The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1903-12-17
N bribery 4 GAN G Il \
NOT Be PUNISHED
pPlNloNs Of LAWYERS

- SQlN0 IA - 6-tN0
they Point Out That pecision Entireiy
Varies From ! like Case In New
Jersey, and Almost
vents Punishn,sntaS
ST. Louis, Dec.a5.--Can aconvlction
ot d briber be secured from Il Mis-
|Ssourt coust when b supreme court
passes nSthes case3
case ia seriously law
yers and publlcists since the decision
Of the court I'M the Butler case.Many
lawyers have frankly said they doubt
F%tf the crime OF bribery which president
Roosevelt In hts88recent message deS
clared one Of the worst in the calendar,
can be legally punisfHd IN Mtssonff.Sdn
view OF the decision In the Butler case.
Criticism of the supremesscour be-
cause OF Its decision Isl swelling Into
la chorus which cen certain to8briags
some OF The critics beforeth Bar
the court for contempt Last summer
the court caIledAup a@Gountry editor
and fined him Tor contempt because he
charged that a railroad company had
too much influence on certain decfs-
ion. The people OF the editors home
city raised.a fund to paygh his fine, and
when he appeared before the he
had IA telegram In his pocketBtelling
him to draw on the treasurer of the
fundsfor the cash to pay the fine.
An attorney familiar with2the Doodle
prosecutions said thatsthe courts sopln-
ion established a. precedent for making
the question OF a mans guilt OF bribery
dependent rather upon legality of
the act or measure which the bribery
affected rather than on the act of giv-
ing or accepting he money to influence
official conduct.
Tin the Butler decision said this at
torney, there is no question: as to
4 whether Butler offered DIR. Chapman
money to influence his vote on the
award of the garbage contract.
All emphasis is laid on the fact that,
therefore, DraChapman hadsnovoteso on
that question to sell. For this reason.
it Is argued, Butler was not guilty.
NO cogtlizance is taken%ef The fac
That legally 81 otherwise the board did
SaEard%the garbageaycontract and9that
DIR. Chapman did vote on the award.
No weight is givensto the further fact
5gthat@the awarding of the contract was
soon to ONE before the board of health
when Butler approached Df.Ghapman.
Those Charged With Bribery Escape.
ss.Nowsunder such a construction OF
the law a man charged with bribery
has only to prove That the measure
concerned in the chargesis Illegal In or
der to clear himself of the charge. II
he cannot do this he may be able to
prove that he was not legally elected or
was not holding Office legally. There
fore, the offer of money to him Wag
not bribery.
IF the indicted man Is d briber In.
stead Of an official all he has to do is to
prove these am things regarding the
official or the measure to secure d. de-
cision in his favor.
Assuming that Kratz Is returned for
trial, his ase is a good instance.
Kratz was to have received money for
voting for the Suburban franchise bill.
He is charged with bribery. But the
Suburban franchise was knocked out
in the courts because when the mu-
nicipal assembly passed it ITO petition of
property along the streets 1t
covered had been presented liz its fa-
yor, as the law requires.
"Ilratz may plead. therefore, that he
had no authority or jurisdiction to vote
for the franchise bill; that the money
was offered him to induce him to do
something which he could not legally
do; that, therefore, he was not guilty
of bribery. The case parallels that OF
Butler exactly.
f-arris Case of Same Nature.
1.-THE Farris case Is another Of the
same sort. The alum bill which Farris
is said to have been bTibed to support,
has been knocked out by the supreme
court. Farris can say that the anti
alum money was paid to him for some
thing which the supreme court has
ruled he had not the right to do. There
fore, he is not guilty of bribery.
These instances show how the issue
is transferred from the act and intent
of the bribe-giver of bribe-taker to a
purely technical question as to the le-
gality of the measure the bribery is to
influence"
The contentious OF Circuit Attorney
Folk on this point before the supreme
are of Interest in this connection. His
argument was rs follows:
If DIR. Chapman had accepted the
$500 offered by defendant, it would
be no defense that the ordinance Civ
ing him the right is unconstitutional.
THE consequence of any other doc
trine would be that an official could
take money to influence his official CON
duct and when prosecuted could go In
to the question of whether or not he
really received a majority of votes at
the election. All cases of bribery by
elective officers would resolve them
selves into election contests.
IllSiC 10 d dloLlnCliOU AUClWGGnD cases
where an official is paid money to do
something outside of his official du-
ties, an inspector to burn a distillery,
for instance, and where an official has
a de facto power by virtue of an I'M
constitutional law.
The object of the law against brib-
cry is to preserve official acts from
faint and corruption. Surprising that
an unconstitutional ordinance gave the
members OF the board OF health the
right to vote to reject or accept bids
for reduction of garbage, and one of the
members accepts a reward to vote in
favor of a certain bidder. who is award
ed the contract. If the constitutionality
Of the ordinance Is not questioned the
successful bidder enjoys the fruits Of
his contract obtained by bribery and
the public interests are betrayed.
An opinion Of the New Jersey SUI
preme court is quoted. the opinion be-
ing in the case of State vs.. Ellis, in
which a member of the common coun-
ell of Jersey City was offered a bribe
to vote for a street railway franchise
bill. The defense commended that the
council had no jurisdiction to pass the
bill aid that. therefore, the offer to a
IT'S HARD TO r