An agreement by a legislator to exercise his judgment in a particular way is not binding at law. His promise, if without consideration, is not binding for that reason, and if he bargains for consideration it is illegal. A contract with one who is not a legislator, to induce legislators to vote in a particular way is open to similar objection if the methods of inducing legislative action are improper. It has been said by the Supreme Court of the United States, in regard to the presentation to Congress of a claim against the United States: "We entertain no doubt that in such cases, as under all other circumstances, an agreement express or implied for purely professional services is valid. Within this category are included, drafting the petition to set forth the claim, attending to the taking of testimony, collecting facts, preparing arguments, and submitting them, orally or in writing, to a committee or other proper authority, and other services of like character. All these things are intended to reach only the reason of those sought to be influenced. They rest on the same principle of ethics as professional services rendered in a court of justice, and are no more exceptionable." 1 On the other hand, personal solicitation of individual members is a method which cannot lawfully be made the subject of contract.2

1 Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441, 22 L. Ed. 623. See also Knut v. Nutt, 83 Miss. 365, 35 So.v 686, 102 Am. St. 452, aff'd, 200 U. S. 12 50 L. Ed. 348, 26 S. Ct. 216; Salinas v. Stillman, 66 Fed. 677, 14 C. C. A. 50; Miles ». Thome, 38 Cal. 335, 99 Am. Dec. 384; Bergen v. Frisbie, 125 Cal. 168, 57 Pac. . 784; Hogston v. Bell, 185 Ind. 536, 112 N. E. 883; Pennebaker v. Williams, 136 Ky. 120, 143, 120 S. W. 321, 123 S. W. 672; Barry v. Capen, 151 Mass. 99, 23 N. E. 735, 6 L. R. A. 808; Davis v. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 241, 41 N. E. 292, 30 L. R. A. 743; Stroemer v. Van Orsdel, 74 Neb. 132, 103 N. W. 1053, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 212, 121 Am. St. Rep. 713; Chesebrough v. Conover, 140 N. Y. 382, 35 N. E. 633; Dunham v. Hastings Paving Co., 56 N. Y. App. D. 244, 67 N. Y. S. 632, 57 N. Y. App. D. 426, 68 N. Y. S. 221; Yates v. Robertson, 80 Va. 475; Houlton v. Nichol, 93 Wis. 393, 67 N. W. 715, 33 L. R. A. 166, 57 Am. St. 928.

2 Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R.

Co., 16 How. 314, 14 L.ED953; Tool Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall. 45, 17 L. Ed. 868; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 539; Findlay v. Pert*, 66 Fed. 427, 13 C. C. A. 559; Hayward v. Nordberg Mfg. Co., 85 Fed. 4, 29 C. C. A. 438; Burke v. Wood, 162 Fed. 533; Winton's Est. v. Amos, 52 Ct. CI. 90; Hunt v. Test, 8 Ala, 713; Buchanan v. Farmer, 122 Ark. 562, 184 S. W. 33; Miller County Ac. Dist. v. Cook (Ark.), 204 8. W. 420; Colusa County v. Welch, 122 Cal. 428, 55 Pac. 243; Weed v. Black, 2 McArthur (D.C.),268, 29 Am. Rep. 618; Owns v. Wilkinson, 20 App. D. C. 51; Doane v. Chicago City R. Co., 160 111. 22, 45 N. E. 507, 35 L. R. A. 588; Bermudez Asphalt, etc., Co. v. Critchfield, 62 111. App. 221,174 111. 466; Elkart County Lodge v. Crary, 98 Ind. 328, 49 Am. Rep. 746; Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. McCoy, 8 Kans. 538; McBratney v. Chandler, 22 Kans. 692, 31 Am. Rep. 213; Deer-ing v. Cunningham, 63 Kans. 174, 65 Pac. 263; Wood v. McCann, 6 Dana,