The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-08-13

At the last term OF argument court
attacks were made on twelve different
indictments with motions to quash or
demurrers. Yesterday President Judge
Edwards handed down opinions dis
posing of them.
In the case of the Commonwealth
against Frank Sillman, jr., general
manager Of the Scranton Railway COM
pany, who is charged with bribing five
Old Forge councilmen, the demurrer
to the indictment is dismissed and the
defendant will have to stand trial. A
motion to quash the indictments
against the counCilmen charged with
receiving bribes is sustained. and as
the alleged offense took place more
than two years ago, no new indict-
ments can be found.
The rule to quash the indictment
against General Manager $. T.. Way
land, of the Lackawanna Telephone
company. charged with obstructing
justice, in refusing to answer qucs-
tons in the councilmanic bribery cases,
is dismissed, and the defendant must
go to trial
Wade NJ. Finn, select councilman.
charged with bribery, escapes trial by
him. because 1t was irregularly pre-
scented.
The indictments are quashed in the
cases against Councilmen Fred Taylor
and Thomas l.. Mangan, of Old Forge,
charged with misdemeanor in office.
The rule to quash the indictment in
the case against Mrs. Anne Ames, of
| Forest City, Is discharged
L., ~
| Guernsey and others, the demurrer to
the indictment is sustained. and in the
| case against the same parties. in
which they are charged with dissuad-
| ing witnesses. the demurrer is over
ruled,
SILLIMAN CASE.
| In the Silliman case, the chief con-
| tention Of the defense was that the
general statute covering the offense OF
| bribery did not include borough coun-
| cilmen among those whom it was q
crime to bribc, and that as there was
no specific act making the bribing of
borough councilmen a crime. as there
! is in the case of city counCimcn, any
one might, with perfect impunity, Of
fer or give bribe to a borough coun-
Gilman, up to March 80 last, when
the governor signed a bill specifically
making it an offense to bribe borough
councilmen. The fact that the legis-
lature passed such a law, was quoted
| by the defendants counsel as corrob-
| oration of their contention that prior
to this date, and at the time Mr.. Sill
liman is charged with giving money
to five Old Forge councimen, there
10, n
such an act penal offense. On this
subject Judge Edwards says:
The second. fourth, sixth and eighth
| counts of the indictment are based
upon the first section of the Act of
April %, 1874, p. L. lis. The whole act
| is as follows:
Section l. BE it enacted, etc, That
any person or persons who shall, di-
| reCtly or indirectly, by offer or prom
| ise of money, office, appointment, en-
ployment, testimonial, or other thing
Of value. or who shall. by threats or
intimidation, endeaVor to influence any
| member of the general assembly, state.
county, election, municipal, or other
| public officer, in the discharge. per-
| formance or -performan Of any
| act. duty or obligation pertaining TO
such office. shall he guilty of the Of
| renee OF corrupt solicitation, and liable
| II
| on conviction thereof shall be sem
fenced to pay fine not exceeding one
| thousand dollars, and to undergo i'm
| priSonment not exceeding two years, at
the discretion of the court.
1T IS A MISDEMEANOR.
section .. That any occupation or
practice of solicitation of members OF
either house of the general assembly.
| or of public officers of the state, or of
| any municipal division thereof. TO in
| fiuence their official action. shall be
deemed misdemeanor. and any per-
son convicted thereof shall be pun
ishcd as provided by the preceding sec
ton: Provided, that any open address
| upon or explanation Of any measure
| or question before either house of the
| general assembly, or any committee or
| member thereof, or before any munich
pal council, or board, or committee
thereof or before any public officer,
| shall not be held TO be solicitation
| within the meaning Of this section"
| We have given the act of assembly
| at length because of the defendant s
| ninth ground OF demurrer, viz, that "A
| borough councilman is not a public
officer within the meaning of the Ian
guage used in Section /. This conten-
tion is clearly untenable. The language
| designating the persons who may be
! corruptly solicited is comprehensive.
| All kinds of public officers are incud-
| ed. If there is any official outside of
| state, county, election and municipal"
officers he is included in the term "or
! other public officer" The act draws
within its grasp all public officers. and
borough councilman is specifically
| within it's terms. He is a municipal
officer The explanation in Section to
| the effect that an open address before
a municipal council or board or COM
| solicitation, shows ConcluSiVely the in
tention of the legislature TO include
members of borough councils.
There are eight counts in the In
dictment, all told. The four not dealt
with above are founded upon Section
40 of act of March 81, 1860 This act
does not apply, the judge says. and
these four counts of the indictment are
quashed The opinion concludes with
las we hold that some of the counts in
the indictment are good in law. the
demurrer Is overrued."
REFUSED TO QUASH.
The story OF the Wayland case is
concsely told in the opening para-
graphs of Judge Edwards opinion:
The defendant is charged with the
offence of obStructing an alderman of
| the city OF Scranton i'm the DISCHARGE
| of the duties of his office. The obstruc-
| tion consists in the refusal of the de-
| fendant to answer several questions
| put to him as witness in certain
| cases pending before the alderman. in
| which a number of the Councilmen of
| the city of Scranton We're defendan is.
| charged with the offence of bribery.
The defendant Wayland claimed his
common law privilege To refuse to an
| SNCr the nupStiouS harauga tho an