None of these expenditures can come within any of the provisions of this section, unless it be a violation of this language: "or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such caucus or convention."

It should be stated that by sections 39 and 40 of the election laws of Wisconsin, the criminal penalties applying to a caucus and elections are made applicable to primary elections.

If the words "To give any valuable thing" are to be given a comprehensive and literal interpretation, and to prohibit the giving or offering of "any valuable thing," "as a consideration for some act" to be done, it would not have been necessary to write into the statute the words "or bribe," because the former expression would include the latter. The purpose of the statute is evidently to prohibit corrupt giving.

Words of a general import in the statute are limited by words of restricted import immediately following and relating to the same subject. (36 Cyc., 1119, Nance r. Southern R. R. Co., 149 N. C., 366.)

"In interpreting a statute. where the language is of doubtful meaning, the court will reject an interpretation which would make the statute harsh, oppressive. inequitable, or unduly restrictive of primary private rights." (Nance . Southern R. R. Co., 149 N. C., 366.) To the same effect, State ex rel. v. Jackson, 168 Indiana, 389. Again, section 4543-C requires the filing of accounts of expenditures of a candidate. This must contemplate that there are expenditures which can not in any wise be regarded as a violation of the Wisconsin laws. If a literal interpretation is to be given to the words, "any valuable thing as a consideration for some act to be done." and some expenditures be prohibited, whether morally corrupt or incorrupt, would the legislature require the candidate to convict himself by filing an account? This is a criminal statute, and it must be strictly construed against the State and in favor of the defendant when charged with its violation.

** *

Applying these rules, therefore, it would seem that the statute prohibited the giving of any valuable thing corruptly or in the nature of a bribe.

We have no sympathy whatever with the expenditure of money in excessive amounts, whether in a senatorial or any other political campaign. That an expenditure of $107,793.05 is an excessive amount to be spent in the candidacy for the office of United States Senator, which pays a salary for six years' service amounting to $45.000, goes without question; that it is demoralizing and should be prevented can not be denied: that some of this money might have been spent corruptly may, for the sake of the argument, be conceded, but it is not sufficient that possible or even probable corruption or bribery exists. The evidence must show it, and this case, like all other cases, must be determined from the facts as they are disclosed in the trial and under the law as it then existed. The committee, proceeding upon the assumption that the expenditure of so large a sum of money required the fullest investigation and explanation, probed every rumor and followed every clue which was brought to its attention, with the result that no evidence was discovered which would justify the conclusion that any of this sum of money was corruptly or illegally spent.

At the time of this primary there was no statute, either State or National, limiting the amount of expenditures. There is no judicial · or legislative decision, so far as we are advised, limiting the amount which may be legally expended. Can we, in the face of the fact that the Congress of the United States and the General Assembly of the State of Wisconsin prior to this election failed to limit election expenditures, now arbitrarily determine that because this sum was spent it was illegally and fraudulently expended, and therefore vacate the Senator's seat? Can it be said that the expenditure of such a sum is in contravention of a public policy which must be given the force and effect of a statute? If so, where does public policy draw the line between what shall be a legal and an illegal amount? The situation is unfortunate, but the Congress and the State Legislature are to blame for not having limited the expenses by statute. Laws can not be enforced retroactively, and surely this case must be decided in accordance with what the law then was and not in accordance with what the law ought to be. Since that election the State. of Wisconsin has limited the amount of expenditure in a senatorial campaign to $7,500 and the Federal Government has limited it to $10.000.

EFFECT OF THE PRIMARY LAW.

It is strenuously argued on behalf of Senator Stephenson that even if the primary law of Wisconsin was violated its provisions_are unconstitutional, because section 3 of Article I of the Federal Constitution provides that Senators shall be chosen by the legislature and because section 4 gives Congress the right to prescribe the time and manner of holding elections for Senators and that this power has been exercised by the Congress in the manner prescribed by sections 14 and 15 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

The Wisconsin primary law, in substance, provides (chap. 451, Laws of 1903) as follows:

Party candidates for the office of United States Senator shall be nominated as other State officers. (Subdivision 3 of sec. 2.) Nomination papers for candidates for the office of United States Senator shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. (Subdivision 1 of sec. 6.) The person receiving the greatest number of votes at the primary as the candidate of the party for the office voted for shall be the candidate of that party for such office (subdivision 1. sec. 18), and the secretary of state is required to publish in the official State paper a statement of the result of the canvass of the primary as soon as the same is certified to him.

