State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Collier
| Decision Date | 30 April 1880 |
| Citation | 72 Mo. 13 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex rel. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. COLLIER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
This is a proceeding by writ of quo warranto issued on the relation of the attorney general. The information stated that the respondent, Collier, had usurped and intruded into and was unlawfully holding and executing the office of judge of probate in and for Callaway county, and that he had no right or authority to hold the office; that, at the regular election held in said county for county officers on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 1878, Middleton G. Singleton and the respondent were candidates for said office of judge of probate, and that said Singleton had, at the time of said election, attained the age of twenty-four years, and had been a male citizen of the United States for five years, was a citizen of the State of Missouri, and has been a resident of said county of Callaway for one year; that said Singleton at said election received 2,154 votes, and respondent received 2,342 votes.
The information further stated that on the 17th day of August, 1878, a public meeting of the citizens of said county was held at the city of Fulton, in said county, at which meeting were present about 1,000 citizens of said county, and at said meeting respondent presented the following resolutions for its adoption, viz:
WHEREAS, Our county is burthened with debt almost beyond our capacity to pay; and
WHEREAS, It has become necessary for every one who is desirous of ridding ourselves of debt, the great destroyer of happiness, it is the duty of every man who is in favor of reducing the enormous and almost unbearable taxation, both county and State; and
WHEREAS, The products of our farm labor have depreciated fifty per cent or more; and
WHEREAS, The salaries of our county officers are larger than we can afford to pay; and
WHEREAS, There are plenty of good men, competent and honest, who are willing to perform the services of the respective offices of the county for the following compensation, viz:
Collector, per year $1,500 Probate Judge, per year 1,200 County Clerk, per year 1,200 Circuit Clerk, per year
Therefore, be it Resolved, That we will support no man for the offices mentioned who will not agree to perform the services at the rate fixed in these resolutions.
Resolved, That we most heartily indorse the National democratic platform adopted at St. Louis; also the State democratic platform adopted at Jefferson City in July, and cordially invite all who have the cause of retrenchment and reform at heart to unite with us, and we further pledge ourselves to vote for no man to represent our county in the general assembly who does not fully indorse our platform, and who will not pledge his energies and abilities to incorporate the doctrines set forth in these resolutions in the statutes of the State; also to use his every effort to secure the passage of a bill fixing the legal rate of interest at six per cent instead of ten per cent, the present rate.
Resolved, That we will not vote for any man who is not in favor of making notes and bonds and other indebtedness null and void, that are not given in for taxation.
Resolved, That every man who indorses our platform pledge himself to vote for the men that this mass-meeting recommends at the November election; and be it further
Resolved, That we ask our sister counties to join with us in this great work of reform, that we may sweep from place and power the leeches that suck our life's blood. Be it further
Resolved, That king caucus is dead.
The information further stated that said resolutions were adopted by said meeting as a platform on which to nominate and vote for various officers, among others said officer of judge of probate; that said respondent was nominated by said meeting for judge of probate, that respondent accepted said nomination on said platform and canvassed said county for said office on said platform, and in divers public speeches made to the voters of said county during said canvass, said respondent declared and promised that he would perform the duties of said office for $1,200 per annum, and no more, although the salary of said officer consisted of fees allowed by law, which amounted to the sum of $2,600 per annum; that said respondent, in order to obtain votes for said office, publicly declared to said voters on divers occasions during said canvass, that said fees amounted to the sum of $2,600 per annum, but that he would perform the duties of said office, if elected, for the sum of $1,200 as hereinbefore stated; that said respondent, in order to obtain votes for said office, further declared at divers times and places in said county during said canvass to the voters of said county, that they, by electing himself as judge of probate, and others for other officers named as candidates on the aforesaid platform, would save to the county $5,600 per annum; that respondent caused the aforesaid resolutions or platform, and the fact that he was a candidate for judge of probate thereon to be published in public newspapers in said county from and after said 17th day of August, 1878, to the said 5th day of November, 1878, the day of said election; that respondent further, in order to carry out his corrupt offers as aforesaid and to procure votes for said office, caused tickets to be printed with the following heading thereon: “Low Salary Democratic County Ticket,” and caused said tickets to be placed in the hands of said voters at said election, and by said words on said tickets, so printed, did further publish and proclaim to said voters his said corrupt offers with the view of inducing said voters to believe that in voting for him for said office they would reduce the expenses of said county; that all the ballots cast for respondent at said election had said words as aforesaid printed at the head thereof; that more than 200 legal and qualified voters of said county at said election, and who were intending, before the said unlawful and corrupt offers of respondent were made to the voters of said county, to vote for the said M. G. Singleton at said election, were unlawfully and wrongfully induced by said corrupt offers of respondent to change their purpose and vote for said respondent, and relying upon said offers as being lawfully made, and that the same were legally binding upon respondent, did so change their purpose and vote for respondent for said office at said election, and were influenced and induced so to do solely by reason of said corrupt offers of the respondent, and but for said offers would have voted for said Singleton for said office at said election, and but for said offers said respondent would not have been elected; that respondent, notwithstanding said fraud, intent and corrupt practices as aforesaid, and notwithstanding his said unlawful and corrupt offers to the voters of said county at said election, as aforesaid, had received a commission from the governor of this State as judge of probate in and for said county of Callaway, in this State, under the pretended authority of said election held as aforesaid, and had usurped and intruded into said office and was then executing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Wymore
...ex rel. v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383, 24 S.W. 457; Manker v. Faulhaber, 94 Mo. 430, 6 S.W. 372; Mechem on Public Officers, sec. 478; State v. Collier, 72 Mo. 13; State ex rel. v. Foster, 32 Kan. 42; State ex rel. Young, Attorney General, v. Robinson, 101 Minn. 277; State ex rel. Heimburger v. ......
-
State ex rel. Buchanan County v. Imel
...a sum, say, equal to one-half of the legitimate fees as his compensation, then what would have been the result? In the case of State ex rel. v. Collier, 72 Mo. 13, defendant, while a candidate for the office of probate judge of Callaway county, agreed, if elected, to perform the duties of t......
-
State ex inf. McKittrick v. Wymore
...89; Rex v. Wells, 4 Burr. 2005; Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, chap. 66, sec. 1, p. 311; Secs. 3946, 3950, 4243, 11202, R. S. 1929; State v. Collier, 72 Mo. 13. G. Madden, James E. Burke and Madden, Freeman & Madden for respondent. (1) The statutory remedy (for the removal of respondent from o......
-
State ex rel. Rainwater v. Ross
...or who by offer to perform the duties of the office for less than the legal fees induces voters to vote for him as was done in the Collier case, 72 Mo. 13. Irregularities, fraud, or crime may avoid an election, but do so they must be of such a character as to, at least, throw doubt on the q......