The Ontario Argus. (Ontario, Or.) 1???-1947, 1914-10-01

county. The Supreme Court Of Mon
tana, in passing upon this branch Of the
case, uses the following language, to-
wit:
"The petitioners rely upon the allega-
tions Of their application, that prior to
the election there was presented an
offer to the voters Of the county In the
form Of a bond, conditioned for the
building Of courthouse at Boulder
City, providing majority Of the votes
cast at the election were in favor Of
changing the county seat Of the county
TO that place. This offer was not brib-
cry. A proposition of this kind, look
ing to the public welfare, and for the
benefit Of all the people alike. contains
no element Of criminality or immortality.
The thing offered Is Of public nature.
pertaining TO the public and not TO in
dividuals, and the party to be influenc-
cd Is whole county. and In manner
to benefit every inhsbitant thereof.
This Is not a case Of a candidate for
public Office, who, In order to secure
votes, promises In case he shall be el-
ected to donate q portion Of his salary
or other valuable things 70 the county
or state. This would be simply prop
osition to purchase an Office In con-
sideration Of personal service or money,
or both. Such a proposition the law
condemns as against sound policy. and
as tending TO corruption. A man who
is so infrm In morals as TO be willing
TO purchase an Office. would probably
resort TO corrupt practices In order to
extort from the people the price paid.
Public buildings and places TO transact
the public business Of the people are In
every county necessity. They are
provided. and rightfully, by tax upon
the whole people. for the reason that
all are benefited by their erection. But
II. during the pendency Of an election
10 change a county seat. a man or
company Of men should erect at
certain place courthouse and county
offices in order TO retain the county seat
at such place. could such man or COM
pany be charged with bribery. or the
exercise of an undue influence upon the
election? Reasonable men in casting
their ballots look TO the public interest
and general welfare. A self-governing
people have the right to do in legal
way whatever is not forbidden by the
law or public policy. for the public good.
Philanthropy might erect public build
ing for the use of the people. Might
the donor not give and the people ac-
cept without the people being guilty of
a crime? And If such gift were a
and made during the pend
ency of an election to remove or change
the county seat, is it possible that the
people would be guilty of crime il,
in casting their ballots, they took into
the public benefits to be
derived from such gift? The motive
which prompts the gift is not material.
IL the donation promotes the public
welfare, the people, in casting their
ballots, have the right to consider it,
the motive be good or bad. A
whole people are not bribed by the be-
stowal of public benefits for the good
of all alike. The law proceeds upon
the theory that a self-governing people
are self-respecting. and that whole
will not do any act that
reflects upon their honor or integrity. "
Says Woodward, j., speaking for the
Supreme Court of Iowa, no Iowa, 220:
1--WE do not think the giving facilit-
les for public convenience to the whole
such as furnishing a building
for the courts and offices. and thus re-
lieving the county from a burden of
expense, amounts to bribery. Nor
would the giving property, though not
Of that specific character, but yet
adapted TO reducing the expense of a
change. If the people of town desire
a county seat located at such place,
there is no wrong and no corruption in
their offering and giving facilities to
produce that result. Either in build
ings and offices direct, for the use of
the public, or in property or money TO
procure the facilities. they may offer
to take away or to lessen the peeun-