Healy v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1911 |
| Citation | 80 A. 1074,115 Md. 377 |
| Parties | HEALY v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Supplemental Opinion, April 5, 1911.
Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Henry Duffy, Judge.
Martin F. Healy was convicted of violating the corrupt practices act, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, BURKE, PATTISON, and URNER, JJ.
Wm. F Campbell, for appellant.
Charles Morris Howard and Isaac Lobe Straus, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The question presented by this record is whether under chapter 122, Acts 1908, known as the "Corrupt Practices Act," a subtreasurer is required to report to the treasurer who appointed him the names of the persons to whom he paid money. By section 163 he is required to make a report in writing under oath to the treasurer appointing him "stating in detail the amount of money placed in his hands by the said treasurer and for what purposes the said money was expended by him and to whom paid." In the judgment of this court a proper interpretation of that section--especially when taken in connection with other provisions of that act--requires the subtreasurer to report the names of the persons to whom the money was paid. The judgment will therefore be affirmed, and an opinion will hereafter be filed, stating more fully the reasons for the conclusion reached.
As we understand it to be conceded by the state that the traverser simply followed the practice which was supposed to be authorized by the law, and did not with hold the names for any improper purposes, the court is also of the opinion that the lower court properly imposed a merely nominal fine.
Judgment affirmed, the appellant to pay the costs in this court.
Supplemental Opinion.
Martin F. Healy, the appellant, was appointed subtreasurer for certain precincts of the Fifth ward of Baltimore city by John T. Daily, the treasurer of the Democratic state central committee for that city, to act as such subtreasurer in connection with the election to be held in said city and in the state of Maryland on the 8th day of November, 1910. As such subtreasurer, the appellant received from the said John T. Daily, treasurer as aforesaid, the sum of $300 to be expended as subtreasurer before and at said election. On the 18th day of November, 1910, the appellant made his report under oath in writing as subtreasurer to John T. Daily treasurer as aforesaid, but neglected to state and specify in detail in his report the names of the persons to whom he paid said sum of money received as aforesaid from John T. Daily treasurer. He was indicted in the criminal court of Baltimore city for failing to state in his said report the names of the persons to whom the money was paid. He demurred to the indictment. The court overruled the demurrer, and the appellant was convicted and was adjudged to pay a fine of 10 cents. We understand it to be conceded that Mr. Healy in neglecting to give the names of the persons to whom he paid the money was acting in good faith, and that he had been advised that he was not required by law to do so. This no doubt accounts for the mere nominal fine imposed by the court.
The question presented by the record is a narrow one, and involves the construction of Acts 1908, c. 122, known as the "Corrupt Practices Act." Does that act require a subtreasurer to report to the treasurer who appointed him the names of the persons to whom he paid the money received from such treasurer? This is the only question presented by this appeal. A great deal was said in the argument about the general rules of statutory construction; but these are so well settled that we will content ourselves with the following quotation from the opinion of this court in State v. Archer, 73 Md. 44, 20 A. 172: "All agree that the intention of the Legislature must govern in the construction of all statutes." This rule lies at the bottom of all statutory construction.
The law, it is true, in its tenderness for life and liberty, requires that penal statutes shall be strictly construed, by which is meant that courts will not extend the punishment to cases not plainly within the language used. At the same time such statutes are to be fairly and reasonably construed, and courts will not by narrow and strained construction exclude from their operation cases plainly within their scope and meaning. As stated by Sedgwick on Statutory Law, 287, and quoted with approval by Bramwell, B., in Foley v. Fletcher, 28 L. J. Exch. 100: "The more correct version of the doctrine appears to be that statutes of this class are to be fairly construed and faithfully applied according to the intent of the Legislature, without unwarrantable severity on the one hand or equally unjustifiable lenity on the other; in all cases of doubt the courts inclining to mercy." After all, then, it is the legislative intent that must govern in the construction of penal as well as all other statutes.
Primarily, the intention of the Legislature must be sought in the words employed to express it. If the meaning of the language used be plain and unambiguous, the Legislature must be understood to intend what is plainly expressed, and nothing then remains but to give the intent effect. If the words of the law seem to be of doubtful import, it may then perhaps become necessary to look beyond them in order to ascertain what was the legislative mind at the time the law was enacted, what the circumstances were under which the action was taken, what evil, if any, was meant to be redressed, and what was the leading object of the law.
We will now examine the provisions of Acts 1908, c. 122, so far as they relate to the question before us, in the light of these principles. Section 162 of the act declares that a treasurer within the meaning of the act, shall include all persons appointed by any political committee or candidate for nomination and election to any public office to receive and disburse moneys to aid or promote the success or defeat of any political party, principle, or candidate. It further declares that no person shall act as treasurer, unless, after his appointment, and before the primary or election for which he is appointed, a writing, signed by the political committee or candidate appointing him and designating him as such treasurer, shall be filed with the Secretary of State, except that in case the duties of such treasurer shall relate to any county, city, ward, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial