1821 Nov. 8 Codification Offer Abridgmt '.9. Draughtsman gratuitous

1. Plans for obtaining proposed Codes by factitious reward, what, and why

ineligible.

By the application, factitious reward being in this case to be administered, the

case is thereby rendered a case of patronage: in a state of dependence, present

or recently past the persons looking for, or in possession of, the reward;

patron or patrons the person or persons to whose nomination or influence the

person or persons, in possession or expectancy of the appointment with the

reward attached, are or look to be indebted for it.

Every plan of appointment in which such patronage has place will be seen to be

ineligible. The following are the causes by which this ineligibility will be

seen to be produced.

1. The sinister interests and prejudices to the action of which the patron or

patrons in their situation stand exposed, have in '.5. been already brought to

view: to the action of these same causes of bad workmanship the dependant stands

necessarily exposed, together with any others which may happen to have

application in his own particular instance.

2. By the corruptive influence of patronage, the probability of appropriate

aptitude on the part of the workman, and thence on the part of the work, can not

but be greatly diminished.

3. Under the influence of this plan, the work in question will, according to the

mode of payment employed, be in all probability, if produced at all, either

inordinately delayed, or through precipitation deprived of more or less of the

aptitude which might otherwise have belonged to it.

4. By this mode of remuneration, the number of the works, which the legislature

might otherwise have had to choose out of, will unavoidably be narrowed.

5. To the evils of close workmanship as above, will thus necessarily be added

the encrease given in the present instance to the general evil of close

patronage, with its corruptive influence.

Such are the positions. Here follow the proofs.

1. That by the sinister interests in question the aptitude of the work in so far

as depends upon appropriate moral aptitude on the part of the workman can not in

this case fail of being impaired has been shewn already, as above.