The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-02-06
Legislators Are Perplexed by Su
preme Justices Opinion on
the Nesbit Law.
STATE LAWS ARE IN CONFLICT.
Some Claim That All the Criminal
Features of the Nesbit Act
Are Covered by Other
Statutes.

BY STAFF CORRESPONDENT
JEFFERSON City, Mo-, Feb. 5.-The decision
OF Judge Fox of the Supreme Court in re-
versing and remanding the case OF the
| state against Anslinger and declaring I'M
| constitutional the felony clause of the So
called Nesbit law against repeating has
| aroused much speculation among the legis-
lators regarding the ground which the op.n-
ion covers
The Nesbit law has four felony penalties.
three of which are claimed to be covered
| by the general election law. Judge Fox
holds that Ansiinger should have been tried
under the general law instead of that ap-
plying TO st. Louis. the penalties in the
latter statute are higher than In the other
according to one lawyer, all of the fell
onies in the Nesbit law can be reached by
the general law. There is felony penalty
Tor false registration. which can be reached
by the perjury laws Of the State The
other onenses enumerated as penalties in
the Nesbit law-"repeating." neglect of
duty" and false returns"-are described in
the general law, and therefore invalidate
the provisions in the Nesbit law
Ansinger was convicted of voting another
name nam In precinct Of the Eighth Ward in
and voted correctly in the Seventh Precinct
OF the Seventh Ward. He was tried De-
law.
Judge Fox, in his opinion. says in part:
JUDGE FONS OPINION
the violation Of one OF the subdivision: OF Sec
who shall knowingly. p wiifuy or Ahx fiaddn a-
.g,ty sba & rHtn IN mole than one eeetion precinct
punished for every such ofrense by imprison-
in this shs sse,Sn sa not s two
e'fss seeton %its m o RsSins 500 sYeE
pos to IS sesSn Isl
snPTa- shP Section 2ii4 provides Every person who
laws this State or of any city or o;her munic
paIty thereof vote more than once. either at the
RS. S 8s ~
the county jail not exceeding one year. or by a
and nf IF n4s sss $50 Or ey sqsh n
fronted with the propo.i;ion of an ofren,e com
by Imprisonment in toe Penitentisryy % y't for not
less than two years and may extend to lifo i'm
vision Of the State psnsSsbe by i"fa mprs%n aa1a
Ing Ve may be .of S ne Or
Imprisonment nna s in the county JAIL or both such
Section s. article, l. Constitution of Missouri
cases where a general law can be made appii-
cable. no local or special Jaw shall be enacted:
made applicable in any case is hereby % deefared
s tIdiSial question ,S and as such shall be Judi
i've assertion thas suSieei Nor 1ns sha if'tS The
law: N'' -, A'e seAsiaA
The court. in the trial of this
case. fixes the punishment under the provisions
of section 72sl. r. s. 1899 instead Of section iiiI
the general law Of the State. We have reached
General Assembly has no power to mako an
offense punishable in the city of St Louis
for the same offense; The offense Of voting at
Eore than ore election precinct in the city Of
one election precinct in the most humble village
In the State The onense IL not against the
peace and dignity of the people OF the .!ty Of
81. Louis. but against the peace and dignity Of
the entire State. The offense is not against the
people Of any particular locality, but conteni-
plates an injury to the entire people OF the
state by the violation of the provisions of its
general law.
The defendant had the right to be tried under
section 2114, r. s. 1899. and the court should
have. BY proper Instructions declared the pun
ishment In pursuance Of its provisions, For this
failure, this cause will be reversed and re-
manded. All concur.