Arizona republican., 1922-05-18

, cameron nearly a year ago by the
federal grand jury. Each count of the
indictment alleged failure to account
FOR money he had received for cam
paign purposes.
Court Room Filled
Judge Van Fleet read his decision
to crowded court room. taking about
70 minutes to fully review the case.
He held that neither the first nor
second count of the indictment stated
public oftense against the defend
ant. lie pointed out that the first
count does not charge that the de-
fendant was either a candidate at 4
primary election or before a nominat-
ing convention. or by endorsement at
a general or special election or for
election by the legislature OF a state
as senator in congress and there
tore he is not brought by the alega-
tions of the pleading within the cate
CORY OF those required under this
provision of the act" referring TO the
Corrupt Practices act.
The judge maintained that The Sec
ond count Of the indictment gives
rise to much the same considerations
and that the second count, like the
first. must be held to state no public
offense against this defendant
Refers to Newberry Case
In handing down his opinion the
Judge referred often to the decision
given in the Newberry case. lie took
from this case the point that the
Seventeenth amendment cannot be
regarded as in any manner or for any
purpose. part of the Corrupt Prac-
tices act.
ITO hold that II IS would mani
festly require the court to interpolate
into the statute by construction Lam
guage that is not to be found there
he said, adding that such a thing
could under no circumstances be in
dulged TO sustain a criminal charge.
AS additional reason for dismissing
the indictment the judge declared
that the facts alleged in both counts
were wholly immaterial as a basis or
predicate of charge of perjury.
Upon this point counsel for Senator
Cameron, Attorneys II. L. Partridge
and f. G. Jacobs, had made detailed
argument during the hearing of the
demurrer and had cited numerous au-
thorities. In answer to this conten-
tion the United States attorney, Fred
er!ck Bernard. very frankly stated to
the court that he considered the OBJ
lection TO the indictment on that
ground very well taken and could not
be successfully met.
Doesn't Limit Amount
This contention was based upon the
that while the Corrupt
Practices act requires candidate 10
include in the statements all items OF
receipts as well as disbursements. it
does not undertake to limit the
of the money which a candi-
date may receive but places the
specification in this respect solely
upon expenditures. Upon this premise
the Judge ruled that under the act
candidate may receive from any
soui ce for the Purpose of his cleo
lion any amount. no matter how
arge, but is only to be punished in
he event he eXpends for the purpose
IF his election more than the limit
prescribed by the act.
'As disclosed by the averments of
he indictment the candidate in
neither count is charged with any
,ct violative of the statute" Judge
Van Fleet said. "other than O failure
n his statements to make proper re-
urn of contributions received by
lim.' He added that such facts all
eyed are wholly immaterial as a
)asis for charge of perjury.
Declared Not Material
In substantiation of this decision
Judge Van Fleet cited Section 125 OF
he Federal Penal code 10 show that
t is not sufficient to constitute the
ffense that the oath shall be merely