The San Francisco call., 1896-05-23
CAVAN AGH Is SET FREE.
A Sacramento Politician Scores a Point
ON the Handling of Voters.

A Sacramento Politician Scores n Point
ON the Handling of Voters.
The Supreme Court has set B. w. Cava-
nagh free OF the charge of violating the
purity of elections law, and incidentally
has declared that the law does not apply
to primary elections.
Cavanagh was convicted in Sacramento
of Offering a man $100 to vote at the pri-
mary election for certain delegates to the
county convention and to work for their
election. The indictment was demurred
to on the ground that the law does not ap-
ply to primary elections, and the demurrer
was sustained. On appeal this Judgment
was affirm ed. The principal part of the
opinion just rendered by the Supreme
Court is as follows:
1t will be observed that the defendant was
charged with attempting, by the use of money.
TO influence the election OF certain delegates
at Republican primary election. 1t is now
claimed that the purity of elections act does
not apply to prim ary elections ana this court
is in accord with such contention. primary
election is purely creation of political parties
and Citations. These parties and associa-
tions may hold such elections or they may not,
1t is not compulsory upon them, and if they do
hold such elect ions they may hold them at
terms and condit ions as to them may seem fit.
While there is law upon the statute books
providing the machinery for holding primary
elections. it is not in any sense manda tory
upon political parties to invoke ITS provisions,
but upon the contrary resort to It's provisions
is a mere matter of cho ice
1t follows from the foregoing that no impor-
tance can be attached TO the words found In
the indictment stating that this primary was
tfdulv rpOu1ar1v oallad +hac
are not equivalent to the statement and do not
even convey the idea that it was held under
the provisions of the Political Code. For, as we
have seen, political parties are law unto
themselves as tc the conduct of primary elec-
tions.
Another question presents itself which cuts
deeper than the one to which we have already
adverted. The eAttorney-General has been able
to place his finger upon but e single provision
of this law which looks toward the support of
this Indictment and that provision is subdi-
vision 3 of section 10.
Among other things section 19 provides at
shall be unlawful for any person directly or
indirectly, by himself or through any other
person o. to pay, lend or contribute or offer or
promise to pay, lend or contribute any money
or other valuable consideration to or for any
voter or to or foc any other person to induce
such voter to vote or refrain from voting at
any election; (2) to give, offer or promise any
office, place or employment, or to promise,
procure or endeavor to procure any Office place
or employment to or for any voter, or to or
for any other person, in order to induce such
voter to vote or refrain from voting at any
election; (3) to make any gift loan, promise.
offer, procurement o. agreement, as Aforesaid,
to, for or with any person in order 10 induce
such person to procure or endeavor to pro-
cure the election of any person or the vote of
any voter at any election"
The word election" as here used in sub
division 3, and the other subdivisions of sec
ton 10. does not refer to primary elections,
The purity ofelections law is entitled "An act to
promote the purity of elections by regulating
the conduct thereof" In the body of this act
may be found the word election" a hundred
times or more, and it may be said in every in
stance that 1t is plainly apparent that the
word Is not used as applying to primary elec-
found In the act, subdivision of section 10,
and In section 25, but in neither of these places
In the law does this indictment find any sup
port.