GRAFT IN AMERICA

Evening Star, Issue 22515, 7 December 1936, Page 11

GRAFT IN AMERICA

RECOGNISED FEATURE OF POLITICS ~ LIGHT ON ELECTION BRIBERY The Presidential' election of America has just been concluded. It is well known in Great Britain that what is termed “ graft” is a recognised feature of American politics, and Mr Charles H. Garrigues, in his book, ‘ You’re Paying For It!’ makes no secret of the fact : on the contrary, by a gentle irony and satire* he tells the young politician how to set to work. The author adopts this method because direct attack has proved fruitless, and he considers that sarcasm may bo more effective. He writes:— “ From a practical standpoint there are two types of grafting, each dependent upon and merging into the other. These may be termed ‘ vote grafting ’ and ' money grafting.’ Both spring from the same motive, and both act together to produce the phenomenon of graft as.,-it exists in actual operation. The difference between them is purely one of function. “ This-difference will be more easily understood if it is realised that the problem of the practical politician is a double one: (1) To maintain himself in office, or in a position from which he can profit; and (2) to profit from that position. Obviously, the first half of this problem is the more important one, from the standpoint of the politician, since he cannot expect to profit from a position that he cannot get or hold. ' “ Let us take, for example,” says Mr Garrigues, “ the case of a very small special interest. John Jones is a small sub-divider and builder. He borrows money at the bank, buys a block of unimproved land, cuts it up into- lots, builds houses on the lots, and sells the houses—at a price. “ Now Richard Smith is also a subdivider and builder. He builds houses identical with those of John Jones and sells them at an identical price. But, as always happens, neither Jones nor Smith can sell the houses as fast as he can build them. . “ So Smith, who is as honest as most business men,, but who is being pressed by the bank, starts putting third and fourth grade lumber into his next house, omits a beam here and a joist there, and tries to ‘ get by ’ the building, inspector.. Smith, it must be said, knows the inspector. Perhaps he passes a bottle of Scotch. Perhaps it’s a 20dol bill. At any rate, the inspector approves the construction, and Smith is able to offer the completed house for sale at 4,750d01, while Jones is apparently offering identical houses for 5,000 dollars. , “ Now Jones is no fool. He knows that Smith cannot build that house to sell at 4,750 dollars without skipping on - construction somewhere inside where it won’t show. And, Jones also knows that ho can’t sell his houses for 5,000 dollars while Smith is selling one across the street for 4,750 dollars. Jones, let us insist, is an honest man, but he also is being pressed at the bank. So he also ‘ sees ’ the building inspector, skimps on construction and offers his next house for sale at 4,750 dollars. “ Transfer the scene from the office of the individual builder to that of the large sub-divider. Change the name of John Jones to the. Paradise Development Corporation Ltd., and that of Richard Smith to the Arcadian Subdividers, Inc. Change the casual passage of an individual 20-dollar bill to a definite but unspoken understanding that every building inspector who 1 plays ball ’ will ‘ get his ’ at the end of the month—in a lump sum, cash. “ Now, imagine again that the officers of the Paradise Development, Corporation Ltd. are ‘ men of influence.’ The president is vice-president of a bank. The vice-president, among other activities, is vice-president of a newspaper publishing company. Among the directors are outstanding ‘ civic leaders ’ —which is a newspaper euphemism to describe citizens who know the ‘ right people ’ and can help swing elections. “ Under such circumstances the development company does not bother to pay off individual inspectors. Instead, it contributes to a campaign fund. Sometimes it contributes to two or three campaign funds—depending upon how many candidates have a chance ot election. The vice-president sees the leading candidate for mayor gets favourable consideration in bis newspaper. The directors make speeches on behalf of the chosen candidate. “As a result, the company doesn t have to worry about individual inspectors. Instead, if any inspector should bo so careless as to fail to approve a Paradise Company job. the company’s lobbyist or ‘ public relations man ’ drops in to see the mayor. “ ‘ George,’ lie says, “ one of your building inspectors is raising hell with ! our jobs out at Paradise Park. -That’s

a lousy way, to treat us after what Mr Grumpus did for y'ou in the election.’ “ ‘ George’ is contrite. He calls the head of the building department into his office. The Load- of the building department calls the inspector into his office. Nobody suggests that anybody should have any special privileges, but the word goes by that the Paradise Company is ‘ sacred cow.’ It can get by with anything. And, after that, it usually does. “ Now, remember that the Paradise Company is not alone in the field. The Arcadian and the Edeniand the Golden Mansions and a dozen others are also building houses in the same price class. And all of these hare also contributed to campaign funds. And all of them, of course, likewise become ‘ sacred cow ’ by the same process. “ Aiid that, in brief, is graft—organised, potent, invisible government, yet in no wise different from the, petty passing of a 20-dollar bill ■by a smalltime builder.”-