Weber v. State of Illinois

JOSEPH A. WEBER

v. STATE OF ILLINOIS. Opinion filed November 29, 1918.

MEANING OF LEGISLATURE. CONTEST. Legislature acts in judicial capacity. Under the Constitution the Legislature acts in a judicial capacity when exercising its power in an election contest of its members, and determines the result of the election of its members without interference or intervention of the Courts. EXPENSES OF CONTEST-expenses of election contest determined by the Legislature. Incidental to the power of the Legislature to determine the result of an election of its members, the expenses incurred in such contest should be fixed and determined by the Legislature itself. SAME-the right to fix, allow or disallow expenses an exclusive one. The right to fix, allow or disallow expenses incurred in election contest of its members is as exclusive as the power to hear and determine such contest. JURISDICTION-Court is without jurisdiction in such cases. The Court is without jurisdiction to allow a claim for solicitor's fees and expenses incurred in contest of election of members of the General Assembly.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, for State.

Joseph A. Weber, the claimant, presents to the Court his claim in the sum of $1,250.00, alleged to have been paid out and expended by him in about his defense in a contested election case. Wherein one Wilson contested Weber election as a member of the house of representatives in the 50th General Assembly of Illinois. It appears from the uncontroverted evidence that the claimant was elected as a member of the fiftieth General Assembly from the sixth Senatorial District, on the 7th day of November, 1916, and received a certificate of his election December 9, 1916. Robert E. Wilson gave the notice of the contest for his seat, and after the convening of the Legislature, the said contest was referred to the election committee in the house, which voted to recount the ballots cast in said election. A committee of five members was appointed to conduct the proceedings. The committee went to Chicago of which the sixth district forms a part. The committee proceeded to count the ballots. The claimant employed legal counsel to aid in the contest and engaged six watchers and six talliers at $10.00 a day each, making a

-3 C C

[*34] sum of ...................................................... $ 480.00 His attorney fee was fixed at ............................... 500.00 Incidental expenses at ...................................... 270.00

- Making a sum total of ....................................... $1,250.00

The recount and result of the contest showed that claimant was elected by over 1,000 votes majority.

The report of the committee showed Wilson, the contestant was badly defeated, and that claimant herein was duly elected.

The report was approved by the house, claimant prepared his expense account and all charges which are set forth herein heretofore and same were approved by the proper committee.

A resolution had been introduced and passed by the house in the 50th General Assembly limiting the attorneys fees to be paid in such cases not to exceed $500.00 to any sitting member against whom a contest should be filed and in which a recount was required, and not to exceed $250.00 where contest should be dismissed without recount of ballots.

Also that actual expenses for railroad fare, etc., if itemized and verified might be allowed to such sitting member, contestee, provided he is successful in retaining his seat.

The expenses were itemized and verified by claimant to amount of $745.15.

It appears in evidence that an appropriation was made.

By reference to the session laws of 1917, page 86, we find that two items there contained in H. B. 1037 and presented to the Governor for his approval.

The first item was for "Joseph A. Weber for expenses for himself and his attorney in contest case $745.15."

"The second item, Andrus & Trutter attorneys fees for Joseph A. Weber, $500.00 both of which items were vetoed by the Governor."

On the same page of said session laws and continuing on pages 87, 88 and 89 we find about 33 items for similar claims in other election contests of same character, and all "vetoed."

The claimant says the Governor vetoed his claim because it had not been referred to the Court of Claims for allowance.

There is no record evidence to this effect in this case.

On page 90 session laws-session laws 1917, the Governor is recorded as saying "I veto each of said items (after having vetoed items above mentioned) for the reason set forth in the opinion of the Attorney General, a copy of which is hereto attached."

We have not been apprised nor made acquainted with the contents of such opinion, even if it were material herein.

It is submitted by claimant, in his brief and argument that election contest expenses have for many years been paid by Congress and the various states, and that a terrible abuse of such powers had heretofore prevailed in Congress and in the Illinois General Assembly; and that such expense for election contests in the 48th General Assembly of Illinois amounted to about $68,000.00.