"Any contract," says Greenhood,64 "contemplating the use of secret influence with public officers,65 or calculated to induce the use of such influence,66 is void, especially when one of the parties is a public officer himself,67 though he be but a representative of a foreign

States, and the manner of compensation. Davis v. Com., 164 Mass. 241, 41 N. E. 292, 30 L. R. A. 743. See, also, Opinion of Justices, 72 N. H. 601, 54 Atl. 950. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 126; Cent. Dig. §§ 586-593.

63TRIST v. CHILD, 21 Wall. 441. 22 L. Ed. G23, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 241; Bryan v. Reynolds, 5 Wis. 200, 68 Am. Dec. 55; Chesebrough v. Conover, 140 N. Y. 382, 35 N. E. 633 (affirming 66 Hun, 634, 21 N. Y. Supp. 566); Salinas v. Stillman, 66 Fed. 677, 14 C C. A. 50. And see Houlton v. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N. W. 715, 33 L. R. A. 166, 57 Am. St Rep. 928; Cole v. Brown-Hurley Hardware Co., 139 Iowa, 487, 117 N. W. 746, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1161, 16 Ann. Cas. 846. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 126; Cent. Dig. §§ 5S6-59S.

64 Greenh. Pub. Pol. p. 357, rule 300.

65 Murray v. Wakefield, 9 Mo. App. 591; Hutchen v. Gibson, 1 Bush (Ky.) 270. To use influence to procure session of legislature at a particular place. Thorne v. Yontz, 4 Cal. 321. To use influence, or agreement tending to encourage use of influence, with the prosecuting attorney in respect to criminal prosecutions. Ormerod v. Dearman, 100 Pa. 561, 45 Am. Rep. 391; Wight v. Rindskopf, 43 Wis. 344; Wildey v. Collier, 7 Md. 273, 61 Am. Dec. 346; Rhodes v. Neal, 64 Ga. 704, 37 Am. Rep. 93; Barron v. Tucker, 53 Vt 338, 38 Am. Rep. 684. Agreement for compensation to use influence to procure pardon of convict, or commutation of sentence. Haines v. Lewis, 54 Iowa, 301, 6 N. W. 495, 37 Am. Rep. 202; O'Reilly v. Cleary, 8 Mo. App. 186; Kribben v. Haycraft, 26 Mo. 396; Hatzfield v. Gulden, 7 Watts (Pa.) 152, 31 Am. Dec. 750; Norman v. Cole, 3 Esp. 253; Deering & Co. v. Cunningham, 63 Kan. 174, 65 Pac. 263, 54 L. R. A. 410. But see Formby v. Pryor, 15 Ga. 258; Moyer v. Cantieny, 41 Minn. 242, 42 N. W. 1060; Rau v. Boyle, 5 Bush (Ky.) 253; Timothy v. Wright, 8 Gray (Mass.) 522; Chadwick v. Knox, 31 N. H. 226, 64 Am. Dec. 329 - sustaining such an agreement where no corrupt means were to be resorted to. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 131; Cent. Dig. §§ 594-607.

66 TRIST v. CHILD, 21 Wall. 441, 22 L. Ed. 623, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 241; Tool Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall. 45, 17 L. Ed. 868; Ormerod v. Dear-man, 100 Pa. 561, 45 Am. Rep. 391; Bowman v. Coffroth, 59 Pa. 19; O'Hara v. Carpenter, 23 Mich. 410, 9 Am. Rep. 89. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 131; Cent. Dig. §§ 594,-607.

67 Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 539; Hovey v. Storer, government, and his position be merely honorary." 63 Under this rule any agreement by which a person is to endeavor to procure a government contract for another by the use of corrupt means is illegal. Some courts hold that such an agreement, though a compensation is to be paid, is not illegal in itself, but becomes so only where corrupt means are to be resorted to.69 Other courts, however, have held that any such agreement, for a compensation, is illegal, because of its tendency to introduce corrupt means. "Considerations," it has been said by the supreme court of the United States, "as to the most efficient and economical mode of meeting the public wants should alone control, in this respect, the action of every department of the government. * * * Whatever tends to introduce any other elements into the transaction is against public policy. That agreements like the one under consideration have this tendency is manifest. They tend to introduce personal solicitation and personal influence as elements in the procurement of contracts; and thus directly lead to inefficiency in the public service, and to unnecessary expenditures of the public funds." 70

It has also been held that a contract to bribe or corruptly influence officers of a foreign government will not be enforced in the courts of this country, even though it may not be invalid according to the laws and customs of the foreign country. The courts will refuse to enforce such a contract, "not from any consideration of the interests of that government, or any regard for its policy, but from the inherent viciousness of the transaction, its repugnance to our morality, and the pernicious effect which its enforcement by our courts would have upon our people." 71

63 Me. 486. See "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 131; Cent. Dig. §§ 594-607.

68 Note 71, infra.

69 Lyon v. Mitchell, 36 N. T. 235, 93 Am. Dec. 502; Southard v. Boyd, 51 N. Y. 177; Beal v. Polhemus, 67 Mich. 130, 34 N. W. 532; Winpenny v. French, 18 Ohio St. 469; Barry v. Capen, 151 Mass. 99, 23 N. E. 735, 6 L. R. A. 808; Forniby v. Pryor, 15 Ga. 258; Moyer v. Cantieny, 41 Minn. 242, 42 N. W. 1060; Chadwick v. Knox, 31 N. H. 226, 64 Am. Dec. 329. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 131; Cent. Dig. §§ 594-607.

70 Tool Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall. 45, 17 L. Ed. 868. And see Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 539; Elkhart County Lodge v. Crary, 98 Ind. 238, 49 Am. Rep. 746; Meguire v. Corwine, 101 U. S. 108, 25 L. Ed. 899; Devlin v. Brady, 36 N. Y. 531; Spence v. Harvey, 22 Cal. 336, 83 Am. Dec. 69; Caton v. Stewart, 76 N. C. 357; Critchfield v. Paving Co., 174 I11. 406, 51 N. E. 552, 42 L. R. A. 347; Russell v. Courier Printing & Publishing Co., 43 Colo. 321, 95 Pac. 936; Hare v. Phaup, 23 Okl. 575, 101 Pac. 1050, 138 Am. St Rep. 852. See "Contracts:' Dec. Dig. (Keg-No.) § 131; Cent. Dig. §§ 59J,-607.

71 Oscanyan v. Arras Co., 103 U. S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 539. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 131; Cent. Dig. §§ 594-607.

As in the case of contracts to render services in procuring the passage of acts and ordinances, so also in the case of contracts to render services in procuring administrative action by government officials, the services contracted for may be legitimate. If the contract does not tend to induce the use of corrupt means, and in some jurisdictions, as we have seen, if corrupt means are not to be resorted to, the contract is valid.72