The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1889-10-31

b<~n .astc simply tn save them from the
possibility Of Indictment. II this returns
canss' thrs..h channel. ILLEGAL; then the.
this material allegation In tl,c complaint.
judge Mo- ;onncll said: ~ wosild he
gle6i IL the fact. of the transaction WEIR,
On it's intrinsic merits. Hut thers. arc mo-
facts, only allegations, and tan these allie
ea'io"s J must c"nnnc myself. have
mastery style i'm which the counsel
OF the other side have consumed time.
Under the ordinance Of the new constit,l-
ton to-morrspw u tho last day ON which
the state cauvasssrs eau canvass the vote.
Hence u - important that this question
hc settled At once. This court was called
n few days earlier foe the cxprv-ss purpose
that n decision might he arrived At hs,fore
hurry this ease as mucl, "a ~ fair hearing
would render possible. II I cannot now
dcInonstratc with the clcarnrss Of n CLIQUE.
less sky that t'icr,' ~ ground for this man
date then ] done know my alphabet i'm the
law. Newer in my long life. when
mosnento,s questions. when is-us.s of
life ana death iEavs. been ts'frrs. ms.. have
l felt 80, wcirhty ar ~r,r>pousihl" u position
as thts ! '..c'ipy Tonight.
LIT may b'' u small matter to throw out
precinrt "a aud disfranrhi-s q. few sons of
toll, hut fis, throwing ont at that precinct
changes the political complexion az Mo,,-
tana. ! would not ariss. tonight were I
not convinced that our ca,i-e. is u righteous
one. lf ever l stood for the. right, I know
spok. c"n,..n,n,",rsiy ~ si.. sisfrnn"hir..
nrcfit of u few SONS of tori; hut I say thcss.
n,cn who bore railroads through Montana
arr men whose rights are tai hss respected.
not the buninnrrs of your towns"
The speaker. proceeding with his arsy,i-
nlent. saying that the Fundamental axiom
OF our government Is. All power Is i'm
hcrcnt i'm thu. people," The ballot il the
protection Of all, and the -,irs.st induction
az the popular will. Official returns are
not required Ia ~. written with the hand
OF ~crtlurilotIs nicely ar technical exact
ness; IL is enough, IL the returns can In,
ss. nl. + .a q. -
distorted Ivy captious earnings and cri,i-
cisrn. "That is the law for my
'"s Mr' Mo- sa.a .a" sp%.h"r.
tiles Ia show that the duties Of ~ canvass
ing hoard AR, ministerial: that the returns
IL known to l' the returns from "A certain
precinct. mus, In counted in spite Of
technical defects; that the hoard * given
lega discretion hut not power To- hatch up
'rhat observation must NOT III. abns.d,''
said MIR. Met onncll. "Ntiat kind of n
fraud? A strong point is made that only
three judges were there, yet over loo votes
ws,rs, cast. Iwcnty-onc Wisconsin,, page
| 5Si, says the law that there must In three
Judges Mt AN election il directory only.
Can the court take judicial knowledge of
the fact that canvasssrs Jack and Hall
was IL that only three judge were. there?
The commissioners were to blame. HUI
s sas s~ dd PLAINLY my, Sasr su' n. ' ,nrn%-
deserved punishment for negligence of
duty. the voters should not he made to
suffer for that negligence. Your honor Is
asked tai sanction the high handed pro-
ceedinR Of throwing out this precinct be-
cause only three Judges were there. when
the commissioners themselves only APP
pointed three. don't care. how much
fraud was practiccs1 i'm the room. IL the
Judges hat plainly psrr,etratch fraud the
board could Ii.. have gone behind the re-
turns, cite the opinion Of Judge
Knowles ol this point ina second Montana
writing unslrr oath on the. supreme bench:
1T WINS ne part of the boards duty Ia de
terinine what was the true and legal vote
cast. They wcrs. tn determine what was
the abstract of the vote returned to them
'rruth soIn.tin,ss lives Ia confront us
where We don't lik" To meet IL" Even IL
fraud is in the vote ar returns, the board
cannot go behind the returns. The su-
prerne court says this !. we'll established.
They make u great bIg.,boo because the
returns wers' not in the handwriting III the
clerks. but this ~ mo Indication of fraud.
There arr, s.ass.s where. clerks were. off on
a dchauch, lat tin. returns w..r. counted.
We have u right tai look at these dcuials
as AN .ntirs.ty. They deny that the clerk
precinct. That il the only square denial
in the answer. Ii nilds. no difference
whether they were or not. because Their,
ARE. two permissible ways al
the attc-tine of tbs. signature
being in the wrong place. tina was ia.
ease too with the other s; precincts. VIII.
did you not throw ont these precincts
Why did you throw out the thir,y-f"'Iril
precinct that you might carry this county
and will say IL though tin. heavens fall
"Iou cannot deny ti,c g-cIuincucss al
the signatures Of the clerks and Judges
Suppose il H. tr,ie the handwriting of ths
rrtIIns was not that of the clerks. wha,
difference dns,s IL niakeI Suppose thcrs
were no clerks AT all, the returns corls
not TX. thrown out. No supreme court ot
earth would say that electors should h~
dcfrSiuslcd because, the Judges wrote on
the returns instead OF the clerks. These
election laws were made Tor plain people
Fifth Montana says. the great question
is, was the voice OF the majority fairly az,
pressed. not whether the returns wsr. in
the hand writing of tho clerks. O'Rcagar
says that paper was pasted over th" win
dows. but asserts that thcrs. was not a
sworc they voted the republican ticket.
don't believe il. Where. are the aiiidavits
There il no charge that the returns wer,
NOT the returns made 10y the judges, bu
that the returns were, not of tls. vot" cas-
there. That IL not - material question ia
this issue. The only question j.. wcr- ia.
returns genuine" Their, il such - prinri
Pile rs right. Tie eternal principles a
right are here and tho-.
who try to prostitut. the. riyh
will sooner or later find tlrfn-.lv.l
stricken by the tiuulcrlpolt ~ th" god %
right. Tn. doctrine OF this court. tia.
Judgment ~ this court. and higher yet
the power of an outraged public. will no
permit these high-titndod outrag"s.
.To-morrow l. th.. last siay FOR the stat,
Y I...I 49, .R 80. stH. q - -..r.W