The Seattle Republican. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1???-1915, 1909-02-12
SUPREME COURT
DECIDES FOR
HAY.


Plaintiff, VS.. M. E. Hay, Respondent
No. 7S48 Filled Feb. 6, 1909.
This is an application to this court for
a writ of quo warranto to GUST the re-
spondent from the office of lieutenant
governor. The relator alleges, that the
respondent was elected to the office of
lieutenant governor at the general cleo
ton held in November, 1908; that the
votes were canvassed by the legislature
as required by law, and respondent was
declared duly elected, and on the second
Monday of January, 1909, he duly quail
fed and is now holding the said office;
that the respondent is incompetent to
qualify or hold that Office by reason of
the fact that, prior to the primary cleo
ton held on September 8, 1908, at which
he was a candidate for the nomination
of lieutenant governor on the republican
ticket, he solicited and caused certain
named newspapers to publish statement
consisting of the words Paid Adver
tisement' followed by a photograph of
said NJ e. Hay, said photograph being
followed by the words M. E. Hay can
didate for the republican nomination for
the office of lieutenant governor" and
promised and agreed to pay, and did pay,
such newspapers for such publications.
Respondent in opposing the writ pre-
sents several constitutional questions,
which need not be considered in view of
the construction which we place upon
the statute relating to primary elections.
Section % of the primary election law,
Laws of 1907, page 472, upon which the
relator relies, provides:
go No person shall be com
petent to qualify for any public office,
who shall have, prior to the holding of
any primary election, paid, or promised
or agreed to pay either directly or
through another, or in any manner what
soever, to the owner, publisher, manager
or representative of any newspaper any
sum of money or other thing of value,
for any article or published statement in
a newspaper, wherein the electors are
advised or counseled to vote for such
candidate, or his fitness and qualifica-
lions for office are set FORTH or his
photograph or biography is published"
The language here is somewhat in
volved, and is no doubt susceptible of
the construction urged by the relator, to
the effect that the mere publication of
photograph with a statement telling
whose photograph it is disqualifies a
candidate from holding office. 1t may
also be construed as contended for by
respondent, viz, as prohibiting payment
for the publication of ANY article or
published statement in a newspaper
wherein the electors are advised or
counseled to vote for such candidate or
his fitness or qualifications for office
are set forth, or his photograph or BIZ
ography is published" In other words,
the photograph must be published in con-
nection with the published article or
statement where the voters are advised
to vote for such candidate or his fitness
or qualification for office is set forth.
We think this construction must be
adopted. The mere statement whom the
photograph represents is not such an
article or statement as is prohibited by
the provisions above named.
The penalty for violating this statute
is severe. 1t should not attach unless
the meaning of the language is plain
and the violation is clear. The attorney
general, whose duty it is to advise pub
lie officers, gave an opinion on April Is,
1908, constituting the section of the
primary law under consideration, in
which opinion that officer said:
"That payment of money to news
paper in the manner and for the purpose
Sp0ClIl6u dUON0J IO-WAb' L opiiSoIAOAA -
announcement of candidacy with or
without accompanying photography over
the signature of the candidate, but with
out newspaper comment does not render
that candidate incompetent for public
office"
Report Atty. Gen. 1908, p. 446, Opinion
No. 343.
We do not cite this opinion as con-
trolling upon this court, but merely to
show that Section % does not clearly
make the publication of a photograph
disqualification for office. 1t also shows
that the respondent acted in good faith.
Under these conditions, where the stat
ute is construed by an officer whose duty
IT is to advise public officers and where
persons advised or with knowledge of
such advice follow the same, the statute
should not be construed otherwise unless
the language is clear and unambiguous.
The following section of the statute, viz,
Section 29, makes it misdemeanor for
any newspaper or other publication to
accept money for advocating the election
or defeat of any candidate and then pro-
vides:
Nothing herein shall prevent any per-
son or persons, firm or corporation en-
gagged in the publication of any news
paper, magazine or periodical for re-
ceiving for publication and publishing
any matter, article or articles advocating
the election or defeat of any candidate
or candidates and receiving consider
alton therefor if such articles so pub
lished or printed have placed at the be-
ginning thereof in plain type Of black
faced Roman capitals in conspicuous
place the statement Paid Advertise
ment.' But this section shall not be
construed as permitting the payment Tor
any publication prohibited by Section 2S