Reid v. City of Muskogee

• Decision Date: 04 June 1929
• Docket Number: Case Number: 20143
• Citation: 278 P. 339,137 Okla. 44,1929 OK 231
• Parties: REID et al. v. CITY of MUSKOGEE et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1929 OK 231

278 P. 339

137 Okla. 44

REID et al. v. CITY of MUSKOGEE et al.

Case Number: 20143

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 4, 1929

Syllabus

¶0 1.Municipal Corporations -- Validity of Bonds not Affected by Inducements Held out to Voters by "Citizens Committee."

Inducements held out or promises made by a so-called "Citizens Committee" for the purpose of influencing voters in a municipal bond election are without any legal effect and amount to no more than campaign argument which the voter could accept or not, and such inducements so offered, even if relied upon by the voters, do not constitute bribery nor in any wise affect the validity of bonds otherwise legally voted.

2.Same--Election not Invalidated by Illegal Votes Unless Shown of Sufficient Number to Have Changed Result.

Where it appears in a municipal bond election that in certain precincts persons not qualified under the law to vote in such bond election were permitted to vote, such fact will not void the election unless it clearly appears that such alleged illegal votes were sufficient in number to change the result of the election.

3.Same--Term "City Hall or Municipal Buildings" Held to Apprise Voters of Nature of Public Utility to Be Acquired.

The term "City Hall or Municipal Building," as used herein, is sufficiently definite and specific to apprise the voters of the nature of the public utility the city wished to purchase or construct, and meets all the requirements of section 27, article 10, of the Constitution.

4.Same--In Erection of City Hall not Illegal to Include Room for Public Assemblages.

The erection of a city hall is within the corporate purposes of a municipality, and a room may be included therein for public assemblages in the discretion of the governing body, and the courts will not interfere with such discretion except in a plain case of its abuse.Motives of officials and of electors are not proper subjects of judicial inquiry in an action like this, so long as the means adopted for submitting the proposal to the people conformed to the requirements of the law.

Error from District Court, Muskogee County; R. D. Hudson, Assigned Judge.

Action by E. C. Reid and others against the City of Muskogee and its mayor, clerk, and councilmen.Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.Affirmed.

Archibald Bonds and Guy F. Nelson, for plaintiffs in error.

C. A. Ambrister and Bower Broaddus, for defendants in error.

HUNT, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from the district court of Muskogee county.The plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs below, and the defendants in error were defendants below.For convenience the parties will be referred to herein as they appeared below.

¶2The plaintiffs, E. C. Reid, John R. Gil Kerson, and Archibald Bonds, began this action by filing, on the 6th day of July, 1928, their petition against the defendant, city of Muskogee, and the members of its council seeking to restrain them from delivering those certain bonds known as "City Hall or Municipal Building Bonds," voted by the citizens of Muskogee at an election held in said city on January 24, 1928, to determine whether the city of Muskogee, Okla., should incur an indebtedness by issuing its negotiable coupon bonds to provide funds for the purpose of purchasing or otherwise acquiring a lot or tract of land in said city and erecting thereupon a city hall or municipal building to be owned exclusively by said city, and levying and collecting an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes upon all the taxable property in said city, sufficient to pay the interest on said bonds and to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof when due.

¶3This case was tried to the court, and at the conclusion of plaintiffs' evidence a demurrer was interposed thereto, which was by the court sustained and plaintiffs' petition dismissed and judgment rendered for the defendants.It is from this judgment this appeal is prosecuted.The petition in error filed herein contains only two assignments of error, as follows:

(1)The court erred in sustaining the demurrer of defendants to the evidence of plaintiffs, and rendering judgment for defendants and against plaintiffs, to which plaintiffs excepted.

(2)The court erred in overruling plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, to which plaintiffs excepted.

