CORRUPTION.
(To THE EDITOR or TUE " SPECTATOR."7 &a,—Your remarks on "The Sin of Public Corruption" en- -courage me to write to you asking whether the sin of private cor- ruption is not equally rampant, and equally calling for stronger measures of repression. In my own business the Corruption Act Is practically a dead letter, and I believe the same is equally true of many other trades and professions, not even excepting the legal, where one would least expect to find it. When the Act was passed a general meeting of our trade agreed unanimously to give up the system of paying commissions, and for a short time I believe the resolution was adhered to. Then two or three unscrupulous firms began the practice afresh, and most unfortunately a prosecu- tion against one of them failed, and so encouraged all those who were sitting on the fence to fall in with the system of bribery. At the present time it is almost an impossibility for any firm to do business without paying commissions to their customers' agents, so that those who obey the law are being driven out of the business, or at any rate restricted to the least profitable branches of it. The methods under which this system of bribery is carried on render it almost impossible to obtain evidence or secure a con- viction. "Information received," as the police phrase it, is superabundant; but " evidence " is not to be had, though a large reward has been offered for it. Surely the public is concerned to see that the honest men are not driven out of business, while rascals flourish and grow fat. Why, then, the general apathy? Is it that the evil is so widely spread that the grout majority would rather stifle than stimulate inquiry? I shall be pleased to give fuller details of any experiences in this matter if the editor will allow. Meanwhile I enclose my card, and, as I do not seek a gratuitous advertisement for my firm, sign myself A SUFFERER. [We have dealt with this subject in our leading columns.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
