The purity of elections is of vital importance, and any agreement with voters tending to influence them by improper means, and any agreement with third persons to influence voters by indirect means, are equally invalid;18 as is a contract between rival candidates that one shall withdraw in consideration of a promise by the other to appoint him to office,18a but open arguments in favor of a candidate or measure, or work connected therewith may be made the consideration for a promise.19 A contract to pay campaign expenses is under any circumstances of doubtful legality, but is clearly bad if there is reason for the belief that the person promising to pay such expenses desires, for his own future advantage in dealing with public contracts or otherwise, to secure the election of a particular candidate.20
18 Gaston v. Drake, 14 Nev. 175, 33 Am. Rep. 548; Nichols v. Mudgett, 32 Vt. 546. See also Cooper v. Slade, 6 E. & B. 447; Simpson v. Yeend, L. R. 4 Q. B. 626; Jackson v. Walker, 5 Hill, 27.
18a Hand v. Willard F. Bailey Co. (Neb.), 172 N. W. 356.
19 Hurley v. Van Wagner, 28 Barb. 100; Sizer v. Daniels, 66 Barb. 426.
Sec. 1733. Contracts for railroad locations or stations, or operations. The contracts of railroads and analogous public service companies in regard to the location of their stations and rights of way are carefully scrutinized, and if opposed to the public interest will not be enforced. Subscriptions conditional on the adoption of a particular route, or the construction of a station at a particular place have indeed been generally upheld; 21 and agreements on the part of railroads to maintain stations at particular places, so long as there is no exclusion of other stations, have also been sustained, and have even been specifically enforced.22 Where, however, it appears that the enforcement officer, stockholder, or even another individual to induce the railroad to construct a station in a particular place for the private advantage of himself or his co-contractor is invalid.25 A contract by a railroad construction company, bound by its undertaking with the railroad company to construct the road between two fixed points, by which it agreed with outside persons for its private advantages to construct the road along certain lines has also been held invalid26 Other contracts by railroads to violate, or in consideration of violating, or tending to lead them to violate their duties as public service corporations are unlawful; 27 and the same is true of the contracts of other public service corporations.28
20 Ward v. Hartley, 178 Mo. 136, 77 S. W. 302.
21 Farrington v. Stucky, 166 Fed. 326, 91 C. C. A. 311; Carlisle v. Tern Haute, etc., R. Co., 6 Ind. 316; Fisher v. Evansville, etc., R. Co., 7 Ind. 407; McClure v. Gulf R. Co., 9 Kans. 373; McMillan v. Maysville, etc., R. Co., 16 B. Mon. 218,61 Am. Dec. 181; Henderson & Nashville R. v. Leavell, 16 B. Mon. 368; Central Turnpike Corp. v. Valentine, 10 Pick. 142; Troy & Greenfield R. Co. v. Newton, 1 Gray, 644; Pacific Railroad Co. v. Seely, 46 Mo. 212, 217, 100 Am. Dec. 369; Chapman v. Mad River, etc., R. Co., 6 Ohio St. 119; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Ralston, 41 Ohio St. 673; Piper v. Choctaw, etc., Imp. Co., 16 Okl. 436, 86 Pac. 966; Cumberland, etc., R. Co. v. Baab, 9 Watts, 468, 36 Am. Dec. 132; Rhey v. Ebensburg Plank R. Co., 27 Pa. 261; Racine County Bank *. Avers, 12 Wis. 512. But see contra Baird v. Salina Northern R. Co. (CaL), 173 Pac. 1069; Butternuts, etc., Turnpike Co. v. North, 1 Hill, 618; Fort Edward, etc., Plank Co. v. Payne, 16 N. Y. 683; Holladay v. Patterson, 6 Oreg 177.
