Like nepotism, the taking of gifts by a public servant is condemned
by history. No honest nature can uphold it. How well did our late
General Thomas, so admirable in character, rebuke this abuse, when he
replied to an offer of $100,000, as I am told, “Let it go to my men”!
If not a form of bribery, it is kindred in nature,--and this has long
been recognized, from the Bible down to our day. According to the old
scriptures it is destructive: “The king by judgment stablisheth the
land; but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.”[179] Here again
is the example of Washington brightly lighting the true republican
pathway. The same President who would not appoint a relation would
not take a gift, even when out of office. His example was in harmony
with the lesson of Colonial days. As long ago as April 20, 1703, Queen
Anne, in a communication to Lord Cornbury, Governor of New York and
New Jersey, laid down the following rule: that neither the Governor,
Lieutenant-Governor, Commander-in-Chief, or President of the Council
“do receive any gift or present from the Assembly _or others_ on
any account or in any manner whatsoever, upon pain of our highest
displeasure, and of being recalled from that our Government.”[180] This
rule is as good for our day as for that in which it was ordained by
royal authority.
There is another instance, which should not be forgotten. It is that
of Lord Wellesley, the accomplished brother of the Duke of Wellington.
A work so common as that of Smiles on “Self-Help” records, that, while
Governor-General of India, he positively refused a present of £100,000
from the Directors of the East India Company on the conquest of Mysore;
and here the terms of his refusal are important:--
“It is not necessary for me to allude to the independence of my
character and the proper dignity attaching to my office; other
reasons besides these important considerations lead me to decline
this testimony, which is not suitable to me. I think of nothing but
our army. I should be much distressed to curtail the share of those
brave soldiers.”[181]
His refusal remained unalterable. At a later period, when nearly
eighty years of age, embarrassed by debts, and entirely withdrawn from
public life, he allowed the Company to vote him a much smaller sum in
consideration of his signal services.[182]