Case ID: sc_87/html/0150-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Woods.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

7690
    McLAUGHLIN v. ZEIGLER.
    1. Elections — Contests.'—Notice of protest and contest of a primary election must be served on respondent.
    2. Primary Elections. — Under the provisions of the act, 24 Stat., 949, requiring a candidate in a primary election to make a pledge that he would render under oath immediately after the election an itemized statement of all further moneys spent or provided by him in said election, a statement filed on the second day after the election that he had spent no further money, held sufficient.
    Mr. Justice Woods dissents.
    
    Petition in the original jurisdiction of this Court by T. J. McLaughlin for writ of certiorari against J. L. Zeigler and the State Executive Committee.
    McLaughlin and Zeigler were both candidates for Supervisor in Calhoun county. McLaughlin contested the election of Zeigler on the ground that he had not filed in time after the election a sworfi statement of further moneys spent or provided in the election. The statement was sworn to and filed on September 1st at 2:55 P. M. after the election on August 30th. It was to the effect that no further moneys had been spent by him. The statute requires the following pledge:
    “I hereby pledge that I will not give nor spend money, or use intoxicating liquors for the purpose of obtaining or influencing votes, and that I shall, at the conclusion of the campaign and before the primary elections, render to> the Clerk of Court or (Secretary of State as hereinbefore provided) under oath, an itemized statement of all money spent or provided by me during the campaign for campaign purposes up to that time, and I further pledge that I will, immediately after the primary election or elections that I am a candidate in, render ■ an itemized statement, under oath, showing all- further moneys spent or provided by me in said election.”
    
      The County Executive Committee dismissed the contest, which action was affirmed on appeal by the State Executive Committee.
    
      Messrs. R. H. Welch and 7. Í17. Walker for Petitioner.
    
      Messrs. 7. A. Merritt and Glasé and Herbert contra.
    October 21, 1910.
   Per Curiam.

This was an application for a writ of certiorari addressed to the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

There are two reasons why the writ should be denied.

(1). Because there was no notice of pretest 1 served upon J. L. Zeigler the respondent, and

(2). Because there was a substantiál compliance 2 with the requirements of the Act.

Petition dismissed.

Mr. Justice Woods.

7 concur in dismissing the petition on the ground that there was no notice of protest served on J. L. Zeigler, respondent. I dissent, however, from the conclusion that there was a substantial compliance with the statute in filing the statement. The statutory requirement is that the statement made after the election shall include and embrace “all further moneys spent or provided” by the candidate in the election. In limiting the statement to money spent and not including money provided, I think Mr. Zeigler did not comply with the statute, and it seems to me to' hold that the variance was not substantial opens the door to evasion of a statutory provision vitally affecting the purity of elections.