Sherman v. People
| Citation | 210 Ill. 552,71 N.E. 618 |
| Parties | SHERMAN et al. v. PEOPLE. |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1904 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Cook County Court; O. N. Carter, Judge.
Hiram B. Sherman and others were convicted of contempt of court, and bring error. Affirmed.
C. Stuart Beattie, for plaintiff in error Sherman.
H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., and Charles S. Deneen, State's Atty. (A. M. Pence and S. S. Gregory, of counsel), for the People.
This is a proceeding for contempt of court instituted in the county court of Cook county by the state's attorney against plaintiffs in error for misbehavior as judges of election during the judicial election held June 1, 1903, in the Twenty-Seventh Precinct of the Eighteenth Ward in the city of Chicago.
On June 8, 1903, one Robert N. Dodson filed his affidavit in the county court, in which he stated that he was a duly registered voter, and voted in said Twenty-Seventh Precinct at the election held June 1, 1903; that the three judges and two clerks were present at the time he cast his vote, and the judges searched for his name upon the register, and announced it in a loud voice, as required by law; that he was duly registered from 180 West Madison street, in said precinct, and was the only person of that name, to the best of his knowledge and belief, at that number; that he voted only once at that election; and that the pollbooks for that precinct disclosed that he had been recorded therein as having voted twice. He further enumerated in his affidavit 11 other similar instances of registered voters in that precinct having been recorded upon the pollbooks as having voted twice. This affidavit was read in open court, and the state's attorney moved for a rule upon plaintiffs in error to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court, for misbehavior in their office as judges of said election. To the entry of this rule the plaintiffs in error objected upon the ground that the affidavit of Dodson did not state facts which amount to misbehavior in office, and was insufficient to justify the entry of such a rule, which objection was overruled by the court. Thereupon the rule was duly entered, and a motion was afterward made by the plaintiffs in error to discharge it, upon substantially the same grounds as those set up in their motion previously made, and, in addition, that the order and rule as entered were void because not founded upon a complaint or information, and that the statutory provision upon which said order and rule are founded is void, for want of power in the Legislature to make the conduct of the officers of election a contempt of court, and because it is special legislation, which motion was denied by the court. Thereupon the plaintiffs in error made oral answers to said rule and order, which oral answers were to the effect that, reserving to themselves all right of exception to said affidavit, order, and rule, they were not guilty of such misbehavior in office. Evidence was heard on behalf of the state, and at the close of this evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, a motion was made by plaintiffs in error to vacate the order, to discharge the rule to show cause, and to set at liberty the plaintiffs in error, for the reasons above enumerated, and also for the further reason that the evidence adduced failed to show that the plaintiffs in error were guilty as charged. This motion was denied by the court, and an order entered finding the facts as true as charged in the affidavit, and that votes in the names of 11 different voters registered only once on the registers of said precinct were received twice in each of said 11 names by the said judges of election, and that no affidavit was required or returned by said judges of election of the persons who voted in said names the second time, and that such acts were knowingly, willfully, and corruptly done, and adjudging plaintiffs in error guilty of contempt of court, for misbehavior as officers thereof while acting as such judges of election, and directing that each plaintiff in error stand committed to the county jail of Cook county for a period of three months for contempt of court. This writ of error was made a supersedeas,and the plaintiffs in error were admitted to bail pending the determination of the writ, and are now at liberty upon bail.
Several questions are raised in the case, but the principal one is the vaildity of the act entitled ‘An act regulating the holding of elections, and declaring the result thereof in cities, villages and incorporated towns,’ approved June 19, 1885, and contained in Hurd's Rev. St. 1901, pp. 794-835, c. 46. Section 9 of article 2 (section 178) provides for the selection of the judges and clerks. Section 11 (section 180) provides for their confirmation by the county court. Section 13 (section 182) provides that, ‘after such confirmation and acceptance of such commission, such judges and clerk shall thereupon become officers of such court, and shall be liable in a proceeding for contempt for any misbehavior in their office, to be tried in open court on oral testimony in a summary way, without formal pleadings, but such trial or punishment for contempt of court shall not be any bar to any proceedings against such officers, criminally, for any violation of this act.’
The first contention of plaintiffs in error is directed against that part of section 13 above quoted, on the ground that it was enacted upon the false assumption that judges and clerks of election, as such, are concerned in the administration of justice, and that the General Assembly has no power, under the Constitution, to make such judges and clerks officers of the county court, and liable for contempt.
Article 3 of the Constitution divides the powers of government into three departments-legislative, executive, and judicial-and prohibits one department from exercising any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as thereinafter expressly permitted. We held in the case of People v. Morgan, 90 Ill. 558, that this section does not undertake to define in any specific manner what are legislative, executive, or judicial acts, but, like most other provisions of the Constitution, the terms employed are of the most general and comprehensive character. Section 18 of article 6 of the Constitution, after giving the county court jurisdiction in certain specific matters, concludes as follows: ‘And such other jurisdiction as may be provided for by general law.’ This language is very liberal, and authorizes the Legislature to extend the jurisdiction over a great many subjects, and even in its absence it has been repeatedly held that the power of the judiciary to appoint certain officials, whose duties are not strictly judicial, or even necessarily connected with the business of the court, has been fully recognized. In the cases of People v. Williams, 51 Ill. 63, and People v. Morgan, supra, statutes which authorize circuit courts to appoint assessors and South Park commissioners were held to be constitutional. In the latter case the point was expressly raised that the court could not appoint commissioners, for the reason that such an appointment was an executive or political function, and not judicial, but we held that feature of the law constitutional. The Supreme Court appoints an official reporter of its decisions, a librarian for its library, and janitors to take care of its courtrooms. Judges of the circuit courts appoint masters in chancery and court reporters. The Supreme Court and circuit courts, under certain conditions, are authorized by statute to appoint their clerks to fill unexpired terms. While it is true that all of these offices are connected with the judicial branch of the government, yet the power to appoint is generally conferred by statute, and not by fundamental law.
Several of the points made upon this appeal were considered by us in the case of People v. Hoffman, 116 Ill. 587, 5 N. E. 596,56 Am. Rep. 793. We there held that this law was constitutional, with reference to the power of the county court to appoint the election commissioners, and in that opinion reviewed the authorities. As to the duties of election commissioners, we there said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. Cook Cnty.
...the time of filing of the several levies, is sufficient. An analysis of the cases cited fails to support this broad claim. Sherman v. People, 210 Ill. 552, 71 N.E. 618, involved a contempt proceeding against judges and clerks of election, as statutory officers of the court, where the questi......
-
State v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...is considered by the wisest statesmen as essential in a free government as a separation.’ Field v. People, 2 Scam. 79;Sherman v. People, 210 Ill. 552, 71 N. E. 618. In Cooley on Torts that author says (page 375): ‘Official duties are supposed to be susceptible of classification under the th......
-
Rouse v. Thompson
...and to preserve the equal rights of all from interference or encroachment, have universally been sustained by this court. Sherman v. People, 210 Ill. 552, 71 N. E. 618; People v. Board of Election Com'rs, supra. The members of the several political parties must be guaranteed by law the righ......
-
People v. Gordon
...in that it required different duties and authorized different punishments from the General Election Law. In Sherman v. People, 210 Ill. 552, 71 N. E. 618, this court held that the provisions of the City Election Law which covered and controlled the appointment of judges and clerks of electi......