State v. Short
| Decision Date | 17 April 1907 |
| Citation | 80 A. 631,23 Del. 408 |
| Court | Court of General Sessions of Delaware |
| Parties | STATE v. GREENSBURY A. SHORT |
Court of General Sessions, Sussex County, April Term, 1907.
INFORMATION for violation of Section 7, Article 5, of Constitution, by offering money for a vote at a primary election in Sussex County.
DEMURRER. See facts in opinions following.
Nolle prosequi entered by the State.
Robert H. Richards, Attorney-General, for the State.
Daniel J. Layton, Jr., for the defendant.
OPINION
:--We have considered the demurrer argued this morning, and are now prepared to announce our conclusions.
It will be understood that what I shall say is the expression of my own views as a member of the Court, and not the announcement of the opinion of the Court, as I understand that my brother Boyce does not feel able to agree with the views which I entertain upon this subject.
The two counts of the information, as far as the matter now under consideration is concerned, are substantially the same. They charge that the defendant made corrupt use of money to influence a vote, to-wit, the vote of one Byron Salmons, as an inducement or reward for the giving a vote, to-wit, the vote of him the said Salmons, at a certain primary election then and there being held by the Republican party, etc without defining the character of that primary election. The demurrer alleges, as a special cause of demurrer, that it does not appear by said information that the said primary election was "held for the purpose of nominating any candidate or candidates to be voted for at a general, special or municipal election in this State or elsewhere," as provided in Article 5, Sec. 7 of the Constitution, under which the information is framed. In other words, that the information does not describe any offense under this penal portion of the Constitution.
The provision of the Constitution under which the information is filed, omitting the parts that are not connected with this matter, is as follows: "Every person who either in or out of the State shall receive or accept, or offer to receive or accept, or shall pay, transfer or deliver, or offer or promise to pay," etc., "to be paid or used, any money or other valuable thing as a compensation, inducement or reward for the giving or withholding, or in any manner influencing the giving or withholding, a vote at any general special or municipal election in this State, or at any primary election, convention or meeting held for the purpose of nominating any candidate or candidates to be voted for at such general, special or municipal election;" etc.
The only definition of the quality of the election at which this corrupt use of money is alleged, is that it was a primary election. This is not sufficient.
As I read this provision of the Constitution it is applicable not to every kind of primary election, but only to a primary election "held for the purpose of nominating any candidate or candidates to be voted for at such general, special or municipal election." The same definition is to be applied to the words "convention" and "meeting," precisely as if this provision had read thus: "Influence the giving or withholding a vote at any primary election held for the purpose of nominating any candidate or candidates to be voted for at such general, special or municipal election, or at any convention held for the purpose of nominating any candidate or candidates to be voted for at any such general, special or municipal election; or at any meeting held for the purpose of nominating any candidate or candidates to be voted for at such general, special or municipal election."
The contention of the learned Attorney-General would make this provision apply to a primary election held for the purpose of choosing delegates to a State Convention, whose sole business was to pass resolutions, or to elect delegates to a national convention, which national convention should select candidates to be voted for at the general election.
We sometimes speculate as to what the law-making body--the Legislature or Constitutional Convention--intended to do. It is very difficult to tell what the members of the Convention thought upon this subject, but the only important question is, what did they do? Where their meaning can be found within the four corners of the instrument, that is the end of all construction. To my mind there is no ambiguity about this matter. It is plain and simple, that this provision is applicable only to a primary election "held for the purpose of nominating any candidate or candidates to be voted for at such general, special or municipal election."
This information does not describe the primary election in question further than to call it a primary election held by the two parties in a certain place. Nobody can know from reading the information what was the purpose of the said primary election. Was it to nominate candidates to be voted for at a general election? If so, it ought to have been stated. We cannot infer it. Was it to nominate delegates to a State Convention which should nominate candidates for office? We do not know. The information fails to describe any offense punishable under the said provision of the Constitution. If this case should go to trial, whatever might be the evidence as to the use of money for corrupt purposes, I should be obliged to vote not guilty; because I could not consent to the conviction of a man for an act which is not an offense under the Constitution or laws of this State.
I regret very much that I am unable to concur with my brother Spruance.
The information in this case was filed under Article 5, Section 7 of the Constitution of this State, which provides that "Every person who either in or out of the State shall receive or accept, or offer to receive or accept or shall pay, transfer or deliver, or offer or promise to pay, transfer or deliver, or shall contribute, or offer or promise to contribute, to another to be paid or used, any money or other valuable thing as a compensation, inducement or reward for the giving or withholding, or in any manner influencing the giving or withholding a vote at any general, special, or municipal election in this State, or at any primary election, convention or meeting held for the purpose of nominating any candidate or candidates to be voted for at such general, special or municipal election * * * shall be deemed," etc.
There are two counts in the information. It is only necessary to state the substance of the first which charges "that Greensbury A. Short, on the first day of September, A. D. 1906, at Georgetown Hundred, in the County of Sussex, and State of Delaware, did unlawfully offer and promise to pay to another, to-wit; to a certain Byron P. Salmons, certain money, to-wit, the sum of five dollars, etc., as a compensation, etc., for the giving a vote, to-wit, the vote of him, the said Byron P. Salmons, at a certain primary election, then and there being lawfully held," etc.
Counsel for the defendant has demurred to the information, and he has assigned...
To continue reading
Request your trial