These are all of the requirements found in the Wisconsin law pertaining to the nomination of party candidates for the office of United States Senators.

May the people of a sovereign State not provide for a method of expressing their sentiment in the selection of a Senator who shall represent that State in the United States Senate? May they not petition in such form and manner as to them may seem proper? And if it is their desire to so petition, may they not prescribe the method of petitioning so as to make the result of this petition, whether it be in the form of a letter to the members of the general assembly or in the form of a primary, an honest expression of their views?

The constitutionality of the above provisions of the Wisconsin law was passed upon by the supreme court of that State in the case of

15235-12-3

State ex rel. Van Alstine v. Frear (142 Wisc., 320). On page 349 Barnes, J., in delivering the opinion of the majority of the court,

says:

Our constitutions, State and National, guarantee the right of petition. Every eitizen of the State has the right to petition the legislature asking that the candidate of his choice be elected United States Senator. Every citizen of a senatorial or assembly district has the right to petition his local representative to the same effect. The lawmaker is thus advised of public sentiment, a potent factor for him to consider in connection with other matters in arriving at a conclusion. Wherein does the primary nomination for United States Senator differ from the exercise of the right of petition? The legislative candidate is thereby informed of something that he has the right to know and of something that it is his duty to heed. He may not regard the verdict at the polls as obligatory, but should treat it as advisory. Moral suasion may be a perfectly legitimate agency to employ even in the election of a United States Senator. That the electors in the exercise of their guaranteed right of petition might do in substance and effect what they now do at the primaries hardly admits of controversy. The framers of the Constitution could not have supposed that there was any impropriety in the people advising their representatives of how they desired them to vote on the senatorship, else an exception would have been incorporated in the clause guaranteeing the right of petition, restricting its application to matters other than the election of United States Senators.

It will be conceded that while the result of a primary election, under the present constitutional provisions, could not control the State senators and representatives in their choice of an United States Senator, would not an expression of the will of the people at a primary election have great weight with their representatives in casting their votes? And, if this be so, ought not the primary election held to declare this choice be carefully guarded by suitable penalties? We have no hesitancy in saying that if the evidence disclosed the use of corrupt methods at the primaries, it would affect the result of the election by the general assembly, and the Senate would be justified in taking cognizance of that fact and unseating any Senator who was thus delinquent.

MONEYS GIVEN TO CANDIDATES FOR THE LEGISLATURE.

The testimony disclosed that Senator Stephenson, before the primary, gave money to C. C. Wellensgard, L. H. Bancroft, and Thomas Reynolds, who were then candidates for the legislature. They did not live in the same district or county with Mr. Stephenson. They were his personal friends. The money was given them to be used in behalf of Senator Stephenson for the nomination as the Republican candidate for Senator.

It may be said that this money was probably used by these men to further their own interests, as well as to further the interests of Mr. Stephenson. But, whether it was so used or not, there is no evidence that it was so used, or that it was given to them for that purpose.

On the contrary, the affirmative and uncontradicted testimony is all to the effect that this money was used strictly in the interest of Mr. Stephenson and none of it to further the interest of any of the legislative candidates.

MONEY PAID TO GAME WARDEN JOHN W. STONE.

Mr. Stephenson's campaign managers gave to John W. Stone, the game warden of the State, $2,849.50 for campaign purposes. This was distributed among a number of the deputy game wardens; he

retained some portion of it himself, and in testifying before the legislative committee, falsely stated the amount he had paid out. Section 990-28 (sec. 28, ch. 363, 1905) provides:

No officer, agent, clerk, or employee under the government of the State shall directly or indirectly solicit or receive or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving any assessment, subscription, or contribution, or political service, whether voluntary or involutary for any political purpose whatever from any officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State.

This statute makes it an offense for any officer, agent, clerk, or employee under the government of the State to solicit or receive any assessment, subscription, or contribution, or political service from any officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State. It is clear that this statute was not violated by Senator Stephenson, since he was not an officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State. Moreover, the statute makes it an offense on the part of the recipient of the fund only. No offense is committed by the donor. It is true, the money should not have been paid to the game warden, and the giving of it does not show that fine discrimination which ought to be characteristic of men who are engaged in a campaign of this character. No law was violated by the donor, and this election can not be declared illegal because this expenditure was made.

