Oakes weekly Republican. (Oakes, Dickey County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1898, 1890-10-17
AN ABLE OPlNlON /!
The Democratic Salary Dodge
Shown Up I'm Its True Light.

| <AVsoiAcy Heufy D1CK10 Says th(
Democratic Candidates Are
Ineligible If Elected.
10 the Republican Central Com.
mittee Of Dickey County:
In response to your request
herewith submit to you an opinion
and brief upon the action Of the
recent Democratic county conven.
ton in pledging its nominees by res.
olntion to receive for salaries, il
elected, less amounts than are allow.
ed by law, and the public declara.
ton Of those nominees to carry out
the mandates of that resolution.
The action of the convention i.
undoubtedly illegal. The NEST i'm.
portant doctrine Of the Election
Law is to preserve the purity o1
elections and to further the accom-
plishnlent Of that end statutes are
created, defining bribery and max.
ing it crime for any person, in
the language of our own statute
Ito furnish or engage to pay or de.
liver any money or property for any
purpose intended to promote the
election Of any candidate, except
for the expenses of holding public
meetings for The discussion Of pub.
lie questions and of printing and
circulating ballots, hand bills and
other papers
A very plain case Of attempt at
bribery is where candidate says to
an elector, IF you will agree to
vote for me l will pay you certain
sum Of money in case of my elec-
tion." Such a proposition contains
all the elements Of an offer of brib-
cry. The promisor asks the voter
for his ballot not on the ground of
fit qualification to hold the Office,
but for a purely selfish considera-
tion. And by that offer the voter
is tempted to throw aside considera-
tions of fitness and be influenced
entirely by greed and avarice. Now
what is the difference in principle
between the proposition above men
toned and the proposition made by
the recent Democratic convention ?
There is none. The nominees say
to the electors and taxpayers,
"Vote for US and we will give you
a money consideration for your
votes. We will not deliver You the
money directly but we will accept
our half Of the salaries allowed by
law and you will thereby he bene-
fitted by the decreased amount Of
taxation"
The resolutions in question might
have been made with the purest. and
best of motives-an honest desire tn
benefit the Taxpayers. unaccompanied
by the motive to secure Office by hold
ing out other inducements tn tho elec-
tors than personal merit and fitness.
The fact, however, that the promises
were made before the election Is some
evidence against the proposition of a
good motiys behind the resolution in
question. IT the Democratic party
had stood upon its platform and the
personal fitness of its nominees, and
then in case OF election. they as officers
accepted half pay, we would have ab-
solute evidence of the purity of theiz
motives. In such case their charities
would be delivered without any Phar.
isaical demonstrations preceding it,
But the very fact that it is an ante.
election promise, shows almost conclu-
sively that it is made to influence
yotors-and it is therefore illegal, for
the very reason that the proposition
contains all the facts constituting an
offer of bribery, and the courts SC
hold. as appears from an Investigation
Of the following authorities: The Su.
preme Court of the State of Wisconsin
considered a case directly in point
sometime ago, the same being rep-rted
in a6 Wisconsin report 8, P. 213. State
VS.. Purdy. It that case candidate
published and circulated a promise ad.
dress to the electors of the county that
if elected, he would perform all the du
ties for a less sum than that fixed by
law.
He received majority. There was
a contest !for the office. The court
held that the offer to accept for his
own use less than the legal fees attach
ed to the Office made for the purpose o1
influencing votes at the election inval
idated the title to the Office. The Su.
preme Court of the states of Iowa
Missouri, Oregon, New York and &
number of other states, hold with Wis
consin, and have no doubt that in
every case, where case in point has
been considered by a court, Wiscon,
sins Supreme Court decision has been
sustained. 1 have before me the lows
case. In that case candidate promis
ed if elected to pay into the public
treasury part of his compensation
The Supreme Court held that such 8
promise is, within the meaning of the
statute (the Iowa statue on subject ol
bribery being similar to ours) an offe,
of a bribe to an elector and disqual
ifies the candidate from holding the Of
flee. Carruthen VS.. Russell, 53 Iowa
Page $40. In 1870 in an election con,