The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1883-12-15

has been so Dllndly assumed DY
Judge Wade, even then, rs an:honest
and impartial judge, he was ~estopped
BY his own declarations from putting
such q construction upon the law.
Remember that he comedies that
the Legislature intended to pro-
vide for all the printing required to
be done by the statute not only for
the period of two years but for all
future years."
After making this concession he
| attempts to defeat the will of the
Legislature by the shallOwest techni-
cality. ALI the authorities say that
he shall not do it-that he has no
right to do it. Says the Supreme
Court of Vermont, in the case of
Ryegate vs.. Wardsboro,
go Vermont, p. 1889
Effects and consequences of a
construction are to he considered,
and when from a literal interpreta-
tioE an effect would follow contrary
to the whole intent and spirit of the
statute, the intent and not the literal
meaning must be regarded.
This decision is quoted with ap-
prevail by Mr. Sedgwick in his mas
terly work on the construction of
statutes, and is sustained by the uni
form current of authorities.
Even upon the ground then as
sumed by himself Judge Wade is
condemned, while the various sec
tions of the printing law leave him
utterly without defense. Judge Wade
cannot claim to have been left in ig-
norance of his duty, a many of the
principal authorities cited in this re-
view besides others to which we will
refer In a future article, were strong
~ and ably presented by E. w.
Toole, Esq, the counsel for defen-
dant.
But Judge Wade has within the
present year construed this very
printing law in a suit in which the
Independent was a party. 1t is per-
haps an anomaly in the history of
Jurisprudence that less than one year
ago he should, from the bench of the
Supreme Court, have decided against
the Independent on exactly the OPP
posite grounds from those on which
he now decides. lie is only con-
sistent in deciding against the Inde-
pendent.
On the 9th of January, 1883, An
agreed case between Joseph P Wool
man, auditor of the Territory and
the editor of this pepper, was brought
before the Supreme Court in order to
obtain judicial construction of Sec
ton 98l of the printing law. This
section provides that the public
printer shall receive
"For the printing of bills and
other matter for the 8 of and
ordered by the Legislative Assembly,
and reports printed in. pamphlet
form the rates paid by the United
States Government under the laws
thereof. and under the rules prescrib-
ed by the Treasury Department of
the United States"
The only question involved in the
construction was whether the Lde-
pendent should receive for the public
printing the rates paid by the United
States Government at the time of the
enactment of the law, or the lower
rates in existence at the date of its
last contract.
Upon this question the Supreme
Court held that the Independent was
not entitled to receive the rate, exist
ing at the date of the law, but must
accept such rate, as were in force at
the date of its last contract. The rea-
son assigned was that the intention
of the Legislature in enactlng the
printing law was to require the per-
contracting under the act to re-
new his contract every two years and
receive compensation at the rates
prescribed by the treasury depart
ment. The following Is the language
of the Supreme Court:
"In the case at bar the appellants !
contract for periods of every two
years under a statute which prom !
ises that they shall receive for print !
ing the rates paid by the Govern
ment of the United States and the
rates prescribed BY. the Ire ,sury De-
They made q contract
under the statute which did not pre-
any fixed rates. The Treas
ury Department had the right at any
time to change the rates, and the
printing contracts yere limited by
The statutes Of the Territory to peri
DDS Of tWo gears, 80 that the contracts
1t the end of such periods might be
made to conform to the rates pre-
at the dates of their expira-
ion. y The intention
If the Legislature in enacting this
providing for the public print
ing Wds to require the person con-
under the act, at stated in
to renew his contract and
make it conform to the rates then au-
to bepdid."
The decision was signed by Judges
GaIbraith and CoDger and
lied January Sth. 1888. with tue
,leyk of the Supreme Court. Yet, in
ess than one short year after this de
the same Judge again decides
the Independent upon the
that the Legislature "simpiy
provided for making M contract,
md only one, which by the limita-
ion of section 973 expired two years
lfter the passage Of the act, to wit:
January 2lst, 1875"
"In other words, the court, in JAM,
1888, decides against the Independ-
mt on the ground that the Printing
Law required the contracts to be re-
'ewed euery tw0 gears at the then 60
Rates, and in November, 1883. an
diverse decision to the Independent
8 again made by the same judge up
n the ground that the law did not
,ermit a renewat Of the contracts!
Consistency, thou art q jewel! If
Judge Wade was right in January be
vas wrong in November, 1t does
lot seem possible that even Montana
however blind, bigoted or
could decide twice in the
anne year against the same party up
n exactly opposite grounds first,
the printing law required u
enewal of the printing contracts
very two years, and second, because ,
UGH law does not provide for such
enewal. A decision of our supreme
ourt ought at least to hold good un- :
i revised by the same tribunal. In 5
ur next we will show that subse- F,
uent Legislatures have repeatedly !
,cognized the validity of the print. +.
u law and contracts Hereunder, .
y 49, $500 49, --l:Q>~>-