The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1885-04-22
THE REGISTRATION LAW.

appears to have q profound lgnOr-
ance. Two of these subjects are
law and some of the proprieties OF
life. In a communication to our
twilight contemporary, he makes a
savage attack upon a mild editorial
that appeared in the MINER OF
the day before commenting upon
his absence from his office during the
hours set forth I'M ordinance 81 tor
the registration of voters. The
MINER had simply charged that MI.
Smith was occupied on the trial o
certain demi monde cases nearly all
of the afternoon when it was his
| plain duty to remain in his office
during certain, hours to register the
voters who called for that purpose
Wessid that many persons called to
register and we're prevented from so
doing by MI. Smiths absence. These
persons had come to perform what
they regarded IS a duty, and left
without, fulfilling their mission
because the City Clerk was otherwise
engaged and could not then be seen.
Investigation has shown that there
was a lull in the trial of the causes,
pending the arrival of a witness,
during which time Mr.. Smith in
formed all present that those who
wished to register could then do so.
It is also true that before Mr.. Smith
had flushed registering the names
of the persons who desired to be
placed upon the Great Register the
trial of the causes before the Police
Court was resumed, that he then
ceased registering and went again
into the court room, telling the voters
then present that those who desired
to be registered must come some other
time when he had more leisure. Is.
then, this registration a matter OF
mere leisure? The ordinance makes
it a very grave law and duty.
MI. Smith quotes in his defense
from "section 3, of ordinance 5, of
the Revised Ordinances of Butte"
saying: "Said ordinance provides
that it shall be the duty of the City
Attorney to prosecute all suits for
the recovery of fines. penalties. etc."
Mr.. Smith must have a different
book of ordinances from that in the
library of the MINER office, or else
he does not know what he is talking
about. The section cited by him
provides for no such thing. 1t pro-
vides for the order of business to be
observed in the meeting of the City
| Council, etc. Mr.. Smith has surely
been IN Office long enough to have
become acquainted with the city
ordinances and it is not creditable to
him to mislead the public by false
citations. Admitting, however, that
it is the duty of Mr.. Smith
to attend to the prosecution of
these petty cases, at the risk of COM
polling legal voters to 60 unregis-
tered, it is possible that the motive
which actuated him may be found in
the second subdivision of section vi,
chapter 3, of the Revised Ordinances,
which reads as follows: "Second a
docket fee OF $40 in each case before
the Police Justice, to be taxed as
costs, ercept in judgments rendered
against the city, shall be paid to the
City Attorney" In these cases at
issue, if Mr.. Smith did not convict,
there would be no fee. If we are
rightly informed these parties were
not convicted, so that it was not only
a trivial but IN unjust cause that en-
gagged his attention to the exclusion
of the more important duty, the reg.
~istration of voters.
W. will pass by MI. Smiths un-
dignified language, in which more
than once malicious lie" occurs,
with the suggestion that I" hit bird
ALWAYS futters " and that the truth
of a proposition cannot be assailed by
the mere use of harsh and unprO-
fessional language. Such language
may be suited to the surroundings Of
| the Police Court and in the prosecu-
ton of "fair, but frall females" the
prosecution of which brings a Sic
bill into sight, but they are not
| suited to an argument before the peo-
pie.
We presume Mr.. Smith to be the
counsel of the city, the legal adviser
| of the City Fathers. His judgment
was undoubtedly asked upon the
validity of the ordinance. 1t
| should have come under his le-
! gal scrutiny. If so, We simply
desire to call the gentleman's atten-
| ton to the fourth subdivision Of
section 5 Of the registration ordi-
nance in which he, as City Clerk,
and not as Notary Public
is authorized to administer oaths to
applicants for registration. Again.
we assume that the City Council of
Butte has no authority to authorize
the City Clerk, or any n else, to
administer oaths, and therefore that
Mr.. Smith has no authority to ad-
minister oaths to applicants for regis-
tration as q Notary Public. MI.
Smith might as a notary take a 6epo-
sition, but he would scarcely attempt
to justify the administration of a
judicial oath. His legal view of the
case is not very satisfactory, to say
the least, but he has evidently not
mastered all in his profession. W.
fear that MI. Smith is slandering
"the best legal talent of the city"
when he says that the ordinance was