The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1903-12-18
BRIBERY Can
NOT Be PUNISHED
Effect OF the Missouri Supreme
Court Decision IL But'er
Case Startling.
OPINIONS OF LAWYERS;
They Point Out That Decision Entirely
Varies From a Like Case il New
Jersey, and Almost Pre-
Vents Punishment.

vcn10 FunlStrvlSilAs /
st. Louis. Dec. 15.-Can a conviction
of a brtber be secured from the Mis-
souri, court when the supreme court
passes on the case?
j This case il seriously asked by law
yers and publlcisEs since the decision
Of the court IN h Butler case. MANY
lawyers have frankly said they doubt
If The crime of bribery, which President
Roosevelt in his recent message, del
eiared one Of the worst in the calendar,
can be legally punished in Missouri, IN
view OF the decision in the Butler case.
Criticism of the supremettcourt pc
cause Of it's decision is swelling into
q chorus which seems certain to brlng
some of the critics before n Abarsfof
the court for contempt Last summer
the court called. up a country editor
and fined him for contempt because he
charged that a railroad company had
too much influence on a certain decls-
ion. The people Of the editors home
city raised a fund to pay his hne,aand
when he appeared before the court he
had a telegram in his pocket telling
him to draWlon the treasurer OF the
fund for the cash to a the fine. f
An attorney familiar With the Doodle
prosecutions said that@the courts opin-
ion established a precedent tor making
the question of a mans guilt OIL bribery
dependent rather upon the legality or
the act or measure Which the bribery
affected rather than on the act of civ
ing or accepting the money to influence
official conduct &
I'm the Butler decision" said this at
| torney, there is, no, question las. to
whether Butler offered DIR. Chapman
money to influence his vote On the
award of the garbage contract.
-Ht {. A n 49, ~ 1T {re1oS ia 4or,E FL "a fort IN ar
| therefore, D1. Chapman a no vote on
that question to sell. For this reason,
it is argued, Butler was not guilty.
M cognizanee is taken OF he fact
that legally or otherwise the board did
| award the garbage contract and that
! DIR. Chapman did vote on the award.
No weight is given to the further fact
that the awarding of the contract was
! soon to come before the board of health
when Butler approached Dr.. Chapman.
| Those Charged With Bribery Escape.
s.Now under such a construction1fof
the lava ma charged with bribery
has only to prove that the measure
concerned in the charge Is Illegal in or
der to clear himself of the charge. II
he cannot do this he may be able to
prove that hevwas not legally elected or
was not holding office legally. There
fore, the offeraof money to him was
not bribery. ss l%
.If5the indicted imam is asbriber In
Il stead Of an official all he has ITO dois.to
prove etheseasame things regarding the
\ ioff1cial or the measure TO secure q de-
cision in his favor. 81
"Assuming hatKratz is returned fol-
trial, his case is a good instance.
3Kratz was to have received money for
voting for the suburban franchise bill.
He is charged with bribery. But the
Suburban franchise was knocked GU
in the courts because when the mu-
nicipal assembly passed it no petition 81
property owners along the streets II
covered had been presented II its IA
ivor, as the law requires.
sssIIratz maysplead, Therefore, thatShe
had no authority or ,jurigdictionato aVoftte
for the franchise bill; that the money
was offered him to induce him to dc
oInetfing which he could n~otslegallS
dos that, therefore. he was not guilty
nf@sbribery. The case parallels. that 81
Biitler exactly.
Farris Case Of Same Mature.
eth Farris case Is another of tn
ssainessort. Thesalum bill which Farri!
q is said to have been bribed to support
ftshas been knocked out by the supreme
court. Farris can say that the anti
alu1nSmoney WAS paid to him for some
thing which the supreme u Fllas
ruled he. had 1.-THE right to do. There
fore, he is not guilty of bribery.
.psThese instances show how the fssu
is transferred from the act and inten
!. ofsathe br~ibe-giyer of bribe-taker to
purely technical question as to the lie
gality Of the measure the bribery is 7
influence"
The contentious of Circuit Attorne
Folk on this point before the suprenl
court, as stated in his submitted brie
| are of interest in this competition. Hi
arguments asHas follows:
.-IE r. Er ~ ~ ~ - n a SnonN4nIR ~
$500 offered by defendant, it woul
, be no defense that the ordinance civ
ing him the right is unconstitutional.
"The consequence of any other doc
!, trine would be that al official coul
take money confluence his official cor
!, duct and When prosecuted Gould go IN
! to the question of whether or not /
! really received a majority of votes {
: the election. All cases Of bribery b
: elective officers woul resolve then
: selves into election contests.
!, "There Is a distinction between case
= where an official is paid money to c
: something outside Of his official III
Tor instance and where an official hs
!. a de facto power by virtue of anSuI
! constitutional law.
: "The objectfof the law against bril-
cry is to preserve official acts fro.
faint and corruption. Surprising TIL;
.-Er al oAda1 49,
members Of the boaro OF health tt
= right tosvote to reject or accept biz
= for reduction of garbage, and one of Il
members accepts a reward to vote
q favor Of certain bidder, Who Is aware
ed the contract. If the constitutional
ofstthe ordinance is not questioned Il
successful bidder enjoys the fruits
his contract obtained by briberyHa1
the4public interests are betrayed.
! An opinion Of the New Jersey $
2. preme court is quoted, the opinion b
: Ing in the case Of STATE VS.: Ellis.
which a member OF, the common cou
ell OF Jersey City was offered a bri
to vote for a street. railway franchi
= bill. The defense contended that t
= councily had no Jurisdiction to pass i
bill and that. therefore, the offer to
! IT'S HARD TO AGREE.
~ nanocraf;c Senatorial Caucus Did