FILING OF ACCOUNTS.

Section 4543-C of the revised statutes of Wisconsin requires the making out, and filing with the secretary of state, a statement in writing, subscribed and sworn to by the candidate

setting forth in detail each item in excess of five dollars in money, or property contributed, disbursed, expended, or promised by him, and to the best of his knowledge and belief by any other person or persons for him, or in his behalf, wholly or in part in endeavoring to secure or in any way in connection with his nomination or election to such office or place, or in connection with the election of any other person at said election, the dates when, and the persons to whom, and the purpose for which all said sums were paid, expended, or promised by such candidate in any sum or sums whatever.

No account whatever was filed of the amount contributed by Mr. Stephenson to the State campaign committee, nor of the amount expended during the session of the general assembly. The account which was filed of the expenses incurred in connection with the primary did not comply with the law in that it lumped the expenses; gave the names of but very few of the persons to whom money was paid; did not give the dates when expended, nor as fully as contemplated by the statutes the purposes for which expended. The account as filed was approved by the general counsel of Mr. Stephenson without any examination of the statute, and simply because it conformed with certain accounts, which had been filed by prominent candidates for other offices. A careful examination of this account justifies the belief that it was purposely drawn so as to give to the public as little information as possible.

The penalty for failing to comply with this statute is a fine only, and it does not provide for the forfeiture of the office. If it did, the statute to that extent would be unconstitutional, but Mr. Stephenson, because of his failure to file a proper account, has violated the statute and is subject to a fine. However, he must be absolved from any moral delinquency, because in the preparation and filing of his ac

count he consulted with counsel, and followed their advice, and if it was not properly done they were to blame rather than he.

In addition to this, the validity of the election which had already taken place could not be affected by the failure to thereafter perform some act enjoined by the State statute. The election was already an accomplished fact and its validity must be determined by the facts theretofore or then existing. Anything done thereafter can not be regarded as a substantive ground for invalidating the election. Its only evidential value would be in reflecting light upon or as giving color to the preexisting facts.

After a careful consideration of all the evidence and the law, we had no hesitancy in joining in the report presented by the subcommittee.

We heartily approve these words of Senator Heyburn:

The amount of money spent by Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hatton, and Mr. McGovern in the primary campaign was so extravagant, and the expenditures made by and on behalf of these gentlemen were made with such reckless disregard of propriety, as to justify the sharpest criticism. Such expenditures were in violation of the fundamental principles underlying our system of Government, which contemplated the selection of candidates by the electors and not the selection of the electors by the candidate.

Regardless of any statute requiring that strict accounts be kept of money expended by and on behalf of candidates, a candidate and every man repre senting him should know that public opinion would expect the parties to place and maintain themselves in a position so that if any of their acts were questioned they could justify such acts to the extent of giving every detail in regard thereto.

While I do not believe that the law of Wisconsin could constitute any man a candidate or place him in the position of and under the responsibilities of a candidate for an office over which the State had no control and which was not to be filled under any law of the State, yet I feel impelled to criticize the acts of those in charge of the expenditure of money of men who are called candidates for the Senate, and especially of Mr. Stephenson, in the irresponsible and reckless manner in which they disbursed the money furnished them by Mr. Stephenson during the period of the primary campaign.

The failure to keep detailed accounts, the destruction of memoranda, the shifting of records and papers concerning the campaign from one place to another, the adoption of mysterious methods and roundabout ways in regard to matters that might just as well have been performed in open daylight in the presence of people, would go far toward creating the impression that there was some occasion for Mr. Stephenson's representatives to avoid candor and to obscure conditions.

While we have no doubt as to the correctness of the subcommittee's finding, we do not want it to be understood that we question the propriety of filing charges challenging the validity of the election. or of the making demand for an investigation either by the General Assembly of Wisconsin or by the United States Senate.

An enormous sum of money had been expended. Messrs. Edmunds and Sacket, who were in charge of the campaign as Mr. Stephenson's managers, knew of the statute requiring the filing of an account of their expenditures. They destroyed all original records of accounts, though they kept what purported to be copies. They grouped these items and amounts in such a way that they gave no knowledge whatever to the public except the totals of each class. of expenditures. The account was not filed until the last moment permitted by the statute.

Mr. Puelicher, a banker, acted as treasurer. He did not open an account as depositors usually do. He received remittances, kept private memoranda, paid out cash, and made disbursements of these