The Ontario Argus. (Ontario, Or.) 1???-1947, 1914-10-01
WHAT THE SUPREME COURTS
OF Many STATES AGREE ON
Published at the Request Of the On
tario Commercial Club

/ lfuDlished At the Request OF the On'
tario Commercial Club.
The supporters Of Vale in the pres.
snt county seat contest are continually
making the charge that Ontario and
her citizens are seeking to bribe and
corrupt the voters Of the county by Of
fering 10 donate TO the county court
house and grounds as a consideration
for the removal Of the county seat 10
Ontario. II this Is true, why don't the
Vale adherents seek out those who are
violating the law and prosecute themY
A grand jury has recently closed its
session at Vale and not complaint Of
this kind was made before Il. Another
grand jury will convene In January. In
the meantime the District Attorneys q
Office Is open for business, and II any
one in Ontario Is violating the law we
want them arrested and prosecuted.
We want the people to consider this
matter seriously. II the citizens Of On
tsrio are corrupting the voters Of the
county why are they not arrested and
prosecuted for the offense?
There is but one answer TO this ques-
ton, and that Is that no such an Of
fense Is beng committed. The Cor
rupt Practice Act cited in the last issue
Of the Enterprise does not apply to
an offer of this kind under considers-
ton. Among other things, 1t simply
makes IL an offense TO offer anything to
an ELECT0R TO vote for or TO refrain
from voting for any measure submitted
TO the people. Now Ontario and her
citizens have not offered anything TO
any elector in the county TO procure
his vote on the county seat question. or
for any other purpose. and do not intend
TO do 80. Our people are law abiding
citizens. and propose TO and will re-
move this county seat without breaking
a single law of the land. In the next
place II is not necessary. even IL the
disposition was there. Voters are raj
lying to our standard thick enough and
fast enough to do the work without
having TO buy them. In the third place
we have too high regard for the In
telligence of the voters of Malheur
County to think for moment that
their support could be purchased.
Ontario and her people offer to and
will donate to Malheur County a court
house and grounds worth $50. 10000 if
the county seat is removed from Vale
to Ontario. We are making this offer
TO the entire public and not to any in
dividual elector. II this is corruption
and bribery, then prosecute us for 1t;
if it is not, then tell the people the
truth and stop insinuating what you
dare not attempt TO prove.
This is not a new question. 1t has
been before the Supreme Courts of
over score of states in the United
States. both in civil and criminal pro-
ceedings. In practically every case it
was held that offers Of lands and build
ings for county purposes in considera-
tion of the location of the county seat
do not amount to bribery or corruption.
Such an offer is not contrary to public
policy, and violates no law, either civil,
criminal or spiritual.
In this connection we can not do bet
ter than to quote from the opinion of
the court in the case of Wells VS.. Taylor,
reported in the third Pacific Reporter,
page 255. This case arose out of a
county seat contest in the State of
Montana wherein it was sought to re-
move the county seat from Radersburg
to Boulder City in that state. The
latter city made the same kind of an
offer that Ontario is now making, and
was successful in the removal election.
Thereafter the citizens of Radersburg
brought suit TO annul the election on
the grounds, among others, that the
offer of a court house and grounds
by Boulder City amounted TO bribery
and corruption of the electors of the