The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1885-04-25
SMITHS LAMENESS.
The City Attorneys Tame Effort t.
Defend the City Registration Or.
dinancc.
Some Interesting Points Which the
Councils Legal Adviser Failed
to Notice.

Wednesday evenings Inter- Noun
tain contains q communication from
II. B. Smith, the City Attorney, pur-
porting to be an answer to mine Of
the 22nd inst. in relative to city Or
dinance No. 50.
In MI. Smiths defense he attempts
to reply to but one of the points
raised, that is, regarding his author
ity as City Clerk to administer oaths
in his official capacity. Mr.. Smith.
as a lawyer ought to know that .
municipal corporal on possesses only
such overs as are expressly granted
either in its charter or by general
legislative enactment, and the city
of Butte, being q municipal corpora
ton, organized and deriving all its
power and authority under a special
charter, p%Ossesses only the power and
autl ority, specially and specifically
conferred, can take nothing by i'm
plication except what is absolutely
necessary and usual for the purposes
for which it was created. Is the reg
istration of vote re- one of the neces-
sary or usual purposes? Certainly
not. The power to provide for the
registration of voters is q special
grant of power, and the authority
granting such power must not only
specifically provide how that power
shall be administered but also the
manner If its enforcement, and must
designate the officers who are in
trusted with such duty.
Mr.. Smith, rs the legal adviser OF,
the City Council, should know this;
it IS a question which every well-read
lawyer knows, and his cfhciOus and
boyish reply shows absolute ignOr-
ance, or a desire not to place himself
honestly and intelligently before the
public. Which way will you have
it, MI. Smith?
Why does not the City Attorney
answer the point raised to section q
of said ordinance? Is he afraid to
argue the question ? If he remains
silent then the public must take 1t
that the point is we'll taken, and that
the City Council has NO authority to
abridge the right Of suffrage, and
that that section of the ordinance is
p%rohibitory and unconstitutional.
Mr.. s. says that the city has certain
implied powers. / su rose he means
such powers as the City Council
assumed in passing the ordinance
granting a franchise to build street
railways te VAUDEVILLE, Meader-
vile and to the Railway Depot. each
of which is beyond the corporate lilr-
IT'S of Butte City.
In his (Mr. Smith's) judgment they
may possess such power, but to q
lawyer it is absolutely absurd. In
the first letter published by the City
Attorney regarding the administrx-
ton of the oath set forth in section 5
of ordinance So, he states that he has
af Notary Public authority 10 admin
lister oaths; in his last cOmmunica-
ton he attempts to sustain his posi-
ton by arguing that the City Council
has authority to grant such power.
He must know that his first position
is wrong or else that he is now mis-
taken. Is this what the public ex-
y. C $ from its officers? Can the City
Council place reliance upon advice
and counsel coming from such q
source? Do not the statements Of
the City Attorney show either q de-
sire to hoodwiEk the public or else
assume Ignorance of the powers and
authority of the Municipal Corpora
ton of Butte City.
He (the City Attorney states that
the city has the implied power to
make provision for the enforcement
IF ordinances. Now 1 will ask him
# a person is found guilty of violat-
ng the provisions of Ordinance
No. 81, and ne is sentenced to
pay a fine and stands committed
or a term of days when such
Der O shall be confined In the
;ity, county Jail or in the Territorial
which?
It might perhaps be we'll for tho
egal adviser of the City Council to
ct the public know VIII 1t his opinion
) on the above que-tions, as he is
,he legal adviser of the city 1t is their
light to know.