23t Grimes v. Minneapolis etc. R. Co., 133 Minn. 442,168 N. W. 719, L. R. A. 1916 F. 687 (damages); Griswold v. Minneapolis Ac. R. Co., 12 N. Dak. 436, 97 N. W. 538. In Herzog v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 155 CaL 496, 96 Pac. 808, 899, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 428, the court said: "The contract here alleged did not bind the company to limit in any degree the facilities to be furnished to the public. It required the establishment and maintenance of a station at a place named, but left the company free to establish additional stations as they might be needed, without limitation of number or location. Contracts similar to the one here in question have been specifically enforced. Hood v. North Eastern Ry. Co., L. R. 8 Eq. 666;' Lawrence v. Saratoga Lake Ry. Co., 36 Hun, 467, cited with approval in Prospect Park & C. I. R. Co. v. Coney Island & B. R. Co., 144 N. Y. 152, 39 N. E. 17, 26 L. R. A. 610; Murray v. Northwestern R. Co., 64 S. C. 620, 42 S. E. 617. Where such contracts are limited to the creation of a right to a certain station or train service at given points, without in any way making the right exclusive of the contract would impose a great burden upon the defendant, with a slight or no corresponding benefit to the plaintiff, or that such enforcement would be detrimental to the interests of the public, specific relief will be denied.23 Moreover, when an agreement not only requires a railroad to maintain a station at a particular place, but also requires that no other station shall be established in the vicinity, the agreement is against public policy.24 And some decisions hold that a bargain by an or infringing upon the company's obligation to furnish proper service at any other place where it may be needed we are not prepared to hold that their enforcement would necessarily be violative of public policy. Texas & St. L. R. Co. v. Roboards, 60 Tex. 545, 48 Am. Rep. 268; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Dawson, 62 Tex. 260; Greene v. West Cheshire Ry. Co., L. R. 13 Eq. 44." See also Parrott v. Atlantic etc. R. Co., 165 N. C. 295, 81 S. E. 348.
23 Herzog v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 153 Cal. 496, 95 Pac. 899,17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 428; Conger v. New York, etc., R. Co., 120 N. Y. 29,23 N. E. 983; Murdfeldt v. New York, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 703, 7 N. E. 404; Clarke v. Rochester, etc., P. Co., 18 Barb. 350; Ford v. Oregon Elec. R. Co., 60 Oreg. 278, 117 Pac. 809, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 358, Ann. Cas. 1914 A. 280.
In Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Quigley, 181 Fed. 190, 205, the court said: "In the City of Tyler et al. v. St. Louis & Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas et al. (Tex. Civ. App.), 87 S. W. 238, the city brought suit against the railroad company to restrain it from the removal of the machine shops and general offices from Tyler to Texar-kana. . . . There was a written contract between the parties that the shops and general offices should perpetually remain and be operated at Tyler. The court . . . held that the contract was not against public policy, but denied the injunction, and remitted the city to its suit at law for damages. In Texas & Pacific Railway v. City of Marshall, 136 U. S. 393, 10 S. Ct. 846, 34 L. Ed. 385, it was held that a similar contract for a permanent location of the eastern terminus and Texas offices and machine and car works at Marshall, Tex., was satisfied by the location and maintenance for a period of eight years at that point, and that if the contract was to be construed to mean that the eastern terminus, shops, etc., should forever be maintained there, then the contract would not be enforced in equity, and that complainant's remedy was at law for a breach of the contract." Equitable relief was denied also in Beasley v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 191 U. S. 492, 24 S. Ct. 164, 48 L. Ed. 274, for the enforcement of a contract not to build a depot within three miles of another depot. Under the statutes in many States, any contract of this sort, even though not wholly invalid, would doubtless be subordinated, if necessary, to the orders of public service commissions.
24 Farrington v. Stucky, 165 Fed. 325, 330, 91 C. C. A. 311; Florida Central, etc., R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 13 So. 103, 20 L. R. A. 419, 34 Am. St. Rep. 30; Marsh v. Fairbury, etc., R. Co., 64 111. 414, 16 Am. Rep. 564; Doane v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 160 111. 22, 45 N. E. 507, 35 L. R. A. 588; Gray v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 189 HI. 400, 59 N. E. 950; Lyman v. Suburban R. Co., 190 111. 320, 60 N. E. 515; Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. tr. Co-burn, 91 Ind. 557; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Sumner, 106 Ind. 55, 5 N. E.