The weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1878-1881, 1880-02-10
NO JURISDICTION.

to appear before his Honor on the eth dav c
January, to show cause why the writ shoul,
not be made perpetual. In accordance will
this decree, a delegation from the City Coun
ell, with their attorneys, repaired to Dee
Lodge on the dav specified. naturally expect
ing the case to be tried. When the hearin:
came up, however, his Honor declded that 1t
had no jurisdiction in the matter ont of regll
lar term time, and the city delegation was
compelled to return without a decision.
The expenses of the Journey to Deer Lodge
and forthe payment of counsel fees reached
several hundred dollars, which amount the
city COVE mment coul! i'll afford. In a strictly
legal point OF view i was not absolutely nee
essary for the municipal authorities to respond
to the summons in person, as they might
have been represented by an attorney alone
but in view of the Importance Of the case,
they deemed it advisable 10 be present at the
hearing. in order to show that they took a
wholesome interest in the matter at issue, and
to exhibit a proper amount of respect
to the court. But we will concede that it was
in a technical point of view unnecessary for
the City Fathers to appear personally. 1t
can not be denied that the presence of an
attorney was demanded to defend the inter
ests of the city government. Suppose, there
fore. that the absolutely necessary amount Of
expense incurred reached the sum of one
hundred dollars, paid out for counsel fees.
We will assume that one man instead of six
appeared before Ju|ge Galbraith in answer
to the writ. Does that lessen the serious
ness OF the charge made in the MIN
Err that the action of his Honor is
reprehensible in citing even one man to APP
pear before him at Il time when he should be
aware he could exercise no jurisdiction? We
stated it to be evident that his Honor had
granted an important writ without due con-
sideration, and are now prepared by his own
confession to show that such was the case.
\ weekly paper published in Deer Lodge.
however, attempts to defend the action Of
Judge Galbraith, and in the course Of a
cheerful two-column paragraph, headed by
an irrelevant quotation from Shakespeare.
undertakes to prove that the charge is .!ungen-
erous. unjust, malevoleut and false 1t is
scarcely necessary to say that the undertaking
is d failure, for otherwise the article would
have contained more facts and fewer adjcc-
tives. Our self-appointed censo should look
before he leaps and should iortify his asser-
lions with logic instead Of evaporation, Ii
takes no phenomenal amount of intelligence
to pick up a book on synonymes and select
,,,,rI, 70 FIl NV turD ,o1.-,-. e -. i
newspaper.
The experience and age of our revered
friend in Deer Lodge ordinarily would entltle
his utterances to some respect. He is proba-
bly, the most aged editor of any weekly news
paper in Montana, is a prominent member of
the Republican party, and in the publication
of his paper yields the scissors with rare good
Judgment. But do these facts entitle him to
the censorship of the Montana press.
and does this self-constituted authority pro-
pose to sling a whole dictionary of abusive
adjectives every time a newspaper undertakes
to common on the conduct of a public officer?
us ascertain by what right our Deer
Lodge friend takes upon himself this duty
and see how plain a tale shall put hiu
down. He characterizes the deduction of the
MINER that Judge Galbraith did not give the
question sufficient consideration, as being IN
This was the principal charge made in
the MINER, and the one which in his painful
to refute gives our friend the most
violent spasm.
1t is evident from his bald assertion that
he does not read his own paper (very excusa-
able negligence) for in the number preceding
the last, is published a verbatim report of the
of the case before Judge Galbraith
if his organ is reliable said
cat the time when the application was
presented to the court little or no attention
paid to it, and the question of jurisdiction
never occurred to the Court. l think the
point made in the motion is well taken, and
that the application should be heard before
he Gourt and not the Judge. If the motion
20 quash, therefore, is insisted upon,it will be
sustained"
The Deer Lodge paper charges the MINER
Judge Galbraith acted without consideration,
it is evident by the Judges W confession
hat he did act without consideration.
We are firmly of the conviction that his
Honor stated the truth, because we regard
him as an honorable man. If Judge Gal
braith told the truth, it naturally follows that
he MINER likewise told the truth. Then
what becomes Of the character of our Deer
Lodge friend for ~veraeity ? We give it up.