am. Rep. 189; McDonald v. Buckstaff, 56 Neb. 88, 76 N. W. 476. Cf. Knut v. Nutt, 83 Miss. 365, 35 So. 686, 102 Am. St. 452, 200 U. S. 12, 50 L. Ed. 348, 26 S. Ct. 216.

guarded against in lobbying contracts is not so much the individual solicitation of legislators as the agreement to pay for it. In matters of public moment individual citizens are often requested to urge upon their individual representatives the propriety of voting for or against particular legislation, and reputable citizens do not hesitate to do so.

§ 1729. Contingent compensation.

The fact that the compensation bargained for is contingent on the procurement of legislation is frequently held a strong and sometimes a conclusive circumstance in determining the invalidity of an agreement to promote legislation, because even though no improper means of such promotion are bargained for, there is inevitable temptation to use such means.3 But generally where no improper means are contemplated or bargained for the contract is not invalidated merely because the compensation is to be contingent on the enactment of legislation.4

§ 1729a. Contracts to pay for procuring public contracts.

Closely analogous to lobbying contracts are bargains which have for their object obtaining a contract with the National Government or with a State or municipality, where no legislation is required. There is no doubt that a bargain is illegal

* Marshall v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 16 How. 314, 14 L. Ed. 953; Hazelton v. Sheckels, 202 U. S. 71, 50 L. Ed. 939, 26 Sup. Ct. 567; Crocker v. United States, 240 U. S. 74, 78, 60 L. Ed. 533, 36 S. Ct. 245; Globe Works v. United States, 45 Ct. Cl. 497; Foltz v. Cogswell, 86 Cal. 542, 25 Pac. 60; Bermudez Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Critchfield, 62 Ill. App. 221; Coquillard's Adm. v. Bearss, 21 Ind. 479, 83 Am. Dec. 362; Richardson v. Scott's Bluff, 59 Neb. 400, 81 N. W. 309, 48 L. R. A. 294, 80 Am. St. Rep. 682; Spalding v. Ewing, 149 Pa. St. 753, 24 Atl. 219, 34 Am. St. Rep. 608. See also Flynn v. Bank of Mineral Wells, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 481, 118 S. W. 848.

Denison v. Crawford Co., 48 Iowa, 211; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Botsford, 56 Kans. 532, 44 Pac. 3; Kansas City Paper House v. Foley Ry. Printing Co., 85 Kans. 678, 118 Pac. 1056, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 747, Ann. Cas. 1913 A. 294; Stroemer v. Van Orsdel, 74 Neb. 132, 103 N. W. 1053, 107 N. W. 125, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 212, 121 Am. St. 713. See also Taylor v. Bemiss, 110 U. S. 42, 28 L. Ed. 64, 3 S. Ct. 441; Pennebaker v. William, 136 Ky. 120, 120 S. W. 321, 123 S. W. 672; Milbank v. Jones, 127 N. Y. 370, 28 N. E. 31, 24 Am. St. 454; Chesebrough v. Conover, 140 N. Y. 382, 35 N. E. 633.