Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-12-04
Minnesota Congressman Elect
Spent Too Much Money In
Campaign
MAY BAR HIM OUT OF CONGRESS
Trouble Arises From State Law
Corrupt Practices Act-John Lind
Successful at the Polls Filed Affidavi,
of $3.50 Campaign Expenses-Exceeds
Legal Limit.

.XhliiCdEJOiio, &filIl', k|CSs AAss
Tribune, paper opposed to the candi-
dacy of John Lind for congress, appear
ed last evening with a sensational
question as to Lind's ability to go to
congress now that he has secured
majority of the votes over Loren
Fletcher, his opponent. According to
the Tribune story, Lind has sworn to
an expenditure of $3.50 in his campaign.
when a strict Interpretation of the cor
rupt practices act would allow an ex-
penditure af only SS16.
With glaring headlines, 1T Is Now Up
to Fletcher to Contest" the Tribune
says:
"Will John Lind go to congress?
"Tne natural answer would be, given
by almost every one in the county, that
considering that he secured the most
votes and won the election, he would
go to congress, his good health permits
ting.
But something stands in the way,
and perhaps John Lind will not go TO
congress. That little something in the
way is John Lind's own sworn affidavit,
and the corrupt practice act.
"John Lind's own affidavit, to which
he solemnly swears, may make it Inn
perative for the county auditor to re-
fuse to issue to John Lind a certificate
of his election as congressman.
"In the event that he is refused his
certificate John Lind will be obliged to
bring mandamus proceedings against
the county auditor, and for the first
time in the history of the state the
corrupt practice act will receive legal
Interpretation, and will be tested by
the courts.
John Lind admits in his affidavit
that he expended $3.50 in his campaign,
but truthfully says in paragraphs pre-
ceding and following the tabulated list
of amounts, that 1t does not Include the
fees for filing afffdavits of intention or
getting his name on the election ballot.
1t does not include the contribution to
the county committee. the affidavit
stating that there was no special con-
gressional committee, and that the
money used by the county committee
was used indiscriminately for all cam
didates and not for his especial benefit.
"Mr. Lind. evidently, in figuring his
allowance, took the vote for governor
as a criterion to follow, pointing the
amount he was allowed to spend. But
he failed to read section 6 of the COR
rupt practice act, which says that Htha
number of votes shall be ascertained
by the total number of votes east for
all the candidates for such office at the
last preceding regular election held
to fill the same" Taking the vote for
governor, John Lind would have been
allowed 1897 as spending money, for
there were 43,733 votes cast in 1900 for
that position. The law allows $3.50 for
the first 5000; 50 thousand for the
next 10000, and 81 hundred there
after up to $4,000.
But John Lind should have taken
the congressional vote as a. basis of fig
uring, and that vote two years ago was
but 1853, which only allows Mr.. Lind
to spend sS16. He admits $3.50. without
the other sums that should be charged
in the account.
Section 10 of the act defines what
shall be lawful and what shall deprive
a candidate of his Office The very first
portion of that section says. That at
the election at which such public officer
was elected. the total amount expended,
contributed or incurred by such officer.
exceeded the sum allowed by section 8
of this act for such candidate. Mr..
Lind's affidavit distinctly asserts that
the amounts were expended not at the
primary, but at the election.
1.-The law is very explicit regarding
the proceedings when the candidate ad
mits spending an unlawful amount. 1t
was never supposed that an affidavit
would on it's face show that the eandi-
date had transgressed the law. The
chief provisions are for the candidate
having the next highest number of
votes contesting and ousting the other
from office after proof was secured OF
an excess of exenditure. In such cases
the attorney general must act within
ten days after notification. Proof that
any one of the acts complained of in 81
section 10 have been performed forfeitS
the office.
"On it's face it looks as if 1t was up to
the friends of Loren Fletcher to say
whether they want him to go to con-
gress again"