¶4 In the brief of plaintiffs filed herein said assignments are consolidated and presented together.The record discloses that an election was held in the city of Muskogee on January 24, 1928, at which time the bonds here in question were voted, a total of 3,382 votes being cast, of which 2,095 were for the bonds and 1,287 were against the bonds.It further appears that the bonds were duly approved by the Attorney General of Oklahoma, as ex officio Bond Commissioner, on June 7, 1928, and thereafter the bonds were duly advertised and sold by the city of Muskogee., and, as hereinbefore stated, plaintiffs seek in this proceeding to enjoin the delivery of said bonds to the purchasers thereof.No temporary restraining order was issued or sought by the plaintiffs, but it appears that the defendants have not delivered the bonds nor made any effort to do so since the institution of this suit.

¶5 The sole question presented for our consideration and determination in this appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiffs' evidence.The principal contention of plaintiffs, as disclosed by their petition and the evidence offered in support thereof, seems to be that certain improper and unlawful inducements were offered to the voters in order to enlist their support for the bonds, and that same amounted to bribery, and therefore vitiated the election.

¶6 In support of this contention plaintiffs cite and quote at length from the city of Tecumseh v. City of Shawnee, 33 Okla. 494, 126 P. 440, Incorporated Town of Bristow v. City of Sapulpa, 33 Okla. 484, 126 P. 446, andIncorporated Town of Ryan v. Town of Waurika, 29 Okla. 6,55. 119 P. 220.We have examined each of these cases, and find that they were contests involving location of county seats, and it was held that the offering of certain inducements to the voters constituted bribery by reason of the provisions of section 7, article 17, of the Constitution.It is readily apparent that these cases are not in point here, because the holding therein as to what constituted bribery of voters was based squarely upon the above-mentioned provision of the Constitution, which applies exclusively in county seat elections, and therefore has no application here.

¶7 In the Bristow Sapulpa Case, supra, it was shown that liquor was freely used, and other unlawful practices were resorted to in two certain precincts sufficient to corrupt the ballot in these precincts, and that the vote in those two precincts was sufficient to change the result of the election, so a new election was ordered.In the Tecumseh-Shawnee Case it was shown an offer was made by the mayor and city council of one of the contestants to furnish at a nominal rental a city hall to be used as a courthouse, and also a large fund had been raised by this city for the purpose of influencing voters.Sections 6and7 of article 17 of the Constitution are as follows:

"Sec. 6.The towns herein named as county seats shall be and remain the county seats of their respective counties until changed by vote of the qualified electors of such county, in the following manner. * * *

"Sec. 7.Any person or corporation offering money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of influencing any voter for or against any competing town in such election, shall be deemed guilty of bribery."

¶8 County seat elections are controlled by these special provisions of the Constitution relating thereto, and same are in no sense applicable in elections such as involved herein.

¶9 Briefly summarized, the evidence shows the mayor's proclamation calling the election was regularly issued on the 12th day of January, 1928, and the election was held thereunder on January 24, 1928; that during the time intervening a campaign was waged both for and against the bonds.That numerous organizations in the city indorsed the bonds; that there was considerable newspaper publicity both advocating and opposing the bonds.It further appears that certain individuals appeared before certain clubs and organizations in the city to speak, and it seems that at most of these meetings, at least, both sides of the question were fully and ably presented.The evidence failed to show wherein the city officials took any active part in the campaign at any time or that the city was a party to any of the alleged promises made to the voters as an inducement to support the bonds, or was in any way responsible for the activities of the so-called "Committee for the Bonds."The plaintiffs attempted to establish the fact that the possible removal of the Veterans Bureau from Oklahoma City to Muskogee was offered as one of the major considerations in voting for the bonds.That the removal of this bureau to Muskogee would bring 150 families and a large pay roll, and by voting these bonds and being able to offer the government adequate quarters, rent free, would make it possible to secure this enterprise for the city of Muskogee.

¶10Defendants contend that the evidence of plaintiffs affirmatively shows that there was no bribery in the election and that the statements and advertisements made by the citizens committee for the bonds were proper and did not amount to bribery, either in leading the Chamber of Commerce to believe quarters would be furnished in the city hall, rent free, or in inducing the taxpayers to vote for the bonds so that the Veterans Bureau might possibly be moved to Muskogee if adequate quarters would be furnished the bureau free in the proposed new building.

¶11Defendants cite Perkins County of Nebraska v. Graff, 114 F. 441, which seems to be a leading case on this...