The St. Louis Republic., 1903-10-14
VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE
NOT THE question.

I NOT THE QTESTION.
/ But the validity of the garbage contract ol
/ the garbage ordinance il nSt the question ir
I THIS case The issue =. Did the defendant But
I lsr. onsr bribe % p0Stor Chapman. a mem
| Der of the Board q Health. to innuonoe MS
I yflie.sI conduct.
The F-uyar-Isn of the cFcuse Of bribery IS The
attempt 20 influence orfeIaT cOHauct b. corrupt
I means Even II IN proper proceeding tns
7 EsrbaEs ordnance b- held invalid. this would
not excuse the defendant Tor attempting 90 an
! nuaroe hv uidnvy tho ofneial conduct % ons %
Z the m-uraTs - the Blsri q Health. ia award
INK the contract under the ordinanec- Ths
members oT lEe Board o. Health. at least had
the. de l4gt1 pJWsr o. lst tho contract An
{ Ufuc-r Sc fret1 mas Us hrlbeI well As a.
au otncsr l- Jure. ~ ore hold 0fnce created b
an UuluustituIlursl statute, until The statute IS
4'clane1 unconstitutional IN a judicial proceed
HE he Is subject 20 UriDeTy. FOR be Is a de
IaUro CfrrisL - o. a spsclal power a. con-
Gsrrad by an unconstitutional statute ur an Of
neal IS 10 the Iover 60 conferred he Is Al Of
uglsI ge IacJ0 until Jns stzsgte IS IuGIciaily de
clsg-G unconstitutional
II the asIeEcAHt could offer money 10 Doctor
Chapman Tor his vote 30 Izvor Of accepting
the BID O. the Ssnltsry Company, and JhsE
Ua-a caErged with ATTEMPTED bribery free him
ssIf from yhe penalty o. the law b. the plea
that the ordnance giving the power 60 I,OlJ,T
Chapman vote Tor the acceptance or re
Jecu5E Or BIDS Is invalid ana therefore there
'gzs nothing tazt oouId by law come before
B55toE CHAPMAN. he c0aIa as we'll IN answer
ms this charge q stt-nptsd briuery. Httaok
the yaIldiJy " htssouris admission into the
Jai1n. Claiming tlat Missouri really Is not a
legal State ana 'tneIeGoTe the legislature ha1
30 power 90 enact a ChaTIe- I0r 81 Louis.
and therefore the MUNICIPAL Assembly of ST
Louis had 10 IsEai rllsJsuce. and thtrsfOrs had
y" power % 0ui-gHts 60 Board ot Ii.s,Igb
tns right % acUspS Or TeJsct bids f0E the Ear-
blge ordinance. and JEErsioEe there vas aOya-
ma that could ly I4E oglae BeigEs tbs Band
uL Health. and therefore the defendant com
misJed 10 crime in attempting 10 bribs one o;
OI money.
Tals oueht not u Ie and Is not the Law.
The purpose o. the law f1E furnishing bribery
- 10 preserve ofric.ll agJs froIu taiug anu COZ
l1pri0n
II the case u sIsse " Graham. = sIo.. -.
the defendant offered 3 10 the Mayor Of Sc
Gala appoint MIA an engineer. When in
dicted fyr attempted bEfbery. the defenda.l Slt
W as a defense that he Was ineligible 10 the
oIaae q engineer and therefore had done no
harm ia attempting 70 bribe the Mayer 10 sp-
point him The c0urJ held that the suglhiIty
II Jls defendant as snEiue=r vas not the aues-
ton Luz WI af"a Ne 4ITfaa.lf4 NH atluAflhAE u
0gaglaI conduct oI Jae Mayor by giving him a
bTibr
Ia the case Of FlIrenz vs. state. u Tex APP.
I1z. the Deputy shrriE vas ofiered JTib- 70
let a prisoner e=cape. ~ the trial for at
tempted bribery. the defendant sought 20 show
that the Deputy sheriff had really never been
appointed and never qualined. The court held
this 20 l- no defense a. all
In MgseIy vs.. state. - Tex. APP. SIS. an
0fdcer accepted a bribe 90 release pris1u-". /
inI when CHARGED with the oIense pleaded that |
he had no power 20 make the arrest anyway.
The g5urt held that such issue Is Irrelevant /
and imruat-GIaL The law abh0Ts even ten |
tency 20 offrlaI corruption. and g & official !
corruption that this statute - intended TO pun
.sh not the illegal arrest and detention q eiti- |
zens.
In state -. Ellis g y T. law. IL. The de- !
Sendnnt offered q member u the Common Cgua- /
III OF Jersey city brfbe 10 vote IN favor % 4
an sgglicsti0a 20 las q railroad track alonE Cne /
u the public streets q hat city When /
.harred with attempted bribery. defendant
,leadsl that the Council dId not have iurisdic-
ion 10 grant the application anyway. The court 1
held this TO be im1aierisl- Il the application
,raS. in p5int o. fact. made In attempt 70 So
cure votes for Il ~ corrupt use u money. Il
IS bribery.
SIMILAR OFFENSEs
COMPETENT.
Tn. evidence of Doctor MsrreIl a. 10 " sim