曹锟“贿选”控告的法律证据研究

Research on the Legal Evidence for the Accusation that Cao Kun “Bribed his Way to Election Victory”

直系在大选期间给国会议员发放出席费并开具5000元支票,难免"贿选"嫌疑。但要认定曹锟触犯了刑律尚须考虑以下因素:(一)发放出席费的始作俑者是谁?(二)议员历年欠薪达5000余元,在此前提下发放与所欠薪俸等额的支票且无附加条件可否作为"贿选"证据?(三)总统预选未达法定人数的控告材料在证据链上可否衔接?(四)检举方与嫌疑人处于敌对关系,且私下承认一直在"设计破坏"大选,有无提供伪证的可能?(五)舆论对曹锟"贿选"的指控真假参半,可否尽信?(六)检察机关未对当事人提起公诉,原因何在?通过对这些问题的探讨可知,由于相关举证存在瑕疵,曹锟"贿选"尚难视为法律意义上的结论。

During the general election campaign, the Zhili clique openly provided assembly members with attendance fees and a check for 5000 yuan each, inevitably arousing the suspicion of bribery. But to confirm that Cao Kun broke the law, we need to consider the following factors: (1) Who was the first to offer the attendance fees? (2) Members were owed 5,000 yuan each in back pay; in this context, can the unconditional offering of checks equivalent to that amount be taken as evidence of bribery? (3) Can the accusation that the election preliminaries lacked a quorum in the Assembly be counted as a link in the chain of evidence? (4) The accuser was hostile to the suspect, and privately admitted to always having 'planned to undermine' the election, so is it possible that he falsified the evidence? (5) Should the public’s view that Cao Kun bought the election, a view that was a mixture of true and false, be given credence? (6) Why did the Procuratorate not prosecute the parties involved? Exploring these issues shows that, due to flaws in the evidence, the view that 'Cao Kun bribed his way to election victory' cannot be seen as conclusive in the legal sense.