LOAN SOCIETIES. In English Law. A kind of club formed for the purpose of ad vancing money on loan to the industrial classes. They are authorized and regulated, by 3 & 4 Viet. ch. 110, and 21 Viet. ch. 19.
See BUILDING ASSOCIATIONS.
One who makes it a business to procure the passage of bills pending before a legislative body.
One "who makes it a business to 'see' mem bers and procure, by persuasion, importunity, or the use of inducements, the passing of bills, public as well as private, which involve gain to the promoters." 1 Bryce, Am. Com. 156.
A contract for the employment of per sonal influence or solicitation to procure the passage of a public or private law is void; Rose v. Truax, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 361; Mar shall v. R. Co., 16 How. (U. S.) 314, 14 L. Ed. 953; Powers v. Skinner, 34 Vt. 274, 80 Am. Dec. 677; Burke v. Wood, 162 Fed. 533; Houlton v. Dunn, 60 Minn. 26, 61 N. W. 698, 30 L. R. A. 737, 51 Am. St. Rep. 493 ; Sweeney v. McLeod, 15 Or. 330, 15 Pac. 275 ; as con trary to sound morals and tending to in efficiency in the public service ; Houlton V. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N. W. 715, 33 L. R. A. 166, 57 Am. St. Rep. 928 ; if by its terms'or by necessary implication, it stipulates for, or tends to, corrupt action or personal solic itations; Providence Tool Co. v. Norris, .2 Wall. (U. S.) 45, 17 L. Ed. 868; Elkhart County Lodge v. Crary, 98 Ind. 238, 49 Am. Rep. 746 ; Winpenny v. French, 18 Ohio St. 469 ; Spalding v. Ewing, 149 Pa. 375, 24 Atl. 219, 15 L. R. A. 727, 34 Am. St. Rep. 308. And if the contract is broad enough to cover services of any kind, either secret or open, honest or dishonest, the law pronounces a ban upon the contract itself ; Weed v. Black, 2 McArth. (D. C.) 268, 29 Am. Rep.
618. It is not required that it tends to cor ruption. If its effect is to mislead, it is decisive against the claimtuat. It may not corrupt all, but if it corrupt or tend to cor rupt some, or if it deceive or tend to deceive some, that is sufficient to stamp its character with the seal of reprobation before a judicial tribunal; Clippinger v. Hepbaugh, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 315, 40 Am. Dec. 519; Ormerod v. Dear man, 100 Pa. 561, 45 Am. Rep. 391. But it has been held that though the contract con templates the use of personal solicitation, yet if no- personal influence is brought to bear upon the members, and no dishonest, secret, or unfair means employed, to accom plish the object, it is not illegal; Foltz v. Cogswell, 86 Cal. 542, 25 Pac. 60.
Where the agreement is for compensa tion contingent upon success, it suggests the use of sinister and corrupt means for the accomplishment of the desired end. The law meets the suggestion of evil and strikes down the contract from its inception; Provi dence Tool Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 45,
17 L. Ed. 868; Elkhart County Lodge v. Crary, 98 Ind. 238, 49 Am. Rep. 746 ; and see Houlton v. Dunn, 60 Minn. 26, 61 N. W. 698, 30 L. R. A. 737, 51 Am. St. Rep. 493. But if the contract does not by its terms or by necessary implication contain anything il legal or tend to any violation of sound morals, the fatal element should not, through an overzealous desire to fortify against the deplorable effects of lobbying contracts, be injected into it by mere suspicion anti con jecture that the party intended to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Presumptions in human affairs are in favor of innocence rather than of guilt, and this rule applies in testing a contract ; Houlton v. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N. W. 715, 33 L. R. A. 166, 57 Am. St. Rep. 928. In the last two cases, brought by the same plaintiff, the contracts were somewhat similar ; but in the first the decision was based mainly on what was done under and before the contract was entered into, whilst that of the latter was upon the construction of the contract. A contract for services as an attorney be fore a legislative body is valid ; McBratney v. Chandler, 22 Kan. 692, 31 Am. Rep. 213 ; and where it contains an agreement to labor faithfully before such body to effect the de sired end, it is not necessarily illegal; Pow ers v. Skinner, 34 Vt. 275, 80 Am. Dec. 677. It is allowable to employ counsel to appear before a legislative committee or the legisla ture itself to advocate or oppose a measure in which the individual has an interest; Lyon v. Mitchell, 36 N. Y. 241, 93 Am. Dec. 502 ; and an agent may be authorized by the legis lature to prosecute claims on behalf of the state which require the procurement of leg islation, for a contingent fee ; Davis v. Com., 164 Mass. 241, 41 N. E. 292, 30 L. R. A. 743. Services which are intended to reach only the reason of those sought to be influenced rest on the same principles of ethics as pro fessional services and are no more excep tionable. They include drafting the petition which sets forth the claim, attending to the taking of testimony, collecting facts, pre paring arguments and submitting them or ally or in writing to a committee, and other services of a like character ; but such serv ices are separated by a broad line of de marcation, from personal solicitation, and though compensation can be recovered for them when they stand alone, yet when they are blended and confused with those which are forbidden, the whole is a unit and in divisible, and that which is bad destroys the good ; Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 441, 22 L. Ed. 623.
Acts exist in some states regulating lobby ing.