The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1910-05-05

There will be no prosecution in ths
cases of the several candidates who
failed to comply with the new prim-
ary law in filing statemC ats of their
campaign expenses ten days prior
to the first primary election. This
was stated yesterday afternoon to a
Journal representative by County So
licitor Loftin, who has been investi-
eating the matter since it became
known that eight of the candidates
had overlooked the fact that they
must file their expense accounts.
The law provides a penalty-of $500
for the party who violates the act,
but the violation must be wilful and
not through misapprehension or ac-
cidental neglect, as in the cases of
the local candidates. Speaking of
the matter yesterday afternoon Solici-
tor Loftin said:
From the investigation ] have
made it appear sthat certain candi-
dates who qualified to have their
names placed on the ballot in the
primary election failed t. file state
ments of their expenses within ten
days before the election, but that as
soon as their attention was called to
their failure through the columns of
the local press, these candidates then
filed their statements with the clerk,
accompanied by affidavits setting
forth that their failure to file the
statements within the time specified
by the law was not 'wilful' 1t ap-
pears that their failure was due to
either ignorance of the law, inad-
vertence or forgetfulness. In one or
two instances the statements wepa
mailed, but did not reach the clerk
within the time prescribed.
Section 1 of the act Of 1909 pros
vides that every county candidate
shall file in the office of the clerk
not less than ten days before the
primary a complete statement in
itemized form of his campaign ex.
penses, and similar statement ten
days after the primary. Section D
provides that amy candidate refusing
or WiIfuIIy failing to obey any of
the provisions of the act shall be pun
ished by fine not exceeding
$50O.OO," etc.
QUESTION TO DETERMINE.
"The only question for me to de-
termine was whether the failure was
wilful' within the meaning of the
law. This, of course, is a penal
statute and under the law must be
construed strictly.
Prom the numerous authorities l
have examined I find that the courts
have defined 'wiIfuP as meaning in,
tentional,' 'designedly,' 'purposely,'
deliberately; not accidental, or
through misadvertence or misappre-
hension, and generally when employ
ed in a penal statute it indicates 4
bad or corrupt purpose, an evil intent
without justifable excuse.
''In the case of Potter VS.. United
States, 115 U. s., 438, the supreme
court of the United States, in constru.
ing the word 'wilfuP in a penal
statute, said: It's presence cannot be
regarded as mere surplusage; it
means something. 1t implies on the
part of the officer knowledge and pur-
pose to do wrong. The word 'wilful-
ly.' says Chief Justice Shaw, in the
ordinary sense in which it is used
in statutes, means not merely +volun.
tariIy,' but with a bad purpose 1t
is frequently understood says
Bishop, as signifying an evil intent
without iustiiable excuse
In the case of Tufts VS.. State, IL
Fla. 663. our supreme court, in con-
STRUNG the word 'wilful,' held that
the Specification of the word 'wilful'
as used in the statute is that the
acts prohibited must be done with an
Continued on Page Eight)